The Exodus! Did it Really Happen?

[POI]

The Bible claims an Exodus took place. Many state it was not an actual event. Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[Perspectivo]

[Replying to POI in post #320]

I didn't affirm the historicity of the exodus. I called it a fib that won the Fable Jackpot. Perhaps you inadvertently confused me with someone else.

[RBD]

POI asked for references outside the Bible. That was why I used Islam. There's no historical references to the exodus outside of religion.

Actually, he says there is no outside evidence, so that the book can't be believed. That is an illogical fallacy based upon blind disbelief alone.

Negatives do not prove anything positive. No outside evidence, only proves anyone can choose to believe or disbelieve it.

And many choose to also disbelieve other books of the Bible, that are independently verified. The argument is not about believing or not, but about the rational possibility of believing, apart from any evidence contrary to the book.

Without such evidence, it's irrational to say it can't be believed. That lie is what any book of science, history, and literature rejects, if no error is found therein.

I noticed people keep telling POI that the exodus happened because the Bible says it did. That's not what the OP is asking.

True. Neither do I. Inerrancy only proves an intelligent choice of faith is possible, not that it is proven true, nor must be believed. Arguing about peoples' choice to believe or not is a waste of time. An intelligent study of the Book itself, as well as any arguments about error, are not a waste of time for any book of interest to the readers.

Billions of people don't believe in the annals of Gilgamesh. Its not comparable to the Fable Jackpot that the Exodus fib hit. I don't see any correlation there.

Neither size of the book, nor numbers of unbelievers is the point. The proper comparison is between the Bible and Gilgamesh as fantastic historical myths. Which would be the case if Exodus is proven false by conclusive evidence, either within the Book itself or independently.

No evidence proves nothing.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #320]

I didn't affirm the historicity of the exodus. I called it a fib that won the Fable Jackpot. Perhaps you inadvertently confused me with someone else.

Thank you for clarifying. Are you a believer? If so, what is your position on question 2?

[Perspectivo]

POI asked for references outside the Bible. That was why I used Islam. There's no historical references to the exodus outside of religion.

Actually, he says there is no outside evidence, so that the book can't be believed. That is an illogical fallacy based upon blind disbelief alone.

Negatives do not prove anything positive. No outside evidence, only proves anyone can choose to believe or disbelieve it.

And many choose to also disbelieve other books of the Bible, that are independently verified. The argument is not about believing or not, but about the rational possibility of believing, apart from any evidence contrary to the book.

Without such evidence, it's irrational to say it can't be believed. That lie is what any book of science, history, and literature rejects, if no error is found therein.

I noticed people keep telling POI that the exodus happened because the Bible says it did. That's not what the OP is asking.

True. Neither do I. Inerrancy only proves an intelligent choice of faith is possible, not that it is proven true, nor must be believed. Arguing about peoples' choice to believe or not is a waste of time. An intelligent study of the Book itself, as well as any arguments about error, are not a waste of time for any book of interest to the readers.

Billions of people don't believe in the annals of Gilgamesh. Its not comparable to the Fable Jackpot that the Exodus fib hit. I don't see any correlation there.

Neither size of the book, nor numbers of unbelievers is the point. The proper comparison is between the Bible and Gilgamesh as fantastic historical myths. Which would be the case if Exodus is proven false by conclusive evidence, either within the Book itself or independently.

No evidence proves nothing.

Evidence proves nothing? Can you elaborate how evidence proves nothing? Our courts will be in disarray.

[RBD]

Not after thousands of years. You need to use analogies that at least stick with the subject at hand.

My analogy was submitted after you made the following statement --> "Lack of evidence proves nothing".

I incorrectly assumed your example was of no evidence of footprints being found afterward.

Saying evidence is shortly found afterward, before it is lost, is not analogous with any old lost evidence not found.

The point being... Even in your last response, you now must admit that your given statement is false, in that evidence would be necessary in some cases.

Evidence is only necessary to prove something. No evidence proves nothing,

Only verifiable contrary evidence proves something did not happen.

If you consider evidence presented in a court of law, then you'll understand. If the prosecution has no evidence, then the charge is dismissed. So with accusing a book of being false based upon no evidence. Without the light of evidence, it's only blind disbelief.

In which I stated, it depends on the claim. If I told you I just walked across a muddy pathway, and you saw no evidence, you would not believe me.

See above, how evidence of a recent activity does not apply to long ago, when the evidence can no longer be found.

2) Egyptians left evidence of trying to erase physical evidence regarding other people and events, as mentioned in the video from post 12. This means that if the Egyptians were trying to cover up interaction(s) with the Israelites, for whatever reason(s), we would see plenty of evidence of their attempts to cover-up and/or sabotage existing evidence of their existence.

your argument is now self-defeating. If someone presents no evidence, then it does not prove it was not there. Once someone talks of evidence being purposely erased, it proves the evidence was there.

I trust it is true. My hope is to be part of the resurrection of life.

Yes, you have 'faith.' But we can apply such 'faith' to virtually any claim.

People have the power to believe anything they want. Intelligent people can believe anything they study and accept, unless there is evidence against it.

