Noachian Flood discussion - Bible skeptics vs Lion IRC and friends :)

[Lion IRC]

A friendly, relaxed thread (no micro aggressions) to continue the debate from here...

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

I contend that;

a) Bible skeptics who want to debate The Flood deserve sympathy because they really can't argue that its impossible for God to do miracles such as described in the Noachian Flood account. Folks like me have an unfair advantage because we aren't hamstrung by the need to apply strict naturalistic explanations for everything that happened. (Eg. animals cooperatively entering the Ark)

b) The bible itself doesn't declare an exact date for when the Flood event happened. So I'm willing to defend a recent Flood or an extremely ancient Flood. Either can be harmonized with my hermeneutics. Pick either and I'll defend which ever hypothetical date you prefer.

@Mr Laurier
@Ponderous Curmudgeon
@Speedwell
@Subduction Zone
@KomatiiteBIF
@Kylie
@VirOptimus
@Shemjaza

Please note that (in this thread) I'm only offering a defense of what the bible actually says about Noah and The Flood. It's not necessary for me refute claims based on what the bible doesn't say - arguments from silence. (Eg. The bible doesn't assert that all mountain tops were all simultaneously completely covered with water. Neither does it assert that the height of Mt Everest and the depth of the Marianas Trench were the same back then as they are today.)

I would politely ask that any counter-arguments from biology, geology and the fossil record etc be specifically tied to the bible verse which they purport to refute. I love science and the scientific method, but the claim that "abc" proves the flood never happened does not meet this test. You need to show how "abc" falsifies a specific bible passage/verse, not some meta narrative derived from your own exegesis/eisegesis.

Also, quote function. Please let us all try to engage in discussion with each other - not engage with claims made by anonymous straw people or folks who aren't even a part of the discussion. I believe the quote function is the best way to represent the opposing view which you want to critique.

By all means ask me if I agree with Ken Comfort or Ray Ham or Craig William Lane, but don't assume that I necessarily defend every single view held by all Flood Apologists. Likewise, I ought not and do not want to presume that all non-theist counter-apologetics against the bible are motivated by idolatrous adoration of Richard Hitchens or Christopher Dawkins.

 

[Bradskii]

And I'll put some beers in the fridge and pop some corn.

And 'idolatrous adulation...'? What the..?

Ah, and I just saw what you did.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

A friendly, relaxed thread (no micro aggressions) to continue the debate from here...

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

I contend that;

a) Bible skeptics who want to debate The Flood deserve sympathy because they really can't argue that its impossible for God to do miracles such as described in the Noachian Flood account. Folks like me have an unfair advantage because we aren't hamstrung by the need to apply strict naturalistic explanations for everything that happened. (Eg. animals cooperatively entering the Ark)

b) The bible itself doesn't declare an exact date for when the Flood event happened. So I'm willing to defend a recent Flood or an extremely ancient Flood. Either can be harmonized with my hermeneutics. Pick either and I'll defend which ever hypothetical date you prefer.

@Mr Laurier
@Ponderous Curmudgeon
@Speedwell
@Subduction Zone
@KomatiiteBIF
@Kylie
@VirOptimus
@Shemjaza

Please note that (in this thread) I'm only offering a defense of what the bible actually says about Noah and The Flood. It's not necessary for me refute claims based on what the bible doesn't say - arguments from silence. (Eg. The bible doesn't assert that all mountain tops were all simultaneously completely covered with water. Neither does it assert that the height of Mt Everest and the depth of the Marianas Trench were the same back then as they are today.)

I would politely ask that any counter-arguments from biology, geology and the fossil record etc be specifically tied to the bible verse which they purport to refute. I love science and the scientific method, but the claim that "abc" proves the flood never happened does not meet this test. You need to show how "abc" falsifies a specific bible passage/verse, not some meta narrative derived from your own exegesis/eisegesis.

Also, quote function. Please let us all try to engage in discussion with each other - not engage with claims made by anonymous straw people or folks who aren't even a part of the discussion. I believe the quote function is the best way to represent the opposing view which you want to critique.

By all means ask me if I agree with Ken Comfort or Ray Ham or Craig William Lane, but don't assume that I necessarily defend every single view held by all Flood Apologists. Likewise, I ought not and do not want to presume that all non-theist counter-apologetics against the bible are motivated by idolatrous adoration of Richard Hitchens or Christopher Dawkins.

If all you are willing or able to argue is that the Bible contains a story about a flood and it's meaning to mankind, I'm afraid the thread is over, it is not even about Bible skeptics, the issue is between people who believe/interpret the Bible in a given way and if they can defend that interpretation.

Do you actually have a position on what the Bible "actually says" and can you defend that?

 

[SelfSim]

Likewise, I ought not and do not want to presume that all non-theist counter-apologetics against the bible are motivated by idolatrous adoration of Richard Hitchens or Christopher Dawkins.

Who's Richard Hitchens and Christopher Dawkins?

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm afraid the thread is over

Suit yourself.
Im defending what the bible says - letters, words, paragraphs.
Im happy to discuss the theological implications for mankind anytime you like.
But on that account I think you're really gonna end up lost at sea in a leaky boat insofar as what science has to say.

 

[Lion IRC]

Who's Richard Hitchens?

Sorry, I had him confused with Richard Hawking

 

[AV1611VET]

A friendly, relaxed thread (no micro aggressions) to continue the debate from here...

I'll be praying for you, Lion.

