"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1

[Minimalist]

I'm just wondering why it's so important to you to make a case for the existence of Moses.

Oh, that's simple.  Without moses his whole house of cards tumbles down.  He can't allow that.

I bet he thinks Adam and Eve were real, too!

[Dānu]

[Dave Armstrong]

What are your credentials as an historian?

I have a master's degree in history from the university of Quebec in Montreal. my specialty is Hellenistic history. I also have a teaching degree and currently teach history for 7th and 8th graders in a public school of the poorest neighborhood of the city.

I wrote my master thesis on Epirus and Illyrian cultural exchanges and alliances.

Thank you. That's admirable.

[Dave Armstrong]

Answer my question and I'll answer yours:

Do you believe that the universe began out of nothing, and that the resultant atoms had the inherent power to evolve into everything we see now, by random chance, with no "superior reasoning" behind it (Einstein) or a creator-God (Christianity & Judaism); and do you have reasons for believing these things, if you do, and exactly how are they easier to believe than a mundane thing like Moses having a physical object by which he could do God-enabled miracles?

I'll play this game with you if you like. You may eventually regret starting it. But give it your best shot.

Calm down Dave. It was a simple question about your beliefs.

I'm just wondering why it's so important to you to make a case for the existence of Moses.

Without his staff he's nothing.

I'm happy to chat about the origin of the universe with you when you've answered my question.

I'm perfectly calm. So you refuse to answer. So do I. I explained somewhere today exactly why I am writing about Moses.

[SeaPigeon]

I'm just wondering why it's so important to you to make a case for the existence of Moses.

Oh, that's simple.  Without moses his whole house of cards tumbles down.  He can't allow that.

I bet he thinks Adam and Eve were real, too!

One trick pony comes to mind.

[Aliza]

What are your credentials as an historian?

I have a master's degree in history from the university of Quebec in Montreal. my specialty is Hellenistic history. I also have a teaching degree and currently teach history for 7th and 8th graders in a public school of the poorest neighborhood of the city.

I wrote my master thesis on Epirus and Illyrian cultural exchanges and alliances.

That's really hot, epronovost.

[pattylt]

Charlie has a thread about creation or chance…that discussion would fit it well there…just sayin…

I have a bachelor's degree in Medical Technology. While that is a specific degree, it comes with majors in chemistry and biology with a minor in math. No wonder no one’s going into the field today…sigh…

[SeaPigeon]

I have no qualifications. I left school in disgrace.

[Dānu]

I flunked college. And I nearly didn't graduate high school.

[Minimalist]

Moses didn't exist but certainly Ahmoses I existed.

In fact, we still have his carcass!

[Dave Armstrong]

Charlie has a thread about creation or chance…that discussion would fit it well there…just sayin…

I have a bachelor's degree in Medical Technology.  While that is a specific degree, it comes with majors in chemistry and biology with a minor in math.  No wonder no one’s going into the field today…sigh…

That's impressive, too!

[mordant]

mordant:

I mean what is "ignorant" about observing that the OT version of god is, just to pick one point, jealous? God actually explicitly self-describes as a "jealous god", apparently to create an atmosphere of fear around the possibility of making him feel thusly. Jealousy is one of the baser human failings and it's based in insecurity, and it's an excellent support for the notion that jealous insecure humans concocted this god. You have to either claim that "jealous" means something else or try to claim that it doesn't mean much "in context" or in balance with some other less unsavory attributes.

It does mean something else. It's a species of the non-literal literary device of anthropopathism (see a fairly concise half-page explanation of it). God the Father is not only not "jealous" -- He has no emotions whatsoever in classical theism, and according to the belief of the vast majority of Christian belief-systems. Whenever it appears at face value in the Bible that He does, it's anthropopathism. The Bible has over 400 forms of literary techniques. I have an 1100-page book four feet away from me as I write (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible) that examines these in painstaking detail.

So the Bible says god is jealous when he isn't. I suppose it also says he "is love" when he isn't then.

IDK Dave, this reminds me an awful lot of how even literalist / inerrantist fundamentalists will declare a problematic passage of scripture to be "figurative" when it suits them / presents a problem for them. Someone has to declare this or that passage "anthropopathic" and I'd be interested to know which ones aren't thusly labeled. I'm guessing for example that god HAS to be sinless so that's not saying one thing and meaning another. Please tell me there is some criteria or principle or anything other than tea leaves that is used to decide when the plain meaning of a word is "just kidding".

