My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[Hans Blaster]

LOL
Hans Blaster said a belief and a presupposition can not be proven. (I agree with him.)

For example we can't "prove" that A=A, we must presupose it. But, a logical system where A was not A would be a circular mess and useless. To the best of our ability to check emperically, A is always A, and therefore it is useful to work in a logical system where A is presumed equal to A always and see what happens. If it breaks down, then we can sort out why.

We can make a similar presupposition about natural effects and natural causes, or about the uniformity of the basic properties of nature.

(I called them "natural laws" earlier, but @sjastro seems to have mistaken that for a reference to a scientific law like Ohm's law which are descriptive. These properties of nature are the properties that exist even if we don't have a proper scientific theory to explain them. For example if there is a cause or action that results in the physical constants having particular values that would be a property of the Universe [or as I called it before, a 'natural law'], but it is not one that we have a theory to explain in a nice mathematical form.)

Then he admits that his understanding of natural law is based on an assumption that natural does not change and that there are no instances where it can change; or that it has ever changed. THAT assumption is a presupposition that he can't prove! (Because presuppositions are unprovable.)

And then I mentioned that we had tests to demonstrate that they don't change. For example measuring the magnesium lines in distant quasars show that the fine structure constant hasn't changed in ~10 billion years. (Technically the measurement shows it hasn't changed by about 1 part per million in that time. All measurements have limits. I'm pulling this completely from memory, so better observations and tighter constraints might be available by now.) It is false to think that this assumption goes untested.

Thus Hans Blaster is admitting there is the possibility that things could happen that he can't explain. And if he admits there are things that could happen that he can't explain; that opens the door to the possibility that there are things that have happened that he can't explain either.

This is not much of a "gotcha" now is it? Only the fool would think that they understand and can explain everything. There are things about human behavior I can not explain. (For example, I can't explain why adults believe in gods.) There are things where I don't have the detail knowledge to explain. (Don't ask me to explain fossilization. I'm not a geologist.) And there are things *no one* has the information to explain.

Thus how he interprets the data he's looking at is based on a belief system! A belief system that's different than my belief system; so thus he stands on the same "unprovable belief" grounds that he states disproves my belief system.

Presuppositions or brute facts. That's whats at the bottom. I take a naturalistic view of things (all things being natural and having natural causes and impacts) because I see no reason to clutter explanitory frameworks with non-natural inputs. As someone once is alleged to have said: "I have no need for that hypothesis." in referring to the divine.

And this is why Hans Blaster is having a melt down about the fact that he's caught in a corner that he can't back out of.

I am quite solid and stable and standing at the top of a mountain of evidence.

 

[trophy33]

For example, I can't explain why adults believe in gods.

Gods, in the meaning of paganism, were symbolic representation of various psychological, sociological or natural phenomena (gods of love, of anger, of war, of thunder, of seas...). The futility of men made those representations idols and laymen people really believed in their real existence. Many Greek philosophers argued against this futility, but it was put away only after Christianity (and Islam) took over the main empires.

God, in the meaning of the Abrahamic religion, has two main lines of reasoning why to believe in Him. First, philosophical (as the Creator of our reality) and second historical (He revealed Himself personally to Abraham, Moses etc and lastly in Jesus Christ). Some could also add psychological or other lines of reasoning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Homo Sapiens is the biological term to refer to modern humans. So calling themselves humans, they become atheists. That makes no sense.

You keep wanting to revert to the term "human."

Almost as if you'd wish I would have said it.

But I didn't.

And by doing so, you're just confusing yourself and admitting 'that makes no sense.'

In other words, it's YOUR version of what I said that doesn't make sense -- not mine.

Stay away from vacuum cleaners then.

That's cute.

Forged from a mindset that won't allow you to understand.

But you're not paraphrasing.

As I intimated in my question, I don't think you know the difference.

Thanks for confirming it.

You're dramatically altering the text, post fact, to get the text to say something completely and radically different. You are altering scripture to your own end.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

Interesting how academians like to try and use Biblical taboos against us, even go so far as to resort to false accusations; but won't accept Biblical taboos against themselves.

Why would you think I'd resort to a Biblical taboo to make an excellent point?

I'd be shooting myself in the foot.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Gods, in the meaning of paganism, were symbolic representation of various psychological, sociological or natural phenomena (gods of love, of anger, of war, of thunder, of seas...). The futility of men made those representations idols and laymen people really believed in their real existence. Many Greek philosophers argued against this futility, but it was put away only after Christianity (and Islam) took over the main empires.

