Did Moses Exist?

[POI]

I created the 'Exodus' thread here (viewtopic.php?t=40622), after being inspired to do so when Otseng made the (paraphrased) statement -- "if the Exodus did not happen, then we must question Biblical veracity".

From there, the topic of "Moses" ultimately came up; which is what I believe eventually prompted the follow-up topic, created here (viewtopic.php?t=42501).

However, since it seems to be imperative and crucial for Moses to be a real character, let us examine....?

For Debate:

1) As compared to other claimed figures from ancient antiquity, such as Alexander the Great, Pontius Pilate, and-the-like, how exactly does the claim(s) of "Moses" stack up as a real character? Meaning, if the (confidence-level) for Alexander and Pilate are fairly high, due to 'evidence(s)', how exactly does 'Moses' compare on the "confidence-meter"? (i.e.) Low, medium, high, or other?

2) If we have low-level confidence that a "Moses" really existed, as compared to other said characters from antiquity, does this jeopardize Biblical veracity claims in any way(s)?

3) Can one even logically remain a believer without accepting "Moses" as being a real dude from history?

4) Outside the Bible's say-so, what evidence suggests a "Moses" actually existed?

[SiNcE_1985]

Because of evidence that was presented; of which I find persuasive.

Such as?

No need to take it there.

I get what you are saying, but the Bible is sketch. I'm asking is there any evidence outside the claim(s) from the Bible?

I reject the premise, that outside evidence is needed.

So the question is pointless.

Just like I reject the premise that evidence outside of Egypt, is needed to corroborate King Tut's existence...and I assume you do too.

If it's good enough for Tut and Egypt, it's good enough for the Bible, and Jesus.

Again, we are gonna play ball fair

If so, what? If not, why should anyone believe the claim, being that some other claims from the Bible are likely false?

I reject the premise that other Biblical claims are false.

Go ahead, keep talking...so I can reject more and more of your false premises.

TBH, I wish it were true. This way, I would not have wasted decades believing in fairy tales. Now, it's just interesting, as well as also entertaining to explore the thinking of others.

Do you explore the thinking of those who believe in abiogenesis?

In your case, you are a prime example of someone who was indoctrinated early into some wildly incorrect teaching. And since I already know you will eventually bring it up, because you bring it up in every topic, I'll just beat you to the punch. The obsession with the topic of evolution alone is mind-boggling. That's really all. It's an interesting case-study, at this point.

It is simple, actually.

You guys find my belief that a man rose from the dead, to be absurd.

While I find your belief that nonliving matter came to life and began to talk, to be absurd.

So hey, one absurd belief for another.

[POI]

No need to take it there.

Why?

I reject the premise, that outside evidence is needed.

Venom, this is me (steel manning) your given opinion. Let's just say you are absolutely right, in that no outside evidence is necessary for this claim at all. And then a hyper-skeptic of the Bible comes along and asks you if any evidence exists outside of the Bible's claim anyways... Whether or not this evidence is needed, is beside the point. The point being, there either is, or there is not any evidence which exists outside the claim(s) of the Bible itself. The question is two-fold, and can still be answered (i.e.):

1) IS there any evidence of a Moses outside the claim(s) of the Bible?
2) If so, what?

If your aim is to convince scoffers and skeptics of the Bible's veracity, you can still play ball. Why? Your objective is to convert skeptics and scoffers, I presume. By producing outside evidence, to corroborate the claim(s) placed from the Bible, the skeptic is in an even more precarious position. I'll explain more below...

Just like I reject the premise that evidence outside of Egypt, is needed to corroborate King Tut's existence...and I assume you do too. If it's good enough for Tut and Egypt, it's good enough for the Bible, and Jesus. Again, we are gonna play ball fair

Great, let's play fair. But I've already touched on this repeatedly. Let's compare apples for apples:

1) Does there exist an official collection of religious anonymous text(s) asserting that King Tut not only existed, but also performed miracles, and his miracles somehow are instructed to be believed, or you will burn in hell? Hmm? Not that I recall?

2) If there was such a collection of anonymous religious texts, and we had no evidence of King Tut's existence outside the claims of these collection(s) of religious texts alone, many may doubt Tut's claims, or maybe even his mere asserted existence?

3) You see Venom, I hardly ever give it a second thought as to whether or not a King Tut really existed in reality. Why? Because I do not recall claims made from point 1). Maybe he did exist, maybe he didn't? It is absolutely NO skin taken from my keister, either way.

