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]

*Umpteenth time* --> "for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not." --> Your exact words Venom, not mine.

You can keep repeating this^ as much as you like.

Like I said; case by case basis.

My response won't change.

*Umpteenth time* --> If you are to live by this sword, then you must also be willing to die by this sword. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I said what I said.

*Umpteenth time* --> The majority of Biblical scholars and historians generally agree that a number of major biblical events in the Old Testament are mythological or legendary in nature and did not happen as described.

Oh, so if the majority of mathematicians (experts)
believe that 2+2=16, I'm just supposed to go with the flow, huh?

Let me ask you, if mathematicians all believed that 2+2=16, would you believe it just because they do?

No?

Oh, so you acknowledge that there is at least one thing that you would disagree with the "experts" on, huh?

Well, apply that same logic to what's going on here.

*Umpteenth time* --> The majority of Biblical scholars and historians is not exclusive to non-Christians. No, the majority instead means both sides (believers verses not).

Um, I'm aware of this.

In fact, I'm the one who pointed this out to you as it pertains to the historicity of Jesus, in the other thread.

So, no need for the splaining.

You ain't telling me nothing Im not already aware of.

This is why most scholarly believers take the position that these claims are merely allegorical. But I understand why you may not want to rock option b), as it takes a completely different path of mental gymnastics.

Um, no.

As I stated before; the reason anyone wouldn't believe in the historicity of Moses (among OT events), is because their perceived lack of evidence for him/it.

But, the lack of evidence for X's existence, is not proof (in of itself) of evidence against X's existence.

Such a position is illogical, and I'm not obligated to take an illogical position..regardless of what the majority consensus is on the matter.

You do not even need to be this "micro" Venom. Historians/archeologists do not believe these claimed ancient Israelites lived in Egypt, at all, during the stated timeframe. And you certainly do not need to fly there. (https://detroitography.com/2021/06/25/m ... roit-1931/)

I said my old backyard/neighborhood.

We know Native Americans inhabited Detroit through archaeological finds - (like ancient hearths at Holcombe Beach), physical remnants (burial mounds at Fort Wayne), and historical records noting settlements and trails, with early evidence pointing to Paleo-Indians around 11,000 years ago, followed by groups like the Wyandot, Ottawa, and Ojibwe using the strategic waterways for millennia before European settlement.

Evidence of Native Presence:

Ancient Sites: Paleo-Indian hearths and geological features near Lake St. Clair suggest human presence in the Detroit area as far back as 11,000 years ago.

Burial Mounds: A significant burial mound at Fort Wayne indicates long-standing Native use of the site, notes the Detroit History Podcast.

Archaeological Discoveries: Ongoing work continues to uncover evidence of earlier habitation, sometimes underwater due to sea level changes.

Tribal Presence: Groups like the Anishinaabe, Wyandot, Iroquois, Fox, Miami, and Sauk utilized the Detroit River area for hunting, fishing (especially sturgeon), and gathering for centuries before Cadillac's arrival in 1701.

Indigenous Trails: Maps from the 1931 Archaeological Atlas show trails used by Indigenous peoples, with some believed to be the basis for modern Detroit streets, according to (Detroitography) - as seen in the link above..

Key Locations: Belle Isle: Historically used for fishing, hunting, and spiritual practices by Native Americans. Fort Wayne: A significant site for various tribes for over a thousand years, noted by (https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/native ... etroit.htm).

Um, you completely missed the point.

Even if there was no evidence of ancient Natives in Detroit, that wouldn't mean that therefore, there were no Natives in Detroit.

Oh, I guess dinosaurs didn't exist until we found the first fossils of such.

Completely illogical.

So much for your book report .

Not chasing the red herring. I already designated a thread to evolution, tailored JUST for you. (viewtopic.php?t=41715&start=130). Guess what? You handwaved there too.

Good.

Now make an abiogenesis thread and express your skepticism of it, with the same vigor as you do with Christianity.

