A GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE (3b) IS FALSE
In Part 9 of this series, I proposed the initial evaluation that premise (3b) is false. I argued that (3b) is false because it is a conditional statement and the first part of the conditional (the antecedent) does not logically imply the second part of the conditional (the consequent).
However, because Craig has provided a sub-argument in support of premise (3b), we should consider that argument before making a final determination about whether (3b) is true or false. If his sub-argument fails to provide a good reason to believe that (3b) is true, then we should conclude that (3b) is false on the basis of my initial evaluation, which gives us a good reason to believe (3b) is false.
THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (3b)
Here is Craig's sub-argument in support of premise (3b):
1b. IF Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be shown to be implausible, THEN IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate, THEN the best explanation for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate is the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
2a. Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be shown to be implausible.
A. A historical claim C is an established historical fact IF AND ONLY IF historical claim C can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence.
THEREFORE:
3b. IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate, THEN the best explanation for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate is the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
Because (3b) talks about "established historical facts" while premise (1b) and premise (2a) talk about "historical claims", I previously introduced premise (A) in order to bridge the logical gap between the premises of this sub-argument and the conclusion of this sub-argument.
Also, because (3b) talks about "the best explanation" for a specific collection of historical data, while premise (1a) talks about "the preffered explanation", I modified premise (1a), so that version (1b) uses the same terminology as (3b), and now talks about "the best explanation". I assume that these are just two alternative expressions that Craig uses that have the same meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment