Is the resurrection of Jesus supported...

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Goose

Is the resurrection of Jesus supported...

Post #1

Post by Goose »

Chaosborders and I have agreed to a head-to-head. Chaosborders has suggested the question for debate as well as the thread title and I have agreed. The question for debate will be:

"Can the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes?"

I will affirm the positive and Chaosborders will affirm the negative.

We have agreed to a maximum of ten rounds (twenty total posts).

I will post first.

Comments welcomed here.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #11

Post by ChaosBorders »

Goose wrote:
Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augusutus. If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'" (higlights and underline added by me)
Firstly, "doubt" is not important to the process as it is added as an "additional consideration." It is not listed as a criterion in the historical methodology. Gottschalk knows better than to try to make this a criterion so he tags it on as an "additional consideration." Secondly, he says, "when the fact in question may not be well known." He is referring to facts that are not well supported with evidence and are incidental. Lastly, and most importantly, "seems" unlikely is an attempt to tag on an entirely subjective "consideration" into the historical method. What seems unlikely to you may not seem unlikely to me. The "consideration" of doubt implies not being completely convinced. But what one person requires to be convinced may differ from another person. Let's not confuse being personally convinced with establishing what is historical using an objective methodology. This is where your attempt to introduce "reasons to doubt" into my argument (A) is fallacious. And thus I reject it.
I note that you ignored all of the other historical method criteria I listed indicating doubt, defined as a reason “to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely� http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doubt, is part of using the historical method.
Further, your analysis of Gottschalk is proving my point. If an event does not have reason to doubt it, the burden of proof for accepting it is very little. If doubt is not considered for any event, the burden of proof for accepting events becomes just as low as for accepting events for which there is no reason to doubt the event. Because your argument does not consider doubt, it allows you to “prove� your conclusion simply by finding an event that is unquestioned as historical fact simply because none of the historical methodology that would call it into question has any reason to.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:The argument, as you have it written, could be stated to lead to the conclusion using only evidence in favor without any consideration for whether one event requires a greater burden of proof than another.
Why would you need a greater burden of proof for one event over another unless you a priori decide one event is not possible?
Historical methodology is all about whether an event is probable.
Probable or not probable is the conclusion. But it seems you want to make a judgment on probability BEFORE we have looked at the evidence. Don't you see the circularity here? I think the event is not probable, therefore more evidence.

The Historical method can be broken down into two sets of criteria: “Reasons to believe said event happened� and “Reasons to disbelieve said event happened�. If the reasons to believe said event happened outweigh the reasons not to, said event can be considered likely to have occurred. But your argument as phrased allows you to ignore the criteria in support of reasons to disbelieve. It lets you make your conclusion by comparing only criteria in favor of believing.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:If one event has factors that make it less probable, then it requires a greater amount of evidence in its favor.
What factors would those be? How much more evidence? Give me an objective amount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Argument to the Best Explanation
1. The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data.

2. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.

3.The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.
6. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.

If the event conflicts with what is generally held as scientifically possible, it requires a rather higher standard of evidence. If your argument is rephrased to consider ALL historical criteria, then for your conclusion to be proved true you need to find an event that is held to be comparably unlikely. That is, to prove your conclusion you should have an event that, per the historical methodology, has as many reasons to disbelieve it as the resurrection and fewer reasons to believe it, but is still taught as historical fact. If you are able to do that, the conclusion is proved.

