Noah's Ark

[Obliquinaut]

As an 'aside' in this discussion I want to point out to you atheists the importance of belief. I am very comfortable with my belief in the bible stories. How they happen is really more speculation than proof. A believer believes often in spite of evidence to the contrary. When weighed against the disbelief of the world and the consequence that arise from that I choose the incredible benefits of belief, albeit sometimes without proof (that is called faith). The flood story is just a footnote in the huge body of beliefs that Christians hold, beliefs that govern our every thought and action, and often take us out of harm's way; something the world could emulate.

You are here on these forums not to help anyone in any way, but to tear down our beliefs. Shame on you.

Here's where you are wrong (and right):

Speaking as one who spent time in faith I value robust discussion of the details. No matter what those details are. But ESPECIALLY when it gets into science topics that I greatly value.

Speaking as an atheist: I would NEVER EVER WANT TO REMOVE FAITH FROM ANYONE WHO HAS IT. That isn't my goal...anymore than, I hope, it isn't your goal to make the scientists on this board feel like they are wasting their lives!

I've met and support many Christians who do their work as Christians because I see the value they bring to the community of their fellow believers. I recently donated money to a close friend of mine and his wife for a missionary trip to Asia. NOT because I want the word of God spread necessarily but because they are good people who were going to support an established church there.

But what I find annoying is that you are allowed to tell us how all the science many of these people have dedicated their lives to understanding is all incorrect or a giant lie but no one is allowed to point out how your flawed attempts to marshall science in support of your version of the Bible could in any way be incorrect.

That now, indeed, we are attacking your faith at it's core.

Sorry but that doesn't cut it. YOU have your points about the Noachian Flood and we have ours. YOU and others are busy trying to leverage science in support of your Noachian Flood story and you are being told that the science doesn't work that way.

Now I'll grant that sometimes it gets tough. I've personally said unappealing things about religious faith and I've read a very pious man say scientists sell their soul to Satan. I am sure NEITHER position "helps". But please don't lay all obliquy at the feet of the ebil atheists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As an 'aside' in this discussion I want to point out to you atheists the importance of belief

You know what I find important in terms of my beliefs?
That they reflect reality.

I am very comfortable with my belief in the bible stories.

Good for you.
I don't care if my beliefs are "comfortable". I care about my beliefs being as accurate as possible. Wheter or not accurate beliefs are "comfortable" has no bearing on their accuracy.

A believer believes often in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Exactly. Why on earth would you think that doing that is a good idea?

When weighed against the disbelief of the world and the consequence that arise from that I choose the incredible benefits of belief, albeit sometimes without proof (that is called faith).

What consequences? The consequence of having beliefs that are as accurate as possible? I'ld think having true beliefs is more preferable then to have false beliefs, wouldn't you agree?

The flood story is just a footnote in the huge body of beliefs that Christians hold, beliefs that govern our every thought and action, and often take us out of harm's way; something the world could emulate.

Beliefs inform your actions. As you say, they govern every thought and action.
So you better make sure that your beliefs are accurate.

Not believing that you have a cancer, might be "comfortable". But it will get you killed.

You are here on these forums not to help anyone in any way, but to tear down our beliefs. Shame on you.

What could be more helpfull, then to tear down false beliefs?

 

[Obliquinaut]

The Nobel Prize means nothing anymore. You get it for being liberal.

Not in the sciences.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please... we all know that whatever link we post, you'll just end up questioning the dating methods and pretend that they aren't trustworthy.

God sent "strong delusion" to unbelievers, not the faithful.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-13

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie ........"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[

You know what I find important in terms of my beliefs?
That they reflect reality.

The reality is that the world is a mess because of a false reality.

What consequences? The consequence of having beliefs that are as accurate as possible? I'd think having true beliefs is more preferable then to have false beliefs, wouldn't you agree?

Look at the world around you and you will see the consequences of unbelief in a better reality.

Beliefs inform your actions. As you say, they govern every thought and action.
So you better make sure that your beliefs are accurate.

Consequences of thought and action is an end game, and I seem to be winning it, by most measures. The 'reality' of most of mankind is navel gazing and wishful thinking.

 

[Obliquinaut]

God sent "strong delusion" to unbelievers, not the faithful.

