FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-06-2007, 07:44 PM   #351
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdd344 View Post
Sauron,
Let's make this easy.
Too late for that. "Easy" would have been you educating yourself on archaeology. Or on logic, at a minimum.

Quote:
1.Has all of the evidence that can be found, been found, in the middle east and Egypt?
Everything? No. But it isn't necessary to find all the evidence in the entire world to make a conclusion. That's been explained to you before, by several people in this thread.

In addition to not understanding what "argument from silence" means, you also seem to misunderstand the burden of proof here. You - and anyone else who wants to claim the bible is infallible - it's you guys who bear the burden to prove such an outlandish statement. We don't have to prove the opposite.

Quote:
Now if you answer yes, you are clearly going to be wrong. If you answer no, then you must admit that lack of evidence does not in and of itself prove or even hint that the Bible is in error.
Ah, the binary choices that you christians are so fond of. Too bad you are wrong, however, for reasons already provided.

1. Your claim of an event (the exodus) would leave behind evidence.
2. No such evidence exists, despite knowing where the evidence should be, and having spent years looking for it.
3. Therefore the statement "there is no evidence to support an exodus" is a true statement.

Also see my post about the blue crystal fairy and the invisible Russian jets. By your argument, YOU must accept the existence of the both of those. Are you prepaed to do that?

Quote:
Did you see what you did btw? I gave a source, a journal, and comments.
No, you gave an apologist and a website.

Quote:
And you roundly dropped them because he was an 'apologist.' That is the bias to which I referred earlier.
And I responded to your earlier reference: my bias - if that is what you want to call it - is in favor of facts and evidence. Since you don't have any facts or evidence, you are reduced to making insinuations about someone having a "bias" - even though you admitted earlier today that your own starting position is that the bible must be correct.

Not only have you mis-diagnosed my reaction to your post, but you are guilty of the same thing you are trying to paint me with. Christian hypocrisy at its best.

You seem to think that all you have to do is provide a quotation. How absurd. The source you use must be someone who actually knows about the material. If you quoted a hollywood actor on the topic of cures for cancer, the response might be, "Well, that's nice, but what does Brad Pitt know about oncology (the study of cancers)?"

It isn't enough to merely quote someone. That someone has to know what they're talking about. That's where you seem to jump off the rails and get lost in your own mistakes.

Quote:
You cannot make this argument you are making. It doesn't wash. I may not know much, but I know that.
And you are once again wrong. I can make the argument, and I'm doing a bang-up job of it. Your source (Meier) made a whole slew of mistakes, which I listed. In spite of those, you still cling go his claims.

And you want to accuse others of making arguments that "don't wash." Puh-leez.
Sauron is offline  
Old 01-06-2007, 07:47 PM   #352
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosh View Post
I do believe you have just created a false dichotomy.
Are you gonna explain what that means to him?

He seems to trust you - which increases the probability that he might actually read the definition........

ETA: Sorry Kosh - had you confused with hatsoff...I'm sure he distrusts you as much as he wants to avoid answering me.....
Sauron is offline  
Old 01-06-2007, 07:53 PM   #353
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron View Post
Are you gonna explain what that means to him?

He seems to trust you - which increases the probability that he might actually read the definition........

ETA: Sorry Kosh - had you confused with hatsoff...I'm sure he distrusts you as much as he wants to avoid answering me.....
From the IIDB Logic FAQ:

Quote:
Bifurcation

Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. For example:

"Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so..."
Kosh is offline  
Old 01-06-2007, 07:55 PM   #354
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,561
Default

<nevermind - others covered it while I typed>
The Evil One is offline  
Old 01-06-2007, 07:59 PM   #355
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdd344 View Post
1.Has all of the evidence that can be found, been found, in the middle east and Egypt?

Now if you answer yes, you are clearly going to be wrong. If you answer no, then you must admit that lack of evidence does not in and of itself prove or even hint that the Bible is in error.
1. No archaeologist worth his or her salt would ever state that ALL the evidence that can be found, has been found, in the Middle East, Egypt, or anywhere that archaeological digs are being done. Archaeology, like any other science, never stops looking for evidence...it is an ongoing process, always open to revision based upon new evidence. Your question belies a basic lack of understanding about science.

That said, a great deal of evidence has been found, but none of it supports Exodus. Therefore, you must admit that, considering the wealth of evidence we have about that time in Egypt, a total lack of evidence for the Exodus in that context presents quite a problem, and until such evidence is presented, we can at least provisionally conclude that the Bible is in error.

Could conclusive evidence for the Exodus be found tomorrow, thus upsetting the archaeological apple cart and changing what we know? Sure, but until that happens, we must proceed with our conclusion that Exodus is just a story not supported by a shred of evidence.

