Continuing research into the possibility of the reality of the Exodus, and current data/conclusions.

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know of any serious student of history who "easily accepts" any rendition, interpretation, observation, or whatever as "solid historical fact". Rather they will critically evaluate such renditions on the basis of evidence and argument, as it should be. It's mildly offensive that you make a cavalier dismissal of the positions that others may have arrived at through careful consideration. Ultimately though, this reflects much more upon you than upon them, doing no favours for your argument or your supposed objectivity.

Let's be clear, the history (if it is that) given in Exodus or Joshua or the historical books would be more plausible if they were found written on clay tablets. Unfortunately, we know these stories only from preservation in religious texts. As such, every last claim has a "is this for religious or propaganda purposes" hanging over it. (And clearly, many such texts recovered in ancient writing are also full of theological and propaganda intent.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's be clear, the history (if it is that) given in Exodus or Joshua or the historical books would be more plausible if they were found written on clay tablets. Unfortunately, we know these stories only from preservation in religious texts. As such, every last claim has a "is this for religious or propaganda purposes" hanging over it. (And clearly, many such texts recovered in ancient writing are also full of theological and propaganda intent.)

It is His story.

 

[Halbhh]

The 'text itself' is meaningless from a scientific viewpoint .. so it doesn't matter what explanations it cites, given that none of it is objectively testable .. its just noise in a physical sciences forum.

I understand what you're saying .. but what you're saying is irrelevant because it counts for nothing when it comes to the objective method .. so why keep repeating it?

Because it's then not even slightly about any evidence.... See?

If someone says that Jack dropped a shoe in the yard, but then picked it up....then it would not then allow any conclusion to merely search the yard and not find Jack's shoe.

Ergo, that aspect (finding evidence of the Exodus as written in the text) is only a religious topic (the topic as to whether or not it's metaphor or concrete events, or some combination, etc.).

Completely unlike say Young Earth Creationism, which we can examine by using observational evidence.

But this topic here about the Exodus/Numbers text is not in the same category -- it's not a theory that can be tested by evidence.

The discussion about not human remains, discarded items, etc. was entirely irrelevant. It was a kind of mistaken premise discussion.

 

[Halbhh]

Do you realize the natural and supernatural are mutually exclusive

That's my whole point! That's what I've been saying for many posts now.

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you realize the natural and supernatural are mutually exclusive;

So if the laws that apply at the macroscale don't apply at the quantum scale, then does that make the quantum world supernatural?

What exactly is it that makes something 'supernatural'? I mean if something follows a set of rules, then doesn't that automatically make it natural?

 

[SelfSim]

So if the laws that apply at the macroscale don't apply at the quantum scale, then does that make the quantum world supernatural?

What exactly is it that makes something 'supernatural'? I mean if something follows a set of rules, then doesn't that automatically make it natural?

The so-called 'supernatural' is defined as being indistinguishable from a pure belief.
The quantum scale couldn't be further away from being defined as a pure belief, as it presents macroscale observables and is heavily supported by abundant experimental, objectively sourced, physics test results.

'The rules' anything follows, doesn't define objectivity .. the process for gathering evidence, is what defines that.

 

[SelfSim]

Because it's then not even slightly about any evidence.... See?

No .. its all about reaching conclusions based on objectively sourced evidence.

If someone says that Jack dropped a shoe in the yard, but then picked it up....then it would not then allow any conclusion to merely search the yard and not find Jack's shoe.

He says .. (whilst completely ignoring the supernatural context/explanation for there being even no 'religious evidence' remaining of the Exodus).

Ergo, that aspect (finding evidence of the Exodus as written in the text) is only a religious topic (the topic as to whether or not it's metaphor or concrete events, or some combination, etc.).

Completely unlike say Young Earth Creationism, which we can examine by using observational evidence.

But this topic here about the Exodus/Numbers text is not in the same category -- it's not a theory that can be tested by evidence.

The discussion about not human remains, discarded items, etc. was entirely irrelevant. It was a kind of mistaken premise discussion.

Objectively sourced evidence can permit inference based conclusions which contradict tall stories and conclude them as being just that .. ie: tall stories (or beliefs).

Beliefs are just noise in scientific thinking.

 

[sjastro]

You are aware of how very powerful Pharoahs or Kings with a huge ego problem wishing to assert themselves or their nations greatness usually record their own history, right?