If you are not able to do that, you are disregarding aspects of the historical method.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:The way your argument is phrased, an equal amount of evidence in favor is all that is required to arrive at the conclusion. All you technically have to do is show that [mundane historical event x] has a single mention and is accepted as historically true, so obviously the resurrection, with such and such evidence in favor, has enough to be accepted as historically factual. I do not know if something along those lines was/is your intention, but I am not inclined to accept an argument that allows such reasoning, as it neglects significant parts of historical methodology.
Which "significant parts" of historical methodology have I neglected? Name them.
Besides the list you ignored? By the historical method, if there is greater reason to disbelieve an event happened than there is reason to believe the event happened, the event should not be considered historically factual. Your argument currently lets you ignore criteria that detracts from evidence in the positive.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:My re-wording forces the argument to stay in line with the historical method and does not automatically result in a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If you can prove it with said rewording, then you will have proved your side of the case.
Your rewording interjects a dynamic that is not stated in the question for debate. You should have thought of this earlier.
My rewording makes the argument conform to historical methodology, such that the resurrection is being judged as an event by ALL the same criteria as any other event, not just criteria in favor of an event. If you would like to reword the argument yourself to the same effect be my guest.
A priori doubt of the event is NOT an objective historical criterion. Not even the source you cite above lists it as an official criterion but rather as an additional consideration regarding incidental not well supported details.
It’s not about a priori doubt. It’s about the fact your argument allows you to ignore any criteria that should lead to the conclusion an event should be doubted as factual. Were I to I accept it as sound, (which I do not), it puts you in a position where you can just ignore my entire side of the argument and still 'prove' your conclusion.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:If you insist on using your argument as stated, that is fine, but I do not think it will be hard to show it as Reductio ad absurdum. As such, I would advise using a modified version that avoids the issue, or coming up with a odifferent argument.
I insist. So one last time. Do you acknowledge it is valid?
Part of my problem with deciding whether or not the argument JUST has a problem with soundness is that “good� is so loosely defined. But for the sake of moving on I will consider it as valid. However, as phrased by yourself, I still assert it is unsound, so caring about validity prior to establishing the soundness of its premise seems rather pointless.
Actually I thought I defined "good" quite well. But we can further define this using a more vigorous criteria for what constitutes "good" evidence if wish. We need to resolve this issue with validity. I'm not progressing further until we have resolved this. You'll just use it later as way to escape the conclusion of the argument if we don't address it here and now.
If we redefine Good as “Fullfills the criteria for reasons to believe outlined on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method to a greater extent than it fails against criteria suggesting alternative scenarios should be considered more likely.�
Or any other phrasing that:
A) Uses all historical methodology as listed on wiki and any other criteria that can be supported as valid using said historical methodology.
B) Doesn’t let you arbitrarily declare your conclusion proved without considering whether the reasons to disbelieve the resurrection are comparable to reasons to disbelieve your selected historical event, per the historical method criteria.
If you sufficiently define good in such a manner, the argument is unquestionably valid. Given that the question asks whether it “should� be taught as history, the soundness may still be somewhat questionable if the evidence indicates both events fail against criteria suggesting alternative scenarios should be considered more likely to a greater degree than they fulfill criteria suggesting said events should be considered probable. If the historical method gives greater reason for disbelieving events than for believing events, the events arguably fail to meet the necessary criteria to actually be considered as historically factual, and shouldn’t be taught as history regardless of whether they actually are.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Goose

Post #12

Post by Goose »

Sorry for the dealy, I've been quite busy in the last few days.
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:If you insist on using your argument as stated, that is fine, but I do not think it will be hard to show it as Reductio ad absurdum. As such, I would advise using a modified version that avoids the issue, or coming up with a odifferent argument.
I insist. So one last time. Do you acknowledge it is valid?
Part of my problem with deciding whether or not the argument JUST has a problem with soundness is that “good� is so loosely defined. But for the sake of moving on I will consider it as valid. However, as phrased by yourself, I still assert it is unsound, so caring about validity prior to establishing the soundness of its premise seems rather pointless.
Actually I thought I defined "good" quite well. But we can further define this using a more vigorous criteria for what constitutes "good" evidence if wish. We need to resolve this issue with validity. I'm not progressing further until we have resolved this. You'll just use it later as way to escape the conclusion of the argument if we don't address it here and now.
If we redefine Good as “Fullfills the criteria for reasons to believe outlined on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method to a greater extent than it fails against criteria suggesting alternative scenarios should be considered more likely.�
Or any other phrasing that:
A) Uses all historical methodology as listed on wiki and any other criteria that can be supported as valid using said historical methodology.
B) Doesn’t let you arbitrarily declare your conclusion proved without considering whether the reasons to disbelieve the resurrection are comparable to reasons to disbelieve your selected historical event, per the historical method criteria.
If you sufficiently define good in such a manner, the argument is unquestionably valid. Given that the question asks whether it “should� be taught as history, the soundness may still be somewhat questionable if the evidence indicates both events fail against criteria suggesting alternative scenarios should be considered more likely to a greater degree than they fulfill criteria suggesting said events should be considered probable. If the historical method gives greater reason for disbelieving events than for believing events, the events arguably fail to meet the necessary criteria to actually be considered as historically factual, and shouldn’t be taught as history regardless of whether they actually are.
I've provided a valid argument (A) that answers the question for debate in the affirmative. You have elsewhere conceded you'd have little doubt that I would prove my conclusion from my premises. Rereading the thread I did notice it appears you have been attempting to change the question for debate by redefining words in your favour and introducing criteria not previously agreed to beginning in post 3:
Chaosborders in post 3 wrote:If it cannot be sufficiently supported using the historical method to be taught in history classes, then it should not be considered ‘historically’ factual, regardless of whether it objectively happened.
There is no mention in the question for debate of the historical method. There is certainly no mention or previous agreement between us regarding the use of wikipedia's version of an historical method.

And then in post 5 where you wanted to change my argument to include something that is not stated in the question for debate...
Chaosborders in post 5 wrote:"If the historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus, using historical methodology, is at least as credible as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event and, using historical methodology, both events have roughly equal reasons to doubt the occurrence of said events, 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."
and then in post 7...
Chaosborders in post 7 wrote:The question is "Can the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes?"