Here's where the debate breaks down. As I stated earlier most of us atheists don't want to take your faith away from you (I know I certainly don't), but you seem to be playing a double game. You want to use something like science to explain how the Noachian Flood could be explicable in the data we see (you even introduced hydrodynamics etc.) But when asked to defend the science part you run back to the tried and true point that we are all deceived except you by merit of your faith.

If your explanations were just "God Did It Through Pure Miracles" I don't think you'd have much debate. But when you try to use science you can't just run away from the science you want to use whenever it becomes inconvenient and telling us we are "deceived" or (worse yet) laying some guilt trip on us that we are attacking your faith and not helping.

 

[Obliquinaut]

The reality is that the world is a mess because of a false reality.

Simply because it doesn't comport with what you wish it to be?

Look at the world around you and you will see the consequences of unbelief in a better reality.

No, what I see are people who cling to "beliefs" (religious and secular) that are not supported by evidence but by "faith" (or desire for their beliefs to be true) and acting accordingly.

We could point to an endless stream of cases where religious fervor has lead to horrible consequences and made the world a mess. Just as you could point to an endless stream of secular ideals have been twisted and enacted to people's depriment.

The point being that people who cling to an ideal simply because they WISH it to be true and are unwilling to hear the other side and debate the technical details is what is messing up the world.

Consequences of thought and action is an end game, and I seem to be winning it, by most measures. The 'reality' of most of mankind is navel gazing and wishful thinking.

You are "winning"? That's pretty boastful. I would annoy you with another bible quote about that, but I'm sure you'd have some exegesis.

Here's my challenge to the Noachian Flood advocates: could you ever accept that you might be mistaken? I know I could! I assume that there's a certain likelihood that I am incorrect. That's a form of intellectual honesty and brutal reality we face as humans.

But can you? Or is the risk too high? In the end what is attacking your faith? Is it us or is it an internal fear that disallows any questioning of it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here's where the debate breaks down. As I stated earlier most of us atheists don't want to take your faith away from you (I know I certainly don't), but you seem to be playing a double game. You want to use something like science to explain how the Noachian Flood could be explicable in the data we see (you even introduced hydrodynamics etc.) But when asked to defend the science part you run back to the tried and true point that we are all deceived except you by merit of your faith.

If your explanations were just "God Did It Through Pure Miracles" I don't think you'd have much debate. But when you try to use science you can't just run away from the science you want to use whenever it becomes inconvenient and telling us we are "deceived" or (worse yet) laying some guilt trip on us that we are attacking your faith and not helping.

That comment was an 'aside'.

Regarding science, God uses supernatural means to interfere with his creation. My position is that everything is supernatural (the 'natural' state of the universe is the absence of life) and that science is the study of the creation in a 'steady state'. Because it is actually supernatural it can be altered by the supernatural being that created it. As has been suggested God could have 'poofed' the death of those killed in the flood, but he chose to use his creation to accomplish it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

,

Simply because it doesn't comport with what you wish it to be?

This actually true. If everyone were like me the world would be a much better place.

No, what I see are people who cling to "beliefs" (religious and secular) that are not supported by evidence but by "faith" (or desire for their beliefs to be true) and acting accordingly.

Reality is formed by people acting on their beliefs , scientific realities notwithstanding.

We could point to an endless stream of cases where religious fervor has lead to horrible consequences and made the world a mess. Just as you could point to an endless stream of secular ideals have been twisted and enacted to people's depriment.

Let's point to mine.

The point being that people who cling to an ideal simply because they WISH it to be true and are unwilling to hear the other side and debate the technical details is what is messing up the world.

Those technical details are the effect of bad thinking, not the cause.

You are "winning"? That's pretty boastful. I would annoy you with another bible quote about that, but I'm sure you'd have some exegesis.

Not boasting, just stating a fact (I'm told not to hide my good works but make them an example to all).

Here's my challenge to the Noachian Flood advocates: could you ever accept that you might be mistaken? I know I could! I assume that there's a certain likelihood that I am incorrect. That's a form of intellectual honesty and brutal reality we face as humans.

But can you? Or is the risk too high? In the end what is attacking your faith? Is it us or is it an internal fear that disallows any questioning of it?

Can you point out where I have 'acted' on my belief in the flood, other than on these forums, and what harm it has done?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Those technical details are the effect of bad thinking, not the cause.