Let's just say I trust the Bibles story or rendition a whole heck of a lot more than theirs, etc, as the others would never record such an embarrassing fact or truth or event such as this ever accurately into their recorded nations history, etc.

I'm very, very surprised they even made mention of the Israelites actually, etc.

But because they did, do you really think we can fully trust how they wrote down their own history, etc? Especially in this case, etc?

Very, very humiliating and very, very embarrassing, etc.

And I really don't think they would want a record of that, etc.

They would want to say that they drove them out, or crushed them with their own power and might, which is why the Israelites never returned to attack them again, or "something to that effect", etc.

Bottom line, I don't trust men who thought themselves to be God, or a God, to ever accurately write their own history, etc, especially not when it's as humiliating as this, etc.

The Israelites left and never came back, leaving the Egyptians free to write their own history, or what they wanted history to remember as to what they were going to say actually happened, or actually took place, etc, but it's a big fat lie most of the time, and in most cases, etc.

God Bless.

It is not about the ancient Egyptian version of history but rather history reconstructed from the archaeological evidence.
Here is a video of the history of Egypt's involvement in Canaan based on that evidence.

 

[sjastro]

That's my whole point! That's what I've been saying for many posts now.

And my point is why are you trying to conflate the natural with the supernatural.

 

[sjastro]

So if the laws that apply at the macroscale don't apply at the quantum scale, then does that make the quantum world supernatural?

What exactly is it that makes something 'supernatural'? I mean if something follows a set of rules, then doesn't that automatically make it natural?

On the contrary there is a connection between the macroscale and the quantum scale which you brought up in a previous thread in the form of Feynman path integrals.

Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

Are you really wanting the paper on Inflation theory when its a mainstream accepted theory based on the paper. If its accepted theory then its backed by the science within peer reviwed papers. Are you saying Inflation theory is not backed by peer review. So I should not have to show you papers...

www.christianforums.com

It is the goal of physics to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics where the same physics applies at all scales.
Each theory on its own does not reside in the realm of the supernatural as both can be modelled mathematically and have successfully made predictions of real events.

The supernatural cannot be modelled and is unfalsifiable as there are no tests or experiments which can support or disprove it.

 

[SelfSim]

So if the laws that apply at the macroscale don't apply at the quantum scale, then does that make the quantum world supernatural?

What exactly is it that makes something 'supernatural'? I mean if something follows a set of rules, then doesn't that automatically make it natural?

The so-called 'supernatural' is defined as being indistinguishable from a pure belief.

The definition of a belief I refer to there, is:

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

By applying that testable definition to the notion of 'the Exodus', produces the inescapable conclusion that the Exodus is a belief in the first place .. regardless of any textual affirmations that its physical remnants are expected to be absent. The most glaring condition being that the Exodus does not follow from objective tests. In fact, its historical existence is a predicated assumption based on Faith.

 

[partinobodycular]

'The rules' anything follows, doesn't define objectivity .. the process for gathering evidence, is what defines that.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept this as an accurate means of defining what's 'natural' and what's 'supernatural'.

It's simply saying that any reality that can't be objectively measured is by definition, 'supernatural'. Which means that in any set of realities wherein I can't measure them, and they can't measure me, we're both supernatural relative to each other. But relative to ourselves, we're both natural. Therefore we are in fact, both natural... 'supernatural' simply being a term applied to us by those who can't 'see' us.

So the question still remains, what would actually make something 'supernatural'... not just relative to anyone who can't 'see' it, but innately and fundamentally "SUPER-natural"? As in existing 'above' the natural.

One characteristic of the 'supernatural' might be that it gives rise to the natural, therefore it lies in hierarchical superiority to the natural... i.e above it. Using this as a definition, there's no reason to assume that the 'supernatural' isn't measurable. (At least to some degree) The trick is to figure out how, or indeed, whether we already have.

@sjastro, This is where the the idea of quantum mechanics comes in, it's the admittedly absurd idea that the quantum world is in fact a glimpse into the supernatural... i.e that which lies 'above' the natural. It's that from which the natural laws arise, but to which the natural laws don't necessarily apply.

Hence, the only thing that we may ever be able to say about the 'supernatural' is that it acts like a bunch of quantum fields and nothing more... and as tales of the supernatural go... that's not very impressive. But hey, sometimes the effects can give you a glimpse into the nature of the cause, and in this case the effects may suggest that the quantum world is more than just a bunch of fields.