Let's see it.

However, it does seem quite silly to debate a peer-reviewed theoretical science though. However, I guess these are the lengths a fundamental believer would have to go to in order to protect/retain belief in confirmed legendary stories and lore.

Yeah, and who are the peers?

Peers = the same people who also believe in the mess.

I'm gonna have a Christian theologian write a paper on Jesus' resurrection, and have all his Christian peers review it.

Then I'm gonna present this peer-reviewed paper to you and say; here is a peer-reviewed paper on the resurrection of Jesus.

Would you become a Christian? Because after all, it will be peer-reviewed.

No?

I didn't think so.

Right, the Pentateuch, which was all apparently written by one dude --> "Moses".

Well, if it was apparently written by Moses, then Moses apparently existed.

Nah, under YOUR EPISTEMOPLOGY, I'll accept the existence of a Jesus, no problem. But then, under YOUR SAME EPISTEMOLOGY, you must reject other facets which force your hand in denouncing your faith. Let me know if you want to finally make a deal? Otherwise, continue with the handwaving and pivoting abound.

Case by case. I accept what is reasonable to believe, and reject what isn't.

I already addressed this. Did you forget?

I didn't forget your special pleading, no.

That's enough stalling from you. 42th request:

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) pivot, and now adopt a non-literalist Bible view

You know you can't pick a), because you will immediately expose your inconsistent logic, (as I explained above). --> Quoting your given rationale, even the majority of scholarly believers conclude that some stories are lore, and this goes against your literalist view.

Instead going with option b) means you must drastically switch gears, to the point of rationalization overload; so I do not blame you for running away from this option too.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. Hence, the handwaving will likely just continue.

False dichotomy fallacy.

[POI]

You can keep repeating this^ as much as you like. Like I said; case by case basis. My response won't change.

Neither will my response. Yes Venom, "it is a case-by-case basis". And according to YOUR GIVEN EPISTEMOLOGY, if almost all scholars agree, then "the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not." Hence, at the end of the day, in accordance with your given standard, you must either:

a) denounce your faith
b) perform an extreme pivot to retain your faith.

Please pick one.

I said what I said.

And I've appropriately answered what needs to be answered. You either need to remain consistent in your logic, and go down with the ship, (Titanic-style), or, demonstrate even more inconsistency. Either way, it's bad news for you!

Oh, so if the majority of mathematicians (experts) believe that 2+2=16, I'm just supposed to go with the flow, huh? Let me ask you, if mathematicians all believed that 2+2=16, would you believe it just because they do? No? Oh, so you acknowledge that there is at least one thing that you would disagree with the "experts" on, huh? Well, apply that same logic to what's going on here.

Why are you asking me what I would do? We are exploring YOUR (GIVEN/PROVIDED) EPISTEMPOLOGY, not mine.

Further, you happily volunteered that you haven't even bothered to explore the 'evidence' for an asserted "Moses". But what we do know is that most scholars agree that many claims from the OT are merely allegorical. Hence, you are either going to need to:

a) ditch your literal Biblical view, which means ditching your faith, or...
b) drastically augment your Christian position to retain faith

Um, I'm aware of this. In fact, I'm the one who pointed this out to you as it pertains to the historicity of Jesus, in the other thread. So, no need for the splaining. You ain't telling me nothing Im not already aware of.

Great, then we all get to read the continued colossal handwaving abound.

Um, no. As I stated before; the reason anyone wouldn't believe in the historicity of Moses (among OT events), is because their perceived lack of evidence for him/it. But, the lack of evidence for X's existence, is not proof (in of itself) of evidence against X's existence. Such a position is illogical, and I'm not obligated to take an illogical position..regardless of what the majority consensus is on the matter.

Already explained.... Some claims would leave tons of evidence. An "Exodus" would be one of them. Further, if a "Moses" did exist, he wasn't in Egypt, which is still quite damning for the literal believer. Hence, are you going to:

a) denounce?
b) pivot your faith-based-position accordingly?