None of these provide any sufficient reason, but fortunately, no one ever tried to convince me these were true.

God, in the meaning of the Abrahamic religion, has two main lines of reasoning why to believe in Him. First, philosophical (as the Creator of our reality) and second historical (He revealed Himself personally to Abraham, Moses etc and lastly in Jesus Christ). Some could also add psychological or other lines of reasoning.

These are also reasons I find lacking in evidence and find (for lack of better phrasing) "unbelievable". I just regret I was programmed to accept this as true when I was an impressionable youth. It only took 10 years to come free of them.'

This (and a few other parts) are now venturing dangerously close to philosophy, and I hate philosophy.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You keep wanting to revert to the term "human."

Almost as if you'd wish I would have said it.

But I didn't.

And by doing so, you're just confusing yourself and admitting 'that makes no sense.'

In other words, it's YOUR version of what I said that doesn't make sense -- not mine.

No, it's 100% yours that makes no sense. Out of all the people I know, you're the only one who gets hung up on the 'wise man' name for humans. Here's a hint: it doesn't mean what you think it means.

That's cute.

Forged from a mindset that won't allow you to understand.

I thought it was cute.

As I intimated in my question, I don't think you know the difference.

Thanks for confirming it.

No, I know what the difference is, and what you made wasn't a paraphrase. It was you putting in something that the Bible doesn't say so you could pretend you made a point. It's altering scripture.

Here's an example of paraphrasing:
Original: Giraffes like Acacia leaves and hay and they can consume 75 pounds of food a day.

Paraphrase: A giraffe can eat up to 75 pounds of Acacia leaves and hay every day.

Same information, just phrased differently.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

Interesting how academians like to try and use Biblical taboos against us, even go so far as to resort to false accusations; but won't accept Biblical taboos against them.

Why would you think I'd break a Biblical taboo to make an excellent point?

I'd be shooting myself in the foot.

AV, you clearly did shoot yourself in the foot by blatantly rewriting and altering a Biblical passage to say something it didn't say at all. You did not make an excellent point at all. In fact, it's the single biggest load of BS I've ever seen you type.

 

[trophy33]

"Quantum probability is not the probability of where the atom is. Its the objective probability of where you will find it. The atom was not someplace until it was observed to be there."
Quantum Enigma (Rosenblum & Kuttner)

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's 100% yours that makes no sense.

Then why did you change it?

 

[trophy33]

None of these provide any sufficient reason, but fortunately, no one ever tried to convince me these were true.

These are also reasons I find lacking in evidence and find (for lack of better phrasing) "unbelievable". I just regret I was programmed to accept this as true when I was an impressionable youth. It only took 10 years to come free of them.'

This (and a few other parts) are now venturing dangerously close to philosophy, and I hate philosophy.

The reason for pagan gods is the try of first humans to explain various psychological, sociological and natural phenomena in a way they could talk or thought about it. There is no reasoning for their personal existence as beings.

I hate philosophy.

Thats actually something you can (sadly, IMO) find to have in common with many Christians

 

[dlamberth]

God cleaned up the mess for safety and sanitary reasons.

I laugh every time I read this.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then why did you change it?

I didn't change it. Homo Sapiens is the name that MEANS humans. It is the scientific name for modern humans. Yes, it translates to Wise Man, but that does not mean what you like to imagine it means. In the usage of wise in the name, it means intelligent. To add that into the Bible to replace 'proclaiming themselves to be wise' is adding to the Bible and is altering the text, not paraphrasing.

 

[dlamberth]

So the next question I'm going to ask is for you to explain your understanding of how fossils are formed.

Fossils are not an aspect of flood geology. When discussing the total lack of evidence for a Genesis flood I'm not understanding why one would need to bring in fossils. The flow of water on the land and the trail it leaves behind is what's studied in flood geology.

 

[AV1611VET]

I laugh every time I read this.

You wouldn't be around to laugh, if God hadn't of done that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't change it. Homo Sapiens is the name that MEANS humans. It is the scientific name for modern humans. Yes, it translates to Wise Man, but that does not mean what you like to imagine it means. In the usage of wise in the name, it means intelligent. To add that into the Bible to replace 'proclaiming themselves to be wise' is adding to the Bible and is altering the text, not paraphrasing.

Grasping at straws to save face, are you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Grasping at straws to save face, are you?

Nothing I've said is incorrect. You're rewriting a passage in the Bible to say something it doesn't. Simple as.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Frankly I doubt you make the same claim about someone who identified as a Christian. There is nothing in this thread that I wouldn't have written if I'd stayed a Christian. My positions have literally nothing to do with my non-belief in your deity.

