Did King Tut exist?

[Goose]

In our debate on the Resurrection in the head-to-head sub-forum Zzyzx made the following statement:

I see no reason to attempt to compare biblical accounts of “the resurrection” to actual historical events. However, if that is to be done, I would compare those supposed events to the even older events related to King Tutankhamun (1341 BCE to 1323 BCE) Egyptian Pharaoh.

and then this assertion:

There is no doubt that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died, was mummified and was buried in a tomb. Evidence CLEARLY exists.

"There is no doubt that King Tut existed..."

More recently in the thread The Sole. The following exchange between us took place:

When evidence that something exists is totally lacking, why would one believe that it exists? Why would one attempt to convince others to believe in something for which evidence is totally lacking?

You mean like your belief with "no doubt" that King Tut existed?

Mr. Goose, as you already know I support the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known – a stipulation I made from the beginning of discussion) backed by evidence of a mummified body, a tomb, and impressive grave goods indicating that an important person such as a pharaoh lived, died and was mummified and was buried in an identifiable tomb.

You have repeatedly indicated that you believe that “evidence is totally lacking” in spite of a body, a tomb and grave goods BUT you accept the story of a dead body coming back to life with no evidence other than hearsay repeated in an ancient book that cannot be shown to be anything more than fable, fiction or fraud.

What I have repeatedly asked Zzyzx for is evidence that the mummy IS King Tut and evidence for King Tut's existence other than a mummy (which could be anybody) or a tomb (which could have been intended for anybody) or anonymous Egyptian hearsay that can't be shown to be anything more than fable, fiction or fraud. Zzyzx has failed to provide this evidence I've requested and has therefore failed to prove the existence of King Tut. At this point it appears Zzyzx is ASSUMING the mummy is King Tut and that King Tut existed. He has not provided evidence that it is. If Zzyzx and others that believe King Tut existed are willing to appeal to ancient Egyptian accounts that are anonymous hearsay for support, how do they justify this and reject the Bible? I want to know what makes the existence of King Tut beyond doubt for a sceptic like Zzyzx that calls the Bible Bronze Age Tales and has made the following assertions regarding the Bible:

I DO, however, maintain that the bible cannot be shown to be anything more than fable, fiction or fraud.

and

I regard the bible as a FICTION book...

Taken from here.




Here is the evidence for Tut I have found so far:

1. A few ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs with the name Tutankhamun
2. Egyptologists heavily rely on The Egyptian historian Manetho's (3rd century BC, 1000 years after Tut) King Lists. However, Manetho does NOT mention Tut by name. He does mention "Rathotis" which some believe might be Tut.
3. A mummy, a fancy coffin, and tomb probably intended for a pharaoh (or at least someone important or wealthy). But in reality, the mummy could be anybody.

(Additionally, scholars disagree on what Tut's real name was. Who his parents were. And there is continuing mystery about how he died.)

My explanation for this evidence is that King Tut is a legend (or fable, fiction or fraud). He never existed but was invented by later pharaoh worshipers. He was never intended to be taken as a literal historical person. Howard Carter, in 1922, discovered a tomb. He was aware of the Tut legend and sought to capitalize on this for fame and fortune. He moved an unknown mummy into the empty sarcophagus and told the world he found King Tut.

Let's see if we can objectively determine if there is a BEST explanation.

The questions for debate:

1. What further evidence other than anonymous and biased Egyptian heasay is there for the existence of King Tut?
2. What is the BEST explanation for this evidence that combines explanatory scope, power, accounts for all the evidence, and need not rely on ad-hoc-ery and/or conspiracy?
3. What methods do sceptics (of Christianity) use to prove the existence of historical people or the truth of a historical event?
4. Are those methods biased toward Christianity or the supernatural?

[Furrowed Brow]

So, you are saying that a conclusion to a cogent inductive argument based on evidence, all be it scanty evidence, where there simply is no other strong competing theory with equal explanatory power and scope is the winner.

I’d say the cogent inductive argument without a competitor is our only cogent inductive argument, and that’ll be the provisional winner in the absent of competing cogent arguments.

And this can be determined objectively? Is that a fair summary?

No. Only Cogently.

