"But nobody denied it at the time!"

[abaddon]

@fta, I looked for the article you wanted and not only couldn't find it but couldn't find ANY theists making the argument "The Resurrection must have happened because nobody denied it at the time!" Granted I didn't spend hours on it and can have missed something. So, I wonder, can you find a link to ANY theist saying that?

I offered a guess at what the argument might actually have been. You skipped over that.

Maybe the theist you spoke with was the one mis-remembering the argument. But what's presented in the OP is weird and so I'm having doubts there's an article rebutting it. Maybe you couldn't find the article because the search should rightly have been for another argument. Maybe the argument that I suggested? I found a lot of arguments to that effect, while looking for your article for you -- namely the argument that apostles about to be martyred would recant if they didn't physically witness the resurrection.

 

[Janice Rael]

I am right and I would rather be right than happy; therefore the

I am waiting for this to be eviscerated; come on, you folks are too kind. No, just one.


It's a non sequitur; it does not follow. Right? My whatever I think I am is absolutely never a therefore to anything beyond my own ridiculous nonsense. I can't say that "I am" "___" it's a self-ad-hom no, that's made up.

Oh, everything's made up, literally everything's made up, like the words I'm singing...


Oh what am I talking about while I am not talking I am typing?

​

Non sequitur​

A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren’t logically connected with it. For example:

“Since Egyptians did so much excavation to construct the pyramids, they were well versed in paleontology.”

(Non sequiturs are an important ingredient in a lot of humor. They’re still fallacies, though.)


Um. What is the OP and/or my replies?

Petitio principii (Begging the question)​

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form. For example:

“The Bible is the word of God. The word of God cannot be doubted, and the Bible states that the Bible is true. Therefore the Bible must be true.

Begging the question is similar to circulus in demonstrando, where the conclusion is exactly the same as the premise.

It's... it is on this site, the same link I shared in my earlier on-topic post.

Constructing a Logical Argument » Internet Infidels

Logic & Fallacies Constructing a Logical Argument (1997) mathew [ Español / Spanish ] Introduction There is a lot of debate on the net. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of logical reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall...

infidels.org

 

[fta]

*sigh* I never said the article in question was on the Secular Web. It could have been in a hard-copy book like "The Empty Tomb" or "Not the Impossible Faith", which members of this forum are likely to be familiar with. I don't appreciate being accused of making things up, which is why I've blocked Janice. The moderators may wish to remind her of Rule 7.

In fact the argument that "Nobody disputed the Resurrection at the time" is closely related to the argument that "Why didn't the Jews and Romans just produce the corpse of Jesus to refute the Resurrection?". You can read a version of that argument on pp.87-88 of this apologetical work. I am looking for responses to that sort of argument, if that makes sense.

 

[Janice Rael]

This is hardly "ignore." Perhaps the laws of ignore cease to exist on your TOU.

If I am wrong that the OP is a circular argument, can anyone who does not have me on ignore please show me where on the same link or another my own logical fallacies are, as well as that stated by the opening post? Thanks.

 

[abaddon]

If I am wrong that the OP is a circular argument, can anyone who does not have me on ignore please show me where on the same link or another my own logical fallacies are, as well as that stated by the opening post? Thanks.

The OP is a question so I don't see circularity in it. It's just a dude asking for a little assistance.

I don't think it's circular when the christian (not the OP, but the christian) argues someone should have been able to throw a body at the apostle's feet if Jesus didn't resurrect. The christian(s) are trying to compensate what the bible-narrative lacks, wishing to appeal to what "eye witnesses" did or didn't say and confabulating new narratives to do it.

For my part, I just wondered if @fta mis-remembered the argument and that's why it's hard to find an article. I was curious "who argues this shit?" But it should have been clear to me, the answer is it's people into arcane stuff that I'm not deep enough into to be commenting on. So I fucked up getting into a topic that I don't know enough about so I'm going to bow out.

So now, since I got into it and helped a derail, I'm saying I hope the OP can get assistance with his request and not be attacked further.

 

[Janice Rael]

How is it an attack to just reply with a few references to Mona Lisa Vito's epic 1992 testimony?