This is the article that I will be presenting to the FRDB. Look it over, and let me know if I need to make any corrections.
jdm
McDonald's First Affirmative
Introductory Matters
As we begin the second debate on the resurrection I wish to express my appreciation to the moderators of the FRDB for allowing us to use this avenue to discuss this important issue. I also wish to express my appreciation to my opponent for agreeing to meet me a second time on this issue.
I do hope that my opponent tries to stay with the issue this time rather than trying to strike out on his own. He needs to remember that he is in the negative and as such he is supposed to answer the arguments that I give. He may give negative arguments, but only after responding to my affirmative ones. He seemed to have been unaware of his position in our last debate. However, in this debate we are going to be dealing with the subject as he wanted to deal with it last time, and I hope he stays with the issue this time. I offered to take the negative and let him take the affirmative, but he refused. So he is in the negative by his own choice, so I implore him to perform his duties as the negative writer and answer the arguments that I have given. The following is for a different debating format (team debating) than what we are doing, but you will see that the rules are essentially the same:
“The 1sT Negative's Duties
12 March 2005
Constructive Speech
Introduction
A. Briefly recognize chairman, judge, audience, et al.
B. State what you will do during this speech
Body
A. Present a point-by-point attack of affirmative's case (establishing need or defining terms)
B. Defend status quo (or propose alternative definitions)
Conclusion
A. Present a short summary of negative case, stressing arguments you believe are conclusive
B. Make a strong plea for the rejection of the Proposition
Rebuttal
Introduction
A. Point out areas of contention you think your team has won because affirmative has not contested them
B. Point out where the affirmative team has changed their position or has shifted ground
C. State the major areas of the debate which still hang in the balance
Body
A. Answer informative questions which have been asked by affirmative
B. Point out how your objections to needs issues (or definitions) still stand
C. Point out how your objections to the plan (or veracity of the Proposition) still stand
D. Present a point-by-point summary of debate to this point, emphasizing areas in which you believe negative team has stronger position
Conclusion
A. Present summary of negative position
B. Point out strengths of negative position as compared with affirmative team
C. Conclude with very strong appeal for rejection of affirmative resolution
During Refutation
Quote argument of opponent
Tell what you are going to do with it
Refute argument with evidence
Point out what you have done and how it helps your cause
(
http://www.jcu.edu/Bible/AcademicExcell ... gative.htm)
Now this should give Spencer an idea as to what his responsibility is as the negative participant in the debate. He is to present a point-by-point attack of affirmative's case. This means he is supposed to attack each argument, not go off on some tangent and produce negative arguments while leaving the affirmative arguments uncontested. After dealing with the affirmant's arguments, he certainly has every right to present negative arguments, and I would be the last person to complain about such. My complaint in the last debate was his lack of response to my affirmative arguments. So it is my hope that he will function better in the negative position this time than he did in the last debate.
The proposition reads as follows: “Resolved: God raised Jesus Christ from the dead by supernatural power.” In the last debate I affirmed that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. In my affirmation I used the normal argumentation in favor of the resurrection. Mr. Lo introduced a line of argumentation that I was not familiar with; as a matter of fact one that I had never heard of. He did not deny the resurrection, but argued that if Jesus rose from the dead that he rose from the dead naturally rather than supernaturally. Therefore in this debate, it will be my responsibility to show that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead by supernatural power. We will look at the kind of argumentation that Mr. Lo presented in the last debate and we will look and see if natural resurrection is what happened.
It is necessary for me, as the affirmant, to define the proposition and so I shall do so as I did the last time.
By the word “Resolved:” I mean “5 : to reach a firm decision about <resolve to get more sleep> <resolve disputed points in a text>” (
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved). The intransitive verb would be “determine” (Ibid).
By “God” I mean the first person in the Godhead otherwise known as the Father.
By “raised Jesus Christ from the dead”, I mean that the Father raised the second person of the Godhead, otherwise known as the Son (also known as the Word—Jn. 1:1-3,14) from the dead. I maintain, as I did in the previous debate that Jesus was dead, that he was not in a near death condition and merely resuscitated. He was dead and had been embalmed and buried (entombed). Thus it was not possible that God merely resuscitated him from a near death condition. If he raised him, he raised him from the dead.
