Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
An explanation is supposed to tell us why something happened one particular way rather than any other way. To say "it was a miracle" is not an explanation, because it does not rule out any alternatives. A miracle could have caused anything.Actually they do, they indicate that something that defies our understanding happened.
I assume you don't really mean the "Big Bang" in the scientific sense - Big Bang theory explains what happened immediately after the formation of the universe; it does not say how the universe was formed.Yet they do require a bit of faith to accept, that is you have to be willing to accept the fact that a miracle happened. All belief systems require faith, even the "big bang" requires faith.It re2quires more faith in that it is a lot easier to believe that someone outside the construct we understand caused all of this. That is easier to accept than that order came from disorder without any intellegence to guide it.
So how do you explain the mass of evidence against the occurance a global flood?
An explanation is supposed to tell us why something happened one particular way rather than any other way. To say "it was a miracle" is not an explanation, because it does not rule out any alternatives. A miracle could have caused anything.
.
I assume you don't really mean the "Big Bang" in the scientific sense - Big Bang theory explains what happened immediately after the formation of the universe; it does not say how the universe was formed.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that by "Big Bang" you mean the creation of the universe from a singularity, by purely natural means. You are correct that this requires faith, because as of yet there is little evidence (apart from the mathematical predictions of the theory of general relativity, as far as I understand) to suggest that this is what happened.
However, there is a difference between saying "The universe came to be out of a singularity" and "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The first statement rules out plenty of things - specifically, it rules out all of the alternative ways in which the universe could be imagined to have come about. The second statement rules out nothing, because an omnipotent God could have done anything - indeed, he need not have bothered to create the universe at all. This is why "Goddidit" is not an explanation; it does not explain how something happened, only what caused it. Moreover, it does not rule out any alternatives.
However, there is a difference between saying "The universe came to be out of a singularity" and "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The first statement rules out plenty of things - specifically, it rules out all of the alternative ways in which the universe could be imagined to have come about. The second statement rules out nothing, because an omnipotent God could have done anything - indeed, he need not have bothered to create the universe at all. This is why "Goddidit" is not an explanation; it does not explain how something happened, only what caused it. Moreover, it does not rule out any alternatives.
An explanation is supposed to tell us why something happened one particular way rather than any other way. To say "it was a miracle" is not an explanation, because it does not rule out any alternatives. A miracle could have caused anything.
I assume you don't really mean the "Big Bang" in the scientific sense - Big Bang theory explains what happened immediately after the formation of the universe; it does not say how the universe was formed.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that by "Big Bang" you mean the creation of the universe from a singularity, by purely natural means. You are correct that this requires faith, because as of yet there is little evidence (apart from the mathematical predictions of the theory of general relativity, as far as I understand) to suggest that this is what happened.
However, there is a difference between saying "The universe came to be out of a singularity" and "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The first statement rules out plenty of things - specifically, it rules out all of the alternative ways in which the universe could be imagined to have come about. The second statement rules out nothing, because an omnipotent God could have done anything - indeed, he need not have bothered to create the universe at all. This is why "Goddidit" is not an explanation; it does not explain how something happened, only what caused it. Moreover, it does not rule out any alternatives.
It exists, whether you've encountered it or not.
You are trying to evade the point. The physical evidence exists that no global flood has happened. If God miraculously did carry out a global flood, and miraculously got rid of the water after, he also miraculously went to an awful lot of trouble to make it look like nothing had ever happened. If you set it within the last 10000 years even to the point of having human cultures apparently continuing right through it without ever noticing it happened.Evidence that a flood did not happen? Evidence that an event did not happen? The best evidence is that of a expert witness, don't you think? Would an expert witnesses' testamony count?
Varves. Look 'em up.
You are trying to evade the point. The physical evidence exists that no global flood has happened. If God miraculously did carry out a global flood, and miraculously got rid of the water after, he also miraculously went to an awful lot of trouble to make it look like nothing had ever happened. If you set it within the last 10000 years even to the point of having human cultures apparently continuing right through it without ever noticing it happened.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" isn't a very intellectually sustainable position.Why would I want to spend the time to find evidence against an event that I knew happened? Makes no sence does it?
Where did the water go, then?I have never encountered a mass of evidence against the global flood.
Why would I want to spend the time to find evidence against an event that I knew happened? Makes no sence does it?
My assertion that small blue men are the forces behind quantum mechanics is more tenable than the assertion that there was a global flood that reached to the highest mountains and destroyed all of mankind save one family. My assertion cannot be disproved with any known means and yours already has. See, there is the difference.
For the flood to have happened we would expect sedimentary deposits that EXACTLY follow what one would get if you shook up a jar of various sized silica particles, and then allowed them to settle. This is not observed in any way. This is, I think, the most easily verifiable evidence against a global flood. If you would like to assert some knowledge of another past event that didn't happen, make sure that your facts cannot be checked.
Jesus comments are entirely compatible with it being a shared story about the past and not literal history at all.So are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was a liar or uninformed or what? He considered that there was a global flood.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?