If evolution is real, then where is it?

[SLP]

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.

I'd settle for evidence that he did.

Seems that might be easier, seeing as how there do not appear to be any contemporaneous accounts of his existence.

Maybe "Moses" is Hebrew for "Gilgamesh"?

 

[AV1611VET]

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


Um...

OK....

Notice I capitalized "Author"?

 

[AirPo]

Notice I capitalized "Author"?

Some folks are okay with letting grammatical errors slide.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some folks are okay with letting grammatical errors slide.

And others overlook it and end up making mistakes.

 

[AirPo]

And others overlook it and end up making mistakes.

QED

Notice I capitalized "Author"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well obviously not identical to Christ's; eg no crucifixion or cave etc, but Osiris was betrayed and killed, and returned to life and ascended to the heavens. There is even the Passion of Osiris, with plays performed about his suffering and death.

I'm curious where you got your information, because according to Plutarch after Typhon (Set) had sealed Osiris in a coffin and sent it down river, and after Isis retrieved it, Typhon in a fit dismembered the corpse of Osiris and scattered his body parts across Egypt. Isis retrieved them all, save for his penis which had been eaten by fish in the Nile, and each body part received a burial and funeral. Plutarch then recounts that Osiris visited his son Horus from the underworld in order to help train him for battle. Osiris became king of the underworld and the god of cultivation (on account that he when he was king of Egypt had taught the pre-civilized Egyptians how to grow and cultivate crops).

Plutarch's account, I'm sure, isn't the only ancient account of the myth, so--at least on a personal level--I'd be curious which other ancient sources are available that relay the story.

For what it's worth, I'm relying on this translation of Plutarch's work here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

That has nothing to do with it being a historical account of the culture and times of the Jews, Christ and the early Christians.

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

Now you are shifting the goalposts. What was said was that it was a historical account and archeological artifacts have been found to confirm many elements in the Bible.

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.

You are missing the point. People will believe if they think it is true but people won't believe something if they know it isn't true. We know from non-Christian sources that Jesus was killed, that after He died Christianity grew and those that were Christians were put to death due to their faith. You can't honestly think that thousands of people would die rather than deny Jesus if they knew it was a lie? Many people will die if the "think" or "believe" something is true but I think it is foolish to think that anyone would let themselves be killed knowing something wasn't true.

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

See above.

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

No one saw him put to death and die. It is kind of like Elvis. Some people would believe since they didn't see him dead and they couldn't believe he was really dead that he was still alive. It is easy to believe something when you don't know the truth but these people saw Him die.

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.

We find examples in the Bible itself of skepticism. Even the darkness that occurred on the day that Jesus died was attributed to natural causes as affirmed in secular writings.



If

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

Like I said, if people know something is false they aren't going to die for it.

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.

See above.

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.

Again.
You are missing the point. People will believe if they think it is true but people won't believe something if they know it isn't true. We know from non-Christian sources that Jesus was killed, that after He died Christianity grew and those that were Christians were put to death due to their faith. You can't honestly think that thousands of people would die rather than deny Jesus if they knew it was a lie? Many people will die if the "think" or "believe" something is true but I think it is foolish to think that anyone would let themselves be killed knowing something wasn't true.

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.

Oh no you don't. I am not at all anti-Science nor taking a stab at science. It is assumptions that people make about findings that Science discovers that I was referring to.

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

Strawman. My entire post is basically saying that people will never die for something they know is 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.

I think reason tells us that people cherish life and family and they would not risk either for a lie at anytime in history.

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

What? That is a ridiculous accusation. It isn't obsure at all. No one is going to give up their lives for something they know isn't true.

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

See above.

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

Now you are talking about my beliefs and why I believe it. I believe it because of a true and real relationship with God first of all and all the confirmation I see in the universe. The Bible confirms my understanding of God's identity. If I only had the Bible and no confirmation of God personally, I would have no belief in the Christian God. Knowing what I know about the universe and the discoveries in the past maybe 50 years I would believe in an unidentified Intelligent Being.

