The Exodus Argument

Oftentimes believers will try to convince atheists the bible is written by God because it contains some historical facts. Here’s a logical breakdown of that an argument like that:

106. ARGUMENT FROM EXODUS
(1) If the Exodus story has any basis in historical fact, then God exists.
(2) Some guy found some chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea.
(3) There is absolutely no other way that chariots could get to the bottom of the Red Sea.
(4) This means the Exodus story is true.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

(source)

Not very convincing, is it?

This entry was posted in Bible, Christianity, Fundamentalism, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Exodus Argument

  1. Boomcoach says:

    1) Harry Potter books mention London
    2) London exists
    3) Hogwarts exists

    No logical flaws there, they must be right!

  2. Reginald Selkirk says:

    It was probably a wooden or bronze chariot. If the Egyptians had chariots of iron, they would have creamed the Israelites and their god.

  3. mikespeir says:

    I thought there was some serious doubt about whether those were really chariot wheels.

    • wintermute says:

      Where “some doubt” means that the one guy who found them thinks they’re chariot wheels, and everyone else in the world knows that they’re just coral accretions that just happen to be sort of round, if you cross your eyes and squint.

      This is the same guy who claims to have found Noah’s Arc, the trumpet that knocked down Jericho and who-knows-what-else, so I don’t think he’s the most credible witness.

  4. cypressgreen says:

    *banging head on desk*

  5. Andrew TIllman says:

    If they are Christian, just hit them with the fact that they just proved that the Quran was written by God. The Exodus story is in there as well. As is many of the biblical stories, including the virgin birth of Jesus and many of his miracles.

  6. lurker111 says:

    The one glaring omission in Exodus is the lack of the name of the pharaoh involved. For such a momentous event (had it, in fact, occurred), you’d think that this name would have practically become part of the DNA of the Israelites. (The “Ramses” of the Ten Commandments movie was scriptic license.)

    • Custador says:

      You’d think there’d be archaeological evidence of an exodus that big, but hey ho, “religion” and “evidence” are fairly well divorced from one another!

    • Reginald Selkirk says:

      The Israelites knew the account would be immortalized in the Torah/bible, so it was an act of disrespect not to name him.

  7. Ty says:

    This same argument proves that the gods of the Greek pantheon exist.

    Hell, they found Troy,

  8. Nelly says:

    they’ve found fish fossils in the middle of the desert too

    so?

  9. Lisa S says:

    …And yet, I can see lightning…therefore, Zeus exists…

  10. PsiCop says:

    Another problem with Exodus and the tradition that the “pharaoh” of Exodus is Ramses II “the Great,” is the timing of it all. You see, Egypt and the Hittite empire was at war during that time. This war was a long one which spanned c. a century. Although it was not continuously fought for an entire century … neither state could field that many troops that long … there was, nevertheless, recurring violence all through Canaan and what is now Syria and Cilicia, for most of that time. It featured perhaps the single largest battle that ever took place in the ancient world, the Battle of Kadesh (1274 or 75).

    As this protracted conflict progressed, the native city-states in the regions between these two empires whipsawed back and forth between allegiance with Egypt and with Hattusas. In addition to fighting between the imperial armies, there was also a little warfare-by-proxy; the city-states sometimes even skirmished with one another, stifled each other’s trade routes, etc. when encouraged to do so by their overlords in Egypt or Hattusas. If the tradition about Exodus is correct, this means the ancient Hebrews — once they arrived in Canaan — marched themselves into the very heart of a war zone. There is no way they could have avoided being embroiled in ongoing conflicts, both with the empires and the native city-states.

    Nevertheless, Exodus makes no mention of Hattusas having any serious power in the region, even though during this war, they sporadically did. Although Joshua and the judges led them to victory over the native city-states, no direct conflict with either empire is mentioned. None of this very large, and very unavoidable, conflict is mentioned in Exodus … not even in passing.

