T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
41
What evidence supports the claim they were eyewitnesses to historical events? Are you trying to say the author of Genesis was an eyewitness to what is described in the first 10 or so chapters?
“States the flood”??? If someone says his brother is as big as Paul Bunyan, is that person confirming the past existence of Paul Bunyan? If someone is described as a Robin Hood this isn’t a claim that Robin Hood was a real person. Robin Hood stories are still fiction. We humans refer to parables, myths, and fictions all of the time and it is a completely legitimate way to discuss morality and theology.
I’m not the one running away from evidence found in the world outside of scripture. If there was a massive global flood 4,000 years ago it would be easily seen in the geologic record, but that evidence just isn’t there.
If the flood was not a natural phenimina but a Godly one, would there be natural evidence?
Just asking.
IOW why must God leave a trace of the flood if He doesn’t leave any other obvious visible traces of His actions?
Who is assuming what here?
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
43
That explanation could be used to support any argument which is the problem. If you have to invent miracles to explain the lack of evidence, is that a trustworthy argument? There are many different and correlated annual records that span the period in history we are talking about that would have recorded flooding, such as annual lake varves, annual ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica, layering in stalagmites and stalagtites, and tree rings in continually growing forests from around the world.
We could also use impose the same criteria that @adamjedgar is using. We would require scriptures to support the idea that a recent global flood would have not left any evidence in the geologic record.
Why must God erase any evidence of a recent global flood? We aren’t assuming floods leave geologic evidence. We can observe that they do. We even have multiple YEC organizations that argue vociferously that there is evidence for a recent global flood in the geologic record, but those arguments are pretty bad.
You wtill do not understand my posts, or why i post them.
The idea is to disturb compaliceny such as yours, not to impose a specific viewpoint or “answer”.
AKA “devils’s advocate.”
It promotes discussion, not “The Truth”
(whateve that might be)
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
45
You are assuming we haven’t heard or considered such arguments before. We have heard them. We have considered them.
First, on a logical level, we have Popper’s concept of falsification.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”–Karl Popper
If a claim can’t be falsified then it can’t be considered true.
There is also Last Thursdayism, the idea that all of us, all our memories, and all of the universe were created last Thursday in a way that we could never detect. This is just as plausible as what you are proposing.
Science does not have the last word or ultimate authority.
Some people think differently. Is that a crime?
WOW
Would you like a philosophical discussion about that?
Because that was a philosophical assertion.
(And I was being told that there is no philosophy in the scientific approach)
You have a very narrow and “Black & White” view of what constituts “truth”.
It may work in the lab but not in the real world.
(You even half admit that scientific certainty is a myth. That is there are only theories, nothing is proven)
There is a paradox and you cannot even see it.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
47
Most people reject solipsism.
Is it a crime if I think that way? Again, why does this have to be about you and your ego?
Yes, absolutely. Popper’s ideas are philosophical. If no evidence can ever prove an idea false then no evidence can ever prove it true.
I have admitted that in multiple threads and in multiple posts. Every scientist admits this. I would strongly encourage you to read Stephen Jay Gould’s essay on theory and fact within science.
Tgen apply that same principle to your views of truth.
I would call claiming one way of thinking is better than another a crime, yes.
I wouls claim that your assertiveness on some “truths” is a crime, yes.
It is not what oyu, *or I) thin that carries weight, but setting one over or undr the other, that is the crime.
Acceeptnce is about acknowledging that differences are not just enevitable but what defines us as individuals.
So to claim the high ground of inarguable truth, immeiately sets up a barrier that no one can break down but you.
I am not asking you to changewhat you think, ther think other than to be more charitable to those who thin deifferently, nt ust condescntion, but accpetance.
IOW allowing others to keep their views because they are not wrong , just different.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
49
I do, all of the time.
Perhaps in the UK that is the case. Thankfully, we still have freedom of speech, thought, and expression here in the US.
I once read that “centurion” was similar to “imperator” in that neither signified what or even if a person actually commanded but signified that the person was worthy to do so. In that case, a centurion was someone worthy of commanding 100 soldiers, whether he actually led that many or not.
You keep saying that, but it isn’t so – you’re ignoring the ordinary use of language in order to hold that position.
And the only reason to do that is because you assign the value of “truth” to science – and that’s something that comes from a modern, humanistic, scientific, materialist view of the universe. So your position becomes that the scriptures teach science, something none of the authors would have even considered – they weren’t teaching science, they were teaching theology.
Both YEC and atheists make this same error, assuming that the scriptures have to speak about science.
And it doesn’t say how.
Different story.
That’s part of the ordinary use of language that YEC rejects – only what it wants to use counts as ordinary.
It would also be clear in the text, which it isn’t – so YEC runs away from both God’s Creation and God’s revelation.
Which is just a different way of turning Yahweh into Loki.
Any view that does not conform to logic and evidence is wrong by definition. Oh, there’s a wild chance it might get something right, as a clock with randomly-moving hands will occasionally have the correct time, but that is so rare that there is no point in looking at such a clock. Indeed, if a worldview rejects the need for logic and evidence, it has rejected meaning and sense and so is incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood as well as of communicating any truth.
If that was so, everyone would “see” God, including Science.
There is no verifiable and visible proof of the exitance of God.
I know that you will claim Scripture as your basis, but “Belief” in Scipture is not due to the Sciientific Method". What you believe abouit Scripture is pure Roymond. I know, also, you claim that everyone must believe what you do about what Scripture says but there is no “logical” reason to so so.
Your Christian view of God is illogical!. If God was as you claim, so full of wrath and determined to kill anyone who does not accept His “grace” He would be visible to all. He would ensure His demands were bioth known and followed. He would not rely on a handful of worshippers!
You do not apply your “logic” to your faith!. You just follow the textt!
(and that is illogical, because of what you see the text to mean)
The fact that logic can be applied both to scientific and to theological judgments doesn’t mean that they readily inform each other. Also, not everyone is logical in their decisions.
The problem with the modern YEC movement is that it makes false claims about exegesis, theology, history, and science while claiming to be the only true option on all of those. It functions as a legalistic false gospel, like the error of the Galatian judaizers, and thus is a serious threat to Christianity.
YEC does not provide an alternative interpretation of the data. It ignores and misrepresents the data, and slanders those who do honest work.
I am not YEC but I find it appalling the way their faith is belittled, insulted and condemned/
What gives you, or anyone else such a right to do this?
That would appear to be a crime
The point being that some people here think they are so right, that they must not on;y “teach” but demand others must conform and submit to thier knowledge and way of thinking.
And they have the authority to condemn and Judge those who dare to think or believe something different.
Nobody here has ever labeled this a ‘crime’. It’s just being wrong. And if somebody is wrong about a well-established fact then they should count their blessings to be in a setting where they can expect correction. If you’re in a setting instead that submits rather to ideological / political preferences over factual realities, then leave. Find a different community that doesn’t lie to you. The ones that lie to you are not being your friends as they do so.
Say rather that reality is right, and even so - it doesn’t even force you to conform to it - you’re perfectly free to remain wrong about a whole lot of stuff. Just don’t expect reality to accomodate your wrongness whenever that butts up against reality.