 

[Oafman]

I'm curious where you got your information, because according to Plutarch after Typhon (Set) had sealed Osiris in a coffin and sent it down river, and after Isis retrieved it, Typhon in a fit dismembered the corpse of Osiris and scattered his body parts across Egypt. Isis retrieved them all, save for his penis which had been eaten by fish in the Nile, and each body part received a burial and funeral. Plutarch then recounts that Osiris visited his son Horus from the underworld in order to help train him for battle. Osiris became king of the underworld and the god of cultivation (on account that he when he was king of Egypt had taught the pre-civilized Egyptians how to grow and cultivate crops).

Plutarch's account, I'm sure, isn't the only ancient account of the myth, so--at least on a personal level--I'd be curious which other ancient sources are available that relay the story.

For what it's worth, I'm relying on this translation of Plutarch's work here.

-CryptoLutheran

I know very little about this subject. I had heard about Osiris' resurrection before somewhere, so after a quick check on Wikipedia to ensure I had not imagined it, I posted what I knew. The only other thing I remember is that Osiris was killed, and subsequently resurrected, twice. Which I think is why his body was chopped up and spread around Egypt the second time - to try to prevent a repeat of the first.

So I'm afraid I can't direct you to anything which provides more detail, though I'm sure there is plenty of stuff out there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

You will need to explain what you mean by this. What do we know about the Sumerian tests vs. Biblical ones of which you speak?

The biblical one consistenly shows up after the sumerian one.

Again, what are you referring to here? What consistently is showing up?

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.

And what if both were from an other older original? Many scholars believe that the differences and translations support that there was a common source. It must also be noted that there is no creation sequence as there is in Genesis in the Sumerian text.

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

There is no evidence other than the age of the Sumerian text being older that the text was the original.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

What a bunch of deflecting gymnastics to shift the burden of proof. I'm still waiting for the original poster to support his positive claim.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What a bunch of deflecting gymnastics to shift the burden of proof. I'm still waiting for the original poster to support his positive claim.

When I said you made me laugh before I didn't think you could honestly do it again while maintaining a perfectly straight face. Are you serious? You seriously are saying that you can't understand something as straightforward as burden of proof?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm curious where you got your information, because according to Plutarch after Typhon (Set) had sealed Osiris in a coffin and sent it down river, and after Isis retrieved it, Typhon in a fit dismembered the corpse of Osiris and scattered his body parts across Egypt. Isis retrieved them all, save for his penis which had been eaten by fish in the Nile, and each body part received a burial and funeral. Plutarch then recounts that Osiris visited his son Horus from the underworld in order to help train him for battle. Osiris became king of the underworld and the god of cultivation (on account that he when he was king of Egypt had taught the pre-civilized Egyptians how to grow and cultivate crops).

Plutarch's account, I'm sure, isn't the only ancient account of the myth, so--at least on a personal level--I'd be curious which other ancient sources are available that relay the story.

For what it's worth, I'm relying on this translation of Plutarch's work here.

-CryptoLutheran

I wonder where he got his information as well. I have this to add:

Perhaps the only pagan god for whom there is a resurrection is the Egyptian Osiris. Close examination of this story shows that it is very different from Christ's resurrection. Osiris did not rise; he ruled in the abode of the dead. As biblical scholar, Roland de Vaux, wrote, "What is meant of Osiris being 'raised to life?' Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead.… This revived god is in reality a 'mummy' god."... No, the mummified Osiris was hardly an inspiration for the resurrected Christ...As Yamauchi observes, "Ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death." But it is a mistake to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the biblical doctrine of resurrection. To achieve immortality the Egyptian had to meet three conditions: First, his body had to be preserved by mummification. Second, nourishment was provided by the actual offering of daily bread and beer. Third, magical spells were interred with him. His body did not rise from the dead; rather elements of his personality-his Ba and Ka-continued to hover over his body. ["The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Myth, Hoax, or History?" David J. MacLeod, in The Emmaus Journal, V7 #2, Winter 98, p169

 

[crjmurray]

What a bunch of deflecting gymnastics to shift the burden of proof. I'm still waiting for the original poster to support his positive claim.

Saying Moses didn't exist is the same as my statement that I have seen no evidence that Moses existed. If there's no evidence to see then there's nothing to support. Now it's your turn to show us evidence. Try...REALLY TRY to answer that without shifting the burden of proof onto anyone else or answering with a question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When I said you made me laugh before I didn't think you could honestly do it again while maintaining a perfectly straight face. Are you serious? You seriously are saying that you can't understand something as straightforward as burden of proof?

