Religion III

[hcap]

Originally Posted by box_CRAP

But that is not what your client (?) Hc[r]ap has been doing in his latest round posts. He has repeatedly questioned God's character (which presumes his existence) in the first place

Norman's ass-hole-an word games to the rescue?

I have also questioned Alf's character before I questioned his existence living in your garage. Both are in doubt.

So what? You don't question all the villain's character on your Saturday morning cartoons? You just buy into their evilness as you buy into your god's justified twisted goodness of infanticide?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Norman's ass-hole-an word games to the rescue?

I have also questioned Alf's character before I questioned his existence living in your garage. Both are in doubt.

So what? You don't question all the villain's character on your Saturday morning cartoons? You just buy into their evilness as you buy into your god's justified twisted goodness of infanticide?

The only thing you should be questioning is the state of your mental health. Even then...it's doubtful that a team of the finest psych ward doctors would be able to come to your rescue. (You know: Too little, too late.)

Enjoy the rest of your short life.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The only thing you should be questioning is the state of your mental health. Even then...it's doubtful that a team of the finest psych ward doctors would be able to come to your rescue. (You know: Too little, too late.)

Enjoy the rest of your short life.

More BS.

Hey bunky, speaking of your nonsense and your incomprehensible imbecilic ranting........

Ask Alf to fly you to Melmac, his home planet.

Try to find if they had any floods on Melmac that wiped out 99.99999% the Alfians (Alf's species), 'cause all of them were way too wicked and sinful for their god "Lord-Alf.on.high"?

Come to think of it, maybe you can arrange a cosmic match? Maybe Alf's god "Lord-Alf.on.high" is a female?. And check if she murdered baby Alfs for revenge. I wonder would that make the Alfian Jesus literally a S.O.B?

Probably not a good idea to ask Alf.

[TJDave]

Jewish Irony;

Passover cancelled because of a plague.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Jewish Irony;

Passover cancelled because of a plague.

Christian Irony:

Christ, being Christians' Passover 24/7, 365 days a year can never be cancelled.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

More BS.

Hey bunky, speaking of your nonsense and your incomprehensible imbecilic ranting........

Ask Alf to fly you to Melmac, his home planet.

Try to find if they had any floods on Melmac that wiped out 99.99999% the Alfians (Alf's species), 'cause all of them were way too wicked and sinful for their god "Lord-Alf.on.high"?

Come to think of it, maybe you can arrange a cosmic match? Maybe Alf's god "Lord-Alf.on.high" is a female?. And check if she murdered baby Alfs for revenge. I wonder would that make the Alfian Jesus literally a S.O.B?

Probably not a good idea to ask Alf.

First, you were stuck on Stupid. Now, it's even worse: You're stuck on Alf!

As noted earlier, you are beyond all help.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Try to wrap your few live brain cells around this:

Ad hominem! He who stoops to ad hominem has no real argument.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Questioning an aspect (evolution) of a larger worldview (Materialism) is perfectly legitimate, since a lot of people believe in this worldview.

Argumentum ad populum! A.k.a., the band wagon argument. A.k.a., fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But that is not what your client (?) Hc[r]ap has been doing in his latest round posts. He has repeatedly questioned God's character (which presumes his existence) ...

Assumes, not presumes. There's a difference. One assumes for the sake of argument without maintaining that the assumption is true. To presume means that one believes the premise without proof.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... in the first place in the context of certain historic events (which he also presumed have occurred in the second place), the most notable of these being the Exodus. Then after I ask him a question and cite a scripture, he changes horses in mid-stream by saying the Exodus never occurred because there's supposedly no historical or archaeological evidence for same, ...

The position of most archeologists, most notably Zahi Hawass (Egypt's first Minister of Antiquities), Francesca Stavrakopoulou and others.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... which is a downright stupid argument since the bible ...

Proves nothing!

Originally Posted by boxcar

... reveals the historical even for one thing; and for another, even if he wants to disbelieve scripture, he is guilty of the Fallacy of Argument from Silence --

You are confusing Argument From Silence with Absence of Evidence which is not a fallacy. Absence of evidence, or the failure to observe evidence that favors a hypothesis, is evidence against that hypothesis. Take the Loch Ness Monster for example. The fact that no one has ever observed Nessie is evidence that Nessie does not exist. That is not an argument from silence.

If you wish to maintain steadfast in your belief in the Exodus then you must also believe in Zeus, Hercules, Apollo, etc., since all these appear in The Iliad.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Methinks you should counsel your client (?), who you appear to be defending, to become as simple-minded and naive as you are by dismissing the entire bible and everyone and everything in it as fiction.

I do not dismiss the entire Bible as fiction. There is archeological evidence that supports some of it, notably the division of Israel into two different kingdoms. There is no support for any history before that. There is no support for any events in the NT although there is secular support for the existence of some characters in the NT, most notably Herod the Great and his sons.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ad hominem! He who stoops to ad hominem has no real argument.

Argumentum ad populum! A.k.a., the band wagon argument. A.k.a., fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong.

Assumes, not presumes. There's a difference. One assumes for the sake of argument without maintaining that the assumption is true. To presume means that one believes the premise without proof.

The position of most archeologists, most notably Zahi Hawass (Egypt's first Minister of Antiquities), Francesca Stavrakopoulou and others.

Proves nothing!

You are confusing Argument From Silence with Absence of Evidence which is not a fallacy. Absence of evidence, or the failure to observe evidence that favors a hypothesis, is evidence against that hypothesis. Take the Loch Ness Monster for example. The fact that no one has ever observed Nessie is evidence that Nessie does not exist. That is not an argument from silence.

If you wish to maintain steadfast in your belief in the Exodus then you must also believe in Zeus, Hercules, Apollo, etc., since all these appear in The Iliad.

I do not dismiss the entire Bible as fiction. There is archeological evidence that supports some of it, notably the division of Israel into two different kingdoms. There is no support for any history before that. There is no support for any events in the NT although there is secular support for the existence of some characters in the NT, most notably Herod the Great and his sons.

There is no absence of evidence, since different writers of the bible speak to the Exodus account. Therefore, there is plenty of BIBLICAL evidence that the Exodus was a real historical event. Just because you're a God-hating, God-denying atheist that refuses to accept that evidence doesn't change the fact that there are multiple Exodus accounts throughout the bible. Therefore, your denial and Hcap's on the basis of lack of historical or archaeological evidence amounts to an Argument from Silence.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There is no absence of evidence, since different writers of the bible speak to the Exodus account. Therefore, there is plenty of BIBLICAL evidence that the Exodus was a real historical event. Just because you're a God-hating, God-denying atheist that refuses to accept that evidence doesn't change the fact that there are multiple Exodus accounts throughout the bible. Therefore, your denial and Hcap's on the basis of lack of historical or archaeological evidence amounts to an Argument from Silence.

Facts and evidence exist and can be agreed upon by experts regardless of your extreme paranoid god-hating, god-denying absurd theories.

You have no facts or evidence. Only fantasies.

Remember bunky, the dramatic events in the bible are myth, legend and pretend.
Dramatic, and meaningful, but never happened.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Therefore, your denial and Hcap's on the basis of lack of historical or archaeological evidence amounts to an Argument from Silence.

By itself Argument from Silence is not a fallacy. It is a fallacy only when there is no reason to expect evidence. In the case of the supposed enslavement of the Hebrews and the exodus the Bible gives numbers, numbers so great that if the described event were true we would expect Egyptian records to confirm them. The Bible says that 1,000,000 people fled Egypt. The Egyptians were great record keepers. They do not confirm such a large number. The number they do confirm is zero.

The Argument from Silence as you present it is basically the Argument from Ignorance reworded in such a way as to make it seem to be something it is not. Both amount to the claim that "if you can't prove me wrong then I'm right."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

By itself Argument from Silence is not a fallacy. It is a fallacy only when there is no reason to expect evidence. In the case of the supposed enslavement of the Hebrews and the exodus the Bible gives numbers, numbers so great that if the described event were true we would expect Egyptian records to confirm them. The Bible says that 1,000,000 people fled Egypt. The Egyptians were great record keepers. They do not confirm such a large number. The number they do confirm is zero.

The Argument from Silence as you present it is basically the Argument from Ignorance reworded in such a way as to make it seem to be something it is not. Both amount to the claim that "if you can't prove me wrong then I'm right."

A couple of years ago I explained the likely reason for no Egyptian records of the Exodus. What God did to Pharaoh (who was considered to be a god, by the way) and to all the other "gods" of Egypt was extremely embarrassing and humiliating -- so much so that other ANE cultures heard about it as well! Egyptian officials, therefore, likely ordered censorship! They likely ordered that the event never be recorded in Egyptian annals so that the event would disappear faster from the memories of the people and future generations.

The same thing goes on today in our culture. When a big dimwit politician or some black guy or a Muslim or whatever get themselves into hot water, the lamestream media often ignores or underreports because the incident doesn't fit their narrative. If they report it, it'll be a small blurb on the bottom of page 19 of the NY Slimes, for example, where it's likely not very many people will see it.

