|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am in too many frays. I know the feeling. I've had to cut back recently too, and pretty well confine my efforts to this forum.
When I look at anthropology, I see evidence which would reasonably be interpreted as evidence of religion among the archaic hominids. If one is a christian and believes that one of the things which marks us as human is our religious sense, then clearly those archaic hominids would have religion. This falls into the camp of presupposition leading conclusions, rather than conclusions following the evidence. On the other hand I can agree that lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack, and thus the need for science to verify evidence for religion could miss some of that evidence, certainly it would miss any evidence that would not fossilize or leave a record in some way (cave paintings, for example).
The absolute farthest back one can push religion in any form is 600 kyr ago, ... I would point out evidence cited on my page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/religion.htm Normally posting bare links is frowned on here, but I can see that a lot of people are already familiar with your position and it can help shorten the post lengths in some cases. I did a google on {earliest burial} and the first site listed was interesting, on ASA3.org, seems it is authored by someone named Glen Morton ... I had bookmarked a Book Review (broken now) to The Neanderthal's Necklace: In Search of the First Thinkers By Juan Luis Arsuaga, in Discover magazine where I got these quotes (posted on another site):
quote: So I can go to 300,000 years based on the evidence of burials as religious behavior. Of course this is a different species line than one that leads to anatomically modern humans, so now we have the issue of having at least two species of religious hominids - and that can be taken as evidence for religion in their common ancestor, or at least a pre-disposition for religion in the common ancestor. And if we make that argument, then there is the issue of religious behavior in chimpanzees (which some people think belong in the hominid genus) and gorillas: Error: Active domain connection for this domain not found
quote: So if we make the common ancestor argument for Neander and Cro-Magnon, we should (logically) make the same argument for the common ancestor for chimp, gorilla and human. The other part of the argument involved tool making. The oldest evidence we have of preserved tools - stone ones - come with Homo habilis at 2.5 million years, and ancestral (supposedly) for both Neander and Sapiens.
Adam could have been an australopithecine for all I care. H.floresiensis, regardless of whether or not he is a deformed H. sapiens or a descendant of A. garhi, had enough intelligence in his chimpsized brain to do many of the things we humans do--stone tools, mastery of fire, and hunting big (for them) game and all of this collectively screams intelligence. Add to that the recent evidence of chimps making wood spears with sharpened points to hunt - spears that would not likely fossilize as such even if they were buried with the manufacturer. And if we make the argument for religious behavior based on common ancestor then we should also make if for tool making behavior -- these are behaviors after all and not part of the fossils of the species (although culturally transmitted behavior can be positively selected similar to genetic mutations). On the other hand, all we may have is evidence for the cultural transmission of behavior by these ancient common ancestors, while the tool and religious behavior has come late in the picture. Enjoy. ps -- type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
All messages should tie into Glenn Morton's ideas about the Genesis flood. If a message does not directly relate to such, it is OFF-TOPIC.
People, let's make it explicit how your messages ties into the topic's theme. Please take any responses to this message to the "General discussion..." topic, link below. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6219 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
Do you believe the hominids of five million years ago could have built the biblically-described ark? I am surprised that the chimp-sized brains of H. floresiensis could do what they do, so, this would not be entirely out of the question, but the dimensions of the boat, as we understand it would be smaller. H. floresiensis, did manufacture spears and stone points. They mastered fire, and their ancestors, as I pointed out in an earlier post, had to have mastered sailing or they wouldn't be in Flores in the first place. Interestingly, comparative anatomical work places H. floresiensis closer to one of the Australopithecines than with any other hominid. "LB1 clusters with A. garhi rather than with H. ergaster in the postcranial analyses. If Morwood and colleagues' (2005) estimate for the LB1 radius is correct, and our analyses are not affected by any scaling issues, then we propose that the radius/ femur proportions of LB1 show greater similarity to A. garhi than to H. ergaster." Debbie Argue, Denise Donlon, Colin Groves, Richard Wright, "Homo Floresiensis: Microcephalic, pygmoid, Australopithecus, or Homo?" Journal of Human Evolution, 51(2006):360-374, p. 371 If this is true, then when Morwood and colleagues talkd about sailing to Flores, it would have to be Australopithecines, which is something most people are not ready to accept, but that would be the conclusion from the evidence. I will quote this again: "Even at times of low sea level, when Sumatra, Java andBali were connected to mainland Southeast Asia, at least two sea crossings were required to reach Flores. The first of these deep-water barriers, between the islands of Bali and Lombok, is about 25 km wide and constitutes a major biogeographical boundary, the Wallace Line. Prior to human intervention, only animals capable of crossing substantial water barriers by swimming, flying or rafting on flotsam were able to establish populations on Flores (e.g. elephants, rats). In fact, the impoverished nature of the fauna on the island in the Early and Middle Pleistocene rules out the possibility of temporary landbridges from continental Southeast Asia. The presence of hominids on Flores in the Early Pleistocene therefore provides the oldest inferred date for human maritime technology anywhere in the world. Elsewhere, dates for such capabilities are much more