Question about the flood

[joshua 1 9]

Why does anybody think that? You can just spew opinions all day long, but nobody cares unless you can support them with reasoning or evidence.

I will repeat this for the second time. They are not my opinions, they are the opinions of an MIT graduate with a published book.

Perhaps you do not know this but having a PHD from MIT and having a published book is VERY important in the world of science. If you pull that rug out then your house of cards is going to come tumbling down and your sand castle will not survive the storms of life.

Let me give you one example. IF you are published then you are qualified for a visa IF you want to immigrate to United States. A lot of science thrives on being published and IF you are not published then do not expect anyone to give you a job or have any regard for you.

IF you want to reject Schroeder and his qualifications then I reject any of your experts and you simply do not have a leg to stand on. We would not have a conversation if you reject everything that science is based on.

Gerald Lawrence Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center,[1] who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality.

 

[Wakalix]

I will repeat this for the second time. They are not my opinions, they are the opinions of an MIT graduate with a published book.

So anything that an MIT graduate with a book says must be correct, eh?

Perhaps you do not know this but having a PHD from MIT and having a published book is VERY important in the world of science. If you pull that rug out then your house of cards is going to come tumbling down and your sand castle will not survive the storms of life.

"MIT graduates are usually correct" is not a fundamental tenet of Science. This isn't even science, though - it's logic. I'm not even asking for evidence - just reasoning. Why do you think that you need more than science?

Let me give you one example. IF you are published then you are qualified for a visa IF you want to immigrate to United States. A lot of science thrives on being published and IF you are not published then do not expect anyone to give you a job or have any regard for you.

I know that being published is socially important, but that's irrelevant to whether his claims are true or false.

IF you want to reject Schroeder and his qualifications then I reject any of your experts and you simply do not have a leg to stand on. We would not have a conversation if you reject everything that science is based on.

I don't rely solely on the argument that some expert said something therefore it is true, so I would have a leg to stand on.

Gerald Lawrence Schroeder

is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center,[1] who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality.

And there are probably a few atheist MIT graduates. Why doesn't their existence prove atheism?

 

[joshua 1 9]

So anything that an MIT graduate with a book says must be correct, eh?

Go to Harvard University or go to MIT and see if you can find anything in any of the books in their library that contradicts or falsifies the Bible in any way. Fact of the matter is you can find NOTHING and the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

Do we claim infallibility for MIT and HARVARD? No not at all, but we do claim infallibility for the Bible. We are looking at how much we can rely on and depend on the Bible and the God that Created us.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And there are probably a few atheist MIT graduates. Why doesn't their existence prove atheism?

Your sand castle is starting to crumble. I told you it would not survive the storm. The Bible teaches you how to build your house so that you can survive any storm. If you want to study the book of an atheist then lets go to Harvard and study what Gould has to say about evolution.

Did you know that “Neil deGrasse, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic.” ? Even the head honcho of atheists Dawkins himself is not 100% convinced. So to what degree are you uncertain?

Richard Dawkins: "On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six. That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't." score 6.0

 

[Wakalix]

Your sand castle is starting to crumble. I told you it would not survive the storm. The Bible teaches you how to build your house so that you can survive any storm.

What? What is this even a response to? How is science a "sand castle"? I can call your religion a sand castle, too, and with just as much evidence behind my statement. What does any of this prove?

If you want to study the book of an atheist then lets go to Harvard and study what Gould has to say about evolution.

This is by no means a refutation. "Ah, yes, you have authorities on your side, but some authorities aren't on your side! Hah! This means that you're wrong!" You have utterly and completely missed my point.

Did you know that “Neil deGrasse, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic.” ?

Most people use a rather odd definition of "atheist" and "agnostic." I'd prefer to look at his actual description of his opinions on religion:

The more I look at the universe, the less convinced I am that there is something benevolent going on…

… I look at disasters that afflict Earth, and life on Earth: volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, disease, pestilence, congenital birth defects. You look at this list of ways that life is made miserable on Earth by natural causes, and I just ask, “How do you deal with that?”

So philosophers rose up and said, “If there is a God, God is either not all powerful or not all good.”
I have no problems if, as we probe the origins of things, we bump into the Bearded Man. If that shows up, we good to go! Okay? Not a problem.

There’s just no evidence of it.

And this is why religions are called “faiths” collectively. Because you believe something in the absence of evidence. That’s what it is! That’s why it’s called “faith”! Otherwise we would call all religions “evidence,” but we don’t, for exactly that reason.

I agree with this about as much as I can agree with anything. I don't care if I identify as "agnostic atheist" and he identifies as "agnostic," we have very similar opinions. Actual content overrides labels.

Even the head honcho of atheists Dawkins himself is not 100% convinced. So to what degree are you uncertain?

Richard Dawkins: "On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six. That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't." score 6.0

Good for him! Nobody ever can be absolutely confident about these things, and it's good to admit that. I never claimed that I was 100% sure that there was no God, just that I didn't see any reason to think there was a God.

 

[Wakalix]

Go to Harvard University or go to MIT and see if you can find anything in any of the books in their library that contradicts or falsifies the Bible in any way.

You still don't get the burden of proof. It's not up to me to disprove it - it's up to you to prove it.

Fact of the matter is you can find NOTHING and the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

That is not the null hypothesis.

Do we claim infallibility for MIT and HARVARD? No not at all, but we do claim infallibility for the Bible. We are looking at how much we can rely on and depend on the Bible and the God that Created us.

