Proper application of the argument from silence

[achilles12604]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7526

I have debated the proper application for no true scotsman in general chat before because it was being applied incorrectly to a situation.

Now I find circumstances where the argument from silence is being applied incorrectly.

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Notice that this argument requires that there be an expectation of knowledge, and that the silences CAN be explained if there is good reason.

The last few pages of THIS thread Goat has been employing the argument from silence. He has done the same thing in THIS thread.


I feel that he has improperly applied the argument from silence because he has not established that the sources he wants me to cite, have the expectation of having the knowledge. Also, in the TF thread, he stated that silence on the part of the early fathers is the result of the TF not being written. However, he has failed to present any reason that the fathers would be interested in quoting this passage.

Is the argument from silence being applied correctly here or not? Wikipedia above has outlined both proper and improper techniques regarding this argument.

[Goat]

It appears to me, and I may be wrong and goat should correct me if I am misinterpreting his stance, that you have put the shoe on the other foot with no justification.

What I mean by that follows from this:

This is only true if you begin with the premise that these events are impossible. If they are possible, then we are on even footing. Your position is nearly begging the question in order for it to be valid.

Your position reads "Since there is no God, we know that these stories must be embellishments. Since all these stories are embellishments, there obviously is no God."

You've failed, for one reason or another, to grasp what the mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof. If God could insert himself into history in the past, why was it so poorly (read: not at all) documented outside of Christian society, when these events would supposedly have had tremendous effects on the outside world? Note that the position is NOT that the stories are embellishments because of the non-existence of God, but that the stories are embellishments flat on their face because there is no supporting evidence. Without evidence to support the stories, and the stories being the only account for the Christian God, the Christian God becomes unlikely.

Your answer to this, (and I may be misunderstanding you, please let me know if I am) seems to be that God has no obligation to prove himself, therefore the events in the Bible are proven as a, or perhaps the only witnessed testament to God's greatness. It starts with the assumption of God, and uses it to assert the stories, rather than assuming a level playing field where nothing is excluded from the demand for proof. Therefore, you are the one using circular reasoning, not the skeptics.

That is part of it. However, the concept of 'myth or not' does not apply in the case of the TF. My premise is that if you have evidence you know was tampered with, you have to be extremely skeptical with the entire piece of evidence, not pick and choose about what specific words you want to say is the evidence. That is what the apologists have done with the TF. They took some piece of secular writing they acknowledge was tampered with, stripped it down to make it appear to be more acceptable, and then made the proclamation that this was the untampered with passage, and this reconstructed passage is a piece of overwhelming evidence for a historical Jesus.

That has nothing to do with the subject matter what so ever.. but rather of the concept that you need evidence to show that 'reconstructed' passage is real. A reference to it from 600 years later that is badly corrupted, and quoted from memory is not evidence of what happened prior to the initial quote in the 4th century. You have to provide evidence that this reconstruction existed, and isn't wishful thinking.

I would take that position if the passage was from something other a subject about Jesus too. It is how I view the chain of evidence for that passage. The fact that it is a reference to a religious figure only gives motivation for the tampering to begin with. If it was about a political figure, and not religious, I would be as skeptical.

[achilles12604]

You've failed, for one reason or another, to grasp what the mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof.

Can you support this claim as a fact? Otherwise it is your conclusion, but hardly conclusive.

Can I prove that skeptics demand proof? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here.

No no. Can you prove that your opinion, "The mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof" is in fact an accurate opinion? I for one disagree with it and it bears all the tell tale signs of a biased opinion rather than fact.

In short, you and I are 2000 years out of date. Given the context of the times, the events of Jesus life were better recorded than many other events, and even today, if you compare the amount of information we have about Jesus to other contemporay figures, the information we have on Jesus is far and away more complete.

You have familiarized yourself with sources I'm apparently not aware of, unless you're talking about Josephus, in which case that is a separate debate. In short, there is no secular evidence of Jesus that I know of. If you think otherwise, feel free to correct me.

I have started a whole thread about contemporary sources. You posted once about the importance of people's personal emotions in determining the value of historical artifacts etc. I find this position to be flawed in so many ways it will take a while to address them all.

Perhaps you could prove the validity of your position. Please join either the discussion on Socrates or Alexander.

Compare and contrast for example the writings we have regarding Jesus, by both his followers, and those who are not his followers, to that of Socrates. You can quickly see that we have far better and more complete sources on Jesus than we do for Socrates.