I said my old backyard/neighborhood.

You missed my point. This is why I stated you do not need to be this 'micro'. The claimed "Israelites" were not believed to be in this particular region at all, let alone one very small pin-pointed spot.

Um, you completely missed the point. Even if there was no evidence of ancient Natives in Detroit, that wouldn't mean that therefore, there were no Natives in Detroit. Oh, I guess dinosaurs didn't exist until we found the first fossils of such. Completely illogical. So much for your book report .

See my response above.

Yeah, and who are the peers? Peers = the same people who also believe in the mess. I'm gonna have a Christian theologian write a paper on Jesus' resurrection, and have all his Christian peers review it. Then I'm gonna present this peer-reviewed paper to you and say; here is a peer-reviewed paper on the resurrection of Jesus. Would you become a Christian? Because after all, it will be peer-reviewed. No? I didn't think so.

Post 100.

Well, if it was apparently written by Moses, then Moses apparently existed.

My point here was missed. You stated "It isn't one authoritative book. It is a collection of books, which testifies to the existence of Moses." (after) I stated "Historians do not rest their loreals upon the claims of one "authoritative" book alone."

Regardless of who wrote about "Moses", it was believed to be by one source alone. So either,

1) Moses wrote the Torah -- (5 books) himself, which raises some interesting questions. Or...
2) someone else wrote it and raises another set of interesting questions.

False dichotomy fallacy.

Yet another mislabeled-handwave....

That's enough stalling from you. 43rd request:

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) pivot, and now adopt a non-literalist Bible view

You know you can't pick a), because you will immediately expose your inconsistent logic, (as I explained above). --> Quoting your given rationale, even the majority of scholarly believers conclude that some stories are lore, and this goes against your literalist view.

Instead going with option b) means you must drastically switch gears, to the point of rationalization overload; so I do not blame you for running away from this option too.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. Hence, the handwaving will likely just continue.

[SiNcE_1985]

Neither will my response. Yes Venom, "it is a case-by-case basis". And according to YOUR GIVEN EPISTEMOLOGY, if almost all scholars agree, then "the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not." Hence, at the end of the day, in accordance with your given standard, you must either:

a) denounce your faith
b) perform an extreme pivot to retain your faith.

Please pick one.

I said what I said.

And I've appropriately answered what needs to be answered. You either need to remain consistent in your logic, and go down with the ship, (Titanic-style), or, demonstrate even more inconsistency. Either way, it's bad news for you!

I said what I said.

Why are you asking me what I would do? We are exploring YOUR (GIVEN/PROVIDED) EPISTEMPOLOGY, not mine.

I asked you a question.

Please answer.

If all mathematicians believed that 2+2=16, would you accept/agree this belief...or will you feel justified in your unbelief of 2+2=16.

Please answer the question.

Further, you happily volunteered that you haven't even bothered to explore the 'evidence' for an asserted "Moses".

Don't need to.

My argument is; even if I acknowledge, that there is no evidence outside the Bible of Moses' existence, that still doesn't prove that therefore, Moses didn't exist.

Just like if there was no evidence of dinosaurs, it doesn't mean that therefore, dinosaurs didn't exist.

But what we do know is that most scholars agree that many claims from the OT are merely allegorical. Hence, you are either going to need to:

a) ditch your literal Biblical view, which means ditching your faith, or...
b) drastically augment your Christian position to retain faith

False dichotomy fallacy.

Already explained.... Some claims would leave tons of evidence. An "Exodus" would be one of them.

I asked you, what evidence do you expect to see from an Exodus, that we aren't seeing.

Further, if a "Moses" did exist, he wasn't in Egypt, which is still quite damning for the literal believer.

Baseless claim with no substance whatsoever.

Hence, are you going to:

a) denounce?
b) pivot your faith-based-position accordingly?

