The chosen people

Here's a probability question: Religion A is based on the claims that those is Group A (coincidentally, the founders of Religion A) are the "chosen" people of God.

Religion B is based on the claims of that those in Group C (not the founders of Religion B) are the chosen people.

All else equal, which religion is more likely to be true?

(I know it's a silly question, and its meant to be rhetorical, but the fact that Judeo-Christian religions stem from a group with the self-proclaimed title of God's chosen people should be added to the question of the truth of their claims.)

[txag007]

"All else equal, which religion is more likely to be true?"

All else isn't equal, though. How do the probabilities change when one considers that no archaelogical evidence has been found to contradict the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when one considers that some archaelogical evidence has been found that supports the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when the prophecies made by certain members of Religion A were fulfilled hundreds of years later?

I know we've talked about this stuff before, but why aren't things like this added to the question of the truth of their claims?

[ QUOTE ]
"All else equal, which religion is more likely to be true?"

All else isn't equal, though. How do the probabilities change when one considers that no archaelogical evidence has been found to contradict the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when one considers that some archaelogical evidence has been found that supports the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when the prophecies made by certain members of Religion A were fulfilled hundreds of years later?

I know we've talked about this stuff before, but why aren't things like this added to the question of the truth of their claims?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those things are added to the mix, I was adding one more piece that you apparently don't want to add.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"All else equal, which religion is more likely to be true?"

All else isn't equal, though. How do the probabilities change when one considers that no archaelogical evidence has been found to contradict the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when one considers that some archaelogical evidence has been found that supports the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when the prophecies made by certain members of Religion A were fulfilled hundreds of years later?

I know we've talked about this stuff before, but why aren't things like this added to the question of the truth of their claims?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those things are added to the mix, I was adding one more piece that you apparently don't want to add.

[/ QUOTE ]

If those things are "added to the mix" then we know more about Religion A.

Tell us more about this Religion B, of which we only know they as a group (group B I'll assume because nothing is told to us) point to group c as being God's chosen people, yet we also know nothing of group c, and what religion they practice, if any.

Perhaps you want to rethink your idea of "adding things into the mix"?

[txag007]

By all means, add it. When considering something as serious as eternal destination, all available evidence and logic should be considered.

It's a rhetorical hypothetical. Relax your pro-Jesus guns.

That's a great response. And I concur.

[kbfc]

This is an easy one. The answer is neither; both are equally likely. As I write this, I mean it in at least 2 different ways. I also have a suspicion, though, that there are others. I could, if pressed, make a devil's advocate argument for one of the two religions (with only 1 meaning), but I don't find it compelling, personally.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a rhetorical hypothetical. Relax your pro-Jesus guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a poorly thought out hypothetical, which can be seen from the grammatical errors and ambiguity within the options.

It then 'transformed' from pure probability to add archaeological evidence for one option (the option that had the more detail to begin with) which only exacerbated the lack of detail about the other option.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a rhetorical hypothetical. Relax your pro-Jesus guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a poorly thought out hypothetical, which can be seen from the grammatical errors and ambiguity within the options.

It then 'transformed' from pure probability to add archaeological evidence for one option (the option that had the more detail to begin with) which only exacerbated the lack of detail about the other option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't adding archeological evidence to religion A in the hypothetical, I was adding skepticism about a group calling itself the chosen people to the overall question. I used "Religion A and B" in the hypothetical so as NOT to add other specifics about evidence for a particular religion.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a rhetorical hypothetical. Relax your pro-Jesus guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a poorly thought out hypothetical, which can be seen from the grammatical errors and ambiguity within the options.

It then 'transformed' from pure probability to add archaeological evidence for one option (the option that had the more detail to begin with) which only exacerbated the lack of detail about the other option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't adding archeological evidence to religion A in the hypothetical, I was adding skepticism about a group calling itself the chosen people to the overall question. I used "Religion A and B" in the hypothetical so as NOT to add other specifics about evidence for a particular religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

txag007 said:

[ QUOTE ]

All else isn't equal, though. How do the probabilities change when one considers that no archaelogical evidence has been found to contradict the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when one considers that some archaelogical evidence has been found that supports the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when the prophecies made by certain members of Religion A were fulfilled hundreds of years later?

[/ QUOTE ]

You (kidluckee) said:

[ QUOTE ]

Those things are added to the mix, I was adding one more piece that you apparently don't want to add.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a rhetorical hypothetical. Relax your pro-Jesus guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a poorly thought out hypothetical, which can be seen from the grammatical errors and ambiguity within the options.

