• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can someone show me evidence outside the Bible that the Exodus actually happened?

PureX

Veteran Member
The 'exodus' did not happen as the story depicts. In fact, the Israelites were never enslaved by or in Egypt. But myths are not intended to be taken as factual. They are intended to be taken as story-lessons. So claiming a myth is not factual is as irrelevant as claiming they are.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It depends on what subjective/inter-subjective definition of evidence you subjectively accept. In the end it is about what presumptions, assumptions and/or axioms you hold when it comes to the psychological, social and cultural word knowledge.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Don't derail my thread. I've never, ever blocked anyone, ever, in this forum, but if you want to play word games, you will derail the thread before it even gets started, and that I won't permit.

History is largely subjective; so the "evidence" that I will accept will be much more lenient than, say, "evidence" that Sasquatch exists.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Don't derail my thread. I've never, ever blocked anyone, ever, in this forum, but if you want to play word games, you will derail the thread before it even gets started, and that I won't permit.

History is largely subjective; so the "evidence" that I will accept will be much more lenient than, say, "evidence" that Sasquatch exists.

Well, I will behave here, despite in being in general religious debates.
You can have your words and I will have mine.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The 'exodus' did not happen as the story depicts. In fact, the Israelites were never enslaved by or in Egypt. But myths are not intended to be taken as factual. They are intended to be taken as story-lessons. So claiming a myth is not factual is as irrelevant as claiming they are.
Never let a good myth get in the way of belief.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Well, I will behave here, despite in being in general religious debates.
You can have your words and I will have mine.

To a degree, I can accept that; but that has to give way and accept the meaning of one word or another in order for clear communication while we are engaged in a given discussion. Outside of that discussion becomes "nunmybidness".
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
To a degree, I can accept that; but that has to give way and accept the meaning of one word or another in order for clear communication while we are engaged in a given discussion. Outside of that discussion becomes "nunmybidness".

Okay, you answered, so here is my answer. If you have 2 different understandings of how a word connects to the rest of the world, then that is what we are playing. You can if you like simply ignore the one and claim the other as correct. But that is not unique to you or me. That is in effect the western project: How words connect to the real world in a correct manner? We have been doing that for over 2000+ years now and it ain't over yet.

Our current culture is properly not the end of that process, no matter how much your culture works for you or mine for me. :)
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
mikkel_the_dane

I have been known to ask posters, "Define that word. When you say ___________, what are you trying to say?"

Words are tricky. There are so many words we use in our conversations that are so sloppy, so vague, so commonly misused, that communication can be very difficult when the words are used. Some words I can list that fall here are: Religion, Faith, Knowledge, Pedophile. These are just a few. Some words, like "God", can be generally accepted until finer points come into play. When we say "God", we have a general idea what the speaker is intending to say; and for general discussion, that word is sufficient. However, if we get down to finer points of discussion, it may be necessary to ensure clear communication that we agree on the characteristics and nature of that given object (herein "God") in order for communication to continue. When discussions become that fine, clearly defining our idea of "God" may become necessary.

So I both respect and accept your premise.

However, if we pour over the definition of each and every word in this post, the conversation goes nowhere. The premise of the discussion is lost in the futile exercise of bickering or discussing semantics rather than the subject of the discussion itself.

I am posting this comment in 2 different threads, not to break rules and spam, but because the question over the use of words has come up in 2 different threads in a short period of time and I believe this comment is equally valid in both threads.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
Okay, you answered, so here is my answer. If you have 2 different understandings of how a word connects to the rest of the world, then that is what we are playing. You can if you like simply ignore the one and claim the other as correct. But that is not unique to you or me. That is in effect the western project: How words connect to the real world in a correct manner? We have been doing that for over 2000+ years now and it ain't over yet.

Our current culture is properly not the end of that process, no matter how much your culture works for you or mine for me. :)

Can you point to something in objective reality, that we can all observe, outside of the written claims themselves, which specifically corresponds to the events recorded in Exodus? Because if you can't, then it's reasonable to presume these claims are imaginary until such evidence can be provided.

If people tend to accept claims that have zero supporting evidence, then we know this leads to incoherence, contradictions, and mental detachment from reality. Skeptics would like to avoid living that way, and so we are asking for evidence.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
mikkel_the_dane

I have been known to ask posters, "Define that word. When you say ___________, what are you trying to say?"

Words are tricky. There are so many words we use in our conversations that are so sloppy, so vague, so commonly misused, that communication can be very difficult when the words are used. Some words I can list that fall here are: Religion, Faith, Knowledge, Pedophile. These are just a few. Some words, like "God", can be generally accepted until finer points come into play. When we say "God", we have a general idea what the speaker is intending to say; and for general discussion, that word is sufficient. However, if we get down to finer points of discussion, it may be necessary to ensure clear communication that we agree on the characteristics and nature of that given object (herein "God") in order for communication to continue. When discussions become that fine, clearly defining our idea of "God" may become necessary.

So I both respect and accept your premise.

However, if we pour over the definition of each and every word in this post, the conversation goes nowhere. The premise of the discussion is lost in the futile exercise of bickering or discussing semantics rather than the subject of the discussion itself.