So the rational thing to do would be to discard a speculation rich and evidence poor theory in favour of a better explanation with evidence for support? And continue that process until we have the BEST explanation? Is that another fair summary?

More or less. Everything is provisional when interpreting historical evidence. Evidence is evidence. There are documents, statues, artefacts etc, but the picture we gain from them, and how we interpret their import is another matter. Further evidence, or a new reinterpretation may dislodge old ideas.

Our information on Tut is pretty scanty at best. So, you currently believe Tut existed. However, if evidence surfaced that claimed he also walked on water, he would then, in your view, become mythical? Is that a fair assessment?

It depends on the nature of the evidence. If you have a bunch of hieroglyphs that talk about Tut the king, and then one turns up somewhere that talks about the miracles of tut. Maybe not. But if the whole Tut story was predicated on his divinity, I would not believe in the supernatural King tut. If there were no artefacts and no body, and just stories about his divinity, then I’d class Tut along with Jesus, and King Arthur.

Do you make that decision a priori ? If not, what method do you employ to arrive at this conclusion?

1/ Empirical Methodology: physics, biology, chemistry. Surface tension of water that kind of thing.
2/ Philosophical methodology: leading to a positivistic outlook. Supernaturalism is not accepted as a cogent point of view.
3/ Inductive methodology: personal experience of how the world works, human nature, and the ease with which a false belief can become embedded in a group.
4/ Psychology: false memories and false reporting of events.
5/ Politics/sociology: the power plays, myths, symbolism that come in to play to give group an identity.

The majority of info about Julius Caesar comes from Romans who claimed his deity. Are you now saying you don't believe Julius Caesar existed?

It is not that people believe someone to be a deity, but that all the evidence comes from people who deeply committed to believing the deity myth, and all the documents are written by such people to purvey the deity story. So for any JC for which there are contemporary artefacts such as coins and busts, for which we have his own writings, plus writings of his friends and his enemies, plus the establishment of a new kind of government that lasted four hundred of years all put any such JC in the category of real historical character.

[Goose]

It is indeed possible to be sceptical about everything. But Gooses is leading us on a wild chase here. I apply the same criteria of evidence to the existence of Jesus as I do to king Arthur. I do not believe an historical character existed in either case. And the case for Jesus walking on water is as strong for the lady in the lake.

Isn't this really a wordy way of saying you reject supernatural claims because they are supernatural claims? Aren't you Begging the Question? If not, what is the methodology you employ to determine if a supernatural claim from history is true or false?

No, it is fancy way of saying he rejects supernatural claims since there is no evidence for supernatural claims, and that there are natural explainations for the said supernatural claims.

I'll let FB answer for himself.

The reasons he rejects the claims about Jesus are the same reason you reject the claims about Augustus, of Mohammed, of Brahma, of Vishnu, and of scientology.

Now that you are thinking for me, what reasons would those be?

[Cmass]

OK Goose, you WIN!
I no longer believe the mummy that was found is King Tut. It is just a mummy. I no longer believe any of the interpretations of the artifacts surrounding it are correct - it was all a fraud perpetrated by people trying to gain power and influence. Perhaps their objective is to get us us to pray to this King Tut person - and place themselves as the preachers of the King's word? It is probably just a matter of time before they tell us he flew around like a bat after he died. Perhaps they want to build huge churches and gather billions of dollars from suckers who believe them? Perhaps they want influence over your behavior as well as world leaders? Maybe they were just jealous of the Christians?

But now there game is up!

OK. Now what? No King Tut.
Does this mean the Jesus character existed and came back to life and flew around
in the air?

Here is your formula:
"Lack of evidence for body is Tut's = theory NOT true"
Therefore,
"Lack of evidence for Jesus resurrection = story IS true"

It has been pointed out that your debate methodology is weak in this particular case. I agree. You are trying to prove the validity of a fantastical myth by showing that people make assumptions about other things they may not have proof of. I assume my father is my biological father. I have no proof of it, I just assume it. Should I therefore also conclude there was a Godman named Jesus who came back to life and flew?

We have a mummified body and a bunch of evidence that seems to point to the existence of a King called Tutankhamen. That's all. No big deal. It certainly would not defy any known laws of physics that this body is who researchers think he is. Nor would it destroy anyone's world view if these researchers later found it was indeed the janitor. No churches would fall no laws of physics would be mended.

