What Would Falsify the Flood? (2)

[dad]

So says a man.

You believe what you like. We believe Jesus, and do not sully the witnesses with baseless dark doubts.

That is what I am asking you. What evidence, if found, would falsify a global flood from 4,500 years ago? Why can't you answer this question?

Not the right question. The question is what evidence discernible by man would falsify the flood, and the clear answer is that man is in no position to discern squat about that time.

You are just a man claiming to have words written by a deity, even when it is widely known that those words were also written by men.

Those who looked deeper than puddle deep know that the words cannot have been written by man actually.

 

[dad]

Objection. Speculation.

Nope, it is absolute fact that you cannot deny God created man, with any basis at all. You may chose to disbelieve, but that has nothing to do with whether Good created or not. It only has to do with what you chose, and what you must stand in account for.

 

[Loudmouth]

You believe what you like. We believe Jesus, and do not sully the witnesses with baseless dark doubts.

Doesn't change the fact that the Bible is the writings of men.

Not the right question. The question is what evidence discernible by man would falsify the flood, and the clear answer is that man is in no position to discern squat about that time.

And yet you claim to have discerned that the past was different, that the Bible is an accurate history, etc. Funny how your rules apply to everyone but you.

At the end of the day, you will not accept any evidence as contradicting your beliefs, no matter what that evidence is.

Those who looked deeper than puddle deep know that the words cannot have been written by man actually.

They being other men, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, it is absolute fact that you cannot deny God created man, with any basis at all.

Why? Because you say so?

You may chose to disbelieve, but that has nothing to do with whether Good created or not. It only has to do with what you chose, and what you must stand in account for.

What we choose to believe or not believe does not change the reality around us. We can choose to believe that the Earth is square, but it will continue to be round despite our beliefs.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nope, it is absolute fact that you cannot deny God created man, with any basis at all. You may chose to disbelieve, but that has nothing to do with whether Good created or not. It only has to do with what you chose, and what you must stand in account for.

It is an absolute fact that you can't deny that it is possible that there aren't any gods at all, because you can't prove that god created anything any more than others can prove that god had no role in anything or doesn't exist.

You must also take account of the fact that if their is a deity, it might not be the one you worship, and you are just as likely to stand in account for that as any atheist.

 

[dad]

It is an absolute fact that you can't deny that it is possible that there aren't any gods at all, because you can't prove that god created anything any more than others can prove that god had no role in anything or doesn't exist.

I agree. They are demons. They exist. The bible makes that clear. Science cannot confirm or deny them.

You must also take account of the fact that if their is a deity, it might not be the one you worship, and you are just as likely to stand in account for that as any atheist.

They are evil spirits every one that denies Christ came in the flesh, and rose again for our salvation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree. They are demons. They exist. The bible makes that clear. Science cannot confirm or deny them.

They are evil spirits every one that denies Christ came in the flesh, and rose again for our salvation.

Are your claims about Noah's flood equally unevidenced and equally dogmatic?

 

[dad]

Doesn't change the fact that the Bible is the writings of men.

Jesus disagrees. Your opinion, based on nothing is noted.

And yet you claim to have discerned that the past was different, that the Bible is an accurate history, etc. Funny how your rules apply to everyone but you.

Either God is right or not.

At the end of the day, you will not accept any evidence as contradicting your beliefs, no matter what that evidence is.

There is none that does. Relax. In science, they must face being wrong almost weekly. That is part of not being about truth.

They being other men, right?

Right. Men who have read the prophesies of Jesus and saw they were all fulfilled for example. They woulld know that could never ever happen by the power of a man writing something.

 

[Loudmouth]

Jesus disagrees.

According to what? The writings of men?

Your opinion, based on nothing is noted.

My opinion is shared by every biblical scholar I know of. The Gospels were not written by God or by Jesus. They were written by humans.

Either God is right or not.

The Bible is not God.

In science, they must face being wrong almost weekly. That is part of not being about truth.

How can you have truth if you don't dare question it?

