World Renown Skeptics Avoided these Questions

By Jaime Ortega.


Waiting for response!



1) Most historians accept Julius Caesar existed thanks to archive wall inscriptions, emblems, monuments and papyrus writings. We assume an emperor called Julius Caesar indeed existed in ancient Rome. But using the logic of scientific scrutiny most skeptics apply, slashing out documentation and other remains, emperor Caesar could have being a mythical figure because archaeology itself is not sufficient proof to determine his existence without genetic testing. So to any hardcore-skeptic, there can’t be definite proof that Caesar existed as no one has ever found his grave or done DNA testing on his remains; this is the ultimate truth. Could we approve the existence of a historical figure like Caesar if we never found his remains? And if we never find his remains could it be logical to conclude, Caesar never existed since scientific scrutiny has not backed archaeology?


2) If the statue of Liberty was found in 2,000 years buried deep underground in NY, and future archaeologist found written encryption’s mentioning its existence, they would logically conclude, Lady Liberty was a real character from France. Because there would be sufficient archaeological evidence to support such an interpretation of reality. But without finding her remains, graveyard, and without DNA testing, this logical instigation could not be proven! Could it be said that without DNA testing and no traces of graveyards or remains, most historical non-physical remains could be counted as either local or national myths? If we cannot prove someone’s existence without his remains, how can we determine any story to be true even if it’s written or sculptured?   


3) Many people believe archaeology is controlled by a pervasive atheist agenda; that is to be bias, just alike the Roman Catholic Church was during the dark ages banning everything the Pope did not approve as truth. Catholic and Darwinian are skeptics of others’ interpretation, but true skepticism, is actually problematic in nature. In today’s world we relate skepticism to an atheist approach of singular science, but historically skepticism was just as predominant in other cultures with other belief systems. They also believed they were skeptics.

I am a skeptic in that I believe the great conqueror Hannibal from Cartage never existed because his remains and grave were never to be found. I am drinking tea impatiently waiting for his discovery to arrive. I am using the same modern scientific approach to prove Hannibal’s existence to prove to others he actually existed. Could it be said, I am a good and reasonable skeptic understanding no one has ever found one single bone of his body? And even if they found his toe, how could we be assured Hannibal’s remains are not that of an impostor? Or maybe his back up stage dancer who could have died in his place without leaving trace of his existence in recorded history?  


4) History should be a perfect mixture of these five components; Written, visual documentation, architecture, paleontology and logic, If one of these components is missing could you agree as an skeptic that there might be a chance all other methodologies are invaluable? Is there something in history as total truth considering it’s all now about genetic validity? If science does not back up documented history, is documented history false and science true?


5) Finally, is it dangerous to imply that ancient civilizations were not great and detailed transcribers of history just because we haven’t found any evidence of written documentation. An example:

There was a Coffee house that served great coffee. Locals loved and enjoyed the coffee beans and the family service for over 20 years. Closed after a tragic accident, the shop had no pictures of it taken before and after it was sadly torn down a few years later by a local construction company; like it, many other shops were torn down. If the remains of the coffee shop were never found, which the locals dealt remember for its coffee and childhood, could it be concluded that the modern scientific approach used by most skeptics just made all of those locals “delusional liars” within the short-lived history of that coffee shop? Or could you say documentation is now important?


6) History is recipient to time, control, expansion and ending. If Buckingham Palace was destroyed and London conquered by another powerful nation to never be rebuilt again, history shows, scavengers and thieves from different cultural-areas would most likely dig and steal valuable remains of the sight.     —Other conquering armies are known to act this way also! Not to mention, that it depends on how highly populated the area is to meet its local financial needs, what is the likelihood of conservation and preservation of the remains left in Buckingham Palace? Now Buckingham palace would be of great interest for us who know its history and importance, so it would be more likely that the first wave of scavengers roaming the area would have severely emptied and damaged many of its documents or inscriptions specially in the first 200 years. So what would the remains look like, in three thousand years? 

Now imagine a fallen kingdom somewhere in the Middle East, once ruled by a once powerful king fell close where scavengers and nomad tribes whom regard antiquity trade and theft as part of their subsistence. Unlike Buckingham Palace, this kingdom after it fell had well over 24 documented cultures which thrived close to it, and occupied that same land for three thousand years. What are the chances the fallen kingdom’s identity and preservation could being completely wiped out with its past obliterated? If this is true, could it be said the documented portion has no historical significance over the undocumented side of it? Even if we claim it didn’t, how could we conclusively define its existence without DNA?


7) One of my beloved world history professors said once, “we only accurately know 30% of recorded history, because the percentage left, unfortunately makes the other side even less known.” Does the scientific approach agree with this historical view? 

Leave a Reply

You must be Logged in to post comment.

What Next?

Recent Articles