Remember, these bodies were mummified and artifacts stored with them because these people thought there was an afterlife. I don't see any evidence for the afterlife part so I think it is reasonable to NOT conclude the Egyptians were right about an afterlife. I only see evidence for a body and an excellent theory as to who the body belonged to.

Meanwhile, you have far less evidence for your story and absolutely no evidence for dead bodies coming back to life and flying.

[twobitsmedia]

My only comment (assuming it hasn't been already contributed to this thread):

[daedalus 2.0]

In our debate on the Resurrection in the head-to-head sub-forum...

Are you serious? You are suggesting that we should believe your Jesus story because we can't even prove the Tut story?

Think about it. If we say, "Yes, you are absolutely right. We can't prove it was Tut." Where does that get you?

Come on, man, think better.

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

Basically, you have to determine which has more practicality: dis-establishing modern methods of historical evidence gathering and theory (after all, history is just a theory) along with disreputing all of the historical fact and opinion we have come to regard as a cornerstone of modern society, or you can discredit a 2,000 year old story from Jews in a small, superstitious Middle Eastern community who claimed a man came back to life, performed miracles that broke the laws of the natural world, and flew around (all of these which contemporary societies had said about many other people - all of which were false) that has no historical evidence of ever having happened. Then you must furthermore base your entire philosophical and theological opinions upon the truth of every facet of this story in direct conflict with the evidence (or lack thereof) of the matter. But it's ok, because you have faith that these incredulous events actually occured (but watch out, if you have faith in the wrong ideals, eternal hellfire for you!).

I guess it depends on how reasonable of a person you are.

[Goose]

So, you are saying that a conclusion to a cogent inductive argument based on evidence, all be it scanty evidence, where there simply is no other strong competing theory with equal explanatory power and scope is the winner.

I’d say the cogent inductive argument without a competitor is our only cogent inductive argument, and that’ll be the provisional winner in the absent of competing cogent arguments.

There will always be a competitor. How else would aspiring doctoral candidates earn their doctorates if not for the creation of competing theories? Think of all the University profs under pressure to get published. There will ALWAYS be competing theories. However, we can't have two equally cogent arguments - that is equal in cogency. One will always surpass another. One will rest upon stronger premises supported by stronger evidence. Or are you saying cogency is subjective? I don't see how you can now as you've already acknowledged, for example, that the evidence supports the conclusion that King Tut existed. This would be the best explanation for the evidence. It would be the strongest argument.

So the rational thing to do would be to discard a speculation rich and evidence poor theory in favour of a better explanation with evidence for support? And continue that process until we have the BEST explanation? Is that another fair summary?

More or less. Everything is provisional when interpreting historical evidence. Evidence is evidence. There are documents, statues, artefacts etc, but the picture we gain from them, and how we interpret their import is another matter...

I think I understand what you are saying to a degree. If evidence is evidence, then what that evidence suggests does not change and is not subjective. The evidence remains constant unless new evidence is discovered. The only thing that changes is our world views and as you've suggested our interpretations. That, though, does not preclude objectivity in matters of history. It does not mean history is an entirely subjective endeavour -i.e. what is true for you is not necessarily true for me.

..Further evidence, or a new reinterpretation may dislodge old ideas.

I would agree that further evidence could show old ideas true or false. I would disagree that new interpretations of old evidence would necessarily prove old ideas true or false.

Our information on Tut is pretty scanty at best. So, you currently believe Tut existed. However, if evidence surfaced that claimed he also walked on water, he would then, in your view, become mythical? Is that a fair assessment?

It depends on the nature of the evidence. If you have a bunch of hieroglyphs that talk about Tut the king, and then one turns up somewhere that talks about the miracles of tut. Maybe not. But if the whole Tut story was predicated on his divinity, I would not believe in the supernatural King tut...

I'm always leery about methodologies that begin with "It depends..." So what is the actual ratio or tipping point? It sounds like a ratio of 1 supernatural account is acceptable. But why? Why is one OK? What if there were two or three supernatural versions and seven non, then what? What if there was one non supernatural and the rest supernatural? If you hold to your naturalistic world view and are consistent you should dismiss all historical figures or events that have anything supernatural associated with them. Is there a specific number or is just your gut instincts fuelled by an anti-supernatural bias? This sounds very subjective and problematic.

