Noah’s Flood Confirmed...?

[TheReasoner]

Can you empirically demonstrate in "creation" that a dead man can be restored to life after being dead and buried for three days?

If not, then why do you believe it happened?

If everything in "creation' shows this to be impossible, does this mean then that you obviously don't listen to what God has told us through His creation?

Again I ask, is there a double standard here, or what?

Fallacious. No double standard is present. "Cannot be explained" is not the same as "is falsified". In the case of the virgin birth and the resurrection we have a single event which may or may not be explained with natural laws - whichever it ends up being has no say on whether or not it is God's doing.
Regardless they are both singular events of a 'size' so to speak which has left too small of an imprint on the world around us - physically speaking - to be measurable and testable with our current (probably any conceivable) technology and hence cannot be said to be falsifiable in any case. That said I do believe the accounts from the day, i.e. the apostles' accounts/descriptions of what happened.

However, when it comes to creation we're talking about an event which is by it's very nature something which will have defined the universe in which we live. And as for a young earth creation it is as thoroughly falsified as anything CAN be.

So as for Jesus' miracles and His birth, death and resurrection these are events which are not at this point testable and special cases might be able to explain them. But we may never know the mechanics behind said events. The creation is a different matter entirely.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's see your interpretation of what nature teaches here:

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Please tell us what this verse is saying -- (whether you agree with it or not).

.

 

[Doveaman]

So, because of this question, you're led to conclude that there really was a guy with a bunch of animals, on a magical, invincible zoo-box for 12 months? Why do you jump to not just the mot improbable understanding, but the impossible? You don't consider hyperbole as a possibility? Interpretation?

Again - hyperbole? Interpretation? Artistic license? Or even the idea that another hill or mountain went by the same name at the time? Or since the bible doesn't actually say Mt Ararat, but the "mountains of", that it could have been a much smaller hill that was a part of the mountain range.

And most importantly, why not entertain the possibility that the bulk of the bible flood is a story, mostly embellished from a real-life natural disaster? After all, there are other tellingly similar folk tales and accounts that actually predate the bible.

This explanation is a bit to speculative and only complicates the story, so we'll take Occam's advise and keep it simple - global flood.

 

[sandwiches]

Um ... you do know that some claim that Chinese writing is patterned after Christian symbols; do you not?

And you do know that the Japenese, while rejecting Christianity, worshiped their swords, and thus paid the penalty when they refused to trade their swords for rifles, do you not?

Oh my goodness, AV...

This is a new one for the books. This sounds like more of the nonsense your pastor has been feeding you. Stop listening to him and read actual history books.

Now, I wanna know how my Mexican ancestors (Nahua Aztecs and Tarahumara) are unverifiably related to Christianity according to you. I'm sure sacrifice, blood, and Satan will be there somewhere.

 

[TheReasoner]

.

A random verse out of context AV? Please.

 

[sandwiches]

This explanation is to speculative and only complicates the story, so we'll take Occam's advise and keep it simple - global flood.

John 15:1-6

Jesus is a literal vine, has actual branches (made of wood of course,) and gives actual fruit. Just keepin it real, brotha!

 

[Delphiki]

No -- I'm willing to conclude that the Almighty Creator of this universe orchestrated the Flood; and did it by telling science and nature to stand down where appropriate.

Same thing.

Ask her if her husband (that's you) knows what Diabolical Plagiarism is; or if he's even heard of the term before.

So, in a time where plagiarism didn't even exist as a punishable crime, you still conclude that it's completely impossible that the story was a re-telling of another story? It's not impossible - even today, when there are copyright laws: Avatar is the same story as Pocahontas or Dances with Wolves, for example. Again, why go with the most improbable/impossible and fantastical understanding?

Most sane adults are thoroughly aware of what's within the realm of possibility, regardless of whether they think there is a god or not. I'm trying to figure out how or why you use this backward reasoning that the most ridiculous, baseless, ludicrous, and supernatural explanation is always somehow the most probable.

I wonder if you'd still fall for the old "I got your nose" or "I pulled a quarter out of your ear" trick.

If it's a thought process that stems from the belief that the bible is 100% inerrant when taken completely literally, then I wonder why your screen name even contains "1611" -- after all, the KJV isn't even the original word-for-word bible in the first place -- that one no longer exists anywhere, at least in it's entirety. But despite this, you still insist that the grammar, context, (your) interpretation, and the KJV tranlsation is completely and utterly 100% factual, infallible, and accurate.

So again - Why conclude with the most improbable explanation, even when it completely discredits the god you believe in as being omnipotent and omniscient?

 

[sandwiches]

Ya -- heard that rhetoric 1k times.

In our church, we call that a PRATT.

Ask her if her husband (that's you) knows what Diabolical Plagiarism is; or if he's even heard of the term before.

