Evidence of the Great Flood has been found; or not?

[DavidFirth]

We refer to this as being "pseudo-science" as it has a conclusion, and then goes about trying to prove the conclusion by cherry-picking or inventing "evidence". So, it assumes the Biblical creation accounts are absolutely correct, and then they try to justify that which is unjustifiable.

IOW, it is not science in any way.

I refer to science without the Creator as ludicrous and highly assumptive. Join the club.

 

[Altfish]

I also think the outlandish theories of non-Creationists are rather hilarious and dull. It's amazing how far one will stretch his faith to get the answers one wishes to get.

You are a hopeless case, David.

Do you refuse to fly because scientists might have lied about the aeroplanes' ability to fly?
You obviously trust computer scientists because you are on here.
What about medicines; do you trust the scientists who develop new techniques and drugs?
What about your car, do you trust its SatNav?

 

[Altfish]

I refer to science without the Creator as ludicrous and highly assumptive. Join the club.

Who created the Creator?

 

[DavidFirth]

Who created the Creator?

No one created the Creator.

Where did the Creator come from? There was no place to have come from before the Creator created places.

I AM is a good name for Him.

 

[Altfish]

No one created the Creator.

Where did the Creator come from? There was no place to have come from before the Creator created places.

I AM is a good name for Him.

That's called special pleading, a cop out.

I notice you ignored my other response about you relying on science for your daily life.

 

[DavidFirth]

That's called special pleading, a cop out.

I notice you ignored my other response about you relying on science for your daily life.

That's what I say about non-Creation theories.

I depend upon God for my daily life, the Creator of science.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's what I say about non-Creation theories.

I depend upon God for my daily life, the Creator of science.

He's asking you a very reasonable philosophical question.

If the Creator can create itself (or needs no creator), why can't anything else?
Would you scoff if he said that the Universe created itself (or needed no creator)?

If you can't apply an argument consistently, then it's a bad argument.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yesterday I came across some pictures of the great flood and want to share them with you

View attachment 19165


View attachment 19166



View attachment 19167
Nothing of this kink could have created such erosion in such a great area except for a great flood.

at least in my view.
What do you see?

This is actually a tricky question. THE great flood, ala biblical myth? Unlikely approaching impossible.

Many regional great floods? Almost certainly.

There are many examples, but here is one I find particularly interesting.

Ice Age Floods | GeoCosmic REX

 

[DavidFirth]

He's asking you a very reasonable philosophical question.

If the Creator can create itself (or needs no creator), why can't anything else?
Would you scoff if he said that the Universe created itself (or needed no creator)?

If you can't apply an argument consistently, then it's a bad argument.

No one created God. He IS the I AM. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. Period.

 

[metis]

If the Creator can create itself (or needs no creator), why can't anything else?

And there's a series of questions along this line that could be asked, such as:

what evidence is there for God as being Creator when none of us humans were there to see it?

how can a deity that supposedly was uncreated actually create something without changing himself, and if he does change what causes him to change (an entity unaffected by anything else logically should not change)?

how can we tell that it's "God" and not "Gods"?

since everything we seemingly experience is wrapped in a huge web of causes and effects, what makes one believe that God is the exception to this apparent rule?

Please note that these are questions, not answers, and I do personally think it's likely that "Something" may have caused our universe, but don't ask me what that "Something" is because there's no way for me to know with any certainty of being correct. But my leaning tends to be, that between theological beliefs and science, the latter may give us the best indications of at least what the "Something" is like, which goes along the line of what Spinoza and Einstein tended to believe was most likely.

 

[DavidFirth]

And there's a series of questions along this line that could be asked, such as:

what evidence is there for God as being Creator when none of us humans were there to see it?

how can a deity that supposedly was uncreated actually create something without changing himself, and if he does change what causes him to change (an entity unaffected by anything else logically should not change)?

how can we tell that it's "God" and not "Gods"?

since everything we seemingly experience is wrapped in a huge web of causes and effects, what makes one believe that God is the exception to this apparent rule?

Please note that these are questions, not answers, and I do personally think it's likely that "Something" may have caused our universe, but don't ask me what that "Something" is because there's no way for me to know with any certainty of being correct. But my leaning tends to be, that between theological beliefs and science, the latter may give us the best indications of at least what the "Something" is like, which goes along the line of what Spinoza and Einstein tended to believe was most likely.

Well, God created all the rules so He defines them, the way I see it. Of course they don't affect Him unless He wishes for them to. I even believe God created time and before that there was no time, as we define time in a relative way.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No one created God. He IS the I AM. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. Period.

Yes. I understand the claim and your position.

I'm asking you to extrapolate just a little bit. Unpack it, and go a little further with your reasoning. See if your current argument really holds up in a conversation about "why" you can entertain one idea but not another.

There are lots of monotheistic religions, each claiming some type of connection to their one creator god, and each making an argument very similar to yours.

Very simply - if you can make the argument that your God can be the Alpha and the Omega, The Creator of all, but can't answer the contradiction of rejecting that the Universe itself, or other gods for that matter, can do the same, then you don't really have an decent answer. It's passing the buck and avoiding the question completely. You're basically saying that it's true because you believe it to be true. The only way that this argument works would be if you also recognize that all other things that people believe to be true are true simply because they believe them... and I highly doubt that anyone on this website would agree with that.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes. I understand the claim and your position.