I will say though that I have NEVER heard anyone claim that god is, in fact, entirely devoid of emotion.

This would explain a GREAT deal.

[Dave Armstrong]

So the Bible says god is jealous when he isn't. I suppose it also says he "is love" when he isn't then.

IDK Dave, this reminds me an awful lot of how even literalist / inerrantist fundamentalists will declare a problematic passage of scripture to be "figurative" when it suits them / presents a problem for them. Someone has to declare this or that passage "anthropopathic" and I'd be interested to know which ones aren't thusly labeled. I'm guessing for example that god HAS to be sinless so that's not saying one thing and meaning another. Please tell me there is some criteria or principle or anything other than tea leaves that is used to decide when the plain meaning of a word is "just kidding".

I will say though that I have NEVER heard anyone claim that god is, in fact, entirely devoid of emotion.

This would explain a GREAT deal.

All languages and cultures have figures of speech and non-literal idioms. This is nothing unusual at all. The ancient Hebrews were very sophisticated in language and thought patterns. If you want to learn more about this, here are three good links:

https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/A/ant...phism.html 

https://www.internationalstandardbible.c...phism.html 

https://www.naves-topical-bible.com/ANTH...HISMS.html

The lack of emotions in God the father is the doctrine called impassibility. This in turn is tied in with the notion of aseity: God's self-sufficiency or self-existence.

Lots of stuff you didn't learn in fundamentalist circles. This is what I've been trying to tell the multitude of former fundamentalist atheists for years.

If you want to check out the 1100-page book on figures of speech in the Bible, here it is for free:

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/bullinger.html 

Here are the entries for the letter A alone:

Accismus; or Apparent Refusal Acrostichion; or Acrostic Aenigma; or Dark Saying Aetiologia; or Cause Shown Affirmatio; or Affirmation Aganactesis; or Indignation Allegory; or Continued Metaphor and Hypocatastasis Amoebaeon; or Refrain Amphibologia; or Double Meaning Amphidiorthosis; or Double Correction Ampliatio; or Adjournment: Ie an Old Name for a New Thing Anabasis; or Radual Ascent Anachoresis; or Regression Anacoenosis; or Common Cause Anacoluthon; or Non-Sequence Anadiplosis; or Like Sentence Endings and Beginnings Anaeresis; or Detraction Anamnesis; or Recalling Anaphora; or Like Sentence-Beginnings Anastrophe; or Arraignment Anesis; or Abating Antanaclasis: or Word-Clashing Anteisagoge; or Counter-Question Anthropopatheia; or Condescension Anticategoria; or Tu Quoque Antimereia: or Exchange of Parts of Speech Antimetabole; or Counterchange Antimetathesis; or Dialogue Antiphrasis; or Permutation: Ie a New Name for the Old Thing Antiprosopopoeia; or Anti-Personification; Antiptosis; or Exchange of Cases Antistrophe; or Retort Antithesis; or Contrast Antonomasia; or Name-Change Apocope; or End-Cut Apodioxis; or Detestation Apologue; or Fable Apophasis; or Insinuation Aporia; or Doubt Aposiopesis; or Sudden-Silence Apostrophe Association; or Inclusion Asteismos; or Politeness Asteismos; or Urbanity Asterismos; or Indicating Asyndeton; or No-Ands

[mordant]

The lack of emotions in God the father is the doctrine called impassibility. This in turn is tied in with the notion of aseity: God's self-sufficiency or self-existence.

Lots of stuff you didn't learn in fundamentalist circles. This is what I've been trying to tell the multitude of former fundamentalist atheists for years.

Yes I am sure I didn't learn a lot of things from fundamentalism, or were taught that they were "wrong" (transubstantiation comes to mind). I'm sure there must be dozens of concepts I'm not familiar with that are, nonetheless, part of historic Christianity writ large.

I can see some advantages and some weaknesses to the notion. It makes omnipotence and immutability a bit less incoherent for instance, but its falling out of favor in recent times suggests that it makes god less relatable and "other". It would be easy to conflate not feeling with not caring, for instance. And I can't believe even Catholics don't offer up to people that god cares for and about them. A sect that did otherwise wouldn't last long. How one would care or have empathy without having some sort of feeling about the thing you care about, I don't pretend to know.

