Atheist Discussion

“Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?” (Num. 20:10; see also Exod. 17:6; Deut. 8:15; Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:16,20, 105:21, 114:8; Isa. 48:21).

Colin Humphreys is the Goldsmiths’ Professor of Materials Science at Cambridge University and Professor of Experimental Physics at the Royal Institution in London. He has published more than 500 papers on electron microscopy, semiconductors, metals, and superconductors. He is also a past president of the physics section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. To get water from a rock, I cite material from his article “Science and the Miracles of Exodus”:

Quote:For a rock to give out water it has to be able to store water, so it has to be porous. Do porous rocks exist? The answer is yes, and porous rocks like sandstone and limestone can absorb huge quantities of water from rain. In fact, when they are underground we use them as aquifers, natural reservoirs of water, and we sink wells and bore-holes into them to extract the water.

If porous rocks, such as sandstone and limestone, are above ground, rainwater isn’t normally stored in them: it flows out through the pores. However, in a desert region . . . porous rocks . . . can develop a hard impervious crust, rather like cement. . . . If the crust of a porous rock is broken by a sharp blow, water can indeed flow out. . . .

We have seen that Moses obtaining water from a rock violates no physical laws. The biblical story fits what we know from science.' (Europhysics News, May/June 2005)

We know that sandstone and limestone are porous and can contain water. The Bible refers to “flint” in this regard twice (Deut. 8:15; Ps. 114:8). It could be that this was a reference to it being mixed with limestone or chalk, since this is often how it occurs in nature. Sandstone, shale, and limestone are common in the Sinai Peninsula. Porous sandstone is “widespread in the northern Gulf area.” (“Sinai Peninsula: An Overview of Geology and Thermal Groundwater Potentialities”: pages 25–38 of the book by Mohamed Ragaie El Tahlawi, Thermal and Mineral Waters [New York: Springer, 2014])

Granite is predominant in the southern Sinai Peninsula (where Mt. Sinai is located), but there is still water to be had (from rocks at that!). Arie S. Issar, professor emeritus in the Department of Environmental Hydrology and Microbiology at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, is the author of "Water Shall Flow from the Rock: Hydrogeology and Climate in the Lands of the Bible." A description of this book illustrates how it supports the opinions promulgated in this section, about “water from a rock”:

Quote:Many times when the author saw the Bedouins of southern Sinai excavate their wells in the crystalline rocks, from which this part of the peninsula is built, the story of Moses striking the rock to get water came to mind. The reader will, indeed, find in this book the description for a rather simple method by which to strike the rock to get water in the wilderness of Sinai. Yet this method was not invented by the author nor by any other modern hydrogeologist, but was a method that the author learned from the Bedouins living in the crystalline mountains of southern Sinai. 

Thus, once we become acquainted with this scientific (geophysical) information, it’s reasonable to hold that some or even all of these “water-drawing” incidents can be explained naturally. But of course, it’s always possible that God led Moses and others to specific places where this phenomenon occurred.

He didn't. He didn't exist.

Next question.

Did he use his majik staff?


Dave, did Moses have majik abilities?

This one didn't stick either. Really grasping at straws. Please try again.

(not really)

Dave pm button is missing. That means he’s a coward and has me on ignore, right?


Coward

Career troll or deeply deranged?

How does Dave know that someone wasn't standing above the rock pissing on it?

It COULD have happened that way!

How come Palpatine could fool Anakin, but not Luke?

You may be able to get water from a rock, but you can't get blood from a stone. Still, some people will try.

Nor can you get sense from a religitard.

(01-06-2024, 11:40 PM)Inkubus Wrote: [ -> ]Career troll or deeply deranged?

Sincerely mistaken.

After looking at the totality of his output here it is basically, "Here's a convoluted way by which this thing COULD have happened, and I'm going to gallop to the conclusion that this means (1) it happened and (2) everything else in the account therefore happened." I don't see any arguing from first principles and in fact at one point IIRC he said he doesn't do that as no one takes such arguments seriously when he attempts them (apparently this isn't an indication that his arguments are unconvincing because they're faulty). Everything seems to be motivated reasoning all the way down ... the a priori assumption that his version / understanding of the interventionist god exists and is accurately represented in the Bible, and then grasping at any available straw to show that it COULD have happened.

I mean Moses striking the rock was absolutely presented as miraculous outcome of using god's power residing in his staff. And as further confirmation of the story having this intent, Moses was subsequently punished by god for using that power in anger. To argue that the rock held enough water for the multitude to drink by some mechanism that might occasionally serve to quench the thirst of one or a few persons is just ... stretchy, as well as undermining the clear intent of the account to present it as the miraculous outcome of applying supernatural powers. Dave's naturalistic explanation means the he or I or Inkubus could accomplish exactly the same result without deploying religious faith or belief.

