Rahvin writes
You are correct that lack of evidence is not positive evidence for falsification. However, in the case of significant historical events where physical evidence and ancient records should be found aplenty as with such accounts as the global Flood, the Exodus, the plagues of Egypt, 6-day Creationism, etc, a lack of evidence is strongly suggestive that the accounts are not historically accurate even if they were originally based on far less broadly reaching real events. In the case of 6-day Creationism or the global Flood, there are also significant amounts of contradictory evidence that falsify the historical accuracy of such accounts.
Let me say first off I am sure that you love, appreciate the aspect of logic, we all do in some form or fashion otherwise we would not be on this site. It is a fine thing and I am sure we all misapply or over apply it at times. In this connection I would point out that you dont see the "fallacy" if you will, that you have commited here.
As I was reading through the strickly physical evidence thread here I noticed that You, not myself invoked the "miraculous" in a statement in one of your post, then you formulated an argument from it in two respects. First you directly stated that, it was were the evidence starts to break down. Secondly, you even went further to state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then carried it even further by giving several examples where direct evidence should be present if those events took place.
If a person chooses to observe the existing physical evidence only and reject outright the miraculous, this would make atleast logical sense. If, however one invokes the miraculous in this connection and forms an argument in conjunction with existing physical evidence, it is implying that that person atleast is assuming the "possibility" of that miracle, because of the reference to it and the argument formulated from it. In this instance to give an example, the water turning to blood. Logic, commonsense and valid reasoning would dictate that that person that referenced that miracle and assumes its possibiltiy, would further take into consideration the other inferences and characteristics and aspects that would accompany that miracle and Deity that performed it. Complete objectivity would demand this consideration if you inculcate the miraculous to form an argument against the existing evidence
If the miraculous is a possibility, especially in the context of a document where numerous things can be demonstrated to be true, accurate and reliable, then it would follow that that Deitys intervention in these affairs would and could alter, correct, and return things to thier natural order, so that the "evidence" that reaches us may even appear as that event never happened.
As I see it, you have one of two choices, you can view the physical evidence without invoking the miraculous or view the physical evidence in conjunction with the miraculous. If you choose the later, objectivity would require two things. It would ask you to entertain all or some of the possibilites that would be involved in intervention and and it would ask you to view the physical evidence with this consideration in mind, especially if you are going to form a negative argument using them. Any or all of the "extraordinary claims" as you call them could be easily explained from both a physical evidence standpoint if the Deity, changed or altered those facts. Two examples will suffice.
Lets say Adam was real (I believe he was) and on day 10 an alien visits him and introduces himself and asks Adam how long he has been there, Adam responds by saying 10 days, the alien says, no not how long have you been in this exact place, but how long have you been alive, Adam says 10 days, the alien says this is not physically possible, everything I "know" indicates you could not only be ten days old. He begins to show Adam fossils and the such like. Adam responds by saying I can only tell you that according to God he created me ten days ago and thats all the memory I have. Deity and the miraculous would answer both questions. The miraulous would alter what the alien actually believed to be true or observable. Six day creation.
Rejection of the miraulous is on thing, invoking it and assuming its possibilty and formulating arguments against it, based on the exact information contained in the miracle, is another story completly. Further, the extraordinary evidence itself would be the very real existence of God himself and his ability to function in this manner. You my friend invoked the miraulous not me, I am just giving you a lesson on how argumentation and examples should be applied. To argue the existence of God is atleast to assume the possibilty of his existence in conjuction with the physical evidence in that respect. Hows that for a start junior?
Sorry for the dissertation, somethings require more than a yes or no answer.
You fail to understand what an appeal to authority is, as demonstrated again in subsequent posts. An appeal to authority is a logical argument whereby the conclusion is asserted to be valid based on the authority of an individual(s). This is fallacious because authorities can be wrong. The weight of an individual's authority is irrelevant - all that matters is their evidence and their argument, which are the substance missing from an appeal to authority.
Again, you miss the point. I agree, an appeal to authority is not an appeal to his status but the information he is presenting. I never stated that the appeal is to his authority, is that, which was in question. This is why it is only a logical fallacy, if you want it to be, but not in reality. This also demonstrates the point that these terms can be missaplied and the ambiguity of thier very nature. Why is this so hard to see?
Imagine that I write an account of World War 2. It's not overly detailed, just most of the more significant events, and the places and names used are all accurate and objectively verifiable elsewhere. However, I make an addition: I speak of a super-soldier named Captain America, who was the subject of a top-secret government program to develop a serum that would physically transform any regular person into a virtual superman with beyond-Olympic level strength and agility. In one instance I recount a tale of Captain America single-handedly devastating several German army divisions and thwarting the German attempts to develop nuclear weapons.
Does the overall accuracy of my account of World War 2 "lend credible support" that the US government actually developed a "super-soldier serum," and that a single successful subject of this project essentially won the war single-handedly?
Of course it does not. Each claim in a historical text must be handled individually, and as always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The accuracy of the remainder of my account may give sufficient reason to look for further evidence of a super-soldier program, but it certainly doesn't provide "credible support" that such a program ever actually existed. The strength of evidence provided by a single extraordinary account in a single text without outside verification rregardless of the accuracy of the more mundane aspects of the same text is extremely weak. So weak that simply dismissing such evidence out-of-hand as "likely mythological" is a reasonable conclusion, as we have many examples of such mythology, as in the case of the Illiad - a story that recounts real places and possibly some real events and people, but also contains wholly untrue mythological fabrications.
Yes actually the overall accuracy would "Lend credible Support" to that account, not prove it. In contrast, if nothing you said could be demonstrated as accurate, from the outset, we would immediatley reject it, correct? The further problem with your illustration is that "Ominpotence" and "Omniscience" is not involved. Remember Junior, we are assuming the possibility of that miracle and the characteristics of the Deity involved. The fact that God exists and is so obviously connected with the source involved it would tend demonstrate the accuracy of those events, so as to render it not "extremely weak". Actually, the mere fact of his existence would do this itself.
The corroborative information in the scriptures are such that they are not demonstrated to be false or inaccurate, depending on what scholar you wish to consult. If you choose liberal scholars one would be able to demonstrate from his or standpoint that no book of the NT was ever written before the year 200 AD. Yet, demonstratable evidence would conclude that this is inaccurate. The same is true of the OT, the flood, the Exodus as will be indicated by the links I post. It depends on your perspective at times, so it is therefore reduced to
Let me demonstrate. Not to pick on my Mormon friends but the Book of Mormon is suppose to be an account of some of the inhabitants of this continent some 4 to 5000 years ago. Yet, not a single palce, name, peoples or events described in that book afford us the ability to verify anything. This would be an example of no supporting evidence. Therefore while I cannot demonstrate from a miraculous standpoint those things did not happen and are only fabrications, it does not get me out of the starting blocks, so to speak.
accuracy of the remainder of my account may give sufficient reason to look for further evidence of a super-soldier program, but it certainly doesn't provide "credible support" that such a program ever actually existed. The strength of evidence provided by a single extraordinary account in a single text without outside verification rregardless of the accuracy of the more mundane aspects of the same text is extremely weak
Again, it depends on the sort of evidence at hand. If there is no reason to believe that divine intervention is involved and the obvious evidence that goes along to support that type of information,you would be correct. Actually if there is no credible support then there would be no real reason to look for anything, even if there were sufficient reason. However, sufficient reason and credible support are exacally what the scriptures offer in the context of believabilty about miracles. To desribe the information and credible history of the scriptures as "mundane", is the worst form of unobjectivity. the following are a few websites that demonstrate that point. There are literally so many pages, sites and links that deal wih this information, they could not all be listed in one evening. Here are a few examples.
Biblical archaeology - WikipediaBiblical Archaeology - Bible HistoryArchaeology and the Old Testament - Apologetics Press
The lack of evidence I'm speaking of is specific, Bertot. The Exodus should have left significant evidence of so many people traversing the desert over 40 years; we have found evidence from desert nomads in far smaller groups than described int eh Exodus account, and yet the Exodus of the Jews seems to have left absolutely no evidence whatsoever. When we expect to find evidence, have found similar evidence for far less significant events, and find nothing, the lack of evidence is strongly suggestive that the account is not actually historically accurate.
Describe the sort of evidence you are requesting here. It is a known fact they did no plant crops, build houses and these sorts of things. What sortof evidence would suffice for a situation as this one. Literally thousands upon thousands of people would have traversed this area before, during and after this time period. It would be immposible to distinguish nomadic peoples from one another. Any of these peoples could have sufficed for the Hebrews, since they were not desiganted as a people or a nation. Again, the aspect of intervention would come into play in this respect as well. This does not suffice as any valid argument against such an event.
God bless you
Page not found - aish.com
Quote from the above website:
"In fact," asserts Dever, "the archaeological record is not at all silent. It's only that some historians are deaf."
Likewise, the Egyptian plagues, including the loss of all firstborn children, resulted in no records being left by the Egyptians. The only account of those plagues is in the Biblical texts, and nowhere else. Such a significant event is bound to be recorded somewhere, and yet there is nothing. The river turning to blood should have also left evidence of a mass die-off (most aquatic creatures wouldn't do so well living in a river that suddenly, magically turned into blood), and no evidence is found.
Extraordinary accounts such as these require extraordinary evidence to provide "credible support" that they actually happened. Such evidence cannot be provided by a single account in the Biblical texts, and is not found elsewhere. It is not likely that these events ever actually happened as recorded in teh Bible.
And ofcourse we know they Egyptians were completly objective in recording things that were not in thier favour. these simply do not suffice as evidence of those events as mentioned in the scriptures. Do you really believe those events recorded in Egyptian history are indicative of the actual truth. Any amount of information could been left off or added.
The scriptures themselves must first be demonstated as unreliable if they are to be considered as an unreliable account of those events. Rejecting them on the basis of miracles will not suffice. Like wise accepting on the basis of miracles will not work. It should be something else. However, the miraculous is more than believable due to the evidence it supports.
Other examples, such as the Flood or 6-day Creationism, have mountains of objective evidence directly contradicting the Biblical accounts. In these cases it's not a mere lack of evidence we're discussing, but the contradiction of significant amounts of it. The weak evidence provided by an extraordinary claim in an ancient text is completely and utterly overridden by actual objective evidence to the contrary. In these cases we can say with near certainty that these Biblical accounts are not even remotely historically accurate. To give you the level of certainty, I would say that it is as certain that the Biblical accounts of the Flood and Creation did not happen as reported as it is that the Sun will rise tomorrow.
Instead of responding here i will let you provide the mountain of evidence, that would indicate these things could not occured they miraculous way they said they did.
Quite to the contrary. The reason I am not convinced is the lack of evidence. if you can provide objective evidence of the divine or miraculous, I will follow it.
Your response is a childish "I'm right, you're just being stubborn" approach, and you take this course because you know you cannot win this argument because your evidence and arguments have the logical strength of wet tissue.
Its called the existence of God, otherwise decribed as intervention and the sustainable scriptures.
Your response is that of an arrogant pompous (pretintiously dignified)Ass. You believe because you have studied a field as logic, that you have all the answers, and you can "dismantle", this or that, niether of which are true,as is indicated by your attempts and inexperience in the area of deductive reasoning. Knowing the terms is not all that is required at argumentation. Keep trying though junior you will get the hang of it.
These events should have left evidence regarless of whether their source was miraculous or not.
Now watch this bit of arrogant nonsense. You dont believe in miracles but you will lay down the ground work for how they will function and work, you pompass little turd.
Your arrogance and assumptions aside, the miraculous is not a slave to your wishes or categorical statements. There are simply to many variables when the miraculous is involved. again you invoked the miraculous not me. I was simply responding to the aspect that if you wish to bring it up objectivity and fairness would need to follow you line of reasoning.
Secondly, the miraculous would and could alter what we now see or what the facts might have been in those instances. Implying that God would need to follow up with a cleanup miracle to hide evidence is nonsensical. The miracle and its results were simaltaneous unless God decided other otherwise.
The exception would be if you claimed that further miracles were used to erase all trace of their occurrance, in which case we cease to discuss the matter rationally and gain the ability to make up literally whatever we want and claim equal validity. After all, it's equally likely that the Judeo-Christian deity miraculously allowed the Exodus as it is Zeus is responsible for lightning if we allow that further miracles are used to disguise these "facts" from us. This would, of course, mean that any deity would have to be purposely misleading us, leaving false trails and completely erasing any trace of his miraculous deeds with the exception of a set of ancient texts from a single nomadic middle-eastern culture.
That's an incredible extraordinary claim, one for which you have no extraordinary evidence to match. In fact, such a line of reasoning is identical to the pitiful "reasoning" of conspiracy theorists - there's no evidence for such bizzare claims because the evidence is being hidden!
Rejecting the miraculous as set out in the scriptures, is not equivalent to saying there is no evidence supporting thier claims. It on the other hand is not proof of those events either. But inconjuction with the existence of an intervining Deity and the support the scriptures, it offers a person the ability to accept a supportable belief, given the evidence. Care to level a "logical inconsistency" against this premise, one that shows it as a logical contradiction, not one that says you dont like it.
As long as the existence of God is reasonably demonstratable, the possibiltiy that the miraculous happened will always persist. One then simply has to choose from the prospects out there that claim his signature and the evidence that supports the best. however, rejecting it is always a possibility but not due to a lack of evidence, but only a force of will.
If you'd like to convince me that these miracles happened, simply provide the evidence that such miracles would leave behind. For instance, if I were to try to convince you that I could miraculously fire high-energy laser beams from my eyes, I would provide you with the evidence of laser-burned holes in objects spaced the same distance as my eyes. This is perhaps a poor analogy, but it illustrates that even the miraculous should leave evidence behind unless further miracles are invoked to explain the alck of evidence, at which point no objective evidence or even rational discussion is possible.
Your right, it is a poor analogy given the fact that you do not make the rules for how God and miracles work. Further I have already demonstrated why objective evidence and rational discussion is still possible, even if so-called evidence is not left behind. This is rule you set up, not any Valid reasoning process.
I eagerly await your response, as I'm sure it will prove to be just as easily dismantled as your previous posts.
Have at it junior .
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 1 link (get the ":" after the http, which oddly was also breaking the next link which didn't have any error).
™ Version 4.2
