Why did God create us

[F1fan]

That's just a guess..
I wouldn't want to be in extremely heavy rain without good shelter.
..particularly if it went on for days and days..

Anyhow, I believe it .. just like I believe that Pharaoh was drowned as he followed Moses across a river.
I believe in miracles and more.

So you are critical of SZ citing facts as he describes the behavior of water and call it a guess, but then admit you believe in implausible events called miracles?

Gee whiz, if you really did believe in miracles you wouldn't need shelter in heavy rain, God would protect you. Or do you secretly have doubts about God existing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are critical of SZ citing facts as he describes the behavior of water and call it a guess, but then admit you believe in implausible events called miracles?

Gee whiz, if you really did believe in miracles you wouldn't need shelter in heavy rain, God would protect you. Or do you secretly have doubts about God existing?

You know that was the first time that I have ever accused me of "guessing" for saying that water flows down hill and on a steeper hill it flows down even faster. Yes, that is some guess. Who knows? It might just sit around for a month or two.

 

[F1fan]

You know that was the first time that I have ever accused me of "guessing" for saying that water flows down hill and on a steeper hill it flows down even faster. Yes, that is some guess. Who knows? It might just sit around for a month or two.

Come on, the guy probably lives in Austrailia where the water flows uphill.

 

[Brian2]

And this is why it is the only reliable approach. There is no alternative methodology to naturalism because no others ONLY follow the facts.

There are alternatives, like religious apvroa ches, but as we see they are highly unreliable and rely on assumptions that are not consistent with reality.

The presumption that the supernatural parts are not true is not following the facts. That presumption is what causes historians to presume that Bible books were written hundreds of years after previous dating by conservative scholars. The presumption being that the prophecies must have been written after the events.
This later dating is then used to show that prophecy is not true and that the books aren't historically reliable. It is circular reasoning which starts off with the presumption that the supernatural is not true and ends up concluding (because of that presumption) that the supernatural is not true.

Yup, the religious assumptions of the West's tradition are all wrong.

Everybody's assumptions may have been wrong until science gave us other information which could then be used to ascertain the true interpretation of the flood story.

The approach of rational humans is ONLY science and facts. The tradition of religious belief is irrelevant. All it tells us is how theism is a social phenomenon that can negatively influence otherwise intelligent people. There is no reason to believe anything in the Genesis stories are true. At best they are embellished stories, or simly inventions, of natural phenomenon that anncient humans could not explain with facts.

I think the religious people are also rational and I see as much irrationality in sceptics and atheists as I do in religious people.
You are again using your presumption as fact and not realising that it is just a particular pov which may or may not be factual.
Science used the naturalistic methodology to study the workings of the physical universe but science realises that it cannot presume that this methodology is a fact. Many sceptics however want to forget that it is not a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The presumption that the supernatural parts are not true is not following the facts. That presumption is what causes historians to presume that Bible books were written hundreds of years after previous dating by conservative scholars. The presumption being that the prophecies must have been written after the events.
This later dating is then used to show that prophecy is not true and that the books aren't historically reliable. It is circular reasoning which starts off with the presumption that the supernatural is not true and ends up concluding (because of that presumption) that the supernatural is not true.

It is not a presumption . That is rational thought. You should try to learn the difference. And no, those that study the Bible do not make that presumption either. Once again you need to learn the concept of evidence. They observed that the prophecies were accurate for specific time periods and then failed. And that follow a pattern. The prophecies of older events were not the ones that were wrong. It was the prophecies of more recent events.

Everybody's assumptions may have been wrong until science gave us other information which could then be used to ascertain the true interpretation of the flood story.

So far you have been the only one making assumptions. Once more you need to learn what evidence is and how to apply it.

I think the religious people are also rational and I see as much irrationality in sceptics and atheists as I do in religious people.
You are again using your presumption as fact and not realising that it is just a particular pov which may or may not be factual.
Science used the naturalistic methodology to study the workings of the physical universe but science realises that it cannot presume that this methodology is a fact. Many sceptics however want to forget that it is not a fact.