But we are ahead of our skis here ... I don't feel you've either defined god or proven his existence. Before we can argue whether Catholic theology is a "fullness of understanding" as you say, we have to establish that its very basis is sound. I mean the historicity of Moses is an interesting topic but I'm kind of surprised we're talking about it out the chute.

[Dānu]

I believe it is in an appendix to Plato's Phaedrus that he explains that men cannot understand what gods think and vice versa. If true, it raises questions.

[Dave Armstrong]

I believe it is in an appendix to Plato's Phaedrus that he explains that men cannot understand what gods think and vice versa.  If true, it raises questions.

Christianity says we can know certain things about God from creation (Romans 1), but only so much; hence the need for revelation. God knows everything about us (having made us), so we don't follow Plato in that.

[Dānu]

I believe it is in an appendix to Plato's Phaedrus that he explains that men cannot understand what gods think and vice versa.  If true, it raises questions.

Christianity says we can know certain things about God from creation (Romans 1), but only so much; hence the need for revelation. God knows everything about us (having made us), so we don't follow Plato in that.

Afaik, God knows all true propositions. That isn't the same as knowing everything about us.

[Dave Armstrong]

Christianity says we can know certain things about God from creation (Romans 1), but only so much; hence the need for revelation. God knows everything about us (having made us), so we don't follow Plato in that.

Afaik, God knows all true propositions.  That isn't the same as knowing everything about us.

We believe that He knows absolutely everything. That includes everything about us. Were pretty easy to figure out, anyway. 

[Dānu]

Afaik, God knows all true propositions.  That isn't the same as knowing everything about us.

We believe that He knows absolutely everything. That includes everything about us. Were pretty easy to figure out, anyway. 

And you also believe that you understand how God knows what he knows, in what way.

There is a hypothetical in cognitive science known as Mary the neuroscientist. In the hypothetical, Mary is a neuroscientist who has been raised in a black & white world. She's never seen the color red. According to the hypothetical, Mary knows all that there is to know about the brain and the mind. The question is, if someday Mary does see the color red, will she have learned something from the experience that she didn't previously know, namely what experiencing color feels like. A similar hypothetical could be asked here. Does God know what it feels like to sin knowing that one has sinned and offended God? He might be able to extrapolate from what he knows of us, but ostensibly he wouldn't know what it is to experience that. Or would he?

It's more a question of what it means to know absolutely everything, which is intimately tied up with what it means to know. It's not, does he? but rather, what does that mean?

[Dave Armstrong]

We believe that He knows absolutely everything. That includes everything about us. Were pretty easy to figure out, anyway. 

And you also believe that you understand how God knows what he knows, in what way.

There is a hypothetical in cognitive science known as Mary the neuroscientist.  In the hypothetical, Mary is a neuroscientist who has been raised in a black & white world.  She's never seen the color red.  According to the hypothetical, Mary knows all that there is to know about the brain and the mind.  The question is, if someday Mary does see the color red, will she have learned something from the experience that she didn't previously know, namely what experiencing color feels like.  A similar hypothetical could be asked here.  Does God know what it feels like to sin knowing that one has sinned and offended God?  He might be able to extrapolate from what he knows of us, but ostensibly he wouldn't know what it is to experience that.  Or would he?

It's more a question of what it means to know absolutely everything, which is intimately tied up with what it means to know.  It's not, does he? but rather, what does that mean?

Good questions! We don't say we know how God knows everything that is possible to know. We can't comprehend being omniscient or eternal or outside of time. We believe it because this is how God revealed Himself in His revelation.

He doesn't have firsthand experience of sin because as an all-Holy Being, He can't sin; nor can He rebel against Himself, which is what sin is. He can't be other than what He is (doctrines of immutability and aseity). The NT stated about Jesus: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15, RSV)

God decided to become a human being, out of love for us, so He could relate to us. But Jesus relates to us as a sin-free man. It's not of the essence of human beings to be sinners, because we once existed sin-free and could have stayed on that path instead of the path of rebellion (like most of the angels did; they never rebelled).

[Inkubus]

"mordant" pid='414469' dateline='1704328870']

So the Bible says god is jealous when he isn't. I suppose it also says he "is love" when he isn't then.

