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.