recent. These findings indicate that the intelligence and technological capabilities of H. erectus may have been seriously underestimated. An accumulating body of evidence from elsewhere supports this conclusion (e.g. Thieme 1997)." "The complex logistic organization needed for people to build water-craft capable of transporting a biologically and socially viable group across significant water barriers, also implies that people had language. Previously the organizational and linguistic capacity required for sea voyaging was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans and to have only appeared in the late Pleistocene. It now seems that humans had this capacity 840,000 years ago." M. J. Morwood et al, "Archaeological and Palaeontological Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of Fieldwork 1997-1998," Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p. 285,286 But, if one asks, do I have evidence that they built an ark that long ago, no. I don't. One issue with the flood that people don't think about very often. We act as if technology and a technological society would spring up again immediately. Here is something I wrote long ago, but is still valid for this issue. Technology requires people, lots of people. I find oil for your cars,you all do other things indirectly for me. I specialize in my technology, you in yours. The farmer grows food for both of us. If we were reduced to only a few people then our technological knowledge would die. Consider the effects of such a population bottleneck. Do you or 8 of your best friends know how to grow cotton, build a spindle and a loom to make cloth? You need a plow to grow cotton, so lets make an iron plow. Do you know what iron ore looks like? Do you know where to look? Do you know where to look for coal? Do you know how to mine it? With dynamite? Ok, do you know how to make dynamite? Can you build a wagon and haul it? If you can't make dynamite build wagons, tame horses, and haul the stuff, to where the coal is (or vice versa) how do you make anything with iron? Assuming that you can do this, can you make iron? Do you know how to construct a kiln? Do you know what you need for iron manufacture besides coal, ore and a kiln? Without it you will fail. If you can't make iron, you can't make an iron plow. So you want to make a wooden plow. Fine. How do you cut the tree? Do you know how to make stone tools? And while you are trying to re-establish an agricultural society, what do you eat TODAY? Who gathers food while you wait on the crop to mature. Do you know how to keep pests from eating your crop before you eat it? A farmer spends most of his time shooing the bugs off his crop. But you need to eat NOW. So do you know how to make a bow and arrow? How to aim it? How to stalk prey? Do you know how to balance a spear so the point will strike first? Do you know what vegetables are poisonous? Do you know how to remove the toxins? Consider this, yams are poisonous unless cooked. Cycads can kill if not soaked in water for a long time and I believe acorns can make you quite sick also unless you soak them. Do you know how to start a fire without a match? (you need sticks which have been modified.) Now, given a more primitive preflood society, they could havemaintained a hunting capability but not an agricultural one. What all this points to is that given a society who had only 8 survivors, they would lose all their technical knowledge and could not pass it on to their kids. It would take a long, long time before their children re-invented the technology. What I envision about the 'primitive' time of human evolution is that it is the re-development of technology. An example: the Tasmanians were isolated for 8,000 years from all other humans. They numbered 4,000 people and over time, even with 4000 people they were not able to maintain their technology. 7000 years ago they made bone and stone tools and were not different from the mainland aborigines, but about 3500 years ago, they ceased making bone tools. And in spite of excellent fishing around the island, they lost the ability to fish. Their huts were reduced to about what Neanderthals built. Josephine Flood, "The Archeology of the Dreamtime, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 173-178 If you were among only a few survivors of a catastrophe, you and yourchildren would be quickly reduced to naked savagery. My point is that assuming the flood occured when I say it did, the gap everybody has pounded me over, the gap from 2.0 - 5.5 million years would be understandable as a result of the loss of technology. If one wants an anthropologically universal flood (kills all us humans save Noah and co.), where is the period of technology loss? I would say it is all of the hominid fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
True, but there is a great conundrum that few want to face--the quadralemma. If God is able or willing to communicate reality to us, then he is God If God is unable but willing to communicate reality to us, then he is impotent. If God is able but unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is evil If God is both unable and unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is not God. There are no other positions to lay out for the 2 verbs, able and willing. This is a variation on the Epicurian argument for atheism and it explains why God must transmit historicity to us. First of all, can I say that I've read your writings on the Web, and it's been a pleasure, and I feel privileged to have the opportunity to debate you. Now let me rip your argument into small shreds and jump up and down on them shouting "NO! NO! NO!" I hardly know where to start. --- First of all, you say that if God is not "impotent" then he can communicate historicity to "us". Well, patently he can't. You believe in a flood millions of years ago, YECs don't believe that "millions of years ago" refers to anything, Jar doesn't think there was a flood, and some people don't think there was a historical Jesus, and you're all looking at the same world and reading the same Bible. BB and I are debating whether the "Nephilim" are giant humanoids or giant saurians; the question of a local versus a universal flood has come up on this thread; you have read the same Bible as Bishop Ussher. Need I go on? Maybe there is a God, and maybe he has in some way communicated history to us, but not in some unambiguous way. If a real God would have both the power and the desire to make history