...If there were no artefacts and no body, and just stories about his divinity, then I’d class Tut along with Jesus, and King Arthur.

Well, you don't even know for sure the body IS Tut so that isn't really a valid criteria. Your classing is based upon a bias toward the supernatural then, and not based upon an objective methodology or evaluation of the evidence.



Your below methodology has some merit but I'm struggling to see how it could be practically applied to an ancient event/person whether it be supernatural or natural. These seem more like your personal reasons why you dismiss the supernatural more than an objective methodology. Maybe a demonstration of an actual event or person would help me understand.

Do you make that decision a priori ? If not, what method do you employ to arrive at this conclusion?

1/ Empirical Methodology: physics, biology, chemistry. Surface tension of water that kind of thing.

Empirical methodology requires observable and repeatable data or events, yes? How could you observe and repeat a historical event that is technically speaking non-repeatable? And in the case of ancient history non-observable. To employ the scientific process to answer a historical question would be a fallacy. Not to mention you need to sacrifice some of the core tenents of the scientific process to do so. It wouldn't really be science but pseudo-science. Perhaps you are confusing what naturalism determines to be feasible through the scientific process with how we answer a historical question.

2/ Philosophical methodology: leading to a positivistic outlook. Supernaturalism is not accepted as a cogent point of view.

By who? Those who reject the supernatural? Further, a philosophical argument does not answer a historical question.

3/ Inductive methodology: personal experience of how the world works, human nature, and the ease with which a false belief can become embedded in a group.

I'm not sure how those are "Inductive methodology." It sounds more like "assumption methodology." Maybe you could explain. If you are willing to appeal to your personal experience why would you reject testimony from others regarding the supernatural?

4/ Psychology: false memories and false reporting of events.

I'm not worried about minor mistakes in reporting events. Now, if you are implying intentional deceit, that will take evidence to prove.

5/ Politics/sociology: the power plays, myths, symbolism that come in to play to give group an identity.

We can always consider those things. But should our assumptions about these things out weigh direct evidence that might contradict our assumptions?

The majority of info about Julius Caesar comes from Romans who claimed his deity. Are you now saying you don't believe Julius Caesar existed?

It is not that people believe someone to be a deity, but that all the evidence comes from people who deeply committed to believing the deity myth, and all the documents are written by such people to purvey the deity story...

Isn't the same for Julius Caesar though? If your rejection of evidence is based upon your perception of bias then that eliminates much of the evidence that supports history. It sounds more like you are rejecting supernatural testimony because it comes from believers. It appears to be the Genetic Fallacy combined with question-begging about the supernatural.

...So for any JC for which there are contemporary artefacts such as coins and busts,...

Coins and busts don't prove existence. They prove that someone believed the person existed. They would be another piece of evidence in the puzzle. The rational thing to do would be to ask if we should expect there to be coins and busts of the person in question. If you require coins and busts for every historical person in order to prove their existence then that is very problematic. In fact, that would mean I do not exist.

... for which we have his[Julius Caesar's] own writings,..

What methodology do you employ to conclude Caesar wrote anything? The Civil/Gallic Wars are technically speaking anonymous. And what's worse, they are written in the third person. You are begging the question again.

... plus writings of his friends and his enemies,..

So you are saying if we have an enemy source that would be powerful evidence, yes? Wouldn't Julius' friends be considered biased and interested sources? Why would you trust them? Which enemies wrote about Julius Caesar? Cicero wasn't an enemy in the sense you mean it.

...plus the establishment of a new kind of government that lasted four hundred of years...

How does that prove existence? Christians could make the same type of case about the rise of Christianity. Muslims could make the same case about the rise of Islam

... all put any such JC in the category of real historical character.

You are making many assumptions with Caesar. What we really have is another inductive argument. The best explanation for the evidence is that Julius existed, yes?

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

So, you are saying that a conclusion to a cogent inductive argument based on evidence, all be it scanty evidence, where there simply is no other strong competing theory with equal explanatory power and scope is the winner.

I’d say the cogent inductive argument without a competitor is our only cogent inductive argument, and that’ll be the provisional winner in the absent of competing cogent arguments.