It then 'transformed' from pure probability to add archaeological evidence for one option (the option that had the more detail to begin with) which only exacerbated the lack of detail about the other option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't adding archeological evidence to religion A in the hypothetical, I was adding skepticism about a group calling itself the chosen people to the overall question. I used "Religion A and B" in the hypothetical so as NOT to add other specifics about evidence for a particular religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

txag007 said:

[ QUOTE ]

All else isn't equal, though. How do the probabilities change when one considers that no archaelogical evidence has been found to contradict the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when one considers that some archaelogical evidence has been found that supports the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when the prophecies made by certain members of Religion A were fulfilled hundreds of years later?

[/ QUOTE ]

You (kidluckee) said:

[ QUOTE ]

Those things are added to the mix, I was adding one more piece that you apparently don't want to add.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Added to the mix of religious debate in general. Not part of the hypothetical.

Sorry for any confusion.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a rhetorical hypothetical. Relax your pro-Jesus guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a poorly thought out hypothetical, which can be seen from the grammatical errors and ambiguity within the options.

It then 'transformed' from pure probability to add archaeological evidence for one option (the option that had the more detail to begin with) which only exacerbated the lack of detail about the other option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't adding archeological evidence to religion A in the hypothetical, I was adding skepticism about a group calling itself the chosen people to the overall question. I used "Religion A and B" in the hypothetical so as NOT to add other specifics about evidence for a particular religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

txag007 said:

[ QUOTE ]

All else isn't equal, though. How do the probabilities change when one considers that no archaelogical evidence has been found to contradict the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when one considers that some archaelogical evidence has been found that supports the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when the prophecies made by certain members of Religion A were fulfilled hundreds of years later?

[/ QUOTE ]

You (kidluckee) said:

[ QUOTE ]

Those things are added to the mix, I was adding one more piece that you apparently don't want to add.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Added to the mix of religious debate in general. Not part of the hypothetical.

Sorry for any confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept your apology but I'm still confused by the original question:

- Religion A says Group A are the Chosen People.
- Religion B says Group C (and not A) are the Chosen People. (And Group C didn't invent Religion B)

Therefore it's illogical that Group A created Religion B as it's contrary to their own Religion which says they (Group A) are in fact the chosen people.

So who created Religion B? It must be Group B, yet this is only an assumption, and may be incorrect because:

Since Group A's religion is named after themselves (Religion A) and points to themselves as the chosen people, then logically a religion pointing to Group C should be called Religion C and not Religion B. (to follow logic)

But it still leaves the question of why a group other than Group C is creating a religion to point to another group of people outside themselves to refer to as the "chosen people" and not themselves.

As you can see the original question is ambiguous and has more detail for Group/Religion A than for Group C (and if they currently have their own Religion), and furthermore a "Group B" has to be assumed as inventors of Religion B, so we know nothing about them. (as we are inventing their existence by assumption)

[ QUOTE ]
But it still leaves the question of why a group other than Group C is creating a religion to point to another group of people outside themselves to refer to as the "chosen people" and not themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point. It's in a group's self-interest to identify itself as "the chosen people". It's beneficial in terms of their self-identity, ability to control their people, etc. The point of the silly question was to show that these religions stem from a group which has defined ITSELF as a "special" group. There is no point in debating the rest, as I said it was a silly hypothetical to point out that religious prophets are never spoken to by God to say that "those other guys are special", just that "you guys are special."

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it still leaves the question of why a group other than Group C is creating a religion to point to another group of people outside themselves to refer to as the "chosen people" and not themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point. It's in a group's self-interest to identify itself as "the chosen people". It's beneficial in terms of their self-identity, ability to control their people, etc. The point of the silly question was to show that these religions stem from a group which has defined ITSELF as a "special" group. There is no point in debating the rest, as I said it was a silly hypothetical to point out that religious prophets are never spoken to by God to say that "those other guys are special", just that "you guys are special."

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew from first read what your point was, it was transperant.

All I'm saying is, if you wish to say something then say it, you don't need a 'hypothetical' as a guise.

Cheers,
SDM

[andyfox]

"What about when one considers that some archaelogical evidence has been found that supports the claims of the founders of Religion A? What about when the prophecies made by certain members of Religion A were fulfilled hundreds of years later?"