    Quite the opposite, Exodus suggests that the only major power in Canaan at the time was Egypt, but that Egypt had utterly collapsed after the Hebrews’ departure and no longer was a player. This is historically untrue. As it turned out, Hattusas weakened in the next couple centuries, meaning that Egypt was, for a time, able to hold sway over the area — until the end of the 20th Dynasty in the early 12th century BCE.

    Thus, Exodus doesn’t reflect the Levant as it was in Ramses II’s time. Not even close. It is, rather, much closer to — say — the 13th century BCE or so. And really, it doesn’t even reflect that very well; after the end of the New Kingdom in Egypt, and due to the fact that the Anatolian powers had not really built themselves up yet, some of the coastal city-states (first Ugarit to the north of Canaan, then some of the Phoenician cities) became ascendant around that time. Yet they barely factor into the Old Testament history at all. In fact, Exodus doesn’t fit exactly with ANY known period of Canaan’s history.

    Everything about the Old Testament as “history” shows a great deal of cherry-picking and stylized representations, compared to other, known, history. Since the goal of these texts was to metaphorically demonstrate the superiority and power of the Hebrews under JHWH — rather than to accurately describe exactly what happened, as it happened — this is quite understandable. Nevertheless, it means we cannot take any part of the Old Testament, least of all Exodus, as “history,” without some serious reservations.

  11. The Nihilist says:

    I was having drinks with a bloke one time and we got onto the topic of religion. He is a devout Catholic. Notably, he also holds degrees in philosophy and psychology from a well respected Australian university. We were discussing the existence of God and he proclaimed rather assuredly, “What about the piece of the ark they found?” I stopped him.

    “Ok. Ok.” I said. “Let’s assume for a moment that they did find something that resembled a piece of the ark (I am not familiar with this fact, so gave him the benefit of the doubt – not that it mattered), this is what you’re saying…”

    1. The ark was mentioned in the bible.
    2. The bible is claimed to be historical proof for the existence of God.
    3. They found a piece of the ark.
    4. Therefore, God exists.

    I ran this logic passed him. He accepted it. I bid him a good night and walked away from the wingnut. And to think, he was a student of philosophy.

  12. Lee says:

    This just goes to show how people will latch on to anything that might even remotely seem to support what they have already decided to be true.

    The most rediculous argument I’ve heard recently for the existence of God was posted by a guy I know who recently converted to calvinist christianity:

    1. Objective morals cannot exist apart from God
    2. Objective morals do exist
    3. Therefore God exists

    Are you freaking kidding me?! So w/o belief in God, I have no reason to consider the harm someone may do to me as immoral? Are you serious?! Objective morals are rooted in our natural abhorrence of pain. I don’t need God for that.

  13. Karl says:

    The finder of the “wheels” in the Red Sea was Ron Wyatt. A Seventh Day Adventist con-artist who bilked a lot of people and churches out of a whole lot of money. Odd thing about Ron, he was challenged many times before he died, to support his claims of the wheels, Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, Sodom and Gomorrah, Mt. Sinai, and other claims he made through out the years.

    Not one factual shred of objective evidence was ever presented.

    Over on the Usenet group, alt.atheism, we suffered through years of torment by a joker who swore that Ron The Con, was legit. He used the wheels argument thousands of times. Yet, when asked if the “wheels” could have gotten there by ship wreck, this joker waved his hands and beat round the bush enough to create a cyclone. A couple of years ago, he claimed to have a HD video of the survey work he’d been on at the Noah’s Ark site. Odd thing, when examining the video he linked to on YouTube, (After months of people calling him a liar because he would not post the link), we learned that the video actually belonged to someone else.

    Liars for Jeebus, become thieves, very quickly it seems.

  14. nazani14 says:

    I think it is extremely likely that, unless you are a full-blooded Greenland Eskimo or an Australian Aborigine, you are a descendant of Ramses the Great. (And here I pause to contemplate perhaps the least-appropriately named product of all time.)

    Seriously, though, I don’t have any problem thinking that there may have been Canaanite or proto-Hebrew slaves in Egypt, or that they might have been monotheistic, ot that they might have been “asked” to leave the country.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129100250.htm
    http://www.jstor.org/pss/3853992

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>