Exodus Story In Doubt

[djames]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> The fact that he claims to be able to determine which is more likely is absurd and is based on no mathematics. </font>

Well, I am embarrassingly poor at math and probably one of the ones you're speaking of who assume his use of Bay's Theorum has a place in his arguments. So help me out with this one...

I would think that the Exodus story IS in fact, many, many times more likely to be true than the parting of the Red Sea story. I base this on the fact that in order for the Exodus story to be true, all that is needed is for a seemingly unlikely event to actually have occured. Whereas, in order for the Red Sea story to be true, you need not only an unlikely event to have occured, but you also need a complete suspension of physical properties that are very well known to govern our universe. Hence, if I were a bookmaker, I'd put both of these events as great underdogs, but I'd set much longer odds for the parting of the Red Sea ever happening.

Btw- I also miss PTB. He was one of the few who could keep David on his toes and make him think a little more before spouting some math to make a point. I for one, have no hope of ever catching David taking taking unfounded mathematical liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere in here I believe you mean to compare the Exodus (during which the parting of the Red Sea is commonly believed to be the final step) to the Ressurection. But perhaps there's something I'm missing. I responded to a DS post that compared those two miracles. If you try your post again, I can comment on it if you like.

I still stand behind my previous post, whether it is believed to be argumentative or not.

[Lestat]

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never called you argumentative.

It seems to me that what David is saying, is that more spectacular miracless, are more improbable than lesser miracles. So a claim that one survived the Katrina hurricane through the grace of God (maybe God told them where to go), is more likely to be true, than the claim that one had their severed arm grow back. Even though both are unsubstantiated claims, one is more unlikely than the other. At least I think this is what DS is implying.

Btw- I'm not being sarcastic about being bad at math. I'm terrible. I'm not even totally sure what Bay's Theorum is.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that what David is saying...

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is what he is saying: Given that the Exodus occurred, what is the probability that we would find evidence of it? It is nonzero, since so many people were involved, over great distances, etc. Hence, the fact that we have found zero evidence makes the postulated occurrence less likely. The fact that we have found overwhelming evidence of virtually every other event of this magnitude that has been recorded only further lessens its likelihood.

Given that the resurrection occurred, what is the probability that we would find evidence of it today? Still essentially zero, since it happened quickly and involved few people. Therefore, the absence of evidence is not relevant.

The point is that the absence of evidence can be very meaningful. To claim that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is to say "I can't think of any reason why the absence of evidence can actually improve my understanding, therefore it is useless." Failure of one's imagination is not a clue into the nature of reality. Yet many religious folk cling to it as if it were.

And that "historicity2" link about prices of slaves and whatnot is absolutely ridiculous. Here is a clue: circumstantial evidence actually ISN'T evidence.

[calcbandit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that what David is saying...

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is what he is saying: Given that the Exodus occurred, what is the probability that we would find evidence of it? It is nonzero, since so many people were involved, over great distances, etc. Hence, the fact that we have found zero evidence makes the postulated occurrence less likely. The fact that we have found overwhelming evidence of virtually every other event of this magnitude that has been recorded only further lessens its likelihood.

Given that the resurrection occurred, what is the probability that we would find evidence of it today? Still essentially zero, since it happened quickly and involved few people. Therefore, the absence of evidence is not relevant.

The point is that the absence of evidence can be very meaningful. To claim that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is to say "I can't think of any reason why the absence of evidence can actually improve my understanding, therefore it is useless." Failure of one's imagination is not a clue into the nature of reality. Yet many religious folk cling to it as if it were.

And that "historicity2" link about prices of slaves and whatnot is absolutely ridiculous. Here is a clue: circumstantial evidence actually ISN'T evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the above post has David's stance pegged. An entire nation of people residing in an area for years and years is way more likely to leave evidence than a guy waking up from the dead in a tomb, and then ascending to heaven. Therefore the lack of Exodus evidence is more damaging to the Exodus claim than the lack of Ressurection evidence is to the Ressurection claim.

I think his point about the Exodus being way more likely is that it takes no violation of physical laws (aka miracle) for the Israelites to have lived in Egypt and been in slavery, and then left. We aren't talking about proving that the red sea parted or not, we are talking about whether the whole episode in egypt ever occured.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that what David is saying...

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is what he is saying: Given that the Exodus occurred, what is the probability that we would find evidence of it? It is nonzero, since so many people were involved, over great distances, etc. Hence, the fact that we have found zero evidence makes the postulated occurrence less likely. The fact that we have found overwhelming evidence of virtually every other event of this magnitude that has been recorded only further lessens its likelihood.

Given that the resurrection occurred, what is the probability that we would find evidence of it today? Still essentially zero, since it happened quickly and involved few people. Therefore, the absence of evidence is not relevant.

The point is that the absence of evidence can be very meaningful. To claim that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is to say "I can't think of any reason why the absence of evidence can actually improve my understanding, therefore it is useless." Failure of one's imagination is not a clue into the nature of reality. Yet many religious folk cling to it as if it were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good explanation. Now could you please explain to me why so many people are having trouble understanding this simple concept.

[andyfox]

Because, with all due respect, you never explained it anywhere nearly as clearly as this explanation.

[Lestat]

Thanks borisp. I wasn't fully understanding, but I now I do.

Btw (serious question, because I don't understand)- Why can't circumstancial evidence, be evidence? It can at least point you in one direction or another, can't it? I believe people have been convicted in our courts on circumstantial evidence alone, if it's compelling enough. Are you saying it can't (or shouldn't), be given any merit at all?