With Socrates, we have the accounts of his students, as well references to him in the writings of people who immediately proceeded him in history, to say nothing of enemy attestation.

Oh we do?


Please cite these wonderful sources and then tell us why they are different that those for Jesus.

Let us start here.

You provide all these wonderful sources for Socrates.

[olivergringold]

You've failed, for one reason or another, to grasp what the mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof.

Can you support this claim as a fact? Otherwise it is your conclusion, but hardly conclusive.

Can I prove that skeptics demand proof? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here.

No no. Can you prove that your opinion, "The mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof" is in fact an accurate opinion? I for one disagree with it and it bears all the tell tale signs of a biased opinion rather than fact.

I am a mythicist and I am demanding proof. I'm still not sure what you're getting at...for all the times I've asked for proof you tell me vaguely that you put it elsewhere, but never show me where nor more importantly where you got it from. I am simply to understand that a nebulous "evidence" lies just between my head and a glass ceiling of intellectual inferiority. I beg you, good sir, shatter this barrier and let me seize this evidence you have staked your claim on: Where are the secular accounts for the life of Jesus?

In short, you and I are 2000 years out of date. Given the context of the times, the events of Jesus life were better recorded than many other events, and even today, if you compare the amount of information we have about Jesus to other contemporay figures, the information we have on Jesus is far and away more complete.

You have familiarized yourself with sources I'm apparently not aware of, unless you're talking about Josephus, in which case that is a separate debate. In short, there is no secular evidence of Jesus that I know of. If you think otherwise, feel free to correct me.

I have started a whole thread about contemporary sources. You posted once about the importance of people's personal emotions in determining the value of historical artifacts etc. I find this position to be flawed in so many ways it will take a while to address them all.

Perhaps you could prove the validity of your position. Please join either the discussion on Socrates or Alexander.

Could you redirect me to this thread? I'm only familiar with your thread asking what more evidence I require...the thread itself provides none. You keep saying that the life of Jesus is very well-documented outside of the Gospels, but refuse to tell me what any of these documents are, save to say that I am apparently being too demanding of history.

Compare and contrast for example the writings we have regarding Jesus, by both his followers, and those who are not his followers, to that of Socrates. You can quickly see that we have far better and more complete sources on Jesus than we do for Socrates.

With Socrates, we have the accounts of his students, as well references to him in the writings of people who immediately proceeded him in history, to say nothing of enemy attestation.

Oh we do?


Please cite these wonderful sources and then tell us why they are different that those for Jesus.

Let us start here.

You provide all these wonderful sources for Socrates.

http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/socrates/socrates.html

There were three people, to be specific. Two wrote about him after his death, and parts of their accounts corroborate the other. While it is possible that one influenced the other, it still stands that their documents were both attributed to authors in their earliest known manuscripts (unlike the Gospels) and have not been changed or edited severely over time (also unlike the Gospels).

There are also satirical works which poke fun moreso at philosophy and philosophers than tell a historical account, but if Socrates was alive then the time would have been directly linked with the time of Aristophanes. Aristophanes is not exactly the shining example of enemy attestation, but we can be rather certain that there weren't any satirical versions of The Nativity until Monty Python (come to think of it, did they do that? Crying shame if they didn't).

Why are they different from Jesus, you ask? They exist, are secular, could easily be argued to independently corroborate one another, and have not been heavily edited. More to the point, there was also very little in the way of historical reasons for them to have been fabricated. In the case of Josephus (when Christian Orthodoxy had not yet won out against Christian Gnosticism) there was plenty of reason.

[achilles12604]

You've failed, for one reason or another, to grasp what the mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof.

Can you support this claim as a fact? Otherwise it is your conclusion, but hardly conclusive.

Can I prove that skeptics demand proof? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here.

No no. Can you prove that your opinion, "The mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof" is in fact an accurate opinion? I for one disagree with it and it bears all the tell tale signs of a biased opinion rather than fact.

I am a mythicist and I am demanding proof. I'm still not sure what you're getting at...for all the times I've asked for proof you tell me vaguely that you put it elsewhere, but never show me where nor more importantly where you got it from. I am simply to understand that a nebulous "evidence" lies just between my head and a glass ceiling of intellectual inferiority. I beg you, good sir, shatter this barrier and let me seize this evidence you have staked your claim on: Where are the secular accounts for the life of Jesus?

In short, you and I are 2000 years out of date. Given the context of the times, the events of Jesus life were better recorded than many other events, and even today, if you compare the amount of information we have about Jesus to other contemporay figures, the information we have on Jesus is far and away more complete.

