Parting the waters

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

That is the naturalistic worldview. Even if it sounds extremely implausible, its still more plausible than having a supernatural element. Anything, no matter how ludicrously sounding, as long as it can possibly(used loosely) have a 'natural' explaination, is more probable/plausible than having to factor in any kind of supernatural element.

Thats how I percieve it anyway (the naturalistic worldview that is).

It isn't that it is more plausible than a supernatural element, it is that there are an infinite number of possible supernatural elements so they become some what irrelevant.

You guys obviously pick God. But if you were coming at it from a purely neutral position what reason would there be to pick that supernatural explanation over any other?

So the supernatural adds little to the discussion. It could have been God. But it could have been any other supernatural explanation. Since we can't tell there isn't much point in considering it as it adds nothing to our knowledge of the event. "Something supernatural did something" looks the same as "we don't know what did it", which is why scientists restrict themselves to naturalistic explanations.

Also in my experience humans are particularly bad at dealing with probability.

The odds that this freak event would happen at this exact time in this exact place, with those exact people are very small.

But to view that as significant is to retroactively assign significance to this event. If this event hadn't happened the Israelites would have been captured and killed and you would have never heard of them again.

So of all the times in history when people have been standing beside a body of water and this doesn't happen are lost in time, events not worthy of remembering.

But when they do happen we aren't thinking of all the times they don't happen and we view this as significant.

If this had never happened and the Hebrews had perished but it happened to some Jordanian farmers a century later at different river you guys would probably all be following their religion and supposing how unlikely it would be that the river had parted for them.

JimiTime wrote: »

Hurricane's happen, no big deal. If a guy was able to say, 'I command a hurricane to occur', and the elements answer, thats a bit more of a deal.

Not if every year say 200,000 people do this and a hurricane doesn't appear. Eventually someone will will do it when one does appear.

If that is the only one that is remembered and all the failures are ignored then it will look like a significant event. It will look like the odds of that particular happening are two small to be a coincidence. But that is only because we ignore all the thousands of times it doesn't happen.

The classic example of this is the Lottery. The odds you will win are 1 in 4 million. The odds someone will win are something like 1 in 8.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Who said they are following instructions from God?

The Book of Exodus said it.

I mean if you have already introduced God into this then it is sort of game over, which is what I was saying to Fanny. If you had independent reasons for believing that God was involved in all this then there is little point discussion it.

There's plenty of point in discussing it, which is why others were discussing it before one or two non-Christians tried to take us away on tangents.

As for 'introducing God into it', of course we have. As was made clear in the OP, we're discussing the incident of parting the water in the Book of Exodus, where the whole train of events was set in motion by God speaking to Moses from a burning bush.

Of course if you want to have a discussion about some different hypothetical incident where the sea might part then you are free to do so - but I'm not sure why the Christianity forum would be the place to do so?

But then you have some what jumped the gun.

No, we've kept on topic in accordance with the OP.

Looking at it from the position of an open mind when we haven't already decided to believe one version of what was happening, which is the more rational conclusion, from a non-biased position?

You mean an 'open mind' where you've already arbitrarily decided to dismiss all the details of the story about how they ended up at the Red Sea in the first place? If you're that 'open minded' then I'm pretty sure you'll be ideologically consistent and choose any explanation, no matter how far fetched, rather than admit the possibility of anything being an act of God.

wolfsbane

Twin-go said:

I disagree, I think it does weaken the authority of the Bible. If something that was thought of as a miracle is now proven possible in nature there is nothing miraculous about it and we don't need to use God to explain it.

But it is the Bible that specifically said God used a strong east wind to effect the separation of the sea. How then could the Bible be undermined by a confirmation that a strong east wind could do as it said?

You seem to think miracles are only directly supernatural events, but as PDN shows, God intervenes sometimes directly and sometimes by use of natural laws to perform His mighty signs.
___________________________________________________________________
Genesis 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

There's plenty of point in discussing it, which is why others were discussing it before one or two non-Christians tried to take us away on tangents.

The only "tangent" is whether this new evidence supports the religious position, and that tangent was started by a Christian.

I entered this thread to discuss that issue. If you have already made your mind up that God was involved then there isn't much to discuss with you since in your mind the religious position is already supported enough.

If you think this line of discussion is off topic for the thread by all means pop the mod hat on and say so.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Twin-go said:

But it is the Bible that specifically said God used a strong east wind to effect the separation of the sea. How then could the Bible be undermined by a confirmation that a strong east wind could do as it said?

Because it removes the necessity for God for this event to take place, and thus makes plausible the idea that the Israelites witnessed a purely natural event that they then attributed incorrectly to the workings of their God.

Now, like I said to everyone else, if you already have decided God must have been involved in this then that will mean very little to you.

But then that is the point, Twin-go is not approaching this from the position of a biased believer and thus this finding undermines the original claims.

