Noah's Ark

[AV1611VET]

IMO, he's wrong for the same reason you're wrong.

As long as we're wrong, that's what's important to you.

Right?

 

[HitchSlap]

As long as we're wrong, that's what's important to you.

Right?

Yes, it's important to understand reality as it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it's important to understand reality as it is.

All of it?

 

[HitchSlap]

All of it?

Every time you wonder why you and Eric are wrong about GC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like this:

That is a cliff. How does it support your claim?

... and this:

... that you'll just handwave away?God was there ... believe me.

Oh my!! That is a meander. Meanders do not form in floods. In fact you can see old meanders there. You just posted evidence against theflood.

Jeremiah spent ... what ... two years in miry clay.

And Job?

Well ... here's a pretty picture of him:

I seriously, seriously doubt that.

You don't know me very well, do you?

No, we do. We know that you will treat fictional characters as if they were real and pretend that you made a point.

I think more "outside of the box" than you probably ever dreamed of.

Too much thinking "outside of the box" only indicates that you can't think.

(Ask me where God took the Flood waters. )

I'm not afraid to speculate.

Yes, we know, and a good laugh is had by all. Speculation of your sort is not allowed in the sciences. New ideas are welcome but they MUST be supported by evidence.

And I love to ask people who claim they used to be a Christian and now aren't:

Are you telling me that at one time you were a Christian, then for some reason, you gave up all of this ...

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,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... for a life of unbelief?

Is that what you want me to believe? because I will, if you want me to.

Hey try again without a errant quote from the Bible. You are making the error of trying to use the Bible to support the Bible. The simple fact that the Bible is filled with countless errors makes it an invalid source for the sort of question that you asked.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You mean like this:

... and this:


... that you'll just handwave away?

I won't hand wave them away. I'd be glad to teach you some introductory GEOLOGY if you'd like. But I doubt it would move you. You like Kent Hovind's version of events and what's the likelihood you'd care about what REAL GEOLOGY says?

God was there ... believe me.

Don't believe you sorry. But then you weren't there either!

And Job?

Job what a great story that was ruined with goofy horrible vile "theology" appended on the beginning and end! A petulant God who commands that no one "deserves" to question him? LOL. Sounds weak and not very self-confident.

But the middle part is a great exposition on the nature of suffering. The reasons "why" are less compelling (ie God wanted to make a bet with ha'satan and then got annoyed when Job asked "why")

I seriously, seriously doubt that.

I mean to say I've seen people with zero ability to consider any position other than their own sui generis position and who create unfalsifiable claims to cover up their inability to think outside of their own little circle.

You don't know me very well, do you?

I think I know enough! Just as YOU claimed to know all about me! (But then "hypocrisy" seldom registers for some folks I guess).

I think more "outside of the box" than you probably ever dreamed of.

I wouldn't be surprised, but in general I think I've got a pretty good read on your ability to reason through claims and debate. I'm sure you've got some unique and interesting "hypotheses" and some that are probably very unique even for YEC! But it's all the same when it comes down to it: a clever constructed but poorly self-consistent world-view that, when questioned, is met with complaints that no one is able to understand your brilliance. Seen it a million times before.

(Ask me where God took the Flood waters. )

Neptune?

I'm not afraid to speculate.

So long as your speculation doesn't allow for anything that goes against your version of God, though. Right?

And I love to ask people who claim they used to be a Christian and now aren't:

Are you telling me that at one time you were a Christian, then for some reason, you gave up all of this

It didn't seem 'real' enough to me. Despite my best efforts to believe in the end nothing seemed to really jive with what I saw in the world. When I read through the Bible I realized it, too, was no more "holy" than anything else written by humans. It contains equal measure of "beauty" and "evil". A God who commanded genocide through His Prophets looks very much like extremists we see today demanding the death of infidels.

I am glad for people who have their faith, and I wouldn't ever want to take it away. But it wasn't for me.

And don't bother trying to minister to me, trust me, you aren't capable of that. I'm well read and have done my time. I'm happy to hear your "hypotheses" but remember: they are yours not mine. And unless you meet some pretty high levels of academic skill and training it is highly unlikely you'll be able to make yours into mine.

... for a life of unbelief?

Doin' the best I can!

Is that what you want me to believe? because I will, if you want me to.

You don't have to believe me! It appears you are prone to believe only that which comports with your own counsel, and I'd be doing evil if I tried to get you to believe otherwise. You shouldn't believe a THING I SAY without evidence. I'm not like God, I don't demand you simply take my word for it. BUT, if you wish to question my own existence for which you were not there, you will be required to grant me more credibility on the topic than you.

 

[Obliquinaut]

That's the inevitable reality of being a finite shadow cast by the Absolute.

But is this not simply "unfalsifiable"? If it is unfalsifiable then no one can learn anything from considering it.

If God were to say, look like a duck, quack like a duck, have the genetic make up of a duck, would it be reasonable for me to assume He is not a duck? (metaphorically speaking, of course).

If I look at nature and I can explain almost everything out there using natural laws (and know that in the past when people couldn't explain events with natural laws utlimately natural laws came to the fore that could explain it), am I not on more solid ground (reasonably) if I assume there is no need of a "God" as an explanatory variable?

