Did Jesus rise from the dead?

The prompt is not “is it impossible for Christ to have not risen from the dead” as we cannot even prove that it is impossible that we are in a simulation. The question is more akin to “does logic/sound epistemology necessitate the conclusion that Christ is risen.

Round 1

1 of 3

TheOGInjil

Pro #1

I think you will all find that I am fond of syllogisms. I find that the case of the resurrection is as simple or complex as it is made, but it ultimately hinges on this argument:

P1. If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred.

P2. Several persons testified to their genuine belief in Jesus’ resurrection, and these several persons had access to information that would have allowed them to know whether or not the resurrection occurred.

C. Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus occurred.

P1. This premise is not objectionable. People will often raise an objection like the fact that many Muslims believe in Muhammad with sincerity, but that response negates the second half of my premise. These hypothetical Muslims believe because their culture ingrains in them the fact that Muhammad was of Allah, not because they have access to information that would reveal the truthfulness of the religion, so they are unlike the disciples who testified to Jesus.

P2. Objections can be raised to this premise, but each point is backed by New Testament scholarship, so I think my opponent will find it rather difficult to object to either point. I will expand on this point just for clarity sake after I write the conclusion.

C. The conclusion flows from the premises. If no valid objection can be made regarding either premise, one must accept the conclusion.

Which persons believed and would have known if Christ rose? I will argue that James, Peter, the author of the Gospel of John, and Paul genuinely believed that Christ rose, and that they had access to information that would allow them to know.

Were they lying/non genuine in anyway? I do not think there is really any scholarship at all that will pose the non genuine belief of my examples, and their genuineness is certainly the scholarly consensus, so I doubt my opponent will argue against this point, but I will briefly defend the idea. As recorded in the letters of Paul, Christians who preached the gospel were persecuted, and often imprisoned and killed as he was. The author of the gospel of John mentioned that some believed he would not die until the return of Christ, but he said that this was not the case, and he certainly could be killed. James mentions persecution several times in his short letter, and in the Gospel of John we see a prophecy that Peter will be killed for his faith. Even if you disagree with the premise that it is a prophecy, as a normal historical document, we would conclude that John is being self serving in using the martyrdom of Peter for his agenda, so we can not find good reason to doubt the death of Peter. Regardless of specific details, why do these people suffer? People only do what they want, so why does this group of people choose to endure possible death and imprisonment? They tell us why explicitly. Paul does not think the pains of this world are comparable to the joys that are to come. Their motivation is that they view the suffering as temporary before a greater reward that they will receive because Christ really is the messiah and has promised it to them. Additionally, the gospels record embarrassing and degrading facts about the followers of Jesus which are unlikely to be included if one was forging facts. I highly doubt this section will be objected to, but if it is, I have plenty more I can say on the subject.

Did the persons have access to the information that would allow them to know if Christ rose or not?

Seeing as we agree that these people were genuine in their belief of the resurrection, we must ask why. Peter denied Jesus for his fear of association. Paul was a Pharisee killing Christians because he thought they were liars. James was Jesus brother and thought Christ was a madman, and John was a member of the apostles who watched him die. What would make these down trodden people come to genuine belief in his bodily resurrection? Well, they and all of the historical evidence tells us. Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and three days later they witnessed him alive again, and saw the crucifixion wounds in his glorified body. They ate with him for an extended period of time, were taught by him, he appeared to many, and he returned to heaven. This information is not compatible with being mistaken. One does not mistake a dead man teaching them for 40 days, and certainly many people at a time do not. But what hallucinations? The data is not compatible with hallucinations either. Hallucinations do not occur via audio, touch, hearing, and sight over a time period of 40 days. They simple are not a plausible option. Paul is sort of in his own category. He claimed that he saw Jesus multiple times, became a Christians and stopped killing them, and then confirmed with the disciples that the Jesus he knew was the same one he did.

In conclusion, according to the data at hand, the reasonable and logically mandated explanation for the evidence regarding the resurrection is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Jesus taught that if we repent of our sins and turn to God, we can be forgiven, and on him our punishment will be laid, rather than on ourselves in hell.

Kohai Administrator

Con #2

I want to begin by welcoming my opponent to debatecraft. I hope this is an enjoyable debate.

Burden of Proof

It should be obvious that my opponent has the entire burden of proof in this debate. If my opponent wants I can write a very brief case in the next round on why the resurrection is more unlikely than not.

Rebuttals

My opponent brings forth a very unique argument and I appreciate my opponent's new take. My opponent's syllogism is valid, so if both premises are true the conclusion follows. The problem with the syllogism is the first premise:

P1. If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred.