I'm not quite sure what the issue with this is, I've had discussions with all of you about miracles in Christianity and other religions where you have dismissed them due to natural explanations that seemed more plausible.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Because it removes the necessity for God for this event to take place, and thus makes plausible the idea that the Israelites witnessed a purely natural event that they then attributed incorrectly to the workings of their God.

I'm not quite sure what the issue with this is, I've had discussions with all of you about miracles in Christianity and other religions where you have dismissed them due to natural explanations that seemed more plausible.

The claim would only be true if the Bible taught God does not use means at any time. It doesn't.

So your 'incorrectly attributed' argument was not in God's mind to prevent. It can be examined on its own merits. What are the chances of the nation caught between a massive army and the sea, and the sea dividing so they could cross it on dry land, but their enemies get caught in the returning water and are drowned?

But God is not interested in your far-fetched possibilities - He tells us how it happened, and you believe or not. Both have eternal consequences.
_________________________________________________________________
1 John 5:10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

philologos

It's fascinating that when research comes to show that Biblical acts are indeed possible, that the typical atheist response is to claim that it is merely evidence that God could not have had a role.

In a similar event if such research comes to show that Biblical acts are not naturally possible most atheists would regard this as evidence against God having a role.

It seems to be a win win situation depending on what assumptions one applies to it.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

It's fascinating that when research comes to show that Biblical acts are indeed possible, that the typical atheist response is to claim that it is merely evidence that God could not have had a role.

In a similar event if such research comes to show that Biblical acts are not naturally possible most atheists would regard this as evidence against God having a role.

It seems to be a win win situation depending on what assumptions one applies to it.

It's called 'being open-minded'. :pac:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The claim would only be true if the Bible taught God does not use means at any time. It doesn't.

No actually it wouldn't. Simply claiming something was caused by God is no support for the idea that it was.

If it started raining and I said "God did that" that would mean nothing to the question of whether God actually did it.

The Bible can claim God did this event, but given that this event can occur naturally then the Bible's claim is rather meaningless.

The only think the Bible claim had going for it would be if this event could not have occurred naturally. Since it now seems like it can then the Bible claim becomes as pointless someone saying "God did that" when there is lightening strike.

Notice this is not the same as claiming we know God didn't do it. God might have made the lightening strike. But if you accept that natural events can occur on their own then simply claiming God did something is not enough to support the idea that he did.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So your 'incorrectly attributed' argument was not in God's mind to prevent. It can be examined on its own merits. What are the chances of the nation caught between a massive army and the sea, and the sea dividing so they could cross it on dry land, but their enemies get caught in the returning water and are drowned?

Over the space of all human history? Quite high I would imagine.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He tells us how it happened, and you believe or not. Both have eternal consequences.

Well actually He doesn't tell me anything. 2nd century Jewish religious scholars tell me something claiming to speak for God, and I believe them or not. Just like every other religion going.

Like I said to PDN if you are already coming from this with a closed mind already made up then there isn't much left to discuss. If you can't put your self in the position of a non-biased observer then debating this with you is rather pointless since it comes back to rather silly statements of you telling me what God is interested in.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's fascinating that when research comes to show that Biblical acts are indeed possible, that the typical atheist response is to claim that it is merely evidence that God could not have had a role.

In a similar event if such research comes to show that Biblical acts are not naturally possible most atheists would regard this as evidence against God having a role.

It seems to be a win win situation depending on what assumptions one applies to it.

What?

Perhaps I'm not following what you mean but when has anyone ever argued that because something couldn't happen naturally that is evidence against God having a role?

Do you mean that something not occurring naturally supports the idea that people were mistaken in what they think happened, which is slightly different.

Can you give an example?

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

It's fascinating that when research comes to show that Biblical acts are indeed possible, that the typical atheist response is to claim that it is merely evidence that God could not have had a role.

Ockams Razor - The simplest solution is most probably the correct one.

Certain natural conditions combined - Wind direction and force with a low tide to create the event. Or,
God directed certain natural conditions combine - Wind direction and force with a low tide to create the event.

Which is more probable?
Why make it more complex than it needs to be?

Jakkass wrote: »

In a similar event if such research comes to show that Biblical acts are not naturally possible most atheists would regard this as evidence against God having a role.

It seems to be a win win situation depending on what assumptions one applies to it.

Give an example please and we can discuss

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It's called 'being open-minded'. :pac:

There seems to be quite a bit of resentment on this forum over the idea that "God did it" is never an option for materialism/science.

The problem of course is that no one has figured out a way to test this in anyway, so it is not really the fault of materialism/science. You have placed the concept of God outside what can be verified and then complain that people don't consider it properly.

You guys may simply accept God did it but that is some what pointless unless you can show in some sort of structured way that you can build an accurate model of this. Otherwise it is just your opinion.

Which you can't do given that it is a supernatural concept that sits out side of the set of testable things.

