Amos,

It all comes down to evidence.

I am not proposing a logical proof. I am only claiming the absence of evidence. Logically, I cannot produce evidence for an absence of evidence, apart from the general authority of scholars who collectively have not found any evidence. Logically, my position can never be proven which once again is why I am so careful to say that sorefingers is not necessarily wrong, he simply needs to supply some evidence. Which he seems curiously reluctant to do.

I am in the same position as scholars who argue against the existence of flying saucers.   No matter how you try, you cannot create a logical proof of their non-existence. You can never prove that there are no flying saucers, only that the evidence that has been advanced for them is faulty. But what do you do when your interlocutor refuses even to provide any evidence? At that point, the argument becomes hopeless. That is where we are now, because sorefingers won't come forward with his supporting evidence.

Furthermore, generally it is the person who makes an extraordinary assertion who is asked to provide evidence. All I'm doing, as McGrath points out, is going with the generally accepted history as it exists across the discplines. If Sorefingers wants to challenge that, great! Where's the evidence?

Coincidentally, there is another thread right now on the logical impossibility of proving the absence of evidence: "Can you prove a negative?" In that case it refers to Iran being pressed to prove that there is no evidence of WMD programs there.

But I am in the same position. My only claim is that no reputable historian has found evidence of Sorefingers's proposition. Once again, I am not claiming that Sorefingers is wrong. Just that there is no evidence he is right.

The ball is now in his court.