 

[SelfSim]

Sorry, I had him confused with Richard Hawking

Who's that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, I had him confused with Richard Hawking

Just FYI, bro:

Ken Ham
Ray Comfort
William Lane Craig
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens

 

[Speedwell]

I'll just watch this one. It seems to me that the terms of your challenge require one to accept--for purposes of argument, at least--that the account of the flood in the Bible is an accurate historical account of a real event, and I see no reason to do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll just watch this one. It seems to me that the terms of your challenge require one to accept--for purposes of argument, at least--that the account of the flood in the Bible is an accurate historical account of a real event, and I see no reason to do that.

It's a well-defined starting point though, don't you think?

 

[SelfSim]

Folks like me have an unfair advantage because we aren't hamstrung by the need to apply strict naturalistic explanations for everything that happened. (Eg. animals cooperatively entering the Ark)

Yet floods are 'a naturalistic explanation' for what happens!?

 

[SelfSim]

It's a well-defined starting point though, don't you think?

I'd call it a well confused OP!

 

[Speedwell]

It's a well-defined starting point though, don't you think?

But there is not much point in bringing scientific arguments against an event which has no determinable basis in fact.

 

[SelfSim]

But there is not much point in bringing scientific arguments against an event which has no determinable basis in fact.

.. nor using scientific terminologies to justify them, then ..(?)

 

[Paulomycin]

By all means ask me if I agree with Ken Comfort or Ray Ham or Craig William Lane, but don't assume that I necessarily defend every single view held by all Flood Apologists. Likewise, I ought not and do not want to presume that all non-theist counter-apologetics against the bible are motivated by idolatrous adoration of Richard Hitchens or Christopher Dawkins.

You had me at Ken Comfort.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'd call it a well confused OP!

Well, the title alone...Lion IRC has friends?

 

[Lion IRC]

Just FYI, bro:

Ken Ham
Ray Comfort
William Lane Craig
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens

Who are they?

 

[Kylie]

A friendly, relaxed thread (no micro aggressions) to continue the debate from here...

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

I contend that;

a) Bible skeptics who want to debate The Flood deserve sympathy because they really can't argue that its impossible for God to do miracles such as described in the Noachian Flood account. Folks like me have an unfair advantage because we aren't hamstrung by the need to apply strict naturalistic explanations for everything that happened. (Eg. animals cooperatively entering the Ark)

b) The bible itself doesn't declare an exact date for when the Flood event happened. So I'm willing to defend a recent Flood or an extremely ancient Flood. Either can be harmonized with my hermeneutics. Pick either and I'll defend which ever hypothetical date you prefer.

@Mr Laurier
@Ponderous Curmudgeon
@Speedwell
@Subduction Zone
@KomatiiteBIF
@Kylie
@VirOptimus
@Shemjaza

Please note that (in this thread) I'm only offering a defense of what the bible actually says about Noah and The Flood. It's not necessary for me refute claims based on what the bible doesn't say - arguments from silence. (Eg. The bible doesn't assert that all mountain tops were all simultaneously completely covered with water. Neither does it assert that the height of Mt Everest and the depth of the Marianas Trench were the same back then as they are today.)

I would politely ask that any counter-arguments from biology, geology and the fossil record etc be specifically tied to the bible verse which they purport to refute. I love science and the scientific method, but the claim that "abc" proves the flood never happened does not meet this test. You need to show how "abc" falsifies a specific bible passage/verse, not some meta narrative derived from your own exegesis/eisegesis.

Also, quote function. Please let us all try to engage in discussion with each other - not engage with claims made by anonymous straw people or folks who aren't even a part of the discussion. I believe the quote function is the best way to represent the opposing view which you want to critique.

By all means ask me if I agree with Ken Comfort or Ray Ham or Craig William Lane, but don't assume that I necessarily defend every single view held by all Flood Apologists. Likewise, I ought not and do not want to presume that all non-theist counter-apologetics against the bible are motivated by idolatrous adoration of Richard Hitchens or Christopher Dawkins.

I think if we are discussing from a Biblical point of view the question is meaningless. It would be like me asking if the aliens really blew up the White House from an Independence Day movie point of view. So I'd like to keep my discussion to the topic of whether the Flood actually happened in reality.

Also, I'd be happy to assume that God can perform miracles, but that leads to a whole bunch of other problems. If God can do miracles, why couldn't he just save all the animals miraculously instead of by having them travel to the middle east so they could get on the ark? For some, such as sloths and kangaroos, the journey would have been extremely impractical, if not impossible. And why didn't he just miraculously blink out all the people who displeased him instead of sending the flood to drown them (which is a particularly horrible way to die, from what I've heard).

Also, I disagree with the claim that we must provide a passage number that a particular bit of science is refuting. There is much that happens when a large volume of water is let loose that is not described in the Bible. To say that any scientific point needs to refute a particular passage would render any discussion about such things not permitted, which I think is unfair.

I also don't agree with the way you've set up this discussion, which appears (to me at least) to be based with the Biblical account as the default. Surely we should be shown evidence from the real world that supports your pro-Flood position as well, yes?

So I'll start my discussion with you by asking if there is any real-world evidence that points to a worldwide flood ever occurring.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well, the title alone...Lion IRC has friends?

Saying I prefer no micro aggressions is my way of inviting them

I'd call it a well confused OP!

Then this will really confuse you.

Confucius says have no friends not equal to yourself. Jesus says love your enemy.