Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[AV1611VET]

Quite simply, God did it. Case closed.

Excellent post, Meshach --- check your reps ---

I think what's confusing these guys, is that they think the writer of Genesis 1 thought the sky was some kind of iron dome or something, and that there was no Water Canopy that came crashing down to earth in Noah's time as hydrometeors (rain).

Then they don't understand it when they hear us talking about the entire earth being flooded.

In short, they manufacture their own misunderstandings.

I call these things "mental blocks" --- and believe me, I know how they work, as I used to be a pretty serious Chess player.

Losing pieces "out of thin air" is not the way to win a tournament.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, it's called being to proud to admit that one's beliefs have some flaws in them.

Not being able to locate the amount of water that existed at the height of Noah's Flood does not constitute a flaw.

When we understand Who sent the water, we don't need to wonder Who took it away.

 

[TheBlueBlurr]

Not being able to locate the amount of water that existed at the height of Noah's Flood does not constitute a flaw.

When we understand Who sent the water, we don't need to wonder Who took it away.

Of course it does

 

[CoderHead]

I agree, it has no Biblical basis, but which sounds worse:

1. The Flood waters were removed to Neptune.
2. The Flood didn't happen.

Which sounds worse? Number 1, because it's made up off the top of someone's head with no basis.

 

[CoderHead]

I think what's confusing these guys, is that they think the writer of Genesis 1 thought the sky was some kind of iron dome or something, and that there was no Water Canopy that came crashing down to earth in Noah's time as hydrometeors (rain).

The amount of rain that would have had to come "crashing down" (to use your words) would have been so large that Noah, his family, and all the air-breathing animals in the ark would have had to sprout gills in order to survive.

Why is it so hard for you to recognize a fictional story with a moral? Biblical literalism can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which sounds worse? Number 1, because it's made up off the top of someone's head with no basis.

At least I hypothesized an answer.

Would you like me to start answering everything with "God did it"?

Then you guys can go back to complaining that we aren't "thinking outside the box".

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not being able to locate the amount of water that existed at the height of Noah's Flood does not constitute a flaw.

Inventing evidence to justify a belief in a myth certainly does.

When we understand Who sent the water, we don't need to wonder Who took it away.

This would be you invoking your "last resort" as always, AV.

 

[CoderHead]

At least I hypothesized an answer.

Would you like me to start answering everything with "God did it"?

Then you guys can go back to complaining that we aren't "thinking outside the box".

Actually, it would be refreshing if all of the people who believe "Goddidit" would all hold the same views on the same source material. If you want to use "Goddidit" as your answer for everything, that's fine. Just so long as you preface it with, "I don't know." What good is making things up doing anyone?

Let's say you ask me, "Why is a carrot orange?" and I tell you, "Because that makes them more appealing to orangutans." Does that further your knowledge at all? "Hypothesizing an answer" is not helpful. Please stop.

 

[AV1611VET]

The amount of rain that would have had to come "crashing down" (to use your words) would have been so large that Noah, his family, and all the air-breathing animals in the ark would have had to sprout gills in order to survive.

No, it wouldn't.

Sometime ago, I started a thread on how far away from the earth the Water Canopy would have to be, for it to do two things:

1. Raise the level of water on the earth by 5 miles.
2. Have a thickness of 1 cm.

I got excellent replies, until someone (Wiccan Child?) pointed out that not all of the water came from the canopy; it also came from the earth as well.

Duh! How do you think I felt? About as small as the period at the end of this sentence.

A rookie mistake on my part.

(In fact, here's the thread: 1.)

Why is it so hard for you to recognize a fictional story with a moral?

I'm trained as a literalist, and there's no way on earth I would even think of taking the Bible any other way.

I don't see you guys arguing with allegorists, it's the literalists who are at the forefront of the battle.

And that's because a literal interpretation forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit as to what It's saying.

You can't do that with allegorists, who use their own interpretations as the final authority for what is said.

Biblical literalism can take a hike.

If it did, would you guys even be here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Inventing evidence to justify a belief in a myth certainly does.

What evidence?

My Boolean Standards force me to admit that all evidence was removed; with perhaps the exception of the Grand Canyon.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Which sounds worse? Number 1, because it's made up off the top of someone's head with no basis.

And leads to all sorts of asinine "ad lib" garbage.

 

[Nathan Poe]

At least I hypothesized an answer.

Did you bother to do any thinking about the ramifications of that answer?

Would you like me to start answering everything with "God did it"?

It would save time.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What evidence?

What water canopy?

My Boolean Standards force me to admit that all evidence was removed; with perhaps the exception of the Grand Canyon.

That's pride, AV -- not standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to use "Goddidit" as your answer for everything, that's fine. Just so long as you preface it with, "I don't know."

What?

Saying "in my opinion", or "this is just a pet theory of mine" isn't good enough?