Are you at least beginning to understand how this works?
cjack is offline  
Old 01-06-2007, 08:04 PM   #356
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosh View Post
From the IIDB Logic FAQ:
Also, see Peter Kirby's commentary on "argument from silence" as it relates to the historicity of the empty tomb:

Quote:
Argument from Silence

I titled this section "Argument from Silence" because I am well aware that these are arguments from silence. Whenever an argument from silence is made, the objection invariably comes "that is just an argument from silence," perhaps accompanied by the dictum, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I am recognizing these objections explicitly from the start in order to emphasize that I do understand the nature of this type of argument.

Once the type of argument is recognized, I would maintain that there are better arguments from silence and worse arguments from silence. If this is the case, then I would argue further that not all arguments from silence are worthless, or else there could not be better ones and worse ones. Why do I think that there are some better than others? I will give two examples. Suppose I claim that I sneezed at 5:03 pm PST on December 1, 2000 while in the kitchen of my Orange County home. You search the New York Times for December 2 and find no record of this incident. That is a very bad argument from silence. Now suppose instead I claim that the sky appeared hot pink from any point on Earth for a full minute at 5:03 pm PST on December 1, 2000. You search two hundred newspapers for December 2 and find no record of this incident. That is a very good argument from silence.
The situation with the alleged Exodus from Egypt falls into the latter category. Given that 2.5 million people supposedly camped in one place for 38 years, and yet no one has been able to find even ONE shred of evidence to support that - well, the conclusion is inescapable. It simply didn't happen.

And the misuse of the term "argument from silence" as it relates to the study of history and artifacts. From the University of Massachusetts History website:

Quote:
Seeing History

Arguments from Silence

This is one of two principles that are often cited in Latin. The Latin phrase for this one is

argumentum ex silentio

or the "argument from silence." We may here notice how this phrase is used in applied history, and then consider what else may be implied when something is not mentioned in the texts.

Evidential Silence

"Silence" means that the thing in question (call it X) is not mentioned in the available documents. If it were mentioned, then with the usual qualifications it would be proved to exist. Since X is not mentioned, X cannot be proved to exist. A natural further inference from this evidence is that X did not exist. The basic point is that if X did not in fact exist, then the only trace which that fact could leave, in the evidence, is the silence of the evidence as to X. At the same time, any such conclusion must be provisional. If documents are later found that do mention X, then X is after all proved to exist. A single positive may overturn any number of negatives.

The possibility of such a positive can never be ruled out. But until it occurs, the non-existence of X is the best inference from the absence of X in the evidence. The strength of that inference in a given case will depend on (1) how many documents there are, or in statistical terms how large the sample is, and, in literary terms, (2) how likely the thing is to have been mentioned in documents of that type in the first place.

Sampling

The converse of the first point is that if newly discovered documents continue not to mention X, then the case for the non-existence of X is proportionately strengthened. This is what statisticians call a sampling question. We may take the question of early Chinese swords as an example:

* From statements in Warring States period texts, it was presumed that many Spring and Autumn period swords must have existed. Archaeology failed to provide evidence for them. In the early 20c, when few metal artifacts had been recovered, the absence of significant numbers of swords could be dismissed as a chance result, and the stories in the texts could still be accepted as factual.

* By the late 20c, many more metal artifacts had been recovered. The pattern of the new finds largely confirmed the pattern previously known. There were many new examples of known common types, but no new types were found. At this date, it was conceded that there was indeed a Problem of the Swords. Doubt began to be cast on the reliability of the texts. The problem was formally raised by David Keightley, in a 1976 article called "Where Have All The Swords Gone?" (EC #2, 31f). Sequels followed by William Trousdale ("Where All the Swords Have Gone," EC #3, 65f; doubting that the argument from silence was valid) and Noel Barnard ("Did the Swords Exist?" EC #4, 60f; pointing out the risks of clinging to text-based presumptions which archaeology consistently fails to support).

Even that considered conclusion is technically a working hypothesis. But at some point, a hypothesis from silence properly comes to be seen as capable of bearing weight; of doing work in history.

In sum, the argument from silence, like all historical arguments, is always conjectural. But it is not, as some claim, a fallacy. It is the default inference from silence. It can be strengthened by relevant evidence of a positive kind, or by the continued silence of further evidence.
Sauron is offline  
Old 01-06-2007, 08:18 PM   #357
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 402
Default

Cjack stated, "That said, a great deal of evidence has been found, but none of it supports Exodus. Therefore, you must admit that, considering the wealth of evidence we have about that time in Egypt, a total lack of evidence for the Exodus in that context presents quite a problem, and until such evidence is presented, we can at least provisionally conclude that the Bible is in error."