False dichotomy fallacy.

You missed my point. This is why I stated you do not need to be this 'micro'. The claimed "Israelites" were not believed to be in this particular region at all, let alone one very small pin-pointed spot.

Says who?

People living 5,000 years later, aren't at liberty to know or say where people living 5,000 years ago were living...unless you have evidence that they was/wasn't living there.

And you don't.

You weren't there. You don't know.

My point here was missed.

Um, no. You said the book(s) were apparently written by Moses.

And I drew a conclusion based on the statement.

Plain and simple.

You stated "It isn't one authoritative book. It is a collection of books, which testifies to the existence of Moses." (after) I stated "Historians do not rest their loreals upon the claims of one "authoritative" book alone."

And I said it wasn't just one authoritative book.

Regardless of who wrote about "Moses", it was believed to be by one source alone. So either,

1) Moses wrote the Torah -- (5 books) himself, which raises some interesting questions. Or...
2) someone else wrote it and raises another set of interesting questions.

Um, no.

Sure, Moses is mentioned in the 5 books of the Torah, but he is also mentioned 85 times in the New Testament...and is embedded in Jewish history.

So, like I said..not just one authoritative book, or even 5.

Here, hold this L...added to your growing collection.

Yet another mislabeled-handwave....

That's enough stalling from you. 43rd request:

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) pivot, and now adopt a non-literalist Bible view

You know you can't pick a), because you will immediately expose your inconsistent logic, (as I explained above). --> Quoting your given rationale, even the majority of scholarly believers conclude that some stories are lore, and this goes against your literalist view.

Instead going with option b) means you must drastically switch gears, to the point of rationalization overload; so I do not blame you for running away from this option too.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. Hence, the handwaving will likely just continue.

I said what I said.

[POI]

The format is botched somehow. So I modified the response format.

1985 I said what I said.

POI Handwaving ain't gonna make your predicament go away.

1985 I said what I said.

POI Handwaving ain't gonna make your predicament go away.

1985 I asked you a question. Please answer. If all mathematicians believed that 2+2=16, would you accept/agree this belief...or will you feel justified in your unbelief of 2+2=16. Please answer the question.

POI I already answered. We are exploring your given epistemology, not mine. I have not given mine. You clearly gave yours, And now I'm pressing it. Your epistemology has been fully exposed for the fault it clearly represents. And now that you are backed into a corner, you are in a desperate attempt to wiggle out of it. I've quoted your given reasoning several times. Here, continue to hold this massive L.

1985 Don't need to. My argument is; even if I acknowledge, that there is no evidence outside the Bible of Moses' existence, that still doesn't prove that therefore, Moses didn't exist.

POI Your argument is circular, as it is the claim from the Bible which is in question.

1985 Just like if there was no evidence of dinosaurs, it doesn't mean that therefore, dinosaurs didn't exist.

POI Russell's Teapot is a famous thought experiment by philosopher Bertrand Russell illustrating that the burden of proof for an assertion lies with the person making the claim, not with skeptics to disprove it. He proposed that if he claimed a tiny teapot orbits the Sun between Earth and Mars, undetectable by telescopes, no one should believe him just because they can't prove him wrong; the lack of evidence means skepticism is the rational stance, a principle often applied to religious claims about God's existence.

Does there exist one official collective 'big book of paleontology' which states that dinosaurs exist alone, with nothing to corroborate the claim(s) outside of this collective set of "authoritative" books? No? I didn't think so.

1985 False dichotomy fallacy.

POI Handwaving, and misapplying a rubberstamp, ain't gonna make your very large predicament go away. Sorry.

1985 Baseless claim with no substance whatsoever.

POI No Venom, what is baseless, is the claims of an "Exodus" and also the claims of a "Moses". Why? Because outside the claim(s) from your believed book, nothing substantial corroborates the claim(s).

1985 Says who?

POI Says the same majority/authority for which you happily appealed to in another thread. Here, hold this L.

