THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #9

Here is the core argument of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories):

1a. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true.

B. It is NOT the case that either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true.

THEREFORE:

A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

INITIAL EVALUATION OF THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #9

The key premise (B) is DUBIOUS because the sub-argument for (B) is based on some FALSE premises. This is sufficient reason to reject the core argument of Objection #9, and thus sufficient reason to reject this objection against the Swoon Theory.

Furthermore, the key premise (1a) is FALSE. Thus, the core argument of Objection #9 is UNSOUND, and this is another sufficient reason to reject this objection.

Thus, we have two good reasons to reject Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories), which makes it clear that Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (B)

C. It is NOT the case that the Conspiracy Theory is true.

D. It is NOT the case that the Hallucination Theory is true.

THEREFORE:

B. It is NOT the case that either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true.

Premise (C) is inferred from premise (E), and premise (D) is inferred from premise (F):

E. Kreeft and Tacelli have refuted the Conspiracy Theory (in Chapter 8 of HCA).

THEREFORE:

C. It is NOT the case that the Conspiracy Theory is true.

==============

F. Kreeft and Tacelli have refuted the Hallucination Theory (in Chapter 8 of HCA).

THEREFORE:

D. It is NOT the case that the Hallucination Theory is true.

EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (B)

Both premises of the argument for (B) are DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Since (B) is not obviously true, that means that we may reasonably conclude that the key premise (B) is itself DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Premise (C) is DUBIOUS because it is based on a FALSE premise, namely premise (E). Because my evaluation of premise (E) as FALSE is based on a careful examination of seven objections raised by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Conspiracy Theory, I will not be able to spell out all of my thinking on that question here and now. However, I have written fourteen posts that spell out my reasons for concluding that premise (E) is FALSE:

Defending the Conspiracy Theory – INDEX

Premise (D) is DUBIOUS because it is based on a FALSE premise, namely premise (F). Because my evaluation of premise (F) as FALSE is based on a careful examination of fourteen objections raised by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Hallucination Theory, I will not be able to spell out all of my thinking on that question here and now. However, I have written forty-five posts that spell out my reasons for concluding that premise (F) is FALSE:

Defending the Hallucination Theory – Index

Based on my previous critical examination of objections by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Conspiracy Theory and against the Hallucination Theory, I have confidently concluded that their attempts to refute those two skeptical theories FAILED. Thus, premise (E) is FALSE, and premise (F) is FALSE. Therefore, premise (C) is DUBIOUS, and premise (D) is DUBIOUS, and those premises might well be FALSE. Because both premises of the argument for (B) are DUBIOUS, the argument for (B) should clearly be rejected, and that means that (B) is also DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

The fact that the key premise (B) is DUBIOUS is a sufficient reason to conclude that Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.