I'm surprised you'd call the Bible "diabolical plagiarism," AV.

 

[Hespera]

Oh my goodness, AV...

This is a new one for the books. This sounds like more of the nonsense your pastor has been feeding you. Stop listening to him and read actual history books.

Now, I wanna know how my Mexican ancestors (Nahuatl Aztecs and Tarahumara) are unverifiably related to Christianity according to you. I'm sure sacrifice, blood, and Satan will be there somewhere.

Reminds me of this character , a preacher in the old movie "Cat Ballou". he thinks the Indians are the lost tribe of israel, and so he keeps sneaking up on one and suddenly saying something in Hebrew, thinking he will catch them unaware and give away that they understand.

He probably thinks we serve fortune cookies in restaurants in China, too.

if someone tried to seriously advance the idea that Chinese writing, genetics or culture are in any way of middle eastern origin, id be offended.
And think they were just incredibly stupid.

 

[Nostromo]

I wasn't aware I didn't believe there is any.

Nathan Poe, for example, has 29,814 posts.

Would you tell him he doesn't believe [whatever], without reading all his posts first?

I'm not telling anyone what they believe, I'm indicating my current understanding of the situation.

A simple "I changed my mind" would probably suffice. Is this a recent thing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, I wanna know how my Mexican ancestors (Nahua Aztecs and Tarahumara) are unverifiably related to Christianity according to you.

Through Shem, but it's a long story, and I really don't want to get into it here.

Suffice it to say, there are some things I will not discuss on the Internet -- even with my brothers & sisters in Christ -- and this is one of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

A simple "I changed my mind" would probably suffice. Is this a recent thing?

You figure it out --

 

[sandwiches]

Through Shem, but it's a long story, and I really don't want to get into it here.

Suffice it to say, there are some things I will not discuss on the Internet -- even with my brothers & sisters in Christ -- and this is one of them.

Why will you not discuss this? Is there a specific problem with Christianity and Amerindians or what?

Will it offend someone? Does it require the use the of curse words? Would some of the things you'd discuss be considered blasphemous? Because you're unsure of whether you're right?

 

[Doveaman]

In the case of the virgin birth and the resurrection we have a single event which may or may not be explained with natural laws –

Are there laws other than natural laws? Are you opened to it being explained by unnatural laws, then?

If this is the case, then we cannot always rely on what we observed in the natural world since the unnatural laws can override the natural laws as it did with the virgin birth and the resurrection.

whichever it ends up being has no say on whether or not it is God's doing.

Are you saying the virgin birth and the resurrection has nothing to do with God's doing?

Regardless they are both singular events of a 'size' so to speak which has left too small of an imprint on the world around us - physically speaking - to be measurable and testable with our current (probably any conceivable) technology and hence cannot be said to be falsifiable in any case.

If you test a three day old corpse you will find evidence that falsifies the idea that a three day old corpse can come to life, and therefore cast doubt upon it ever happening in the past.

That said I do believe the accounts from the day, i.e. the apostles' accounts/descriptions of what happened.

So you read in an old book that a three day old corpse came to life and you bought into it without any kind of empirical support to back up such a claim?

How is it that you are so quick to accept something that is not scientifically repeatable and is shown to be scientifically impossible and then accuse others of not listening to what God says through the natural world? Can a three day old corpse come to life in the natural world?

I don't get it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If this is the case, then we cannot always rely on what we observed in the natural world since the unnatural laws can override the natural laws as it did with the virgin birth and the resurrection.

If those events did in fact happen, then it would be prudent to look for natural explanations before resorting to the unnatural.

 

[Doveaman]

John 15:1-6

Jesus is a literal vine, has actual branches (made of wood of course,) and gives actual fruit. Just keepin it real, brotha!

I don't know where you read about Jesus having branches made of "wood", but I already explained (I think it was to you) that Jesus is indeed a literal (true to fact) vine, and the natural vine was designed by God to explain to us in a natural way the nature of Jesus as a literal (true to fact) vine:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" - Rom 1:20.

God's invisible qualities as a literal (true to fact) vine are clearly seen, being understood from our knowledge of the natural vine.

You are the one who is assuming that all vines are natural. I don't make such blind assumptions.

 

[TheReasoner]

Are there laws other than natural laws? Are you opened to it being explained by unnatural laws, then?

If this is the case, then we cannot always rely on what we observed in the natural world since the unnatural laws can override the natural laws as it did with the virgin birth and the resurrection.