1985 Um, no.

POI Un, yes! This is why I placed 'Moses' in quotes. The (5) books came from one dude, regardless of if it was supposed to be "Moses" or not. Again, for the third time, Historians do not rest their loreals on one source -- with nothing to corroborate it.

1985 And I said it wasn't just one authoritative book.

POI You are quibbling over semantics. I'm talking about the Pentateuch. It is one claim, and it came from one 'source'. How might scholars corroborate the claim(s)? They can't. And a claim this large would have all sorts of corroboration.

1985 he is also mentioned 85 times in the New Testament...and is embedded in Jewish history.

POI Later believers merely mentioning a "Moses" or an 'Exodus' does absolutely nothing to corroborate the existence of an actual "Exodus" or a "Moses".

1985 I said what I said.

POI Yet another handwave....

That's enough stalling from you. 44th request:

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) pivot, and now adopt a non-literalist Bible view

You know you can't pick a), because you will immediately expose your inconsistent logic, (as I explained above). --> Quoting your given rationale, even the majority of scholarly believers conclude that some stories are lore, and this goes against your literalist view.

Instead going with option b) means you must drastically switch gears, to the point of rationalization overload; so I do not blame you for running away from this option too.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. Hence, the handwaving will likely just continue.

[SiNcE_1985]

POI I already answered. We are exploring your given epistemology, not mine. I have not given mine. You clearly gave yours, And now I'm pressing it. Your epistemology has been fully exposed for the fault it clearly represents.

And now that you are backed into a corner, you are in a desperate attempt to wiggle out of it. I've quoted your given reasoning several times. Here, continue to hold this massive L.

Um, no.

The wiggle room is; when someone takes a position based on fallacious reasoning, you no longer have to (nor should) follow them, at least on that specific point.

That is the wiggle room out.

When I said "I agree with the experts", does not imply "Even if the experts take a position that I identify as fallacious reasoning, I still must accept it."

I thought you'd be intelligent enough to understand this^...but instead, you're are running wild with this outlandish "gotcha" theme...and you are failing, at that.

POI Your argument is circular, as it is the claim from the Bible which is in question.

Um, no.

The Bible are independent books which supplements each other.

It's not one book, by one author.

POI Russell's Teapot is a famous thought experiment by philosopher Bertrand Russell illustrating that the burden of proof for an assertion lies with the person making the claim, not with skeptics to disprove it. He proposed that if he claimed a tiny teapot orbits the Sun between Earth and Mars, undetectable by telescopes, no one should believe him just because they can't prove him wrong; the lack of evidence means skepticism is the rational stance, a principle often applied to religious claims about God's existence.

Um, no.

The burden of proof is on the one who is making the claim...and that burden is for both sides.

In the Teapot example, the skeptics aren't making a claim, they are simply taking an agnostic stance, such as..

"I'm not saying it isn't true, but I don't see any evidence that it is. I simply don't know".

This is fine^.

But, in the case with the Exodus, they aren't taking such a position. They are taking an atheist position, such as..

"Due to lack of evidence, it isn't true".

This^ is a statement of knowledge, which requires proof just as much as the affirmative.

All I see is, "There is no evidence for X".

Ok, and there is no evidence against X, either.

Even in the Teapot example, the only thing you can logically say as a skeptic is, "I don't know".

That's it.

Does there exist one official collective 'big book of paleontology' which states that dinosaurs exist alone, with nothing to corroborate the claim(s) outside of this collective set of "authoritative" books? No? I didn't think so.

How many books and how many authors?

POI No Venom, what is baseless, is the claims of an "Exodus" and also the claims of a "Moses". Why? Because outside the claim(s) from your believed book, nothing substantial corroborates the claim(s).

I already addressed this...multiple books, multiple authors.

POI Says the same majority/authority for which you happily appealed to in another thread. Here, hold this L.

And this.

