Serious comments about the Chaosborders vs. Goose H2H debate

[Zzyzx]

.
Those who do not regard themselves as "peanut gallery" are encouraged to post comments in this thread.

[Angel]

Good luck to both debaters. I've heard debates on the issue before, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to bring it up again just in case there's some new insight or line of thinking.

How'd those turn out?

It was pretty good in my view. The debate was mostly from a historical perspective though and did not involve showing "scientifically" how the event could take place or that it did take place. The debate was between Dr. William Lane Craig (philosopher and theologian) and I saw it on YouTube but when I tried to look for it, he has so many debate videos when you type in "Willam Lane Craig vs " that I don't remember against which guy he was debating against and that involved the resurrection. There are actually debates on the same issue in the Head-to-Head section in which Goose was a part of. One debate on there is "Does rational thinking lead to the conclusion...that Christianity is false?" and I would say Goose won that one. His opponent stopped responding in the end.

[ChaosBorders]

Good luck to both debaters. I've heard debates on the issue before, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to bring it up again just in case there's some new insight or line of thinking.

How'd those turn out?

One debate on there is "Does rational thinking lead to the conclusion...that Christianity is false?" and I would say Goose won that one. His opponent didn't respond.

Who tried to argue in favor of Christianity being false? It's such a broad question that all one has to do to win is find a definition of Christianity or rationality that works and there's nothing your opponent could do. (Unless they selected very specific definitions at the beginning of the debate). I'm not the least surprised that he won that one. (Which is a good thing, in my opinion).

But I really have no idea how he intends to win this one. Not a single thing I've read on the matter really supports his side.

[Miles]

Comments on Goose's opening argument: post, #1.

Argument A:

1. If the historical evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event, then the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well.

2. The historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event.

3. Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus should be considered
sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well (via modus ponens).

#1.
Of course all this hangs on the truth of the antecedent, "if." Unless this can be shown to be a fact then the argument is dead in the water, being no better than, "If elephants could fly then I'd be a horse's uncle." So the challenge to Goose is obviously proving that "the historical evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event."

However, even if Goose does substantiate his claim, the question of "should," as stated in the proposition, effectively reduces the outcome of the debate to one of opinion. To my way of thinking the proposition could have been much better constructed. But that's neither here nor there now.

#2. It would be nice to know what "another historical event" he has in mind. The storming of the Bastille perhaps? I'm also curious as to what a "literally factual event" is. Perhaps Goose will explain.

#3. Well, as a valid argument, modus ponens, this is fine, but validity alone isn't enough to establish fact, wittiness the flying elephant. The affirmative to the proposition lies in the details, and until these are shown to be acceptable the answer to the proposition must be, No.

Goose has his work cut out for him. I wish him well.

[Goat]

Comments on Goose's opening argument: post, #1.

Argument A:

1. If the historical evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event, then the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well.

When it comes to ancient accounts, one criteria I have for evaluating their 'truth' is ask the question "Is the event they are describing at least physically possible'? I use the same criteria as if it was Vespasian curing the lame and the blind with a touch of his hand, of Icarus flying, of the miraculous conception of Augustus , or the lighting of the funeral pyre by divine messengers for Julius Caesar.

[JoeyKnothead]

So the first post that gets at the OP was presented. All I see is a comparison of one's execution to another's resurrection. Given that we know folks get executed, I don't see a connection at all to someone being resurrected.

Since the comparison is between an event we know occurs, to one that we can't show occurs, I think comparing one account, execution, to another, resurrection - is faulty. Folks have been executing leaders for as far back as our recorded history, but we really only have one event where it is claimed a resurrection occurred. To equate the two is folly.

How much evidence is required to believe "some dude got killed", as compared to "some dude got killed, but he hopped up and strolled through town after being dead for three days"?

I think this is the sort of angle Chaosborders was trying to avoid, and which Goose refused to acknowledge.

[ChaosBorders]

Folks have been executing leaders for as far back as our recorded history, but we really only have one event where it is claimed a resurrection occurred.

Technically there is more than just 'one' claim of resurrection throughout history. And since the OP didn't specify 'three days' as part of the resurrection, the argument could be made it wouldn't be entirely unprecedented for a dead guy to come back to life (though generally with the aid of medical procedures that didn't exist 2000 years ago....)

To equate the two is folly.

I think this is the sort of angle Chaosborders was trying to avoid, and which Goose refused to acknowledge.

But yes, mostly I agree with you completely and was trying to avoid this type of distortion of the historical method. His premise is blatantly faulty and since he refused to acknowledge it I now have to bring forth a ton of evidence on why, which is going to take quite awhile. Since I don't have a lot of time to spare this week due to a case competition and two school projects, it will likely not be until next week I even get to start working on the research I need to compile for the reply. Forcing me to show something in detail that really ought to have been obvious is most unappreciated.

[JoeyKnothead]

Folks have been executing leaders for as far back as our recorded history, but we really only have one event where it is claimed a resurrection occurred.

Technically there is more than just 'one' claim of resurrection throughout history. And since the OP didn't specify 'three days' as part of the resurrection, the argument could be made it wouldn't be entirely unprecedented for a dead guy to come back to life (though generally with the aid of medical procedures that didn't exist 2000 years ago....)

To equate the two is folly.

I think this is the sort of angle Chaosborders was trying to avoid, and which Goose refused to acknowledge.

But yes, mostly I agree with you completely and was trying to avoid this type of distortion of the historical method. His premise is blatantly faulty and since he refused to acknowledge it I now have to bring forth a ton of evidence on why, which is going to take quite awhile. Since I don't have a lot of time to spare this week due to a case competition and two school projects, it will likely not be until next week I even get to start working on the research I need to compile for the reply. Forcing me to show something in detail that really ought to have been obvious is most unappreciated.

I offer retractions where necessary.

[ChaosBorders]

Five hours to write it, but Round One post is officially up!

[Goat]

Five hours to write it, but Round One post is officially up!

I will have to say that i can tell you put in the proper effort. You pretty much covered all the weaknesses in Gooses assumptions.

[ChaosBorders]

Five hours to write it, but Round One post is officially up!

I will have to say that i can tell you put in the proper effort. You pretty much covered all the weaknesses in Gooses assumptions.

Thank you.