Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 19/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 100 (463464)
04-17-2008 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
04-15-2008 9:46 AM


I thought that they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2008 9:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 2:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2010 12:09 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 100 (463471)
04-17-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Blue Jay
04-17-2008 2:41 PM


Without God, the Bible isn't accurate, though: Noah's Ark would just be another mythicized version of a flood story in a region replete with floods, like Gilgamesh. As long as the Bible includes God, the entire thing is suspect until God is verified. They, of all people, should know that you can't prove the accuracy of the Bible without proving God's existence and characteristics.
I was thinking more along the lines of:
The Bible says there was a flood.
Look, there really was a flood.
Ergo, the Bible was correct about the flood.
They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.
Even if it is "just another mythicized version of a flood story", it would still be correct in that it happened.
For it to not have happened at all shows an inerrancy in the Bible and the literalists cannot have that, so they try to prove that the flood did exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 2:41 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2008 1:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 100 (463558)
04-18-2008 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rrhain
04-18-2008 1:25 AM


quote:
The Bible says there was a flood.
Look, there really was a flood.
Ergo, the Bible was correct about the flood.
This, of course, is a logical error: Affirming the Consequent. This is where you say:
A -> B
B, therefore A
The problem is that there may be other things that result in B. All squares are rectangles (being a square implies being a rectangle), but not all rectangles are squares (having a rectangle does not imply you have a square.)
Meh, not so much. The conclusion is not the same as the first premise.....
What is concluded is that the Bible is correct in saying that a flood occured. The conclusion is not that the Bible does, in fact, say that there was a flood.
A -> B
~B, therefore ~A
That's part of why there has to be a flood: They have pinned their theology on there having been a global flood. If there is no global flood, then their assumed theology falls apart. It doesn't occur to them that perhaps god doesn't exist the way they think.
That's pretty much what I was saying, or trying to say. They have to show that the flood occured so they can show that their theology has been pinned correctly.
If there wasn't a flood, then the Bible is not inerrant and their whole theology falls apart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2008 1:25 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 04-19-2008 5:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 100 (463739)
04-19-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rrhain
04-19-2008 5:49 AM


As you say, meh, not so much. The conclusion is precisely the same as the premise.
Not in the argument that I provided.
They assume that if there were a global flood, this means their claim of god is true. It never occurs to them that it might be a different god (after all, the story of Noah is just a rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim and I doubt they're going to give allegiance to the Sumerian gods) or that something else might have caused the flood.
That's a different argument than the one I provided.
Fail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 04-19-2008 5:49 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 04-19-2008 8:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 100 (463791)
04-20-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
04-19-2008 8:19 PM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
Not in the argument that I provided.
That's because your argument isn't accurate, or at least isn't complete. It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum. They are out to prove the existence of the specific god that caused a global flood and that there is no other. That the Bible is accurate is merely a stepping stone on the way to claiming, "See?! God exists!"
It would be nice if you responded to my argument, the argument that I actually provided, instead of making up an argument for me and the responding to that.
In Message 9 I wrote:
quote:
I thought that they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible.
and in Message 11
quote:
They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.
Even if it is "just another mythicized version of a flood story", it would still be correct in that it happened.
For it to not have happened at all shows an inerrancy in the Bible and the literalists cannot have that, so they try to prove that the flood did exist.
Please do not play dumb and pretend that the only thing that is being done is claiming that the Bible is correct.
Please do not be dumb and respond to arguments that I’m not making.
I haven’t seen many arguments for the flood that conclude that god exists. Care to link to a few?
My point is that, for one, yeah it’s obvious that an argument for the flood and concluding that god exists is illogical, and for two, people generally, when arguing for the flood, are not trying to prove that god exists but rather prove that the Bible has some accuracy to it.
After all, there are lots of religious stories regarding floods. If there were a global flood during a time when people were alive, why would it be impressive to find that an oral tradition that goes back a few thousand years would have a story regarding a global flood?
It would be impressive that the Bible actually got some things right. It would add veracity to the Bible, not prove that god exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 04-19-2008 8:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rrhain, posted 04-22-2008 1:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 100 (463958)
04-22-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rrhain
04-22-2008 1:58 AM


