(August 6, 2015 at 4:54 am)robvalue Wrote: Talking about other historical figures is a tu quoque fallacy of sorts, coupled with an appeal to authority. Even if historians generally accept someone else existed based on weak evidence, that doesn't make their decision correct. It would just mean they are being similarly too eager to believe without good reason. Historians are an authority, but when it comes to interpretation of events, they can only offer their best estimate.Please don't conflate "biblical scholars" with historians.
If we're simply going to accept what "most historians think" without question, then there is no discussion to be had. Historians are there to gather the evidence, evaluate authenticity and so on, and then present a case for their interpretation of events. It is perfectly valid to analyse their arguments, they don't get to just announce what happened. It's a far softer science than most.
This is a deflection to hide the weakness of the evidence.
Historians are usually more cautious than "biblical scholars."
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
