Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[AV1611VET]

Lots of specifics there, but it's still garbage. Some of the things I mentioned are true, but that doesn't extend to the entire story, despite the specifics. And those specifics don't lend any credence to his having disappeared.

Skaloop, if you and others want to change a specific event in the Bible into and allegory --- and a crime, no less --- that's your prerogative.

But it will only confuse you, and I don't feel like micromanaging every point in the allegory.

I'd rather address the issues as they were written.

It's simple --- either you believe it happened as it was written, word-for-word, line upon line, precept upon precept, down to every jot and tittle (and even the spaces between the words), or you don't.

You don't need to change it into an allegory, then stand around and scratch your heads, asking us to sort it out.

Fair enough?

Go ahead and apply the Scientific Method to the Creation Week, and if it goes 404 (which it should), man up to it.

 

[Skaloop]

Skaloop, if you and others want to change a specific event in the Bible into and allegory --- and a crime, no less --- that's your prerogative.

But it will only confuse you, and I don't feel like micromanaging every point in the allegory.

I'd rather address the issues as they were written.

It's simple --- either you believe it happened as it was written, word-for-word, line upon line, precept upon precept, down to every jot and tittle (and even the spaces between the words), or you don't.

You don't need to change it into an allegory, then stand around and scratch your heads, asking us to sort it out.

Fair enough?

Go ahead and apply the Scientific Method to the Creation Week, and if it goes 404 (which it should), man up to it.

But we weren't talking about the bible. We were talking about a murder scene. And in that scenario, your "note" is meaningless if it totally contradicts reality.

You may call that an allegory for the bible, that is your prerogative. But it's more than an allegory, it's an accurate descriptive analogy.

The scientific method does not 404 when applied to the creation week, it destroys it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But we weren't talking about the bible. We were talking about a murder scene. And in that scenario, your "note" is meaningless if it totally contradicts reality.

You may call that an allegory for the bible, that is your prerogative. But it's more than an allegory, it's an accurate descriptive analogy.

The scientific method does not 404 when applied to the creation week, it destroys it.

Suit yourself, Skaloop.

I can show you what It says, but I can't make you understand It.

 

[Skaloop]

Suit yourself, Skaloop.

I can show you what It says, but I can't make you understand It.

I understand it just fine, thanks.

And I thought it was your specialty? Might want to find a new path if you can't even get me to understand it, let alone accept it.

 

[Cabal]

Skaloop, if you and others want to change a specific event in the Bible into and allegory --- and a crime, no less --- that's your prerogative.

But it will only confuse you, and I don't feel like micromanaging every point in the allegory.

I'd rather address the issues as they were written.

In other words, you can't handle analogies.

But then, if you could, you probably wouldn't be a creationist.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, you can't handle analogies.

But then, if you could, you probably wouldn't be a creationist.

Not when they're so poorly written.

I would have to spend more time correcting them, than addressing them.

 

[MoonLancer]

Its not a poorly written analogy, but your challenge threads however are good examples of poorly written analogies, ironically ignoring the powers of god when making a comparison, or making arguments from ignorance.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's simple --- either you believe it happened as it was written, word-for-word, line upon line, precept upon precept, down to every jot and tittle (and even the spaces between the words), or you don't.

You don't need to change it into an allegory, then stand around and scratch your heads, asking us to sort it out.

Fair enough?

Fair enough -- better to seek out someone who understands the Bible.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Your scenario is missing something.

A note detailing who did it, how he did it, when he did it, where he did it, why he did it, what order he did it in, and who the eyewitnesses are.

The fact that you left this out shows your lack of understanding, not ours.

A note written by whom, AV?

But I'll be more than willing to add such a note to the scenario, for clarity's sake:

"To whom it may concern:
It was I, Pope Adrian VI, who came into the room after breaking down the door with the sledgehammer I keep tucked in my left sock. I then proceeded to fix the door exactly as it was before, leaving no trace whatsoever that it was ever touched (I then caused the sledgehammer to vanish into thin air, so don't bother looking for it.)