POI You are quibbling over semantics. I'm talking about the Pentateuch. It is one claim, and it came from one 'source'. How might scholars corroborate the claim(s)? They can't. And a claim this large would have all sorts of corroboration.

Argument from Silence fallacy.

POI Later believers merely mentioning a "Moses" or an 'Exodus' does absolutely nothing to corroborate the existence of an actual "Exodus" or a "Moses".

Then, historians shouldn't be historians...they earn their living based off mentioning historical figures of whom they never seen or met...and being thousands of years removed from the people, events, and locations of the people they mention.

Yet when authors of the Bible do it, it is "Nuh uh, you can't do that. Stop it".

If it's good for historians today to do it...then it's good for the Bible authors to do it yesterday.

1985 I said what I said.

POI Yet another handwave....

That's enough stalling from you. 44th request:

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) pivot, and now adopt a non-literalist Bible view

You know you can't pick a), because you will immediately expose your inconsistent logic, (as I explained above). --> Quoting your given rationale, even the majority of scholarly believers conclude that some stories are lore, and this goes against your literalist view.

Instead going with option b) means you must drastically switch gears, to the point of rationalization overload; so I do not blame you for running away from this option too.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. Hence, the handwaving will likely just continue.

Not trying to be facetious..but I said what I said.

[Difflugia]

So far, your claim that Moses existed is backed by two things:

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Denial...

I'm not a "certified" scientist.

So, what separates them, from me?

...and your assertions that having no idea what you're talking about is just as good as being an expert.

My response won't change.

I mean, when it's all you have...

[POI]

The format is botched again?

POI Changing the narrative and 'gaslighting' your interlocutor isn't going to save you.

1985 Um, no. The wiggle room is; when someone takes a position based on fallacious reasoning, you no longer have to (nor should) follow them, at least on that specific point. That is the wiggle room out. When I said "I agree with the experts", does not imply "Even if the experts take a position that I identify as fallacious reasoning, I still must accept it." I thought you'd be intelligent enough to understand this^...but instead, you're are running wild with this outlandish "gotcha" theme...and you are failing, at that.

POI You openly admit you have not looked into "Moses'. Hence, you would not know if the majority scholarly reasoning is/are fallacious. All you keep stating, over and over, is placing a blanket rubberstamp (i.e.) argument from silence. Yet again, an 'Exodus' claim would leave locatable evidence, and the hot and dry climate would preserve it. Researchers have searched for decades, only to come up with a big fat goose egg. Since you admit you have not investigated, and merely accept a 'Moses', based upon the Bible alone, you have no just cause to 'rubberstamp' scholarly consensus. And as I already stated, over and over again, being we are investigating claims from antiquity, 'certainty' is much harder to come by. However, it's highly likely that if the experts are making this conclusion, as they have with many other claims from the Bible, at least some, if not all, are likely not to really have happened. I know this severely damages your current literalist position, which is why I'm giving you the option to select option b). Yes, it would be a large pivot, but hey, at least you would still be on team-Christianity - at least in some capacity. Otherwise, being you are a Biblical literalist, who believes all these events really and actually happened, then you must be an avid science denier. And this is exactly what we see from you.

1985 Um, no. The Bible are independent books which supplements each other. It's not one book, by one author.

POI The "Pentateuch" is presumably from one source, not instead some or many. The NT mentions 'Moses' in an effort to 'fulfill law' and/or offer "prophetic" shadowing. This hardly follows the historical method in which I have provided to you (over and over and over) again, for which you merely handwave.

1985 Um, no. The burden of proof is on the one who is making the claim...and that burden is for both sides. In the Teapot example, the skeptics aren't making a claim, they are simply taking an agnostic stance, such as.. "I'm not saying it isn't true, but I don't see any evidence that it is. I simply don't know". This is fine^. But, in the case with the Exodus, they aren't taking such a position. They are taking an atheist position, such as.. Due to lack of evidence, it isn't true". This^ is a statement of knowledge, which requires proof just as much as the affirmative. All I see is, "There is no evidence for X". Ok, and there is no evidence against X, either. Even in the Teapot example, the only thing you can logically say as a skeptic is, "I don't know". That's it.