This is, in all probability, is what happened in principle in Egypt during the Exodus. The Israelites' God YHWH totally humiliated and shamed the "gods" of Egypt, including Pharaoh. What successor to Pharaoh's throne would want all those disastrous events (plagues, etc.) recorded for all future generations to see and remember?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

A couple of years ago I explained the likely reason for no Egyptian records of the Exodus. What God did to Pharaoh (who was considered to be a god, by the way) and to all the other "gods" of Egypt was extremely embarrassing and humiliating -- so much so that other ANE cultures heard about it as well! Egyptian officials, therefore, likely ordered censorship! They likely ordered that the event never be recorded in Egyptian annals so that the event would disappear faster from the memories of the people and future generations.

The same thing goes on today in our culture. When a big dimwit politician or some black guy or a Muslim or whatever get themselves into hot water, the lamestream media often ignores or underreports because the incident doesn't fit their narrative. If they report it, it'll be a small blurb on the bottom of page 19 of the NY Slimes, for example, where it's likely not very many people will see it.

This is, in all probability, is what happened in principle in Egypt during the Exodus. The Israelites' God YHWH totally humiliated and shamed the "gods" of Egypt, including Pharaoh. What successor to Pharaoh's throne would want all those disastrous events (plagues, etc.) recorded for all future generations to see and remember?

The Egyptians tried this more than once. It never worked. I refer you to the following video. Start at about 6:00 minutes in. What? You don't watch videos? Your loss.

YouTube

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Egyptians tried this more than once. It never worked. I refer you to the following video. Start at about 6:00 minutes in. What? You don't watch videos? Your loss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iep4gnmJeRE

Excellent video.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Egyptians tried this more than once. It never worked. I refer you to the following video. Start at about 6:00 minutes in. What? You don't watch videos? Your loss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iep4gnmJeRE

I'm familiar with this lame argument. But wiping out traces of peoples or gods cannot be compared to the wiping out the history of the most devastating, humiliating event in Egypt's entire history. Egypt was thoroughly disgraced and put to shame by the Hebrew God YHWH! It would have been a matter of national pride to cover that up. All it would have taken was a royal edict under the pains of death none of the Exodus events be recorded. Don't forget: Egypt's "gods" were humiliated in defeat as well. And Egypt was a thoroughly polytheistic nation.

So, Egypt lost her king, her army, her slave labor force and lost a lot of respect for her magicians, sorcerers, priests and gods. The Exodus was no small thing to Egypt. The event impacted the entire Egyptian culture as no other has.



Also, there weren't 15 million Hebrews in Egypt. More likely closer to a million, maybe at most maybe 3 million. Scripture says 600,000 men passed through the Red Sea, excluding women and children.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

By itself Argument from Silence is not a fallacy. It is a fallacy only when there is no reason to expect evidence. In the case of the supposed enslavement of the Hebrews and the exodus the Bible gives numbers, numbers so great that if the described event were true we would expect Egyptian records to confirm them. The Bible says that 1,000,000 people fled Egypt. The Egyptians were great record keepers. They do not confirm such a large number. The number they do confirm is zero.

The Argument from Silence as you present it is basically the Argument from Ignorance reworded in such a way as to make it seem to be something it is not. Both amount to the claim that "if you can't prove me wrong then I'm right."

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying when scripture is silent on something, we just don't know one way or the other! Here are two classic examples of an Argument from Silence:

Biblical Arguments from Silence

Let me give you an example of an argument from silence. I’ve heard people say, “I just can’t believe the story of Balaam and his donkey, because Balaam isn’t surprised when his donkey starts talking.” I want to ask, “How do you know Balaam wasn’t surprised?” They are assuming that if he had been surprised, the text would say so. But the truth is, the text doesn’t say he wasn’t surprised. So when attempting to answer the question, “Was Balaam surprised when his donkey spoke?” we cannot interpret the silence as either agreement or disagreement. The text simply doesn’t say.

Another one I hear often when discussing whether or not Christians should serve in the military, “Cornelius wasn’t told to stop being a soldier when he became a Christian.” This argument makes the assumption that if Cornelius (a Roman centurion) had been told to stop being a soldier, that conversation would have been recorded by Luke in the book of Acts. Though I’ve probably used this argument myself, it is actually a fallacious argument. Cornelius might have been told that and he might not have been told that. We simply don’t know. When attempting to answer the question, “Did Cornelius continue serving as a Roman centurion?” we cannot interpret the silence as either agreement or disagreement. That I’m aware of, the text simply doesn’t say.