Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Since this thread is about the Exodus and the ten plagues, what evidence do you have that there was an Exodus and ten plagues? If there was an Exodus, so what? That would have simply been secular history. What you need evidence for is the ten plagues, and of course, you and everybody else know that you don't have any.

Do you intend to reply to your unfinished debates in the thread on Farrell Till and on the Tyre prophecy? I am still looking forward to you providing evidence that the Tyre prophecy was written before the events and that is has not been revised. I don't have any evidence that the prophecy was written after the events or that it has been revised, but you don't have evidence that the prophecy was written before the events and has not been revised. The Bible is full of initial historical occurrences from cover to cover, many of which you are well aware had no claimed eyewitnesses at all. There is no rule of logic or law that states that all assertions regarding historical occurrences are true until proven false. Your favorite argument is actually "the Bible says so," which is a faith argument, not an apologetic argument, although you claim that you are using logic.

Anat

Which is a very round about way of agreeing that the numbers add up to over 600,000 men (because no other group size would work; it's a linear equation - linear equations can't have more than one answer). From here on, I will not take seriously any 'but the numbers could mean something entirely different' whine. So any explanation about camp size, water, hygiene would have to be in line with a population of millions.

cajela

I don't know, I tried to change the subject to underwear, and allow all the jokes about things being all the more easily pulled out of arses, but this part of the forum seems too serious :devil3:
love & kisses to all you scholar types,
your regular lurker

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Please reply to my post #371.

bfniii

julian

respectfully, helo presented a form of evidence. spin blithely dismissed it but then "claimed" that helo presented empty rhetoric. spin does the same with me. it's ridiculous and is typical of how unproductive discussions with spin can be. part of true discovery is testing every avenue, every possibility over and over until it has repeatedly been proven false. spin tries to equate "you have presented nothing" with true discovery. it seems that people at infidels should spend more time correcting spin's shortcomings than criticizing someone who actually tries to discuss the issue.



i don't think you believe that. it seems a bit dramatic.



what would be "proof" to you?

one of the biggest fallacies that is constantly perpetuated in these forums is the criticism of something without the defense of the understood alternative. if a particular part of the bible (or anything else) is criticized, it is done with a presupposition that something else happened. if that weren't the case, no criticism could possibly exist. you cannot leave a void. if you're not going to fill the void, you have no grounds for the criticism. this renders your burden of proof statement incorrect. everyone bears the burden of proof in whatever they believe, if they are going to convince someone else of that belief.

cue the "court of law" and "accepted burden of proof" retorts.



this is a tacit admission that there simply isn't enough available information to make an irrefutable judgment one way or the other in this case. that, in no way, makes the account false.

once again, "proven" is relative. to some people, it has been proven. the question is why you need more information for proof than they do. that is why i asked you what would be proof to you.



this is special pleading. what you are proposing is not always an accepted historical standard. some historical events are accepted as true merely because a document exists that states it. also, interpretation of some evidence can be subjective.



that is opinion. one that you should have to defend if you wish to convince anyone of it.



there is not a "total absence".

bfniii

i assume that you are referring to defense of the bible when you say "ad hoc". if that is your implication, then which particular ones do you consider ad hoc?



and just exactly which apologists are inflexible? that statement, along with the one prior is sweeping and not very helpful.



that is not the reasonable verdict of history. if you disagree, then show some support for that statement.



got any specifics? what about the creation story? what about the cosmogony? which history are you talking about?



your sweeping statements pick and choose certain elements of history in the attempt to misrepresent all of christianity. the texts of the bible are not analogous to the mormon situation. we have many ancient, very ancient documents that have almost no disagreement between them. the disagreements that do exist are few, nearly inconsequential and not difficult to decipher. it is an unparalleled situation. you then include the tired cliche "christians who do bad things" as evidence that christianity is bad.

Johnny Skeptic

Rather, since the Bible asserted first, why is “the Bible says so” sufficient proof for you? Still, if you are talking about the Exodus and the ten plagues, which is the topic of this thread, I will answer your question. If the Exodus occurred, that was just ordinary secular history and not of any use in debates. Secular history in a certain area can easily be recorded by anyone of any world view who happens to live in that area. Regarding the ten plagues, I have never heard any arguments from any source that they occurred other than “the Bible says so.” As far as I know, nothing would constitute reasonable proof unless someone claiming to be God showed up and demonstrated his powers. Just like you, I wouldn’t have any way of verifying his identity, but at least we would have a lot more to go on than we have now.