The use of historical evidence and "should be taught...in history classes" both imply usage of the historical method. Historical methodology requires consideration of doubt regarding historical events per McCullagh's "Argument to the best explanation". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... xplanation
You've tried to argue that "historical evidence" and "should be taught...in history classes" imply usage of the historical method and specifically wiki's version and that of McCullagh's argument to the best explanation. However, at no point prior did we agree to this. To assume that history classes use a historical method and specifically that of Mcullagh's or wiki's version Begs the Question. I will grant that the use of "historical evidence" in the question for debate may imply the usage of an historical method. But would only be limited to evaluating the evidence supporting the event and not the event itself as the question for debate states "using historical evidence" NOT "using historical methodology found on wiki." It would appear you are changing the question for debate. As you were the one that came up with the question for debate I see no good reason to now allow you to alter the question in your favour. If you would like to concede that I can affirm the positive case for the question for debate, as it stands, you can feel free to then restate the question and we can begin a new thread.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #13

Post by ChaosBorders »

Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:If you insist on using your argument as stated, that is fine, but I do not think it will be hard to show it as Reductio ad absurdum. As such, I would advise using a modified version that avoids the issue, or coming up with a odifferent argument.
I insist. So one last time. Do you acknowledge it is valid?
Part of my problem with deciding whether or not the argument JUST has a problem with soundness is that “good� is so loosely defined. But for the sake of moving on I will consider it as valid. However, as phrased by yourself, I still assert it is unsound, so caring about validity prior to establishing the soundness of its premise seems rather pointless.
Actually I thought I defined "good" quite well. But we can further define this using a more vigorous criteria for what constitutes "good" evidence if wish. We need to resolve this issue with validity. I'm not progressing further until we have resolved this. You'll just use it later as way to escape the conclusion of the argument if we don't address it here and now.
If we redefine Good as “Fullfills the criteria for reasons to believe outlined on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method to a greater extent than it fails against criteria suggesting alternative scenarios should be considered more likely.�
Or any other phrasing that:
A) Uses all historical methodology as listed on wiki and any other criteria that can be supported as valid using said historical methodology.
B) Doesn’t let you arbitrarily declare your conclusion proved without considering whether the reasons to disbelieve the resurrection are comparable to reasons to disbelieve your selected historical event, per the historical method criteria.
If you sufficiently define good in such a manner, the argument is unquestionably valid. Given that the question asks whether it “should� be taught as history, the soundness may still be somewhat questionable if the evidence indicates both events fail against criteria suggesting alternative scenarios should be considered more likely to a greater degree than they fulfill criteria suggesting said events should be considered probable. If the historical method gives greater reason for disbelieving events than for believing events, the events arguably fail to meet the necessary criteria to actually be considered as historically factual, and shouldn’t be taught as history regardless of whether they actually are.
I've provided a valid argument (A) that answers the question for debate in the affirmative. You have elsewhere conceded you'd have little doubt that I would prove my conclusion from my premises .
I have no doubt you can prove your conclusion from your premises because your argument is a straw man that makes a mockery of history. But if you really want to use it, very well. I have full confidence that anyone reading this thread will see it, and any ‘proof’ it leads to as unsound, as they should.
Goose wrote: Rereading the thread I did notice it appears you have been attempting to change the question for debate by redefining words in your favour and introducing criteria not previously agreed to beginning in post 3.
To assume that history classes use a historical method and specifically that of Mcullagh's or wiki's version Begs the Question. I will grant that the use of "historical evidence" in the question for debate may imply the usage of an historical method. But would only be limited to evaluating the evidence supporting the event and not the event itself as the question for debate states "using historical evidence" NOT "using historical methodology found on wiki." It would appear you are changing the question for debate. As you were the one that came up with the question for debate I see no good reason to now allow you to alter the question in your favour. If you would like to concede that I can affirm the positive case for the question for debate, as it stands, you can feel free to then restate the question and we can begin a new thread.
You’re right, clearly thinking a matter of “history� should be determined using “historical methodology� was just too great a leap to make. And given we never limited what type of historical methodology should be used, obviously it was a gross oversight to think using any and all forms of accepted historical methodology (many of which are listed on the wikipedia page for it) as acceptable criteria on which to base judgments concerning the event in question was just crazy.