By “supernatural means” I mean “a force that would supersede the laws of nature, which is above and beyond the laws of nature.”
In other words, my proposition is stating that the first person in the Godhead, known as the Father raised the second person of the Godhead, known as the Son from the dead, after he had been dead and buried, by a force that superseded the physical laws of nature.
Discussion
As I did in the first debate, I will present one main argument. It is called the “Constituent Element” argument. This argument simply says if all the elements are factual then the whole is true. There is no doubt about this principle, but my task will be to prove that all of my elements (the constituent elements) are all factual. When I do that, then I will prove that the total situation which is described by my proposition is a total situation which is true.
The Argument
Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true.
Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.
Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true.
This argument is valid because it is in a valid form and the conclusion automatically follows from the premise. However, validity alone does not make the argument true. In order for the argument to be true, it must also be sound. That is that minor premise must be true: “The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.” In other words, I must prove my minor premise in order to prove my argument and then prove my proposition. So, is my minor premise true? This is the question that we will be spending the rest of the debate looking at. When I prove my minor premise, I will have a sound argument, and I will have proven my proposition.
Before we get into this we want to look at the law of rationality. Regarding that law, David Miller wrote: “That, in fact, is the essentiality of what is known in philosophical circles as the basic law of rationality: one should draw only such conclusions as are justified by the evidence” (
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1963).
Therefore, when we look at a position, we should look at it rationally, and draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence. We can look at all kinds of possibilities. We can say that all kinds of things are possible, but does the evidence warrant such a conclusion? That is the question that we need to be looking at. In our last debate Mr. Lo seemed to think that because there was a possibility that in 800,000+ years from now scientists might find out that Jesus rose naturally from the dead that this some how defeated my proposition. In actuality my proposition was dealing with what we knew about history as it specified “historical.” However, even with the slight possibility, we have to look at the law of rationality. Where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence lead us to conclude that Jesus rose naturally? Is there any evidence at all that Jesus could have been raised naturally? Science tells us that when something is dead, it is dead and there is no natural means whatever that it is going to come back to life. Therefore the only way that it could come back is for natural law to be “set aside” and be “superceded,” thus “supernatural” resurrection. Now the proposition demands that I do two things: (1) it demands that I prove that the resurrection happened supernaturally, and (2) it demands that I prove that God performed the resurrection. So let us begin.
ELEMENT NUMBER ONE
The Resurrection was by Supernatural Means.
ARGUMENT #1 :(SRA) Supernatural Resurrection Argument.
Major Premise: If we cannot properly infer from the fact that, if an event (resurrection) is inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science, then that event will probably not be consistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science. Thus if the event happened it would have to have been by supernatural means.
Minor Premise: We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if an event (resurrection) is inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science, then that even will probably not be consistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science.
Conclusion: Therefore if the event (resurrection) happened it would have to have been by supernatural means.
This argument plainly states that if we cannot understand from the physical laws of our current science that the resurrection happened naturally, (and in fact that it would have had to have happened supernaturally) then this is what we are going to find out from the future state of science. Again Mr. Lo made a lot to do about what scientists might possibly find out in 800,000+ years from now, but from what we know of the physical laws in the universe things won't be that much different. The dead won't be rising naturally then any more than the dead naturally rises today. If it takes a supernatural force today, then it will take a supernatural force in 800,000+ years, and if so then it took a supernatural force 2,000 years ago and this is what scientists will find in 800,000+ years.
ARGUMENT #2: FSCS (Inferring Future Science from Current Science).
Major Premise: If we are not able to properly infer the future state of science from the current state of science, then we will not be able to properly infer the future state of science.
Minor Premise: We can properly infer the future state of science from the current science.
Conclusion: Therefore we will be able to properly infer the future state of science
Now what this tells us is that we can only infer any future state of science from our current state of science, because there is no other basis from which science can be inferred. Therefore, if current science shows that natural resurrection is impossible, then it is in all likelihood that future science will show the same, and if future science shows that natural resurrection is impossible and if resurrection happened, then I am justified in arguing that the resurrection happened by supernatural means.
