If evolution is real, then where is it?

[AV1611VET]

Please refer to my post in regards to the historical method.

FYI the literal view of the Bible is known as the grammatical-historical method of interpretation.

 

[bhsmte]

FYI the literal view of the Bible is known as the grammatical-historical method of interpretation.

Which has nothing to do with the real historical method, used by historians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which has nothing to do with the real historical method, used by historians.

If it is responsible for this:

But, I look at Moses like other claims; I don't see the evidence that he did exist. Could he have existed? Sure, but I don't see it, so show me he existed.

... I can see why.

Your historians can take a hike.

 

[bhsmte]

Your historians can take a hike.

Erase them from your own mind, but they aren't going anywhere in reality.

 

[AirPo]

Erase them from your own mind, but they aren't going anywhere in reality.

Reality can take a hike!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Atheism can take a hike

 

[AV1611VET]

Erase them from your own mind,

Nope -- that's not the way I treat them.

Denial is a river in Egypt.

If I can acknowledge the existence of the Father of Lies, I can acknowledge the existence of his influencees.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope -- that's not the way I treat them.

Denial is a river in Egypt.

If I can acknowledge the existence of the Father of Lies, I can acknowledge the existence of his influencees.

Whatever works for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever works for you.

Here's what works for me:

I can accept a reality with Moses in it, as well as historians who say he didn't exist.

You apparently cannot yet.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence to suggest that Moses was a real person. Now it's your turn.

You didn't make the claim that Moses didn't exist.

 

[crjmurray]

You didn't make the claim that Moses didn't exist.

I'm aware. But it would be nice to see some evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Agree.

If someone stated Moses did not exist, than it is a positive claim.

But, I look at Moses like other claims; I don't see the evidence that he did exist. Could he have existed? Sure, but I don't see it, so show me he existed.

I am awaiting the evidence that he didn't from the poster that made the claim that he didn't exist. He said he didn't, what evidence does he have that Moses didn't exist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm aware. But it would be nice to see some evidence.

It would, that is why I am asking for it. I would like to see the evidence that the poster has to make the claim that Moses didn't exist. I'm waiting.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm aware. But it would be nice to see some evidence.

Moses did exist, I think he played for the Sixers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Bible has always been considered a Historical account.

Which is irrelevant (not to say false - plenty of people throughout history have not believed it).

It doesn't matter how many people have believed it for how long.
People believing it is meaningless when trying to find out if it is actually true.

Historical accounts can be verified by evidence confirming them in the way of people and events, artifacts and such.

Right, through contemporary and independend sources or actual archeological artifacts etc indeed. And the bible has none for its fantastical claims.

People would have known if it were true or not.

This is an irrational and reality-denying, unjustified assumption.
People can be wrong. And oftenly are.

Not to mention that the exact same thing can be said about followers of any religion at all, or any other non-religious fantastical claim (like aliens, bigfoot, lochness, etc etc etc).

The world is flooded with people who believe wrong things on bad evidence.

Where there claims that He died and lived again?

Why would it need that particular claim? Because your religion happens to have it? Where are the claims in christianity concerning Thor's hammer?

According to islam, Muhammed went to heaven and back on a winged horse.

I think you underestimate the people then. They were not stupid nor were they any more gullible.

I didn't say they were stupid. I said they were gullible. Which is logical. They didn't have our understanding of nature. It was common practice back then to attribute plenty of now-mundane things to supernatural forces.

If you are going to deny that, you're just going to be wrong.

If you were to see someone put to death even then it would take more than just someone claiming He rose again for them to risk their lives for Him.

I wonder how you can say such things, pretending to be serious, when today we have excellent examples of people being more then willing to die for what they believe. You already know who I am thinking of.
And you will also agree with me that these people are wrong about what they believe.


So, you know for a fact that the argument of "they died for what they believed, so obviously what they believed had to be true" is ridiculous. If it wasn't, then ALL RELIGIONS would be correct.

Yes, I understand how people can believe fantastical things. Some people believe that mixing a long period of time with some mutations and selection can through mindless, unguided processes produce a mind such as ours.

Skipping over your attempt at taking a stab at science, you just have destroyed your entire position, by admitting that people can perfectly believe fantastical things while being wrong.

Your entire post, you've been basically saying that "the bible must be true, because people believe it".

Yes, believing but when you know the truth why follow a lie?

People believing X is not evidence that X is the truth.

If you know the truth, you can show it. You don't know it if you can't show it.
If you can't show it, you merely "believe" it. Wich, as I've explained already, is pretty meaningless as far as truth is concerned.

IF someone believed it to be true yes, they will believe it. IF they know it isn't true they won't. When ever do people believe something they know isn't true?

Now, you just seem to be intentionally obscure / obfuscate the conversation.

The point is that what people "believe" is irrelevant.
Beliefs can be wrong.

I agree, people believe a lot of things not true but they don't know they aren't true. I don't know of anyone knowing something is not true would believe it to be true.

Then why do you use "it must be true cause people believe it" as an argument to justify your beliefs??

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really, what evidence are you referring to?

Everything we know about the sumerian texts on the one hand and everything we know about the biblical text on the other.

The biblical one consistenly shows up after the sumerian one.

So all the evidence points to the sumerian one being older.
And, considering the similarities, thus also the "original" one upon which the other was based.

There is no evidence to even only remotely suggest that the bible story came first.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here we go again with burden of proof. The poster made a positive claim that Moses didn't exist. It is his burden to support his claim.

No comment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It would, that is why I am asking for it. I would like to see the evidence that the poster has to make the claim that Moses didn't exist. I'm waiting.

Look...

Try to think it through and consider the flow of events here...

How did this person learn about the guy called "Moses"?
What came prior to the person claiming that "Moses didn't exist"?
Did he came up with a Moses story only to then claim that it's not true?

Or... did someone else tell him about this bloke called "Moses"?

Didn't someone, somewhere FIRST make the claim that this "Moses" character existed?

For example, would you wake up tomorrow and suddenly say "uikoglykrobaki didn't exist!!!"?

Off course not... Not unless someone first came up to you telling you about this uikoglykrobaki .

So such a negative claim of existence is a response.

Someone first claims that Moses exists.
That person fails to meet his burden of proof.
The result is a position where it is assumed / asserted that Moses did not exist.

So the evidence for the claim "moses didn't exist" is the total lack of evidence in support of the positive claim "moses existed".

Cappiche?

Claims of non-existence are completely meaningless and useless anyway.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Here we go again with burden of proof. The poster made a positive claim that Moses didn't exist. It is his burden to support his claim.
​

No comment.

That made me laugh.

 

[SLP]

Yes -- especially if written by the same Author.

"In the book of Psalms, written hundreds of years later "


Um...

OK....