Hoosiernorm wrote:See what I mean. When you base the argument on non contingent elements then you get a logic that is flawed even though it makes complete sense. This of course is why when you look at US currency that you can conclude that we are all freemasons who are originally from Greece and worship eagles.Milo wrote:They are a strong basis for the existence of the military and ideological success.Hoosiernorm wrote:Because Spencer is using non existent items to prove that by their non existence that Mo did not exist. I can not think of another non Roman military force that immediately set forth to destroy the currencies of conquered kingdoms. Mo brought a revolutionary idea to the ME of monotheism for the masses. Zoroastrianism didn't have great military success and the Jews would not bring non believers into their tribe. His success militarily and ideologically are a strong basis for his existence.Milo wrote: Ah, the method S was using? I'm not sure what that means.
My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.
Do you think that the existence of the Swiss Guard is proof of the existence of Jesus?
Your obtuseness is somewhat tiresome. I am merely saying that it was the convention for leaders to get on to coinage as soon as they could at time. Maybe M did not care to do that, and there is an argument that would be consistent with his religion. However, it is unusual and does beg some questioning.
However, your insistence that Spencer does not advance positive proofs against the existence of M just wrong. He does, several of them. You probably missed my edit above to highlight that. However, that I did not inform you does not change that you ran with an argument based of an incomplete understanding of what Spencer's book actually says.
Now, you can be like some, and attack the person making the argument, if you care for logical fallacies, or you can engage the argument itself.