Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
It's a secondary or trinary source, so I'm trying to find a better one. However, it is documented that the Egyptians were known to destroy records and try to pretend like events didn't happen. See the History Channel concerning King Tut. (I can't think of the spelling at the moment so I'm just using the nickname)
I can't see them driving their Chariots into the sea for the fun of it.
More arguments from ignorance. Can you ever formulate an argument without resorting to fallacious premises?
The "chariot claim" you're going back to at each opportunity is just what I thought, a spurious claim by the late fraudster Ron Wyatt. Before his death, Wyatt fancied himself an "amateur" archaeologist -except he hadn't any archaeological experience or training at all, making even his "amateur" status questionable.
His claim is that he found "chariot wheels" at the bottom of the Red Sea, although the artifacts he claimed to have found have never been seen or examined by anyone else but Wyatt.
But there are several problems with Wyatt's claims. The most significant being no one else has seen the alleged wheel except Wyatt nor did Wyatt demonstrate that the wheels couldn't have arrived at the bottom of the Red Sea by other means (i.e. sinking boats -a very common problem on the sea). Moreover, its telling that he shows multiple styles of wheels: a four-spoke Florence style and a six- or eight-spoke wheel. These are indicative of different periods and different rulers. If a "parting" of the Red Sea is the only method they could arrive, is this evidence of two partings
? Or is it just evidence of two different shipwrecks -assuming that it is possible for ships to be present on the Red Sea; for ships to carry chariots as cargo (or at least their wheels); for ships to sink; and for a wooden chariot wheel to survive the waters of the Red Sea for 4,000 years.
So why is this on topic? Because I've taken a single point that Garfield has suggested is "good reason" to believe in his god and shown that it is not
good evidence at all.
Arguments from ignorance are the poorest reasons to arrive at any conclusion. For me to believe in something so extraordinary as a god, there must be an accompaniment of reason that is equally extraordinary. Not being able to explain something doesn't mean I get to inject "goddidit."
I don't accept your gods for the same reason you don't accept the gods of the ancient Egyptians, Maya, Greeks, Hawaiians, etc. There just isn't any good evidence or reason to do so.