Then you do not know what rational thought is. And once again there do not appear to be any presumptions on the side of people opposing you. In fact when you claim "presumption" that is a claim about others that you must prove. It is an unjustified claim because the statements that you have made about others were false.

 

[Brian2]

Okay, That is actually probably the flood most likely to have inspired the myth that the Hebrews copied. And you have the problem that Noah and family could have walked away. Many of the people in that area could have walked away once it started. There was no need for animals on that boat. It would have only killed a very very small percentage of the human population even if people did not walk away. The problems with that as the Flood of Noah requite changes to the story that make it pointless.

We don't know how fast the water rose but we can be pretty certain that people will go home when it starts raining and then start going to higher ground as it gets higher. When they are on the highest ground around and the flood still rises they are trapped.
That flood covered a very large area and Noah and family needed their farm animals to live so that they did not then have to walk 100 km with no food etc.
The other animals in the area also would help the land recuperate a lot faster and probably save some from extinction.
It certainly was not pointless for Noah to be there telling everyone what would happen and why. Maybe some believed him, but usually people don't believe the prophets God sends, but sending them is important.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't know how fast the water rose but we can be pretty certain that people will go home when it starts raining and then start going to higher ground as it gets higher. When they are on the highest ground around and the flood still rises they are trapped.
That flood covered a very large area and Noah and family needed their farm animals to live so that they did not then have to walk 100 km with no food etc.
The other animals in the area also would help the land recuperate a lot faster and probably save some from extinction.
It certainly was not pointless for Noah to be there telling everyone what would happen and why. Maybe some believed him, but usually people don't believe the prophets God sends, but sending them is important.

You have a flawed concept of topography. And you are back to claiming that it was a worldwide flood. Water doesn't just sit there. If there is aslope it goes down it.

The flood that you mentioned, which was not large enough for Noah's Flood in the Euphrates Tigris system, left definite evidence behind. Now you need an even large flood and there simply is no evidence of all of that water, and there would be. In this case No Evidence No Flood.

 

[Brian2]

The problem is that you are also saying that he is dishonest. If there was a flood there would be evidence. To change thing, to cover them up as if they never happened, is the same as lying.

Worse yet it is not just the geological evidence that tells us that there was no flood. There is evidence from all of the sciences that it did not happen. If you want a refuted myth you cannot take one that has been more thoroughly debunked than the Noah's Ark myth.

If God can do anything why didn't he just kill the bad people? There was no need for a fake miracle and then to hide it in shame after the fact.

There is evidence of a large local flood but then you have to make up other reasons why you think it is a silly story. But the truth is that Noah's flood has not been debunked, it is just that science has helped people see that the alternative interpretation to a large local flood is the correct interpretation.
And of course science has helped to make sceptics look silly when they want to keep denying the flood that science has shown to be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence of a large local flood but then you have to make up other reasons why you think it is a silly story. But the truth is that Noah's flood has not been debunked, it is just that science has helped people see that the alternative interpretation to a large local flood is the correct interpretation.
And of course science has helped to make sceptics look silly when they want to keep denying the flood that science has shown to be true.

You did that yourself when you would not fill in your details. You have no grounds for complaint. Do your homework.

And yes, Noah's myth has been debunked countless time and we even know how the Hebrews got it from.

 

[Brian2]

It is not a presumption . That is rational thought. You should try to learn the difference. And no, those that study the Bible do not make that presumption either. Once again you need to learn the concept of evidence. They observed that the prophecies were accurate for specific time periods and then failed. And that follow a pattern. The prophecies of older events were not the ones that were wrong. It was the prophecies of more recent events.



So far you have been the only one making assumptions. Once more you need to learn what evidence is and how to apply it.



Then you do not know what rational thought is. And once again there do not appear to be any presumptions on the side of people opposing you. In fact when you claim "presumption" that is a claim about others that you must prove. It is an unjustified claim because the statements that you have made about others were false.

The naturalistic methodology of science which historians use is a presumption. Don't you realise this fact.

 

[Brian2]

You did that yourself when you would not fill in your details. You have no grounds for complaint. Do your homework.

And yes, Noah's myth has been debunked countless time and we even know how the Hebrews got it from.