I wholly disagree. The lack of evidence only warrants the conclusion that we cannot know.

It in no way shape or form provides evidence that allows someone to say 'the Bible is inaccurate' because all of the evidence is not complete.

Dr. Paul Maier is the Russel H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan State University. An expert.

Shandon L. Guthrie is written of in this way:

M.A. in Philosophy (summa
cum laude)
B.A. in Philosophy
A.A. in Applied Science
Guthrie is an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and the Golden Key International Honor Society in recognition of his academic achievements."

He said in a piece unrelated about arguing from silence:

Quote:
Now, there surely are situations where the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" maxim may enjoy some warrant in the right circumstances. If I said that there is a boulder in the middle of the lobby in the Library of Congress, then someone's failure to observe a boulder in the lobby of the Library of Congress would constitute grounds for there not being one. But if someone said that there is a grain of sand in the middle of the lobby of the Library of Congress, then if an observer claimed to not have observed the grain would not constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting the existence of the grain of sand in the lobby. The difference between the two situations is that an absence of evidence for the boulder's existence constitutes evidence of absence because we should expect to see evidence where there is none. The grain of sand is clearly more elusive than a boulder and so an absence of evidence would be expected even if there really is a grain of sand in the middle of the lobby. As you can imagine, there is an expectance of evidence that is proportional to the actual evidence if such an entity exists. In the case of the atheist who wants to utilize the "absence of evidence . . ." maxim for proving the nonexistence of things, then to decide if one should expect evidence for God's existence where there is none is tantamount to saying that (i) God, if he exists, would leave more evidence than what we presently possess; and (ii) the area of expected evidence for God's existence has been sufficiently combed for such evidence. But this is the same thing as saying that the atheist, in order to surmise this maxim for God's existence, still has to shoulder a burden of proof for (i) and (ii). (22)
read it at http://sguthrie.net/atheism_and_arg.htm.

Further experts in the field of archeology have said:

Dr. William Albright: "There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament...The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible...has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Dr. Clifford Wilson, former director of the Australian Institute of Archeology states, " I know of no finding in archeology that's properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."

There are many more. But you get the point, or at least you should.

You cannot argue and be rational with:

1.Your claim of an event (the exodus) would leave behind evidence.
2. No such evidence exists, despite knowing where the evidence should be, and having spent years looking for it.
3. Therefore the statement "there is no evidence to support an exodus" is a true statement.

The reason is because your first premise may or may not be true, and your second assumes that there is no evidence when all of the possible digging is not finished and never will be. False second premise = false conclusion.
mdd344 is offline  
Old 01-06-2007, 08:24 PM   #358
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 18,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdd344 View Post
Sauron,
Let's make this easy.

1.Has all of the evidence that can be found, been found, in the middle east and Egypt?

Now if you answer yes, you are clearly going to be wrong. If you answer no, then you must admit that lack of evidence does not in and of itself prove or even hint that the Bible is in error.
Arguing this way is dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself. Did you not read the example above about a person who claims that their house burned down? Absence of evidence can certainly hint (and often much MORE than hint!) that something is in error, and for you to claim otherwise is nauseating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdd344 View Post
Did you see what you did btw? I gave a source, a journal, and comments. And you roundly dropped them because he was an 'apologist.' That is the bias to which I referred earlier.

You cannot make this argument you are making. It doesn't wash. I may not know much, but I know that.
Did you quote from a journal that was relevant? No. You quoted from the "Christian Research Journal". In the title itself, this journal clearly states that it is biased.

There ARE archeological journals out there. Go find a quote from one of them, if the subject is archeology. If the subject is biology, find a reference from a biological journal. For each subject, you must use references that are relevant.

This is really obvious stuff, mdd344.
Smullyan-esque is offline  
Old 01-06-2007, 08:24 PM   #359
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdd344 View Post
I wholly disagree. The lack of evidence only warrants the conclusion that we cannot know.
So you believe in Sauron's blue crystal fairies, then?

ETA...

Just FYI, the lack of evidence for the exodus is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the above-mentioned "boulder in the middle of the Library of Congress" It is one of many elephants in the room you refuse to acknowledge.
cjack is offline  
Old 01-06-2007, 08:26 PM   #360
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Madison WI USA
Posts: 3,508
Default

No digging would be required, mdd344. The travels of over 2 million people through the Sinai desert for nearly 40 years is an event that would leave widespread evidence on the surface. Yet there is no such evidence.

Sauron completely destroyed your argument with his post. There are valid arguments from silence, and historians acknowledge that such arguments are valid. There simply was no Exodus. And regarding the book of Daniel, there was no historical figure called "Darius the Mede". End of story, game set and match.
Gooch's dad is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:26 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.