Theism.net
Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Meet Professor Cavin
Science Philosopher
Dr. Robert Greg Cavin
Master of Arts and Doctorate
from UC Irvine under Nelson Pike
Masters Degree in Theology from
Fuller Seminary
Bachelor of Arts in Religion
from USC
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date:
Dear Sir,
Your website contains three
major errors regarding my debate with Craig.
First, I did not
"confess" that it is impossible that the disciples -- even the 500+ --
hallucinated. I argued, rather, that
mass hallucinations are wildly improbable.
Second, contrary to your assertion, I do not accept my position -- the
Twin Theory -- on faith. It can be shown
that the probability that God would supernaturally raise Jesus from the dead
(in any form whatever) is astronomically improbable -- so fantastically
improbable that the universe would run out of time waiting for God to bring the
event about. (Of course, a naturalistic resurrection produced scientifically by
use of a "Christenstein Machine" is an
entirely different matter!) The proof follows from well-established theological
and scientific principles; it is in no way based on faith. Although the
Hallucination Theory of, e.g., Ludemann is, as I say,
wildly improbable, it is easy to show that this theory
is still orders of orders of magnitude more likely than a supernatural
resurrection from the dead. Third, it is no "miracle" -- to use the
word you used -- that Jesus had an unknown identical twin who faked the resurrection.
That there was such a twin is the best explanation for the facts of (1) the
empty tomb, (2) the appearances of "the risen Christ," and (3) the
origin of the
Robert Greg Cavin
P.S.: For my argument that there is insufficient
historical evidence to establish the resurrection, see my article in
"Faith & Philosophy" (1995).
Dear Professor,
This is to
acknowledge receipt of your mail. I much appreciate your taking the time to
present your concerns. I shall revisit the debate and take notes regarding my
claims and your concerns about them. Later, I'll copy you on revisions, deletions,
corrections, comments, etc.
With your
permission, I wish to add your e-mail to my site's E-Mail MailBag
pages, for I expect these are comments you'd like for my readers to be aware
of. If this is acceptable, please advise me as to whether you'd like your
e-mail address included.
Respectfully,
G. Zeineldé Jordan
[Dr. Cavin declined the e-mail MailBag
at that time]
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date:
Dear Mr.
I checked your website
today, and found the same misleading statements about my argument against the
resurrection that were there the last time we communicated -- namely:
Science philosopher and debater Robert Greg Cavin conceded in his debate with William Lane Craig
(available at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/) that: 1) Christ
existed, faced crucifixion, there is no body, and 2) The disciples saw
something they believed to be Jesus after the crucifixion at different times
and in different places. Cavin point-blankly
confessed that it seems impossible they mass hallucinated but he must cling to
belief in such a miracle to reject another miracle of a resurrected Christ.
Clearly, he accepts his position on faith.
Martin, as did Cavin,
rejected science-based faith when finding its conclusions unfavorable to their
belief systems.
Your argument in these
passages appears to be:
1. Cavin confesses
that it seems impossible that the followers of Jesus had mass hallucinations.
2. Cavin must cling to
belief in the miracle of mass hallucination in order to reject the miracle of
the resurrection of Christ.
Therefore:
3. Cavin clearly
accepts his position on faith.
Your first premise is false. My view has never been that it is impossible
for 500 plus individuals to have the same hallucination. My view, rather, has
always been that it is fantastically improbable that 500 plus individuals had
the same mass hallucination. There is a qualitative logical distinction between
impossibility and fantastic improbability -- and this distinction radically
alters the logical form of the argument.
Your second premise is not
only false but also a case of strawman fallacy. First, I don't accept the theory of mass
hallucinations, and never have. Please
do not continue to say that I do.
Second, by saying that I "must" accept this theory in order to
reject the resurrection you are guilty of the strawman
fallacy -- (grossly) distorting my actual argument in order to make your own
argument look better. One can easily reject the resurrection without accepting
the theory of mass hallucinations. How?
Although mass hallucinations are fantastically improbable, resurrection
from the dead is even astronomically more improbable. Therefore, not only must
one reject mass hallucinations, but a fortiori, one must the resurrection. (Perhaps you and Craig think that just
because one theory is improbable, another theory is automatically probable --
but, if you do, you are simply mistaken.) By omitting this key point in my
debate with Craig from your website, you distort my argument, and mislead your
readers. What's the point in that?