But why do you claim infallibility for the Bible? What makes you think that the Bible is necessarily completely factually correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

How is science a "sand castle"?

You can't sci without computers anymore.

Computers run on silicon chips.

Silicon is mined from the sand.

Matthew 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Matthew 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I'm guessing [solar] winds will be blowing during the Tribulation period.

 

[Wakalix]

You can't sci without computers anymore.

Computers run on silicon chips.

Silicon is mined from the sand.

Matthew 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Matthew 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I'm guessing [solar] winds will be blowing during the Tribulation period.

Heheheh. That was actually a good joke. Made me laugh for a few seconds. But it's both incorrect and invalid. First of all, we can "sci" without computers - it's just harder and takes longer. Second, just because we make items from sand does not mean that they are not trustworthy. What, are glass windows evidence of the Tribulation too?

 

[AV1611VET]

First of all, we can "sci" without computers - it's just harder and takes longer.

Only if you're willing to take your myopia back to the Stone Age.

Second, just because we make items from sand does not mean that they are not trustworthy. What, are glass windows evidence of the Tribulation too?

Somehow I don't think glass windows are going to be affected by solar flares.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You still don't get the burden of proof. It's not up to me to disprove it - it's up to you to prove it.

Either approach is valid. You can either prove the Bible or disprove the Bible and you will be able to confirm that the Bible is 100% accurate and true. I can not do that for you, each and every individual has to discover truth for themselves. Each and every individual has to make all their own choices in life. NO ONE can choose for us.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But why do you claim infallibility for the Bible? What makes you think that the Bible is necessarily completely factually correct?

I have studied science all my life and I have studied the Bible for 30 years and that is my conclusion based on my study and research. You are responsible to do your own research and to arrive at your own conclusion.

 

[Wakalix]

I have studied science all my life and I have studied the Bible for 30 years and that is my conclusion based on my study and research. You are responsible to do your own research and to arrive at your own conclusion.

"I believe that I believe; this is why I believe."
"My reasoning for my beliefs is that I used reasoning to come to my beliefs."

pulls out hair, screaming madly

THAT IS NOT HOW LOGIC WORKS

 

[Wakalix]

Only if you're willing to take your myopia back to the Stone Age.

I'm pretty sure that we took a while after the Stone Age to develop computers. And it took science to do so. Ergo the time period between the Stone Age and computers contained at least some science, so losing computers wouldn't bring us back to the Stone Age.

Somehow I don't think glass windows are going to be affected by solar flares.

So the actual origin doesn't matter, just whether it's vulnerable to EMPs or whatnot?

 

[Wakalix]

Either approach is valid.

That is a syntactically legal sentence.

You can either prove the Bible or disprove the Bible and you will be able to confirm that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

You can... disprove the Bible...

[You] will be able to confirm that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

???

I can not do that for you, each and every individual has to discover truth for hemselves. Each and every individual has to make all their own choices in life. NO ONE can choose for us.

But why did you choose the way you did?

 

[Aman777]

But why do you claim infallibility for the Bible? What makes you think that the Bible is necessarily completely factually correct?

Because it was authored from inside the bodies of holy men who were "moved" by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, 2Pe 1:21 to write the words He breathed to them. How else could they have written of the latest Scientific Discoveries, thousands of years ago and thousands of years BEFORE Science. It's testable Truth of the Literal God. It's also proof that we live today in the last days before Jesus returns. Will you repent (change your mind) when Science confirms God's Truth?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because it was authored from inside the bodies of holy men who were "moved" by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, 2Pe 1:21 to write the words He breathed to them. How else could they have written of the latest Scientific Discoveries, thousands of years ago and thousands of years BEFORE Science. It's testable Truth of the Literal God.

What's the Quran, then? Remember that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same god.

It's also proof that we live today in the last days before Jesus returns. Will you repent (change your mind) when Science confirms God's Truth?

You know I would. But until that point, if it ever comes, the debate continues.

 

[Wakalix]

Because it was authored from inside the bodies of holy men who were "moved" by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, 2Pe 1:21to write the words He breathed to them.

Did you seriously just quote the Bible to prove the Bible's infallibility? I thought that was a strawman!

How else could they have written of the latest Scientific Discoveries, thousands of years ago and thousands of years BEFORE Science. It's testable Truth of the Literal God.

They didn't.

It's also proof that we live today in the last days before Jesus returns. Will you repent (change your mind) when Science confirms God's Truth?

I'll accept whatever evidence comes my way.

 

[Aman777]

What's the Quran, then? Remember that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same god.

The Apostle Peter told us, speaking of Jesus Christ:

Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

All others will be Judged by God Himself.

You know I would. But until that point, if it ever comes, the debate continues.

That's why I tell you now before Science confirms God's Truth. God Bless you

 

[joshua 1 9]

But why did you choose the way you did?

I was raised that the Bible is accurate and true, the problem is that people have different interpretations so we need to determine who's understanding is accurate and true.

 

[joshua 1 9]

"I believe that I believe; this is why I believe."
"My reasoning for my beliefs is that I used reasoning to come to my beliefs."

pulls out hair, screaming madly

THAT IS NOT HOW LOGIC WORKS

We have the mind of Christ and the Divine thoughts of God. This is what it means to be born again and to become a new Creation in Christ. I became a Christian because I was looking for something that worked and science had nothing to offer. I could ONLY find the answers and solutions I was looking for in the Bible. I looked everywhere else first.