No evidence is not intelligence to prove or disprove anything.

a) Hinging on no evidence against the Book is blind disbelief. b) Hinging on evidence of the Book is enlightened faith.

b) The book is the claim. Any book can make any claim. Just-the-same, if there existed some ancient book which claimed that millions and millions of Egyptians did this and that for hundreds of years, but left behind no traces of evidence, it would be quite reasonable to dismiss this storyline too as folklore or other.

Or, to accept it as true. Without evidence to the contrary, one can accept it based on the evidence of the record, or not accept it based on no corroborating evidence.

The challenge is not to convince anyone to accept it or reject it, but rather to show neither are more intelligent and rational than the other. Without evidence to the contrary, it's an unintelligent accusation that it can't be accepted.

No. I am defining gas lighting, which differs from your use of it. It simply shows an alternative rationale for making the charge.

"Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that causes someone to doubt their own perceptions." You have done it more than once in this exchange, like telling me "Lack of evidence proves nothing", or "Hinging on no evidence against the Book is blind disbelief. Hinging on evidence of the Book is enlightened faith", and other(s).

Confirming the fact that lack of evidence proves nothing, only challenges people to perceive it as an accepted fact in any court of law, as well as literary classroom.

Having blind disbelief based upon no evidence, is the logical antithesis to an accusation of having blind faith based upon evidence. The blindness is only without any light of evidence.

[RBD]

No evidence proves nothing.

Evidence proves nothing? Can you elaborate how evidence proves nothing? Our courts will be in disarray.
[/quote]

Rephrasing. No evidence doesn't prove anything. Only evidence proves something. A lack of evidence dismisses any charges made in court, or literary classrooms.

[Clownboat]

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion...
Please disprove that Humpty Dumpty was not a real egg that fell off a wall. I'm tired of believing.
Is belief in Humpty Dumpty actually justified if you cannot disprove it?

Why bother, since the author never claims it's historical record. If he did say so, then why not believe there was an egg called humpty-dumpty falling off a wall, and the cavalry coming to the rescue could not put him together again?

You failed to identify an author and you failed disprove Humpty Dumpty! Now I'm forced to continue believing! (As if that is how it should work)
I have never met a person so gullible that all it would take is for an author to claim that their words were historical. Have you ever met someone so gullible, or do you admit that more is needed?

Can you disprove that Allah is the one true God?

He can't be if the one true God is perfectly unerring without contradiction with Himself.

Please note your special pleading.
Special pleading is a logical fallacy that involves making an exception to a general rule without justification.

His prophet claims He is the God of Israel, and then he claims he cannot have a Son, which he says is blasphemy. He therefore contradicts himself.

The words you just typed contain no contradiction. If you don't believe me, please re-read what you supplied.

Moohammed heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, and with the anti-NT Jews rejected Him as the Christ of God. (And they both still agree Jesus deserved to be crucified for blaspheming the one true God.)

Most of the world rejects that Jesus is some Christ of sorts. Jews (who are still waiting for their messiah) and Muhammed included, therefore you words above are nothing but slander.

I can't agree that what you suggest is a valid way to arrive at true claims because it is a mechanism for believing false things to be true.

How so? Refusing to accept a negative as proof of a positive?

Nope. Allow me to demonstrate.
For the sake of debate, let's pretend that you believe that Bigfoot, Nessie and Allah are all false. You could, via faith, decide that any of these concepts are true. Faith is the mechanism that would allow you to believe in these false things as if they are true. That is why, not some acceptance of negative proof.

Or, choosing to believe the Author of a Book is exactly who He says He is?

We know who wrote some of the Bible and none of the known authors are Gods. Even you know this, yet somehow still claim, via faith I note, that some god concept authored them.

Or, that the faith is based entirely upon the unerring words in His Book,

Yes, faith is also required in order to believe that the Bible is unerring, because it in fact does have errors. Feel free to add that to the list of false things that faith allows some to still believe in and thank you for demonstrating the truth of my words.

Evolution isn't true because it can't be disproven after all.

True.

And yet you ask us to disprove the Exodus. Your thinking is not consistent.

And yet many people choose to believe it as not only true, but scientific fact.

Evolution is an established scientific fact. The theory describing the fact can be falsified if you are up to it.

There are reasons for why we know it happens and those reasons are missing in what you suggest above.

Again, how so?

That populations of animals change over time has been observed. Your claims are simply faith based. You offer no evidence for the Exodus for us to examine and instead argue that we need to prove that it didn't happen. I seek to show our readers the folly of your reasoning.

I have no objection to anyone believing something is true, without it being proven untrue.

At least you are consistent here! Good on you for also being ok with others believing in unproven concepts. Myself personally, I would encourage people to believe in things for valid reasons.

Nor do I bother with the paleontological evidence and arguments about evolution.

Thank you for being so honest! Good on you again!
I do bother with evidence when it comes to all things. Perhaps that is why I could no longer maintain my religious beliefs. If you began to bother with evidence, are you fearful that you would loose your religious beliefs? Is avoiding dealing with evidence a mechanism to protect your faith based religious beliefs?