Your conclusion -- that I
accept my view on faith -- is a clear nonsequitur (it
follows neither deductively nor inductively from your two premises), and, once
again, a (gross) distortion of my position.
First, I am an advocate of the Twin Theory -- not the
theory of mass hallucinations nor Craig's silly "Dave
Theory." Second, I spent over 50 pages
(pp. 314 - 355) of my doctoral dissertation proving the theory. That's hardly acceptance by
"faith." Moreover, my article,
"Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence To
Establish The Resurrection Of Jesus?" (Faith & Philosophy, July, 1995)
shows that even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the gospels at face
value (something which I do not do), the evidence is
logically insufficient to establish the resurrection. Craig (to the best of my knowledge) has never
responded to this article, and leading Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga in his new book "Warranted Christian
Belief" has cited it with approval.
In addition, my! APA colloquium paper, "A Logical [lost text]
Robert Greg Cavin
Professor:
My mention of
your work is at the following three links. I checked them before mailing you
and they uploaded correctly. Please notify me as to whether you’re viewing old
pages there or accessing my comments from another’s site. I checked them again
this evening and made modifications in light of your concerns below. They
contain the rewrite following the links below.
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/04jordan.htm
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/locks3.htm
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/default_files/hallu.htm
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/cavin.htm
Hallucinations:
From my debate with Temy Beal at http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/04jordan.htm
Please demonstrate the
veracity of your claim that, "Mass hallucination is a well known and
fairly common occurrence." Atheistic Harvard professor Michael Martin
("The Case Against Christianity," 1991, p.
92) wrote:
Is it really true that
there is no such thing as mass hallucination? In fact, psychologists have
studied a closely related phenomenon known as collective delusion or mass
hysteria. In this phenomenon . . ..
Notice he shifts to a
"closely related phenomenon [collective delusion]," not the
phenomenon at issue [mass hallucination]. Charge me with splitting hairs.
However, hallucinations are sensory experiences (e.g., "I see the
Abominable Snowman sitting on my sofa drinking coffee, I hear his growl, and I
feel his claws ripping my flesh"), whereas delusions are beliefs (e.g.,
"The Abominable Snowman is out to get me.")
Temy, Martin took a huge leap to explain sensory phenomena using delusionary phenomena. You claim, "Mass hallucination
is a well known and fairly common occurrence." First, define
"common," then define "fairly." Mass hallucination is not a
common, a fairly common, nor an established phenomenon. Notice Martin
challenged the established scientific understanding that mass hallucinations
are non-existent. Further, your Conyers scenario [visions of Virgin Mary in
Further, mass optical
illusion phenomenon such as the Conyers, Georgia sightings are no indication of
veracity of mass hallucinations, for all seers of such had to travel to Conyers
to see it, unlike the phenomenon of the disciples. Mass optical illusions I can
buy, or, for all we know, Mary was actually there. Personally, I would not
know.
Most of
your concerns presented in your current mailing to me, I expect, are satisfied
by the rewrite. Regarding your quotation concerns:
“Regarding the quotations you have listed from my debate
with Craig: Yes, these are accurate (although you have typos) of
some of the things I said in the debate. However, you leave out many
important points I made against Craig in the debate, and you have also taken
the last quotation out of context (I had been agreeing with Craig only for the
sake of argument). Moreover, you must also understand that, due to the
constraints of time and, even more, the unsophisticated nature of the audience,
what I stated in the debate was a highly water-down version of a very technical
argument. If you want your readers to gain an accurate representation of
my position, then you should summarize my arguments against Craig in my Faith
& Philosophy article and my APA paper -- especially the latter.
As I am working hard on a book on the resurrection right now, I do not have
time to summarize these for you. After you have done so, please e-mail me
the entire section of your website on my arguments for my approval.”
1)
If you or your staff are
able (time constraints, etc.) to send me corrections on the typos, it would be
appreciated.
2)
My reference to your
work is regarding hallucinations. You are a non-Resurrection advocate (of
scholarly caliber) who rejects mass-hallucinations. Beyond that realm of my
Resurrection debating, your work has served its purpose. That is not to say you
are not welcome to provide me a link for readers to learn more about your work.
You are. Or, send me contact information, purchasing materials information of
your papers referenced above, Web or e-mail links. I will make it all available
to my readers. Currently, I only have Craig’s link available to offer readers
purchase information.
