Question for Atheists...

[1213]

"No one has proven it false yet" is some pretty unstable soil to build a person's core beliefs on.

It wouldn't be enough for me; why is it enough for you?

It is not the only reason why I believe, but it is one of the reasons, because man made stories usually fail easily. If after so much effort from atheists, we don't have any good case against the Bible, it is for me very convincing evidence for God.

 

[1213]

...
The flood story is certainly false. Proved
...

Maybe in your mind, not in real life. It would help if you could give one proof for against the flood.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Lot of gibberish there. "I have come from God". If someone were to say that to me, I would ask for evidence. Did Jesus give any evidence or just talk?

People want to think the stories are evidence.

It's always an eye roller when the stories themselves contain 'proofs' in its narrative, but never ever in the real world, save for a persons imaginative realm where it all resides and remains to this day.

 

[Audie]

Maybe in your mind, not in real life. It would help if you could give one proof for against the flood.

By " flood" do you mean literal genesis
Noah's ark, world wide flood? Infallible
Christian views differ.

World wide is readily disproved by polar ice
that deeply predates any possible " flood"
timeline.

Are you unaware of that?

It's there, real life, not a goofy story in a
story book.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It would help if you could give one proof for against the flood.

It's pretty clear where the flood narrative occurred, givin the actual sediment record of the region.

Evidence for a Flood

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

www.smithsonianmag.com

It's pretty strong that a flood did occur, but it's definitely not something that ever occurred worldwide during the age of homosapiens.

 

[Audie]

It is not the only reason why I believe, but it is one of the reasons, because man made stories usually fail easily. If after so much effort from atheists, we don't have any good case against the Bible, it is for me very convincing evidence for God.

Sheesh so mixed up.

There is no "case against the Bible".

From time to time something comes up that
disproves this or that interpretation that some
Christian chooses as correct.

It's then interesting to see how people respond to
that.

You've a totally mistaken idea of what's going
on in this discussion.

 

[Audie]

It's pretty clear where the flood narrative occurred, givin the actual sediment record of the region.

Evidence for a Flood

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

www.smithsonianmag.com

It's pretty strong that a flood did occur, but it's definitely not something that ever occurred worldwide during the age of homosapiens.

The. " roared into" seems to me very very
improbable. Sea levelsl rose as glaciers melted.

One day a high high tide got a little water over the
highest point in the strait. Next high high high.
maybe slightly more.

This happened at each interglacial prior.
Gradual rise, finally a steady current maybe
1mm deeper each day at a wildly overestimzted rate?

How is that going to turn into a great flood that a
snail could not outpace, on the shore a hundred km away?

 

[Whateverist]

It is not the only reason why I believe, but it is one of the reasons, because man made stories usually fail easily. If after so much effort from atheists, we don't have any good case against the Bible, it is for me very convincing evidence for God.

If it Carrie’s your faith and makes you feel connected to something greater in your life more power to you. I never think faith needs justification on logical or scientific grounds. That it works for you is the justification in my opinion. I can’t justify my non theistic faith on such grounds either but it is working for me so maybe we can be cousins or at least neighbors in faith.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The. " roared into" seems to me very very
improbable. Sea levelsl rose as glaciers melted.

One day a high high tide got a little water over the
highest point in the strait. Next high high high.
maybe slightly more.

This happened at each interglacial prior.
Gradual rise, finally a steady current maybe
1mm deeper each day at a wildly overestimzted rate?

How is that going to turn into a great flood that a
snail could not outpace, on the shore a hundred km away?

I'm figuring the topography was notably different back then.

 

[Audie]

I'm figuring the topography was notably different back then.

Ya is, is ya?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ya is, is ya?

Well, it is a Smithsonian article. It's hard to fake a sedimentary layer in think.

 

[timothy1027]

View attachment 78617​

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Believing in the supernatural is not rational but at one time, I couldn't see that. It seemed the most rational thing in the world to believe in the supernatural. I did so without question. Rational meaning to develop your thoughts based on reason and logic. I suppose I lack a rational mind but didn't know it. The only requirement to be rational, I thought, was to have a brain.

Or perhaps you never believed in them. Good for you. You were born with a more rational mind.

I suspect I kept asking why and how. Perhaps that simply causes one's mind to become more rational overtime.

Human consciousness is one of many mysteries in the observable Universe!

 

[Audie]

Well, it is a Smithsonian article. It's hard to fake a sedimentary layer in think.

It's hard to take a flashy hypothesis from a decades
old pop Sci magazine too seriously ...for me anyway.
" hear the roar 100 miles away"
Don't you get just a little uneasy with the hyperbole
and tying in the " ark"?

I like to think things over and look at data, other
published material. Try it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's hard to take a flashy hypothesis from a decades
old pop Sci magazine too seriously ...for me anyway.
" hear the roar 100 miles away"
Don't you get just a little uneasy with the hyperbole
and tying in the " ark"?

I like to think things over and look at data, other
published material. Try it.

Um.. heh..

Smithsonian isn't a pop Sci magazine.


It's a respected nature and science magazine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it proves true, why should one not take it as truth?
Huh? What do you mean? Doesn't the Bible do that?

Proof is the problem, and atheists have been asking for proof for many things in Bible without any response other than faith.
No. Bible does not do that. What is the proof of immaculate conception or resurrection of Jesus?

 

[Audie]

Um.. heh..

Smithsonian isn't a pop Sci magazine.


It's a respected nature and science magazine.

It's mostly reliable.
The format is "pop" rather than scholarly.

Your preference regarding whether to call
it " pop sci" hardly addresses the substance
of what I said but does appear to show
you are unaware of the issues with said
flashy hypothesis, which finds no traction
in the geological community.

 

[Audie]

Proof is the problem, and atheists have been asking for proof for many things in Bible without any response other than faith.
No. Bible does not do that. What is the proof of immaculate conception or resurrection of Jesus?

Not so.

There is all sorts of fakery to prove this and that.
Paluxy man tracks. Pieces of Noah's ark. Polonium halos.

 

[PureX]

Right but you could also conclude thus:

"The "supernatural" by definition would defy or transcend the physical limitations of nature. But we don't know what the physical limitations of nature, are. So we can't know if anything is or could be supernatural or not."

Or we could simply admit we cannot possibly describe the defining characteristics of objects belonging in a 'supernatural' category, making the category itself suspect.

We can know that such a condition exists without knowing how or why. The simple fact that the universe is finite implies that something exists beyond it and apart from it. And since the universe defines "nature", whatever exists beyond or apart from it is by definition "supernatural". Thus the cosmological "singularity" is by definition supernatural. Even though we have no idea how or why.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can know that such a condition exists without knowing how or why. The simple fact that the universe is finite implies that something exists beyond it and apart from it. And since the universe defines "nature", whatever exists beyond or apart from it is by definition "supernatural".

"That which happens" defines "nature."

But it seems like you're arguing that nothing in the universe is supernatural. Is that your intent?

Thus the cosmological "singularity" is by definition supernatural. Even though we have no idea how or why.

By your definition. Not by any universal or common definition... or even by any definition shared by anyone other than you, apparently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"That which happens" defines "nature."

But it seems like you're arguing that nothing in the universe is supernatural. Is that your intent?



By your definition. Not by any universal or common definition... or even by any definition shared by anyone other than you, apparently.

Well, in a sense the claim that universe is physical is not natural, as it can't be observed that all of the universe is physical. But even that include that the universe is natural as it can't be observed.
Rarher all of them are claims of ontology and/or metaphysics in some sense, regardless of being natural or supernatural.

In practice all claims of what the set of all human experinces is, is first person abstract concepts and belong to philosophy.