4) if point 1) was a thing, then I would have more interest and really want to know if a King Tut not only existed, but if this alleged King Tut performed 'miracles'/etc? And if all I had to verify a King Tut was point 1), I might not be so convinced that he existed at all, let alone he being a magic man?

5) A skeptic to King Tut may come along and ask, outside 1), what corroborating evidence exists outside of point 1).? For which I could then answer with:

a) There actually is evidence of King Tut outside point 1), and here is what this evidence entails.
b) There does not seem to be any evidence outside point 1).

6) If b) were true, and point 1) was all we had, then the skeptic may then ask themselves.... Hmm? Since this dude places very high importance upon himself, what is actually true about him? I mean, did he do all the stuff he claims to have done? Do I need to believe in him and these things that he claims to have done, or else? Further, how confident are we that this King Tut really and truly existed at all: 40%, 70%, other?.?.? Seems to be quite important that we know he existed and also performed these claims.

7) Alternately, when I read your response, you maybe now have a better understanding as to why I'm reading an excuse as to why you are not offering any outside evidence of the claim itself. As for King Tut, there does look to be evidence, based upon THE historical method for which I have repeatedly given you. Hence, if you were to press me for evidence of King Tut's mere existence, I would just provide it, regardless of whether or not I felt it necessary. Doing so would just render your hyper-skeptical position even more precarious

I reject the premise that other Biblical claims are false. Go ahead, keep talking...so I can reject more and more of your false premises.

Remaining in the steel man, I'd say that some claims need further inquiry, via point(s) 1) thru 7) above.

Do you explore the thinking of those who believe in abiogenesis?

I have answered this type of question 15 times now. Yet again... Abiogenesis is not a theoretical science and is still speculative. Even IF creation is demonstrated, Christianity, from your specific worldview, is objectively false. Why? According to YOUR current worldview, evolutionary biology is absolutely incompatible with your (version/interpretation) of Genesis. Which means you either need to a) reject your position or b) perform a massive pivot. To instead reject a theoretical science is illogical and is an obvious protective mechanism to retain a specific incompatible worldview -- which has already been dismantled/debunked ad nauseum. This is why handwaving becomes paramount for you.

It is simple, actually. You guys find my belief that a man rose from the dead, to be absurd. While I find your belief that nonliving matter came to life and began to talk, to be absurd. So hey, one absurd belief for another.

In my case, you are offering a false comparison. See my response directly above and get to addressing a) or b). Let me know which one you decide? So far, you just look the other direction, and we all see it.

[SiNcE_1985]

Venom, this is me (steel manning) your given opinion. Let's just say you are absolutely right, in that no outside evidence is necessary for this claim at all. And then a hyper-skeptic of the Bible comes along and asks you if any evidence exists outside of the Bible's claim anyways... Whether or not this evidence is needed, is beside the point. The point being, there either is, or there is not any evidence which exists outside the claim(s) of the Bible itself.

I honestly haven't looked into whether or not there is evidence outside the Bible, as it pertains to the OT.

So, I don't know.

The question is two-fold, and can still be answered (i.e.):

1) IS there any evidence of a Moses outside the claim(s) of the Bible?
2) If so, what?

I don't know. I haven't looked into it.

If your aim is to convince scoffers and skeptics of the Bible's veracity, you can still play ball. Why? Your objective is to convert skeptics and scoffers, I presume. By producing outside evidence, to corroborate the claim(s) placed from the Bible, the skeptic is in an even more precarious position. I'll explain more below...

Skeptics will be skeptics.

Great, let's play fair. But I've already touched on this repeatedly. Let's compare apples for apples:

1) Does there exist an official collection of religious anonymous text(s) asserting that King Tut not only existed, but also performed miracles, and his miracles somehow are instructed to be believed, or you will burn in hell? Hmm? Not that I recall?

Um, no.

Either it happened, or it didn't.

Supernatural claim or not.

The distinction doesn't need to be made between supernatural/natural.

The only thing needed, is outside evidence supporting the claim.

That is what you're requiring for Bible claims, so we are gonna extend that standard to any/all claims.

2) If there was such a collection of anonymous religious texts, and we had no evidence of King Tut's existence outside the claims of these collection(s) of religious texts alone, many may doubt Tut's claims, or maybe even his mere asserted existence?

Religious texts or otherwise.

I need evidence, outside of Egypt, supporting King Tut's existence.

The same thing you're requiring for Moses.