What arecheaological evidence has been found to support the claim of the Jews that they are God's chosen people? What prophecies made by Jews were fulfilled hundreds of years later?

[txag007]

"What arecheaological evidence has been found to support the claim of the Jews that they are God's chosen people? What prophecies made by Jews were fulfilled hundreds of years later?"

Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp) is one example of archaelogical evidence.

Here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=scimathphil&Number=329 3293&Forum=,,,,All_Forums,,,,&Words=&Searchpage=3& Limit=25&Main=3270495&Search=true&where=&Name=3534 8&daterange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldert ype=&bodyprev=#Post3293293) are just a few examples of Biblical prophecy.

[Jedi Flopper]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a rhetorical hypothetical. Relax your pro-Jesus guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to add a rhetorical hypothetical of my own.

If US president A gets a knob washing from chubby intern B, what are the odds that he cops to the offence if blue dress C has not been taken to the cleaners?

Funny how rhetorical hypotheticals do not work when they are neither rhetorical nor hypothetical.

[bluesbassman]

The "probability" of each case is the same, namely zero.

[andyfox]

Thanks for the links.

On the chosen people issue, I see no evidence in your link that the Jews are God's chosen people. What specifically is there in the link that leads you to that conclusion?

On the prophecy issue, with all due respect, I have made dozens of similar prophecies that have come true.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
The "probability" of each case is the same, namely zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I find the above statement most correct, I think it may be significant to point out that the "pro-Jesus guns" as some poster so eloquently put it, immediately attack the hypothetical question based on group B's foundation... Note that neither group A nor B nor C has been defined as any particular group.

That's right, they attack the foundation of a hypothetical, non-existant, similar to their own group, on its basis. Now, what is this basis, you ask?

Tagx007 will have you believe archaelogy and prophecies "proved" the Bible true beyond other texts. That's just too absurd and irrelevant for me to grant any further discussion, (I'm sure you can find pages of threads elsewhere) so let's look at sdm's argument: "Lack of detail" or "information" about the other group is his main concern. Let me now remind you that we are talking about three hypothetical groups in which no details were given about any of the religions. Yet, amazingly, he associates the first religion with Judeo-Christianity and therefore, defends it, because the second group (given the exact same information as the first) does not have the same "detail" or "information."

In conclusion, there is no "lack of detail" or "information" about the many other major religions besides Judaism and Christianity, you just haven't read it. Most of us, on the other boat, have, in fact, read the Bible and most other religious texts as well.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
so let's look at sdm's argument: "Lack of detail" or "information" about the other group is his main concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me now remind you that we are talking about three hypothetical groups in which no details were given about any of the religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we are dealing with two known groups (Group A and Group C - both claimed "The Chosen People" by Religion A and Religion B)

We assume there is a 3rd group that invented Religion B as it would be illogical for Group A to create another religion which implies any group and religion other than Group C & Religion B, is not God's "Chosen People" and if true, thus any religion other than Religion B is incorrect. (Hence, Religion A their own religion they created)

Ofcourse that doesn't mean it's impossible for a portion of Group A, (perhaps disgruntled and unbelieving) chose to create Religion B, but we don't know, it's all speculation.

If one had to choose between the competing theories of:

- Group B created Religion B.
- Group A created Religion B.

I personally think it's more logical to go with the "Group B" (remember this is a fictional group added by myself that is not mentioned by the OP) theory.

[ QUOTE ]

Yet, amazingly, he associates the first religion with Judeo-Christianity and therefore, defends it,

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me where I say Religion A is Judeo-Christianity?

I have never said this, nor have I defended Religion A. (bar the "adding of additional info" incident which was later clarifed and conceded as confusing by the OP)

The reason why I would never say Religion A is Judeo-Christianity is because "Judeo-Christianity" isn't a religion - Judaism and Christianity seperately though are.

[ QUOTE ]

because the second group (given the exact same information as the first) does not have the same "detail" or "information."

[/ QUOTE ]

Group C does not have as much information as Group A, and I'm amazed I have to explain this!

What we know

Group A

- Created a religion.
- Believe they are "The Chosen People"
- Spiritual. (assumed - as in they 'believe' created religion)

Group C

- Didn't create Religion B, unspecified whether they believe it or follow another religion, and if another religion, unspecified whether they created that. (we'll assume they are human)
- Unspecified how they percieve themselves as individuals and as a collective in relation to the world and life.
- Unspecified whether they are spiritual or not.