But very well, proceed with your straw man. I do not condone it, but I am interested to see if you can do it in such a way that doesn’t completely destroy your credibility with any readers.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Goose

Post #14

Post by Goose »

Goose wrote:I've provided a valid argument (A) that answers the question for debate in the affirmative. You have elsewhere conceded you'd have little doubt that I would prove my conclusion from my premises.
Chaosborders wrote:I have no doubt you can prove your conclusion from your premises because your argument is a straw man that makes a mockery of history. But if you really want to use it, very well.
Your claim of strawman is absurd. You came up with the question for debate. I've provided a valid argument that uses the wording in that question. Of course you can now claim that you really meant this and you really meant that and this implies that and so on in your question for debate and I have thus misrepresented you. But to do so AFTER my argument was presented and to introduce criteria (that was not previoulsy agreed to) that makes it harder for me to infer my conclusion appears to be a blatant attempt to shift the goal posts. Further, you've called my argument invalid and unsound. Yet haven't been able to establish either. Now you call it a strawman. I get the distinct impression you are merely throwing mud in the hope that something sticks.
Chaosborders wrote:I have full confidence that anyone reading this thread will see it, and any ‘proof’ it leads to as unsound, as they should.
You'll need to show at least one of the premises false to show it is unsound.


Goose wrote:Rereading the thread I did notice it appears you have been attempting to change the question for debate by redefining words in your favour and introducing criteria not previously agreed to beginning in post 3.
To assume that history classes use a historical method and specifically that of Mcullagh's or wiki's version Begs the Question. I will grant that the use of "historical evidence" in the question for debate may imply the usage of an historical method. But would only be limited to evaluating the evidence supporting the event and not the event itself as the question for debate states "using historical evidence" NOT "using historical methodology found on wiki." It would appear you are changing the question for debate. As you were the one that came up with the question for debate I see no good reason to now allow you to alter the question in your favour. If you would like to concede that I can affirm the positive case for the question for debate, as it stands, you can feel free to then restate the question and we can begin a new thread.
Chaosborders wrote:You’re right, clearly thinking a matter of “history� should be determined using “historical methodology� was just too great a leap to make.
The issue is that you introduced this criteria, specifically "reasons to doubt" and McCullagh's "Argument to the best explanation," AFTER my argument was presented. It appears to be a blatant attempt to shift the goal posts.

Chaosborders wrote:And given we never limited what type of historical methodology should be used, obviously it was a gross oversight to think using any and all forms of accepted historical methodology (many of which are listed on the wikipedia page for it) as acceptable criteria on which to base judgments concerning the event in question was just crazy.
If you'd like to start a new thread with a new question for debate that includes wikipedia's rendition of the historical method and specifically "reasons to doubt" and McCullagh's "Argument to the best explanation," you are welcome to do so.
Chaosborders wrote:But very well, proceed with your straw man. I do not condone it, but I am interested to see if you can do it in such a way that doesn’t completely destroy your credibility with any readers.
My credibility is irrelevant. Either the argument (A) I've presented is valid and sound or it is not. I'll begin to present my evidence in the next post. Give me a couple days to construct it.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #15

Post by ChaosBorders »

Goose wrote:
Goose wrote:I've provided a valid argument (A) that answers the question for debate in the affirmative. You have elsewhere conceded you'd have little doubt that I would prove my conclusion from my premises.
Chaosborders wrote:I have no doubt you can prove your conclusion from your premises because your argument is a straw man that makes a mockery of history. But if you really want to use it, very well.
Your claim of strawman is absurd. You came up with the question for debate. I've provided a valid argument that uses the wording in that question. Of course you can now claim that you really meant this and you really meant that and this implies that and so on in your question for debate and I have thus misrepresented you. But to do so AFTER my argument was presented and to introduce criteria (that was not previoulsy agreed to) that makes it harder for me to infer my conclusion appears to be a blatant attempt to shift the goal posts. Further, you've called my argument invalid and unsound. Yet haven't been able to establish either. Now you call it a strawman. I get the distinct impression you are merely throwing mud in the hope that something sticks.
Chaosborders wrote:I have full confidence that anyone reading this thread will see it, and any ‘proof’ it leads to as unsound, as they should.
You'll need to show at least one of the premises false to show it is unsound.
I’ll address both of these at once.

Your premise “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� is unsound because it allows you to ignore practically half the accepted criteria that goes into determining whether something should be considered historically factual, namely any criteria that would indicate a different conclusion should be made.

By your argument just about anything ever mentioned as having happened would be considered sufficiently substantiated to teach as historically factual.

That is complete nonsense and you know it, which is why I am calling your argument a straw man. You don’t think you can prove your position should be taught as history by the generally accepted standards, so you’re deliberately lowering the bar as to what is necessary to consider something historically factual (to practically nothing). Considering your previous claim that you like a challenge, it is quite strange you should need to use an argument that lets you get away with such a low standard of evidence.
Goose wrote:The issue is that you introduced this criteria, specifically "reasons to doubt" and McCullagh's "Argument to the best explanation," AFTER my argument was presented. It appears to be a blatant attempt to shift the goal posts.
Not an attempt to shift goal posts, I just apparently gave you too much credit. You’ve used historical methodology in at least one past debate, so I assumed you had some idea as to what goes into determining whether something is ‘sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence’ that it ‘should be’ taught as ‘literally factual’ in ‘history classes’. I can’t imagine how anyone would not assume using historical methodology is how you would go about arguing this. Not doing so would be like not using the scientific method to prove something is science. It’s absurd.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Goose

Post #16

Post by Goose »

Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:You'll need to show at least one of the premises false to show it is unsound.
I’ll address both of these at once.