clear to "us", then there is no God and what you've posted is a good knock-down argument for atheism. --- Secondly, why they heck should the God of the Christian theolgians have communicated history to us accurately in some holy book? Why history? Your quadrilemma asks why God wouldn't communicate "reality" to us. Well, if you believe that the Bible is God's main communication to us, then it omits the germ theory of disease and the inverse square law and other handy hints. That's "reality", too. If there is a God, then clearly he doesn't want to personally enlighten us on various academic matters. --- Thirdly, you say that if there was a God then he would have given us knowledge of certain historical facts, where by "us", as I have shown above, you do not mean "all of us". But then you make a huge leap, and assume, without discussing it, that if he did so, he must have done so by means of the Bible, rather than, say, the geological record. Or the Qur'aan. Why? --- Lastly, if God exists, then he is quite clearly, in your own words, either "impotent" or "unwilling" to do a whole lot of things --- such as rain manna on famine areas, or heal small children of malaria. The original "paradox of Epicurus" was about the existence of evil. But you are applying it to historical uncertainty? You say that God couldn't exist and tolerate that? If God exists, he clearly tolerates many things. Many, many things, and many things which are downright evil. God, it would seem, tolerates all the cruelty and suffering in the world. By comparison with that, ignorance of the early history of humankind would not be evil. At worst, it would be moderately vexing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mpb1 Member (Idle past 6160 days) Posts: 66 From: Texas Joined: |
Forgive me if I'm generalizing, but from what I've read, it seems that as of this second, the geological/anthropological community would probably agree that:
1.) There is no evidence of a worldwide flood ever. 2.) There is no evidence that even a regional Flood, as described in the Bible, could have occurred in at least the last five million years. 3.) There is no evidence that the biblical Ark could have been built by any society until sometime within the last 10,000 years. It appears that unless there is a forced agenda, the current anthropological evidence is as much against your theory as you believe the geological evidence supports your theory. Once you undermine the clearly-described biblical Ark and say "maybe a boat," which is even a stretch - for FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO - you have also departed from Scripture in an ENORMOUS WAY, in my opinion, as much as I am departing from it by saying, "maybe the story shouldn't even be in the Book." So it seems that absolute intellectual honesty would practically require the complete dismissal of your theory, which is why I would assume it has gained very little traction in the years you have been sharing it. If you can answer this argument without any anger, I'd really appreciate it. Remember, you came into my topically-unrelated thread and pounded your theory over my head - REPEATEDLY. So please don't be offended that I am now asking for pure intellectual honesty in assessing your theory. You have harshly criticized Hugh Ross for his anthropological teachings, and I couldn't care less, though you believe I am biased toward him. So I'm not "for" one and against the other. I want to apply the same standard to all. If Hugh is full of crap in certain areas - most likely even when it comes to the Flood - I can accept that, and I want to make sure that in any written analysis I do, that these problems are pointed out. It seems that ANTHROPOLOGY destroys your theory, and GEOLOGY, perhaps among other things, would destroy his theory (and everyone else's, when it comes to the Flood at least). Using modern scientific testing methods, that pretty much rules out the Flood story altogether, UNLESS you force an agenda, and HOPE for more favorable evidence to support your theory, as you and Hugh are both doing. - Edited by mpb1, : No reason given. Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
b_b --- damn, you're so wrong about so many things.
The thing about Columbus is so wrong it makes me want to (a) laugh (b) cry (c) shout through my monitor, it's such rubbish. If you want to start a thread on the history and philosophy of science, please do so. I hope Adminnemooseus will forgive me for issuing this brief invitation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
AdminNosy writes: Jar suggests that there is evidence against things that some creationists believe. If his evidence is reasonable and not countered then for those creationists to continue to believe in those things is indeed childish and silly. to which b b replied:
quote: But what I present was not lack of evidence, it was positive evidence that the Flood is totally falsified, that is is simply not true. If there had been a world-wide flood there would be certain indicators. We can look and see if those indicators are there. I outlined those indicators in Message 33. People have looked for those indicators. Not one of them is there. Even Glen Morton, who I respect greatly has not been able to point to any evidence that there was ever a Great Biblical Flood. It is not simply a lack of evidence, it is that the evidence that MUST be there if the Biblical account were true is simply not there. The idea that there was a flood is simply wrong, refuted, disproven.
b b writes: Before Columbus, there was no evidence that the earth was round. I think Columbus was wise and everyone who relied on what was proven was childish. I'm sorry b b but that is simply so wrong, shows such a total ignorance of history that it is embarrassing. By the time of Ezra the Scribe, when the Torah was most likely redacted into the form we know today, people knew that the earth was a sphere and by two hundred years before Christ was born the circumference and diameter had been measured. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6219 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
First of all, can I say that I've read your writings on the Web, and it's been a pleasure, and I feel privileged to have the opportunity to debate you. Now let me rip your argument into small shreds and jump up and down on them shouting "NO! NO! NO!" I hardly know where to start. Thank you for the kind words. I will do my best to defend my self.