"God did it" looks the same as "we don't know what did it". You need religious faith to go from we don't know to God did it.

You need even more religious faith to go from we do know but we still think God did it.

So to get snotty at those not prepared to do this (and yes that is keeping an open mind) is quite unfair and just betrays the issue with your own beliefs.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

Ockams Razor - The simplest solution is most probably the correct one.

Certain natural conditions combined - Wind direction and force with a low tide to create the event. Or,
God directed certain natural conditions combine - Wind direction and force with a low tide to create the event.

Which is more probable?
Why make it more complex than it needs to be?

Okay, let's apply Occam's razor (a useful, although not infallible, tool devised by a devout Christian theologian).

Here is the scenario:

1. A group of people, following directions that they claim to have received from God as to the precise date and time, have arrived at the shore of the Red Sea with a massive army in hot pursuit.

2. A heavy black cloud descends, leaving the Israelites in light but the Egyptians in darkness. This means the Israelites are free to act, but their pursuers cannot see them.

3. The leader of this group of people, claiming to be acting on the instructions of God, stretches forth his staff across the face of the waters.

4. At just the exact moment that they happened to be at the shore of the sea, and at the same moment that the cloud descended, and, coincidentally enough, just at the moment that Moses stretched forth his staff, then the wind blows to produce a once-in-a-lifetime meterological event that parts the sea.

5. Then, just after all the Israelites have crossed over, and coincidentally just as the pursuing army has ventured onto the exposed sea bed, the wind changes causing all the pursuing army to be drowned.

So, according to Occam's razor, we have two options here:

a) The once-in-a-lifetime parting of the waters just happened to coincide with the Israelites being at that location at the particular time and date that they claimed God had told them, and to coincide with another extremely unusual meterological event (the descending of the cloud to leave one group in darkness and the others in light. This also coincided with the exact moment that the leader of the Israelites, claiming to be instructed by God, dramatically stretched forth his staff over the waters. Another amazing coincidence was that the waters then returned at precisely the right moment to drown the pursuing army.

or:

b) God parted the waters, by whatever means He choosed, at the time that He had instructed the Israelites to be there.

Now, if you have an ideological commitment to reject the miraculous no matter what, then you will choose option (a). But then you are being dishonest in claiming it has anything to do with Occam's razor - for your ideological bias is such that you will accept any explanation, no matter how convoluted, rather than allow for the possibility of a miracle.

However, if you are open-minded enough to allow for the possibility of the miraculous, then Occam's razor leads inevitably to the elegantly simple explanation of option (b) rather than the frankly unbelievable juxtaposition of a series of wildly improbable coincidences all occurring at the same time.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

There seems to be quite a bit of resentment on this forum over the idea that "God did it" is never an option for materialism/science.

The problem of course is that no one has figured out a way to test this in anyway, so it is not really the fault of materialism/science. You have placed the concept of God outside what can be verified and then complain that people don't consider it properly.

You guys may simply accept God did it but that is some what pointless unless you can show in some sort of structured way that you can build an accurate model of this. Otherwise it is just your opinion.

Which you can't do given that it is a supernatural concept that sits out side of the set of testable things.

"God did it" looks the same as "we don't know what did it". You need religious faith to go from we don't know to God did it.

You need even more religious faith to go from we do know but we still think God did it.

So to get snotty at those not prepared to do this (and yes that is keeping an open mind) is quite unfair and just betrays the issue with your own beliefs.

So unless we rule out any activity by God as being impossible then we are being snotty and closed-minded? I don't know which is more breathtaking, your narrow-mindedness or your bastardisation of the English language.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Okay, let's apply Occam's razor (a useful, although not infallible, tool devised by a devout Christian theologian).

Here is the scenario:

1. A group of people, following directions that they claim to have received from God as to the precise date and time, have arrived at the shore of the Red Sea with a massive army in hot pursuit.

2. A heavy black cloud descends, leaving the Israelites in light but the Egyptians in darkness. This means the Israelites are free to act, but their pursuers cannot see them.

3. The leader of this group of people, claiming to be acting on the instructions of God, stretches forth his staff across the face of the waters.

4. At just the exact moment that they happened to be at the shore of the sea, and at the same moment that the cloud descended, and, coincidentally enough, just at the moment that Moses stretched forth his staff, then the wind blows to produce a once-in-a-lifetime meterological event that parts the sea.

5. Then, just after all the Israelites have crossed over, and coincidentally just as the pursuing army has ventured onto the exposed sea bed, the wind changes causing all the pursuing army to be drowned.

So, according to Occam's razor, we have two options here:

a) The once-in-a-lifetime parting of the waters just happened to coincide with the Israelites being at that location at the particular time and date that they claimed God had told them, and to coincide with another extremely unusual meterological event (the descending of the cloud to leave one group in darkness and the others in light. This also coincided with the exact moment that the leader of the Israelites, claiming to be instructed by God, dramatically stretched forth his staff over the waters. Another amazing coincidence was that the waters then returned at precisely the right moment to drown the pursuing army.

or:

b) God parted the waters, by whatever means He choosed, at the time that He had instructed the Israelites to be there.