And what would make you think you are the arbiter of what is bad technical detail? (I mean just based on the present case I have seen you throw around a few technical concepts but they seem to fail or you won't support them with the actual math, so I'm curious how you would determine flawed technical information.)

Can you point out where I have 'acted' on my belief in the flood, other than on these forums, and what harm it has done?

I merely asked if you could ever accept the idea that you might be in error. I'm being open as a book and telling you I AM aware that I could be in error.

If a belief cannot stand up to robust debate for fear that accepting one hypothetically could be in error then I immediately am suspicious of that belief.

Everyone holds beliefs. I guess it's a matter of how closely one examines the reasons that one holds a certain belief.

 

[Obliquinaut]

That comment was an 'aside'.

But it gets to the heart of these debates. And it is a reasonable critique. And hopefully I have answered at least from my perspective why I engage in these debates. In other words it is not to disabuse you of your religious faith but to question you when you invoke scientific facts and concepts to supplement that faith.

My position is that everything is supernatural (the 'natural' state of the universe is the absence of life) and that science is the study of the creation in a 'steady state'.

This borders on the unfalsifiable. If everything is simply re-defined as being "supernatural" by fiat of you command then of course it is all God, all the time.

But then the definition falls far short of defining a specific God. In other words it could be ZEUS that is making and controlling all things. Or a panoply of gods. (In other words it is bordering on the hippy-dippy version of God is In All Things end of the Teleological argument).

Because it is actually supernatural it can be altered by the supernatural being that created it. As has been suggested God could have 'poofed' the death of those killed in the flood, but he chose to use his creation to accomplish it.

No one is arguing that God, if He existed, couldn't do everything you say. BUT the fact of the matter is you are repeatedly relying on naturalistic science concepts to explain why there is no evidence for the Noachian Flood. Now you seem to want to retreat to pure miracle territory.

If you want to claim it is all a miracle and that indeed any evidence for the Flood will look indistinguishable from non-Flood evidence then the only problem is with a God who would create a miracle that covers up all the expected evidence for that event. And that is theology, not science. (Problematic theology, admittedly, but still theology).

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to claim it is all a miracle and that indeed any evidence for the Flood will look indistinguishable from non-Flood evidence then the only problem is with a God who would create a miracle that covers up all the expected evidence for that event.

I disagree.

What made scientists look for a Flood in the first place?

If God covered up the evidence, then unless He did it as an easter egg, no scientist on Earth will be able to find it.

Case in point:

When Moses died, it was God ... not man ... who buried him.

Deuteronomy 34:4 And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.
Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
Deuteronomy 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

And to this day, even Satan can't find his body.

Jude 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

So if God wanted to be deceptive, all He had to do is keep quiet about the Flood, and man would never know it happened.

Instead, He documented what He did, how He did it, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, and who the eyewitnesses were by name.

Are you suggesting He did that to deceive the readers of His word?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I disagree.

What made scientists look for a Flood in the first place?

Because the Bible told them to. That's it. That's 100% the reason. It wasn't because of anything the rocks showed, it wasn't because of anything the earth showed. It was solely because early on in the 15th -17th centuries "geologists" and "natural philosophers" were taught to believe the Bible.

The reason they no longer look for the Flood is because about 300 years ago they started to actually study geology as a science free of any pre-conceptions. Let the rocks speak for themselves.

So if God wanted to be deceptive, all He had to do is keep quiet about the Flood, and man would never know it happened.

As it is man cannot know it happened save the the words of some other unknown people. And if there's one thing I'm pretty sure of it's that people don't always tell the stories accurately or truthfully.

Instead, He documented

I think this is what drives me nuts here. You say that with such authority, as if you know 100% perfectly and could in no way be in error. Yet here I am saying that I could be in error. I see no reason to assume that I am in error but I could be in error about the Flood.

But that is the nature of faith: it is an epistemologically weaker position because it operates in the absence of evidence and is pounded out from believers with 100% perfectly pure knowledge.

And that knowledge cannot be supported other than by fiat.

I'm willing to grant you may be right, but I just don't know how you would know that you are!

Are you suggesting He did that to deceive the readers of His word?

I am suggesting that HE didn't write anything. That indeed the Bible looks, feels, reads and by every available metric appears to be 100% written by humans.

