Debate with Jerry McDonald

[radical_logic]

I'm currently engaged in a debate with apologist Jerry McDonald over at the freeratio forum. His opening and my first rebuttal are now up. See what you think: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php ... ost5991331

[McCulloch]

I've moved this into General Chat, in that it is not a debate per se, but a discussion about a debate. If you wish to debate the same question here, post it as an OP in one of the debating threads.

My reaction so far:
The opening post by McDonald. He starts off by relying on the accuracy of the presentation by Peter as recorded in Acts. If you assume that the Bible is accurate then, of course, the debate is over. Jesus was raised from death by God. However, Acts was written by the promoters of a new religion, decades after the events described. So McDonald must prove that Acts is accurate and that Peter's words are true. He has not done so.
The testimony of Josephus has been raised on these forums many times and refuted. Using the Encyclopedia Britanica as evidence is laughable. As is his comparison with historical figures.

Personally, I found your argument difficult to follow and somewhat confusing. I would not go down the path of assuming that Jesus existed and that he died as described in the New Testament. Make him prove Jesus' existence, Jesus' trial, Jesus' burial etc.

[Furrowed Brow]

Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true.

Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.

Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true.

The argument is seductive but slippery, thus its brush with invalidity is difficult to spot right off. The problem here is the muddle JM creates between a situation/fact/proposition and a wandering use of the term “True� and an unclear defintion of the term "proposition".

A proposition is true or false.

A fact is that which is the case. You can call a fact “true� as we usually do but if someone forms a formal argument then things have to be more rigorous.

True and false are a semantic concept and not ontological or existential. A true proposition conveys what is the case, a false proposition conveys what is not the case.

Things may be a little clearer if we clearly write the correct and valid argument. This goes:

• Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are the case.
  
  Minor Premise: The total situation described by my true proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.
  
  Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my true proposition is a total situation which is the case.

This is the valid argument. But of course JM has to show that his proposition is true. He cannot just put forward any old proposition, he has to prove the proposition true for the argument to apply, and he does that by proving his claims as to what is a fact are also true.

It is important to see how his minor premise can only admit a true proposition to be a valid argument

Lets play it again in its invalid form:

• Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true.
  
  Minor Premise: The total situation described by my true/false proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.[INVALID]
  
  Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my true/false proposition is a total situation which is true.[INVALID]

Now it is easier to say how the argument is invalid. JM has brushed over the point a propostion is true or false. (The guy may be sincere but his argument is pure sophism.) To escape invalidity he has to presume that which he is setting out to prove is true. the argument is circular. There's a surprise.

[radical_logic]

My opponent's next affirmative is up.

[Furrowed Brow]

Major Premise: If you cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature, then you cannot naturally raise someone from the dead.

Minor Premise: You cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature.

Conclusion: Therefore you cannot naturally raise someone from the dead.

Now surely my opponent won’t disagree with the validity or the soundness of that argument.

Err….I think you should.

Antecedent: “If you cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature,….�
Consequent: “then you cannot naturally raise someone from the dead.�
The consequent does not follow from the antecedent without some strengthening. We do not know if someone cannot be naturally raised from the dead, we only know someone cannot be raised naturally from the dead if what we know about nature is correct.

The argument is not sound.

You cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature. The laws of nature say that when death occurs, and especially when the body has been embalmed (prepared for burial) and buried, you are not going to be able to bring that body back to life unless you have a supernatural force.

The laws of nature as studied by human kind so far say this. And it is with almost complete certainty that this is correct, but logical arguments cannot be built on almost complete certainty, they have to be absolutely certain.

It is only correct to saythat if it is possible to bring a body back to life this is only possible at present if it is done by unknown forces and following unknown principles... whatever they are....can't say what they though.....coz they are unknown......but of course this presumes a ressurrection is possible which means somone is presuming that the known laws are false on this point.

[radical_logic]

My second rebuttal is now up: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=269819

[radical_logic]

What do people think about my second rebuttal?

[radical_logic]

Jerry's third affirmative is now up: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php ... ost6006741

[radical_logic]

My third rebuttal is now up: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php ... ost6011236