3) You see Venom, I hardly ever give it a second thought as to whether or not a King Tut really existed in reality. Why? Because I do not recall claims made from point 1). Maybe he did exist, maybe he didn't? It is absolutely NO skin taken from my keister, either way.

Oh, so you need outside evidence if, and only if, it is of a religious nature?

4) if point 1) was a thing, then I would have more interest and really want to know if a King Tut not only existed, but if this alleged King Tut performed 'miracles'/etc? And if all I had to verify a King Tut was point 1), I might not be so convinced that he existed at all, let alone he being a magic man?

Ok, well you have your own personal standard(s) on what kind of evidence is required...and so do I.

5) A skeptic to King Tut may come along and ask, outside 1), what corroborating evidence exists outside of point 1).? For which I could then answer with:

a) There actually is evidence of King Tut outside point 1), and here is what this evidence entails.
b) There does not seem to be any evidence outside point 1).

Or..

c) I don't know, I haven't looked into it and don't care if there is. If that is your methodology, look into it, and if you don't find any evidence which suits your fancy, then make your decision accordingly."

6) If b) were true, and point 1) was all we had, then the skeptic may then ask themselves.... Hmm? Since this dude places very high importance upon himself, what is actually true about him? I mean, did he do all the stuff he claims to have done? Do I need to believe in him and these things that he claims to have done, or else? Further, how confident are we that this King Tut really and truly existed at all: 40%, 70%, other?.?.? Seems to be quite important that we know he existed and also performed these claims.

7) Alternately, when I read your response, you maybe now have a better understanding as to why I'm reading an excuse as to why you are not offering any outside evidence of the claim itself. As for King Tut, there does look to be evidence, based upon THE historical method for which I have repeatedly given you. Hence, if you were to press me for evidence of King Tut's mere existence, I would just provide it, regardless of whether or not I felt it necessary. Doing so would just render your hyper-skeptical position even more precarious

Anyways. My answer is; I don't know, and don't care.

Remaining in the steel man, I'd say that some claims need further inquiry, via point(s) 1) thru 7) above.

Hey, however many points that will help you sleep good tonight; make them.

I have answered this type of question 15 times now. Yet again... Abiogenesis is not a theoretical science and is still speculative.

That doesn't stop people from believing in it, though.

How about you exploring why people still believe in it, despite it not being what you said it is/isn't.

How about taking a month or two off from Christianity and explore the other side, since you claim to be so agnostic...yet all the efforts are on one side.

That's not agnosticism. That's atheism.

Even IF creation is demonstrated, Christianity, from your specific worldview, is objectively false. Why? According to YOUR current worldview, evolutionary biology is absolutely incompatible with your (version/interpretation) of Genesis.

Um, no.

It is incompatible with observation, experiment, and prediction.

One should be able to draw that conclusion before any religion is even considered.

Which means you either need to a) reject your position or b) perform a massive pivot. To instead reject a theoretical science is illogical and is an obvious protective mechanism to retain a specific incompatible worldview -- which has already been dismantled/debunked ad nauseum. This is why handwaving becomes paramount for you.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

I reject anything contrary to that. Period.

Religion or no religion.

In my case, you are offering a false comparison. See my response directly above and get to addressing a) or b). Let me know which one you decide? So far, you just look the other direction, and we all see it.

Um, no.

It isn't a false comparison.

You're only response is, "but abiogenesis isn't a theoretical science".

So what?

That's what you guys believe, so that's what I'm beefing with. That's what you're going to have to defend.

We're trading an "absurd" concept of a man rising from the dead, to an "absurd" concept of inanimate matter coming to life.

So, let's dance.

[POI]

The point is... I do not think there is any viable evidence of a Moses outside the claim. And I've read excuse after excuse as to why there isn't any.

Scholarly Consensus: Most historians consider Moses a legendary or mythical figure, possibly invented to unify early Israelite tribes, but acknowledge the Torah as the sole narrative source.

The only thing needed, is outside evidence supporting the claim. That is what you're requiring for Bible claims, so we are gonna extend that standard to any/all claims.

You've missed my point. Moses has THE claim, which is the Bible - for which we use as THE claim. We can then compare to see if any other evidence exists outside this claim which corroborates THE claim from the Bible. "King Tut" does not have this luxury of an 'official claim". However, when doing a rudimentary search for what validates the claim(s) for the existence of a "King Tut", we look to have differing types of evidence, and not just a religious based assertion from one collective set of books, which states he existed. You see the clear distinction here Venom?

Religious texts or otherwise. I need evidence, outside of Egypt, supporting King Tut's existence. The same thing you're requiring for Moses.