(And here's a bigger question I've been wanting to ask you: why do you think Colter's Urantian views are "culty" and seemingly beyond the pale, but your views that God wrote parts of the Bible in 17th century King's English are somehow just fine?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree.

What made scientists look for a Flood in the first place?

Curiosity, the search for knowledge. Why are flood advocates so against knowledge?

If God covered up the evidence, then unless He did it as an easter egg, no scientist on Earth will be able to find it.

Case in point:

When Moses died, it was God ... not man ... who buried him.

Deuteronomy 34:4 And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.
Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
Deuteronomy 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

And to this day, even Satan can't find his body.
Jude 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Or perhaps he was merely a fictional character in the Bible. There are plenty of them.

So if God wanted to be deceptive, all He had to do is keep quiet about the Flood, and man would never know it happened.

You don't see how you keep claiming that God was deceptive.

Instead, He documented what He did, how He did it, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, and who the eyewitnesses were by name.

Are you suggesting He did that to deceive the readers of His word?

You keep conflating the Bible with "what God said". But we can ignore that for now. The Bible does not say that he hid his work as you keep claiming that he did. In fact according to the story he left a rainbow so we would know what he did in the past. "Cleaning up" and "completely hiding" are two different things. He supposedly hid the flood by making an Earth with a false history, please note the word "false", according to you. That is you claiming that God lied.

Now if one looks on the ark story as a morality tale and Jesus's reference to Noah as mere allegory then there is no "lying".

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the Bible told them to.

So the Bible tells them to, knowing good and well that they'll eventually find evidence to the contrary ... is that what you're saying?

And it happens to be the same Bible that says God cannot lie.

So in essence, the Bible just committed intellectual suicide ... correct?

"I'm incapable of lying, I want the whole world to believe in me, and I just took your wallet.

Don't believe me? go look for yourself."

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the Bible tells them to, knowing good and well that they'll eventually find evidence to the contrary ... is that what you're saying?

And it happens to be the same Bible that says God cannot lie.

So in essence, the Bible just committed intellectual suicide ... correct?

"I'm incapable of lying, I want the whole world to believe in me, and I just took your wallet.

Don't believe me? go look for yourself."

I need to point out that your beliefs are the ones that lead to a lying God. Many, if not most Christians, disagree with you, probably because of how your beliefs lead to a dishonest God.

 

[Obliquinaut]

So the Bible tells them to, knowing good and well that they'll eventually find evidence to the contrary ... is that what you're saying?

No, I'm saying a priest or preacher told them from childhood that they HAVE to believe the Bible is an accurate portrayal of what actually happened.

So in essence, the Bible just committed intellectual suicide ... correct?

I cannot speak to this as I am not a Bible Worshipper. It is a book. It appears to me to be written by humans and hence prone to any issues that humans can introduce to it. It is not clear to me that every single part is literal as humans are prone to write both literally and figuratively.

"I'm incapable of lying, I want the whole world to believe in me, and I just took your wallet.

Don't believe me? go look for yourself."

When you phrase it like that it really seems you are not quite tracking on the conversation.

(Don't worry, I won't tell the Bible anything. But I understand if you can't talk right now. It might be listening. Shhhh.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I need to point out that your beliefs are the ones that lead to a lying God.

Is that so?

Many, if not most Christians, disagree with you, probably because of how your beliefs lead to a dishonest God.

Is that so?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And what would make you think you are the arbiter of what is bad technical detail? (I mean just based on the present case I have seen you throw around a few technical concepts but they seem to fail or you won't support them with the actual math, so I'm curious how you would determine flawed technical information.)

My response was directed at the technical details involved in the world's problems, not the flood details. Technology is applied to solve problems that are caused by faulty thinking. Therefore the technology may be fine but normally unnecessary if people's thought processes were right.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This borders on the unfalsifiable. If everything is simply re-defined as being "supernatural" by fiat of you command then of course it is all God, all the time.

I'm not about to try and 'falsify' my beliefs at this late date; they work just fine.

Regarding flood evidence, I believe there is an abundance of it that is just not accepted as such. Probably because Noah's flood wouldn't leave such evidence. Scientists have 'debunked' the flood without having constructing a proper model to study it. It's willful ignorance.