Now, if you have an ideological commitment to reject the miraculous no matter what, then you will choose option (a). But then you are being dishonest in claiming it has anything to do with Occam's razor - for your ideological bias is such that you will accept any explanation, no matter how convoluted, rather than allow for the possibility of a miracle.

However, if you are open-minded enough to allow for the possibility of the miraculous, then Occam's razor leads inevitably to the elegantly simple explanation of option (b) rather than the frankly unbelievable juxtaposition of a series of wildly improbable coincidences all occurring at the same time.

What is the point of claiming to explore Occam's razor and then not producing the simplest explanation :rolleyes:

c)

Ancestors of the Hebrews fleeing some army (there is little evidence in Egyptian history that they ever had Hebrew slaves as described in Exodus) came to a space of water that was being held back by wind which they crossed.

Those chasing them attempted to cross the water some time after this but the wind shifted and they were caught up in the waters and drowned.

Since the people at the time would not have understood the natural process that could cause such a formation of water and seeing that it was producing a favorable out come for them would have naturally attributed it to a benevolent god who was protecting them.

Centuries later the story had been embellished with religious imagery which filled in the details of Moses, his action of waving the waters away etc.

There is no point holding to every single exact detail in Exodus except for the bit with the river. You might as well hold to the God did it bit as well.

Who has the closed mind now PDN

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So unless we rule out any activity by God as being impossible then we are being snotty and closed-minded?

No.

Not reading my posts properly because you assume because I'm an atheist I must be talking crap? Perhaps ... :rolleyes:

Let me explain again.

You can't say anything about God being possible or impossible because we have zero way of testing this. Let me say that again, ZERO ways of testing this.

You can attribute "God did it" to any and all actions and I have absolutely no way of testing if that is an accurate statement or not.

As such it is irrelevant to what we can actually know.

We can't determine to any degree of accuracy if God has ever done anything. You can believe, based on faith, that he has but that isn't the same thing. You can believe based on a fuzzy feeling or faulty logical reasoning, but that isn't the same thing.

You can also replace God with supernatural being X and the same holds.

You guys only ever consider your god so this doesn't seem like an issue to you. If it an issue of God did it or it was natural it may not seem like a big deal, but it is actually a case of infinite number of possible supernatural things vs natural.

I wonder if they knew the weather enough to know something big would happen, like that old predicting eclipses thing

although wicknight's option c sounds plausible too
Hard to say we'll ever know considering things like that can grow like chinese whispers, or be seized upon by someone claiming it was god and everyone else unwilling to argue

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

What is the point of claiming to explore Occam's razor and then not producing the simplest explanation :rolleyes:

c)

Ancestors of the Hebrews fleeing some army (there is little evidence in Egyptian history that they ever had Hebrew slaves as described in Exodus) came to a space of water that was being held back by wind which they crossed.

Those chasing them attempted to cross the water some time after this but the wind shifted and they were caught up in the waters and drowned.

Since the people at the time would not have understood the natural process that could cause such a formation of water and seeing that it was producing a favorable out come for them would have naturally attributed it to a benevolent god who was protecting them.

Centuries later the story had been embellished with religious imagery which filled in the details of Moses, his action of waving the waters away etc.

There is no point holding to every single exact detail in Exodus except for the bit with the river. You might as well hold to the God did it bit as well.

Who has the closed mind now PDN

You obviously have the closed mind in that you want to arbitrarily reject as much of the account as doesn't suit you.

Not only that, but you then choose to insert your closed-mindedness into a thread in which we were discussing the relevance to the incident recorded in Exodus (not some other incident from your imagination).

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

You obviously have the closed mind in that you want to arbitrarily reject as much of the account as doesn't suit you.

Not only that, but you then choose to insert your closed-mindedness into a thread in which we were discussing the relevance to the incident recorded in Exodus (not some other incident from your imagination).

PDN, do you stand over the account in Exodus as been fairly accurate? I trust you do as you have a strong faith in God.

Fanny Cradock

Twin-go wrote: »

Ockams Razor - The simplest solution is most probably the correct one.

There are many popular versions of Occam's razor attributed to people like John Ponce and Johannes Clausberg. But the one attributed to William of Ockham is the following: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". The good Friar was actually most fond of writing his expression in the following form: "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." which is not quite the same as your definition.

Occam's razor relies on external criteria of necessity, and those criteria can determine the number of entities that are necessary. Despite what some people might think Occam's razor is not the be-all-and-end-all of everything in science. Rather, it is a heuristic, a rule of thumb.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You obviously have the closed mind in that you want to arbitrarily reject as much of the account as doesn't suit you.