First of all, you say that if God is not "impotent" then he can communicate historicity to "us". Well, patently he can't. You believe in a flood millions of years ago, YECs don't believe that "millions of years ago" refers to anything, Jar doesn't think there was a flood, and some people don't think there was a historical Jesus, and you're all looking at the same world and reading the same Bible. BB and I are debating whether the "Nephilim" are giant humanoids or giant saurians; the question of a local versus a universal flood has come up on this thread; you have read the same Bible as Bishop Ussher. Need I go on? Yes, because so far I don't see an argument. What I see is a statement of fact--the very obvious fact that people beleive different things. If you are arguing that because people believe different things, I am therefore automatically wrong, that seems to be an excellent example of the logical fallacy called non-sequitur--(fancy word for 'it doesn't follow'). Secondly, All these different interpretations of the Bible are just that, interpretations. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they are interpretations. When I map an area looking for oil, I usually have a different interpretation of the geology than my colleaques in other companies. Your argument basically says that because my colleagues map the area differently than I, I am automatically wrong. Sorry, that is illogical.
Maybe there is a God, and maybe he has in some way communicated history to us, but not in some unambiguous way. If a real God would have both the power and the desire to make history clear to "us", then there is no God and what you've posted is a good knock-down argument for atheism.
Of course my quadralemma is an argument for atheism. Are we not to pay attention to arguments directed against Christianity itself when trying to interpret the Bible? Now, you may choose to believe that God can't communicate anything of real knowledge to humanity. Fine. That is your perogative, but if you believe in such an impotent God, why on earth do you worship Him? (assuming of course that you do). Please explain to me what logic drives you to see false stories and decide that the God who inspired them is worthy of worship. (If you ignore this question as many do, I will ask it again).
Secondly, why they heck should the God of the Christian theolgians have communicated history to us accurately in some holy book? Why history? Your quadrilemma asks why God wouldn't communicate "reality" to us. Well, if you believe that the Bible is God's main communication to us, then it omits the germ theory of disease and the inverse square law and other handy hints. That's "reality", too. Yes, I do believe that the Bible is God's main communication to mankind. I am not, after all, a Buddhist. But as an aside, have you read the Dhammapada? I have.
If there is a God, then clearly he doesn't want to personally enlighten us on various academic matters. I always love it when people, who think that God can't communicate anything certain about reality, are so quick to relate their certainty about what God would or wouldn't do. It seems deliciously cheezy to claim that you KNOW that God wouldn't do a particular act while at the same time you are arguing that God can't or won't communicate reality. So I ask. Did God communicate this verity to you? In what form did you receive this particular revelation? And if you believe it is from the same God whom you charge with the inability to communicate reality, why on earth do you believe what He says? (please answer each of these questions and don't ignore them. Most people I ask this of, simply refuse to even address the means by which they know the truth of their assertion of what God would do).
Thirdly, you say that if there was a God then he would have given us knowledge of certain historical facts, where by "us", as I have shown above, you do not mean "all of us". But then you make a huge leap, and assume, without discussing it, that if he did so, he must have done so by means of the Bible, rather than, say, the geological record. Or the Qur'aan. Why?
Have you actually READ, the Qur'aan? I have. There is actually very little historical narrative there. and it is boring. Secondly, Are you aware that Islam accepts the Torah's creaton story? When you realize this, then your question becomes one which shows you don't know a lot about Islam. Three religions accept this creation story--Islam, Judaism and Christianity. So the answer to your question is rather simple. The Qur'aan accepts the Torah which is what tells us about the creation and the flood.