Your premise “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� is unsound because it allows you to ignore practically half the accepted criteria that goes into determining whether something should be considered historically factual, namely any criteria that would indicate a different conclusion should be made.
Firstly, a minor quibble. Premises aren't "unsound." They are either true or false. Arguments are either sound or unsound. More importantly, whether you feel I have ignored something or not is entirely irrelevant and in itself does not make the premise false. Further, it is not true that I am ignoring "any criteria that would indicate a different conclusion should be made." When the evidence is presented you'll have a chance to present counter evidence or your reasons as to why the evidence itself is not admissible. And thus show the premise to be false. So please stop continually asserting that I'm or will be ignoring the arguments against when we haven't even got there yet.
Chaosborders wrote:By your argument just about anything ever mentioned as having happened would be considered sufficiently substantiated to teach as historically factual.
False. The baseline for the resurrection is that it must have as good of an evidentiary support as something already taught as a literally factual event in history classes. So the burden of evidentiary support is presumably quite high.
Chaosborders wrote:That is complete nonsense and you know it, which is why I am calling your argument a straw man.
That wouldn't make my argument a strawman. What would be nonsense is to NOT teach something as a factual event that meets a similar burden of evidentiary support as something that is already taught as a literally factual event.

Chaosborders wrote:You don’t think you can prove your position should be taught as history by the generally accepted standards, so you’re deliberately lowering the bar as to what is necessary to consider something historically factual (to practically nothing). Considering your previous claim that you like a challenge, it is quite strange you should need to use an argument that lets you get away with such a low standard of evidence.
Actually, the event I have in mind will put the bar quite high for the resurrection.

Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:The issue is that you introduced this criteria, specifically "reasons to doubt" and McCullagh's "Argument to the best explanation," AFTER my argument was presented. It appears to be a blatant attempt to shift the goal posts.
Not an attempt to shift goal posts, I just apparently gave you too much credit.
What a strange thing to say considering you were so particular about the specific wording of the question for debate in the first place.
Chaosborders wrote:You’ve used historical methodology in at least one past debate, so I assumed you had some idea as to what goes into determining whether something is ‘sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence’ that it ‘should be’ taught as ‘literally factual’ in ‘history classes’. I can’t imagine how anyone would not assume using historical methodology is how you would go about arguing this. Not doing so would be like not using the scientific method to prove something is science. It’s absurd.
I'm simply answering the question for debate a different way than that which you are trying to unnecessarily force upon me. I'm assuming that an event already taught as historical in a secular history class has met a sufficient burden of evidentiary support to be considered sufficiently substantiated as to be taught as history. If the resurrection measure up it should be taught as historical as well. This works logically and is in line with the wording of YOUR question for debate. It's not my fault you didn't foresee this when you constructed the question for debate. Whining about it now and moving the goal posts by adding additional criteria to be met, not previously agreed to, smacks of sour grapes. Again, if you would like to start another thread that tackles the actual historicity of the resurrection using a particular historical method we can do that. Is that what you'd rather do?

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #17

Post by ChaosBorders »

Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:You'll need to show at least one of the premises false to show it is unsound.
I’ll address both of these at once.

Your premise “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� is unsound because it allows you to ignore practically half the accepted criteria that goes into determining whether something should be considered historically factual, namely any criteria that would indicate a different conclusion should be made.
Firstly, a minor quibble. Premises aren't "unsound." They are either true or false. Arguments are either sound or unsound. More importantly, whether you feel I have ignored something or not is entirely irrelevant and in itself does not make the premise false. Further, it is not true that I am ignoring "any criteria that would indicate a different conclusion should be made." When the evidence is presented you'll have a chance to present counter evidence or your reasons as to why the evidence itself is not admissible. And thus show the premise to be false. So please stop continually asserting that I'm or will be ignoring the arguments against when we haven't even got there yet.
Very well. A large portion of my counter-argument will be concentrated on your premise being false, thus your argument unsound.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:By your argument just about anything ever mentioned as having happened would be considered sufficiently substantiated to teach as historically factual.
False. The baseline for the resurrection is that it must have as good of an evidentiary support as something already taught as a literally factual event in history classes. So the burden of evidentiary support is presumably quite high.
Chaosborders wrote:That is complete nonsense and you know it, which is why I am calling your argument a straw man.
That wouldn't make my argument a strawman. What would be nonsense is to NOT teach something as a factual event that meets a similar burden of evidentiary support as something that is already taught as a literally factual event.