What we know about both groups is small, but we know marginally more about Group A and how we would imagine they we conduct their lives, wheras Group C we know nothing.

[ QUOTE ]

In conclusion, there is no "lack of detail" or "information" about the many other major religions besides Judaism and Christianity, you just haven't read it. Most of us, on the other boat, have, in fact, read the Bible and most other religious texts as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know who this paragraph is intended for nor where you get the whole "there is no "lack of detail" or "information" about the many other major religions besides Judaism and Christianity" spiel from, as I can't remember anybody saying there was an information defecit in religions outside Judaism and Christianity. (and I certainly didn't say it)

Cheers,
SDM

[txag007]

"Tagx007 will have you believe archaelogy and prophecies "proved" the Bible true beyond other texts. That's just too absurd and irrelevant for me to grant any further discussion"

It's not irrelevant in the least. If what I said is true, that no archaelogical find has ever contradicted a Biblical account and that some archaelogical evidence has confirmed Biblical accounts, it weighs heavily toward the Bible being true. That should, in turn, increase the probability that Religion A (as the OP put it) is true. My point in saying all that that was that all things are not equal among religions, which is in direct contrast to the premise of the original post.

Furthermore, dismissing a claim as absurd without even considering its truthfulness is a dangerous mistake. Sure, it sounds absurd on the surface. What if its true? What does that say about Christianity?

[txag007]

"On the chosen people issue, I see no evidence in your link that the Jews are God's chosen people. What specifically is there in the link that leads you to that conclusion?

On the prophecy issue, with all due respect, I have made dozens of similar prophecies that have come true."


How much do you know about Joshua and the Battle of Jericho? The link provided is exactly what I said it was; that is, evidence that certain Biblical accounts are true.

You've made dozens of similar prophecies that have come true? You've predicted that rise and fall of nations hundreds of years before they happen? Did you even read the post to which I linked?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
If what I said is true, that no archaelogical find has ever contradicted a Biblical account and that some archaelogical evidence has confirmed Biblical accounts, it weighs heavily toward the Bible being true.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is, of course, overwhelming scientific evidence that at least significant parts of the Bible are false, such that the Earth is only tens of thousands of years old, or that there was a global flood, etc. Many (if not most) believers simply "interpret" away those inconsistencies, but if you do that, it makes no sense to appeal to physical evidence in the first place.

All mythologies probably have some basis in fact. If you claim the truth of a particular revelation can be validated by rigorous analysis of the evidence, then you must apply that consistently. Otherwise, you are simply accepting the truth on faith, and interpreting the evidence only so far as it supports your faith.

I'm not arguing there is necessarily anything wrong with that (whether faith is a valid method of acquiring knowledge is another topic), but the honest theist will admit this.

[andyfox]

I have no doubt that certain biblical accounts are true, or at least based on truth. The link about Jericho indicated that perhaps an earthquake was involved. That's different than proving that the Jews are God's chosen people.

I did indeed read your linked post. The generalities abound:

"And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases."

"Then the king of the South will grow strong, along with one of his princes who will gain ascendancy over him and obtain dominion; his domain will be a great dominion indeed."

"many will rise up against the king of the South"

"When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living. I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD."

"The people of Israel will be like wanderers in other nations"

[txag007]

Context. Context. Context.

The prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled in very specific ways, so much so that it cannot be said that they were just lucky guesses. And if they were lucky guesses, it was thousands of lucky guesses that were made.

You said you've made dozens of similar prophecies that have come true. Let's hear them.

[txag007]

"There is, of course, overwhelming scientific evidence that at least significant parts of the Bible are false, such that the Earth is only tens of thousands of years old, or that there was a global flood, etc. Many (if not most) believers simply "interpret" away those inconsistencies, but if you do that, it makes no sense to appeal to physical evidence in the first place."

You are wrong about this. Overwhelming, you say? Let's look at your examples:

1. The Bible never claims that the Earth is tens of thousands of years old. If you are referring to "young earth creationism", this is a theory that is clearly not Biblical and a view that most Christians do not hold.

2. The Bible does not teach that the Genesis flood was global. In fact, Psalms 104 clearly teaches that the flood was not global. If by "interpret away" you mean going back to the original Hebrew so that we may have a better understanding of the meaning of certain Scriptures, then yes, this is what we do. The same would be done by any intelligent investigator of any other piece of literature or historical document. Why should we treat the Bible differently?