Contrary to what my opponent claimed, this premise is very objectionable. The problem is that premise is far too strong. It assumes that having access to knowledge guarantees the truth of an event and does not take into factors like genuinely mistaking, deliberately lying, hallucinating, or other factors. To demonstrate this I will provide several counter examples where premise 1 is fully satisfied and the events clearly did not happen.

Example 1: LDS Golden Plates

The basic premise of Mormonism is that Joseph Smith translated a series of golden plates that contained the record of Jesus and his disciples in America. According to Mormonism these golden plates were written in reformed Egyptian. Each copy of the Book of Mormon begins with the testimony of several people who claimed to have seen, touched, and handled these golden plates.

The first set of witnesses testified [1]:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

The second group of 8 witnesses testified:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

These 11 men all made extraordinary claims and all had access to information: Either they saw the golden plates or they did not. There is no middle ground. What is truly remarkable is that many of these men who testified eventually were excommunicated from the church or left the church completely. For example, Oliver Cowdery, one of the three witnesses, became a Methodist but eventually returned to the church. John Whitmer, another witness, was also excommunicated but never recanted his testimony [4]. This is despite extreme persecution in the early Mormon church.

If one of these 11 men had recanted their testimony then the entire Mormon church would be debunked. This fact is actually quite remarkable, however it is clear that LDS is false and the golden plates never existed. I won't get into this more in depth unless my opponent is an LDS and challenges this.

Example 2: Fatima

In 1917 3 children reported seeing and hearing the virgin Mary [5]. According to the children she met with them on the 13th day of each month and this finalized in the so-called miracle of the sun. Each three of these children had access to information: Either they saw the virgin Mary or they did not. Once again, neither of them ever recanted their testimony. These children all had significant suffering and faced ridicule. At one point they were even told that if they don't recant their testimony they would be thrown in a cauldron of boiling oil [6].

The fact that none of these children recanted despite having access to knowledge and being threatened with death is also quite remarkable.

These two stories clearly contradict each other. Fatima cannot be true if LDS is true and LDS cannot be true if Fatima is true. One, or more likely both, are false despite both groups of people having access to knowledge that would destroy their position.

Conclusion

My opponent attempts to create a logical syllogism defending the resurrection of Jesus. The problem is the first premise is unsound and so the entire syllogism is unsound. Simply proclaiming an event is true and having access to knowledge that would contradict it does not guarantee the truth of the claim.

Sources

1. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/three?lang=eng

2. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/eight?lang=eng

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Whitmer

5. https://americaneedsfatima.org/articles/apparitions-of-the-angel-of-portugal

6. https://fatima.org/news-views/fourth-apparition-much-suffering/

Round 2

2 of 3

TheOGInjil

Pro #3

I want to take the time to thank my opponent for their respectful attitude and state that I am not criticizing them as a person as I see this mistaken objection often and it is due to a simple misunderstanding. Though, I am going to be blunt since this is a debate, and I tried to steer my opponent away from this mistake in my opening.

My opponent admits that my syllogism is valid, and claims the error with my argument is the first premise. Well, if this is the case then it seems to me that my opponent should be a Christian after reading my response. Seeing as my first premise is valid, there remains no room to disagree with the conclusion I present.

My opponent said: “P1. If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred.”

My Rebuttal: My opponent completely negated the premise in every example they provided. They said someone can lie. Well then they aren’t genuine in what they’re saying and dont satisfy my premise. They said something can be mistaken. Well then they would not know if the event occurred and they do not fit my premise. They can hallucinate. I specifically addressed why this did not occur, but if it occurred then they would not meet the premise on account of the fact that they would not know whether or not the event occurred.

My opponent provides examples of Fatima and Mormonism, but first of all these examples are not contenders for invalidating my argument. If they fit my argument then all that would show is whether or not their claims are true according to my argument, not whether or not my argument is valid. But, they do not fit my argument. Joseph Smith’s witnesses cannot be asserted genuine, and they cannot be asserted as having access to information that would allow them to know whether or not their claims were true. The nature of his followers claims were often vague, and the distinction between spiritual and physical was not made clear. Additionally, he may have had golden plates, but this does not mean anything supernatural was involved, so the witnesses do not meet the criteria of knowing whether or not the plates were supernatural. I can go more in depth if my opponent wants, but I dont think I need to because the nature of how these claims do not fit my premises in the way that the apostles of Christ too should be evidence as a result of my clarification. Again, with Fatima, thinking that you saw and heard Mary in some sense is in no way equivalent with many people feeling the insides of a man’s wounds who is known to be dead for 40 days as he does miracles. The apostles simply are not contenders for hallucinations as these small scale events may be. I do not think my opponent needs me to give a list of ways that these children could have been mistaken, but I can if that is what they think the validity of this argument hinges on.