Lastly, if God exists, then he is quite clearly, in your own words, either "impotent" or "unwilling" to do a whole lot of things --- such as rain manna on famine areas, or heal small children of malaria. The original "paradox of Epicurus" was about the existence of evil. But you are applying it to historical uncertainty? You say that God couldn't exist and tolerate that? Actually I didn't say God couldn't exist and tolerate any particular thing. I dont' know where you got that idea. God could conceivably be a Klingon war God. My answer to the Epicurian original argument is not what most Christians like. I take Isaiah 45:6,7 seriously. 'I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.' The word which is translated evil is ra ah, which BDB says is "evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity " and Stongs says is "bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally)." Now, because of this verse, I don't believe in the Santa-God most people want to believe in, the Kindly God who only passes out A's to all us chillins' and who never says a cross word. This kindly old grandfather Santa-God is not who I think God is. You might say, oh how cruel of me to believe God gives people cancer, well, as a cancer patient, I have no problem with that concept. God never promised me an 80 year life with no difficulty, so god never broke a promise to me. Indeed, people who get angry at God when bad things come usually have the Santa-god concept and then blame God for failing to deliver on a promise God never made!
If God exists, he clearly tolerates many things. Many, many things, and many things which are downright evil. God, it would seem, tolerates all the cruelty and suffering in the world. By comparison with that, ignorance of the early history of humankind would not be evil. At worst, it would be moderately vexing. I would suggest when presenting an argument which is supposed to rip up my views, that you actually know my views. The above paragraph is arguing from the assumption (admittedly statistically probable) that any random Christian is going to hold to the Santa God concept. I dont', so your argument fails to connect with its target. I do hope you enjoy my defense of your 'ripping' my ideas apart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
True, but there is a great conundrum that few want to face--the quadralemma. If God is able or willing to communicate reality to us, then he is God If God is unable but willing to communicate reality to us, then he is impotent. If God is able but unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is evil If God is both unable and unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is not God. There are no other positions to lay out for the 2 verbs, able and willing. This is a variation on the Epicurian argument for atheism and it explains why God must transmit historicity to us. Glen, the issues you raise in that section are really important I believe, and ones I'd love to discuss with you. However, the way EvC is set up they are really off topic for this thread. Just some background. The set up here is that there are two major divisions, the Science area and the Theological area. For example, we are in one of the Science forums in a sub forum that deals with Geology and the Great Flood. What is the possibility of you posting those items in a new message in the Proposed New Topics forum? Since responding to those questions will certainly take someone way outside the narrow focus of geology and the great flood, one of the admins could move it to another area such as Comparative Religions. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4080 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Glenn,
I'm just saying hi. I exchanged a few emails with you a few years ago to talk to you about your views of the flood. Thanks for showing up here. I still check your web site here and there, and I really enjoy reading your writings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, because so far I don't see an argument. What I see is a statement of fact--the very obvious fact that people beleive different things. If you are arguing that because people believe different things, I am therefore automatically wrong, that seems to be an excellent example of the logical fallacy called non-sequitur--(fancy word for 'it doesn't follow'). You seem to have missed my point. Since we have different opinions, it follows that God is indeed either unwilling or unable to give "us" an accurate knowledge of history. Some of us, perhaps.
Secondly, All these different interpretations of the Bible are just that, interpretations. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they are interpretations. When I map an area looking for oil, I usually have a different interpretation of the geology than my colleaques in other companies. Your argument basically says that because my colleagues map the area differently than I, I am automatically wrong. Sorry, that is illogical. No, I'm saying that in that case at least one of you is wrong: which proves that if there is an omnipotent God, it is not his will that everyone should have an accurate map of the area.
Of course my quadralemma is an argument for atheism. Are we not to pay attention to arguments directed against Christianity itself when trying to interpret the Bible? Now, you may choose to believe that God can't communicate anything of real knowledge to humanity. I didn't say that he can't communicate any facts to humanity, I said that clearly he has not in fact communicated certain facts to humanity. To a tiny percentage of humanity, maybe.
Please explain to me what logic drives you to see false stories and decide that the God who inspired them is worthy of worship. But I don't. I see false stories and conclude that they were not, in fact, inspired by God.
I always love it when people, who think that God can't communicate anything certain about reality, are so quick to relate their certainty about what God would or wouldn't do. It seems deliciously cheezy to claim that you KNOW that God wouldn't do a particular act while at the same time you are arguing that God can't or won't communicate reality. So I ask. Did God communicate this verity to you? In what form did you receive this particular revelation? And if you believe it is from the same God whom you charge with the inability to communicate reality, why on earth do you believe what He says? (please answer each of these questions and don't ignore them. Most people I ask this of, simply refuse to even address the means by which they know the truth of their assertion of what God would do). But I'm not talking about what God can do or can't do or would do or wouldn't do --- I am talking about what he manifestly has not done. He has not put the germ theory of disease or the inverse square law into the Bible and he has not successfully comunicated the truth about prehistory to the whole of humanity. Without any theological speculation --- without even considering whether God exists --- we can deduce that if he does exist, he must be either unable or unwilling to make the sky pink with green spots, since it is not in fact that color. I don't need a divine revelation to tell me this, I just need to look at the sky. So the answer to your questions are, respectively: (a) no (b) by observation (c) not applicable.
Have you actually READ, the Qur'aan? I have. There is actually very little historical narrative there. and it is boring. Secondly, Are you aware that Islam accepts the Torah's creaton story? When you realize this, then your question becomes one which shows you don't know a lot about Islam. Three religions accept this creation story--Islam, Judaism and Christianity. So the answer to your question is rather simple. The Qur'aan accepts the Torah which is what tells us about the creation and the flood. I have read the Qur'aan; it differs from the Torah on several points; and Islamic theology says that when it does so the Qur'aan is right and the text of the Torah has been corrupted.
Actually I didn't say God couldn't exist and tolerate any particular thing. I dont' know where you got that idea. From the quadrilemma. You seem to be arguing that a God both good and powerful would not permit us to be in the dark about certain matters.
Now, because of this verse, I don't believe in the Santa-God most people want to believe in, the Kindly God who only passes out A's to all us chillins' and who never says a cross word. This kindly old grandfather Santa-God is not who I think God is. You might say, oh how cruel of me to believe God gives people cancer, well, as a cancer patient, I have no problem with that concept. God never promised me an 80 year life with no difficulty, so god never broke a promise to me. Indeed, people who get angry at God when bad things come usually have the Santa-god concept and then blame God for failing to deliver on a promise God never made! I would suggest when presenting an argument which is supposed to rip up my views, that you actually know my views. The above paragraph is arguing from the assumption (admittedly statistically probable) that any random Christian is going to hold to the Santa God concept. Au contraire. My point is that you cannot believe in a Santa-God and that therefore there is no point claiming that he must have brought us accurate historical knowledge for Christmas --- as your quadrilemma appears to do. If his justice doesn't compel him to cure your cancer, why should it compel him to give you accurate historical knowledge? You have swallowed the camel, and now you're straining at the gnat. Suppose I rewrote your quadrilemma like this --- If God is able or willing to cure all disease, then he is God If God is unable but willing to cure all disease, then he is impotent. If God is able but unwilling to cure all disease, then he is evil If God is both unable and unwilling to cure all disease, then he is not God. --- then it seems you'd reject this reasoning. But it's the same reasoning, except that it's applied to the evils of sickness and suffering rather than the lesser evil of ignorance of historical facts. It seems to me that a fortiori, you must reject your original quadrilemma. --- I'm sorry to hear about your illness. Edited by Dr Adequate, : To put the "s" in "respectively".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6219 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
Glen, the issues you raise in that section are really important I believe, and ones I'd love to discuss with you. However, the way EvC is set up they are really off topic for this thread. Just some background. The set up here is that there are two major divisions, the Science area and the Theological area. For example, we are in one of the Science forums in a sub forum that deals with Geology and the Great Flood. What is the possibility of you posting those items in a new message in the Proposed New Topics forum? Since responding to those questions will certainly take someone way outside the narrow focus of geology and the great flood, one of the admins could move it to another area such as Comparative Religions. Since I am new here, could you do it and tell me where to go? Sorry about breaking the rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6219 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
I'm just saying hi. I exchanged a few emails with you a few years ago to talk to you about your views of the flood. Thanks for showing up here. I still check your web site here and there, and I really enjoy reading your writings.
Thanks for the kind words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Done.
See Message 1 Once the admins promote it they will provide links to whichever forum they stick it in. {The promoted version is at EvC Forum: The Quadralemma. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6219 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
You seem to have missed my point. Since we have different opinions, it follows that God is indeed either unwilling or unable to give "us" an accurate knowledge of history. Some of us, perhaps. Long ago, Christians generally took the Flood account as a historical event. Francis Bacon, in 1620 wrote: “So as marvel you not at the thin population of America, nor at the rudeness and ignorance of the people; for you must account your inhabitants of America as a young people; younger a thousand years, at the least, than the rest of the world; for that there was so much time between the universal flood and their particular inundation.” Francis Bacon, New Atlantis, in Jerry Weinberger, ed., Francis Bacon, New Atlantis and The Great Instauration,” (Arlington Heights, Ill: Harlan Davidson Inc., 1989), p. 54 It was only when geology showed that the data couldn't be accounted for within the concept of a global flood that ahistorical interpretations arose in earnest. Matthew Poole and Bishop Stillingfleet in the late 1600s were advocating non-global floods. "Bishop Stillingfleet justly observes, 'The flood was universal as to mankind; but from thence follows no necessity at all of asserting the universality of it as to the globe of the earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole earth was peopled before the flood, which I despair of ever seeing proved.' Orignes Sacra, B. III. C.iv.Paragraph 3. Rev. Bourchier Wrey Savile, M.A., Revelation and Science in Respect to Bunsen's Biblical Researches, The Evidences of Christianity, and The Mosaic Cosmogony, (London: Longman, Green Longman, and Roberts, 1862), p. 179
No, I'm saying that in that case at least one of you is wrong: which proves that if there is an omnipotent God, it is not his will that everyone should have an accurate map of the area. Well, let's look at how one determines truth or falsity. When I judge a map I judge it against oil well data obtained AFTER the map was made. If there is a concordance between the map's predictions and the well's data, then the map was true, if not, then the map was false. This illustrates that in normal life the definition of truth is via a theory's concordance with the observed facts. We can agree that the geologic data does not concord with the concept of a global flood (see articles at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm). That makes that interpretation, the one that says there was a global flood, false. There is no other basis other than disconcordance between observational geology and the INTERPRETATION of Scripture, upon which you can claim that the Global Flood concept is false. What makes an interpretation true is that the theory explains the observed facts. But lets move into the ahistorical/ascientific interpretations of the flood story. If I say, 'the flood story isn't true', what I mean by that is that it does not concord with observed facts. And if that is my starting point, then the conclusion is, the story is worthless, not that the story has deep spiritual meaning. If I say that geoids are deposited by a gigantic green slug, and no one has seen such a critter, then one may rightfully dismiss that theory as nutso. But, if this is taught by a religion which says that geoids are deposited by gigantic green slugs, I see no justification for claiming that the story teaches good theology and is thus to be praised and listened to. So, Flood theories should be judged based upon their concordance to observational data, not by any other criteria. Judge my views on that, not upon the idea that everyone has a different idea. The theory of the great green slug is not equivalent to the flooding of the Mediterranean (even if that isn't Noah's flood). The former doesn't concord to observation; the latter does.
I didn't say that he can't communicate any facts to humanity, I said that clearly he has not in fact communicated certain facts to humanity. To a tiny percentage of humanity, maybe. Then he falls into the unwilling part of the quadralemma and the appropriate conclusion is drawn. If he is able, but unwilling, then He is evil. But if He has communicated to a tiny percentage, then he would not be evil. And indeed, that is what the Christian believes. Jesus came to the Jews, a very tiny percentage of humanity. Thus, he did communicate and he isn't evil (so long as you believe he told them the truth). A note to those who think the quadralemma doesn't belong here, the question is whether or not the Bible should be read as conveying any real information is fundamental to whether or not the geology should concord or not concord to the Scriptural account. I had written:
Please explain to me what logic drives you to see false stories and decide that the God who inspired them is worthy of worship. Dr. Adequate responds:
But I don't. I see false stories and conclude that they were not, in fact, inspired by God. Then I stand corrected. I presume then that you think most of the Flood account is bunk and it offers no saving grace or redeeming social value--like the slug story. Correct or incorrect?
But I'm not talking about what God can do or can't do or would do or wouldn't do --- I am talking about what he manifestly has not done. What God has not done, is communicate a story about a global flood--the Hebrew words really don't support the popular view. But that doesn't mean that another interpretation might concord to the geologic data and thus God sent a message which we misunderstood. So, all you can really say in relation to your claim re: the Flood, is that God did communicate the observationally false global flood.
He has not put the germ theory of disease or the inverse square law into the Bible and he has not successfully comunicated the truth about prehistory to the whole of humanity. Why must we expect every piece of modern science to be in the Bible. That is a totally different expectation than the expectation that when God says a flood happened, it really happened, i.e. that God told the truth when he inspired the account. In the former case, God must write a science book; in the later, he only has to tell the truth on those things he actually addresses. He doesn't address mathematics(not even in the famous pi case--there is a clue that explains why the circumference is 3, which is mathematically correct--hint, the bowl isn't a circle).
Without any theological speculation --- without even considering whether God exists --- we can deduce that if he does exist, he must be either unable or unwilling to make the sky pink with green spots, since it is not in fact that color. I don't need a divine revelation to tell me this, I just need to look at the sky. I find the above irrelevant. We are talking not about sky colors but whether or not God, in inspiring the Bible said anything concrete about reality or history. If the Bible taught that the sky was Pink with purple polkadots, we would have every reason to reject the bible because such a description doesn't match reality. But, since the Bible is silent on the color of the sky, your comment is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have no doubt that what follows will make you made, but I am merely following the logic which follows from your statements. I find your argument to be contradictory and incoherent. For the refreshing of memories, you had asserted:
If there is a God, then clearly he doesn't want to personally enlighten us on various academic matters I had asked: "Did God communicate this verity to you?" You replied
(a) no I do thank you for answering this. You are the first who has evern answered this sequence of questions. You will soon see why no one answers them. So, this is an admission that when you said that God wouldn't enlighten us on academic matters, you really didn't know whether or not he would. Do you often say things that God will or wont do, about which you have no real knowledge? Do you make these things up? I had asked,"In what form did you receive this particular revelation?" You replied:
(b) by observation So, do you include observation as equivalent to revelation from God? It would seem to me that when our senses fail us and we observe some illusion, that that would make God revealing falsehood (assuming one equated observation and revelation). I had asked: "And if you believe it is from the same God whom you charge with the inability to communicate reality, why on earth do you believe what He says?" You replied:
(c) not applicable. Well, this seems inconsistent with the answer to b where you seemed to claim that observation was equivalent to revelation (my question was about revelation, not about observation). If you don't believe that you got this through a revelation, then you should have said, not applicable to question b. And I would say, that if you didn't get the knowledge that God wouldn't enlighten us on academic matters via revelation, then I would conclude that you made up your assertion about God because there is no other way to have gotten the information except by having God tell you what he would and wouldn't do. Thus, in spite of your assertion, you really don't know whether or not God would communicate any reality as you claimed he wouldn't.
I have read the Qur'aan; it differs from the Torah on several points; and Islamic theology says that when it does so the Qur'aan is right and the text of the Torah has been corrupted. I actually don't recall the Qur'aan saying that. I just did an electronic search on Book and Musa and can't find such a statement. I find statements like this often.
"46.12": And before it the Book of Musa was a guide and a mercy: and this is a Book verifying (it) in the Arabic language that it may warn those who are unjust and as good news for the doers of good. I will tell you, I won a debate on what the Qur'aan said about Jesus with one of my wife's relatives who was so big in the Palestinian movement that when he died, Yassar Arafat's personal secretary came to deliver the eulogy. I am fairly familiar with the Arabic culture having married into a Lebanese family. There are Shi'ites in the extended family. But, that being said, I don't know everything so if you can teach me on this, I would be delighted to learn.
From the quadrilemma. You seem to be arguing that a God both good and powerful would not permit us to be in the dark about certain matters. Not at all. I am arguing that once one chooses a partciluar option, one is then forced to have certain beleifs about God. God could leave us in the dark, but that position has implications to God's nature--to his character. Similarly God can most assuredly exist and enjoy tormenting us little people. That is most assuredly an option. Such would be an evil god, but hey, there is no absolute law that says a God can't be evil. Christians just happen to generally believe in a loving God. Christians also have the strange idea that God inspired a communication of the true path of salvation. If we can't trust God's communication, how can we trust that he has given us the real path of salvation? (I really would like an answer to this one.)
Au contraire. My point is that you cannot believe in a Santa-God and that therefore there is no point claiming that he must have brought us accurate historical knowledge for Christmas --- as your quadrilemma appears to do. The quadralemma about evil (the epicurian version) and the quadralemma about knowledge (my version) are two separate issues and are not intertwined in the manner you are trying to do. God can be evil but communicate true knowledge. God can be good, and not communicate. To try to combine them, there would be 16 options, not just four options.
If his justice doesn't compel him to cure your cancer, why should it compel him to give you accurate historical knowledge? You have swallowed the camel, and now you're straining at the gnat. Why would justice be involved in curing my cancer? It is not an injustice of God for me to have it, even if He gave it to me. We all die. And from my perspective you argument has gone off the deepend by trying to connect cancer with God's ability or willingness to communicate truth. If God doesn't communicate truth, then our salvation is worthless, period. If God wants me to have cancer, it has no impact whatsoever on his communication. This again is an utter nonsequitur.
Suppose I rewrote your quadrilemma like this --- If God is able or willing to cure all disease, then he is God If God is unable but willing to cure all disease, then he is impotent. If God is able but unwilling to cure all disease, then he is evil If God is both unable and unwilling to cure all disease, then he is not God. It would be a pale immitation of Epicurus, that is what if.
--- then it seems you'd reject this reasoning. But it's the same reasoning, except that it's applied to the evils of sickness and suffering rather than the lesser evil of ignorance of historical facts. It seems to me that a fortiori, you must reject your original quadrilemma. The fact that you ask this question shows that you didn't understand what I said in relation to the Epicurian argument. I don't reject the argument because I don't like the conclusion, I accept the argument because God is cited by Isaiah as being the author of the evil. That has implications for God's nature and it is why I reject the Santa God.
I'm sorry to hear about your illness. Thank you, but life is what life is. You will one day get your turn on the merry-go-round. and I will be sorry for that. All that being said, I don't want anyone feeling sorry for me (and I am glad you haven't pulled your rhetorical punches) because I have had an incredible life, 100+ publications, travel to 26 countries, including Tibet, finding just shy of a billion barrels of oil, having had some ideas worthy of patent attempts, and having eaten my way through the alphabet including scorpion, sea slug, haggis, seahorses, silkworm pupae and other assorted delicacies. But most importantly, I have a great relationship with my 3 sons. The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024