Chaosborders wrote:You don’t think you can prove your position should be taught as history by the generally accepted standards, so you’re deliberately lowering the bar as to what is necessary to consider something historically factual (to practically nothing). Considering your previous claim that you like a challenge, it is quite strange you should need to use an argument that lets you get away with such a low standard of evidence.
Actually, the event I have in mind will put the bar quite high for the resurrection.
The event you have in mind might set the bar high, but your argument does not require it on a technical level. All you have to do is find an event that is taught as historically factual that only has a single semi-credible source and declare your conclusion proved, despite whatever event it was not being detracted from by the half of the historical method your argument lets you ignore. So no matter how high the bar set by whatever event you have, you will always have the option to fall back on a less supported event.

Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:The issue is that you introduced this criteria, specifically "reasons to doubt" and McCullagh's "Argument to the best explanation," AFTER my argument was presented. It appears to be a blatant attempt to shift the goal posts.
Not an attempt to shift goal posts, I just apparently gave you too much credit.
What a strange thing to say considering you were so particular about the specific wording of the question for debate in the first place.
I was specific in the wording to try and keep you from pulling silly tricks. Obviously I have either failed at that, or you really do not understand how flawed your argument is. If it is the latter, then I guess I will have to enlighten you. (I will be doing a case competition all next week and putting together the research to show your premise is faulty may take awhile, so my first counter-argument might take a week or two to pull together. Apologies on the delay, should it occur).
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:You’ve used historical methodology in at least one past debate, so I assumed you had some idea as to what goes into determining whether something is ‘sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence’ that it ‘should be’ taught as ‘literally factual’ in ‘history classes’. I can’t imagine how anyone would not assume using historical methodology is how you would go about arguing this. Not doing so would be like not using the scientific method to prove something is science. It’s absurd.
I'm simply answering the question for debate a different way than that which you are trying to unnecessarily force upon me. I'm assuming that an event already taught as historical in a secular history class has met a sufficient burden of evidentiary support to be considered sufficiently substantiated as to be taught as history. If the resurrection measure up it should be taught as historical as well. This works logically and is in line with the wording of YOUR question for debate. It's not my fault you didn't foresee this when you constructed the question for debate. Whining about it now and moving the goal posts by adding additional criteria to be met, not previously agreed to, smacks of sour grapes. Again, if you would like to start another thread that tackles the actual historicity of the resurrection using a particular historical method we can do that. Is that what you'd rather do?
So your implication is that is something need not have actual historicity to qualify as being something that 'should be' taught in a 'history' class? That's like saying something doesn't have to be scientific to be taught in science. You claim I'm shifting the goal posts. My argument will be that the goal posts are right where they should be and that your attempt is to move them to a foot in front of your face. But by all means, carry on.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Goose

Post #18

Post by Goose »

Chaosborders wrote:Very well. A large portion of my counter-argument will be concentrated on your premise being false, thus your argument unsound.
Now you're cookin' with gas. :thumb:

Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:Actually, the event I have in mind will put the bar quite high for the resurrection.
The event you have in mind might set the bar high, but your argument does not require it on a technical level. All you have to do is find an event that is taught as historically factual that only has a single semi-credible source and declare your conclusion proved, despite whatever event it was not being detracted from by the half of the historical method your argument lets you ignore. So no matter how high the bar set by whatever event you have, you will always have the option to fall back on a less supported event.
False. An event that "only has a single semi-credible source" supporting it would not likely be taught as a "literally factual event." You have, perhaps unwittingly, set the bar quite high in the wording of question for debate by qualifying it as a "literally factual event." In fact, very few events from ancient times would probably rise to the evidentiary burden necessary to be taught as a "literally factual event."

Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:Not an attempt to shift goal posts, I just apparently gave you too much credit.
What a strange thing to say considering you were so particular about the specific wording of the question for debate in the first place.
I was specific in the wording to try and keep you from pulling silly tricks. Obviously I have either failed at that, or you really do not understand how flawed your argument is. If it is the latter, then I guess I will have to enlighten you.
I can't wait to be enlightened.

Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:I'm simply answering the question for debate a different way than that which you are trying to unnecessarily force upon me. I'm assuming that an event already taught as historical in a secular history class has met a sufficient burden of evidentiary support to be considered sufficiently substantiated as to be taught as history. If the resurrection measure up it should be taught as historical as well. This works logically and is in line with the wording of YOUR question for debate. It's not my fault you didn't foresee this when you constructed the question for debate. Whining about it now and moving the goal posts by adding additional criteria to be met, not previously agreed to, smacks of sour grapes. Again, if you would like to start another thread that tackles the actual historicity of the resurrection using a particular historical method we can do that. Is that what you'd rather do?
So your implication is that is something need not have actual historicity to qualify as being something that 'should be' taught in a 'history' class?
I highlighted the implication of my argument in case you missed it.
Chaosborders wrote:That's like saying something doesn't have to be scientific to be taught in science.
Ironically, there are things taught in science classes that are NOT scientific. Such as some aspects of Evolutionary Theory. This all goes back to my first post where I pointed out the fallacious nature of the question for debate.
Chaosborders wrote:You claim I'm shifting the goal posts. My argument will be that the goal posts are right where they should be and that your attempt is to move them to a foot in front of your face.
That won't make my argument unsound.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #19

