Mojch - I challenge you!
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-05-2013, 04:06 PM
Mojch - I challenge you!
Topic: Is there good evidence to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

First, I am running under the assumption that you believe that the resurrection was a literal event, and not some sort of symbolic meaning. (You may need to clarify your beliefs on this such topic, in order to clear up some obvious misunderstandings.)

Since the positive position always go first, I will allow you to go first and present your argument that there is good evidence that such a thing took place. I will present my rebuttal within the constraints we have mutually agreed on.

Please, if you feel it is necessary for you to explain to me your religious beliefs in particular, do not hesitate for you to do so, under the limits you, yourself, have set up.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
21-05-2013, 06:23 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
I anticipate I shall lose this point but that I shall learn much in doing so. Limiting my response to a single argument...

The Resurrection was a literal event. Modern evidence for it resides almost exclusively in the New Testament. Therefore, if one rejects the truth of the New Testament, there is little evidence for the Resurrection. However, the Resurrection is the central component of a worldview articulated in the Bible. The truth of the Bible, and thus the Resurrection, can be supported (not proven) by evaluating the success or failure of its worldview in achieving an ideal society. In short, if the worldview espoused by the Bible, when implemented correctly, would be more successful at ordering human society than any other known method of doing so, this is at least some evidence that the Bible is likely to have a basis in truth. Old Testament laws and regulations for an ordered society, while necessary and moral within their time, are now irrelevant due to changed circumstances. Thus, the truth of the Bible, and by extension, the Resurrection, can be (partially) tested by seeing whether the society ordered by the New Testament would, if achieved, produce an ideal human existence.

Logically...

1. The truth of a text can be supported or attacked by testing the predictions that text makes.
2. The New Testament predicts that a society ordered according to its laws would be ideal.
3. The truth of the New Testament can be supported or attacked by testing whether a society ordered by its laws would be ideal.
4. The Resurrection is recorded in the New Testament and thus evidence supporting the truth of the New Testament supports the Resurrection.
5. A society ordered by the laws of the New Testament would be ideal.

Sincerely,

Mojch

Word Count: 300
Find all posts by this user
21-05-2013, 07:26 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 07:30 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(21-05-2013 06:23 PM)Mojch Wrote:  The truth of the Bible, and thus the Resurrection, can be supported (not proven) by evaluating the success or failure of its worldview in achieving an ideal society.
Nope. It can't. Even if the Bible had rules that were moral, or even achieved an ideal (Ideal for whom, exactly? You? Muslims? Who? Ideal is subjective, and I think you are trying to use a subjective term as a objective scale.) society, that doesn't give credence to the Supernatural claims of the New Testament. Any person can create laws that are reasonable, that doesn't mean that all of their ideas are supported just because they are good lawgivers. Plus, If you read the Bible, I highly doubt that it would be a perfect society if put in practice.

Quote:Logically...

1. The truth of a text can be supported or attacked by testing the predictions that text makes.
Consider I see no problems with this at face value, but know that this is not a really good way to determine the truth of a book. Actually, now that I think about it.... It is faulty in the sense that the writer could make a prediction, but attach unnecessary elements to that decision.
Example: Invisible unicorns will carry the sun across the sky every morning. The prediction that the sun will rise in the morning does not give credence of invisible unicorns.

Of course, I might have misunderstood you.
Quote:2. The New Testament predicts that a society ordered according to its laws would be ideal.
Textual reference please?
Quote:3. The truth of the New Testament can be supported or attacked by testing whether a society ordered by its laws would be ideal.
Nope. Like I said earlier in my first response, The supernatural can't be supported on something that is completely unrelated.
Quote:4. The Resurrection is recorded in the New Testament and thus evidence supporting the truth of the New Testament supports the Resurrection.
Nope. What you are preforming is the Composition Fallacy. Just because one part of the text is true, doesn't mean ALL part of the text is true.