There will always be a competitor. How else would aspiring doctoral candidates earn their doctorates if not for the creation of competing theories? Think of all the University profs under pressure to get published. There will ALWAYS be competing theories. However, we can't have two equally cogent arguments - that is equal in cogency. One will always surpass another. One will rest upon stronger premises supported by stronger evidence. Or are you saying cogency is subjective? I don't see how you can now as you've already acknowledged, for example, that the evidence supports the conclusion that King Tut existed. This would be the best explanation for the evidence. It would be the strongest argument.

So the rational thing to do would be to discard a speculation rich and evidence poor theory in favour of a better explanation with evidence for support? And continue that process until we have the BEST explanation? Is that another fair summary?

More or less. Everything is provisional when interpreting historical evidence. Evidence is evidence. There are documents, statues, artefacts etc, but the picture we gain from them, and how we interpret their import is another matter...

I think I understand what you are saying to a degree. If evidence is evidence, then what that evidence suggests does not change and is not subjective. The evidence remains constant unless new evidence is discovered. The only thing that changes is our world views and as you've suggested our interpretations. That, though, does not preclude objectivity in matters of history. It does not mean history is an entirely subjective endeavour -i.e. what is true for you is not necessarily true for me.

..Further evidence, or a new reinterpretation may dislodge old ideas.

I would agree that further evidence could show old ideas true or false. I would disagree that new interpretations of old evidence would necessarily prove old ideas true or false.

Our information on Tut is pretty scanty at best. So, you currently believe Tut existed. However, if evidence surfaced that claimed he also walked on water, he would then, in your view, become mythical? Is that a fair assessment?

It depends on the nature of the evidence. If you have a bunch of hieroglyphs that talk about Tut the king, and then one turns up somewhere that talks about the miracles of tut. Maybe not. But if the whole Tut story was predicated on his divinity, I would not believe in the supernatural King tut...

I'm always leery about methodologies that begin with "It depends..." So what is the actual ratio or tipping point? It sounds like a ratio of 1 supernatural account is acceptable. But why? Why is one OK? What if there were two or three supernatural versions and seven non, then what? What if there was one non supernatural and the rest supernatural? If you hold to your naturalistic world view and are consistent you should dismiss all historical figures or events that have anything supernatural associated with them. Is there a specific number or is just your gut instincts fuelled by an anti-supernatural bias? This sounds very subjective and problematic.

...If there were no artefacts and no body, and just stories about his divinity, then I’d class Tut along with Jesus, and King Arthur.

Well, you don't even know for sure the body IS Tut so that isn't really a valid criteria. Your classing is based upon a bias toward the supernatural then, and not based upon an objective methodology or evaluation of the evidence.



Your below methodology has some merit but I'm struggling to see how it could be practically applied to an ancient event/person whether it be supernatural or natural. These seem more like your personal reasons why you dismiss the supernatural more than an objective methodology. Maybe a demonstration of an actual event or person would help me understand.

Do you make that decision a priori ? If not, what method do you employ to arrive at this conclusion?

1/ Empirical Methodology: physics, biology, chemistry. Surface tension of water that kind of thing.

Empirical methodology requires observable and repeatable data or events, yes? How could you observe and repeat a historical event that is technically speaking non-repeatable? And in the case of ancient history non-observable. To employ the scientific process to answer a historical question would be a fallacy. Not to mention you need to sacrifice some of the core tenents of the scientific process to do so. It wouldn't really be science but pseudo-science. Perhaps you are confusing what naturalism determines to be feasible through the scientific process with how we answer a historical question.

2/ Philosophical methodology: leading to a positivistic outlook. Supernaturalism is not accepted as a cogent point of view.

By who? Those who reject the supernatural? Further, a philosophical argument does not answer a historical question.

3/ Inductive methodology: personal experience of how the world works, human nature, and the ease with which a false belief can become embedded in a group.

I'm not sure how those are "Inductive methodology." It sounds more like "assumption methodology." Maybe you could explain. If you are willing to appeal to your personal experience why would you reject testimony from others regarding the supernatural?

4/ Psychology: false memories and false reporting of events.

I'm not worried about minor mistakes in reporting events. Now, if you are implying intentional deceit, that will take evidence to prove.