I then proceeded to kill the victim in the pitch darkness of high noon while hiding in plain sight behind the bedroom dresser. I strangled him with the necktie I always wear with my turtleneck sweater seven seconds before you read this note. Any appearance of time passing beyond that is merely embedded time. Furthermore, it should be noted that the injury in the back of the victim's head which looks very much like a gunshot wound is no such thing. Pay no attention to the .38 caliber slug you will find in the victim's frontal lobe. Vandals seeking to discredit me came in after the fact and planted it there.

I did this act as revenge for the victim's callous act of deflowering my grandmother last Tuesday. He died, I killed him, I broke into the house, I met the man -- in that order. Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Huckleberry Finn, and Harvey the Rabbit were all witnesses, and will eagerly testify that everything I've written here is the absolute and sacred truth.

Sincerely,

George Washington."


The fact that you're conditioned to believe everything you read at face value shows your lack of desire to understand, not ours.

 

[AV1611VET]

A note written by whom, AV?

But I'll be more than willing to add such a note to the scenario, for clarity's sake:

"To whom it may concern:
It was I, Pope Adrian VI, who came into the room after breaking down the door with the sledgehammer I keep tucked in my left sock. I then proceeded to fix the door exactly as it was before, leaving no trace whatsoever that it was ever touched (I then caused the sledgehammer to vanish into thin air, so don't bother looking for it.)

I then proceeded to kill the victim in the pitch darkness of high noon while hiding in plain sight behind the bedroom dresser. I strangled him with the necktie I always wear with my turtleneck sweater seven seconds before you read this note. Any appearance of time passing beyond that is merely embedded time. Furthermore, it should be noted that the injury in the back of the victim's head which looks very much like a gunshot wound is no such thing. Pay no attention to the .38 caliber slug you will find in the victim's frontal lobe. Vandals seeking to discredit me came in after the fact and planted it there.

I did this act as revenge for the victim's callous act of deflowering my grandmother last Tuesday. He died, I killed him, I broke into the house, I met the man -- in that order. Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Huckleberry Finn, and Harvey the Rabbit were all witnesses, and will eagerly testify that everythign I've written here is the absolute and sacred truth.

Sincerely,

George Washington."


The fact that you're conditioned to believe everything you read at face value shows your lack of desire to understand, not ours.

This is a perfect example of requiring accuracy from someone who doesn't understand a thing.

Worthy of printing and using as a teaching aid.

 

[Freodin]

“IF” there is “Dark Matter”, then, yes.

But if there is no dark matter, then gravity wouldn’t constitute an explanation since there is no matter present to exert it.
Okay, but there is no ‘known’ scientific experience or observation where gravity is exerted apart from the presence of real matter, therefore it must first be established that dark matter is indeed real matter before we can offer an explanation that the effects we are observing is indeed gravity.

To conclude that there is gravity without first establishing that there is real matter (which experience tells us must be present to exert gravity) is to make an assumption with no empirical evidence to support it. I can also assume God did it.
I get the impression that some forms of science is not about what is necessarily true, but about what is assumed to be true based on pass observations and experiences. If it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. If it quacks like gravity, then it is gravity, even though the presence of real matter has not been empirically verified to cause it to quack.

I don't think that gravity constitutes an explanation if it has not been confirmed that there is real matter present to exert it. Hypothetical dark matter has never been observed to exert gravity, and it never will.

I fear you still don´t understand what I am talking about, hung up as you are on the existence or non-existence of dark matter as you are.

It does not matter if dark matter exists or not. It does not have to be a correct explanation. It is possible / likely that other explanations exist... even your beloved plasma cosmology presents an explanation.

But these options have explanatory value, because there exists a mechanism, a causal relationship between the object and the effect.

Mass -> force.
Electromagnetic field -> force.

