Definitions:
God = A being whose existence necessitates that all facts given in the Bible are true.
Ray Comfort = A rational person.
Atheist = One who does not believe that God exists.
Proposition A = Jesus was born in, or prior to, the year 4 B.C.
Proposition B = Jesus was born in the year 6 A.D.
Premises:
(1) If rational person P believes that entity Q exists, then P believes that all propositions entailed by Q's existence are true.
(2) A rational person does not believe that two logically contradictory propositions are both true.
(3) The existence of God entails that propositions A and B are both true.
(4) Propositions A and B logically contradict one another.
Conclusions:
(5) If Ray Comfort believes that God exists, then Ray believes that all propositions entailed by God's existence are true. (from 1)
(6) If Ray Comfort believes that God exists, then Ray believes that propositions A and B are both true. (from 3 and 5)
(7) Ray Comfort does not believe that propositions A and B are both true. (from 2 and 4)
(8) Therefore...
Ray Comfort is an atheist.
Possible Objection: God's existence does not entail the truth of proposition A.
Response: God's existence entails the truth of the Bible. The Bible states that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. King Herod died in 4 B.C.
Possible Objection: God's existence does not entail the truth of proposition B.
Response: God's existence entails the truth of the Bible. The Bible states that Jesus was born during a census prompted by a taxation made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. This census occurred in 6 A.D.
Possible Objection: There are definitions of God (and therefore of atheism) which do not entail the inerrancy of the Bible.
Response: If Ray Comfort wishes to define God in such a way, thereby negating every Biblically-supported argument he has ever made, I will concede the argument.
Possible Objection: A rational person need not believe a proposition entailed by Q's existence in order to believe that Q exists.
Response: The logical law of modus tolens entails that the falsehood of that proposition entails the nonexistence of Q; such a person would thus find himself in the position of believing that Q exists and does not exist, and there would therefore not be rational.
Possible Objection: Ray Comfort is not a rational person.
Response: If Ray wishes to make this objection, thereby negating every rational-sounding utterance he has ever made, then once again, I will concede the argument.
Possible Objection: A person might not be aware that Q's existence entails a particular proposition; such a person would thus be unaware that it contradicts any other proposition. There's no reason to think that such a person could not be rational and still believe in Q's existence.
Response: Although I think the issue is debatable, I will stipulate that 6 follows from 3 and 5 only if Ray Comfort is aware that 3 is true. If he wasn't already aware of 3 -- which I seriously doubt -- then he will be so upon reading this post.
Possible Objection: Although the Bible may appear to entail both A and B at first blush, perhaps it only entails one of them (at most) due to historical factors of which we are presently unaware.
Response: That possibility has been considered and rejected by historians.
Possible Objection: Ray Comfort may not agree with the findings of historians.
Response: If he has rational grounds for doing so, then let him present them; if they turn out to be valid, then I will concede the argument as stated. I will then rephrase the argument to invoke one of hundreds of other Biblical contradictions I have waiting in the wings.
Possible Objection: Ray Comfort may disagree with the historians' findings on grounds which are not rational, or which are logically fallacious.
Response: If he does so, and nonetheless maintains that he is correct and the historians are not, then this objection is tantamount to the objection that Ray Comfort is not a rational person -- see above.
Possible Objection: Ray Comfort may disagree with the historians' findings on non-rational or fallacious grounds, but actively deny that his grounds are irrational or fallacious, or that he himself is thereby irrational.
Response: Any hypocrisy on Ray's part is his problem, not mine.
Possible Objection: Turn or burn!
Resopnse: I accept your surrender.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.