3)
Your statement of
concerns (as you can see) has been added to the quotations. Let the readers do
with them what they will.
4)
I have provided you the
links to my mention of your agreement with me regarding hallucinations. I have
no pages refuting your “arguments.” Craig has already done so successfully.
Again, readers will be welcome to review your extended writings on the matter
should you provide them. I reject your Twin Theory on the same basis as Craig.
My mention of you pertained to your professional opinion of the
mass-hallucination hypothesis. I thank you for your contribution.
5)
Professor, with
all due respect, what I seek from you is confirmation of my quotations,
challenges of any failures on my part to clearly differentiate my opinions from
facts. I am out to present accurate information and keep it in harmony with
those whom I quote. I am not one of your students. It is not my aim to acquire
your “approval.” Please, save your red ink for your students.
“Also, please, you need to acknowledge Dr. Carlos A. Colombetti in that section of your website as he is
co-author with me of both the twin theory and the (forthcoming) book, Double
Cross.”
This
is the first of my knowledge of co-authorship. As you can see, it has been duly
noted.
Overall,
after reviewing the tapes, I agree that my comment that prompted you to write
was more opinion and interpretation on my part. I, too, considered it
misleading. You were proper to want that changed.
Sincerely,
G.
Zeineldé Jordan
--------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date:
Dear Mr.
I have reviewed the updates
you sent me. I do not have time to comply with the requests you made in your
letter to me, unfortunately. Also, I should say that it is customary to ask
someone's approval before posting his/her comments on the web. I notice that
you have included my recent correspondence with you but have not asked my
permission. Is this what one would expect of a follower of Christ?
To which
Regarding the
attachment to which you refer (hereby re-attached for confirmation) [http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/probable.htm]:
Is yours not a
public forum? Why the confidentiality?
"Mr.
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date: Thu,
Dear Mr.
The following preposterous
comment would rightly make any thinking person break into a fit of hysterical
laughter!
<<I am sincere in
claiming that the Twin Theory, indeed, would serve as a marvelous Mel Brooks or
Woody Allen styled comedy. It is, for the truth seeker, absurd. That is my
opinion, for to embrace the Twin Theory, one must accept:
1) Jesus was mistakenly
switched as a baby with another baby.
2) The new Mary's baby just
so happened to have an identical twin.
3) The twin had no knowledge
of the Christ figure's likeness until the twin just so happened to travel (by
coincidence) to a city where his twin had just been crucified.
4) The twin (quick to think)
realized that he could claim his unknown twin's identity, therefore allowing
him the glamour of being a hated, despised, blasphemous, criminal whom the
religious order and Roman authorities executed. Actually, had the mistaken
identity placed the other twin on the cross, he most likely would have let the
mistaken identity stand and hightail it out of that town. Or, at least consider
he better leave soon before the authorities confused him for the criminal they
sought. They might have also crucified him just to be safe they got the right guy.
5) The twin either on his
own or by enlisting the aid of others did away with Christ's corpse.
6) The twin cosmetically
altered himself to reflect scars appropriate to that of a crucified person.
7) The twin's personal
characteristics of speech, mannerisms, etc. were close enough to Christ's that
those who had been closest to Christ never detected the deceit.
8) The twin's motive remains
to be learned.
9) The Twin Theory does not
account for Paul's road-to-Damascus conversion.
10) The Twin Theory does not
explain what the 500 people saw when witnessing Christ's ascension to heaven.
To quote Cavin, "A mass hallucination to Jesus'
followers only would have involved 500-plus individuals having the same
hallucination." Apparently, he accepts the validity of the passage yet
rejects mass-hallucination theory but offers no Twin Theory apologetic.
This comment is a
particularly egregious exercise in the logical fallacy of special pleading,
and, thus, its author violates
The above comment contains
an implicit argument which goes into standard form as follows:
The Twin Theory involves a
conjunction of events that are each individually highly improbable.
Therefore:
The Twin Theory would make a
marvelous Mel Brooks' comedy.
Two
preliminary observations. First, the author of the comment states, and I
quote, "[Cavin] offers no Twin Theory
apologetic." Yet this author entirely ignores the detailed (50 page)
argument I've given for the Twin Theory in my doctoral dissertation Miracles,
Probability, and the Resurrection of Jesus. How curious! How convenient! He
also ignores, even more curiously and conveniently, the argument I gave in my
(July 1995) Faith & Philosophy article "Is There Sufficient Historical
Evidence To Establish The Resurrection Of Jesus?"
