Request to JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

I'm involved in a thread on another board. I'd like you to look at something I replied to and tell me what the poster is doing so far as argumentation is concerned. Bold is mine.

This is Sargon:

To summarize my current understanding:
1) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and other ancient prophets knew the existence of a mother God.
2) The name Asherah was borrowed just as El was
3) The doctrine of Asherah was understood to many varying degrees across all corners of the nation
4) Ancient prophets discouraged the worship of her
5) She was eventually driven out of the minds of Israel after the exile
6) She disappeared until Joseph Smith restored the correct belief in her


This is me:


I'm sure there is some sort of argumentation term for this but you're wrong. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and other ancient prophets) did NOT know the existence of a mother God.

They believed that a mother God existed. That the ancients believed in the existence of a mother God is not proof of a mother god, it is simply proof of a belief.

Further, I'd like to know how you think your #5 was facilitated. By whom and why.

______________________________________________________________________________

Okay, yes I know the person assumes the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and God. But tell me what they are doing when they claim these persons/personages "know" the existence of mother god and build a case from that treating the rest of the comments as if the existence of mother god has been established in #1.

Thanks if you have time. I just want to understand the error in the above reposted list from Sargon. Are my comments in error? Please point out where.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Also, you don't need to address what I wrote about the #5 statement at all. I simply want to draw them into an inquiry dynamic there.

[_JAK]

JAK,

I'm involved in a thread on another board. I'd like you to look at something I replied to and tell me what the poster is doing so far as argumentation is concerned. Bold is mine.

This is Sargon:

To summarize my current understanding:
1) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and other ancient prophets knew the existence of a mother God.
2) The name Asherah was borrowed just as El was
3) The doctrine of Asherah was understood to many varying degrees across all corners of the nation
4) Ancient prophets discouraged the worship of her
5) She was eventually driven out of the minds of Israel after the exile
6) She disappeared until Joseph Smith restored the correct belief in her


This is me:


I'm sure there is some sort of argumentation term for this but you're wrong. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and other ancient prophets) did NOT know the existence of a mother God.

They believed that a mother God existed. That the ancients believed in the existence of a mother God is not proof of a mother god, it is simply proof of a belief.

Further, I'd like to know how you think your #5 was facilitated. By whom and why.

______________________________________________________________________________

Okay, yes I know the person assumes the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and God. But tell me what they are doing when they claim these persons/personages "know" the existence of mother god and build a case from that treating the rest of the comments as if the existence of mother god has been established in #1.

Thanks if you have time. I just want to understand the error in the above reposted list from Sargon. Are my comments in error? Please point out where.

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl,

First, I think you are very good in your response.

There are numerous assertions in Sargon’s 6 points. You have identified one in the 1st statement. While you didn’t use that term, you are pointing out to Sargon the inaccuracy of the statement. One can make a distinction between believing something and knowing something.

You ask, “...what they are doing when they claim these persons/personages ‘know’ ...”

Do you mean Sargon is “they” in your question? (Truly I am not trying to be difficult.) If you are asking what is Sargon doing, you have the solution right in your question as I have highlighted. A claim is being made. You could ask what the basis is for that claim.

In the last part:

But tell me what they are doing when they claim these persons/personages "know" the existence of mother god and build a case from that treating the rest of the comments as if the existence of mother god has been established in #1.

They are building upon a flawed conclusion. When you say, “as if the existence of mother god has been established in #1” you recognize what has not been established.

(I probably should stop here to see if I am on the wrong track some place.) Please pursue either way if you want.

I’ll be brave and say a little more.

One thing it seems to me we have (fallacy) is the Ambiguous Assertion.

There is the claim to know vs. your analysis they believe. Those are not the same unless (in the discussion) it has been agreed that they are.

Another thing you may have from Sargon is Argument From Authority: the claim (implied) that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted. When he says “...knew the existence of a mother God,” you in the discussion are expected to take Sargon’s word that these people “knew.”

Now, I will stop because I think I might be confused.

I’ll not be offended no matter what you say.

JAK