Post by ChaosBorders »

Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:Very well. A large portion of my counter-argument will be concentrated on your premise being false, thus your argument unsound.
Now you're cookin' with gas. :thumb:
Interesting phrase.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:Actually, the event I have in mind will put the bar quite high for the resurrection.
The event you have in mind might set the bar high, but your argument does not require it on a technical level. All you have to do is find an event that is taught as historically factual that only has a single semi-credible source and declare your conclusion proved, despite whatever event it was not being detracted from by the half of the historical method your argument lets you ignore. So no matter how high the bar set by whatever event you have, you will always have the option to fall back on a less supported event.
False. An event that "only has a single semi-credible source" supporting it would not likely be taught as a "literally factual event." You have, perhaps unwittingly, set the bar quite high in the wording of question for debate by qualifying it as a "literally factual event." In fact, very few events from ancient times would probably rise to the evidentiary burden necessary to be taught as a "literally factual event."
If an ancient historian writes "So and so built a road during so and so's reign" and there isn't any reason, using historical methodology, to dispute that a road was built during 'so and so's reign,' I don't know many who would not consider the building of said road during 'so and so's reign' as not being a 'literally factual event'. When historical methodology that considers plausibility and acts as marks against an event are discarded (as your argument's wording allows you to do) then the burden of evidence really isn't very high if you don't want it to be.

But it is somewhat mollifying to know you are (probably) not intentionally meaning for this argument to have such low standards. I still view it (and will be arguing against it) as such, but it is nice to know that you are not deliberately ushering in an argument you know to be faulty to 'win' through a mixture of technicalities and veiled fallacies (as from my perspective it has until now appeared you were doing). Though you may disagree with my assessment of how little evidence an event really needs (using only the positive side of historical methodology) to be considered 'literally factual', I hope you can now at least appreciate why I have been so vehemently opposed to your argument.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:That's like saying something doesn't have to be scientific to be taught in science.
Ironically, there are things taught in science classes that are NOT scientific. Such as some aspects of Evolutionary Theory.
I probably should have seen this response coming considering who I'm debating against.
Goose wrote: This all goes back to my first post where I pointed out the fallacious nature of the question for debate.
If you really view it as such, you should have pointed that out prior to the debate so that we could work on forming a question we both found satisfactory and free of fallacies.

That being said, I assume we're finally at a point evidence will start being presented? For the sake of keeping track perhaps we should start off each post from here out with "Round #"?
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Goose

Post #20

Post by Goose »

Question for deabte:Can the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes?

In Goose's first post he wrote:I can think of two ways to argue the question for debate. One way would be to find an historical methodology used by secular historians and then run the evidence for the resurrection through that method. If it passes then we could affirm that, yes, the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes.

Because of the way the question is framed I will argue another way. And that is to find an event from around the period of Jesus that is already accepted as sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence. The presumption is that it is sufficiently substantiated, as far as secular history classes are concerned, because it is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event. Then compare the evidence for the resurrection to this event. If the evidence for the resurrection is at least as good then we can say it has met a similar evidentiary burden as an event already accepted and taught as factual. In this case there would be no evidentiary/historical reason to reject the resurrection from being taught as a factual event in secular history classes. Finally, if one were to reject the resurrection from being taught because of lack of evidentiary support, even though the evidentiary support is as good as another already accepted event, then one must also reject the other already accepted historical event as well. If one does not, in this case, then one is commiting a fallacy by applying the criteria unfairly.


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).


*By resurrection I mean returning to life after being dead. I am not making any claims as to the causal agent of Jesus' return to life after being dead.
**By good I mean in terms of a criteria such as, but not limited to,:
  • 1. How early is the evidence after the event in question?
    2. Is it written by eyewitnesses?
    3. Is there multiple attestation to the event?
    4. Is there enemy attestation?


Note: The phrasing of the question by Chaosborders makes it difficult to use the Bible as he has specifically narrowed it down to secular history classes. There is religious baggage associated with the Bible and thus it would be difficult to allow it into a secular history class. Especially amongst those that a priori do not accept the Bible as containing history. Also, it makes it more challenging for me to not refer to the Bible. And I like a challenge. For these reasons above I will not refer to the Bible as a source in my argument.
Despite Chaosborders lengthy complaints over the last two pages about how I have not chosen to argue the way he thinks I should, Argument (A) is valid. The only remaining issue is that of soundness. If the argument is valid and the premises of argument (A) can be shown to be true, then the argument is sound. If the argument is sound Chaosborders is obligated, logically, to accept the conclusion as true.