I'm not rejecting anything, I'm explaining that your options were far from the simplest options. You introduced convoluted examples to try and make the one with God involved seem more reasonable.

Appealing to the topic of the thread as if that has some baring on what is or isn't the simplest explanation is rather silly.

These stories may be true but equally they may be imagined.

If you wish to have a discussion about occuam's razor you should consider both properly, not via some nonsense straw man of the natural explanation that includes every supernatural description up to the event itself as factual.

If you are not going to consider the possibility that this was a purely natural event then there is little point complaining to me about being close-minded.

If you have already made your mind up fair enough but as I said to you a good few posts ago if you have already made you mind up that God must have been involved in all this then there is little point discussing this with you.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not rejecting anything, I'm explaining that your options were far from the simplest options. You introduced convoluted examples to try and make the one with God involved seem more reasonable.

Appealing to the topic of the thread as if that has some baring on what is or isn't the simplest explanation is rather silly.

These stories may be true but equally they may be imagined.

If you wish to have a discussion about occuam's razor you should consider both properly, not via some nonsense straw man of the natural explanation that includes every supernatural description up to the event itself as factual.

If you are not going to consider the possibility that this was a purely natural event then there is little point complaining to me about being close-minded.

If you have already made your mind up fair enough but as I said to you a good few posts ago if you have already made you mind up that God must have been involved in all this then there is little point discussing this with you.

TBH WN, you shifted the goalposts. PDN was dealing with the story from Exodus (as that was what the topic was about), and on the basis that it happened as recorded. You then introduced your new version of events (without telling anyone), events that PDN was not discussing. You moved it on to the story not being accurate, while PDN was dealing with If it happened as documented.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

if you have already made you mind up that God must have been involved in all this then there is little point discussing this with you.

Take your time, read the heading at the top of the forum. You see where it says 'Christianity'? So, yes, you are among people who believe that God was involved in the events of the Bible.

Twin-go

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There are many popular versions of Occam's razor attributed to people like John Ponce and Johannes Clausberg. But the one attributed to William of Ockham is the following: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". The good Friar was actually most fond of writing his expression in the following form: "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." which is not quite the same as your definition.

Occam's razor relies on external criteria of necessity, and those criteria can determine the number of entities that are necessary. Despite what some people might think Occam's razor is not the be-all-and-end-all of everything in science. Rather, it is a heuristic, a rule of thumb.

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005). It is argued to imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_Razor#Religion

In the case of the parting of the Red Sea, the concept of God is not needed to explain what happened.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

PDN, do you stand over the account in Exodus as been fairly accurate? I trust you do as you have a strong faith in God.

Yes, I do believe the Exodus account to be accurate.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH WN, you shifted the goalposts. PDN was dealing with the story from Exodus (as that was what the topic was about), and on the basis that it happened as recorded.

I shifted nothing.

PDN is dealing with Twin-go's appeal to Occam's Razor, and Twin-go is most certainly not working on the basis that it happened as recorded in Exodus.

What would be the point of that, since it was recorded as being an act of God. It would make the process redundant since if Exodus is completely accurate then there is no issue to discuss.

That would basically boil down to saying that is you only consider that Exodus is correct the simplest explanation is the one in Exodus.

There is a discussion going on in this thread that comes at this religious narrative without any prior notions of the correctness of the story or the involvement of God and then consideres the different positions.

Here started here with this post by a Christian

homer911 wrote: »

Thanks Fanny - its always nice to see Science being used to support Religion - doesnt happen very often!

I happily accept that this is not the discussion of the original post, it is a discussion that was started by the claims that this research supports the religious narrative (a line of discussion that logically could not start with the idea that the religious narrative was already true since then what is to support?).

This is the discussion I'm having in this thread.

People keep dipping into it with some axoims that make the discussion rather bizarre, such as the idea that Exodus is already to be considered true, or that God is already to be considered the source of this wind.

If people wish to do this (come to the table already mind made up) then there is nothing to discuss with me and I imagine nothing to discuss with Twin-go. What is the point of discussion the source of this wind if the only option you consider is that it was God? What is the point of discussion whether Exodus is supported by this research if you already consider Exodus the infallible word of God?

By responding to my posts I'm assuming that the person is approaching this discussion with an open mind, since if you aren't then there is nothing to discuss so why are you responding to my posts?

If you aren't then there is nothing to discuss so stop discussing it.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I do believe the Exodus account to be accurate.

Then if you have already made up your mind and you require the rest of us to work under that assumption why are you discussing this with us?

PDN wrote: »

Take your time, read the heading at the top of the forum. You see where it says 'Christianity'? So, yes, you are among people who believe that God was involved in the events of the Bible.

And I'm apparently among people who want to discuss the scientific support for religious stories but only in the context that these religious stories are only to be considered already true :rolleyes:

If you are not prepared to discuss this topic within the context that the story may not be true then there is nothing to discuss with you.