quote:
It would be nice if you responded to my argument, the argument that I actually provided
What part of "Your argument isn't accurate" do you not understand?
The part where it took you two posts of seemingly misrepresentation before you brought it up.
Why do you think they are trying to prove the Bible accurate?
They are trying to prove the Bible accurate in order to add weight to their position of god existing. They are trying to prove the flood to prove the Bible accurate. But they really aren’t taking the fallacious leap from proving the flood to concluding god exists.
They really aren’t Affirming the Consequent in the way that you laid it out.
quote:
It would add veracity to the Bible, not prove that god exists.
But why do we care? Why is it that the only people who are so insistent that there was a global flood in contradiction to all the available evidence are the ones who are insisting that the Christian god exists, that the Bible is true in every word and deed?
You’ve answered this, yourself, in Message 12:
They have pinned their theology on there having been a global flood. If there is no global flood, then their assumed theology falls apart. It doesn't occur to them that perhaps god doesn't exist the way they think.
And I answered it in Message 11:
quote:
They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.
Even if it is "just another mythicized version of a flood story", it would still be correct in that it happened.
For it to not have happened at all shows an inerrancy in the Bible and the literalists cannot have that, so they try to prove that the flood did exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rrhain, posted 04-22-2008 1:58 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 04-22-2008 11:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 100 (464097)
04-23-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
04-22-2008 11:16 PM


Wow, I can hardly believe what I'm reading. I remember seeing Crashfrog bitch about how disingenuous you are with the misrepresentation n'stuff, but I never really saw it for myself and didn't really 'get' what he was saying.
But damn, I get it now.
Well, wait... Is English not your first language? Because that would make sense.
quote:
They are trying to prove the Bible accurate in order to add weight to their position of god existing.
Now I'm confused. You originally said in Message 11:
Catholic Scientist writes:
They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.
Now you're saying they are trying to prove god exists. Which is it?
When you figure out your own argument, please let us know.
They try to prove the Flud to prove the Bible. Then they use the proof of the Bible to prove God exists. They do not leap from the Flud to God's existence and Affirm the Consequent like you are saying.
Huh? We get to work backwards in time? Your original point is actually a response to something I hadn't even said yet? No, Catholic Scientist, my Message 12 is a response to your Message 11.
If I say in message 1 that my favorite color is red, and then you ask me in message 2 what my favorite color is, I will say that I already answered that in message 1.
Now who's playing dumb? Or are you just trolling me?
Why on earth do you think that they're so gung-ho about justifying their preconception about a global flood? Since there are plenty of flood myths, why is it that they never mention that a global flood shows Gilgamesh to be accurate or that Greek myth is accurate? You never hear a talk about Ut-Napishtim or Deucalion and Pyrrha. Why is that, do you think?
Because they are trying to prove that the Bible is accurate, like I've been saying.
Don't play dumb.
.|.. ^.^ ..|.

ABE:
Bluejay seems to get it just fine:
quote:
Here's how I see it. There are two steps in the IDist’s argument:
1. Prove the Bible is accurate, so it will be permitted in science and history
2. Once it’s shown to be scientifically accurate, we can use it to prove God
I agree with you (Rrhain) that the overall goal for all IDists/creationists is to prove God, and that that goal definitely permeates the entire process. But, I agree with Catholic Scientists that at least some IDists have made the distinction between the two steps above and are trying to tackle number one without going to number two (yet).
What's your problem?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 04-22-2008 11:16 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Blue Jay, posted 04-23-2008 1:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 04-24-2008 1:36 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 100 (560977)
05-18-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2010 12:09 AM