If someone prefers to believe a big bang theory

There is evidence for this belief. Faith is not required. Evidence is the part you are missing.

and evolution of intelligent being from unintelligent matter, then who am I to argue with that?

Unless you were to try to argue that an egg and sperm are intelligent, then you should not argue that something intelligent cannot come from unintelligent matter.

Afterall, I was once a believer, until I started thinking about being evolutionized from something totally unthinking.

So you had a desire to have come about by some thinking thing? I now understand how you arrived at one of our available religions as being your answer. Again, your honesty is appreciated.

It's like believing humpty-dumpty was not only an egg by the name, but an egg-person. Why not?

You should not believe that humpty dumpty was an egg person, even though no one can prove that he wasn't an egg person. You should require evidence first, then possible belief. You seem to skip this part by interjecting faith, which again is something needed in order to believe that something that is false, is true.

If a person cannot generate from a fish, then why not a fish-egg?

This is unintelligent as written. Why are you asking about a person generating from a fish?

[Clownboat]

In any case, I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus, rather than just another declaration of disbelief,

Please supply evidence that Allah is not the one true God.

Already responded elsewhere. Maybe you didn't see it.

The Koran claims to be inspired by the God of Israel, calling Him Allah, and then rejects the God of Israel begetting a Son.

Psa 2:7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Yes, Allah has corrected your misunderstanding about him having a son.
When you cannot disprove this, you must believe in order to be consistent. You wont though, because of faith you have placed in the Bible and the absurdity of believing in things because they haven't been disproven.

If something is 100% fiction, how can it be disproven? What evidence of it being false would there be? To make my point, please prove that Bigfoot isn't real.

"Something is considered "unfalsifiable" when it is impossible to prove false, meaning there is no conceivable evidence that could disprove the claim; essentially, it is a statement that cannot be tested or refuted by any means, often seen as a characteristic of pseudoscientific or conspiracy theories."

[POI]

I incorrectly assumed your example was that no evidence of footprints found afterward. Saying evidence is found afterward, before it is swept away, is not analogous with any old evidence not found.

My given example was to refute your claim that "Lack of evidence proves nothing". Your claim is false.

I also conceded, right away, that your statement depends on the claim. In this specific claim from the Bible, no evidence means the claim is likely not a valid one. Each claim must be evaluated, and all claims are unique and situational. I've repeatedly explained why.

Evidence is only necessary to prove something. No evidence proves nothing

Again, it depends on the claim.

Only verifiable contrary evidence proves something did not happen.

Again, it depends on the claim.

If you consider evidence presented in a court of law, then you'll understand.

LOL! Sarcasm and/or gaslighting much?

If the prosecution has no evidence, then the charge is dismissed. So with accusing a book of being false based upon no evidence. Without the light of evidence, it's only blind disbelief.

Again, depends on the claim. Most archeologists attest to the conclusion that "the Exodus" was not an actual event. The ones that retain belief are likely more heavily invested in it still being true, as it relates to their 'faith.' It is not 'blind disbelief' to dismiss the claim of millions and millions of Israelites inhabiting an area for hundreds of years. I've explained why.

See above, how evidence of a recent activity does not apply to long ago, when the evidence can be overrun.

Right. It is situational and it depends on the claim. And I've explained, extensively, why this claim is not founded or believable.

your argument is now self-destructive. Talking no evidence proves nothing, but talking about erasing evidence, proved evidence was for it.

1) You skipped right over my first point. Most archeologists conclude the Exodus story is false. Therefore, they must be irrational.

2) And my argument is not self-destructive. We have no evidence of Egyptians trying to erase evidence. Which means the believer cannot argue that the Egyptians tried to cover anything up.

3) You also skipped my third point. The believer also cannot argue that the evidence would be too degraded, as we have tons of evidence from the exact same period, of the Egyptians, and many/all of their action(s). This is due to the climate, which preserves all evidence.

People have the power believe anything they want. Intelligent people can believe anything they study and accept, unless there is evidence against it.

Right, we all possess cognitive dissonance(s). Just like I openly admit I should be a vegetarian. So why believe a LARGE storyline with no evidence to support it, which should leave behind tons of evidence to actually support it?

Or, to accept it as true. Without evidence to the contrary, one can accept it based on the evidence of the record, or not accept it based on no corroborating evidence. The challenge is not to convicne anyone to accept it or reject it, but rather to show neither are more intelligent and rational than the other.

Negative. The claim is a very large claim which would leave tons of evidence. To leave none is suspect, to say the very least, and requires blind faith to believe it anyways. Hence, the apologetic excuses abound....

Confirming the fact that lack of evidence proves nothing,

Again, it depends on the claim. Again, it is situational. In the case for this topic, it proves the claim likely false. Unless you wish to argue that God himself destroyed all the evidence to test the truly faithful maybe?.?.?.?

[Clownboat]

Neither size of the book, nor numbers of unbelievers is the point. The proper comparison is between the Bible and Gilgamesh as fantastic historical myths. Which would be the case if Exodus is proven false by conclusive evidence, either within the Book itself or independently.
No evidence proves nothing.

If millions of ancient Israelites didn't roam an area for 100's of years, what evidence do you think we would find?