You are applying another false comparison. I'm comparing the claim(s) from (the Bible) to any corroborating evidence outside of the claim(s) from the Bible. Alternatively, there is no "golden claim", to compare against, for a King Tut. Instead, we know King Tut existed because his tomb, discovered nearly intact by Howard Carter in 1922, yielded a trove of artifacts, his mummy, and detailed records that confirmed his life as a pharaoh, even though his name was erased from official records in ancient times for his father's heretical religious changes, making him a footnote until his find revealed insights into Ancient Egyptian culture and wealth.

In this case, if there were any other evidence to support a claim for Moses, while addressing Egyptian records or otherwise, this would be good evidence that a Moses really existed, being that the Egyptians were known to be meticulous record keepers.

Oh, so you need outside evidence if, and only if, it is of a religious nature?

Not necessarily. See above for details.

c) I don't know, I haven't looked into it and don't care if there is. If that is your methodology, look into it, and if you don't find any evidence which suits your fancy, then make your decision accordingly."

The more and more you respond, the more and more you look to present the position of "if the Bible merely claims it, then it's true."

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. I reject anything contrary to that. Period. Religion or no religion.

I have to ask... Do you really think biology advocates for the assertion that a cat might not sometimes re-produce another cat? At this point, your responses demonstrate, more and more, that you are clearly strawmaning a peer-reviewed theoretical science.

Um, no. It isn't a false comparison. You're only response is, "but abiogenesis isn't a theoretical science". So what? That's what you guys believe, so that's what I'm beefing with. That's what you're going to have to defend. We're trading an "absurd" concept of a man rising from the dead, to an "absurd" concept of inanimate matter coming to life. So, let's dance.

You are painting with an extremely broad-brush Venom. If we harken all the way back to the KCA thread, I've informed you that demonstration of a 'creator' gets us no closer to Christianity. Further, if the universe is eternal, then it would be illogical to argue for creation. But since we do not know if the universe is eternal or not, it's all speculative regardless.

[SiNcE_1985]

The point is... I do not think there is any viable evidence of a Moses outside the claim.

That's your prerogative.

And I've read excuse after excuse as to why there isn't any.

Then continue not believing it.

I don't know what to tell ya.

Scholarly Consensus: Most historians consider Moses a legendary or mythical figure, possibly invented to unify early Israelite tribes, but acknowledge the Torah as the sole narrative source.

Okkk.

You've missed my point. Moses has THE claim, which is the Bible - for which we use as THE claim. We can then compare to see if any other evidence exists outside this claim which corroborates THE claim from the Bible.

Yeah, um, the evidence outside this claim, is the Hebrews who believed in his existence well after he allegedly lived.

That is..

1. The synopsis Gospel.
2. John's Gospel
3. Acts
4. Paul's Epistles

That is evidence "outside the claim".

And once you get that evidence, you'll move the goalposts and demand evidence outside of even those 4^.

Ain't got time for it.

I personally can care less. Either you believe it or you don't.

"King Tut" does not have this luxury of an 'official claim". However, when doing a rudimentary search for what validates the claim(s) for the existence of a "King Tut", we look to have differing types of evidence, and not just a religious based assertion from one collective set of books, which states he existed. You see the clear distinction here Venom?

Um, no.

The clear distinction is; one claim has a demand of it, that the other one doesn't.

You are applying another false comparison. I'm comparing the claim(s) from (the Bible) to any corroborating evidence outside of the claim(s) from the Bible. Alternatively, there is no "golden claim", to compare against, for a King Tut. Instead, we know King Tut existed because his tomb, discovered nearly intact by Howard Carter in 1922, yielded a trove of artifacts, his mummy, and detailed records that confirmed his life as a pharaoh, even though his name was erased from official records in ancient times for his father's heretical religious changes, making him a footnote until his find revealed insights into Ancient Egyptian culture and wealth.

Um, no.

Evidence from within Egypt, doesn't constitute as evidence outside of Egypt, does it?

That's what the demanded evidence requires; external evidence.

In this case, if there were any other evidence to support a claim for Moses, while addressing Egyptian records or otherwise, this would be good evidence that a Moses really existed, being that the Egyptians were known to be meticulous record keepers.

Trying to figure out what part of external evidence don't you understand.

The more and more you respond, the more and more you look to present the position of "if the Bible merely claims it, then it's true."

Kinda like the "if science text books merely claims it, then it's true".