Right. Men who have read the prophesies of Jesus and saw they were all fulfilled for example. They woulld know that could never ever happen by the power of a man writing something.

So again, we have the words of men.

 

[dad]

Are your claims about Noah's flood equally unevidenced and equally dogmatic?

If Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, at the time appointed, and died and rose again, etc etc etc...then the flood is true and evidenced. The dogma of so called science notwithstanding.

 

[dad]

According to what? The writings of men?

Peter Paul, all the apostles and witnesses etc. His words are also proven, notice the temple was destroyed? Notice millions of people receive His help?

My opinion is shared by every biblical scholar I know of. The Gospels were not written by God or by Jesus. They were written by humans.

Nope. Inspiration means the source was God. Men were just a step on the way of getting it here.

The Bible is not God.

His word is part of Him I would think actually. It will outlast the universe. The words are spirit, and life.

How can you have truth if you don't dare question it?

Try questioning it with something other than the knavish and baseless doubts and naysayings of so called science.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, at the time appointed, and died and rose again, etc etc etc...then the flood is true and evidenced. The dogma of so called science notwithstanding.

If all that stuff is true, yes, I suppose that would at least give some support in the other stuff in the bible. Unfortunately, no one can prove that the Jesus of the bible is stuff based on even just 1 person, so good luck proving that stuff.

 

[dad]

What we choose to believe or not believe does not change the reality around us.

Yes. It does. Part of nature is spiritual. The spiritual affects the physical. Miracles for example.

We can choose to believe that the Earth is square, but it will continue to be round despite our beliefs.

You can chose to believe there are no spirits and that our physical laws will govern eternity. There is only so much you can prove though.

 

[dad]

If all that stuff is true, yes, I suppose that would at least give some support in the other stuff in the bible. ...

Bingo. Millions died attesting it was true. Witnesses saw and knew and touched Jesus. It is last thursdayism to deny. Rome fell as did Greece and Medo Persia, and Babylon..on cue. Their successors were predicted. On cue. Israel was taken captive as predicted for as long as predicted...etc etc.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Only one book of the bible has a decent chance of being the writings of someone who directly met Jesus, one of the books has a bit of evidence that supports it being the ghost writings of one of the apostles. But, other than that, all the rest are just people who heard of those events long after Jesus was dead, and a few just happened to assume the names of the apostles or just happened to share their names. As it were, only 3 books of the bible were written close enough to the time of Jesus to have been written by someone who met Jesus. Out of the minimum 66 books of scripture (or more, depending on the sect). Of those, only 1 has actual evidence to support that claim, and it isn't proven even in that case.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. It does. Part of nature is spiritual. The spiritual affects the physical. Miracles for example.

Evidence?

You can chose to believe there are no spirits and that our physical laws will govern eternity. There is only so much you can prove though.

What evidence would lead me to choose otherwise?

 

[Loudmouth]

Peter Paul, all the apostles and witnesses etc. His words are also proven, notice the temple was destroyed?

Notice that the Gospels were written after the temple was destroyed?

Again, they are the writings of men, not Jesus.

Notice millions of people receive His help? Nope. Inspiration means the source was God. Men were just a step on the way of getting it here.

So says a man.

His word is part of Him I would think actually. It will outlast the universe. The words are spirit, and life.
Try questioning it with something other than the knavish and baseless doubts and naysayings of so called science.

Again, all we have is your say so, and no evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

If Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, at the time appointed, and died and rose again, etc etc etc...then the flood is true and evidenced. The dogma of so called science notwithstanding.

So where is that evidence?

 

[dad]

Evidence?

What we accept as evidence depends on what we have chosen to believe.
People who wave off all scripture and history and spiritual accounts etc to fit their physical only temporal state fishbowl view for example.

 

[Loudmouth]

What we accept as evidence depends on what we have chosen to believe.

No, it isn't. The evidence demonstrates that the Earth is round no matter how hard I try to believe that the Earth is square.

People who wave off all scripture and history and spiritual accounts etc to fit their physical only temporal state fishbowl view for example.

If you can't show me any evidence that supports it, why should I accept it?