Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wavy_wonder1 · 02-12-2008, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

I find this argument, which has been used over and over in this thread, rather odd coming from supposed skeptics. Surely you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? If you're trying to find something that falsifies the Biblical record, you'd better have some positive evidence, not just a lack of evidence, if you want to convince anyone.

it is my understanding that arguments of this kind are deductively valid in certain cases. i'll let a logician explain it for me (scroll towards the bottom).

example:

1) an exodus of millions of people from egypt who wandered in the desert for forty years would leave tons of archaeological evidence.

2) there is no archaeological evidence for an exodus of millions of people from egypt who wandered in the desert for forty years.

3) therefore, there was no exodus from egypt.

kind regards,
~eric

makerowner · 02-12-2008, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

The think the problem is that you seem to be confusing assertions with evidence. Many of the events in the bible SHOULD have left evidence behind. If we don't find that evidence, in the places where it should be, then that lack is evidence that the event didn't happen.

I find this argument, which has been used over and over in this thread, rather odd coming from supposed skeptics. Surely you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? If you're trying to find something that falsifies the Biblical record, you'd better have some positive evidence, not just a lack of evidence, if you want to convince anyone.

I don't know if you can make a logically sound proof, but you can establish likelihood "beyond a reasonable doubt". To go back to Gullwind's bank analogy, I guess the lack of evidence can't prove 100% that the guy didn't deposit a thousand dollars in the bank (he could have done it under a fake name, and wearing a disguise, etc.), but you can show that the probability is low, because of the lack of evidence where evidence should be found.

Headache · 02-12-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

The think the problem is that you seem to be confusing assertions with evidence. Many of the events in the bible SHOULD have left evidence behind. If we don't find that evidence, in the places where it should be, then that lack is evidence that the event didn't happen.

I find this argument, which has been used over and over in this thread, rather odd coming from supposed skeptics. Surely you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? If you're trying to find something that falsifies the Biblical record, you'd better have some positive evidence, not just a lack of evidence, if you want to convince anyone.

I would propose the following well-known example for the OP. There is good evidence that King Herod died in 3 BC or so, and that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD. So Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:2, taken together, are falsified by the archaeological record.

If, at any location, a large number of people have rested for even the smallest amount of time, stuff will be left behind.

If we look at where the Romans claimed their legions were located and moved, we find evidence of it in form of artifacts commonly used by the Roman soldiers and their support groups.

If we go by the story of the Exodus, one would expect to find artifacts left behind by such a large mass of people moving slowly over many years and there should be an abundance of evidence based on the mass of the people. When no such evidence can be found anywhere in the supposed path of the movement of these people, one can quite assuringly assume that no such movement ever took place.

makerowner · 02-12-2008, 09:19 AM

This thread spawned out of this one, and I'd like to reproduce a post I made in the other thread that fits this one better:

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayW

That has also been adressed. There is only one flood that can be dated near the time Bble chronology gives for the flood.

Source? I wasn't aware that there was a chronology for the flood in the Bible.

Quote:

I did not make the claim that anyone named Noah or his sons were in the flood.only that it happened. Why do you insist on me verifying or explainng something I did not say.

No, but you made the claim that "there no evidence that discounts the history of the Bible"; I think it's pretty obvious that there was no global flood, and that the earth wasn't repopulated from one man's descendants less than 6 000 years ago.

Quote:

If you are really interested, which I find doubtful, I will explain the diffeent tongues,where they came from and where hey spread to. According to linguists, the migration of people wes very close to the Biblical tables of nations,although they probably took place long before Noah.

I am in fact interested, as I'm something of an amateur linguist myself. I can in fact tell you that the currently accepted genetic relations between languages do not match the table of nations from Genesis. A few examples:

Elam is listed as a son of Shem, but Elamite was not a Semitic language
The Canaanite languages (of which Hebrew is one) are Semitic
If the "Hittites" of the Bible are identified with the Hittites known to archeology, then they are mis-classified as well, since their language was Indo-European
The Lydian language was also Indo-European, rather than Semitic
Nearly all the groups mentioned as sons of Cush (and therefore Ham) were in fact Semitic-speaking

Quote:

Noah,of course was based on a story that was already ancient by His time.

As was most of the OT. There's a reason why historians prefer sources that are close to the events they describe.

Keith&Co. · 02-12-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

I find this argument, which has been used over and over in this thread, rather odd coming from supposed skeptics. Surely you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Why not?

When our neighbor calls the police about the prowlers in her back yard, and they find no footprints in the snow, they tend to conclude that the absence of any evidence to support her story is evidence her story isn't true.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-12-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withered

I am not myself, in anyway particularly qualified to discuss archeology, geology or other historical related disciplines.

However, I am hoping that someone here is.

So in the interest of furthering my own knowledge, and getting some really great conversation, I would like to ask a couple of questions.

.......if the flood, and the Exodus are not immediately the first to things to come to mind, what other items are there that can be shown to directly contradict the Bible's account of the relevant regions and time periods.

You need to distinguish between secular events and supernatural events. Almost all skeptic historians believe that King Nebuchadnezzar was a reason person, but no skeptic geologist believes that a global flood occurred. Even some evangelical Christian geologists do not believe that a global flood occurred. Why would skeptic historians and scientists be interested in claiming that reasonably verifiable Biblical secular history is false? They don't do that regarding reasonably verifable Biblical secular history in other religious books.

Do you really believe that a God would have any trouble convincing most people to believe that he exists?

Johnny Skeptic · 02-12-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

I find this argument, which has been used over and over in this thread, rather odd coming from supposed skeptics. Surely you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Well, if God had made lots of indisputable prophecies, there would not be an absence of evidence regarding his supposed ability to predict the future.

wavy_wonder1 · 02-12-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

I find this argument, which has been used over and over in this thread, rather odd coming from supposed skeptics. Surely you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Well, if God had made lots of indisputable prophecies, there would not be an absence of evidence regarding his supposed ability to predict the future.

that's my name in your quote here, but it should be 'robto'. <fixed>

kind regards,
~eric

Johnny Skeptic · 02-12-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withered

If the flood, and the exodus are not immediately the first to things to come to mind, what other items are there that can be shown to directly contradict the Bible's account of the relevant regions and time periods?

Do you actually believe that a God would have trouble convincing people to believe that he can raise people from the dead?

JayW · 02-12-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withered
If the flood, and the exodus are not immediately the first to things to come to mind, what other items are there that can be shown to directly contradict the Bible's account of the relevant regions and time periods?

There are none. The intent of most critics is not to prove they are impossible but to prove they never happened according to the Bible.Most Christians already realize that the Biblical writers, like any writer, exaggerated. It should come as no surprise since the object was to make the particular nation look powerful and important to other nations. The Egyptians refused to write about any even that made them look bad. If they did, it was made to look like it was a tale about the gods.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.