I have to ask... Do you really think biology advocates for the assertion that a cat might not sometimes re-produce another cat? At this point, your responses demonstrate, more and more, that you are clearly strawmaning a peer-reviewed theoretical science.

Rabbit hole.

You are painting with an extremely broad-brush Venom. If we harken all the way back to the KCA thread, I've informed you that demonstration of a 'creator' gets us no closer to Christianity. Further, if the universe is eternal, then it would be illogical to argue for creation. But since we do not know if the universe is eternal or not, it's all speculative regardless.

Oh, we do know.

You didn't show up for the KCA thread, so drop it.

And where is my responded-to quote requesting you leave Christianity alone...for about a month or so...and place that energy towards pondering abiogenesis claims and beliefs?

Or, you just can't help yourself with things concerning Christianity?

[POI]

Epistemological recap of Venom:

2) If we have low-level confidence that a "Moses" really existed, as compared to other said characters from antiquity, does this jeopardize Biblical veracity claims in any way(s)?

Sure.

And:

I'm appealing to scholarly consensus on the basis of; the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree

And:

Scholarly Consensus: Most historians consider Moses a legendary or mythical figure, possibly invented to unify early Israelite tribes, but acknowledge the Torah as the sole narrative source. [/color][/b]

***********************************

Since scholarly consensus concludes Moses was likely a fictitious character, and you agree that Moses (being a fictitious character) raises a huge problem, then you have (2) choices;

a) abandon your faith
b) greatly pivot in your faith

Please pick one.

***********************************

Scholarly Consensus: Most historians consider Moses a legendary or mythical figure, possibly invented to unify early Israelite tribes, but acknowledge the Torah as the sole narrative source.

Okkk.

"okkk' ='s oopsie-pooh. Meaning, gulp, game over. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars. You either need to select a) or b).

[SiNcE_1985]

Scholarly Consensus: Most historians consider Moses a legendary or mythical figure, possibly invented to unify early Israelite tribes, but acknowledge the Torah as the sole narrative source. [/color][/b]

That's their opinions, which they're entitled to.

Since scholarly consensus concludes Moses was likely a fictitious character, and you agree that Moses (being a fictitious character) raises a huge problem, then you have (2) choices;

a) abandon your faith
b) greatly pivot in your faith

Please pick one.

If scholarly consensus was/is that Jesus is the risen Messiah and John 3:16 is true..which of these two choices would you choose...

A. Abandon your atheism/agnosticism and become a Christian.

B. Move the goalposts, and maintaining unbelief.

"okkk' ='s oopsie-pooh. Meaning, gulp, game over. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars. You either need to select a) or b).

False dichotomy fallacy.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #77]

Your (handwaving/avoidance) continues to be noted by everyone who might still be patiently following along. As noted from post 76, and also our prior exchanges, your rationale is contradictory. According to you:

P1: The Bible asserts the existence of an actual once-living (Jesus).
P2: If a (Jesus) did not exist in reality, Venom agrees this would be extremely problematic.
P3: Luckily, majority scholarship agrees with the claim(s) of a once living (Jesus).
P4: Therefore, na na na na nah, skeptics have no viable reason to doubt the existence of a once-living (Jesus).

Alternatively:

P1: The Bible asserts the existence of an actual once-living (Moses).
P2: If a (Moses) did not exist in reality, Venom agrees this would be extremely problematic.
P3: The majority scholarship agrees that the claim(s) of a once-living (Moses) are instead of legend/lore.
P4: Therefore, na na na na nah, a) or b).

a) Abandon ship
b) pivot drastically

Please pick one.

***********************

To continue to avoid the above will merely just affirm more handwaving, as I already pointed out at the bottom of post 72.

Thnx

[Difflugia]

False dichotomy fallacy.

Not all dichotomies are false. The way you show that a dichotomy is false is by identifying another option.

[SiNcE_1985]

P1: The Bible asserts the existence of an actual once-living (Moses).
P2: If a (Moses) did not exist in reality, Venom agrees this would be extremely problematic.
P3: The majority scholarship agrees that the claim(s) of a once-living (Moses) are instead of legend/lore.
P4: Therefore, na na na na nah, a) or b).

a) Abandon ship
b) pivot drastically

Please pick one.

I already stated that those who believe in a legendary Moses, are entitled to their opinions.

As I am entitled to mines.

I don't know what else to tell ya after that.

I'm still waiting on an agnostic "Is Abiogenesis a Viable Option for Naturalism" kinda thread from you.

How about it? Take a few jabs at naturalism.

Can you do it?