The fallacy is yours. Sure, I presuppose that the Bible is false, and you presuppose that the Bible is true. Such being the case, the only kind of arguments that can be useful are arguments that do not depend upon suppositions. Both sides will easily agree that George Bush is the President of the United States. Both sides will not agree that there were ten plagues. Those who do not presuppose that there were ten plagues are entitled to question such an extraordinary claim, just as you are entitled to question extraordinary claims made by some other religions. The undecided crowd don’t presuppose that the Bible is false. They are for the most part the only crowd who you have a chance to influence. I do not expect you to give up Christianity because of any of my arguments, and your chances of convincing me to become a Christian again are virtually nonexistent. For purposes of this thread you do not have any chance at all of convincing any of the undecided crowd that the ten plagues occurred because only someone who is already a Christian would believe the story. Similarly, only someone who is already a Christian would preclude a reasonable possibility that the Tyre prophecy has been revised. What you need are arguments that appeal to people who are not already Christians. Do you have any? If so, just start a new thread and we will discuss them.

Agreed, so we don’t know one way or the other whether or not there were ten plagues, whether or not the Tyre prophecy was written before the events, whether or not the prophecy was revised, whether or not God created the heavens and the earth, whether or not God made a land promise to Abraham, whether or not Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, whether or not he never sinned, whether or not his shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind, and whether or not he will ever return to earth. Actually, there is not any credible evidence that Jesus ever came to earth. An equally valid supposition is that the Old Testament is true, but Jesus has not yet come to earth. He might have been a supernatural imposter or an alien. This argument will give you problems because it does not presuppose that the Bible is false, only that the authentic Bible might be the Old Testament. Of course, even the God of the Old Testament might have been an imposter. If God is evil, then by definition he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible. If you mention the ontological argument as evidence, which you have mentioned before without quoting any sources at all even though I asked you to on a number of occasions, I will tell you that logically, if the universe was created by an intelligent being, it involved converting energy into matter. There is not any science, philosophy or logic that reasonably proves that morals have anything whatsoever to do with the conversion of energy into matter. He who has adequate power can do anything that he wants to do. That is just plain old common sense.

There is also the possibility that the original creator of the universe is amoral.

You base all of your beliefs upon the knowledge that you have acquired on this tiny speck of a planet in a vast, old, complex universe that is full of possibilities. We haven’t even cured the common cold, and yet you presume to tell us some of the secrets of the universe. Well if that don’t beat all, folks.

Readers, you can almost go to the bank that bfniii will conveniently not reply to this post, or that he will only reply to part of it and avoid what he believes are the difficult parts. Typically, he will argue various topics with skeptics at great length, but only until he knows that he is in trouble. If bfniii does make a reply, plan on some evasive tactics.

FatherMithras

Where exactly do we leave a void? We know the hebrews weren't in Egypt and there wasn't an exodus or invasion of Canaan, partially because we know what the Jews were doing at the time.

The exodus, stories of Jesus, invasion of Canaan, etc have all been shown to be false. Thus, it is the reasonable verdict of history that if the bible has incorrect statements, it's not inerrent.

Odd, since that's almost entirely untrue. We have plenty of biblical texs that disagree with one another, mostly in the new testament. The son of Man and Son of God switching that's so prevalent and the inclusion of new elements over the centuries is one fine example.

bfniii

it was implicit in my post; no person at infidels, in any thread that i have participated, has shown an error in the bible. there have been difficulties, but not errors. if you think you know of some, present them.



the problem with this statement is that it is predicated on the assumption that the instances you refer to are actual errors as opposed to perceived errors, a la SAB.



and i find that your post is based on misconception of alleged errors. you can't claim there is an error in the bible until you can show that the instance can withstand any possible refutation. if you would like to continue living with that mistaken idea, then you are welcome to your fishbowl. furthermore, you have no idea what study i have done outside of infidels. therefore, you can't say that i am ignorant.

bfniii

and what do you think that i have avoided? i have addressed every point directed at me that i know of. instead of trying to make a vague assertion, why didn't you cite examples of posts that i missed?



good grief! i have been in this thread for several hundred posts! where have you been? i have responded to several different alternatives regarding the numbers.



i made a point; someone responded with an article; i responded to the article. if i hadn't responded to it, i would have been raked across the coals! :huh:

this is more of the customary distraction and obfuscation that is prevalent here. i went to the trouble of responding to a lengthy article and you don't even address my response. you, typically of people at infidels, engage in personal comments. is that a sign that your case can't withstand debate? it's disappointing that regulars can't see that this type of behavior diminishes the intellectual reputation of the forums.