Oh look, I said that 5 pages ago :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Twin-go wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_Razor#Religion

In the case of the parting of the Red Sea, the concept of God is not needed to explain what happened.

Ok, to you and to Wicknight.

If this natural phenomenon can happen without God being directly responsible, thats fine. If it is shown that the Red Sea can part like this if certain conditions occur then th fascinating (not saracasm btw).

However, The point you'll find is that this is not the science forum, but rather the Christianity forum, and as such we are dealing more specifically with what is described in Exodus. I.E. The Israelites on the banks of the Red Sea, Moses stretching out his staff etc etc. In such a circumstance, if the account is to be believed, then most would say God IS required.

Why you or WN, would think anyone is here to discuss simply the phenomenon described (the red sea parting naturally) is beyond me. Such an assumption seems absurd. Ehh Rollie eyes thing.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Why you or WN, would think anyone is here to discuss simply the phenomenon described (the red sea parting naturally) is beyond me.

Then why are people debating with me?

What?, is there some confusion as to what my position is or if I'm a Christian?

Like I said ON THE FIRST PAGE, if people have already made up their minds that God did this then I've nothing to discuss with them. If someone replies to my posts, or to someone who is also discussion what I'm discussing, I'm going to assume they want to discuss the thing I'm discussing. Madness I know

If they don't there is a pretty easy think they can try

Stop replying to my posts.

That would seem a pretty simple course of action :P

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

if people have already made up their minds that God did this

In fairness wick, this is the christian forum...
maybe it would go better for your discussion if you have a similar thread started in A&A?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

People keep dipping into it with some axoims that make the discussion rather bizarre, such as the idea that Exodus is already to be considered true, or that God is already to be considered the source of this wind.

I don't think it bizarre that people have propositional starting positions.

Wicknight wrote: »

If people wish to do this (come to the table already mind made up) then there is nothing to discuss with me and I imagine nothing to discuss with Twin-go. What is the point of discussion the source of this wind if the only option you consider is that it was God? What is the point of discussion whether Exodus is supported by this research if you already consider Exodus the infallible word of God?

The research tells us something - that the story of the parting waters as described in Exodus is plausible. When this research is viewed by individuals we unsurprisingly notice that people work off postulates. For example, that God could have been the force guiding the wind or the this naturalistic explanation is evidence against miracles and even God's existence. You only seem to recognise that one side (the Christian side) is working off postulates.

Wicknight wrote: »

By responding to my posts I'm assuming that the person is approaching this discussion with an open mind, since if you aren't then there is nothing to discuss so why are you responding to my posts?

OK, it is possible that God was not behind the events. Does that mean I have an open mind? I assume that you have similarly abandoned your atheistic axioms and agree that God could have been behind the events - you just haven't gotten around to saying it yet because of all the finger wagging going on.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Then why are people debating with me?

What?, is there some confusion as to what my position is or if I'm a Christian?

Like I said ON THE FIRST PAGE, if people have already made up their minds that God did this then I've nothing to discuss with them. If someone replies to my posts, or to someone who is also discussion what I'm discussing, I'm going to assume they want to discuss the thing I'm discussing. Madness I know

If they don't there is a pretty easy think they can try

Stop replying to my posts.

That would seem a pretty simple course of action :P

So what are you discussing? That the red sea parted? That the red sea parted with the timing and the manner described in Exodus? That the red sea parting doesn't require God? That the red sea parting as described in Exodus doesn't require God?

Craven99

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, this Christian doesn't really care either way. These kind of stories are filed under, 'really? Thats interesting isn't it' anyway.:)

Guessing I am finding it funny that both sides are viewing this as a validation of their own beliefs/lack of beliefs/whatever when it is only a theory right now.

I am the same though - interesting idea

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

That the red sea parted? That the red sea parted with the timing and the manner described in Exodus? That the red sea parting doesn't require God? That the red sea parting as described in Exodus doesn't require God?

Yes, all of that.

Does the science support the religious narrative or not

There is no point engaging in that discussion if you refuse to consider the idea that the religious narrative is not true.

Fanny Cradock

Craven99 wrote: »

Guessing I am finding it funny that both sides are viewing this as a validation of their own beliefs/lack of beliefs/whatever when it is only a theory right now.

I am the same though - interesting idea

Again, the research might be sound but it doesn't attempt to answer the God question. This means that there is room for personal interpretation, and that is what you are seeing here.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The research tells us something - that the story of the parting waters as described in Exodus is plausible. When this research is viewed by individuals we unsurprisingly notice that people work off postulates. For example, that God could have been the force guiding the wind or the this naturalistic explanation is evidence against miracles and even God's existence. You only seem to recognise that one side (the Christian side) is working off postulates.

But if you believe before hand that God exists and did this then what is the point of saying this research shows it is plausible?

Wasn't it always plausible, given that God is omnipotent?

Which is why I don't get why people would enter this discussion with me when only considered that God did this and refusing to considered the position that he might not have.