The following is the evidentiary support for establishing the truth of - 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. - in argument (A).

Let's look at Julius Caesar's assassination in 44 BC. This event is taught in secular history as a literally factual event. Therefore, this event must be considered sufficiently substantiated, as far as history classes are concerned, using historical evidence. Let's look at the evidence.


The first written account of Julius Caesar's assassination is by Nicolaus of Damascus in Life of Augustus (c. 14 AD) where he writes:
Meanwhile the assassins were making ready...[Caesar] fell, under many wounds, before the statue of Pompey, and there was not one of them but struck him as he lay lifeless, to show that each of them had had a share in the deed, until he had received thirty-five wounds, and breathed his last.(ch. 24)
The next written account affirming the assassination is found in Parallel Lives (c. 70 AD) by Plutarch:
And the pedestal was drenched with [Caesar's] blood, so that one might have thought that Pompey himself was presiding over this vengeance upon his enemy, who now lay prostrate at his feet, quivering from a multitude of wounds. For it is said that he received twenty-three; and many of the conspirators were wounded by one another, as they struggled to plant all those blows in one body. (ch. 66)
The third written account affirming the assassination is found in The Twelve Caesars (c. 120 AD) by Suetonius:
All the conspirators made off, and [Caesar] lay there lifeless for some time, and finally three common slaves put him on a litter and carried him home, with one arm hanging down. And of so many wounds none turned out to be mortal, in the opinion of the physician Antistius, except the second one in the breast.
The criteria for good in argument (A) was:
  • 1. How early is the evidence after the event in question?
    2. Is it written by eyewitnesses?
    3. Is there multiple attestation to the event?
    4. Is there enemy attestation?
Let's see how the assassination of Julius Caesar fairs.

For criterion 1: The earliest written account from Nicolaus of Damascus comes approximately 60 years after the assassination of Caesar. The next written account by Plutarch comes approximately 114 years after the assassination. The third written account by Suetonius comes approximately 164 years after the assassination.
For criterion 2: No. We have no extant eyewitness testimony of Caesar's assassination.
For criterion 3: Yes. The assassination of Julius Caesar is multiply attested.
For criterion 4: No. I'm not aware of enemy attestation as all the early sources are Roman.

Now for the resurrection of Jesus. Let's look at some non-Biblical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus to see how it measures up to the assassination of Caesar in regards to evidentiary support.

Clement in his first letter to the church in Corinth (1 Clement c. 95AD) writes:
Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.(ch. 24)

Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost.(ch. 42)
In Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (c. 110AD) he writes:
...our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] ‘whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave.’(ch. 1)

...‘believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead...But He who raised [Jesus] up from the dead will raise up us also...(ch. 2)

For they loved not this present world, but [Jesus] who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.(ch. 9)

..our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who ‘raised Him from the dead.’(ch. 12)

In Ignatius’ letter to the Trallians (c. 110AD) he writes:
Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead...(ch. 9)

Further, Tacitus, who could be seen as an enemy source, in his Annals(c. 116AD) writes:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.(bk. 15)
We shouldn't expect Tacitus to affirm the resurrection of Jesus. However, here Tacitus is providing us evidence that the Christian movement was squelched with Jesus' execution. But then, for some reason, it broke out again in Judea where it all started and spread despite the persecution that ensued.

The criteria for good in argument (A) was:
  • 1. How early is the evidence after the event in question?
    2. Is it written by eyewitnesses?
    3. Is there multiple attestation to the event?
    4. Is there enemy attestation?
Let's see how the evidentiary support for the resurrection of Jesus measures up to the assassination of Julius Caesar.

For criterion 1: The earliest written account affirming the resurrection outside of the NT comes from Clement (c. 95AD) and is approximately 60 years after the resurrection - similar to Caesar's assassination. There are also two further accounts affirming the resurrection of Jesus from Polycarp and Ignatius that are within 100 years of the resurrection. Polycarp and Ignatius accounts of the resurrection are at least as early, if not earlier, than the accounts of Plutarch and Suetonius for Caesar's assassination.
For criterion 2: No. Excluding any writing contained in the New Testament(NT) we have no extant eyewitness testimony of the resurrection - just like Caesar's assassination.
For criterion 3: Yes. The resurrection is multiply attested - like Caesar's assassination.
For criterion 4: Possibly. It could be argued we have tacit indirect attestation from Tacitus that at least something significant happened after Jesus' death. Significant enough to be a catalyst for the Christian movement to return and spread despite persecution.

Summary: In these respects the historical evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for the assassination of Julius Caesar that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event. 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.

Post Reply