Smullyan-esque

Maybe other people have noticed this before, but don't Christians themselves use an argument from silence when they point to "the empty tomb" as evidence that Jesus was resurrected?

Just because they didn't find the body, that doesn't mean that the body isn't there! So, mdd344, and others literal-minded Christians, you MUST now admit that Jesus's body may very well still be in the tomb where he was buried!

hatsoff

This excerpt from a Richard Carrier book review might help. Keep in mind the subject-matter deals with the Jesus myth, an idea which I personally do not accept, but it is nevertheless applicable to this discussion.
Evangelical apologist Craig Blomberg argues that one should approach all texts with complete trust unless you have a specific reason to doubt what they say (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 1987, pp. 240-54). No real historian is so naive (see Bibliography). I am not aware of any ancient work that is regarded as completely reliable. A reason always exists to doubt any historical claim. Historians begin with suspicion no matter what text they are consulting, and adjust that initial degree of doubt according to several factors, including genre, the established laurels of the author, evidence of honest and reliable methodology, bias, the nature of the claim (whether it is a usual or unusual event or detail, etc.), and so on. See for example my discussion of the Rubicon-Resurrection contrast in Geivett's Exercise in Hyperbole (Part 4b of my Review of In Defense of Miracles). Historians have so much experience in finding texts false, and in knowing all the ways they can be false, they know it would be folly to trust anything handed to them without being able to make a positive case for that trust. This is why few major historical arguments stand on a single source or piece of evidence: the implicit distrust of texts entails that belief in any nontrivial historical claim must be based on a whole array of evidence and argument. So it is no coincidence that this is what you get in serious historical scholarship.

Even so, there is nothing inherently dubious in the claim that Jesus existed. So there is no need for much evidence to ground a reasonable belief that he did, so long as that evidence can be trusted more than it can be doubted. However, when trust and doubt are in balance over all the existing evidence, an Argument from Silence can tip the scales.

Gotta love Mr. Carrier!

An argument from silence is often frowned upon, because it is invariably misused, and thus becomes a logical fallacy. However, at times it is a valuable tool for historians. It is most effective not just when evidence is absent, but when it is absent *yet expected*. That is the case, here, and it is therefore a strong argument against Biblical claims.

Proof it is not, and you are right about that, but it *is* the best explanation in this situation. Interestingly, this allows Christians to believe what they want and non-Christians to believe something completely opposite.

diana

In no other walk of life do I encounter anyone who claims "there is no evidence of X, therefore X must be true." Just apologists. No evidence of Israelites in Egypt? 2.5 million, you say? In a specific area? Not a scrap of evidence? They must have been there!

No body in the tomb? No evidence there even was a "Jesus" in the first place? The empty tomb proves he existed, was crucified, and he arose!

That's like me saying, "No dogfood in the house? No leash? No poop in the back yard? No barking? No whining? No hair on the furniture? You must have a dog!"

No evidence? No problem!

d

hatsoff

This thread is pretty darn hilarious, I have to say!

cjack

And at the same time, terribly sad.

I mean, here we are, fifteen pages later, still arguing with the person who for all intents and purposes has said "I'm right, I'm sure of it, and I'll never accept any evidence to the contrary."

:huh:

Sauron

1. Wrong. The lack of supporting evidence means that the statement cannot be considered correct.

2. Even if you were right, and the conclusion is that we cannot know, that still results in a defeat for anyone claiming that the bible is historically accurate. You've just admitted that your best answer is "we don't know if it is or not."

Checkmate.

Wrong. The bible makes specific, testable claims about certain events. Those claims can be tested. If there is no evidence where there *ought* to be some evidence, then the bible's claims are not to be accepted as factual.

We've done this dance before - have you forgotten? Meier is not an expert. The mistakes I listed above are (Hittites, Merneptah stele, ignorance of other archaeological lines of investigation besides written texts, etc.) are so easily discovered that nobody making them should be considered an expert.

How nice. It doesn't change the problem, however. You are deliberately ignoring the scale of the missing evidence here. Guthrie's argument about the boulder in the Library of Congress is the same magnitude as the lack of any evidence in Sinai.

Or the lack of any Spring and Autumn period swords in the example from the University of Massachusetts.

1. First, let's note that your citation removes several words. It's been my experience that when creationists or apologists do that, it's because the missing words change the meaning of the citation, and work against whatever argument the creationist or the apologist is trying to make.

2. Albright belongs to an earlier branch of archaeology that -- just like your apologetics -- existed not to do research, but to try and prove the bible. From my Opening Remarks:

By the way, the book from which this italicized quote above comes, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000 – 586 BCE, was the winner of the 1991 Biblical Archaeology Society Award for Best Scholarly Book on Archaeology. It is also a volume in the Anchor Bible series. It should be pointed out that its author, Amihai Mazar, is the head of the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

THAT, my friend, is what a professional archaeological citation looks like. Just so you know.

Ah, yes. Clifford Wilson - the man who spent his time trying to connect UFO sightings to appearances of "demons of the air", and who spent time with "Dr" Carl Baugh (of the Paluxy river dinosaur footprint fame). Baugh's self-awarded degrees have already been documented on talkorigins. Wilson is implicated:

See what happens when you just suck up anything you find on the internet without bothering to fact-check it first, mdd344? You get the Loch Ness monster and UFO-ologist nutjobs, complete with phony degrees, masquerading as bible experts.

Oh, yeah. I think EVERYONE gets the point by now.

Sauron

What? The premise that an exodus of 2.5 million people and a 38 year campment in one place would leave behind evidence?

You think that "may or may not be true?" You really think that there's any question AT ALL about that?

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! That's hilarious! You think that a group of people that are FIVE TIMES THE SIZE of metropolitan Seattle could camp in one place for 38 years and magically not leave any evidence?

This is why christians deserve the scorn they get -- their ego and their blindness wind up painting themselves into a corner, whereupon they have to propose increasingly ridiculous positions to save face.

Also wrong. See my response above - with the quotation from the University of Massachusetts - on your mistakes about "argument from silence".

You might also review your own quotation from Guthrie. The lack of evidence for the Exodus is the equivalent of Guthrie's example of a missing boulder in the Library of Congress.

Your objections are not merely bad logic, but stale as well - they were refuted several posts ago. Blue crystal fairies and invisible Russian jets, remember? Have you gotten around to accepting their existence yet?

hatsoff

I didn't mean that as a jab at mdd344. I just love the weirdness that results from miscommunication. Actually, I think he's been fairly honest so far. I could be wrong, but it seems like he is searching for the truth, but just can't get past what I assume are years of religious indoctrination. I was the same way, once.

But he may yet see the light.

Sauron

I don't. Someone who was honest wouldn't repeat some of the fallacies that he's repeated. I'm not talking about the archaeology stuff; I'm talking about the claims like "all you guys have a preconceived notion that God doesn't exist". He's been corrected on that - what? - like five times already, yet he still repeats it?

After a certain point, you can't chalk it up to being a mistake any longer.

Well, you have to look at it this way. If we are right, then his entire vocation (minister) needs to be re-evaluated. It's not just his faith that is in crisis; it's also his job.

hatsoff

He's an ordained minister? Wow....

You would think one would be required to learn more about the religion than what this guy knows, which is not much, before such a position is awarded. I thought he was a teenager from his posts, which is why I have been so patient.

Geez.