If God did this, and God can do anything he likes, how does this research make that position any more plausible than it already was?

God doesn't need this to be naturally possible to do it, does he?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, it is possible that God was not behind the events. Does that mean I have an open mind?

Yes, though to be honest you were not someone I was taking much issue with on this thread, our misunderstanding was cleared up a while ago.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I assume that you have similarly abandoned your atheistic axioms and agree that God could have been behind the events

Yes, God could have done this. God if he exists could do anything. That has never been an issue for me.

I've explained earlier why I don't think this is particular helpful in terms of knowledge though since there is a difference between God doing something and us being able to determine he did do something, but that is an issue for epistemology

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

- you just haven't gotten around to saying it yet because of all the finger wagging going on.

Er, I clariffied that a good few pages ago

Then why do you keep asking people about why God wouldn't have done this? That seems rather beside the point. God might have done anything and everything, but that means nothing

My position has never been God couldn't have done this, or wouldn't have done this. God by definition can do anything.

That was actually in a reply to you Fanny

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Does the science support the religious narrative or not

The science, if true, simply shows that the red sea could part given certain conditions. Is anyone suggesting otherwise?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

The science, if true, simply shows that the red sea could part given certain conditions. Is anyone suggesting otherwise?

Yes, see the 2nd post in this thread.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

That was actually in a reply to you Fanny

I often don't read your posts :pac:

BTW, Twin-go, I've deleted your last off topic post. If you want to start a new thread I can provide you with the text.

Twin-go

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I often don't read your posts :pac:

BTW, Twin-go, I've deleted your last off topic post. If you want to start a new thread I can provide you with the text.

Snip! Backseat modding deleted since I'm in an extraordinarily lenient mood today and don't feel like giving Twin-go the infraction he/she warrants.

Craven99

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, the research might be sound but it doesn't attempt to answer the God question. This means that there is room for personal interpretation, and that is what you are seeing here.

Well I question if the research is sound in the first place - one computer model which shows a theoretical event that has never been independently witnessed? Hmmm

Many many events in the bible and other religious texts and indeed including mythology can have a scientific reasoning and explanation - the flood, the seas turning red, the plagues etc.

Personally I don't see these as either a validation or rejection of any deity

philologos

Twin go: Yes it could be argued that if this were an isolated incident where the Bible has been substantiated, that it wouldn't of necessity mean that the Bible is correct. However, the reality is that this isn't an isolated case on a historical, archaeological, or even a scientific level where the Bible has demonstrated to be correct concerning events in the region.

As more and more begins to substantiate the Bible as being correct, and there have been plenty of incidents which have attempted to downplay the Bible only to be wholly refuted years later (E.G - such as the Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century claim, which is still banged around by some in internet circles). The more and more we have, the more likely it becomes that the Bible is indeed reliable, and indeed the less we can argue that it is just a mere coincidence.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was discussing the research because it is interesting in and of itself. Do I need to have a reason beyond that?

Not a reason for general discussion, a reason specifically for the idea that this research makes the story more plausible. That seems some what illogical.

But, and this is the important bit, I don't care that much. I find that discussion interesting but I'm not attacking you and I have zero interest in further discussion unless you are also interested.

Despite the caracture presented some times of non-Christians on this forum I only am interested in discussion with people interested in discussion. And I'm happy to not discuss. You won't get any of those "Fanny, Fanny, Fanny you are ignoring my reply, it must have overwhelmed you with my brillance" type posts from me :P

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

But if you believe before hand that God exists and did this then what is the point of saying this research shows it is plausible?

I was discussing the research because it is interesting in and of itself. Do I need to have a reason beyond that?

Wicknight wrote: »

Wasn't it always plausible, given that God is omnipotent?

That really depends on who you are asking. For example, I'm sure there are a number of Christians who think the parting of the waters was a myth because the "know" stuff like this doesn't happen in real life and they aren't comfortable with the idea of miracles. Perhaps they would get something out of the thread. I was also hoping that some non-believers might have also thought that this was interesting and perhaps it would have offered them a richer and more complex image of God - even if they reject him.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is why I don't get why people would enter this discussion with me when only considered that God did this and refusing to considered the position that he might not have.

People on both sides are entering into the debate with presuppositions, or axioms as you say. So just as one person believes that this is evidence of God's involvement, another person believes exactly the opposite. You curiously only seem to be criticising the former.

Wicknight wrote: »

If God did this, and God can do anything he likes, how does this research make that position any more plausible than it already was?

God doesn't need this to be naturally possible to do it, does he?

Please see my second paragraph. People think different things about God and how he interacts with the world (if he exists). I though that we might all find this interesting.

Wicknight wrote: »

I've explained earlier why I don't think this is particular helpful in terms of knowledge though since there is a difference between God doing something and us being able to determine he did do something, but that is an issue for epistemology

Well, I don't know how we could possibly determine if God was or was not behind an such an event. That's why we choose our sides based on different sources - and I see nothing wrong with this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, I clariffied that a good few pages ago

Apologies!