I have to say the words, "I don't know"?

What good is making things up doing anyone?

You Internet scientists don't have a monopoly on hypothesizing.

Let's say you ask me, "Why is a carrot orange?" and I tell you, "Because that makes them more appealing to orangutans." Does that further your knowledge at all?

It depends --- at least it points me in a direction that can be investigated.

If I rebutted your answer like you guys rebut ours, I would simply say, "I don't believe in orangutans, hence they don't exist."

Or, "Carotene is proof that orangutans aren't orangutans."

Or some other such nonsense.

"Hypothesizing an answer" is not helpful. Please stop.

No, thanks.

Last I checked, you guys don't have a monopoly on hypothesizing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you bother to do any thinking about the ramifications of that answer?

As a matter of fact, I did.

Dad's "canals on Mars" wasn't good enough, and so I posited "beacons on Neptune."

Either way, it beats "The Flood didn't happen."

From my standpoint, a person who answers, "A pet theory of mine, is that the water went to..." has more respect with me than, "It didn't happen."

It would save time.

I don't think that's what you guys are here for.

Like I said, if we all just started answering, "God did it", you guys wouldn't be here --- (in my opinion).

 

[CoderHead]

Saying "in my opinion", or "this is just a pet theory of mine" isn't good enough?

Obviously you think that having a pet theory earns you some kind of respect. I suppose it might, if your pet theory were based on something other than "ad lib answers." Why do you figure saying, "oh, I guess it could be this" is more helpful than saying, "I don't know?" By injecting your ad lib answers into the conversation, you could actually be leading people astray...and that's something the Bible very strictly warned you not to do. Correct?

By saying, "I don't know," you've let the other person know that they're not going to get the answer from you and they can then begin looking elsewhere for answers...and they may find the answer instead of mindlessly believing some drivel about Neptune and angels who live on stars.

 

[AV1611VET]

By saying, "I don't know," you've let the other person know that they're not going to get the answer from you and they can then begin looking elsewhere for answers...and they may find the answer instead of mindlessly believing some drivel about Neptune and angels who live on stars.

I've been here long enough to know that saying, "I don't know" leads to admonitions to learn to think "outside the box".

I also know that many questions are of the nature that is not [expressly] covered by the Scriptures.

Like I said before, you guys think you're going to paint me into a corner with such questions as:

1. Where did the Flood waters go?
2. How could the Ark withstand the stresses of a global flood?
3. Where did the animals get their food?
4. etc.

... and I don't just lay down and claim, "I don't know" to everything.

And in my opinion, it confuses you guys, because you weren't expecting it.

 

[Freodin]

I've been here long enough to know that saying, "I don't know" leads to admonitions to learn to think "outside the box".

I also know that many questions are of the nature that is not [expressly] covered by the Scriptures.

Like I said before, you guys think you're going to paint me into a corner with such questions as:

1. Where did the Flood waters go?
2. How could the Ark withstand the stresses of a global flood?
3. Where did the animals get their food?
4. etc.

... and I don't just lay down and claim, "I don't know" to everything.

And in my opinion, it confuses you guys, because you weren't expecting it.

Well, not knowing and still making up claims is not a good way to debate.

 

[CoderHead]

Well, not knowing and still making up claims is not a good way to debate.

It's certainly no way to teach either.

 

[Freodin]

The men of Noah's time, in their philosophy and worldly wisdom, thought God could not destroy the world with a flood, for the waters of the ocean could not be sufficient for this. But God made the philosophy and science of men foolishness when the time had fully come to execute his word. The inspired pen describes the earth as standing out of the water and in the water. God had his weapons concealed in the bowels of the earth to compass her destruction. And when the great men and the wise men had reasoned before the world of the impossibility of its destruction by water, and the fears of the people were quieted, and all regarded Noah's prophecy as the veriest delusion, and looked upon Noah as a crazy fanatic, God's time had come. He hid Noah and his family in the ark, and the rain began to descend, slowly at first; the jeers and scoffings did not cease for a time, but soon the waters from heaven united with the waters of the great deep; the waters under the earth burst through the earth's surface, and the windows of heaven were opened, and man with all his philosophy and so called science, finds that he had not been able in his worldly wisdom to comprehend God. He found too late that his wisdom was foolishness; that the Lawgiver is greater than the laws of nature. The hand of omnipotence is at no loss for ways and means to accomplish his purposes.

Quite simply, God did it. Case closed.

I have to admit that this is one thing - really the only thing - that I sometimes regret at being an atheist.

When the debate is stuck, and - by my fault or by the stubborness of my opponent - I cannot make headway, I cannot simply rely on my divine master to simply kill those stupid and evil beings that dare disagree with me.

Not that I (often) would want to. I´d rather convince my opponents than slay them. But I can feel the appeal of such a position.

Killing is just soooo much more easy than convincing.