The problem in dealing with atheists is that even when we are prone to a logical fallacy, one of them isn't likely to be motivated reasoning FOR god. The fact that he leads with this anyway, and seems to resist other potential approaches, suggests that it's all he has: hope that a particular unbeliever still somewhere deep inside WANTS to believe, and then try to draw that out of them.

(01-07-2024, 04:36 PM)mordant Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2024, 11:40 PM)Inkubus Wrote: [ -> ]Career troll or deeply deranged?

Sincerely mistaken.

After looking at the totality of his output here it is basically, "Here's a convoluted way by which this thing COULD have happened, and I'm going to gallop to the conclusion that this means (1) it happened and (2) everything else in the account therefore happened." I don't see any arguing from first principles and in fact at one point IIRC he said he doesn't do that as no one takes such arguments seriously when he attempts them (apparently this isn't an indication that his arguments are unconvincing because they're faulty). Everything seems to be motivated reasoning all the way down ... the a priori assumption that his version / understanding of the interventionist god exists and is accurately represented in the Bible, and then grasping at any available straw to show that it COULD have happened.

I mean Moses striking the rock was absolutely presented as miraculous outcome of using god's power residing in his staff. And as further confirmation of the story having this intent, Moses was subsequently punished by god for using that power in anger. To argue that the rock held enough water for the multitude to drink by some mechanism that might occasionally serve to quench the thirst of one or a few persons is just ... stretchy, as well as undermining the clear intent of the account to present it as the miraculous outcome of applying supernatural powers. Dave's naturalistic explanation means the he or I or Inkubus could accomplish exactly the same result without deploying religious faith or belief.

The problem in dealing with atheists is that even when we are prone to a logical fallacy, one of them isn't likely to be motivated reasoning FOR god. The fact that he leads with this anyway, and seems to resist other potential approaches, suggests that it's all he has: hope that a particular unbeliever still somewhere deep inside WANTS to believe, and then try to draw that out of them.

It's just fucking troll and pretty obvious one at that. He is interested in shiting and barfing all over the place and nothing else, certainly not anything approaching discussion.

(01-07-2024, 04:36 PM)mordant Wrote: [ -> ]I mean Moses striking the rock was absolutely presented as miraculous outcome of using god's power residing in his staff. And as further confirmation of the story having this intent, Moses was subsequently punished by god for using that power in anger. . . .  the clear intent of the account to present it as the miraculous outcome of applying supernatural powers. 

Here are the passages about Moses drawing water from rocks:

Quote:Exodus 17:6 (RSV) "Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, that the people may drink." And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Numbers 20:7-12 and the LORD said to Moses, [8] "Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water; so you shall bring water out of the rock for them; so you shall give drink to the congregation and their cattle." [9] And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. [10] And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?" [11] And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle. [12] And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them."

Deuteronomy 8:14-15 . . . the LORD your God, . . . [15] who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water, who brought you water out of the flinty rock,

Nehemiah 9:15 Thou didst give them bread from heaven for their hunger and bring forth water for them from the rock for their thirst, 

Psalm 78:16, 20 He made streams come out of the rock, and caused waters to flow down like rivers. . . . [20] He smote the rock so that water gushed out and streams overflowed. . . . 

Psalm 105:41 He opened the rock, and water gushed forth; it flowed through the desert like a river.

Psalm 114:8 who turns the rock into a pool of water, the flint into a spring of water.

Isaiah 48:21 They thirsted not when he led them through the deserts; he made water flow for them from the rock; he cleft the rock and the water gushed out.

I think it's certainly possible to interpret these events as supernatural, but not necessarily so. In my opinion, exegesis of these texts do not absolutely require a supernatural explanation, and they are compatible with the explanation I have proffered.

God became angry with Moses (Num 20:7-12) because 1) he didn't follow His instructions, which were to "tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water" as opposed to striking the rock, and 2) because he gave himself the glory rather than giving it to God, Who had led him to the place where water would come out ("shall we bring forth water for you . . .?"). A "physical" supernatural explanation isn't required because of the reasons I gave in my original article: the land they were in had water within its rocks, which has been proven by science and simple observation.

