jar writes:
Well, I'm a theist and so let's look at your argument as presented above through a theist's eyes.
Maybe I took too much for granted, but I hoped that when I said "theist" it was understood that I meant "theist that believes that the Exodus supports a belief in God".
Well, hopefully I've clarified it now.
jar writes:
First issue, item three is not sound. as I point out in the response above, if one story of a collection of stories even by the same author happened to be shown to be factually true, it does not imply that a different story even by the same author is factually true.
And the reverse is true too. A false story does not prove a whole book wrong.
A person's
belief in the bible being true could be brought into doubt if someone showed that it isn't all true.
But if others fail to prove that the bible contains false information, then all believers can continue to believe.
A lack of disproof allows believers to continue to believe everything in the bible.
And most people don't like having to change their beliefs - it tends to cause cognitive dissonance.
(Granted, a completely irrational person wouldn't care either way - even if the pope found a missing page saying "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.")
jar writes:
Even if the Exodus could be confirmed (and so far I have not seen anyone present a way to confirm that the Exodus even happened), all that it can show is that one particular event is true.
But if you were defending your bible from people claiming that "The exodus never happened therefore your bible is wrong!" then evidence of the exodus would be very welcome.
I think the exodus issue is often meant to break the 'inerrant' bible claims (mainly made by 'literalists').
But IMHO I don't think it is much use for anything else.
Edited by Panda, : used wrong word