5/ Politics/sociology: the power plays, myths, symbolism that come in to play to give group an identity.

We can always consider those things. But should our assumptions about these things out weigh direct evidence that might contradict our assumptions?

The majority of info about Julius Caesar comes from Romans who claimed his deity. Are you now saying you don't believe Julius Caesar existed?

It is not that people believe someone to be a deity, but that all the evidence comes from people who deeply committed to believing the deity myth, and all the documents are written by such people to purvey the deity story...

Isn't the same for Julius Caesar though? If your rejection of evidence is based upon your perception of bias then that eliminates much of the evidence that supports history. It sounds more like you are rejecting supernatural testimony because it comes from believers. It appears to be the Genetic Fallacy combined with question-begging about the supernatural.

...So for any JC for which there are contemporary artefacts such as coins and busts,...

Coins and busts don't prove existence. They prove that someone believed the person existed. They would be another piece of evidence in the puzzle. The rational thing to do would be to ask if we should expect there to be coins and busts of the person in question. If you require coins and busts for every historical person in order to prove their existence then that is very problematic. In fact, that would mean I do not exist.

... for which we have his[Julius Caesar's] own writings,..

What methodology do you employ to conclude Caesar wrote anything? The Civil/Gallic Wars are technically speaking anonymous. And what's worse, they are written in the third person. You are begging the question again.

... plus writings of his friends and his enemies,..

So you are saying if we have an enemy source that would be powerful evidence, yes? Wouldn't Julius' friends be considered biased and interested sources? Why would you trust them? Which enemies wrote about Julius Caesar? Cicero wasn't an enemy in the sense you mean it.

...plus the establishment of a new kind of government that lasted four hundred of years...

How does that prove existence? Christians could make the same type of case about the rise of Christianity. Muslims could make the same case about the rise of Islam

... all put any such JC in the category of real historical character.

You are making many assumptions with Caesar. What we really have is another inductive argument. The best explanation for the evidence is that Julius existed, yes?

Lol. Just when I thought your stretching of truth and use of fallacious argument was offensive, you go and pull this. Now I just think you've trolled us. Kudos, sir; you're good.

However, in case this wasn't just an excercise in vindictiveness, I'll just say this; you are essentially trying to bring up the point that nothing can be proven or disproven if it is so much as touched by the taint of subjectivity. Because we cannot prove or disprove anything, therefore the mythological tales of a miracle performing, resurrected Jesus Christ have the potential for being true in the same regard that the well-documented and historically backed existence of a fairly average Egyptian Pharoah deemed "King Tut." If you want to continue with this logic, you are essentially going back to the ancient argument that everything exists in the mind alone, because there is no ultimate way of proving or disproving the existence of anything, be that of other people, the world around us -- anything. This obviously creates an entirely different (imagined) reality than the one that exists, but this idea is predicated simply by the fact that nothing can truly be proven to one on a 100% basis. It may reach 99.999999%, but can never be 100% proven.

If you want to follow along that trek of thinking, be my guest; for the rest of us, we will take available evidence and piece together the facts of history to give a greater, realistic picture of the occurences of the past for the benefit of the present.

[Goose]

OK Goose, you WIN!

Thank you. Now I only require 12 easy payments of $99.98 to go to the next level. I take all major credit cards.

I no longer believe the mummy that was found is King Tut. It is just a mummy. I no longer believe any of the interpretations of the artifacts surrounding it are correct - it was all a fraud perpetrated by people trying to gain power and influence.

I know you are joking around but the reality is that people are swayed by arguments and explanations like the one in my OP for the existence of King Tut when applied to Christianity. The probelm arises primarily because people have a hard time distinguishing between a strong argument backed by evidence and sound reasoning and a weak argument backed by wishful thinking. Combined, of course, with an anti-supernatural bias.

Here is your formula:
[strike]"Lack of evidence for body is Tut's = theory NOT true"
Therefore,
"Lack of evidence for Jesus resurrection = story IS true"[/strike]

Nope. That's just how you are perceiving this thread.

[Goose]

Lol. Just when I thought your stretching of truth and use of fallacious argument was offensive, you go and pull this. Now I just think you've trolled us. Kudos, sir; you're good.

Or tried to show you where your reasoning is faulty.