Quote:5. A society ordered by the laws of the New Testament would be ideal.
This is unsubstantiated. And, like I said "Ideal" is as subjective as it can get.

I am sorry if I just replied to you, and didn't present a counter argument, I was just focused on dismantling your assertion. And, it's a bitch to stick to that "under three hundred words" rule.

-Steven

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Atothetheist's post
21-05-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Steven:

Loving this! And yes, the 300 words thing is rough. However, it should keep our discussion manageable. I propose the following responses (which I write after having a drink...or two).

1. "If you read the Bible, I highly doubt that it would be a perfect society if put in practice." Could we discuss this as our next point, limiting ourselves to the New Testament based on my prior reasoning?

2. "Invisible unicorns will carry the sun across the sky every morning. The prediction that the sun will rise in the morning does not give credence of invisible unicorns." I dispute this. The fact that half of the prediction is true SUPPORTS (note that I did not say proves) the possibility that the second half is true. Example: You are on a jury. The witness says "I saw the accused enter the store at 9:15." The defense proves that the accused was in another city at 9:15. Would this impact your opinion on the truth of the first half of the statement? If so, why is the inverse not true?

3. Textual Reference: Rev. 21: 4 implicitly claims that in a universe where God is followed absolutely, the conditions would be as ideal as I can conceive.

4. I do not commit the composition fallacy because I do not claim that my argument PROVES the text is true, only that it lends support to such a possibility. See #2 in this post.

Sincerely,

Mojch

Word Count: 248
Find all posts by this user
21-05-2013, 09:00 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 09:08 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(21-05-2013 08:27 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Steven:

Loving this! And yes, the 300 words thing is rough. However, it should keep our discussion manageable. I propose the following responses (which I write after having a drink...or two).

1. "If you read the Bible, I highly doubt that it would be a perfect society if put in practice." Could we discuss this as our next point, limiting ourselves to the New Testament based on my prior reasoning?

2. "Invisible unicorns will carry the sun across the sky every morning. The prediction that the sun will rise in the morning does not give credence of invisible unicorns." I dispute this. The fact that half of the prediction is true SUPPORTS (note that I did not say proves) the possibility that the second half is true. Example: You are on a jury. The witness says "I saw the accused enter the store at 9:15." The defense proves that the accused was in another city at 9:15. Would this impact your opinion on the truth of the first half of the statement? If so, why is the inverse not true?

3. Textual Reference: Rev. 21: 4 implicitly claims that in a universe where God is followed absolutely, the conditions would be as ideal as I can conceive.

4. I do not commit the composition fallacy because I do not claim that my argument PROVES the text is true, only that it lends support to such a possibility. See #2 in this post.

Sincerely,

Mojch

Word Count: 248

Actually, yes you do commit it. Wether or not you think it makes it valid, or supports it, you are using the same reasoning.

Example:

Illiad is a poem about Greek Gods and the Trojan War

The Trojan War actually happened

Because the Torjan War is supported, and it was in the illiad, the part about the Greek Gods has support.

This is not logical ^ and it is fallicious in thinking.

This is basically what you are doing, just replace Greek God with Resurrection, Trojan War with rules for an ideal society (Except for a ideal society based off of the Bible hasn't happened, which makes your reasoning fall flat even if your reasoning was sound) and Illiad with the Bible.

About discussing the "Ideal" society... Nope. The New Testament is not a replacement of the Old, it is a companion, and seeks to Fufill it, not ABOLISH it. Jesus said so himself. While the Old Testament can stand on it's own, the New Testament relies on the Old Testament, and therefore, we can't specifically weed out the Old Testament.

As for your post #2: If things worked like that, we would have many explinations for many different things. The debate topic is GOOD evidence, not "Supportive, but not really conclusive." To say that invisible unicorns is suddenly supported due to the fact that I make up some silly example based on a known phenomina is opening yourself up many ludicrous ideas.