I'm asking you to extrapolate just a little bit. Unpack it, and go a little further with your reasoning. See if your current argument really holds up in a conversation about "why" you can entertain one idea but not another.

There are lots of monotheistic religions, each claiming some type of connection to their one creator god, and each making an argument very similar to yours.

Very simply - if you can make the argument that your God can be the Alpha and the Omega, The Creator of all, but can't answer the contradiction of rejecting that the Universe itself, or other gods for that matter, can do the same, then you don't really have an decent answer. It's passing the buck and avoiding the question completely. You're basically saying that it's true because you believe it to be true. The only way that this argument works would be if you also recognize that all other things that people believe to be true are true simply because they believe them... and I highly doubt that anyone on this website would agree with that.

Well, everything has to be based on something. All actions cause a reaction of some sort. But there had to be a "first thing" that had no cause because if it had a cause it wouldn't be the "first thing."

I guess atheists believe the first thing was the universe or the big bang. I believe the first thing was God. Either way there had to be a first thing, I don't see getting around it. And the first thing can't be described logically or scientifically since it had no cause.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well, everything has to be based on something. All actions cause a reaction of some sort. But there had to be a "first thing" that had no cause because if it had a cause it wouldn't be the "first thing."

I guess atheists believe the first thing was the universe or the big bang. I believe the first thing was God. Either way there had to be a first thing, I don't see getting around it. And the first thing can't be described logically or scientifically since it had no cause.

That's what I'm talking about!

This is much better conversation.

I do not necessarily agree that there has to be a "first" anything. I would argue that all things simply are, and that things experience various avenues of change over time. A rock exists today. There was a time when that rock didn't exist as it does today, but each individual part of the rock has existed in some form prior to today, and for as far back as we could care to imagine.

I'm reminded of the famous quote from Heraclitus, which states that a man can never step into the same river twice...

You and I can imagine a time when there was nothing, but then suddenly there was something. And we can argue about how that something came from nothing. We can do that... But I think it's a flawed conversation because I've seen no evidence, ever, that nothing was ever a state of being. There has always been something. And if there has always been something, then there is no need to talk about "firsts".

 

[metis]

Well, God created all the rules so He defines them, the way I see it. Of course they don't affect Him unless He wishes for them to. I even believe God created time and before that there was no time, as we define time in a relative way.

Two points, with the first being that the above is entirely based on assumptions that have no parallel in "real life" and, secondly, if you're going to use science as part of your position, then please use science, not just unwarranted beliefs.

Also, how could you possibly know that my drift in regards to my belief in "Something" is not correct? I'm not saying it is, but doesn't that position make at least some sense? If not, why not?

 

[DavidFirth]

That's what I'm talking about!

This is much better conversation.

I do not necessarily agree that there has to be a "first" anything. I would argue that all things simply are, and that things experience various avenues of change over time. A rock exists today. There was a time when that rock didn't exist as it does today, but each individual part of the rock has existed in some form prior to today, and for as far back as we could care to imagine.

I'm reminded of the famous quote from Heraclitus, which states that a man can never step into the same river twice...

You and I can imagine a time when there was nothing, but then suddenly there was something. And we can argue about how that something came from nothing. We can do that... But I think it's a flawed conversation because I've seen no evidence, ever, that nothing was ever a state of being. There has always been something. And if there has always been something, then there is no need to talk about "firsts".

Interesting take on it.

 

[DavidFirth]

Two points, with the first being that the above is entirely based on assumptions that have no parallel in "real life" and, secondly, if you're going to use science as part of your position, then please use science, not just unwarranted beliefs.

Also, how could you possibly know that my drift in regards to my belief in "Something" is not correct? I'm not saying it is, but doesn't that position make at least some sense? If not, why not?

Well, science can't possibly reveal truths about the supernatural. If you're looking for that to happen it never will. Science cannot define the "first thing" because the first thing had no cause. It is just the first thing, nobody really knows why or can possibly fathom the "why."

 

[metis]

Well, science can't possibly reveal truths about the supernatural.

Then maybe "the supernatural" doesn't really exist, which is why I tend to believe science has more answers than religions.

Even if the supernatural exists, it's abundantly clear that there are myriads of different opinions as to the nature of this supposed "supernatural", so we're still pretty much left with nothing tangible.

 

[DavidFirth]

Then maybe "the supernatural" doesn't really exist, which is why I tend to believe science has more answers than religions.

Even if the supernatural exists, it's abundantly clear that there are myriads of different opinions as to the nature of this supposed "supernatural", so we're still pretty much left with nothing tangible.

I define the supernatural as that which science cannot explain or even really identify. So of course raw science denies the supernatural, nothing could be further from science than the supernatural. That's what makes it "super-" natural in the first place.

Science can't define ghosts or even determine if they exist or not. Science of the paranormal is really nonexistent as far as any real science is concerned. Some things leap beyond logic and therefore leap beyond science itself.

 

[metis]

I define the supernatural as that which science cannot explain or even really identify. So of course raw science denies the supernatural, nothing could be further from science than the supernatural. That's what makes it "super-" natural in the first place.

Science can't define ghosts or even determine if they exist or not. Science of the paranormal is really nonexistent as far as any real science is concerned. Some things leap beyond logic and therefore leap beyond science itself.

You didn't really deal with what I wrote in my last post. One simply cannot present supposed details on the "supernatural" without first substantiating that are such things. Like if I said that the universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla, wouldn't you likely ask me how in the world do I know such an entity exists?

BTW, Happy Birthday!