 

[Obliquinaut]

As long as we're wrong, that's what's important to you.

Right?

This is a very good question. And gets to the heart of why this sort of forum discussion is here.

If your beliefs did not in any way impact the rest of the world, then fine, you can have them! I seriously doubt you have sufficient sway anywhere to get any geologists to change their minds so no harm no foul.

But sadly in giving support to bad science by quoting it keeps that bad information alive for others.

Let's talk religion for a moment: I would hope (pray) that nothing I say would cause anyone to DISBELIEVE in God if they believe in Him. BUT, since God is impossible to provide concrete evidence for (or against) it really isn't the point of the debate. The point of the debate is to make clear that:

the bad science of YEC or Noachian Flood Geology is not predicated on reasonable critiques of the science, it is predicated on forcing reality to conform to a specific set of beliefs that are opposition to the reality.

That's why many of us debate these points: You are free to believe in whatever kind of God you like, so long as your beliefs do not hinder or hamper other things in the real world. If you wish to destroy geology because it fails to comport with your "beliefs" then be prepared to have geology fight back.

 

[Colter]

But is this not simply "unfalsifiable"? If it is unfalsifiable then no one can learn anything from considering it.

If God were to say, look like a duck, quack like a duck, have the genetic make up of a duck, would it be reasonable for me to assume He is not a duck? (metaphorically speaking, of course).

If I look at nature and I can explain almost everything out there using natural laws (and know that in the past when people couldn't explain events with natural laws utlimately natural laws came to the fore that could explain it), am I not on more solid ground (reasonably) if I assume there is no need of a "God" as an explanatory variable?

God is the source of what you are calling "natural law".

 

[Obliquinaut]

God is the source of what you are calling "natural law".

Really? How do you know? Could it not be Zeus? Could it not be Aharu Mazda?

 

[HitchSlap]

God is the source of what you are calling "natural law".

Why call natural law, "God"?

 

[Colter]

"Though reason can always question faith, faith can always supplement both reason and logic. Reason creates the probability which faith can transform into a moral certainty, even a spiritual experience. God is the first truth and the last fact; therefore does all truth take origin in him, while all facts exist relative to him. God is absolute truth. As truth one may know God, but to understand—to explain—God, one must explore the fact of the universe of universes. The vast gulf between the experience of the truth of God and ignorance as to the fact of God can be bridged only by living faith. Reason alone cannot achieve harmony between infinite truth and universal fact." UB 1955

 

[Colter]

Really? How do you know? Could it not be Zeus? Could it not be Aharu Mazda?

Zeus and Aharu Mazda are names given to deity conceptualizations like Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They are the product of mind in search of God or with intent to mock. But regardless, something is true, God is the absolute truth, the source and center of all that is, was or will ever be in an Absolute sense.

 

[Colter]

Why call natural law, "God"?

But whence comes all this vast universe of mathematics without a Master Mathematician?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Zeus and Aharu Mazda are names given to deity conceptualizations like Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So the God of the Bible is the same as all other gods? (Note: I'm ok with this so long as we understand that all the different gods are rather different, not just in the abstract).

They are the product of mind in search of God or with intent to mock. But regardless, something is true, God is the absolute truth, the source and center of all that is, was or will ever be in an Absolute sense.

That sounds nice, but I fear it lacks content. If God is simply defined as "absolute truth" that really doesn't carry much in terms of meaning. If God is "absolute truth" what can I take from that? What does it mean? Does "Absolute Truth" find gay marriage to be OK? Does "Absolute Truth" say there are a certain number of times I should kneel and pray facing Mecca? Does "Absolute Truth" command that I accept ONLY a guy named Jesus Christ who existed in Israel about 2 millenia ago as the ONLY route to salvation? Or is that necessary?

So many questions. To arbitrarily define God as some esoteric "concept" seems to sap Him of any actual meaning.

 

[Obliquinaut]

But whence comes all this vast universe of mathematics without a Master Mathematician?

There is a difference between saying "I don't know the source of the Universe" and saying "There's this being that is the source of the universe and He has these very specific attributes, chief among them is that he manifested himself as himself to be sacrificed to himself 2017 years ago so that man may be atoned to Him."

I think that is one of the key reasons the Teleological Argument fails.

 

[Obliquinaut]

"...God is the first truth and the last fact;"

Ex Cathedra statement. No supporting evidence other than merely stating it.

"...The vast gulf between the experience of the truth of God and ignorance as to the fact of God can be bridged only by living faith. Reason alone cannot achieve harmony between infinite truth and universal fact." UB 1955

So we are denied the ability to use "reason" to understand God. That's pretty handy for those who don't like reason.

And it's exceptionally helpful if there's no real reason to believe God exists.

And we are back to the Unfalsifiable. And that, of course, is an intellectual death sentence.

 

[AV1611VET]

I won't hand wave them away.

Are you Aron Ra?

 

[HitchSlap]

But whence comes all this vast universe of mathematics without a Master Mathematician?

Please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you Aron Ra?

Quite the compliment. But I don't think that Aron would be anywhere near as polite as Obliquanaut has been.