ELEMENT NUMBER TWO:
God Is The One Who Caused The Resurrection.
With SRA we can see that I am justified in claiming that if the resurrection happened that it would have had to have happened by supernatural means. Now in our last debate Spencer came up with his RDA argument which assumed that unless it couldn't be shown that natural resurrection couldn't be possible then we should assume it to be true without argument. I don't know if he plans on bringing up the argument again or not, but he already knows what I think of the argument so I hope that he would at least reword it. In any case SRA should be sufficient to deal with RDA or anything else that he decides to bring up.
Now in looking at the second demand that is laid upon me I wish to focus your attention upon the idea as to who would be able to supersede the laws of nature. The word “supersede” means:
“Main Entry: su•per•sede Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈsēd\ Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): su•per•sed•ed; su•per•sed•ing Etymology: Middle English (Scots) superceden to defer, from Middle French, from Latin supersedēre to sit on top, refrain from, from super- + sedēre to sit — more at sit Date: 1654 1 a : to cause to be set aside b : to force out of use as inferior 2 : to take the place or position of 3 : to displace in favor of another synonyms see replace— su•per•sed•er noun” (
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supersede)
The word supersede means to cause to be set aside, to force out of use as inferior, to take the place of or position of, or to displace in favor of another. Now again, according to current science, every creature in the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Now while some, from a different planet, might be stronger than those on earth they would still be subject to the laws of nature. In other words once something is dead, according to nature, it is dead. We are not talking about having one's heart quit beating.
Something like this happened to me not more than a month ago. I went into the hospital complaining of chest pains. They decided to do a chemical stress test on my heart using Adenozine. What they didn't know, what no one knew until they got the Adenozine in me, was that my heart was sensitive to Adenozine and it almost stopped my heart. Now I have a new allergy to put on my list of no no's, Adenozine. I blacked out, and I thought I was gone, but they revived me. That is not what we are talking about. We are not even talking about where people's hearts have actually quit beating for several minutes and have been revived. We are talking about someone who was crucified, stabbed through the side, embalmed, and buried for three days and then he arose. He was dead, no chance of him being revived or resuscitated, he was dead.
So for Spencer to come along and say that aliens did it, well, it isn't good enough. Yes, it is theoretically possible that aliens might exist, and it is theoretically possible that aliens might have naturally raised Jesus from the dead, but, as an acquaintance recently pointed out to me “it's also theoretically possible that the moon will ice over if the 2nd law spontaneously reverses!” But is that what the evidence warrants? I don't think so! Again, we are have to live our lives by what the evidence warrants, not by all the little theoretical possibilities that the mind of man can conceive. Rich DeVos and Jay Van Andel (the founders of AMWAY) used to say that “Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve,” and I used to think that this was so profound until I heard Thomas Warren speak at the 1981 Spiritual Sword Lectureship about that phrase and he said that the mind of man can conceive and believe all it wants that man can jump off of a 100 foot cliff and believe that he will fly like a bird, but if he doesn't have wings of some kind, gravity is going to win out in the end. And I though “So much for the profound wisdom of DeVos and Van Andel!” We can think up all kinds of theoretical possibilities, but does the evidence warrant them? That's a different story altogether.
So what is it going to take, then, to set aside the laws of nature? It will take a force much more powerful than the laws themselves. The only force that I can contemplate more powerful than the laws of nature is the creator of those laws: God. God is not a caused being, he is not a created being, and he is not a contingent being. In other words he didn't have a cause, or a creator, and his existence is not contingent upon anyone or anything. He is a necessary being, he must necessarily exist, for without him nothing would exist. He had no beginning and he has no end. He just is, which is why, in referring to himself he tells Moses “I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Exo 3:14). The Israelites knew exactly what that meant. They knew that it was a reference to the timeless eternal God. God exists outside of time and space as Peter states: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2Pe 3:8). The Bible also states that he is the creator of all “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). So being timeless, and existing outside time and space, as well as being the creator of all, God is the only one who would be able to supersede the laws of nature so as to raise Christ from the dead.
