Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1 of 100 (463316)
04-15-2008 9:46 AM


Watching the debates on this forum, something has struck me.
There are various views we could take with regard to the Flood:
(1) It could only have happened by a miracle; and the evidence shows that it happened.
(2) It could only have happened by a miracle; and the evidence shows that it didn't happen.
(3) It could have happened without a miracle; and the evidence shows that it didn't happen.
(4) It could have happened without a miracle; and the evidence shows that it happened.
Now, the curious thing that strikes me is that when creationists argue for the "vapor canopy", or whatever, trying to make the Flood explicable in natural terms, they are arguing for proposition (4).
But this is no use to them.
By analogy, I am convinced that thunder and lightning happen, and that they are possible without a miracle, since they can be explained in purely natural terms. For this reason, I don't take their existence as evidence for Thor the Thunder God, because I have a naturalistic explanation for it.
In the same way, if someone could convince me that the Flood happened and that it was possible without a miracle, then I wouldn't see this as evidence for Jehovah the Genocide God, because the creationists would also have furnished me with a naturalistic explanation. I'd be able to say: "Sure, the flood happened, but we can explain it perfectly well by the vapor canopy theory, without need for any divine intervention. So that's how it happened, and the fact that the Hebrews attributed it to their god instead of the vapor canopy is of no more significance that the fact that the Norse attributed thunder and lightning to Thor."
Surely what creationists need to argue for is proposition (1): that the evidence shows that the Flood happened, and that it contravenes the laws of nature and so requires a miraculous explanation.
Discuss.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 04-15-2008 11:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2008 1:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 100 (463324)
04-15-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
04-15-2008 9:46 AM


Where to put it?
It doesn't appear that you want to discuss the science involved (that is, did the flood happen or not) but rather the philosophical or theological issues involved.
If that is true is this a Bible Study thread or a Social Issues thread?

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 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2008 6:57 PM AdminNosy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 100 (463365)
04-15-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
04-15-2008 11:10 AM


Re: Where to put it?
I'd have stuck it in "Geology And The Great Flood" or "Is It Science?" Not Social Issues or "Bible Study".
Maybe "Is It Science?" would be best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 04-15-2008 11:10 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 04-15-2008 7:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 100 (463370)
04-15-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
04-15-2008 6:57 PM


Re: Where to put it?
Maybe "Is It Science?" would be best.
Then I don't understand where you want to take the thread. If you want to discuss the use of miracles that isn't going to fit in any science thread.
Could you offer a bit of an idea of how the discussion might unfold?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2008 6:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2008 8:03 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 100 (463372)
04-15-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
04-15-2008 7:52 PM


Re: Where to put it?
Then I don't understand where you want to take the thread. If you want to discuss the use of miracles that isn't going to fit in any science thread.
Could you offer a bit of an idea of how the discussion might unfold?
I have absolutely no idea what creationists will reply to this, that's why I raised the question.
Please put it in "Is It Science?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 04-15-2008 7:52 PM AdminNosy has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 100 (463376)
04-15-2008 8:10 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Zucadragon
Member
Posts: 91
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 7 of 100 (463404)
04-16-2008 8:58 AM


In simple terms, basically what you are argueing is:
Creationists want to see the flood as a miracle that was done by god but because they have scientific standards to hold to they want to explain it scientifically.
Yet they dont realize that if the flood happened and it is scientifically explained... Then there is no god factor involved anymore, because the explenation will be a natural one.
So even if they turn out to be right, it will leave no way for them to point to god and say "he did it".

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 04-16-2008 1:01 PM Zucadragon has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 8 of 100 (463412)
04-16-2008 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zucadragon
04-16-2008 8:58 AM


In simple terms, basically what you are arguing is:
Creationists want to see the flood as a miracle that was done by god but because they have scientific standards to hold to they want to explain it scientifically.
Yet they dont realize that if the flood happened and it is scientifically explained... Then there is no god factor involved anymore, because the explenation will be a natural one.
So even if they turn out to be right, it will leave no way for them to point to god and say "he did it".
Creationists want the miracle to be confirmed by science -- that is, they want the scientific evidence to confirm their beliefs and give them the credibility of science.
But when science shows that the evidence for a global flood about 4,350 years ago is totally lacking, they don't want to believe what science has found.
It is a case of accepting only positive results and ignoring or denying any negative results. Creation "science" at its best!
Edited by Coyote, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zucadragon, posted 04-16-2008 8:58 AM Zucadragon has not replied

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

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 10 of 100 (463470)
04-17-2008 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
04-17-2008 1:20 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
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'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2008 1:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2008 2:55 PM Blue Jay has not 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

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 12 of 100 (463544)
04-18-2008 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by New Cat's Eye
04-17-2008 2:55 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
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.)
However, the contrapositive of a true statement is always true:
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.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2008 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2008 8:39 AM Rrhain 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

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 14 of 100 (463703)
04-19-2008 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
04-18-2008 8:39 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
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.
As you say, meh, not so much. The conclusion is precisely the same as the premise.
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.
If Joe is the Stabbing Killer, then we should find a body that was killed by stabbing. But just because we find a body that was killed by stabbing doesn't necessarily mean that Joe is the one who did it.
If the god mentioned in the Bible is the Flooding Killer, then we should find evidence of a global flood. But just because we find evidence of a global flood doesn't necessarily mean that the god mentioned in the Bible was the one who did it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2008 8:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-19-2008 2:16 PM Rrhain 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024