It is the naturalistic presumption that says "God did not tell Noah anything, Moses or someone copied the story from earlier stories".

 

[ppp]

The naturalistic methodology of science which historians use is a presumption. Don't you realise this fact.

You have spent your every moment staking your life and the lives of the people you love on scientific methodologies

 

[Subduction Zone]

The naturalistic methodology of science which historians use is a presumption. Don't you realise this fact.

Prove it. Your claim your burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is the naturalistic presumption that says "God did not tell Noah anything, Moses or someone copied the story from earlier stories".

Once again you need to prove the "presumption".


It appears that you do not understand rational thought processes. And when it comes to debates claiming "presumption" is an accusation. You take on a burden of proof when you claim that someone assumes or presumes.

 

[Sheldon]

The geological evidence demonstrates that a world wide flood did not happen

Precisely, like the one described in the Noah myth.

but that large local floods did happen. For me it is to decide which of those is the most likely.

A rather pointless exercise as we already know that, since the biblical flood is scientifically impossible.

The Bible also can be interpreted to mean a large local flood.

Or a small bbq, with a few close friends. Basically anything you want it to mean, however what it describes is very specifically a global flood rising 20ft above the highest mountain.

The Epic of Gilgamesh also shows that the flood happened imo.

You're wrong, it might just as likely show the early Hebrews plagiarising an earlier myth.

 

[Brian2]

Once again you need to prove the "presumption".


It appears that you do not understand rational thought processes. And when it comes to debates claiming "presumption" is an accusation. You take on a burden of proof when you claim that someone assumes or presumes.

Is methodological naturalism presumed in modern science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is methodological naturalism presumed in modern science?

LOL!! Try finding a valid source. That one disqualified itself in the first sentence.


EDIT:

You may not know this but ID is pseudoscience. So when a source refers to an "ID scholar" anyone that understands the sciences is going to burst out laughing.

It would have been more accurate if you said that methodological naturalism is an outcome of the scientific method. No presumption is needed. What we see is what a universe without a God would look like. There are events in the Bible that would have left clear evidence behind. The Flood myth is not the only example. That tells us that either those events did not happen or God used some of his God magic to cover up what was usually an evil act of his.

Of course one can be a Christian and realize that many of the stories in the OT are bunk. We do not need a creation myth to realize that people are far from perfect. There are various other primitive stories that were told that are not all that different from Greek Mythology.

Your upbringing has affected your ability to reason rationally when it comes to the Old Testament. Perhaps you should try reading it again but every time that you see the world "God" or "Lord" replace it with Pixies or Elf. That might let you see how ridiculous some of the stories are.

 

[Sheldon]

Is methodological naturalism presumed in modern science?

"17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die."

A local flood you say? Your "interpretation" is pretty dubious. However let's keep looking at the narrative of the myth.

"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive."

From a local flood, a bit OTT? Let's read on then.

"For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”

Just locally though right? Again I'm dubious.

19 "And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered."

A typo then right, they meant a few local mountains, under some of heaven, surely?

"Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth."

This doesn't sound like they're talking locally to me?

"13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh,"

With a small local flood, nothing to see here, be over before you know it...

 

[Subduction Zone]

"17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die."

A local flood you say? Your "interpretation" is pretty dubious. However let's keep looking at the narrative of the myth.

"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive."

From a local flood, a bit OTT? Let's read on then.

"For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”

Just locally though right? Again I'm dubious.

19 "And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered."

A typo then right, they meant a few local mountains, under some of heaven, surely?

"Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth."

This doesn't sound like they're talking locally to me?

"13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh,"

With a small local flood, nothing to see here, be over before you know it...

It is rather amazing that after all of this time that some people do not understand that water flows downhill very easily. It does not readily pile up into huge heaps. I had to point this out to another user today.

 

[Bree]

I suppose it is if you think that the flood was world wide and that the only survivors were those in the ark of Noah.

yes thats right. The bible account is factual and 100% believable. Gods Word is Truth as Jesus stated
John 17:17 Sanctify them by means of the truth;+ your word is truth