But what I'm discussing here is not their attempts to show that the Flood occurred, but their attempts to show that the Flood could have occurred, as a natural phenomenon, without the need for divine intervention.
Why are they doing this?
I stand by my original assessment... They are trying to add weight to the Bible. If your standard is science, then they'll try to be sciencey. I don't think they care about a natural, godless, explanation for themselves but that they're trying to get to your standard.
When it comes to things that really exist and have a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation, they insist that the naturalistic explanation is bogus and that God did it by magic.
I don't think its because of the existence of the naturalistic explanation, if it was then we'd have to have magical explanations for mundane things. Its all about the Bible and whether or not the explanation contradicts it.
But when it comes to this miraculous flood that the Bible attributes to the will of God, they try to write God out of the picture and seek a purely naturalistic explanation.
I doubt God is actually written out of the picture (e.g. would they think that god did not make the flood because they have the natural explanation?), they're just putting up the naturalistic explanations because that's what their audience wants.
I am puzzled as to what can be going through their heads when they do this.
I think you're talking about two different approaches and are seeing too much causation in the correlation you've noticed.
They start with the Bible. Now, take "things that really exist and have a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation" and see if they contradict the Bible. If they do, then invoke magic. If they don't, then thank god (or whatever). Now, take something the Bible says really exists but for which we do not have a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation. If the audience is fellow Bible believers, then nobody cares about a natural explanation. But if your audience is scientists, then you'll need to come up with a natural explanation if you want them to consider that the Bible was correct in saying that the thing really happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2010 12:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2010 10:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2010 12:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 100 (560986)
05-18-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Straggler
05-18-2010 10:55 AM


Creationists do really really seem to care that the physical evidence doesn't contradict the flood though. Not just with scientists but for their own internal reasons. No?
Yes, you're right. They don't want any contradictions with the Bible. Although if push came to shove, they would probably fall on magic too for the flood, imho.
But they don't care that physical evidence suggests that turning wine into water, or rising from the dead is kinda unrealistic.
What do you think they see the difference as?
A noticeable affect on reality.
Jesus turning water into wine one time at some party isn't something that would effect reality in a way that we could notice today.
A global flood is not something that could go unnoticed. Assuming the Bible is correct, there has to be evidence of the flood (but there doesn't have to be evidence of water being turning into wine one time).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2010 10:55 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2010 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 100 (561002)
05-18-2010 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2010 12:04 PM


I stand by my original assessment... They are trying to add weight to the Bible. If your standard is science, then they'll try to be sciencey. I don't think they care about a natural, godless, explanation for themselves but that they're trying to get to your standard.
But that is not what they do.
What do they do instead?
Look, if they tell me that Jesus walked on water then their whole point is that that would be a miracle.
If they then tried to shore up their account by providing naturalistic explanations like saying: "Well, maybe he had big styrofoam boots strapped to his feet, and the boots were painted blue so that no-one saw them in the water, and maybe Saint Peter distracted them at the crucial moment by shouting "hey everyone, look over there", and ..."
Well, you see my point, I hope.
Not really. will you expound?
And I don't think your example is very analogous. I think a better analogy would be them explaining how the soles of Jesus' feet must have been repelling the surface of the water by some force, or something more like that. Do they really replace the miraculous with the non-miraculous? I thought it was more of explaining the miraculous with the non-miraculous.
They try to make the miracle more plausible by making it less miraculous.
With the flood specifically, yes. I think that's because it couldn't have gone unnoticed so that explanation is required.
But for something unnoticeable like walking on water, I don't think they'd do the same. Do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2010 12:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 100 (561005)
05-18-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Straggler
05-18-2010 12:03 PM


I guess it just seems a bit inconsistent to require some aspects of the bible to fit in with science whilst being happy to consider others as "miracles".
Indeed.
I mean why isn't it just a miracle that this great flood happened despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise? God moves in mysterious ways and all that.
I think its a necessity born from practicality. Its just too easy to show that the flood didn't really happen. They have to have these explanations to maintain the whole thing. For other miracles they don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2010 12:03 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Son, posted 05-18-2010 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 100 (561014)
05-18-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Son
05-18-2010 12:54 PM


While the thread seems interesting, wouldn't it be better if we invited some creationnists who try to prove the flood? This way, we wouldn't have to hypothesise what they think anymore.
Of course, and the invitation IS open...
But while we're waiting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Son, posted 05-18-2010 12:54 PM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2010 7:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024