Anyway, that's my wacky idea for today... and as usual Mr. Phelps, this post will self-destruct in five seconds.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm sorry, but I can't accept this as an accurate means of defining what's 'natural' and what's 'supernatural'.

It's simply saying that any reality that can't be objectively measured is by definition, 'supernatural'.

Tested (via the objective method). I said nothing about measuring some already existing 'thing' which you continually assume .. but the thing in science is that we don't know whether something exists or not unless we firstly apply some test to some observational model,(or theoretical one already having emprical support). If we already know some 'it' already exists what's the point of measuring that 'true' assumption you've already made? That just doesn't make any sense ..

The concept (or model you have there) of 'the supernatural', (aka: a belief), is untestable via the objective method. If you think it can be, go right ahead .. cite the test. You will fail.
There is no other known conclusion possible other than 'the supernatural' being a belief, when such a concept as that is fundamentally untestable.

This is I think, something you, specifically, have major difficulties with .. and is the basis of sooo many of our disagreements.

I accept that you cannot accept it .. namely because you don't understand the concept I'm explaining. Its science being applied to distinguish beliefs from objectivity.

Which means that in any set of realities wherein I can't measure them, and they can't measure me, we're both supernatural relative to each other. But relative to ourselves, we're both natural. Therefore we are in fact, both natural... 'supernatural' simply being a term applied to us by those who can't 'see' us.

So the question still remains, what would actually make something 'supernatural'... not just relative to anyone who can't 'see' it, but innately and fundamentally "SUPER-natural"? As in existing 'above' the natural.

One characteristic of the 'supernatural' might be that it gives rise to the natural, therefore it lies in hierarchical superiority to the natural... i.e above it. Using this as a definition, there's no reason to assume that the 'supernatural' isn't measurable. (At least to some degree) The trick is to figure out how, or indeed, whether we already have.

Everywhere there you start out with the undistinguished (for you) assumption of the supernatural 'already existing' ('above' the natural .. what's more .. like: where did that hiearchical model you're implying there, come from anyway? .. Yet another belief perhaps?) .. without any evidence of that whatsoever, nor any attempts to even declare that undistinguished, (for you), belief you've latched onto.

Its completely the opposite of the way science proceeds. The scientific method is a 'bottoms up' approach .. not a top down one which starts from some believed-in assumption.

@sjastro, This is where the the idea of quantum mechanics comes in, it's the admittedly absurd idea that the quantum world is in fact a glimpse into the supernatural... i.e that which lies 'above' the natural. It's that from which the natural laws arise, but to which the natural laws don't necessarily apply.

Hence, the only thing you may ever be able to say about the 'supernatural' is that it acts like a bunch of quantum fields and nothing more... and as tales of the supernatural go... that's not very impressive. But hey, sometimes the effects can give you a glimpse into the nature of the cause, and in this case the effects may suggest that the quantum world is more than just a bunch of fields.

Anyway, that's my wacky idea for today... and as usual Mr. Phelps, this post will self-destruct in five seconds.

Man .. it didn't self destruct .. and its an annoyingly persistent 'wacky idea for you .. which is strong evidence to predict that whatever follows, will be justification for what you held as being true by preference from the outset: 'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference ...'

 

[Neogaia777]

@partinobodycular

I call it "other natural", or a "higher natural", etc, since it seems to use a higher knowledge than we right now have or know in a lot of cases, etc.

@SelfSim

But you are right, it's not objectively testable right now based on our current level of knowledge, etc.

@partinobodycular @SelfSim

But these other beings seem to exist in another place on the other side of here, and seem to have a lot more, or a higher knowledge of the "natural" than we do right now currently, but that is all that I think the "supernatural" is, etc.

For example, right now we are just scratching the surface of our knowledge of quantum physics, and quantum behavior, etc, which seems to sometimes be almost opposite of what we right now know as being "currently natural" at times, etc, and it's possible that with enough knowledge of it, we could possibly overturn some of the laws of what we previously thought were the limits to our right now "normally natural", etc, to where things like walking on water, curing sickness and disease, controlling the weather, cellular regeneration, and even overturning death itself, might just be a higher part of nature, and might be possible, etc, and all it would be is a "higher natural" or "other natural", based on beings who have more knowledge of what is natural, etc.