Conclusion: The part of my argument that my opponent says is problematic is simply incontestable. If you would know whether or not a thing is true due to the circumstances, and you believe that it is true, then it simply must be true. Any hypothetical when someone doesn’t know requires a deficiency of my premise and argues against an argument that I did not provide. My argument remains unchallenged, and has not actually been touched by an objection.

Again, I will think my opponent for their respect and for engaging with the argument, but this is a debate so I am not going to sugar coat something like this. My opponent said my argument was accurate in form, and the premise they took issue with was the first, but the first premise has no issue if you take into account the full premise rather than a piece of it. So, my argument stands. The resurrection of Christ remains historically clear, and so all should repent and accept the gift he offers.

Kohai Administrator

Con #4

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry for the delay in my reply.

Essentially this debate is going to boil down to whether or not my opponent's premise 1 has been fully defended. To reiterate my opponent's syllogism

P1. If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred.

P2. Several persons testified to their genuine belief in Jesus’ resurrection, and these several persons had access to information that would have allowed them to know whether or not the resurrection occurred.

C. Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus occurred.

The main issue I take with P1 is the fact that this is too strong and can be applied to almost anything. I gave two examples that are contradictory: The LDS golden plates and the Fatima appearances. Both examples clearly satisfy the first premise: Both groups of people genuinely believed in what they were telling others. In addition, both groups clearly had access to information and would know if they were being honest. Mormonism and Catholicism are incompatible so at least one of these events have to be false.

They said someone can lie. Well then they aren’t genuine in what they’re saying and dont satisfy my premise. They said something can be mistaken. Well then they would not know if the event occurred and they do not fit my premise. They can hallucinate. I specifically addressed why this did not occur, but if it occurred then they would not meet the premise on account of the fact that they would not know whether or not the event occurred.

1. What is meant by someone being genuine? The problem is my opponent's defense is completely circular and becomes unfalsifiable. How can we show that someone is genuine?

2. Mass hallucinations happen all the time. For example, the 1994 UFO Siting in Zimbabwea where 62 children all hallucinated an alien space craft and received messages from creatures dressed in black or the case of the Fatima "miracle" where people all claimed to have seen a sun miracle.

Joseph Smith’s witnesses cannot be asserted genuine, and they cannot be asserted as having access to information that would allow them to know whether or not their claims were true. The nature of his followers claims were often vague, and the distinction between spiritual and physical was not made clear. Additionally, he may have had golden plates, but this does not mean anything supernatural was involved, so the witnesses do not meet the criteria of knowing whether or not the plates were supernatural.

1. Then we can also not assert the disciple's claims as genuine either.

2. There are strong reasons to believe they were genuine because many of those LDS witnesses were eventually excommunicated or left the church completely. If they were not genuine then they could have easily exposed the entire religion as a fraud and Joseph Smith as a con man. I made this argument in the previous round and my opponent did not respond to that argument.

3. It is very unlikely that a poor person like Joseph Smith would have access to gold plates in his possession.

4. They absolutely would have known if the events actually occurred.

5. The first group of witnesses not only testified to seeing the plate but "an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates." This is something that Joseph Smith cannot fake. Either they saw it or they didn't and they would have known if they did not see it.

Again, with Fatima, thinking that you saw and heard Mary in some sense is in no way equivalent with many people feeling the insides of a man’s wounds who is known to be dead for 40 days as he does miracles. The apostles simply are not contenders for hallucinations as these small scale events may be. I do not think my opponent needs me to give a list of ways that these children could have been mistaken, but I can if that is what they think the validity of this argument hinges on.

1. It does not have to be equivalent with many people seeing a resurrected Jesus. The first premise merely states "If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred." It does not quantify what type of claims that this premise covers. This is basically a large universal claim and is one that I contend is far too strong.

2. Could three children really mistake hearing and seeing the virgin Mary? I concede that one appearance could be mistaken,, but multiple appearances on the same day each month? That is very unlikely. It is also unlikely they would all be able to claim to have seen visions of hell and other visions Mary gave theme as well.