You have familiarized yourself with sources I'm apparently not aware of, unless you're talking about Josephus, in which case that is a separate debate. In short, there is no secular evidence of Jesus that I know of. If you think otherwise, feel free to correct me.

I have started a whole thread about contemporary sources. You posted once about the importance of people's personal emotions in determining the value of historical artifacts etc. I find this position to be flawed in so many ways it will take a while to address them all.

Perhaps you could prove the validity of your position. Please join either the discussion on Socrates or Alexander.

Could you redirect me to this thread? I'm only familiar with your thread asking what more evidence I require...the thread itself provides none. You keep saying that the life of Jesus is very well-documented outside of the Gospels, but refuse to tell me what any of these documents are, save to say that I am apparently being too demanding of history.

Compare and contrast for example the writings we have regarding Jesus, by both his followers, and those who are not his followers, to that of Socrates. You can quickly see that we have far better and more complete sources on Jesus than we do for Socrates.

With Socrates, we have the accounts of his students, as well references to him in the writings of people who immediately proceeded him in history, to say nothing of enemy attestation.

Oh we do?


Please cite these wonderful sources and then tell us why they are different that those for Jesus.

Let us start here.

You provide all these wonderful sources for Socrates.

http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/socrates/socrates.html

There were three people, to be specific. Two wrote about him after his death, and parts of their accounts corroborate the other. While it is possible that one influenced the other, it still stands that their documents were both attributed to authors in their earliest known manuscripts (unlike the Gospels) and have not been changed or edited severely over time (also unlike the Gospels).

There are also satirical works which poke fun moreso at philosophy and philosophers than tell a historical account, but if Socrates was alive then the time would have been directly linked with the time of Aristophanes. Aristophanes is not exactly the shining example of enemy attestation, but we can be rather certain that there weren't any satirical versions of The Nativity until Monty Python (come to think of it, did they do that? Crying shame if they didn't).

Why are they different from Jesus, you ask? They exist, are secular, could easily be argued to independently corroborate one another, and have not been heavily edited. More to the point, there was also very little in the way of historical reasons for them to have been fabricated. In the case of Josephus (when Christian Orthodoxy had not yet won out against Christian Gnosticism) there was plenty of reason.

Allow me to direct you to the thread about this subject. I have suggested that we compare the evidences for Jesus, Alexander, and Socrates. This way we can compare and contrast this evidence to determine if Jesus is actually lacking, or if he is right on par with others of a similar time period.


http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7862

[alexiarose]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7526

I have debated the proper application for no true scotsman in general chat before because it was being applied incorrectly to a situation.

Now I find circumstances where the argument from silence is being applied incorrectly.

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Notice that this argument requires that there be an expectation of knowledge, and that the silences CAN be explained if there is good reason.

The last few pages of THIS thread Goat has been employing the argument from silence. He has done the same thing in THIS thread.


I feel that he has improperly applied the argument from silence because he has not established that the sources he wants me to cite, have the expectation of having the knowledge. Also, in the TF thread, he stated that silence on the part of the early fathers is the result of the TF not being written. However, he has failed to present any reason that the fathers would be interested in quoting this passage.

Is the argument from silence being applied correctly here or not? Wikipedia above has outlined both proper and improper techniques regarding this argument.

LOL. Looking at your "no true scotsman" and your "argument from silence", have you actually proven either was being applied incorrectly. I dont think so.

[achilles12604]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7526

I have debated the proper application for no true scotsman in general chat before because it was being applied incorrectly to a situation.

Now I find circumstances where the argument from silence is being applied incorrectly.

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Notice that this argument requires that there be an expectation of knowledge, and that the silences CAN be explained if there is good reason.

The last few pages of THIS thread Goat has been employing the argument from silence. He has done the same thing in THIS thread.


I feel that he has improperly applied the argument from silence because he has not established that the sources he wants me to cite, have the expectation of having the knowledge. Also, in the TF thread, he stated that silence on the part of the early fathers is the result of the TF not being written. However, he has failed to present any reason that the fathers would be interested in quoting this passage.

Is the argument from silence being applied correctly here or not? Wikipedia above has outlined both proper and improper techniques regarding this argument.

LOL. Looking at your "no true scotsman" and your "argument from silence", have you actually proven either was being applied incorrectly. I dont think so.

Well I guess we are all entitled to our opinions aren't we? So tell me, instead of spouting your opinion, explain to everyone WHY I am incorrect in both counts? Emotions are useless. Use logic and show me to be incorrect.