But it's not at all testable yet with what we right now know, etc. Our current knowledge doesn't allow for it yet, etc.

But it could be maybe someday maybe, etc.

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

@partinobodycular

I call it "other natural", or a "higher natural", etc, since it seems to use a higher knowledge than we right now have or know in a lot of cases, etc.
...
@partinobodycular @SelfSim

But these other beings seem to exist in another place on the other side of here, and seem to have a lot more, or a higher knowledge of the "natural" than we do right now currently, but that is all that I think the "supernatural" is, etc.

For example, right now we are just scratching the surface of our knowledge of quantum physics, and quantum behavior, etc, which seems to sometimes be almost opposite of what we right now know as being "currently natural" at times, etc and it's possible that with enough knowledge of it, we could possibly overturn some of the laws of what we previously thought were the limits to our right now "normally natural", etc, to where things like walking on water, curing sickness and disease, controlling the weather, cellular regeneration, and even overturning death itself, might just be a higher part of nature, and might be possible, etc, and all it would be is a "higher natural" or "other natural", based on beings who have more knowledge of what is natural, etc.
..
But it's not at all testable yet with what we right now know, etc. Our current knowledge doesn't allow for it yet, etc.

But it could be maybe someday maybe, etc.

That's all just guesses and your own wishful thinking.

Present us objective evidence .. or say nothing at all!

I'm sick of hearing tall stories! After all, they're nothing more than anecdotal value anyway .. just like the Exodus.

 

[partinobodycular]

Present us objective evidence .. or say nothing at all!

Well that definitely leaves me with very little to say, except... have a nice day.

 

[sjastro]

@sjastro, This is where the the idea of quantum mechanics comes in, it's the admittedly absurd idea that the quantum world is in fact a glimpse into the supernatural... i.e that which lies 'above' the natural. It's that from which the natural laws arise, but to which the natural laws don't necessarily apply.

Hence, the only thing that we may ever be able to say about the 'supernatural' is that it acts like a bunch of quantum fields and nothing more... and as tales of the supernatural go... that's not very impressive. But hey, sometimes the effects can give you a glimpse into the nature of the cause, and in this case the effects may suggest that the quantum world is more than just a bunch of fields.

Anyway, that's my wacky idea for today... and as usual Mr. Phelps, this post will self-destruct in five seconds.

Our physical (natural) laws arise from empiricism via experiments and observations where the data is used to construct these laws.
The laws are therefore only as good as the quality and range of data available.

The origin of quantum mechanics does not come from the microscopic world of subatomic particles but from a distinctly macroscopic phenomenum known as blackbody radiation where the temperature of the blackbody determines the wavelength radiated.
The classical physical law known as the Rayleigh-Jeans law was able predict the blackbody spectrum at higher wavelengths such as in the infrared range and beyond as shown in the graph.

The physical law deviates from experimental values at lower wavelengths leading to a major issue in early 20th century known as the UV catastrophe.
Max Planck came up with a different physical law which not only far more accurately described the blackbody energies over the entire spectrum range but also that it radiated in discrete or quantized amounts.

The reason as to why the energy values occurred in discrete and not continuous values, led to the development of quantum mechanics which is a natural not a supernatural explanation.

 

[partinobodycular]

I call it "other natural", or a "higher natural", etc, since it seems to use a higher knowledge than we right now have or know in a lot of cases, etc.

As they say, a rose by any other name... maybe if we were all @sjastro we could simply define things mathematically... but we ain't... so we don't. The trick is to remember that when someone says something that seems totally ridiculous, somewhere inside their head is a line of reasoning that makes complete sense to that person, and your job, should you choose to accept it, is to try to find that line of reasoning. Either that, or just assume that everyone that doesn't agree with you is crazy... you won't learn much, but you will be content in knowing that you're one of the sane ones.

So ya, 'other natural'... 'higher natural'... perfectly acceptable monikers if you ask me.

 

[SelfSim]

..
So ya, 'other natural'... 'higher natural'... perfectly acceptable monikers if you ask me.

'Belief' would be more appropriate .. (its just a more natural fit, wouldn't ya say?)

 

[SelfSim]

Well that definitely leaves me with very little to say, except... have a nice day.

Aww .. shucks ..
(You didn't start, then leave for 11 pages, an Apologetics thread, in a science forum .. feel free to respond if you like).