If all you can give me is a faulty thinking, and open-ended reasoning that can literally support any ridiculous idea, this is going to be a long debate.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
21-05-2013, 09:34 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Steven:

I apologize if all I am offering is "faulty thinking" and "open-ended reasoning". Remember, I am not seeking to prove anything to you. I am seeking to refine my own thinking. The more explicit you can be about my errors, the more productive the discussion.

I note that you did not respond to my thought experiment regarding the jury and witness. Could you do so please? I would like to know, explicitly, where the analogy breaks down. Since I cannot respond to whatever you write next per the rules, please address this point in-depth.

I concede that my argument is not GOOD evidence. In fact, I admitted in my first response that I would likely lose this point. I argue it not because I believe the arguments are strong, but because they are educational.

Assuming you can convince me that I am in fact committing the Composition fallacy by explaining the error in my thought experiment, I concede this point and admit I can offer no good evidence for the historical resurrection at this time.

As regards my argument about the Old Testament, my point is not that the laws given should be IGNORED but that they are irrelevant because they were intended for a different time and culture. Christ says in the NT that he came to "fulfill" the law. This is not the same as perpetuating it. The symbolism of the curtain ripping in the Gospels was meant to indicate the passing away of the old legal regime. For additional support of this position, see 1 Corinthians 10:23. You claim the NT does not claim to replace the LAWS of the OT. If so, how do you explain this verse, the symbolic curtain ripping, and the repeated claims that Gentiles are no longer unclean?

Sincerely,

Mojch

Words: 299 (not counting the below)

PS - Since your next post will be the last word on this topic, please address a new question to me so we can continue the debate. Don't count the words of your new question as part of your limit in responding. Alternatively, if you wish, I can address a question to you.
Find all posts by this user
21-05-2013, 10:03 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 10:11 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(21-05-2013 09:34 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Steven:

I apologize if all I am offering is "faulty thinking" and "open-ended reasoning". Remember, I am not seeking to prove anything to you. I am seeking to refine my own thinking. The more explicit you can be about my errors, the more productive the discussion.

I note that you did not respond to my thought experiment regarding the jury and witness. Could you do so please? I would like to know, explicitly, where the analogy breaks down. Since I cannot respond to whatever you write next per the rules, please address this point in-depth.

I concede that my argument is not GOOD evidence. In fact, I admitted in my first response that I would likely lose this point. I argue it not because I believe the arguments are strong, but because they are educational.

Assuming you can convince me that I am in fact committing the Composition fallacy by explaining the error in my thought experiment, I concede this point and admit I can offer no good evidence for the historical resurrection at this time.

As regards my argument about the Old Testament, my point is not that the laws given should be IGNORED but that they are irrelevant because they were intended for a different time and culture. Christ says in the NT that he came to "fulfill" the law. This is not the same as perpetuating it. The symbolism of the curtain ripping in the Gospels was meant to indicate the passing away of the old legal regime. For additional support of this position, see 1 Corinthians 10:23. You claim the NT does not claim to replace the LAWS of the OT. If so, how do you explain this verse, the symbolic curtain ripping, and the repeated claims that Gentiles are no longer unclean?

Sincerely,

Mojch

Words: 299 (not counting the below)

PS - Since your next post will be the last word on this topic, please address a new question to me so we can continue the debate. Don't count the words of your new question as part of your limit in responding. Alternatively, if you wish, I can address a question to you.

The fact is this your analogy is a bad analogy because the two things are interconnected. The fact that the suspect was in another town, discredits the fact that he was in the store. They are related to the suspect. There is a connection that one can establish. This does not apply to your argument because having good laws does not have anything to do with the resurrection. Nothing, absoultely nothing. Just because the laws were good, that doesn't support the resurrection. There is no connection between the two. Therefore, we can't assume that because the laws were good, that the resurrection is supported. They are unrelated, and because of such, they can't be drawn together in an argument.

The composition fallacy has nothing to do with PROVING something. It has to do with assuming everything is a certain trait (supported) because ONE thing in it actually is. This is why your statement is in fact the fallacy.

