A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[John1.12]

And you evaded my question. I asked you:

How would you feel if kids use their critical thinking skill and start questioning the fantastic claims of salvation and other religious ideas?

Care to answer this?

I support the idea . If only more adults and Kids , learned better reading comprehension, critical thinking , epistemology also . I would want to see more teaching on how to conduct their own sense making and not give it up so easily as we see across all fields .

 

[John1.12]

And you evaded my question. I asked you:

How would you feel if kids use their critical thinking skill and start questioning the fantastic claims of salvation and other religious ideas?

Care to answer this?

I think its dangerous if they don't question and test what they believe .

 

[robocop (actually)]

This is explained as a psychological phenomenon. People will attribute good luck to an item or prayer to help a random experience seem to have a specific cause that is about them.

I don't know anyone who lost their third nerve palsy and in each case it was 7 days, but like I said miracles don't convince.

 

[robocop (actually)]

It doesn't work that way. Besides, there's no evidence of a global flood.

You are unscientific to assume there cant be a God. Not only is it unprovable it is outside the realm of science.

 

[robocop (actually)]

And that have nothing to do with the thread.

What are the issues are (A) the reliance of people’s faith on the book, a scripture, that are not very reliable sources as history records, and (B) a scripture that require people to pretend if it is a natural science treatise, when it is not.

It is the same with all other scriptures, but in this case, the subject is about Noah’s story about the Flood and the Ark.

No one is questioning your belief to the story, because you can believe whatever you like. But the questions in this topic is about whether it has some “scientific” merits or “historical” merits.

The answers are “no” to both.

Well, who knows what I can come up with with enough time.

 

[robocop (actually)]

And the Quran says mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.
And the scientology lore says Lord Xenu will one day return to wage war against our immortal inner Thetans
And Lord of The Ring says that there is this one ring to rule them all.

Why would I care what the bible says?

Also, this doesn't change anything about the post I was replying to. The statement in that post still does not follow.



So?

What is the Arabic translation?

 

[robocop (actually)]

So?



Similar in that they make the same type of fantastical claims for which no evidence at all exists.
Not similar in terms of actual content at all. Off course, the abrahamic religions will be more similar to eachother then say the norse myths and judaism. For obvious reasons.

In any case, this doesn't at all answer my question of "why would the bible be any different?"
So it seems like you're actively dodging actually addressing the point made.



So?
Do you think that popularity of a belief says something about its accuracy?
If yes, you realize that that is a logical fallacy, right? It's called argumentum ad populum.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it

That's how they do it. If you believe in Aliens you're sane. If you believe in Aliens in the bedroom you're insane because that is a rare belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know anyone who lost their third nerve palsy and in each case it was 7 days, but like I said miracles don't convince.

Neither do anecdotes.

However, confirmation bias is a real thing
So is confusing correlation with causation.

Humans do it all the time.
It is the basis of every superstitious belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are unscientific to assume there cant be a God

Where did he say he assumes that?

Not only is it unprovable it is outside the realm of science.

In other words: it is irrelevant.
Just like undetectable pink graviton fairies that regulate gravity.

 

[gnostic]

You are unscientific to assume there cant be a God. Not only is it unprovable it is outside the realm of science.

Like other creationists here, you don't understand science DON'T PROVE anything. Science test models of the natural and physical phenomena through observations and evidence.

Like all other creationists they don't understand that proof and evidence are two completely different things in science.

AND science only deal with natural phenomena and physical phenomena, not something that cannot be observed and tested, eg supernatural, magic miracles and imaginary beings.

God is not a natural phenomena, so God is irrelevant to NATURAL SCIENCES, since God will never be falsifiable and testable.

God isn't a physical entity, hence it is also irrelevant to PHYSICAL SCIENCES.

F1fan wasn't unscientific, because he was talking about there being no evidence for Genesis narrative about GLOBAL FLOOD, he wasn't talking about God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, who knows what I can come up with with enough time.

Such were the thoughts of the very people who are considered the fathers of modern geology.

These were christians who set out to find evidence in the world to support the biblical flood. So they traveled and studied geological formations. What they found, was that not only is there no evidence to support the biblical flood... instead, all the data directly contradicts the idea of the biblical flood.