IDK Dave, this reminds me an awful lot of how even literalist / inerrantist fundamentalists will declare a problematic passage of scripture to be "figurative" when it suits them / presents a problem for them. Someone has to declare this or that passage "anthropopathic" and I'd be interested to know which ones aren't thusly labeled. I'm guessing for example that god HAS to be sinless so that's not saying one thing and meaning another. Please tell me there is some criteria or principle or anything other than tea leaves that is used to decide when the plain meaning of a word is "just kidding".

I will say though that I have NEVER heard anyone claim that god is, in fact, entirely devoid of emotion.

This would explain a GREAT deal.

All languages and cultures have figures of speech and non-literal idioms. This is nothing unusual at all. The ancient Hebrews were very sophisticated in language and thought patterns. If you want to learn more about this, here are three good links:

Lots of stuff you didn't learn in fundamentalist circles. This is what I've been trying to tell the multitude of former fundamentalist atheists for years.

If you want to check out the 1100-page book on figures of speech in the Bible, here it is for free:

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/bullinger.html 

Here are the entries for the letter A alone:

Accismus; or Apparent Refusal Acrostichion; or Acrostic Aenigma; or Dark Saying Aetiologia; or Cause Shown Affirmatio; or Affirmation Aganactesis; or Indignation Allegory; or Continued Metaphor and Hypocatastasis Amoebaeon; or Refrain Amphibologia; or Double Meaning Amphidiorthosis; or Double Correction Ampliatio; or Adjournment: Ie an Old Name for a New Thing Anabasis; or Radual Ascent Anachoresis; or Regression Anacoenosis; or Common Cause Anacoluthon; or Non-Sequence Anadiplosis; or Like Sentence Endings and Beginnings Anaeresis; or Detraction Anamnesis; or Recalling Anaphora; or Like Sentence-Beginnings Anastrophe; or Arraignment Anesis; or Abating Antanaclasis: or Word-Clashing Anteisagoge; or Counter-Question Anthropopatheia; or Condescension Anticategoria; or Tu Quoque Antimereia: or Exchange of Parts of Speech Antimetabole; or Counterchange Antimetathesis; or Dialogue Antiphrasis; or Permutation: Ie a New Name for the Old Thing Antiprosopopoeia; or Anti-Personification; Antiptosis; or Exchange of Cases Antistrophe; or Retort Antithesis; or Contrast Antonomasia; or Name-Change Apocope; or End-Cut Apodioxis; or Detestation Apologue; or Fable Apophasis; or Insinuation Aporia; or Doubt Aposiopesis; or Sudden-Silence Apostrophe Association; or Inclusion Asteismos; or Politeness Asteismos; or Urbanity Asterismos; or Indicating Asyndeton; or No-Ands

I intended to apply my usual {Guff snip} tag to the above trash but nah, I'll leave it for the world to point at and laugh.

Radual Ascent Anachoresis

It's hard to know where to put this, I mean 200 post in one week all on the same subject?

Moreover, I shall demonstrate that the foundations of modern science (once it did get off the ground in the 16th century) were overwhelmingly Christian or at least theistic.Link

That was nine years ago. Any progress?

Dave Armstrong is the author of fifty-one books: Link

As far as I can see these 'fifty one books' are nothing more than compilations of your blog posts which are mostly comprised of links to other writers you use to debate on your behalf.

Despite all the millions of words you have posted over the last 30? years (very few of them your own) you are still at base a standard issue fundie troll.

Now please go and fuck yourself.

[Minimalist]

Dave Armstrong is the author of fifty-one books: Link

More likely the same book 51 times.

[1Sam15]

Do you believe that Moses had a magic shaft Dave?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours:

Do you believe that the universe began out of nothing, and that the resultant atoms had the inherent power to evolve into everything we see now, by random chance, with no "superior reasoning" behind it (Einstein) or a creator-God (Christianity & Judaism); and do you have reasons for believing these things, if you do, and exactly how are they easier to believe than a mundane thing like Moses having a physical object by which he could do God-enabled miracles?

I'll play this game with you if you like. You may eventually regret starting it. But give it your best shot.

Do you believe that Moses had a magic shaft Dave?

[brewerb]

1 Corinthians 14:38 (KJV) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Huh. Why the bible quote?

Cherry pickers gonna pick?

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/14.html

Maybe he had a mini stroke (TIA) and thought we were typing in tongues.

[Dave Armstrong]

My first rock concert was Aerosmith, in Dec. 1976.