Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 46 of 100 (560929)
05-18-2010 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by anglagard
05-18-2010 1:21 AM


Re: My Opinion
I admire this post (#45, by anglagard).
I have thought for some time that religion is a kind of scam that succeeds because many people long to outsource their thinking.
The result is that the followers get someone to tell them what to think and lots of (imagined) perks, such as an afterlife, and the leaders get a cushy life, with little heavy lifting, lots of respect and full collection plates.
I have had occasion to attend church services a few times over the last several years, and have been appalled at the low intellectual standard shown in sermons, many of which made no sense at all. Those ministers just weren't making an honest effort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 05-18-2010 1:21 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2010 6:57 PM Woodsy 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

Straggler
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 48 of 100 (560982)
05-18-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2010 10:41 AM


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.
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?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 11:09 AM Straggler 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

Straggler
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 50 of 100 (560995)
05-18-2010 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2010 11:09 AM


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).
Fair point.
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". 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 11:09 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 12:38 PM Straggler has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 100 (560996)
05-18-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2010 10:41 AM


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.
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. They try to make the miracle more plausible by making it less miraculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 12:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2010 7:12 PM Dr Adequate has not 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

Son
Member (Idle past 3913 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 54 of 100 (561011)
05-18-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2010 12:38 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 1:01 PM Son has not 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

ICANT
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 56 of 100 (561077)
05-18-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Woodsy
05-18-2010 7:43 AM


Re: My Opinion
Hi Woodsy,
Woodsy writes:
I have thought for some time that religion is a kind of scam that succeeds because many people long to outsource their thinking.
Religion has been a sham everysince the firstborn child of the first man and woman killed his brother because God had favor to his sacrifice and not to his. So he killed his brother probably with the idea if I am the only one then God will have to accept what I offer Him.
It has continued until this day.
It even infiltrated the early churches and presist in many so call churches today. Makes me ashamed to be classified as a Christian. I do not claim to be a christian as I am not Christ like which they were at Antioch when they were first called Christians by their enemies, as they were living a life like Christ.
Most of christianity today is a sham, filled with preachers who are of their father the devil and in it for the money.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Woodsy, posted 05-18-2010 7:43 AM Woodsy has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 57 of 100 (561082)
05-18-2010 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2010 12:04 PM


Re: Miracle
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
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 ..."
Actually according to the scriptures Peter went to meet him walking on the water until he go too full of himself and began to sink.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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

ICANT
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 58 of 100 (561093)
05-18-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2010 1:01 PM


Re: Flood
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
Of course, and the invitation IS open...
You will probably get some unless they are flooded out. So I thought I would chime in.
I believe the flood happened because the Bible says it did. I have no problem with a lot of miracles happening in that event.
First thing would be building the ark which according to the Bible was a rectangle not like the pictures man has drawn. It was a barge not an ocean going vessel. Getting the lumber together to build such a craft would be a huge job.
When it was finished the passengers showed up and boarded the craft. That in itself is a miracle.
Then when everyone entered and God shut the door it began to rain. At some point the fountains of the deep opened up and produced a large volume of water. I would assume it was something like what happens at the Bay of Fundy as the water rises and falls 55 feet every 6 hours. The only difference was the water did not go back down in 6 hours. The Bible still has the land in one place like my Avatar so it should not have taken long for the land mass to be covered with water. But this would require a miracle.
The food supply would have been limited and prone to spoil over the period of time so a miracle would have to take place to make the food supply all their needs without spoiling.
The waste created by all these animals would have been massive and would have required at least on angel to keep the craft cleaned. Another miracle.
As has been pointed out that boat could not float well it is possible that it never lifted off the ground. If it was on the highest point of land mass. But if it did lift off it would require a miracle to give the passengers a safe journey. But since God holds the universe together with His energy that should not have been a problem for Him. But yet that would be a miracle.
The water receding would have been a huge problem where would it go. Not a problem to God the water could have gathered together as it did in Genesis 1:7 But another miracle.
The vegetation to support the animals and fowls and humans needed to produce fast. Not a problem for God as He called them from the ground full grown in Genesis 1:11, 12. Yet another miracle.
So for such a flood to take place it required many miracles.
There still needs to be a few miracles performed after the flood.
The people had to be scattered over all the land mass but because they spoke the same language they did not disperse. So God confused the language by changing the languages of many of the people. When they could not understand everyone those who could understand each other gathered together in different parts of the land mass. Another miracle required.
Now we have the problem of the earth did not look then like it does now as all the land was in one place Another one second miracle to divide the land mass to where it is today. Thus requiring another miracle. This would solve many problems of how humans and other creatures got to the different places they were found.
All visible land has been covered by water at sometime in the past as well as all the land mass being in one place. But that is the only things that the Bible story and natures story have in common.
No one has to tell me that what I have stated is impossible in nature. But I did not present a natural account of the flood but a miraculous account.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 05-18-2010 8:15 PM ICANT has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 59 of 100 (561094)
05-18-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by ICANT
05-18-2010 7:59 PM


Re: Flood
I believe the flood happened because the Bible says it did. I have no problem with a lot of miracles happening in that event.
Actually that's all you needed to say.
No one has to tell me that what I have stated is impossible in nature. But I did not present a natural account of the flood but a miraculous account.
...and thus you prove the impossibility of the Flood.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2010 7:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2010 9:22 PM onifre has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 60 of 100 (561104)
05-18-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by onifre
05-18-2010 8:15 PM


Re: Flood
Hi onifre,
onifre writes:
...and thus you prove the impossibility of the Flood.
Only if there are no miracles.
I believe in miracles I am one.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 05-18-2010 8:15 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by onifre, posted 05-18-2010 9:44 PM ICANT 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