ARGUMENT #1 CFE>ST=G (Force Existing Outside Space and Time, and is the Creator of all is God).
Major Premise: Only a force existing outside of time and space, as well as being the creator of all would be able to supersede the laws of nature and raise the dead.
Minor Premise: God is the only force that exists outside of time and space as well as being the creator of all.
Conclusion: Therefore God would be the only force that would be able to supercede the laws of nature and raise the dead.
This syllogism is a categorical syllogism. This argument is valid because if the premises (major and minor) are true, then the conclusion will automatically follow. The question is, “Are the Premises true?” This is what we have to look at. Mr. Lo has argued, in the previous debate, that natural resurrection is possible when he argued the case that (a) either Jesus was an extra-terrestrial and was able to raise himself by purely natural means, or (b) the angels were extra-terrestrials and they raised Jesus by purely natural means. We remember Mr. Lo's argument about what scientists might find out in 800,000+ years from now. We also remember how I brought up Occam's Razor to show that it is:
“a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities” (
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 7s%20Razor).
Now the question that we have to ask ourselves is this “Which explanation requires the simplest theories (a) that Jesus was an extra-terrestrial and/or was raised by angels who were actually extra-terrestrials by purely natural means, or (b) Jesus was who he said he was—the Son of God and was raised by the supernatural power of God? Well, when you get into the extra-terrestrial debate you get into all kinds of weird stuff, just like the “Elvis Is Alive” debate. Elvis Presley has been dead since the late 70's, I was in the Philippines (in the Navy) when he died, yet people have seen him time and again. They have talked to him on the phone. Who is to say that they are dishonest people. Well, you know our government looks for extra-terrestrials; that is what SETI is all about. Yeah, our government spends money on all sorts of things, except where it should be spending money. Government involvement in the search for extra-terrestrials (as Shania Twain says) “that don't impress me much.”
We need to remember the law of rationality? Thomas Warren wrote:
“The law of rationality says that men should draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence, or , as Lionel Ruby put it, 'We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence.' To say that evidence is adequate is to say that it is relevant to and/or sufficient to warrant the conclusion to which it is directed” (Logic and the Bible, p. 14).
In other words we cannot just say, well “the aliens did it” and let it go at that. If that is going to be Spencer's argument in this debate, then let him give some sort of proof that the “aliens did it.” Otherwise I shall go on with the more sensible position—the one that the majority of evidence warrants. That is that God raised Jesus from the dead using supernatural power. Now for those who wish to go to the other debate to see the evidence that I have given in favor of the resurrection the link is as follows
http://www.challenge2.org/coverres.pdf. The entire debate is there, just follow the links to each section. We will not be getting back into that part of it in this debate. In this debate we will be dealing with the logical and philosophical aspect of the subject.
ARGUMENT #2 HAG (Historian's Access to God).
Major Premise: Since the subject of the resurrection is a theological conclusion and not a historical one, then historians don't have access to God and cannot say that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Minor Premise: But since historians have no access to God they cannot not say that God did not raise Jesus from the dead.
Conclusion: Therefore, historians cannot claim that the resurrection is a theological conclusion and not a historical one.
This argument is a Modus Tollens syllogism or a syllogism that denies the antecedent. It is also sometimes called a disjunctive syllogism. The idea that skeptics claim that the resurrection is strictly a theological conclusion rather than a historical is self defeating because if historians have no access to God then they have no way of saying that God did not raise Christ from the dead. They also have no way of saying that God did not raise Christ from the dead using supernatural means. So in order for Spencer to say (if he does) that God didn't raise Jesus from the dead, he is going to have to admit that historians have access to God and therefore the resurrection is an historic event, not just a theological one.
While posting on the Theologyweb Spencer made the following statement: “There's no "scientific consensus" that people can't naturally rise from the dead. Here's an interesting quote from physicist Victor Stenger: 'Physics does not forbid a human from growing younger or the dead rising!'
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html” (
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showt ... 358&page=6).