Now it is left to the observers, the experimentors, the testers to divise a way to find out the correct explanation. To search for dark matter. To find an observation to exclude electromagnetic fields. OR VICE VERSA... it does not matter!

Yet...
God -> ?

There is no mechanism, no causal relationship. There isn´t even an idea of such a thing. It is deliberately left vague... "with God, all things are possible". If everything is possible, you cannot make any distinctions. No way to keep right from wrong.

"God did it." has the same explanatory value as "blue caused it".... none at all.

Hypothetical dark matter has never been observed to exert gravity, and it never will.

This is where you are wrong, and this is the mistake at the very basis of our misunderstandings here. Hypothetical dark matter does not need to be observed to exert gravity. It will, by the simply fact of being what it is.

You seem to assume that, because "dark matter" has not been observed, and it´s effects not measured, it could behave completely different. But that is wrong. If I have a hypothetical cube/die in my hand, and hypothetically throw it, I can with certainty say that it will land on one of its six sides... and not on the eighth. Simply because even hypothetical cubes - even if they don´t exist - have only six sides.

A quite good example for such an "hypothetical dark matter" would be the planet Neptune. It wasn´t (primarily) found by direct observation, but by the (gravitational) effect it had on the other planets (specifically Uranus). So here you have it: hypothetical matter that has been observed to exert gravity.

 

[CoderHead]

It's simple --- either you believe it happened as it was written, word-for-word, line upon line, precept upon precept, down to every jot and tittle (and even the spaces between the words), or you don't.

But the problem I always have with your brand of literalism is that, when the Bible fails to detail a story (for instance, the Flood) you just come up with your own explanation (Neptune) even though the Bible says nothing of the sort. So it's perfectly fine for you to read into the Bible, change certain things to allegory at will and put words in God's mouth, but if we take something literally and it ends up sounding like complete nonsense, it's off base and wrong.

How, exactly, does that work?

 

[AV1611VET]

But the problem I always have with your brand of literalism is that, when the Bible fails to detail a story (for instance, the Flood) you just come up with your own explanation (Neptune) even though the Bible says nothing of the sort. So it's perfectly fine for you to read into the Bible, change certain things to allegory at will and put words in God's mouth, but if we take something literally and it ends up sounding like complete nonsense, it's off base and wrong.

How, exactly, does that work?

It's called answering an ad hoc question with an ad lib answer.

When I mentioned Neptune, I made it clear that it was my opinion: 8.

You can tell this is the Internet, can't you?

Your opinion is subject to ridicule.

Well, that's fine, because I'll say the water went to Neptune before I say the Flood wasn't real.

 

[CoderHead]

Well, that's fine, because I'll say the water went to Neptune before I say the Flood wasn't real.

That doesn't surprise me. Saying the water went to Netpune has no Biblical basis whatsoever, doesn't make any sense from a logical standpoint, and doesn't do anything at all to further anyone's understanding of the Flood story. But you'll do it anyway, right? Because God did it and that's good enough for you? Have fun with that.

 

[Meshach]

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.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This is a perfect example of requiring accuracy from someone who doesn't understand a thing.

Worthy of printing and using as a teaching aid.

Equally worthy of being an object of worship.

You asked for a note detailing who did it, how they did it, when they did it, why they did it, the order in which they did it, and the witnesses they did it in front of.

I provided exactly that -- as specific, as detailed, and as coherent as a literal Bible.

I even went the extra step and signed the note.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's called answering an ad hoc question with an ad lib answer.

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

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

Last resort.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't surprise me.

It shouldn't.

Saying the water went to Netpune has no Biblical basis whatsoever, doesn't make any sense from a logical standpoint, and doesn't do anything at all to further anyone's understanding of the Flood story.

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.

But you'll do it anyway, right? Because God did it and that's good enough for you?

Yes, indeed --- why would I disagree?

If God did it, why wouldn't it be good enough?

 

[Meshach]

Last resort.

But I do not resort to limiting God as you do.