My Integrity Challenge

[durangodawood]

As it should.

But if you think there's good evidence out there, why would you tell anyone the Flood didn't happen?

I dont think theres good evidence out there. But that wouldnt stop me from taking an honest look for it.

Unless you are omniscient and are saturated with facts, why would you even dare say the Flood didn't happen?

How can we say anything absent omniscience? Can you say Abe Lincoln was president?

Sure.

en oh space cee oh em em ee en tee

I see. This isnt a discussion anyone should take seriously. You might have told us up front tho.

 

[AV1611VET]

How can we say anything absent omniscience?

A very good question.

Very good question.

So anyone who does tell me the Flood didn't exist because there's evidence against it can take a hike.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, it isn't.

If their integrity is up for sale, that's their problem, not mine.

Don't drag me into this.

What, for example, would you think if later, you saw Davis A. Young & Ralph F. Stearley out looking for evidence of the Flood, because someone offered them money?



Nice try.

Won't work.



Did you miss the footnote to my post?

Here it is again:

* I'm not saying YOU do. But for anyone who does, I'm not buying it.



Oh, please.

Have a nice day.

I think we see where your integrity resides. And likewise, you won't be dragging me into a mode of thinking that, due to my training in Philosophy and Social Science, has a different view from mine as to what constitutes "integrity."

 

[AV1611VET]

I think we see where your integrity resides. And likewise, you won't be dragging me into a mode of thinking that, due to my training in Philosophy and Social Science, has a different view from mine as to what constitutes "integrity."

Evidently your training is short of teaching "money talks."

 

[durangodawood]

A very good question.

Very good question.

So anyone who does tell me the Flood didn't exist because there's evidence against it can take a hike.

So you dont say Abe Lincoln was president?

We make judgements like these based on the preponderance of evidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evidently your training is short of teaching "money talks."

Really? You obviously have little idea about my own theology, part of which leans very heavily on that one thing Jesus said about:

You cannot serve both God and Mammon. ​

I assume you're as familiar with it as I am.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? You obviously have little idea about my own theology, part of which leans very heavily on that one thing Jesus said about:

You cannot serve both God and Mammon. ​

I assume you're as familiar with it as I am.

Quite so.

As I'm fond of pointing out, Jesus states a principle that academians demonstrate all the time:

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

It takes a lot of treasure (time & money) to go to college.

No academian wants to go through thousands and thousands of dollars worth of education, only to come out and hear some uneducated plebian tell them they're wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Quite so.

As I'm fond of pointing out, Jesus states a principle that academians demonstrate all the time:

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

It takes a lot of treasure (time & money) to go to college.

No academian wants to go through thousands and thousands of dollars worth of education, only to come out and hear some uneducated plebian tell them they're wrong.

Compared to many folks, I actually didn't spend all that much money on my education. One of the advantages of going to community college and then to the local state university.

 

[AV1611VET]

Compared to many folks, I actually didn't spend all that much money on my education. One of the advantages of going to community college and then to the local state university.

And you don't always agree with science.

Am I right?

You personally, come across to me as someone sitting on the fence between Christianity and Philosophy.

Both of which you're good at defending.

 

[dlamberth]

So anyone who does tell me the Flood didn't exist because there's evidence against it can take a hike.

For the past couple of decades I've enjoyed hiking through the evidence of a major flood that actually did happen. That flood being the Ice Age Floods here in the Pacific Northwest. There's nowhere one can hike to see evidence of a Noah's Biblical flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the past couple of decades I've enjoyed hiking through the evidence of a major flood that actually did happen. That flood being the Ice Age Floods here in the Pacific Northwest. There's nowhere one can hike to see evidence of a Noah's Biblical flood.

Good post.

Looks like they'll have to take it by faith then, doesn't it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And you don't always agree with science.

Am I right?

Sure. I don't agree with those skeptics who have embroiled their minds with the false assurance that Philosophical Naturalism promotes.

You personally, come across to me as someone sitting on the fence between Christianity and Philosophy.

Both of which you're good at defending.

That's one way of looking at it. The thing is, I'm not really sitting on the fence if, with the aid of philosophy, I indeed believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person and that He essentially is and did what the New Testament writings represent Him as being and having done.

 

[Brihaha]

I believe my bible. God sent a flood. Yet I wouldn't take even a million dollars to go search for evidence. I don't need evidence or a million dollars. I am blessed with faith in God. I have never prioritized money. I know some people likely won't believe me. It may be because they don't associate with honest folks very often. I often return money to cashiers when I notice I received too much change back. In my experience, it's the dishonest people who distrust everyone else, as they project their own dishonesty onto others.

 

[dlamberth]

Good post.

Looks like they'll have to take it by faith then, doesn't it?

I find that my faith is in God and NOT in the creation or flood stories that came out of an ancient middle-eastern tribe.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find that my faith is in God and NOT in the creation or flood stories that came out of an ancient middle-eastern tribe.

That's because your god IS the creation and floods and the middle east.

In fact, it's the whole earth and universe.

So ANY story would be from your god.

Including The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and My Struggles.

 

[dlamberth]

That's because your god IS the creation and floods and the middle east.

In fact, it's the whole earth and universe.

So ANY story would be from your god.

Including The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and My Struggles.

Your quite wrong about that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your quite wrong about that.

Then you believe your god is present in all that I mentioned.

Panentheism means that God is present in all creation by virtue of his omnipresence and omnipotence, sustaining every creature in being without being identified with any creature.

SOURCE

 

[dlamberth]

Then you believe your god is present in all that I mentioned.

Panentheism means that God is present in all creation by virtue of his omnipresence and omnipotence, sustaining every creature in being without being identified with any creature.

SOURCE

Yes "present" but in a way that our soul is an activity of God. Which means that our thoughts and stories generally are not from God. But things like Love, Compassion and Empathy are because those heart centered things do arise from our soul.

Another way to look at it, the God I experience is the creating force within the Cosmos, but not the physical aspect of the Universe. So a tree, for instance, has that Infinite Divine Creating force within it, but is not itSelf the Divine Creating force. God is within the Universe, but not the Universe. Or, a God/Not God sort of thing.

 

[Fervent]

Good post.

Looks like they'll have to take it by faith then, doesn't it?

I'm not sure how you happen to define faith, but from my POV faith doesn't require contra-evidential antagonism. It simply means being willing to accept a proposition even if full evidence is not present. The issue with the claim of a global flood isn't that there is simply a lack of evidence for it, but that the preponderance of evidence suggests that it never happened. Putting a hard wall of "well, I guess you'll just have to take it on faith." isn't an argument, it just shows you've abandoned any pretense of sensible discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure how you happen to define faith, but from my POV faith doesn't require contra-evidential antagonism. It simply means being willing to accept a proposition even if full evidence is not present. The issue with the claim of a global flood isn't that there is simply a lack of evidence for it, but that the preponderance of evidence suggests that it never happened. Putting a hard wall of "well, I guess you'll just have to take it on faith." isn't an argument, it just shows you've abandoned any pretense of sensible discussion.

Preponderance of evidence to the contrary can take a hike.

The Flood -- and its aftermath -- was a miracle.

God isn't so sloppy as to leave evidence lying around all over the place.

Take Eve for example.

When God created her, He removed a rib from Adam's side and ...

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

How was Eve to accept the fact that she came from Adam's rib?

Because when God cleans something up, it's like it never happened.

Or do you think God left a scar on purpose?