Exodus Story In Doubt

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is they didnt come FROM the Bible any more than they came FROM English common law. Why do you stop at the Bible and not stop at English common law? The Bible isn't the original source. What good does it do to stop there?

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean? where do you think these ideas come from then? do you think they just always existed?
I mean, we know that the ideas of the chinese like confucious really played no role at all in the developement of western law and politics for example.
I mean the US founding fathers came right out and said how their ideas came from the bible, I don't see why you deny that.

as far as the foundation of our legal system, the bible is the source. you can deny it if you want, but it is well documented.

[/ QUOTE ]

They come from human experience, common sense, trial and error, and evolution? Where do YOU think they come from? The poofed into existence in the form of the Bible?

EDIT: Also, I thought you said English common law was the source for our laws. Which is it?

[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.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Evolutionary design is one.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a contradiction in terms. Evolution has no mind, design implies mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. It only implies selection, and selection criteria. A system does not need intelligence to contain those two properties.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible isn't the original source. What good does it do to stop there?

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you think there were a system of laws before the bible? if there were, what were they? and if they existed did we inherit them or are/were they foreign to western civiliation like the indian/chinese/native american.

[/ QUOTE ]

A codified system of laws, as in written down, or just moral behaviors and guidelines? I have no reason to suspect that human beings have felt stealing was wrong for much longer than the Bible has preached it. It doesn't take long to figure it out. Ditto murder.

So, my guess would be, there have been 'laws' as long as there have been groups of people who lived together, or at the very least, groups of people who weren't very closely related living together.

A quick search shows that ancient Egyptian society apparently had at least a partially codified system of laws.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its only a bet in the same way that chosing not to play roulette is a bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. So long as you don't claim that the Bible and Judeo-Christianity bear any resemblance to roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]
very different, the resemblance is with the casino owner. though to be fair on casino owners they rarely stoop to the 'not playing is gambling too' level.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

A system does not need intelligence to contain those two properties.


[/ QUOTE ]

System implies mind.

[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.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A system does not need intelligence to contain those two properties.


[/ QUOTE ]

System implies mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are just making up your own definitions.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How long ago? I'll go looking in the archives.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the post:

I became a Christian at the age of 22, 33 years ago. I can remember declaring my atheism to a friend of mine when I was about 11 or 12. I don't specifically remember why I had decided this, but I expect I found the whole "God" thing incredible.

During the intervening years I had little contact with organized religion. My mother was probably a Christian at the time, but she was very uncertain about many things concerning the faith. I don't remember her ever talking to me about Christ. I do remember attending Sunday School and church, but I'm certain I never "heard" the Gospel though I'm sure it was preached. I hated every minute of it. My father was obviously a sceptic, and went through several philosophical phases. During one of those he gave me Yockey's Imperium and Spengler's Decline of the West to read, I think when I was about 16. I remember being impressed with Yockey but it was obvious that he was an admirer of Hitler, and I couldn't reconcile that with anything reasonable. I found Spengler difficult to understand, but did get the idea he was somewhat pantheistic. I then went through an Ayn Rand phase which lasted about 2 months.

When I was actually converted the last thing I was thinking about was God and religion. A friend of mine introduced me to another friend who was a devoted Christian, and I agreed to discuss it with him. He answered some objections I had, mostly concerning predestination. His answers were almost exclusively Bible texts, with some elaboration. I believe it was the use of the Bible which convicted me, and I believe that most if not all true conversions come from hearing the Word. My conversion was not a logical process, nor an exhaustive search for evidence. I believe that God prepares the heart, and this is different for each individual, and the final conversion is almost always tied to something from Scripture.

From the moment I believed I never questioned whether the Bible is God's Word. I have done some digging when questions have come up but have always found the objections are ill-conceived, often just plain wrong. But I do believe the only way anyone can accept the Bible as God's Word is through His enabling power. Salvation is from God, and no one can accept the Gospel apart from His grace.

I make these arguments now because I believe the charge made that Christianity is irrational and that we make a blind leap of faith is demonstrably false. Christianity is the only worldview that can give an account of logic and reason, only Christianity is a rational worldview. But I don't believe any human argument can convince someone to become a Christian. I can give you the reasons and answer your questions, and perhaps God will use that in persuading you, but my arguments in themselves will never do that.

This is probably a lot more than you wanted to hear. I suspect you're looking for a psychological explanation. You recognize the phenomenon that otherwise seemingly sane people believe this wild-eyed myth, and like Sklansky, you're curious about the psychology involved. So there it is, a synopsis of the conversion of one mediocre fanatic. All I can say is I believe the Bible is the Word of God, no one to my knowledge had been able to demonstrate otherwise, and it is His Word through which we have forgiveness of sins and life eternal.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why didn't god just impregnate the first unmarried daughter in David's geneology?


[/ QUOTE ]

I truly don't understand God's timing of events. I do believe He can do it better than me.

[ QUOTE ]

This pregnancy just doesn't quite gel with the no adultery sin all too well. Seems like Mary's pregnancy was the product of divine adultery, no?


[/ QUOTE ]

There was no sex. God created the human form of His Son directly. He creates all humans, though since Adam and Eve the creation, at least of the physical form, is indirect. The Incarnation has much mystery though.