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

Twin go: Yes it could be argued that if this were an isolated incident where the Bible has been substantiated, that it wouldn't of necessity mean that the Bible is correct. However, the reality is that this isn't an isolated case on a historical, archaeological, or even a scientific level where the Bible has demonstrated to be correct concerning events in the region.

As more and more begins to substantiate the Bible as being correct, and there have been plenty of incidents which have attempted to downplay the Bible only to be wholly refuted years later (E.G - such as the Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century claim, which is still banged around by some in internet circles). The more and more we have, the more likely it becomes that the Bible is indeed reliable, and indeed the less we can argue that it is just a mere coincidence.

I see where you are coming from but it also can be said that the evidence that some miracles are simply normal natural events somewhat lessens Gods power.

Events that we know understand and think of as "normal" were once mysterious and magical.

Take for example Solar eclipses, imagine and accient scholer who learned to time the event and was able to perdict the next one.

He talks to some less educated people telling them that "God" has given him a message and to prove its true "God" will make the sun vanish from the sky. Next the eclipse begins, its a miracle a sign from "God" that the scholer speakes the truth.

What if in the case of Exodus Moses somehow knew the patterns of winds and the movement of the water that lead to the parting of the water Perhaps it was an annual event. He was able to time it so that they arrived close to the time the event happens. Hey presto God has parted the sea.

Zombrex

Twin-go wrote: »

I see where you are coming from but it also can be said that the evidence that some miracles are simply normal natural events somewhat lessens Gods power.

Events that we know understand and think of as "normal" were once mysterious and magical.

Take for example Solar eclipses, imagine and accient scholer who learned to time the event and was able to perdict the next one.

He talks to some less educated people telling them that "God" has given him a message and to prove its true "God" will make the sun vanish from the sky. Next the eclipse begins, its a miracle a sign from "God" that the scholer speakes the truth.

What if in the case of Exodus Moses somehow knew the patterns of winds and the movement of the water that lead to the parting of the water Perhaps it was an annual event. He was able to time it so that they arrived close to the time the event happens. Hey presto God has parted the sea.

You don't even require that to be the case. We remember the times people get it right, we don't remember when they get it wrong.

So take the scenario of say a Moses like figure leading his people to the river side and saying something like trust me God will save us.

And then the wind picks up and the water thins. Moses then says "See God saved us" And this event becomes very significant in the Hebrew culture.

What you don't hear about is the group of people 2 days earlier at a different river who said "God will save us" only to be hacked to death by the soldiers chasing them because nothing happened.

There is a name for this, similar to confirmation bias, but I can't remember what it is. The point is that humans filter successful coincidences out from the multitude of unsuccessful coincidences.

Mose wouldn't have to have known anything was going to happen, but we only consider Moses significant because something did. If nothing happened he would have been killed and forgotten.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

But, and this is the important bit, I don't care that much. I find that discussion interesting but I'm not attacking you and I have zero interest in further discussion unless you are also interested.

Agreed

Wicknight wrote: »

You won't get any of those "Fanny, Fanny, Fanny you are ignoring my reply, it must have overwhelmed you with my brillance" type posts from me :P

Agreed x 1000

P.S. In case anyone is wondering how WK is quoting my post before I posted it isn't because he has finally constructed his time machine. Rather, I deleted my post and reposted it shortly afterwards with a few minor edits. My ninja editing just wasn't quick enough.

philologos

Twin go: You've effectively ignored the point.

The point is, as more and more evidence confirms the Biblical text to be accurate and correct, the odds of all of these events occurring as coincidences is also significantly lessened. A very important point at that.

In isolation, yes this wouldn't say much. In combination with other events, it does begin to say something.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

Twin go: You've effectively ignored the point.

The point is, as more and more evidence confirms the Biblical text to be accurate and correct, the odds of all of these events occurring as coincidences is also significantly lessened. A very important point at that.

In isolation, yes this wouldn't say much. In combination with other events, it does begin to say something.

All what events? You only mentioned two. My post on how reliable is the bilble was removed but, we can discuss it further here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68173066#post68173066 if you wish.

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

All what events? You only mentioned two. My post on how reliable is the bilble was removed but, we can discuss it further here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68173066#post68173066 if you wish.

The vast amount of historical (E.G Historical events such as the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions of Israel and Judah having occurred, The existence of Jesus as a historical figure), archaeological (E.G - Nazareth having existed in the first century), and scientific (E.G - This event, and Sodom and Gomorrah) evidence there is to substantiate Biblical events.

There are obviously, plenty more examples.

Anyone can look up the Reason Project or the Skeptics Annotated Bible, and isolate verses out of context and to claim contradictions. This is clearly a fallacious reading of Scripture however.