Conclusion

This debate hinges over the soundness of premise 1. I believe I have shown why my opponent's first premise does not stand up to scrutiny. Again, I apologize for the delay in posting my rebuttals.

Round 3

3 of 3

TheOGInjil

Pro #5

FORFEITED

Kohai Administrator

Con #6

Vote con

Savant Administrator

#24

--> @TheOGInjil

Since I can't edit my vote, I'll say this here: If you do stick with P1 in the future, that might be doable but I think you'd have to go more in depth to why "they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred" applies here but not elsewhere. I think an argument along the lines of, "the distinction between spiritual and physical was not made clear" could have worked in theory, but it required more evidence/elaboration, and a clear reason why the distinction matters, since I think you have more work to do than Con in this debate.

Kohai Administrator

#23

--> @Savant

Can you vote

Kohai Administrator

#22

--> @Savant

One more vote is needed

melcharaz

#21

The biggest problem of premise 1 has to do with the wording.

"P1. If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred."

If theOGinji is trying to say the ACCESS of Knowledge makes the claim true, then that would suppose knowledge needed to ASSERT truthfulness concerning the event/action.

The problem arises in communicating or asserting that the disciples had knowledge concerning Jesus rising from the grave.
1: no one actually saw him Leave the tomb, mary saw the stone rolled away, john and peter didnt see his body in the tomb. Jesus told mary to tell the others.

I personally believe the bible, however i cannot agree with the premise 1 as no one had all knowledge of the situation, thus making their genuiness truth.

Edit: Thankfully Jesus revealed himself and we dont have to rely on the genuiness of the disciples or mary, we do have to believe the report of the writers of the gospel however, assuming scripture to be true (which i personally do)

I would recommend that if theOGinji is trying to make a premise about genuineness, he instead say that having knowledge of the situational makes it FACTUAL, or that witnessing of the event can be CREDIBLE. To avoid confusion, then use strength of logic and evidence to verify the credibility (which is how the bible survived over 1900 years)

whiteflame Global Moderator

#20

--> @Kohai

Sure, I'll work on this.

Kohai Administrator

#19

--> @whiteflame

Can you vote?

SomeDebatePerson

#18

--> @TheOriginalInjil2

Are you able to get in? Your password should be the same.

SomeDebatePerson

#17

--> @Kohai, @Savant

Anything you can do?

TheOriginalInjil2

#16

Unfortunately I have been signed out of my account when my username was changed and I can not get back into the account.

TheOGInjil

#15

--> @philochristos

If you look at the description, you will see that I specified it is not about impossibility. It also isn’t about likelihood. I am making a strong case that it is necessary to believe it, if we consistently adhere to logic, because I think the case is strong enough for me to validate this point. I am not trying to say there is a 70% chance, therefore we should believe. I am saying the evidence mandates certainly conclusions that lead to the conclusion of resurrection.

philochristos

#14

The set up for this debate seems to pit one extreme against another extreme - impossibility or necessity. Why not a middle ground, like, "It's either likely or unlikely that Jesus rose from the dead"?

Kohai Administrator

#13

--> @SomeDebatePerson

thank you!!!

SomeDebatePerson

#12

--> @Kohai

Btw, since you said you’re busy, I’m going to remind you that your “devil on trial” debate with fauxlaw has about 2 days left for you to respond. Just making sure you don’t forget since you said you’ll be busy for the next two days and there’s only two days left.

SomeDebatePerson

#11

--> @Kohai

Don’t worry. I heard that JustAPerson was going to be busy too. Maybe a couple days?

Kohai Administrator

#10

--> @SomeDebatePerson

Thank you!! I hope this is a great debate.

I’m quite busy over the next two days so it may be a bit before I can put my opening arguments up.

Kohai Administrator

--> @TheOGInjil

I’ll accept the debate. We can discuss this in the debate or in private. Truthfully the answer is no because I believe Christianity to be diametrically opposed to Torah.

SomeDebatePerson

I was just trying to help the new user have a good start. I see many new accounts made but they never go anywhere and I didn’t want this one to end in the same fate.

TheOGInjil

I will edit the time. I am not an alt account. He is a catholic and I am a Protestant. Kohai, if Jesus rose, would you convert or contribute it to an agent like the adversary testing people? I find that the Tanak exclusively teaches that God can restore life once death is passed.

Kohai Administrator

--> @SomeDebatePerson

I’m interested but would like note than 2 days to argue

Ultracrepidarian

--> @SomeDebatePerson

Is this another one of your alt accounts

Leaning Global Moderator

--> @SomeDebatePerson

Not I,
While I think I will debate the subject again to refresh my knowledge and see if I still do not believe,
I did that recently enough on DART.