Now while Stenger did make that statement Spencer didn't give the whole story of why Stenger said what he said. So here are some quotations from that article:
“To understand this, we first have to recognize the prejudice that is built into the whole concept of physical law. When Newton developed mechanics and gravity, the Judeo-Christian notion of God-given law was already deeply engraved in his thinking, by his culture. Even today, science is interpreted by public, media, and scientists alike as the process of learning the "mind of God."[1]
However, the laws of physics, at least in their formal expressions, are no less human inventions than the laws by which we govern ourselves. They represent our imperfect attempts at economical and useful descriptions of the observations we make with our senses and instruments. This is not to say we subjectively determine how the universe behaves, or that it has no orderly behavior. Few scientists deny that an objective, ordered reality exists that is independent of human life and experience. We simply have to recognize that the concept of "natural law" carries with it certain metaphysical baggage that is tied to our traditional, pre-scientific modes of thought. We are going a step beyond logic to conclude that the existence in the universe of order, which we conventionally label as the laws of nature, implies a cosmic lawgiver.
We are gradually learning that several of the laws of physics, those that seem the most universal and profound, are in fact little more than statements about the simplicity of nature that can almost go unsaid. The "laws" of energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation have been shown to be statements about the homogeneity of space and time. The first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, results from there being no unique moment in time.[2] Conservation of momentum follows from the Copernican principle that there is no preferred position in space. Other conservation laws, such as charge and nucleon number, also arise from analogous assumptions of simplicity….
By an equally simple but somewhat different argument, the second law of thermodynamics is found not to be some underlying principle of the universe, but rather an arbitrary convention we humans make in defining the direction of time. Nothing in known fundamental physics forbids the violation of the second law. No mechanical principle prevents the air emptying from a room when you open the door, killing everyone inside. Physics does not forbid a human from growing younger or the dead rising! All that has to happen for these "miraculous" events is that the molecules involved are accidentally moving in the right direction at the right instant. Of course these miracles are not observed to happen except in fantasies, but only because they are so highly unlikely.
We introduce the second "law" to codify what all of human experience testifies, that air does not empty from a room, people do not grow younger, and the dead do not rise. But these events are not impossible, just highly improbable. Influenced, like Newton, by our culture, we falsely state that these unlikely events cannot happen because the second law "forbids" them from doing so” (
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html).
So when you get down to it, Stenger is saying that the laws of physics are just thoughts in our minds, from our experience and influence. Newton was influenced by his Judeo-Christian God belief and today scientists are still influenced by a belief in the supernatural. So that influences us to make up some law. This is why Stenger could say that “Nothing in known fundamental physics forbids the violation of the second law. No mechanical principle prevents the air emptying from a room when you open the door, killing everyone inside.” Now why doesn't it do it then? If there's no mechanical principle which prevents it why doesn't it happen? Why don't people grow younger? Why don't the dead rise naturally? Why? Because these laws are not just human thoughts. The law of gravity is a real law. It actually exists, and if you don't believe in it, jump off the Empire State Building without a parachute, and see what happens! I believe gravity will have its way, don't you? The second law of thermodynamics prevents people from growing younger, and it prevents the dead from rising naturally. Once a person is dead, he stays dead unless, someone (God) outside time and space can supersede the laws of physics (nature) and force life back into the body like God did to Jesus Christ; supernaturally.
There was nothing natural about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When he was on earth in the form of a servant (Phil. 2:5-8), he was subject to the second law of thermodynamics, and when he died, he would have stayed dead unless God raised supernaturally from the dead. There were no “aliens” involved from a distant planet. The idea that the laws of physics are just thoughts in our minds is absurd. They are actual laws and they can be violated. This is just as absurd as the angels being extra-terrestrials and/or Jesus being an extra-terrestrial and being raised from the dead by natural means.
My proposition demanded that I do two things (1) prove that the resurrection would have been by supernatural power and (2) that God would have been the one who did it. I believe that I have fulfilled both of those obligations. However, I am sure that Spencer will have much to say about it in his first rebuttal, so I urge you to now pay close attention to him.
Question: Must we draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence? Yes or No.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry McDonald
