Thanks for the clicky, Don... but I'm afraid the humor of it is only evident to folk like me.


Pete: "-frank morrison-who moved the stone?" is a PRIME example of a classic logical error in which the needed conclusion is contained within the premises. I read about Morrison's theory here.

In it, they conclude that under the circumstances, no one man or reasonable collection OF men could have moved a multi-ton stone from Jesus' tomb. But...in order to make that relevant they had to **assume** that the accounts of the burial, guards, seal...etc. were factual to begin with! We have no evidence of all that except written references, and no clear idea of how such a stone could be constructed and put in place in the first place, if it was so hard to move. We are told that "Joseph moved the stone into place by holding it in place by a wedge, and set in a groove that sloped down. Once the wedge was removed, the circular rock rolled into place." No one explains how Joseph GOT such a stone, or how he got it into place in order to use a wedge.

You see? Everything depends on 'trusting' interpretations of translations of stories...then taking all those assumptions and concluding that some 'higher power' must have intervened. You don't (well, *I* don't) take as evidence something which has not been established to 'sort of' argue for something which could also be explained in other ways. (If it took 40 men to move a huge stone, then maybe someone HAD 40 men, if in fact any such stone was in any such place in any such circumstances to begin with.)

You simply do not make convincing arguments for something if the conclusions and the assumption all depend on each other... that is called variously, circular reasoning and begging the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(In case you refuse to look there, here are examples

Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
-------------------------------------------------------------
If I told you a certain bridge was built and guarded by elves, you might well ask me "Where are they?"
"Oh, they are invisible when people are watching"
"How do you know they are there, then?"
"Because all bridges of that type are built by elves!"
How do you know THAT?"
"Because I read a book by an expert on elves!"
...
You would not be likely to accept my... ummm... reasoned explanation.



What may be harder to understand is why I bother doing all this typing... and possibly, why God lets me get away with it... ☺
Well, even though I really have little hope of making the point to pete and Iona, I just like to clarify certain argument forms for possible folks who read all this at some time in the future...keeps my brain exercised.