And now, most curiously and conveniently, he ignores the argument I gave in my
APA paper "A Logical Analysis And Critique Of The
Historical Argument For The Revivification Of Jesus". This author,
thus, violates
Dr. Cavin ASSUMED
The second preliminary
observation, and a very crucial point, is that the author of the aforementioned
comment also commits the strawman fallacy -- the
fallacy of attributing to an arguer an argument other than the one that he or
she in fact holds, and then criticizing that argument instead of the one
actually given by the arguer. Thus this author states, and again I quote:
I think the
obvious error [Cavin makes] is [his] assumption that P(Spirit) = 0%.
In plain English,
it sounds like [Cavin's] saying, "Because it is
impossible for the spiritual/supernatural to exist, and the resurrection is an
alleged supernatural event, regardless of how improbable the alternative is, it
is still more likely than an actual resurrection and therefore I will accept
it".
That was not
The truth, however, is that
I neither assume nor personally hold -- nor have ever claimed -- that the
supernatural is impossible. Nor do I assume, hold, or claim that the
supernatural has a probability of zero. In fact, I believe in God. This author
is simply putting his own words into my mouth in order to make my argument look
like it's begging the question, when in fact it does not. I have found that
Christians, when backed into a corner and unable to come up with any
intelligent defense of their position, uniformly resort in the end to the old
ploy of falsely accusing their opponent of denying the possibility of the
supernatural (and, thereby, do the biding of the Dark Lord). That
way they can simply dismiss the argument (that is, their caricature of it) as
begging the question (even though it really does not) without having to bother
to study it. That's apparently what's happened with this author, who, as
I noted before, hasn't read the material I've written on the Resurrection.
Now let us turn to the
author's comment itself. What this author omits in his comment -- and herein
lies his special pleading -- is that for each improbable element of the Twin
Theory, the Resurrection Theory contains a corresponding element that is
astronomically more improbable. For instance, as the author correctly notes, it
is improbable to some degree that Jesus was mistakenly switched with another
baby. But what he again most conveniently ignores is that it is even more
improbable -- but, very importantly, in no way at all impossible -- that God
would supernaturally reverse even one femtosecond's
worth of postmortem decomposition in the molecular components of even one cell
in Jesus' body. The first probability is admittedly small, but still greater
than 1 in a billion. The second probability -- although greater than zero since
supernatural events are NOT impossible -- is less than a gooleplex.
It would be like picking out one grain of sand painted red on a beach the size
of
And the camels are even more
MONSTROUS still! For the Resurrection Theory doesn't hold that Jesus was simply
resuscitated like Lazarus. It says, rather, that Jesus was transformed into a
"spiritual" body with lot's of magic special
powers. Let's compare the most beloved comic book hero of all, Superman, to the
Resurrected Jesus. Bullets can't hurt Superman. Superman can't fall to his
death. Fire can't kill Superman. Neither can electricity. On the other hand,
Kryptonite can kill Superman, and, presumably, enough thermonuclear weapons can
too. Now, the Resurrected Jesus, though a lot like Superman, far exceeds him.
Bullets can't hurt the Resurrected Jesus. He can't fall to his death. Fire
can't kill him. Neither can electricity. But, in contrast to Superman,
Kryptonite can't kill the Resurrected Jesus. And no quantity of thermonuclear
weapons can harm him as well. In fact, the Resurrected Jesus can sit on (or
inside of) the Sun, and not feel the slightest bit of discomfort. Furthermore,
unlike Superman, the Resurrected Jesus can't age. He remains young forever.
Moreover, unlike Superman, the Resurrected Jesus can't get sick. Neither HIV or Herpes can infect him. He can't get leukemia, have a heart attack, etc. Superman is able to leap
tall buildings at a single bound. He can even fly. And in the old TV show he
can even pass through solid walls. The Resurrected Jesus can do all these
things too. But, beyond Superman, he can also ascend up into heaven. This
means, in contrast to Superman, that the Resurrected Jesus can move at speeds
much faster than the speed of light (for, otherwise, he would have only
traveled 2,000 light years so far since leaving the Mount of Olives), and even
move from one dimension to another! Indeed, the magical powers of the
Resurrected Jesus far exceed by orders of order of magnitude the combined
powers of Superman, the entire Justice League, the X Men, the Power Rangers,
leprechauns, pixies, faeries, elves, gnomes, genies, and wizards. Watch out
Guys! Now, are these things possible? Sure. Could God do them? Of course! But would
he? Science shows them to be antecedently astronomically improbable. And there
is not one scintilla of evidence to show that God would desire to raise Jesus
from the dead. It's an epistemic Deus ex Machina.