LOL - Christians are told all the time that how they interpret the flood and geology is just their beliefs. (I wouldn't have to tell a Christian that; because they already know that.)

But tell an atheist that and man..... nuclear apocalypse!

P.S. You were never a Christian to begin with; but that's another theological subject!

 

[dlamberth]

God cleaned up the mess for safety and sanitary reasons.

With embedded age of course.

 

[The Righterzpen]

To the best of our ability to check emperically, A is always A

Except for the times that A isn't actually A. You just assume it's A.

We can make a similar presupposition about natural effects and natural causes, or about the uniformity of the basic properties of nature.

Which is all based on an assumption you can't prove. You can't prove that natural law has been consistent throughout the course of time.

(I called them "natural laws" earlier, but @sjastro seems to have mistaken that for a reference to a scientific law like Ohm's law which are descriptive. These properties of nature are the properties that exist even if we don't have a proper scientific theory to explain them. For example if there is a cause or action that results in the physical constants having particular values that would be a property of the Universe [or as I called it before, a 'natural law'], but it is not one that we have a theory to explain in a nice mathematical form.)

And this is because you can't prove those values have been consistent through time. Matter of fact, because of entropy we know they are not. Now how much does entropy affect something like a hydrogen atom? We don't know the answer to that either. It's an assumption that the make up of a hydrogen atom has had the same "shape", "structure" and "interactive capacity" from the beginning of time.

And then I mentioned that we had tests to demonstrate that they don't change. For example measuring the magnesium lines in distant quasars show that the fine structure constant hasn't changed in ~10 billion years. (Technically the measurement shows it hasn't changed by about 1 part per million in that time. All measurements have limits. I'm pulling this completely from memory, so better observations and tighter constraints might be available by now.) It is false to think that this assumption goes untested.

Again, another assumption. Would the magnesium lines in a quasar have been the same 10,000 years ago? I would venture to hypothesis "probably not" because of entropy. As someone who doesn't believe in God; I'm sure you would agree this cosmos is not eternal. To say the cosmic material in this universe is "unchanging" would be to give it properties of Divinity. And you certainly don't want to do that - now; do you?

This is not much of a "gotcha" now is it? Only the fool would think that they understand and can explain everything. There are things about human behavior I can not explain. (For example, I can't explain why adults believe in gods.) There are things where I don't have the detail knowledge to explain. (Don't ask me to explain fossilization. I'm not a geologist.) And there are things *no one* has the information to explain.

The "gotcha" is actually a (would we call it rhetorical argument?) which you ended up agreeing with me (using your own definitions) that your assessment of a given set of data is based on a belief system about that data.

I never said I or anyone else could understand or explain everything. We are not omniscient (yet another theological concept). You stated your own "absolution on truth" (which "what is truth" isn't a measurable question either; at least it's not in the context of an atheistic world view which has no standard whereby to measure truth from!)

So just like moral relativism. Your interpretation of the data collected is no more valid than mine!

But that's a whole other aspect of this debate that you seem to be missing.

Presuppositions or brute facts. That's whats at the bottom. I take a naturalistic view of things (all things being natural and having natural causes and impacts) because I see no reason to clutter explanitory frameworks with non-natural inputs. As someone once is alleged to have said: "I have no need for that hypothesis." in referring to the divine.

The presupposition that everything can be naturally explained is also an assumption. Again, here's where Romans 1 applies perfectly to you. You put yourself in the position of God assuming there's no framework that natural explanation can't answer. (I.E. Another example of "scientist" nixing data to support his own theory!) Mathematical probability doesn't support the idea that this cosmos is randomly created. And if it's not randomly created; your only other possible "hypothesis" is Intelligent design.

(Gotcha again!)

I am quite solid and stable and standing at the top of a mountain of evidence.

A mountain of evidence that you can't explain how it got here though!

 

[AV1611VET]

P.S. You were never a Christian to begin with; but that's another theological subject!

I always wondered why, if a person was a Christian, he gave up all this:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... to embrace atheism.

But Paul says why in Romans 1.

Evolution has a strong influence over one's mindset.

 

[AV1611VET]

With embedded age of course.

Huh?

 

[trophy33]

Evolution has a strong influence over one's mindset.

Its a similar argument to "heliocentric system has a strong influence or Earth as a globe" etc.

Discovering/understanding natural mechanisms does not make one an atheist or a Christian. Christian God is not a pagan "god of something" who disappears when you explain some specifics of nature.