POI My response was about your given example regarding (dinosaurs). If we never found any evidence of any actual (dinosaurs), and merely still adhered to ancient clams of (dinosaurs) from the Bible; and science, all over the world, have actively been investigating and searching for evidence of actual (dinosaurs), never to find any at all, how long might we wait before science concludes that maybe, just maybe, the claim(s) of (dinosaurs) from the Bible is unfounded and likely instead just mythical/allegorical?

Taking YOUR position, I guess this means we should instead still hold out for "dragons" possibly existing too, right? I didn't think so. Now, just replace (dinosaurs) with (the Exodus) above, and maybe you will start to see the error of your ways. The claim is just too large not to leave findable evidence, which would certainly be preserved in the hot and dry climate.

(The rest was all repetative.)...

45th request. Are you going with a) or b)?

[SiNcE_1985]

POI You openly admit you have not looked into "Moses'. Hence, you would not know if the majority scholarly reasoning is/are fallacious.

I stated numerous times their reasoning, and you've yet to correct me or even address that part of it.

So, let's not take it there now.

All you keep stating, over and over, is placing a blanket rubberstamp (i.e.) argument from silence. Yet again, an 'Exodus' claim would leave locatable evidence, and the hot and dry climate would preserve it. Researchers have searched for decades, only to come up with a big fat goose egg.

Evidence would have been left; such as?

Since you admit you have not investigated, and merely accept a 'Moses', based upon the Bible alone, you have no just cause to 'rubberstamp' scholarly consensus.

Scholarly consensus?

The consensus within the Jewish community, then and now, says Moses existed.

How does the scholarly consensus of today, have more virtue than the Jewish consensus of yesterday?

It doesn't.

An entire damn lineage for thousands of years, from the earliest to 2025, from written to verbal, corroborates Moses' existence.

And as I already stated, over and over again, being we are investigating claims from antiquity, 'certainty' is much harder to come by.

That's the point, so, we have to go by the preponderance of the evidence.

However, it's highly likely that if the experts are making this conclusion, as they have with many other claims from the Bible, at least some, if not all, are likely not to really have happened.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

I know this severely damages your current literalist position, which is why I'm giving you the option to select option b). Yes, it would be a large pivot, but hey, at least you would still be on team-Christianity - at least in some capacity. Otherwise, being you are a Biblical literalist, who believes all these events really and actually happened, then you must be an avid science denier. And this is exactly what we see from you.

The Bible doesn't disagree with science.

Science disagrees with the Bible.

POI The "Pentateuch" is presumably from one source, not instead some or many. The NT mentions 'Moses' in an effort to 'fulfill law' and/or offer "prophetic" shadowing. This hardly follows the historical method in which I have provided to you (over and over and over) again, for which you merely handwave.

Um, no.

NT excluded, Moses is also mentioned in non Torah books, of the OT as well...not to mention non-canon books like the Apocrypha.

Again, he is embedded in Jewish history, so much so that you can't speak on their history and not mention him.

Being wrong just doesn't seem to bother you..and it is concerning, because it should definitely bother you.

POI My response was about your given example regarding (dinosaurs). If we never found any evidence of any actual (dinosaurs), and merely still adhered to ancient clams of (dinosaurs) from the Bible; and science, all over the world, have actively been investigating and searching for evidence of actual (dinosaurs), never to find any at all, how long might we wait before science concludes that maybe, just maybe, the claim(s) of (dinosaurs) from the Bible is unfounded and likely instead just mythical/allegorical?

Then this would mean you'd have to take an agnostic position on DINOSAURS.

"Maybe they do, maybe they don't; I just don't know".