If the author of the above
comment were thinking logically, he would have given the following argument:
The Twin Theory commits one
to swallowing a million tinsy gnats. The Resurrection
Theory commits one to swallowing a googleplex of
MONSTROUS camels.
Therefore:
The Twin Theory is
astronomically more probable than the Resurrection Theory.
Let's face it. Funny
coincidences do sometimes occur. But Superman is the stuff of comic books. Mel
Brooks -- not to mention Woody Allen – would have a field day with the
Resurrection!!!
Mr.
Sincerely,
Robert Greg Cavin
In other words, “If
I misrepresent you,
Overall, I reject
the Twin Theory because I do not accept the high improbability of numerous high
improbabilities falling in concert regarding an event that a single highly
improbable happening could explain. Dr. Cavin has not
argued the elements I presented. He has merely argued they are more probable. I
disagree. Readers can make their own decisions.
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date: Sat,
<<Steve, Understand
that I neither accept nor reject the 500 passage. I referred to Cavin's claim that a mass hallucination was more probable
than a Christ resurrection because it would only require a shared vision of 500
people. My concern is the disciples' and Paul's visions. Once that is
determined, we'll let apologetics go where they will. I hope that clarifies my
position.
Cavin responds:
In His Name
Locks challenged the “accept nor reject” statement. It was meant in regards
to relevance of the disciples’ visions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J.P.
Holding <jphold@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re:
Date: Sat,
Yeesh!
This guy needs
serious help. Like he thinks you can get a copy of his Ph. D. thesis from Barnes
and Noble? Not that it matters; you meant in context he gives no such argument.
I'll be looking to see if I can get the other items....
>And the camels are even
more MONSTROUS still! For the
Resurrection Theory doesn't hold that >Jesus was simply resuscitated like
Lazarus. It says, rather, that Jesus was
transformed into >a "spiritual" body with lot's of magic special
powers. Let's compare the most beloved
comic >book hero of all, Superman, to the Resurrected Jesus.
What for? Just
to be silly and try to tar the rez of Jesus with a
silly brush. The same would be true for any supernatural being. Cavin has obviously learned the Robert Price technique
here.
> Resurrected Jesus can
move at speeds much faster than the speed of light (for, otherwise, he
>would have only traveled 2,000 light years so far since leaving the Mount
of Olives), and even >move from one dimension to another!
Yeah,
and so what??? And this is what he has to resort to, since he knows it isn't
impossible:
> possible? Sure. Could
God do them? Of course! But would he?
Science shows them to be >antecedently astronomically improbable. And there is not one scintilla of evidence to
show >that God would desire to raise Jesus from the dead. It's an epistemic Deus ex Machina.
To which I say:
SO WHAT? Like he's got inside scoop on God's list of things to do? It's telling
that he tucks the "real reason" in at the end of a long list of silly
comparisons and jokes. (I assume he means by "evidence" that he doesn't
allow for theological/soteriological reasons to raise
Jesus from the dead -- i.e., to point to Jesus as the way of salvation. IOW I'm
guessing he wants a legal doc -- hard to tell, since he never says what would
be proof to satisfy.)
> The Resurrection Theory
commits one to swallowing a googleplex of MONSTROUS
camels.
Oh, I will have
FUN taking this guy on. :-) He has a bit of creative juices, and that's really
all.
> Mr. Jordan, you have my
permission to quote from this e-mail in your website but only on the >
condition that you quote the entire e-mail in one single, continuous
piece. Please do me the > courtesy of
not misquoting me.
In other words,
don't rob him of his one real weapon, which is the ability to use silliness to
daze the reader while not actually defending your case, other than by referrals
to items people just won't be able to get to easily.
Just like Farrell Till, only he's Mel Brooks rather than [lost text]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
I am seeing
about getting Cavin's Ph. D. thesis copied for me.