Nay. Cannot [currently] be explained does not necessarily mean cannot ever be explained. And as we also know from history 'appears to be contrary to physical laws' does not mean it IS. Disease for example has had many weird explanations through the ages. The atomic theory was also unknown for a long period. And as for migratory birds, some thought they went to sleep at the bottoms of lakes during the winter way back when. And the deviations of the planets' orbits from perfect orbits around the earth was also unexplained for a long time.
None of which meant the respective phenomenon were unexplainable. And several of the aforementioned phenomenon were at one time or another considered antithetical to the bible and proper christianity. Of course we know better now, but it seems like hubris to me to assume the same cannot be the case now. And that is exactly what I consider creationists guilty of: Hubris. They elevate their own interpretations to an absolute position leaving no room for personal mistakes and no room for repetition of historical mistakes of the same character. Hence I have very little (read: zilch) respect for their position. It is not so much that it is contrary to observations in all fields of science, more so that it presupposes personal infallibility, and that I do have a problem with.

Are you saying the virgin birth and the resurrection has nothing to do with God's doing?

Absolutely not. why do you assume that things which follow natural laws are never of God's doing?

If you test a three day old corpse you will find evidence that falsifies the idea that a three day old corpse can come to life, and therefore cast doubt upon it ever happening in the past.

False. There are conceivably several factors which could be highly relevant to the rate of decomposition.

So you read in an old book that a three day old corpse came to life and you bought into it without any kind of empirical support to back up such a claim?

Nay. I have personal experiences which do back it, and I have various reasons to believe in God's existence. Specifically the Christian god.

I don't understand why you insist that if something behaves according to the observed and testable laws of nature God is somehow excluded from the 'equation'. Why does God rely on Him circumventing His own creation? It's His creation, why should Him performing actions contrary to it be a requirement for His existence? To me that seems absurd.

How is it that you are so quick to accept something that is not scientifically repeatable and is shown to be scientifically impossible and then accuse others of not listening to what God says through the natural world?

I don't get it.

No. That's obvious. Yes, I do accuse you of not listening to what God says through His creation. Let me try to explain once more.

The minor events such as water to wine, walking on water and such which are currently not testable. These events may be freak events triggered by some unknown laws of nature being used by God. However, it is conceivable said events can be explained if we increase our understanding of the universe around us. There are, after all, freak events which at first glance appear to go against the very basic laws of nature which are well known and have been since Newton's time. For example parachutists who survive a failed parachute, etc. These events appear miraculous and contrary to the laws of nature however they can be explained with the laws we know if we take the time to really look at all contributing factors in the specific case. Not that this excludes divine intervention, it merely means we can explain the mechanisms involved. There is currently much we do not know and we do know that freak events do occur where relevant factors affect the outcome of a given event to an outcome which is outrageously improbable and indeed for all practical purposes may be considered as close to impossible as makes no difference.

As for creation however this is something which IS falsifiable. The universe itself is by it's very being a history book telling us it's own history. This is an event whose effects and nature permeates every aspect of the universe it resulted in. It is an event which is continually testable through observation. And, it is an event and indeed a process which is so thoroughly observed and tested there are certain things we can eliminate as possibilities as far as it's origin goes. We know beyond any doubt that if it is real and not an illusion conjured by malevolent beings - as per the 'brains in a vat' philosophical hypothesis - that the young earth creation history is false.

Sorry doveaman but comparing single events of the nature like the resurrection to the creation of the universe is nonsensical as the events cannot be compared. For one, the resurrection is not currently testable. The notion that the universe is 6-10 000 years old IS. And not only is it testable, it is tested. With the result that the claim has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't know where you read about Jesus having branches made of "wood", but I already explained (I think it was to you) that Jesus is indeed a literal (true to fact) vine, and the natural vine was designed by God to explain to us in a natural way the nature of Jesus as a literal (true to fact) vine:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" - Rom 1:20.

You are the one who is assuming that all vines are natural. I don't make such blind assumptions.

Ah... well, just like the supernatural vine not really made of wood, at least we can tell now that the Flood was not a natural flood made of water. It was a supernatural one that didn't really drown people so much as their evil behaviors and intentions. So, the Flood was a literal (true to fact) supernatural flood of God's power. Got it.

When we realize that the words in the Bible don't have the meaning they usually have in normal conversation, we can see that passages that made no sense, all of the sudden can be interpreted much more easily as parables, metaphors, allegory, idioms, etc.

 

[Doveaman]

Most sane adults are thoroughly aware of what's within the realm of possibility, regardless of whether they think there is a god or not. I'm trying to figure out how or why you use this backward reasoning that the most ridiculous, baseless, ludicrous, and supernatural explanation is always somehow the most probable.

Somehow I get the impression you don't believe a three day corpse can come to life.

 

[Doveaman]

Ah... well, just like the supernatural vine not really made of wood, at least we can tell now that the Flood was not a natural flood made of water. It was a supernatural one that didn't really drown people so much as their evil behaviors and intentions. So, the Flood was a literal (true to fact) supernatural flood of God's power. Got it.

Do you?

Notice that Jesus never referred to Himself as a global flood, but He did refer to Himself as a vine.