You have no reason to call the claims mythical/allegorical.

Taking YOUR position, I guess this means we should instead still hold out for "dragons" possibly existing too, right? I didn't think so.

If dinosaurs existed, dragons could have existed.

Now, just replace (dinosaurs) with (the Exodus) above, and maybe you will start to see the error of your ways. The claim is just too large not to leave findable evidence, which would certainly be preserved in the hot and dry climate.

Again, what evidence do you expect to find for the Exodus?

[SiNcE_1985]

So far, your claim that Moses existed is backed by two things:

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Um, no.

Denial...

Yeah, focus on those two words instead of anything that came after it.

You take a hiatus from the discussion and then come back with NOTHING.

Weak sauce.

Moving along..

...and your assertions that having no idea what you're talking about is just as good as being an expert.

If I'm doing this much of a great job on intellectually owning you...imagine if I actually knew what I was talking about.

I mean, when it's all you have...

Weak sauce.

Next time you return to this discussion...bring back actual substance.

[POI]

I stated numerous times their reasoning, and you've yet to correct me or even address that part of it. So, let's not take it there now.

1) You told me you have not investigated.
2) You also keep asking me for what evidence should be found, but you were not concerned when we were discussing a "Jesus." (See my response below for further explanation).

So please, <you> have no cause to question the actual experts here unless you wish to change the rules to taste.

Evidence would have been left; such as?

See above. Further, you are moving the goalposts. In the "Jesis is a myth!" thread, scholarly consensus tells you that the evidence must be overwhelming. And yet, you never bothered to see what the evidence even was. Welp, now prepare to dive upon your own sword. (Paraphrased) - "If majority scholarship all agrees, then the evidence must be quite convincing. " Hence, we do not need to know. The fact that they all overwhelmingly agree means it must be a lot. And like I said, I will be happy to go with this, which means a Jesus must exist, but it also means your version of Christianity is objectively false.

Scholarly consensus? The consensus within the Jewish community, then and now, says Moses existed. How does the scholarly consensus of today, have more virtue than the Jewish consensus of yesterday? It doesn't. An entire damn lineage for thousands of years, from the earliest to 2025, from written to verbal, corroborates Moses' existence.

We are not talking about mere Jewish followers; we are instead referring to "scholarly consensus/authority". You know, the case-by-case standard for which you gave to conclude that the claim must actually be substantiated.

That's the point, so, we have to go by the preponderance of the evidence.

Addressed above...

Appeal to authority fallacy.

LOL! YES! You just shot yourself in both feet at the same time using your own rubberstamping. Weee!

The Bible doesn't disagree with science. Science disagrees with the Bible.

Nothingburger/handwave.

Um, no. NT excluded, Moses is also mentioned in non Torah books, of the OT as well...not to mention non-canon books like the Apocrypha. Again, he is embedded in Jewish history, so much so that you can't speak on their history and not mention him. Being wrong just doesn't seem to bother you..and it is concerning, because it should definitely bother you.

And here I even went out of my way to place the important words in bold, and yet, you still missed the point. I've explained the historical method again and again and again. The Bible does not qualify, while using even some of the lowest standards.

Then this would mean you'd have to take an agnostic position on DINOSAURS. "Maybe they do, maybe they don't; I just don't know". You have no reason to call the claims mythical/allegorical.

Even if there was some 'authoritative' collection of claims about dinosaurs, we know dinosaurs exist anyways. Why? Because the evidence is overwhelming, outside the identified claim(s) themselves. And please do not ask me what is the evidence. You can find out very easily. We do not have evidence with the Exodus. Not by a long shot. And you know it, which is why you are instead applying a weak "rubberstamp" (ala -- argument from silence), which is also a big fat excuse, and also an extreme omission, for why you cannot produce any actual evidence -- outside the claim from the "book" itself.

46th attempt: Based upon YOUR GIVEN EPISTEMOLOGY, are you going with option a) or b)?