It can still be regarded as supernatural, however, in the sense that God led Moses to places (e.g., Horeb: Ex 17:6) where God knew that the water was naturally present in the pores of the rocks. It could also be the case when Moses merely spoke to the rock, that God intended to either supernaturally cause it to come out at that instant, or knew (knowing everything) that it was going to come out (naturally) at the time Moses spoke to the rock, and in that particular place. Moses hitting the rock twice in anger exhibited a disbelief in God, Who would have made the water gush forth when Moses simply spoke to the rock. Hitting it not just once but twice was in effect making a statement: "I am doing this merely of my own power, and can do it anywhere I like," whereas the truth was that God was leading him to the right places. It wasn't just Moses picking any old rock that he pleased and striking it. In other words, even though water can be found in rocks in the Sinai Peninsula, it's not in absolutely every rock in every place.

The passages about God causing it sound like He supernaturally caused it to happen (in the physical sense) but it's not required within a Christian framework. In the Bible, there is often multiple causation, with God as the primary cause and persons as a secondary cause, as His agents, so to speak. So the last six passages above that state that God brought the water out of the rock have to be understood in light of the first two, where He used Moses as the agent for His purpose and showed him where to draw the water. This is how they are easily logically harmonized.

In a similar way there are many passages saying that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" and several others that say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Both are true, in different senses. In a literal sense, Pharaoh did it. In a different sense, God did by allowing it to happen in His Providence by virtue of man's free will, which in this instance was accomplishing God's purpose (to free the Hebrews from slavery).

How many majik staffs were available back in Moses days?

@Dave Armstrong

It's also possible, and most likely, that the story is nothing more than heroic fiction. There's no evidence that the Exodus ever took place.

Didn’t the bad guy have a snake staff that killed Yahwehs snake?

Did you enjoy your copy-pasta? Did something get hardened while you copy-pasta-ed?

(01-07-2024, 09:11 PM)Gwaithmir Wrote: [ -> ]@Dave Armstrong

It's also possible, and most likely, that the story is nothing more than heroic fiction. There's no evidence that the Exodus ever took place.

In fact, there is significant evidence, and in my book I detail a lot of it. As I have noted, Oxford University Press thought it was serious enough to be willing to publish two books about it, from archaeologist James Hoffmeier (580 pages altogether). That's not "no evidence." It's at the very least a scholarly case -- whether one agrees with it or not -- put forth by a qualified archaeologist.

Your book means nothing. The oh so precious buybull, is a crock of shit!

Quote:In fact, there is significant evidence,

There is NO evidence.  There is merely the bleating of believers which is hardly evidence, except of their own willingness to self-delude.

You know, there is a whole cottage industry of clowns who insist that aliens visited earth so they could pile up limestone into huge monuments and lots of people buy their books.  It's a lucrative scam.

So is religion.

(01-07-2024, 09:43 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2024, 09:11 PM)Gwaithmir Wrote: [ -> ]@Dave Armstrong

It's also possible, and most likely, that the story is nothing more than heroic fiction. There's no evidence that the Exodus ever took place.

In fact, there is significant evidence, and in my book I detail a lot of it. As I have noted, Oxford University Press thought it was serious enough to be willing to publish two books about it, from archaeologist James Hoffmeier (580 pages altogether). That's not "no evidence." It's at the very least a scholarly case -- whether one agrees with it or not -- put forth by a qualified archaeologist.

Quote:Prof. Hoffmeier states from the very beginning of his book that there is in fact no archaeological or physical evidence to prove that the Exodus tradition is true.

(01-07-2024, 10:00 PM)Dānu Wrote: [ -> ]Prof. Hoffmeier states from the very beginning of his book that there is in fact no archaeological or physical evidence to prove that the Exodus tradition is true.

Please provide a direct quote with documentation, so we can know what we're talking about and examine it in context. Thanks!

(01-07-2024, 10:10 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2024, 10:00 PM)Dānu Wrote: [ -> ]Prof. Hoffmeier states from the very beginning of his book that there is in fact no archaeological or physical evidence to prove that the Exodus tradition is true.

Please provide a direct quote with documentation, so we can know what we're talking about and examine it in context. Thanks!

No.

https://www.academia.edu/30803366


You might have to sign up for Academia.edu to read this, I don't know.  I've been on it for years.

The conclusion of Finkelstein's paper cited above.

Quote:The work of these Priestly authors gave the Exodus tradition its final shape, and ultimate importance in Jewish and Western tradition, far beyond its modest beginning in the lowlands of Canaan and then the highlands of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.The Exodus-wandering tradition is therefore the final product of many centuries of accumulation and growth, first oral and then written, with a complex history of redactions in the light of changing political and historical realities.

In other words, the work of men....men with an agenda...not any fucking 'god.'

(01-07-2024, 10:11 PM)Dānu Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2024, 10:10 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: [ -> ]Please provide a direct quote with documentation, so we can know what we're talking about and examine it in context. Thanks!

No.

Well that's interesting. So you just pulled that out of a hat?