Speaking specifically of our "interpretation" of Genesis, the words that are translated into English as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are "kol" (which means all) and "erets" (which means earth). Look elsewhere in Genesis to see how these same words are used and you will find that they describe the flow of a river around the whole (kol) land (erets). Thus, we interpret "kol erets" to be a local description. This means, if we stay consistent to the original Hebrew, that the writer of Genesis was referring to a flood that covered a local area not the entire earth.

Did you say overwhelming?

[David Sklansky]

". The Bible never claims that the Earth is tens of thousands of years old. If you are referring to "young earth creationism", this is a theory that is clearly not Biblical and a view that most Christians do not hold.

2. The Bible does not teach that the Genesis flood was global. In fact, Psalms 104 clearly teaches that the flood was not global."

So what denomination are you?

[txag007]

"So what denomination are you?"

Baptist

[David Sklansky]

That's between BluffTHIS and Not Ready, right?

[txag007]

I want to say something so as not to mislead anyone. After some further research, I believe I was mistaken when I said that the flood was not a global event. It's very possible that it was.

[bluesbassman]

"You are wrong about this. Overwhelming, you say? Let's look at your examples:"

I claim there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and no global flood has ever occurred. Thus you "interpret" away these obvious contradictions and claim the Bible never indicates a young Earth or global flood. (In another post you admit there "might" have been a global flood, despite lack of evidence.)

These are just two examples. The Old Testament also gives the lifespan of Adam and other men at 900+ years, which also obviously contradicts reality. I'm sure you'll interpret away that scientific impossibility as well.

My point of all this is that belief in Christianity or any other religion is not based on rational evidence, but rather upon faith. The honest believer will admit this and move on.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
"You are wrong about this. Overwhelming, you say? Let's look at your examples:"

I claim there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and no global flood has ever occurred. Thus you "interpret" away these obvious contradictions and claim the Bible never indicates a young Earth or global flood. (In another post you admit there "might" have been a global flood, despite lack of evidence.)

These are just two examples. The Old Testament also gives the lifespan of Adam and other men at 900+ years, which also obviously contradicts reality. I'm sure you'll interpret away that scientific impossibility as well.

My point of all this is that belief in Christianity or any other religion is not based on rational evidence, but rather upon faith. The honest believer will admit this and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like any explanation (no matter how rational) for the objections keeping you in unbelief will be regarded as "interpretting away" and immediately discarded. Finding the truth requires an objectivity.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
The Old Testament also gives the lifespan of Adam and other men at 900+ years, which also obviously contradicts reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

What reality? This reality?

How do you know Humans were 'capped' at 120-ish years from the beginning?

The Torah says God said "My spirit will not always be with man" (or something to that effect) and that man will only live to 120ish years IIRC.

From then, you see the generations after Adam live shorter lifes, until you get to Jacob, Joeseph et al not living past 120 IIRC.

Now either this was:

a) An elaborate tale by Moses (assumed author of Torah) to construct a story of why humans rarely live past 120 years (even less now in the postmodern world) to convince people to follow his faith.

b) That current science many not be wholly applicable to things in the past that can't be verified. (ie- measuring today against yesterday)

It is unwise to draw hard conclusions from what we know know about what was said and done then - especiall the things that can't be verified. I'm not saying we shouldn't use our reason or scientific achievements, but one would be wise to keep an open mind about things we don't know with 100% certainty.

Here's a scenario:

Levi & Fred are both great scientists, top of their field. Fred is an atheist who violently opposes Christianity and attacks it at every turn, wheras Levi is a practicing orthodox Jew and goes to temple and studies the Torah.

Levi knows that his faith requires him to believe some of the things in the Torah that seem 'fantastic', and this is sometimes difficult considering his profession and faith in science, but nevertheless he reserves his judgement, believes it, keeps and open mind, and worships G-d, but also praises science and the good it has done for humanity.

Fred rather spends his Friday nights praising science while attacking Christianity on the internet, and ofcourse that means that the Torah gets slammed in the process as it is part of the "Old Testament" which Fred has not read fully, or even 10% of. (like most atheists who attack a religion who learn only the basic contradicitons, fantasy, and exegesis from other atheists)

Both men die, God existed and the Torah was true, who benefits?

Levi.

Both men excelled in their fields and praised science but science offered nothing outside itself, specifically in the area of afterlife of which we have no way of verifying is 100% true or false. Thus Levi profits and for all Fred's time spent bashing a religion he now faces Sheol(hades)/Hell depending on the details of God.

Food for thought.