I see value of Game Theory and Culture in Christianity.
I think it can be reasonable for people to believe in it, but not myself.
I do not think I end up in a significantly better position by believing again, though others might.
I don't view Christianity or Theism as bad, and rather think it can be harmful to undermine other's belief in it.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @Thoth

Only proves the resurrection really did happen then.

Thoth

Not me

SomeDebatePerson

--> @Kohai, @Leaning, @Moozer325, @pierree, @Thoth

The instigator is hoping someone will accept. Anyone?

Savant Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Con is able to provide some counterexamples to P1, such as Fatima and the golden plates, which can't both be true. Pro argues that if these were hallucinations or lies, then they aren't responsive to P1, but I think Cons point is that even with compelling evidence for sincerity (which they provide in R2), the conclusion does not follow. Cause if compelling evidence wasn't enough, it calls the case for P2 into question as well. Pro forfeits the final round, which means they never address this.

I think it would have served Pro better to research similar miracle claims and make P1 less broad. I mean it's always possible to overfit and make a P1 like "if people in the middle east claim they saw a guy called jesus rise from the dead..." But overfit ting aside, it's probably better to be aware of obvious comparisons and argue why this particular miracle claim is stronger than others rather than ignoring others.

whiteflame Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

"P1. If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred."

The debate focuses on a single premise, and while Pro is keen to argue that it's internally consistent, the devil is in the details as it were. Even Pro seems to recognize that they have to justify that this statement applies to Jesus's resurrection, specifically, and that those who witnessed him afterward were genuine and did have proof positive that it was, in fact, Jesus who had been killed previously. In other words, there's recognition by both sides that the parties involved were genuine in their assessment and that they actually had verifiable evidence to support what they perceived.

So when Con responds to all this saying that there are instances where a) someone is both genuine, b) has access to what they perceive as verifiable evidence to support a given claim, and yet c) that event necessarily did not occur, he's attacking the link that holds this premise together. Pro's attempt to dismiss his responses as not engaging with his premise largely just treat this all as given, which for the purposes of this debate, it necessarily isn't.

And Con presents two examples with the LDS golden plates and Fatima, both of which seem to satisfy a) and b) individually, and since they are mutually exclusive for the purposes of upholding distinct religious views, also satisfy c).

Pro's responses to these examples are to argue that they are lower on the sliding scale for a) and b), i.e. that there is some room for them to not be genuine and that whatever evidence exists isn't as strong as with the Jesus resurrection. The problem with that argument, which Pro doesn't address, is that the premise doesn't rely on being absolute in either regard. If it did, there would also necessarily be room to question the resurrection, as Pro acknowledges with that description. Pro would need to give me a reason why Con's examples don't satisfy a) and b), rather than just saying they have a lower likelihood of doing so than his example. So long as the premise applies to Con's examples as it does to Pro's, then c) is true and Pro's case falls apart. And that's what ends up happening here. I end up voting Con.

melcharaz

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Description: The question is more akin to “does logic/sound epistemology necessitate the conclusion that Christ is risen.

Epistemology: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Logic and epistemology suppose knowledge and foundations, so basically is it more logical or likely Jesus rose from the grave.

So right off the bat there is a contention over premise 1.
"P1. If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred."

Instigator uses sincerity as a legitamate premise,
Contendor rejects the premise.

"It assumes that having access to knowledge guarantees the truth of an event and does not take into factors like genuinely mistaking, deliberately lying, hallucinating, or other factors."

Contendor then gives examples

1 The LDS golden plates as an example of the sincerity of the account, howbeit not Truthful. 2:fatima

However instigator counters contendor by saying:

"They said someone can lie. Well then they aren’t genuine in what they’re saying and dont satisfy my premise. They said something can be mistaken. Well then they would not know if the event occurred and they do not fit my premise. They can hallucinate. I specifically addressed why this did not occur, but if it occurred then they would not meet the premise on account of the fact that they would not know whether or not the event occurred."

This seems to indicate the meaning of genuine is stretched, its asserted with truthfulness NOT Sincerity. To be sincere is to believe you are showing or declaring a/the truth. Not that you automatically ARE.

"If you would know whether or not a thing is true due to the circumstances, and you believe that it is true, then it simply must be true."

This is begging the question.
he has a affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

Contendor wins because he correctly identifies the negative premise, wereas instigator simply reaffirmed his understanding of the genuineness and claims contendor didnt address it.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

New comment