Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-06-2007, 07:44 PM | #351 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
|
Too late for that. "Easy" would have been you educating yourself on archaeology. Or on logic, at a minimum.
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
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:
And you want to accuse others of making arguments that "don't wash." Puh-leez. |
|||||
01-06-2007, 07:47 PM | #352 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
|
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..... |
01-06-2007, 07:53 PM | #353 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
01-06-2007, 07:55 PM | #354 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,561
|
<nevermind - others covered it while I typed>
|
01-06-2007, 07:59 PM | #355 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,294
|
Quote:
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? |
|
01-06-2007, 08:04 PM | #356 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
|
Also, see Peter Kirby's commentary on "argument from silence" as it relates to the historicity of the empty tomb:
Quote:
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:
|
||
01-06-2007, 08:18 PM | #357 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 402
|
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:
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. |
|
01-06-2007, 08:24 PM | #358 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 18,543
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
01-06-2007, 08:24 PM | #359 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,294
|
Quote:
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. |
|
01-06-2007, 08:26 PM | #360 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Madison WI USA
Posts: 3,508
|
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|