I am posting this comment in 2 different threads, not to break rules and spam, but because the question over the use of words has come up in 2 different threads in a short period of time and I believe this comment is equally valid in both threads.

I will answer here.
Take an example of different people in a thread and they debate. One answers to the other in effect: I don't care about how you do it, what matters, is real life.
See, we are already of the rails, because we end where you don't want to end. There are everyday words other than God that are as problematic, but for this culture as somewhat western here on this forum, they can't be doubted.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Can you point to something in objective reality, that we can all observe, outside of the written claims themselves, which specifically corresponds to the events recorded in Exodus? Because if you can't, then it's reasonable to presume these claims are imaginary until such evidence can be provided.

If people tend to accept claims that have zero supporting evidence, then we know this leads to incoherence, contradictions, and mental detachment from reality. Skeptics would like to avoid living that way, and so we are asking for evidence.

Objective reality is philosophy and I do another version of what the real world is and what really matters.
If you want my honest answer, then here it is: If I accept the assumptions about objective reality and what matters, as you used them, you win. But I can still do it differently.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
they can't be doubted.

That's not what I'm trying to say.

What I am trying to say is to ensure clear communication, there are times when we must simply accept the word is being used in a manner we disagree with, and roll with it. This way, some form of communication can progress. I feel that the OP has the authority to clearly define the word as they are using the word lest we get sidetracked. Even if they are using it wrong; we are still communicating provided all of us are using it "wrong".

They can be doubted; but doubting them every time they come up, I feel is counterproductive.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
Objective reality is philosophy and I do another version of what the real world is and what really matters.
If you want my honest answer, then here it is: If I accept the assumptions about objective reality and what matters, as you used them, you win. But I can still do it differently.

Ok, so you are able to justify your belief in certain claims only by "doing another version of what the real world is."

I accept that you can believe religious claims if you willfully choose to live in an unevidenced alternate reality. Along those lines, I wholeheartedly agree with you that I win. :rolleyes:
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Ok, so you are able to justify your belief in certain claims only by "doing another version of what the real world is."

I accept that you can believe religious claims if you willfully choose to live in an unevidenced alternate reality. Along those lines, I wholeheartedly agree with you that I win. :rolleyes:

I am not religious. I am a skeptic.
I don't do naturalism nor idealism in the ontological sense.

  • Everything is material
  • Everything is from God
  • Both are too simple and only capture some elements of the everyday world.
Even methodological naturalism has its limits: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
I am not religious. I am a skeptic.
I don't do naturalism nor idealism in the ontological sense.

  • Everything is material
  • Everything is from God
  • Both are too simple and only capture some elements of the everyday world.
Even methodological naturalism has its limits: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Alright. I guess I would ask you then: For the category of claims which we have no tools to evaluate, which have no demonstrable supporting evidence, and overall no way to show that these claims correspond to reality, what should our default position be? Should we provisionally accept all such claims, or provisionally not accept them, or positively reject them? I think anything but the second approach leads to incoherence.

I agree that methodological naturalism is about describing reality, and therefore isn't concerned with personal conceptual imaginary thoughts, including preferences, opinions, and supernatural beliefs. That's not a failing of methodological naturalism, though, because it's not a doctrine but a practical standard of reasonableness that is open to revision. If you can provide any reliable tool for showing that some object is real instead of imaginary, then methodological naturalism will incorporate that tool and accept that your object is a part of reality. If you can't, then there really isn't a good reason for anyone to believe your claim.

Esoteric philosophical objections to this approach seem to be nothing more than the well-phrased whining of apologists who have emotional reliance on their unjustifiable beliefs. I could be wrong, but that has been the entirety of my experience. Such objections are also dealt with pretty easily, by directing people to read up on Fallibilism and the Principle of Underdetermination. Namely, we don't need ontological certainty in order to have epistemological warrant.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Alright. I guess I would ask you then: For the category of claims which we have no tools to evaluate, which have no demonstrable supporting evidence, and overall no way to show that these claims correspond to reality, what should our default position be? Should we provisionally accept all such claims, or provisionally not accept them, or positively reject them? I think anything but the second approach leads to incoherence.

I agree that methodological naturalism is about describing reality, and therefore isn't concerned with personal conceptual imaginary thoughts, including preferences, opinions, and supernatural beliefs. That's not a failing of methodological naturalism, though, because it's not a doctrine but a practical standard of reasonableness that is open to revision. If you can provide any reliable tool for showing that some object is real instead of imaginary, then methodological naturalism will incorporate that tool and accept that your object is a part of reality. If you can't, then there really isn't a good reason for anyone to believe your claim.

Esoteric philosophical objections to this approach seem to be nothing more than the well-phrased whining of apologists who have emotional reliance on their unjustifiable beliefs. I could be wrong, but that has been the entirety of my experience. Such objections are also dealt with pretty easily, by directing people to read up on Fallibilism and the Principle of Underdetermination. Namely, we don't need ontological certainty in order to have epistemological warrant.

Good post, excellent. I agree on the content and has nothing to add as such for its range in how you describe reality in practice.

The corner stone is this: "...personal conceptual imaginary thoughts, including preferences, opinions, and supernatural beliefs." As long as we agree that it is not limited to religion, we can agree.
 
Top