The burden of proof in this case is on the poster that made the claim that Moses didn't exist. You and others on this forum seem to believe that you have no burden of proof ever in regards to statements or claim you make.

This is incorrect. If someone had said, "Moses existed" and the poster then said, prove that Moses existed it would be on the poster who claimed Moses existed.

When the poster made the claim, Moses never existed, the burden then is on him. He made a positive claim. He is saying that he knows that Moses never existed. It is up to him then to support his claim. It is you who doesn't understand burden of proof.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Saying Moses didn't exist is the same as my statement that I have seen no evidence that Moses existed. If there's no evidence to see then there's nothing to support. Now it's your turn to show us evidence. Try...REALLY TRY to answer that without shifting the burden of proof onto anyone else or answering with a question.

If the poster had said that they had not seen any evidence to support that Moses existed, he would not have a burden of proof. That is not what happened.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The burden of proof in this case is on the poster that made the claim that Moses didn't exist. You and others on this forum seem to believe that you have no burden of proof ever in regards to statements or claim you make.

This is incorrect. If someone had said, "Moses existed" and the poster then said, prove that Moses existed it would be on the poster who claimed Moses existed.

When the poster made the claim, Moses never existed, the burden then is on him. He made a positive claim. He is saying that he knows that Moses never existed. It is up to him then to support his claim. It is you who doesn't understand burden of proof.

Nobody can be this stupid. You are doing it on purpose.

 

[crjmurray]

If the poster had said that they had not seen any evidence to support that Moses existed, he would not have a burden of proof. That is not what happened.

"Moses didn't exist"

"Why do you think that?"

"Because I've never seen any evidence that he was a real historical person."

"Oh. Well here is some evidence that shows he was real...."

That's how the conversation should go down.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Moses didn't exist"

"Why do you think that?"

"Because I've never seen any evidence that he was a real historical person."

"Oh. Well here is some evidence that shows he was real...."

That's how the conversation should go down.

That is a different conversation completely.

If a person doesn't believe that there is any evidence that Moses existed, it would be intellectually honest to make a statement that they do not believe there is any evidence that Moses existed other than the Bible. It is not intellectually honest to make a claim that Moses didn't exist and then put the burden on someone else.

If a person's belief that Moses didn't exist is not based on some evidence that supplies that belief with support or is not based on some logical fault in his existence it is up to that person to back up why he believes that Moses didn't exist. A non-believer is basing his position on logic and evidence and if a statement is made without either it is mere opinion or an assertion based on emotion or bias. There may not be evidence for Moses existence other than the Bible but what evidence does this poster use to determine his claim? Why is he free from any burden of proof of his claim? Intellectual honesty would require that if the non-believer has his position based in evidence and logic that he support his claims with both. If he shrinks from that responsibility it hardly looks like his position is what he claims it is.

 

[crjmurray]

That is a different conversation completely.

If a person doesn't believe that there is any evidence that Moses existed, it would be intellectually honest to make a statement that they do not believe there is any evidence that Moses existed other than the Bible. It is not intellectually honest to make a claim that Moses didn't exist and then put the burden on someone else.

If a person's belief that Moses didn't exist is not based on some evidence that supplies that belief with support or is not based on some logical fault in his existence it is up to that person to back up why he believes that Moses didn't exist. A non-believer is basing his position on logic and evidence and if a statement is made without either it is mere opinion or an assertion based on emotion or bias. There may not be evidence for Moses existence other than the Bible but what evidence does this poster use to determine his claim? Why is he free from any burden of proof of his claim? Intellectual honesty would require that if the non-believer has his position based in evidence and logic that he support his claims with both. If he shrinks from that responsibility it hardly looks like his position is what he claims it is.

I'm starting to agree with Strawberry up there.

If I say, Leprechauns don't exist, I don't have to back that claim up with evidence. There's no evidence to suggest that they are real. This conversation we are having is the exact same scenario.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm starting to agree with Strawberry up there.

If I say, Leprechauns don't exist, I don't have to back that claim up with evidence. There's no evidence to suggest that they are real. This conversation we are having is the exact same scenario.

Moses is a person whereas Leprechauns are not known entities. Come on, I expected more from you.