And this is how geology as a modern scientific field was born.

I bet you aren't even aware of that.

People had millenia to try and come up with evidence for the biblical flood. And many have tried. The only thing they accomplished, was the exact opposite.

What makes you think the outcome will be different if you go out and do the same thing they did?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the Arabic translation?

No idea what you are talking about and even less of idea of how it's relevant to the post you are responding to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's how they do it. If you believe in Aliens you're sane. If you believe in Aliens in the bedroom you're insane because that is a rare belief.

No. Rarity has nothing to do with that.
Evidence and rational reasoning has everything to do with that.

Considering everything we know about the universe, physics, chemistry, biology, the nature of life, etc.... It is extremely plausible, in fact almost a certainty, that extra-terrestial life exists out there, somewhere, among the gazitrillions of earth-like planets that exist in the universe.

Considering the same knowledge, it is extremely implausible that an alien species stops by earth for a visit.

The justification for both of these, concerns EVIDENCE and DATA. Scientific knowledge.
At no point does it concern "well... many people believe it (or not)".

Again, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

When somebody brings to your attention that you invoke a logical fallacy, the right thing to do is to take it to heart and revise your argument / reasoning to fix the problem. Not to point fingers and say "well... THEY do it too...." as if that makes it ok for you to use a logical fallacy to make any kind of point concerning whatever.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Where did he say he assumes that?



In other words: it is irrelevant.
Just like undetectable pink graviton fairies that regulate gravity.

Just because something isn't science doesn't make it irrelevant.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Such were the thoughts of the very people who are considered the fathers of modern geology.

These were christians who set out to find evidence in the world to support the biblical flood. So they traveled and studied geological formations. What they found, was that not only is there no evidence to support the biblical flood... instead, all the data directly contradicts the idea of the biblical flood.

And this is how geology as a modern scientific field was born.

I bet you aren't even aware of that.

People had millenia to try and come up with evidence for the biblical flood. And many have tried. The only thing they accomplished, was the exact opposite.

What makes you think the outcome will be different if you go out and do the same thing they did?

Because I'm a good theoretical philosopher.

Remember I'm not saying there was a flood maybe something else.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No idea what you are talking about and even less of idea of how it's relevant to the post you are responding to.

Mohammad on a winged horse... I want to know winged horse in Arabic.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No. Rarity has nothing to do with that.
Evidence and rational reasoning has everything to do with that.

Considering everything we know about the universe, physics, chemistry, biology, the nature of life, etc.... It is extremely plausible, in fact almost a certainty, that extra-terrestial life exists out there, somewhere, among the gazitrillions of earth-like planets that exist in the universe.

Considering the same knowledge, it is extremely implausible that an alien species stops by earth for a visit.

The justification for both of these, concerns EVIDENCE and DATA. Scientific knowledge.
At no point does it concern "well... many people believe it (or not)".

Again, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

When somebody brings to your attention that you invoke a logical fallacy, the right thing to do is to take it to heart and revise your argument / reasoning to fix the problem. Not to point fingers and say "well... THEY do it too...." as if that makes it ok for you to use a logical fallacy to make any kind of point concerning whatever.

If the Aliens hide from the scientists they do not know about them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just because something isn't science doesn't make it irrelevant.

Things that are unprovable, unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, unsupportable, untestable, unverifiable.... are pretty much by definition irrelevant to anything whatsoever.

Just like that undetectable dragon that lives in my garage.
Or the undetectable pile of rocks that block your lane on the highway.
You won't be slamming your breaks. You won't be changing lanes. You won't even slow down.

Because those things that are undemonstrable, unfalsifiable and untestable are things that have no detectable manifestation whatsoever and aren't a factor in anything.
And things that have no detectable manifestation and aren't a factor in anything, are as irrelevant as can be.

It's in fact pretty much what "irrelevant" means, in broad terms.

Not to mention that such things are indistinguishable from non-existent things.

As the saying goes: the undetectable and the non-existent, look very much alike.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because I'm a good theoretical philosopher.

If you say so.

Not seeing how that is relevant when it comes to dealing with the facts of reality though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mohammad on a winged horse... I want to know winged horse in Arabic.

This is what I call focusing on the pixel while missing the bigger picture.