There are only 2 copies in the entire
From: Steve Meikle strefanash@clear.net.nz
STEVE QUOTES:
> And the camels are even more MONSTROUS still! For the Resurrection Theory doesn't hold that Jesus was simply resuscitated like Lazarus. It says, rather, that Jesus was transformed into a "spiritual" body with lot's of magic special powers. Let's compare the most beloved comic book hero of all, Superman, to the Resurrected Jesus. Bullets can't hurt Superman. Superman can't fall to his death. Fire can't kill Superman. Neither can electricity. On the other hand, Kryptonite can kill Superman, and, presumably, enough thermonuclear weapons can too.
Strefanash: I will arise to the defense of the most favourite hero of my childhood. The Man of Steel routinely
sunbathed INSIDE stars. (as long as they were not red
stars) therefore he is immune to thermonuclear weapons. This means,
in contrast to Superman, that the > >Resurrected Jesus can move at speeds
much faster than the speed of light
Strefanash:
Yet again, for someone willing to accuse his opponents of straw men he commits
enough of them to suggest that superman can NOT travel faster than light. He
traveled back in time by flying faster than
the speed of light many times. Even in non canonical works like the Ilya and Alexander Salkind
movies, when Lois Lane was killed in despair, he flew faster than light and
went back in time far enough to rescue Lois before she died.
Cavin, or whoever this is, is as ignorant of the
superman canon as he is of the Christian one (the serious stuff is coming, bear
with me!)
> >(for, otherwise, he would have only traveled 2,000 light years
so far since leaving the Mount of Olives), and even moe
from one dimension to another! Indeed, the magical powers of the Resurrected
Jesus far exceed by orders of order of magnitude the combined powers of
Superman, the entire Justice League, the X Men, the Power Rangers, leprechauns,
pixies, faeries,
elves, gnomes, genies, and wizards. Watch out Guys! Now, are these
things possible? Sure. Could God do them? Of
course! But would he?
Strefanash:
So Cavin believes in God yet dares pronounce what God
would or would not choose to do (special divine intervention) on the basis
of the probability of what occurs in nature (i.e., without God's special
intervention). The determination of probability as regards the creation running
according to the laws God worked into the creation is one thing. The
probability that God would temporarily circumvent these laws is another thing
altogether, and is based on His declared volition, not random chance or even
impersonal mechanical determinism in anyway. Is confusing these
a massive category fallacy? It is certainly a fallacy of some kind.
How nature runs is one thing. How god would chose to
override it is another thing. The probability of the resurrection comes from
God's express declaration that he would do such a thing. If God exists,
declared something and is of honourable character
then the chance of the declared event happening becomes certain. And to link
the Son of God with fairies, elves and the like is to simply ignore the vast
moral difference between the two things. IOW [in other words] he takes fantasy
creatures out of their fantasy context, then takes Christ out of His spiritual
context then declares them to be the same category . . . For shame
He says he has not ruled out the supernatural by ascribing it a probability of
0 %. But then he rules it out by other tricks, fallacious ascriptions of
probability, and category fallacies (?) comparing Jesus Christ to elves.
I suspect that this first was Tim's point but the humanities have blunted my
appreciation of numbers. I need words instead.
My point is that Cavin’s argument only has any merit
at all if he does the very thing he denies he does (i.e., ascribing 0%
probability to the event. He knows he would be seen to be merely prejudiced if
he did deny at the outset any probability to the supernatural, so he denies he
does it and then smuggles it in
And so if he does not deny any chance of miracles he
only gives his aesthetic preference when he denies the resurrection. I am
supposed to be impressed??
>Science shows them to be antecedently astronomically
improbable.
Stref:
Science shows NOTHING of the sort, being confined to the natural world it
CANNOT speak of what, if anything, lies beyond it.
This is sloppy and dishonest thinking. As an atheist I knew full well that my
denial of miracles was contingent on my denial of God, so I knew that I needed
actual FACTS to prove the issue either way. So I sought and God answered me. He
called me a fraud, as the author of this pseudo scientific missive is a fraud
>And there is not one scintilla of evidence
to show that God would desire to raise Jesus from the dead.
Strefanash:
Not God's declaration of intent, nothing. The only ex here is ex cathedra as Cavin or whomever it is pronounces
it to be so.
. It's an epistemic Deus ex Machina.
From: "Anthony Rimell" <AnthonyRimell@hotmail.com>
Date:
Subject: Cavin's arguments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------