Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,128 Year: 5,385/9,624 Month: 410/323 Week: 50/204 Day: 26/24 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4619 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 65 of 100 (561121)
05-18-2010 11:55 PM


Christian Flood Believer Logic
I went over the original posts in this thread, but not in enough detail to see if they attempted to look at the original syllogism as I now see it. So if not, let's see if this reconfiguration makes more sense.
It's not hard to see that the main claim of biblical inerrancy is circular. Here's how we start:
If God exists, then the Bible is true.
God exists.
Therefore the Bible is true.
However, there's a problem in the orignal premise. By God they have to mean the God Described in the Bible and No Other God. Affirming that Brahman exists does nothing for their argument. So what we really have once we are more explicit with our sufficient condition is:
If the God Described in the Bible and No Other God (GDBNOG) exists, then the Bible is true.
GDBNOG exists, etc.
Of course, here's where the circularity comes in:
GDBNOG exists.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so, and the Bible is True and Accurate in All Particulars.
How do you know BTAAP?
Because GDBNOG exists.
As I see it, what fundamentalist Christians tend to do, seeing as they've got perfect circularity to work with, is to reverse sufficient and necessary conditions in the first step.
If BTAAP, then GDBNOG exists.
BTAAP.
Therefore GDBNOG exists.
What most Christians do in forming a flood argument (and in forming a lot of other apologetic arguments) is to begin with the premise BTAAP. After all if you ask them why they believe the Flood story is true, the response is almost always that BTAAP. Thus:
If BTAAP, then the Flood Story is Literally True.
So combining our two statements, we get:
If BTAAP, then GDBANOG exists and FSLT.
And the contrapositive:
If FSLT - not! or GDBNOG exists - not!, then BTAAP - not!
In other words, in the contrapositive the negation of either statement is sufficient to negate the consequent. Or, in much clearer words:
If the Flood story is not literally true, then the God of the Bible does not exist.
That seems to me to be the tree that these folks are hanging their hat on. Their whole belief in God really does depend on belief in the Flood story.
Now, bringing this all around to Dr A's original post, my thought is that since it's easy to demonstrate convincingly that that indeed the Flood as described never happened, Christians are faced with two choices. Once choice is to deny the science outright , and/or try to force science through a nuclear firestorm of misrepresentation, fuzzy thinking and denial of the obvious in order to claim that science actually supports their position. That seems to be Buz's approach. Or they can choose door number two, following ICANT's example, and just shrug away the evidence and claim a miracle. Dismissing facts by calling on miracles has become quite more and more unpopular and unsatisfying ever since we stopped living in mud huts and drowning cats to ward off the plague. Thus, the ever-entertaining spectacle of Christian Fundie's bug-eyed crazy attempts at "scientific" explanations of what science clearly denies ever happened.
Whew. Let's see how many mistakes I made in that argument.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024