Example:

The ocean is heavy, therefore, a glass full of the ocean is heavy.

A in the Bible is supported, therefore everything in the Bible is supported.

Or, the reverse is applicable:

A,B,D,F,G is supported, therefore C and E are supported.

The simple fact that you are saying that one event or thing in the New Testament that can be verified is giving support to another,or multiple other things, is the fallacy.

Especially when the two things you are using (Ideal society and resurrection) are not related.

Also, for the fufilling thing:

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Matthew 5:18

Now this came from Jesus himself (or so I assume you believe). It seems to me that Jesus still wants us to follow the Law (Mosiac, if you aren't familiar.)

And if your verse really contradicts that of Jesus, your savior.... Who do you trust, Paul, or Jesus?

Next Question:

Is your God All-Powerful and All-Loving? If so, why is there Evil?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Atothetheist's post
21-05-2013, 10:31 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Steven:

Aside: Yes! You are correct. My jury analogy was flawed because of the causal connections. Good stuff. Thanks for helping me see that.

This should be fun...

I do not believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God in the traditional sense. I believe the universe is effectively a quantum computer programmed by God to achieve a certain result but also designed to create individual choice that can alter the program. (Thus reconciling predestination with free will.) God gave us instructions on how to keep the program ideal. Because the original program was ideal, any actions we take as humans not originally programmed by God must result in a less perfect universe. We violated the instructions, thus, through the butterfly effect, evil exists.
Find all posts by this user
22-05-2013, 06:36 AM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2013 06:42 AM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(21-05-2013 10:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Steven:

Aside: Yes! You are correct. My jury analogy was flawed because of the causal connections. Good stuff. Thanks for helping me see that.

This should be fun...

I do not believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God in the traditional sense. I believe the universe is effectively a quantum computer programmed by God to achieve a certain result but also designed to create individual choice that can alter the program. (Thus reconciling predestination with free will.) God gave us instructions on how to keep the program ideal. Because the original program was ideal, any actions we take as humans not originally programmed by God must result in a less perfect universe. We violated the instructions, thus, through the butterfly effect, evil exists.

Couldn't God have made a world where there is Free Will, but no evil? What is the need to reconcile it by adding uneccesary elements.

Basically, could God simply NOT opted for the destruction of millions by adopting a system that, in all of his power, he could sustain?

Does that mean that no matter what I do, I will get the same end anyways?

(Also, may not be able to respond for a while, heading to school.)

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
22-05-2013, 09:09 AM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
God is a real being governed by logic.

1. God planned a perfect world with a single restriction / choice.

2. This choice was necessary to give mankind free will because God is bound by logic. Freewill cannot exist without choice. Mankind initially had limited freewill and was an entirely automated, but conscious, creation.

3. Everything else in Eden was perfect. If man did not "sin" by making the choice that God had forbidden, the entire Universe would proceed deterministically towards a resolution where all human beings enjoyed a perfect existence while possessing only the bare minimum of free will necessary to create consciousness.

4. Man made the one choice that God had forbidden. God, because he exists outside of time, could not alter the effects of this choice because to do so would destroy free will.

5. This choice altered the original plan by causing an event to occur which was unintended. Since the original creation was perfect, the deterministic consequences could not have benefited the Universe and therefore must have been "evil". Through the butterfly effect (a single action influences vast swaths of the Universe), the Universe "fell" from this perfect deterministic future and mankind's freewill increased. As the Bible says, it was that moment that created sin and suffering. God did not create them. They were logically required and man CHOSE them. God has been trying to rescue us from the logical consequences of that choice.

I flip the question to you. Theoretically, the actions of every particle in the Universe could be determined at any point in time. Scientists make such predictions for individual particles (or collections of particles such as planets) all the time. Thus, you lack free will because math could calculate your position in the future if sufficient information was obtained.

Sincerely,

Mojch

Word Count: 300
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: