CreateDebate


ColumCille's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of ColumCille's arguments, looking across every debate.
ColumCille(9) Clarified
1 point

The problem is that the article makes some critical mistakes. First, it cites a study that is not at all about what the article discusses, rather it is a discussion of Environmental constraints on copper production at a specific mine in the Levant. http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/033443512X13424449373786

1) Initially, I was concerned with his dismissal of the earlier camel bones as "wild," but this turns out to be yet another example of terrible scientific reporting. Rather what the professor notes is that older examples of camel bones tend to be in midden (trash) mounds which suggests possible predation by humans, which is unlikely if this is a trade or pack animal (more on my objection to the pack animal assumption later). The NYT writer mistakes this phrase for suggesting they are wild.

2) His data is confined to just a few number of sites, with all the dating coming from a single site of habitual habitation (a copper mine). That site doesn't have any human habitation around the time of the patriarchs so it seems an odd evidence source for whether or not they had camels. If that was a valid conclusion, we could well argue that humans didn't exist in the levant around that time period either.

3) The patriarchs he takes issue with (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) lived in quite a few regions, and only in the levant itself during the times proceeding the famine in egypt (not exactly a bountiful time). Most of the Abraham story comes from a region near northern Iraq and so whether or not camels are present in the Levant is more of a side issue to whether or not Genesis is accurately depicting this story.

4) This copper mine site is a "high place," in Hebrew Har. The high places were where the Israelites tended to form settlements during the Judges and Kings period because of their defensibility. They are notoriously hard to live on and would not have been good locations for nomadic herders like Abraham or Isaac. Those peoples tended to live in the lower regions of canaan where grass was more abundant and water available.

5) As I just mentioned, most of the earliest patriarchs were nomadic herders. Nomads are infamous for not leaving large archeological footprints (especially if you are looking a place they probably didn't frequent like a Har in the Israeli wilderness) and so archeologists are usually very reluctant to make any definitive conclusions about them based on sparse archeological evidence. If we were to confine ourselves to archeology there would be virtually no record of the existence of Bedouins, however we can see them if you travel to the right regions.

6) Given the location objection noted above the timeline he proposes seems to hold no objection. Generally it agreed that Abraham was around sometime around 2100BC (he also proposes that time period in his paper). He was generally known to have lived in the vicinity of Ur (southern Iraq) and spent a lot of time near Ninevah (northern Iraq). Both of these cities are known to have extensive trade and cultural exchange with the Arabian Peninsula (where camels were domesticated no later than 3000BC). Now we can judge the spread of the camel by noting that it is present in Shar-i Sokhta in 2600BC. That city is in the eastern edge of present day Iran with Ur between it and Arabia. That means that camels must have been present in Ur prior to 2600BC, 500 years before Abraham is there.

7) The professor bases his levant timeline on the presence of trade routes. I have two objections to that. First, it seems to presume his conclusion since the trade routes could not have developed until after the Patriarchs had settlements large enough to warrant trade. Second, the use of camels far precedes their use as pack animals in trade. Camels were used in much the same manner as sheep (and still are) in nomadic groups nearly a millenia before their use in trade routes by the Egyptians. This second objection is critical to understanding why his evidence set is so odd. If I am looking for evidence of the domestication of dogs in America, I wouldn't go to an airport, find that dogs are first present in the 1990s as drug sniffing animals and then conclude dogs were first domesticated in the US in the 1990s.

0 points

As I said in dispute and as another poster already mentioned, this is a non-factual argument.

In the U.S., firearms are far, far more commonly used to prevent crime than to commit it. Even if we stipulate that prohibition works (historically it hasn't) that only means you are enabling the strong vs the weak. Is that the society we want to live in? Where a woman can't own a firearm to stop a rapist? http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

5 points

This just shows a complete lack of factual accuracy. Citizens cannot buy "machine guns" which are large caliber automatic rifles. They can buy small caliber semi-automatic and larger caliber semi-automatic rifles, commonly called "assault rifles" and "hunting rifles," but neither of those are "machine guns" in any meaningful sense.

Further, lets say we eliminated not just all assault weapons, but tall rifles. Lets even stipulate that the banning of these weapons would be effective (how well has that worked out for marijuana or alcohol?).

You realize that these weapons are rarely used in crimes right? That on the order of 10 to 1, these weapons are used to prevent crime. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

1 point

We should remember that the ethnic makeup of that region 2000 years ago was quite different. The darker skinned arab genes wouldn't make a major appearance for quite a while. Rather, Jesus probably looked something like a modern day Serbian (though with dark eyes and curly hair).

2 points

But it wouldn't imply that you would be free from seeing anyone drinking a soda in public right? Isn't that more closely what is meant by "freedom from religion?"

I think we need to be careful in what we argue is "freedom from religion." It doesn't mean that you are free not to follow a religion, it traditionally means that you are free from any religious activities in the public sphere (no prayers at a school, even if not school sponsored for example).

Finally, even if we accepted your definition, that wouldn't mean they are equivalent, but rather that the latter is a variant under the former.

0 points

Actually Hell is not in Judaism, it was never mentioned anywhere other than the New Testament.

This is quite commonly referenced on the Internet today, however it isn't accurate. The confusion arises from the Torahs' use of Sheol solely to refer to the afterlife. All souls enter Sheol after their death, but that doesn't mean their existence there is equal or similar.

Both in the Torah and in the Talmud, Sheol is divided in how people will experience their death. God is described in Psalms as both a comforter to those in Sheol who love Him and as being cut off from the unrighteous. Sheol, in Hebrew, has linguistic variances based upon this usage, indicating the Israelites understood, or at least meant to imply, that there is a difference in state for various souls within Sheol.

Hell is described in the bible as so:

Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”

Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”

This is what happens when you interpret verses out of context. Both verses are part of large parables and their explanations. It doesn't make sense to take words or individual phrases as literal in the midst of a parable.

Further, Jesus (in Mark) is quoting Isiah, giving further problems to your first claim above.

If you are a Christian and you truly believe the bible to be the word of God, than why doesnt it simply describe hell as a place where one shall be seperated from God? Why does it instead depict Hell as eternal torment?

But it does, both in the verses you reference above, and in others. In all those parables there are some common themes. One is that those that reject the teachings are "cast out" or "separated." Jesus refers to judgement as a separation on virtually all occasions, a separation apart from the reward offered by the various parable characters.

How come you know more about your holy book than the billions of old age philosophers like Martin Luther who studied and lived by this stuff?

Can you support that that was their view? I think it is more likely that you are falling victim to the popular culture notion of their view. You'll notice that both Luther and Aquinas argued that Hell was a separation from God: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM#Hell

1 point

I should have figured this is where you were coming from, I am simply arguing against the "infinte pain" concept of hell, I don't have much problems with that alternative, other than the fact that people are getting rewarded for blind faith which I don't consider to be virtue at all.

Fair enough, I think we would need to understand the mechanism of that "pain" however. I can have pain out of my own negligence, the negligence of others or even malicious intent. The nature of that pain and suffering isn't the latter in the Judeo-Christian theological world though, it is the former.

But lets say we were arguing about another religion, Islam, for example, where it does appear to be the latter. Is that inconsistent with Allah being "good?" (Not that I'm arguing Allah is doctrinally good here) I'm not sure it necessarily does. The question still comes down to a matter of appropriateness. One the one side of the scale we have "infinite pain for infinitely long" and on the other side of the scale "rejecting the Creator of all things."

To judge the balance of those two we have several possible mechanisms:

a) personal subjective: Person A feels they are balanced, person B does not. This mechanism seems unsatisfactory to me as it equates justice to a matter of taste and results in us clearly having no resolution. However, given that, for the sake of this argument, Allah is the supreme deity of the universe, his subjective view of the balance would seem to be more relevant than any of ours.

b) Objective measure: We would need to agree to some metric with which to compare.

Neither of these mechanisms seems to provide a clear path towards this clearly being "too harsh," rather one of them suggests that Allah views it as just from his provident point of view.

1 point

First, I still want to point out that we are operating under the assumption that Hell is meant as a punishment rather than a natural consequence. We still have no actual evidence to support that as the intent.

How does infinite pain for infinite time compensate anyone?

Nor did I make the argument that it was specifically either of those. My main point was to show that your assumption that punishment is only to stop re-occurrence was inaccurate. Hence, we would need to establish all possible justifications for punishment and then remove them in order to establish this as unnecessary.

I've seen no justification for the concept of Hell as "infinite pain" here, but sufficed to say it isn't an optimal condition. If we label Hell generally as "not heaven" ie "not reward" we can see a very logical reason for Hell. It is certainly a logical conclusion that someone who chooses to reject the morality issued by the Creator of the universe should receive the benefit for accepting that morality.

Even if we consider this on a base transaction level the outcome makes sense. If I offer $100 for someone to write an essay and they don't, what warrant do they have to claim the $100? The fact that that person lives without that reward for eternity is hardly an unjust consequence.

I've went over this, if this were the case, it would be SIGNIFICANTLY more successful in it's goal if god were to rather reveal himself.

Why? I see no reason to accept this. Drawing and quartering was horrific in punishment, as was crucifixion, neither punishment was fool proof. Both saw people commit crimes in full knowledge of the outcome of that crime.

A certain degree of punishment either will maintain order or it won't

In this scenario, what constitutes "order?" What precisely would constitute "maintaining order?" Would it be 100% of people believing in God? 0 Sins? What? And how would you account for the violations of law now? No one doubts the law's existence, they still violate it.

You do when you use the term "omnipotent". When you use the term "all-powerful" or "Omnipotent" you are claiming just that.

Not at all, that is your inference, not the actual philosophic or traditional meaning of that term, as I pointed out in my last response.

Then he is lacking power in certain scenarios, making him not all powerful. If you say god can't do X, then you are saying god lacks the power to do X, which means god lacks power in a certain conditions, which means god doesn't possess all power.

This is a non sequitor. God cannot be said to not possess a power that doesn't exist. The powers you are referring to are self-contradictary and are therefore impossible to possess. It would be like saying that the universe has to contain a married bachelor because the universe contains all that exists.

And nothing in your explanation resolves the problem I stated before. IE if omnipotent means anything, possible or not, then omnipotence is internally inconsistent and therefore an incoherent term.

Exactly which means god should have the power to do just about anything. Just about anything, that is the key phrase, not "can do anything." Nothing about omnipotence has ever required that it be able to do the logically impossible.

I'm not arguing that all-powerful necessarily means infinite power, but all-powerful means having all the power.

And in what sense does the power to make a married bachelor exist so that God can possess it?

Or to apply to your logic question, in what sense does God have the ability to change His nature? Rationality is a trait of God, so in the sense of what you are arguing, God would have to be able to be both rational and non-rational.

However to say that this world can't be any better than it is, does imply that you know it is the best it could possibly be. There is evidence suggesting that it could be better,

Well I should point out that I didn't say it was patently clear that that is the case, only that the objection that the world could be better is an uncertain one to make.

I don't see any evidence that it could be better. What specifically could be changed to make it so?

1 point

Like in my last response, why I perceive it as harsh, is it is ultimately pointless and accomplishes nothing...The point of punishment is to discourage something

I think this is an unwarranted conclusion for two reasons.

1) Punishments are not necessarily designed only in a pro-active discouragement mode. Some are designed to be a post-action reparation or removal of benefit from the guilty. Some fines are meant that way, as are virtually all civil punishments. They attempt to either compensate the harmed or to remove benefit achieved from the activity in question.

2) Further, it could well be a deterrent rather than an attempt to stop recidivism. In that sense it could well serve to "discourage" something.

Is it more than what is necessary to maintain order? I certainly think so...

That would seem to be a subjectivist fallacy. You feel it is unnecessary, they did not. If we are relegating the question to a matter of preference or indeed taste, it would seem that we could also relegate the decision to God as well. Once we make this a matter of subjective argument, your point must be ceded because the question of punishment is subject to the argument of who should get to determine punishment. Given God's status as creator of all things (in this argument), it would seem His determination would trump others.

Actually it does, because being omnipotent is synonymous with all powerful, omni meaning all, and potent meaning powerful. With that, he has power over everything, even logic, if he doesn't have power over logic, then he is not all powerful, just VERY powerful.

Strawman fallacy, theists do not argue that God is powerful in this manner. The Jewish and Christian Bible do not claim He is capable of this type of action.

Even if we were to accept your literalist interpretation of that word (rather than its contextual definition), it still does not argue that God is capable of doing anything at all that he wishes. Only that He has "all" power (omni meaning all as you point out). I can own all copies of a rare baseball card, that doesn't mean that I therefore own an infinite number of them either. I only own those which exist. Likewise God being omnipotent means that He has all power, not "infinite" power, all existent powers.

Why does this need to be so? Because otherwise the concept of omnipotent is meaningless as it is self contradictory. God has both the power to make a rock to heavy to move and the power to move it. That understanding of "omnipotence" is incoherent and as such not a valid concept to call into being.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-17

Rather, as we see in the link here, God has generally been well understood as having all powers that are actualizable, not all powers conceivable.

I know that the world could be better than what it already is

This is a pretty strong claim to be made here. The world has emergent properties, and as such it is definitionally impossible for you to understand the full ramifications of that action. What you mean is that you don't know of anything bad that would happen as a first order effect. You might be able to puzzle out some of the second order effects, but the third, fourth, fifth and so on are far outside our ability to accurately predict.

So while it might seem that it would be better if God stopped some action, it is virtually impossible to say so with any real certainty. It reminds me of any of the Sci-fi tropes about time travel, stepping on the smallest lizard changes the world, kinda thing.

1 point

First, good response Zephyr. Thanks for replying.

I think you have several points that require a response:

The debate title, says "Is being sent to hell because you're not Christian harsh?", this to me seems to mean intentionally sending people to hell for not being Christian, not about people going to hell as a consequence in cause and effect.

Lets assume for a minute that that is the OP's position. Why exactly is that punishment "too harsh?" What about it objectively argues that it is disproportionally bad given the offense?

I understand that it might appear that way to some, and not appear that way to others, but that seems like a bad metric to use. Drawing and quartering didn't seem to harsh for some given the offense of political slander at one point. So what can we use to objectively argue that it is far too excessive given the action?

Besides if the Christian god is omnipotent, and omniscient, then god should be perfectly capable of not having people go to hell for not believing in Christianity

Being omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything. Rather it means He can do anything that is logically possible. He can't create a married bachelor for example.

Given that, I don't see any reason to believe that God could create a system where good is maximized, but where this consequence is absent. I mean to say that your position appeals to the possibility that such a world is possible where we have as much good as we have in our current world and where the consequence of Hell is absent. I don't see any reasoning to support that such a world is possible and the burden of support would seem to be on you given your appeal to it.

2 points

Jace beat me to this argument, good response. Pensions are contracts like every other engagement the city has undertaken. Part of contracting is counter-party risk. I don't offer a loan to a drug addict because the risk of non-payment is high. If a company goes out of business the labor contracts are voided, the entity (the company) you contracted with no longer exists.

This situation is extremely similar to a person buying a city bond. Lets say a retiree buys a city municipal bond in order to get an income stream. That city goes bankrupt, does the retiree still get the income stream back? Of course not. The same applies here, workers traded a portion of their "wealth" (their labor) for a promise of a future income stream. They invested in a party with significant risk (a city run by people unwilling to act fiscally responsible) and that risk didn't pan out.

0 points

That assumption is not necessarily true. Often "punishment" is the natural consequence of an action, not necessarily an outside force. That too is the view of Hell traditionally in Christianity and Judaism. A natural separation from the holy that is the result of sin.

1 point

We could well rephrase your rebuttal to say:

"Who else!!! What do u think? [chickens] just randomly appeared from nowhere?"

What did the chicken that laid your egg hatch from? Or did she spontaneously become a chicken?

1 point

1) this is all a case of special pleading, once again, even if I granted to you that the Universe had to be created, why does it have to be a being?

Two things, first, the point you reference is not special pleading fallacy. If you were correct it would be a Non Sequitor or Does not Follow fallacy.

Two, I've pointed out why it must be a being in another thread, but to restate:

The Cosmological Argument:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2: The universe began to exist.

C: The universe therefore as a cause.

Premise 1

This is generally considered a relatively fundamental law of causation [1]. Changes in state (going from not existing to existing) require causation. We should consider that any effect that lacks a cause becomes, by definition "necessary." And self sufficient effects cannot, by definition "begin."

In the past, some have sought to object to this premise by forwarding different aspects of Quantum Mechanics. These fail however because the causal mechanism still exists, it is the quantum wave function [2]. The confusion often arises because we confuse a probabilistic cause for no cause at all. If there was a random number generator that killed a cat on odd numbers, we wouldn't say that the cat's death was uncaused.

Premise 2

This premise also is generally scientifically accepted. Inflationary cosmology dictates that the universe began from a near singularity[3]. I think it is important here to point out that time is a physical dimension of our universe, just like the other dimensions[4]. Just as they expanded from a singularity, so did the temporal dimension of our universe. This necessitates a beginning of the universe when the temporal dimension was a singularity as well.

Objections to this premise are usually in the form of alternative hypotheses about our current universe. Historically, the steady state universe was used. That is to say, it was argued until recently that the universe is eternal, that it had always been. This is problematic for several reasons. Primary amongst them is the evidence indicating the universe is expanding. It is for this reason that virtually no cosmologist holds to steady state theory today. The historic objection also still holds. If the universe was eternal, we would expect that all the stars and galaxies to have burned out by now. If there is an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would already have occurred, which is far greater than the possible time limit on all the fission of all the matter in the universe.

The first modification of this theory to deal with the expansion of the universe came with the cyclic model. In which the universe expands, collapses and expands again. This theory however fails because it also cannot recede into the infinite past. Entropy between cycles would build up causing later cycles to be high entropy states and prohibit matter and star formation[5]. Again, if the universe were infinitely old, this would have already occurred and we could not observe star formation now.

Finally, the most modern objection arises from an appeal to a multiverse or multiple universes. This objection also fails for two reasons. One, since it produces a temporal effect, the multiverse itself would need a temporal component (non intentful causes cannot act outside of a dimension they exist in), making it open to the same appeals to an infinite past that we have above. Two, a multi-verse hypothesis would need to be reconciled to the Borde-Vilinken-Guth Theorem [6] which prohibits low entropy, expanding universes (ie the kind we live in) from any multiverse. To date, no reconciliation has been put forward, with Stephen Hawking noting that this is the single greatest objection to his views.

Characteristics

It naturally follows from the premises that the universe therefore had a cause.

But we can go a little bit further than that. Given the established premises and conclusions and some other observed facts, we can reason out a few of the properties of this cause.

1) Omnipotence. This word is often used in a differing manner than how theists intend it. It does not mean, for example, the ability to do anything such as creating a round square. Rather, when used here it refers to the ability to actualize states of affairs. I will borrow William Lane Craig’s definition here:

Rather we should think of omnipotence in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. A state of affairs is just a way something might be – for example, the state of affairs of there being chairs in this room, or the state of affairs of our being in the lower story of the church building, or there being a piano here. Those are all states of affairs that actually obtain. Omnipotence should be understood in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. To be omnipotent means the ability to bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for any one in that situation to bring about.

[7]

This ability is a natural conclusion to the CA as I have presented it. In order for a cause to be sufficient to cause the universe, it must be able to actualize states of affairs related to all the specifics of our universe. It must be able to affect physical laws, physical constants, and dimensionless constants. This ability fits the definition proposed above as omnipotent.

2) Aphysical and atemporal. Both of these terms mean that the item in question lacks physical and temporal characteristics. Given that both time and space are properties of this universe and that an effect cannot be its own cause (a logical paradox), we see that the cause defined in our conclusion cannot exhibit properties of its own effect. Given that it must be transcendent of this universe (ie it cannot be bound to this universe otherwise it couldn’t exist to elicit the effect) it cannot be limited by the dimensions of this universe.

3) Intentfulness. This conclusion arises from the observed temporal finiteness of the universe. We know that the cause cannot be a mechanistic cause (IE if the cause exists the effect exists) because we can describe a state of affairs where the cause exists, but the effect does not. This is really a long winded method of saying “the universe began.”

Likewise, we can say that the cause is not a probabilistic cause either. Probabilistic causes require a dimension to act along. IE along a temporal dimension (chance over time) or a physical one (chance over distance). However, all probabilistic causes must act along the dimensions that they elicit effects within. IE, a quantum wave function acts along a temporal and physical dimension to create an effect in both (a particle’s location). You cannot have a quantum wave function (or any other probability function) that only discusses time, but produces a physical effect.

Given now that we’ve ruled out those two methods of causation we are only left with intent. Only a cause that has an intent can demonstrate the attributes labeled above. Only an intentful cause can create information that is not found within itself. IE all causes except intentful ones have temporal information within them if they act temporally, physical information within them if they act physically, etc. Only intentful causes exhibit the kind of causation we observe given the CA.

Conclusion

So we can see that given the premises that the universe must itself have a cause and that this cause must be aphysical and atemporal since it cannot be part of its own creation, that it must be omnipotent in order to create that creation and that it must be intentful in order to explain the finiteness of the universe and its dimensionality.

Given the premises, which are supported, no other conclusion can be accepted.

Now for a miscellaneous definition:

Logical necessity: I don’t mean this term to imply philosophic necessity in that I argue that no other belief is possible, but rather rational necessity in which I hold that no other conclusion is rational.

Support

1) http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/Cause

2) http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/Histor...inger1926c.pdf

3) http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/W..._contents.html

4) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MinkowskiSpace.html

5) I. D. Novikov and Ya. B. Zel’dovich (1973) Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys. 11 387-412

S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose (1970) The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 314. 1519. 529-548.

6) Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin (2003) Inflationary Spacetimes are Incomplete in Past Directions Physical Review Letters 90. 15 http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0110012.pdf

7) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s3-17

2) not true, astronomers and other scientists have studied, measured, and witnessed black holes. Every time you look into the night sky you can see one.

Actually you can't. You cannot "see" something that does not allow light to escape right?

What you see are indirect effects. Gravitational influence on nearby objects, accretion disks, etc. Those aren't the black hole, they are evidence we use to deduce the presence of a black hole.

Likewise, the Cosmological Argument uses observed evidence (expansionary state of the universe, mathematical law, etc) and deduces an observation concerning a cause.

1 point

Im not sure. I do not understand the logical basis for the material/non-material dichotomy.

Well I would propose it is similar to the logical basis for any distinction in things by criteria. Living/dead, blue/red, solid/liquid, these are all categorical distinctions based upon attributes. Likewise material (within our material universe) vs non-material (not present within the confines of our universe) would seem to be a logical distinction as well.

Someone that would take time out of their day to help me find logical inconsistencies in MY beliefs? That would be awesome! I could hardly be done a greater favor.

Ha, touche sir, touche.

1 point

We know that Paul's letters were being passed around like pamphlets prior to any written record of the Gospels.

Again, this isn't quite accurate as I pointed out. There was a written account of athe core of Mark floating around at about 40AD, well before the actual physical written copies of Paul's letters. What you are referring to is the difference between the core text and the full text we generally read, which comes from one or two other sources at around 80 to 90AD.

Neither of those argues though that the Gospels were composed prior to the Epistles however, which is the relevant point.

So, I know that was a long quote... but basically what Papias is saying is that at a time (clearly an earlier date than the ones I mentioned above) in his life, he went and interviewed elderly men who had apparently known the apostles. What he discovered through these interviews is that the oral tradition was much more reliable than the written record. That's just a little bit of information I find interesting, regarding New Testament.

From a pure historiographical point of view we can argue that the Greeks, Hebrews and a few others had a remarkable system for recording oral traditions reliably through time. It is one of the reasons the Greeks had such complicated poetic understanding. That system reinforced which words were required in the recitation, otherwise the meter was broken.

It is also the reason so many people find "codes" in the OT, Hebrews used specific rules for transcribing and reciting stories that would indicate whether a substitution would be made. These were similar to what we current use as validation techniques for data transfer.

No, it would be like if there were no known copies of Huck Finn, in general, until about 1978 or 1983... and they all seem appropriate for that time period.

We haven't found any records dating back earlier than the dates I mentioned in my previous argument. We also haven't found any written accounts mentioning written Gospels, Biblical letters, etc. prior to the dates that I listed.

This represents a rather outdated view of textual analysis however. We can date parts of text within documents based on their phraseology and writing. That is what most Ancient Literature scholars spend their time doing. We have no surviving accounts of Plato, Aristotle or Socrates, we have third party translations of them, or discussions of them from which we can use literary analysis to determine what is likely the original source and what is added on later. That is how we know that the core document that Mark, for example, is based upon goes back to a much earlier period than the dates you mention.

If Mr. Pesch is referring to oral history of Mark, he may be right... but written record, I don't know of any scholars who agree with that date (AD 37).

Actually he isn't. His argument is specifically on the textual writing style of the documentation. The archaic word forms, the sentence structure and the phraseology. Some of that could be from an oral source, but much of his analysis relies on the written structure of the words. Remember, at this point neither Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic had work breaks (the spaces between words) so various other techniques were given to hint at word division. Those are written techniques only and many of the ones contained in Mark date back to a much, much earlier period. Meaning that it must have been a written version the author was copying from.

What most scholars are talking about when the argue that Mark included oral sources is the non-core part of the text. Notice that Mark goes from a series of annecdotes to a coherent narrative, and quite abruptly. The former are almost certainly oral traditions (remember it is likely that Mark became Peter's interpreter at one point and that he was recording what Peter told him as it occurred to Peter), the latter however was almost certainly a written tradition given the comments I mention above.

I would recommend this work on the book of Mark: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+HISTORICAL+JESUS:+A+COMPREHENSIVE+GUIDE.-a054989015

They use this type of textual analysis to show the core of Mark originating no later than the early 40s. They also do a good job stripping out most of the Gospel of Thomas as having clearly been written much later than AD 200, though they take the stand that parts are earlier (something still in hot dispute in the community).

I think it is important to remember that many critics of the resurrection point to Mark's early date in an attempt to discredit Matthew and Luke as independent sources for the account. They argue that the authors of both accounts were aware of Mark's version (meaning it must have been widely distributed pre-AD 60) and copied it. That isn't a very strong argument (for reasons outside the scope of this thread), but it at least shows that regardless of which side one falls on, there is pretty broad consideration to the early account of Mark.

William Lane Craig does a good job discussing the scholarly position (obviously from a sympathetic viewpoint) here and it is pretty clear that we can capture almost all NT scholars if we put a date of AD50 on the account of Mark, and well over a plurality if we go back to the early 40s.

Yeah, it's widely agreed upon that the author of Luke, probably wasn't Luke... and he most likely wasn't a companion of Paul

This isn't a factual statement.

First we should point out that there is no real debate on the issue of Luke/Acts being the same author (as can be seen in my support below). So all that remains to be seen is whether or not Luke was likely a companion of Paul. Again, we find virtually no disagreement amongst scholars on this. The "We" verses, the linguistic similarity, the regional phrasing all point to someone who encountered the Church early on and traveled widely. Further, the minor discrepancies between the book of Acts and the actual letters argues that the author did not have an original source to refer to (and given, as you point out the early and widespread use of these letters) meaning his work is likely very early in the Church and that he likely travelled with Paul, since Paul wouldn't have kept these letters himself, but dispatched them.

The criticism you might be referring to is whether or not the Luke of the two books is the physician Luke and you are correct there, that was in fact a hot debate in 200AD as well (see my first source) and that Irenaeus was correct in his argument that attribution to Luke was not Luke of the Romans (doctor). Many have done excellent work arguing that Luke's language is not specific to a medical person of the period, which casts doubt on a long standing premise that his writing indicates a medical history. But it is important to note that the doctor tradition arises late in the Church's history and is not connected directly with the account.

That criticism is not however, comparable to the author not being contemporary with Paul however, which is about as universally accepted as something gets in this field:

Easiest to review: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html

Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings

http://bibleandteaching.com/background-of-acts/topic-3-authorship-of-luke-and-acts/

http://kmooreperspective.blogspot.com/2012/02/authorship-of-luke-acts.html

https://bible.org/seriespage/luke-introduction-outline-and-argument

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C;=1230

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/luke-cathen.html

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/chapter6.html

Matthew and Luke were written after Mark and are believed to have used Mark as a source.

And I'm not aware of any scholar that doubts that. It is virtually assured that the reason Luke waited nearly 20 years to write the Gospel after finishing Acts is because he was waiting on Mark as a source.

Both authors almost assuredly used Mark as a source. But Mark is not their only source as is pretty well agreed upon for most historians.

Luke was known to have another eye-witness source known as the L source (which was probably an oral tradition): https://wipfandstock.com/store/MattheanandLukanSpecialMaterialABriefIntroductionwithTextsinGreekand_English

Matthew has a contemporary source known as the M source (not very creative)(which was unlikely to be oral, but it is possible: http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/master.html?http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Contents.htm

It also seems likely they both drew from a fourth source, the Q source, which was almost certainly written. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001/acref-9780192802903-e-5671?rskey=TDaEQK&result;=5667

Both sources are separate from each other (though it is unclear if they are completely independent) and both date back to very early sources. One is perhaps the same source used by Paul, which has been dated back to about 5 years following the crucifixion (see my link to Craig for this discussion).

That's pretty cool. I also took a few college courses that I think gives me a little bit of authority on the subject as well... Religion and Archaeology.

Sorry if that came across as an appeal to authority, I didn't mean it as such. It just reminded me of something that struck me from that class and that has bothered me about documentaries ever since.

Now, that's just one example, but the general consensus among most archaeologists and Biblical scholars, is that the Exodus never occurred and if something similar did take place, it was small, if anything.

I think I've already offered a great deal of evidence that this isn't the case. Some scholars do question whether the Semitic presence in Egypt (no dispute) was the same as the later Israelite group, but if you include those archeologists that think they are the same, and those that think at least a significant portion of the the Israelites came from an area external to Canaan and most of those from somewhere near or in Egypt we are talking well over a majority here.

The idea that there is even a discussion about large scale semetic leaving of Israel is absolutely untrue. Even if we only consider the Hyksos expulsion there are no mainstream scholars that deny Semites were periodically expelled from Egypt.

What many believe is that the Exodus in the Bible is an exaggeration of the expulsion of the Hyksos.

So we can tell from this that:

a) There is no real debate on Semitic expulsion from Egypt.

b) That there is some connect between that expulsion and the Israelites.

So we are left with the question of what level of connection that shares. Given the other archeological evidence offered, and the contextual evidence from Egyptian sources it seems likely that the indentification of Israel represents a new ethnic group in the region and that at least part of this group is of Egyptian origin.

The problem here is that we are looking at this from two different perspectives. You're coming from the religious point of view, where as, I'm not.

And at least from an evidentiary point of view my viewpoint is the more inclusive one. I incorporate several possibilities towards the origin of Israelite Monotheism and then reject those not supported or contradicted by the evidence.

You would have to automatically reject at least one of those theories as impossible (since it violates naturalist assumptions) and then proceed from there.

Does the Bible not teach that the Jews were slaves in Egypt?

Absolutely, but not an uprising. The Bible refers to an expulsion of Jews from Egypt.

1 point

Ok, well can you clarify why it couldn't be a FSM?

I think this missed my point. I'm arguing that by simply defining the outcome as FSM, you haven't made a legitimate criticism of the argument.

I could well argue that 1+1=Jellybean if I define Jellybean as: a cardinal integer coming after one. Now normally we all call that two, just as we normally would call an aphysical, atemporal, omnipotent, intentful cause a deity, but you've labelled it as FSM.

The bannana argument you just came up with isn't a good comparison, I know that bannanas exist, Ive seen one, eaten one, held one, smelled one, etc. (as well as many others across the world). God on the other hand I have not seen, smelled, touched, etc.

That isn't really a relevant argument to question something's ontological significance. I have never personally seen a black hole or held one or smelled it, etc. That does not mean that the logical deduction of its existence given modern physics is less compelling.

The argument for its existence (just as the argument for a first cause) is established based upon its internal premises and soundness, not upon our ability to compare it to our personal experience.

1 point

No. I am fine with thinking of things as "event complexes"

Ok

I have no reason to doubt that all things ARE interrelated electro-chemical processes.

Then are you a materialist? IE do you hold that no non-material things truly exist? There is no "number 7" only our bio-electric concept of it?

You seemed like you might though, and I admit i got a little excited.

I'll try. ;-) Though this isn't really my area of expertise. I do know someone who is pretty good at it though if you are interested.

1 point

So, that's something. It was an article by Princeton, so that should give us a little bit of a better idea of what his role was there.

Perhaps, though he is clearly doing other things during that time period, so I wouldn't exactly take the 10 years that strongly (He also wrote several other books during that time, so it isn't as if this was his full time role).

Either way, I think regardless, we should focus on his arguments, the support he offers and the underlying logical structure as the best analysis of the validity.

But that's why the argument is controversial, right?

There are obviously different reasons for controversy from different people. The concept of monolatry is controversial because it is unlikely that we would have so few occurrences of an event given the number of times it should have happened. It is even more odd given that the two examples supposedly offer share virtually nothing in common.

Given the relatively rarity of monolatry in human history combined with a more tortured explanation of the data, it seems highly improbable to be the best explanation.

It would be like finding a painting of the Mona Lisa in an antiques store, and it doesn't say "reproduction." We know that once there was a painting of the Mona Lisa done by Leonardo DiVinci. We have two explanations, either the person forgot to write reproduction, or this is a long lost second copy of that original painting.

The former is an explanation of the evidence that requires a far lower level of stretching the evidence, and given the rare number of times an original Mona Lisa has been produced, that is hardly a fitting explanation for the evidence we have.

Likewise, interpreting the dating and biblical hebrew of the OT in manners not commonly (if ever) used by other scholars might hold weight if Monolatry was a common occurrence. But arguing for a less probable interpretation of the text combined with a virtually unheard of outcome strains plausibility.

The letters of Paul are the oldest text in Christianity, despite the fact that the gospels come first in the Bible.

This isn't actually accurate. Again, those dates only conform if you are only saying "what date do we have the earliest version of the exact text we currently have today?

If we held other works to the same standard, we could only date Huck Finn to about 1978 or 1983 when it underwent some linguistic changes to account for non-standardized spellings. We could only data Shakespeare's work to about 75 years after his death, etc.

However, if we ask a far more useful question. "How early can we date the core narrative of the gospels?" We get a much, much different picture. The core of Mark goes back to about AD37. Rudolf Pesh has made the definitive argument in this field for about 30 years with Das Markusevangelium. I'm not aware of any scholar that disagrees with Pesh on this date, rather the questions in this field come from other parts of Mark, (addition of lineage, and two or three parables) which perhaps came as late as 80AD, though they clearly come from earlier sources.

Another small point. When you say the gospels were "written" after Paul's letters, we should be clear about what is meant here. First, when I "write\" something, that term in English can mean, to literally put it on paper or it can mean to compose it. When scholars refer to Paul's letters being "written" before the Gospels, they largely mean the former version, not the latter.

We should also discuss the composition of Luke (which was composed after the Epistles, and is about the time you suggest in your post). Most historians agree that the author of Luke was a follower of Paul during his missionary work (notice that the book of Acts goes from "he" to "we"). We also know from Acts that the author returned to Jerusalem and met the Apostles, so was interviewing eye-witnesses in his work.

Compare that to the widely accepted history of Alexander by Plutarch, which was composed about 400 years after Alexander's death and contains no texts from any eye-witness to the events.

You mean in the interview they had with one person? lol

So I took this class in college called Histriography, which talks all about how we write and research history. We had some pretty interesting discussions on documentaries there. For example, did you know Ken Burns is famous for displaying a picture of someone and having an actor read a quote even though the quote isn't from the person in the picture?

PBS is doing something similar here. By only interviewing one person (on camera) they are advertising that this is the expert and that he/she is relating current consensus. Rather, if you look at the website for this show you'll notice they reference 6 different people, and that the story lines of their various works are relatively disparate. Some argue for a non-egyptian exodus, some argue the pastoral evolution theory, the interviewee holds the later Babylonian creation theory, and one holds a trade route theory explanation.

Regardless, these are relatively fringe theories in Archeology and they require dismissing a vast, vast amount of contemporary evidence in order to accept.

I don't know of many non-religious scholars who believe that there was a "large scale" Exodus.

I think you must be unfamiliar with the current state of Archeology. Most hold that there was a large amount of semitic movement from egypt into canaan around this period.

I would be surprised if you could find a single mainstream archeologists that doesn't argue for an expulsion of the Hyksos people from egypt around this time, though some will disagree whether this fits the Exodus group.

There is NO Egyptian archaeological record that mentions Moses.

Why would there be? Remember that somewhere around 95-98% of all Egyptian records have been lost. Papyrus is a notoriously bad product for living up to the centuries. Egyptians are also relatively for not recording things that made them look bad. Remember they have to keep up the image that the Pharoah is a god.

To whit:

On top of that, there is no Egyptian record of a slave rebellion and there is none mentioning an Exodus.

Few ancient cultures (or modern ones) erect statues and monuments to military defeats or embarrassments. And remember, that is virtually all we have left from the Egyptian sources on these incidents.

I'll remind you that there are no Egyptian records of the battles of Carchemish or its follow on at Hamath. Or the battle of Pelusium, which we only know of because Herodotus records it so well. We can also deduce some significant battles happened between Egypt and the Mitanni in which Egypt lost (since major campaigns have to occur to reconquer areas). But we have no direct record of losses from either side.

They Egyptians rarely recorded (in stone form, the kind we still have access too) major defeats or embarrassments, and when they did, they often recorded them as victories (see their embarrassment at the hands of the Hittites or the expulsion of they Hyksos).

It becomes difficult to believe that not only would Moses be monotheistic, but the Hebrew people before him as well.

Why? You are begging the question here I think. You are assuming a naturalist explanation and a lack of monotheism within Semitic culture which isn't justified by the evidence.

It would seem perfectly natural for a person like Moses to grow up a polytheist, but convert upon learning of his ethnic background.

This would make sense that a slave rebellion would also rebel against the common belief system.

But no one is claiming a slave rebellion. The biblical accounts are of a divine Exodus, the Egyptian ones of a period of either emigration due to disaster or exile due to military conquest.

Another thing I'd like to mention, which I think you may have brought up as well, is that some scholars are curious as to whether or not the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten, influenced Judaism.

That has been floated by some scholars, but it has some significant hurdles. The first being that Akhenanten ruled after the Israelites likely left Egypt, following the period of instability. Some historians place the Israelite leaving about a hundred years after Akhenanten, but that date is problematic given the other references I mention above.

Second, we can't establish causation. If we assume the Israelites were contemporaries or just before Akhenanten, it is presumable they influenced him. I personally doubt this is the case given that most scholarly consensus revolves around this imposition as an attempt to suppress rival groups within the priestly class. The fact that the most suppressed groups were the priestess of Amun, who also were the favored group of the next dynasty argues more for political struggle in my mind.

1 point

Jupiter is not precisely what is was a moment ago, yet we still refer to it as Jupiter.

Gotcha, this somewhat mirrors the naturalist point of view argued by Lawrence Krauss. So you would agree with Krauss that there really isn't such a thing as "Dave" or "Mike" since those are only concepts we use for ever shifting groups of atoms.

Given that, would you follow Krauss into the argument that ideas don't really exist either? That they are simply illusions created by electro-chemical processes?

This topic was conceived as an initial assault on the misconceptions that arise from thinking that faith=belief without evidence.

And I would certainly agree with that. I certainly would not equate the two perfectly in any sense of the manner. The vast, vast, vast majority of beliefs are formed with evidence, both external, logical and from more basic beliefs.

I only have been supporting the "false" side because I would argue there are some beliefs that are formed absent evidence, what Plantinga and others called properly basic beliefs. The belief that there is history and my memory correlates to it for example. The acceptance of my senses as being collectors of data (however imperfectly) of the outside world. Those are beliefs we largely just hold as underlying assumptions to other, evidence based beliefs.

Otherwise please continue with the inquisition. Hopefully I will give you enough rope to hang me :)

Ha, not at all. Despite appearances, I honestly don't intend this as some kind of Socratic exercise.

1 point

You still haven't provided any sort of evidence that he taught anthropology and biology (it was something along those lines, I forget the actual courses you named though).

I think it might be beneficial to re-hash where we are in this to understand the claims.

You put forward Mr. Wright's book as an example of research towards the Israelite faith moving from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism.

I countered that by arguing that Mr. Wright's work had some problems and that he was not an expert in the field, but rather a journalist.

You rebutted that he was a college professor in relevant areas.

I pointed out that the only classes I could find him teaching were very specialized and not related to the fields necessary for that work.

Continuing to dig into the two classes referenced above I cannot find any real evidence that he is a professor at all beyond a visiting fellow who has taught a seminar or two at Princeton and a single undergrad class at UPenn.

So in the end we are left with the idea that we can at least say he is primarily a journalist (not a researcher) and it seems probable that he is entirely a journalist that has guest lectured.

Yes... but that is more experience than none, which is what it seems like you're implying...He's labeled as a "visiting scholar" in the web page you provided...The amount of research that went into his book is impressive and whether he is a journalist or not, shouldn't discredit the argument he put forth.

I don't see any reason to give that too much credit though. I've guest lectured at the University of Washington and George Mason, those were more a matter of convenience for the universities than a recognition that I was a pioneer or in depth researcher in a field. Universities often bestow honorary degrees or invite people to lecture because they are popular or interesting, not necessarily because their work is recognized as conclusive or even well done. Not that I'm knocking Mr. Wright's achievement, he is a good writer and the fact that they sought him out says a good deal to his credit. But it doesn't offer the kind of academic support for his research that I think was being implied earlier.

And I will agree with you that his being a journalist (or heck even if he were a homeless person) that position does not discredit his argument necessarily. I was only clarifying his credentials to prevent an appeal to authority. I offered other critiques of his argument earlier in this thread that were more germane to the actual premises.

UPenn describes him as a "visiting scholar", which is a much more impressive title than "fellow" lol.

Maybe ;-) Fellow implies a habitual relationship or inclusion in a group. Scholar is often bandied about by universities. Heck they called us all scholars when I was in undergrad and I remember quite a few people who certainly weren't adding prestige to that title. Either way, I think we can agree it doesn't appear that he is a professor there either teaching or research wise. But that he is certainly well thought of enough to earn himself two guest invitations to lecture from good universities.

LOL! It looks like someone can't keep their facts straight. I can't figure out which school he taught what at!

Anyways, I'm pretty sure he wasn't a full-time religion professor, but the guy knows his stuff... it's hard to deny that.

Here's a little bit of information I thought was interesting, by the way: " In 2009 Wright was named by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the top 100 global thinkers."

Come on... that's got to be a little bit impressive, right?

Funny that it changes from site to site. I think we agree more or less. Mr. Wright is not a full time professor, but is prestigious enough to have earned invitations from good schools.

Bottom line: He doesn't warrant an appeal to authority (ie he is an expert in the field so your arguments are meaningless type of thing), but his arguments do warrant responses since they are researched and well written. Totally agree there.

All of that had to do with the journalism category. Isn't there different criteria for books?

The Journalism category includes books as well. Part of the problem is that the non-fiction area isn't a formal category, it is one that kind of comes and goes when the judges want one. The criteria for a Pulitzer are really just that enough people nominate you for one. The guidelines I linked were things that have been common to past winners. Sufficed to say the Pulitzer is more of a writing prize than an academic research prize.

There were three jury members for the category of General Nonfiction:

Excellent find, I totally missed that there were sub-judging panels.

So for this panel there were three judges. 2 were journalists (one has some experience in modern Israel, though I'm not sure he speaks Hebrew, certainly not Biblical Hebrew. The other is a science writer specializing in genetics) the other was a historian who focused on Modern Germany, especially political and military changes.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a peer-review quality panel of experts on the underlying argument.

Well, that's how monolatry is. It's usually a transition phase. That's what I've been arguing regarding Judaism! LOL

But that isn't really the case with Judaism. The only other case of Monolatry on record only lasts about 10 years. The Jewish experience (if we buy that timeline) is something more like 500-750 years. That is a massive difference in time scale that doesn't really comport with a general cultural shift in understanding or a cultural meme.

I would argue the lack of comparable is a good argument against it as well. We have tons of examples of polytheism, a few examples of monotheism, but no examples (outside of one) of monolatry. The fact that it is so rare in so many different observations indicates to me that more conventional explanations are more likely correct.

How is that a mistake? It's widely accepted among most Biblical scholars that the Bible is not in the order that it was originally written... it's also widely accepted that the texts from the Bible (specifically New Testament) weren't written by the disciples/authors themselves.

Two separate arguments here.

First, you are arguing that the OT is not fully chronological, that is correct and not really an issues (Christians and Jews have said the same thing for generations), for example Job, which occurs later in the book, takes place much earlier, contemporary with Abraham. Because there are two levels of organizations (history/prophetic/poetry then chronological) does not mean that pointing out that the book of Song of Solomon occurs following discussions of his descendents is some kind of revelation.

What I think you are confusing is that level of scholarly consensus with a much more controversial and not accepted idea that the book of Deuteronomy is written well after the books of Judges and Kings. That type of reorganization has virtually no support in the mainstream field.

Second argument, the NT. Again, there are two different arguments nested as one here. The first, which is well accepted is that the Gospels underwent progressive elaboration in the first century of their existence (from around 40AD to 120AD), that is widely accepted and accurate. The fact that you can date most of the core chronology and sections of each gospel back to around 40-60AD is also widely accepted). But again, relatively small linguistic changes to the text and re-writes to conform to Greek and Latin are not the same thing as the more controversial (and virtually universally dismissed) idea that the Gospels were written, in their entirety, more than 150 years after the events.

Most Biblical scholars and archaeologists believe that the Book of Exodus IS a myth.

Same argument here as above. You are confusing two levels of criticism as if they are the same thing.

It is largely accepted that the Exodus story contains elements that were likely added later, especially direct conversations between individuals (Joshua/Moses being a good example of this). But that does not mean that the whole story is a myth. Very few scholars outside of the fringe hold that the entire Exodus did not happen. PBS did a pretty good job of cutting together various theories to appear as one.

In fact, most scholars hold that there was likely a single, large scale exodus that occurred as part of social upheaval in Egypt or that this story represents a longer trend of emigration that occurred over a generation.

There are some basic facts that archeology and virtually all Biblical scholars agree upon.

1)Semites, almost certainly Hebrews existed in Egypt in large numbers.

We have strong evidence of several Semite cultures in Egypt pre-Exodus time period. Not only the Hyksos, but other groups with undeniably Hebrew names reside in store cities throughout NE Egypt. Names like Yakubher which contains the Hebrew Jacob (though the idea that this is the Jacob is far less accepted) and a transliteration of the phrase "el."

Further references to the Semites in Egypt called the "Abiru" or sometimes "habiru." Both are attempts to anglicize the same cuniform linguistic word that is pronounced "habrew." This word represents a group of semites used primarily as manual labor in Egypt and are referenced on several surviving glyph mosaics.

http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/ancient-egyptian-literature.html

2)Those Semites left or were expelled following internal unrest.

Ipwur Papyrus, which discusses internal unrest and a series of plagues on the land (though the exact timing of those is uncertain, they might well be from a far earlier time). The Papyrus does, however, discuss internal unrest and the subjugation of semites within Egypt. There is pretty strong consensus that this subjugation took the form of a change in dynasty and that the Pharaohs that had built the storehouse cities originally were replaced with a new lineage that was noted for its dislike of outsiders. http://www.archive.org/stream/admonitionsofegy00gard/admonitionsofegy00gard djvu.txt

It is likely that this change in position triggered a gradual emigration or possibly a large scale expulsion within Egypt. We know the Egyptians expelled large numbers of Hyksos during this period as well as other semitic groups, http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

3)The Egyptians recognize an ethnic shift in Canaan following this expelling.

Sashu of yhwh, a phrase meaning "the wanderers of Yahweh" is an interesting term in that it is far more specific than when Egyptians refer to other nomadic groups in Canaan who they label the generic "Shasu." This indicates two things. We can place the followers of Yahweh to this period, though they are not mentioned in any of the earlier conquest documentation (meaning they are new, one way or another) and that the Egyptians were familiar enough with the concept of Yahweh for that phrase to have meaning. This is not the case with other local dieties during this period and speaks to a closer relationship or familiarity with Hebrew religion. http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display art.html?ID=7493

Not too long after that, the Egyptians conduct yet another campaign in the area and note that they have obliterated an army of Israelites. The linguistics indicate they are not referring to a people of the region or a kingdom, but a group of people. This is a dramatic change in names from the groups attacked in the same area two hundred years earlier. Further, their being named indicates they were not a dominant group rather than just regional nomads. http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/merneptah-stele-faq.htm

The fact that the Egyptians reference these groups as different indicates a far greater distinction than the small differences indicated in some of the "cultural evolution" hypotheses. The Egyptians would probably not have noted a slave revolt or other type of class change as warranting the use of another name.

The Amarna Letters are a series of clay tablets discovered that document a Canannite queen's request for assistance from the invading "Abiru" (mentioned earlier). She pleads for the Egyptian king (of whom she was a client state) to come rescue her, to no effect. The place names and style of warfare are remarkably similar to those described by the Joshua story. http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/amarna-letters.html

4)Archeological sites undergo a large scale change around this time as well.

There are two major changes that are undertaken around this time period. First, is a change in architecture. Styles of buildings more closely resemble NE egyptian wall styles and home designs (with sleeping quarters on the roof and walled courtyards, for example).

The second is the decrease in pottery production and quality that occurs. This is certainly indicative of a population change in the region that went from more skilled peoples to less skilled peoples. The quality change could fit the pastoral revolt theory, however the quantity change is more indicative of a nomadic group settling in the area. A group whose dietary (especially cooking and serving style), storage and production habits were developed with carrying rather than sedentary life in mind. This is also a pattern seen quite frequently in other excavations of nomadic groups surpassing existing sedentary populations, the visigoths in northern africa and the Arabs in southern Iraq are notable parallels here.

Well, I wasn't unconvinced my entire life. I grew up a Christian. So... sure, I have some bias... but it's not too difficult for me to see it from the other side's perspective.

The Dever link wasn't what I was looking for. I wanted to know how you determined that his books deal mainly with the Apocrypha.

Interesting, I grew up secular and later converted, so we appear to be more or less mirror images in that respect.

The Dever link offered discusses the nature of the works published right? (Did I link the right page?) It is from those discussions that the nature of his work is pretty clear.

1 point

If you want to call the baby agnostic though, you better treat adults with the same position as agnostic.

I agree. If the philosophic position held by an adult is "I neither believe that God exists or does not exist" then that person is an agnostic.

1 point

I'd say "Not entirely".

Interesting. Can I refine that a bit? Do you hold that those objective realities (say Jupiter) exist only in conjunction with our subjective impression? Or, that we are simply incapable of understanding that objective reality given our subjective viewpoint? Or is it a third thing I haven't offered?

Yes it is my position that there is only the real. We often make inaccurate assesments of what is, but this does not render anything , including these assesments in any way "unreal".

Ok, so what about subjective positions that do not claim a relationship to objective reality? Say a perfect circle.

Ideas are components of personalities, and they are only causally potent by virtue of that.

Ok, so then, would I be correct in assuming that you hold these objects are not existent absent human conception of them? If so that would be an area of disagreement between you and the platonists I referenced earlier.

Then the question arises: Don't you think it's possible to attack bad ideas without attacking the people beset by them?

Personally I do yes. A person is capable of forming, evaluating and accepting/rejecting viewpoints independent of their identity. They are also capable of changing their acceptance/rejection of those viewpoints as well. My son once held that 1+1=3 (he was young), I can show him the error in that idea without attacking him personally.

1 point

I only claim that Atheism is the default position because that's how you guys portray it.

There is some impressive intellectual gymnastics going on here. You argued that the baby was an atheist by default prior to me even being in this thread, and you seem to imply here that you hold that position based upon my statements. That is discordant intellectually.

You rely rather, on misinterpreting my statement to argue that an adult who says "no" means they are an atheist. Rather, I was trying to show how the question you posed (Do you believe in God) was unsatisfactory for determining philosophic positions. I've since pointed that out to you twice.

Regardless, to clarify again. When asked "Do you believe in God?" a "no" answer would imply an apatheist, not an atheist.

Babies, by definition, are agnostic, since they lack the faculties to make a positive claim and as such be either a theist or an atheist. So a baby could only answer "no" to that question, just as they would have to answer no to the reciprocal "do you believe that God does not exist?"


1 of 6 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]