Irishbrutha

"So, through the supernatural, miracles (including Noah's flood) could have happened, but effectively "haven't" happened because the natural world neither permits it, nor shows any real evidence of it.

Doesn't this effectively make "supernatural" meaningless?"

I never asserted the miraculous couldn't occur. We can argue that if you'd like. But you seem to assume it.

"Sure, science can inform us about the possibility of the Flood event. As described in the Bible, it's scientifically impossible".

How so? Science can't tell us what's possible. It can only tell us what has happened.

"On top of that, science can tell us that there is absolutely no record of any such global flood having happened in the last many millions of years."

I'm not a geologist, but I'd welcome the data that would show that an event didn't occur. Rather you'd have to demonstrate that the event, if it happened, would look a certain way and leave certain evidences. You have to build a framework and then insert evidence. What would the world look like if a flood occured? What evidence would there be? And how can anybody claim to answer this with any authority. Even the "certain way" the world would look is hypothetical. As a means toward discovery this of course is somewhat plausible, but not very reliable. Again though I'm not a scientist, so don't claim any authority about the viability of this particular argument. The thing I can claim is this. The bible records it as an event. Unless geology can conclude the opposite of the biblical claim. If geology can say datum set A makes it highly unlikely that a flood ever occured, then you'd have a case. But right now you're saying that data set "nonexistent" makes it likely a flood occured. You're version of history excludes biblical relevance. Which is understandable 'cuz you're an atheist/agnostic. But you can't use the flood event as a means to discredit biblical authority. That's sort of circular. You have to do it another way.

-Shaun

jenergy

I thought that our very use of the word "fundies" implied that we actually DO think they take all that stuff literally. I wouldn't call a christian who was in it for monetary or political gains a "fundi." I'd call them a Republican.

Irishbrutha

For the record moderate, there are many biblical scholars who take Genesis to be historically factual and not allegorical. Ftr, there is no such thing as a literalist. I'll have to explain more later, I'm off.

-Shaun

Mageth

Umm, aren't we talking about something that is alleged to have happened? Science can definitely tell us if something that is alleged to have happened was possible. And science tells us that the Biblical flood didn't happen. And not only that it didn't happen, but that it was impossible.

Science certainly can tell us what's possible in many cases. As in the flood: science can tell us that there was simply not enough water on the earth for a global flood of Biblical proportions to have happened.

Science can tell us that it is not possible for it to rain 40 days and 40 nights to cover up all the mountains on the earth (which would require it to rain at over 300 inches an hour - closer to 360).

Science can tell us that a 450 foot wooden boat would break apart and sink in a heartbeat.

Science can tell us that two, or seven depending on which account you believe, of every land species on earth could not fit into a boat the dimensions of the ark.

Science can tell us that a pair of Galapagos tortoises could not swim from the Galapagos Islands to the Middle East and back again.

Science can tell us that there are no "windows in the firmament" and no "fountains of the deep" as described in Genesis.

Science can tell us that the Sun could not stop in the sky for Joshua.

There is zero, absolutely zero, evidence that such an event did occur. Which is what I said: "On top of that, science can tell us that there is absolutely no record of any such global flood having happened in the last many millions of years."

It would look like a global flood occurred. Geologists know what the evidence of a flood looks like, for Pete's sake.

Geologists have detected many ancient floods from the geological evidence - but no worldwide flood. They know what to look for.

Exactly. There is no, zero, zilch, nada evidence that such a global flood occurred. "Datum set A" is the geological record. There is no, zero, zilch, nada evidence in the geological record that the global flood described in the Bible occurred. Geology has concluded the opposite of the Biblical claim. Not that it's highly unlikely, but that it did not occur.

And there are other data sets that illustrate the same - e.g., archaeological evidence (there were civilizations that remained intact through the alleged event, and those civilizations, none of them, record a global flood), and the fact that there is no evidence of a mass destruction of lifeforms some 4000 or so years ago; etc.

I'm sorry, but where on this thread did I use the "flood event" as a means to discredit biblical authority? The flood account is a myth; the Genesis creation account is a myth; there are other myths in the Bible. Does this mean that it's impossible that the Biblical is not authoritive on some things that actually matter? No. That's an argument for elsewhere. Does the fact that the bible includes a mythical account of a global flood in any way lessen the authority of the Bible? No, not if you realize that they were intended as myths in the first place, and recognize that myths can have value, even more value, if understood metaphorically rather than literally, and that there's no reason to limit God from using myths. Accepting the accounts as myths only seems to matter in the minds of stubborn theists who cling to the belief that the whole damn thing must be taken literally if it's to have any value. And, of course, to some atheists who (wrongly, IMO) claim that the presence of an obvious myth discredits the whole book. (Most atheists, I believe, will understand what I mean by this; most atheists, including myself, really only argue this against the very type of theist that insists on taking the whole thing literally).

Funny thing that so many theists don't get that point; accepting that certain events in the Bible are mythical is not necessarily a threat to the whole Bible. Instead, they discredit, and weaken, their arguments for the things that actually might "matter" in the Bible, the "important" things, by stubbornly sticking to a literal, historical interpretation of tales that were obviously intended as myths in the first place, and that are demonstrably mythical, and spend their precious time "defending" these myths against attack instead of gettin' about the business their Jesus actually told them to get about doin'.

Starboy

Brutha makes my point. There isn't any difference to speak of between a fundie and a so called liberal Christian if they both practice magical thinking. It allows them to consider nonsense as possible because with magical thinking anything is possible. Of course it is trivial for such magical thinkers to spot the magical thinking of religions that they reject. What can I say? It is hypocrisy and deceit rolled up into one nice package called supernatural religion.

Starboy

atheist

All I was saying was that from what you had said concerning miracles, that using science, or any other "natural" means of detecting or explaining the bible's supernatural events is moot. If there is no 'natural' way to detect/explain a supernatural/miraculuous event, then those events are pretty much moot as well.

My version of history certainly does not discount biblical relevance . Anthrologically/Historically speaking, I count the bible as a valuable source of information about people and their cultures during the times and in the places of which the bible is actually relevant to: The ancient Hebrew, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc...

The bible also speaks of a flood, which might in fact have some sort of real life basis: Floods, in general, are not that uncommon in history. However, data from other, more reliable and concrete sources say that a global flood never happened.

I don't follow; How is it circular? The bible says the world was flooded, but geologists find much to the contrary... That's circular?

How would you propose someone be able to test biblical authority if you say using events that happened in the bible is "sort of circular", and therefore off limits?



Mageth nicely handled the rest of your reply to my post. Thanks Mageth!

Rational BAC

Magical thinking is quite possible--even necessary for a Christian believer.

But that does not mean that it is necessary or even possible for a liberal Christian to believe in Genesis or most of the Old Testament.

Answerer

The same applies for fundie muslims and "moderate" muslims. I had seen various books by the so-called moderate muslims that advocate peace but criticize science and evolution theory greatly. So much for moderation.

Irishbrutha

Starboy you're hilarious. "Supernatural religion". All religion assume the supernatural. The only people who don't are atheists. The non-religious. You speak as if it's completely absurd that religious people would believe that the miraculous can occur. You also seem to imply that the miraculous is impossible. I don't mean that you think the miraculous didn't happen, you think it's impossible. We should have that discussion at some point. 'cuz otherwise we're going to be talking in circles, with my assumptions painting you as irrelevant to the discussion of Noah's historicity, and your assumptions painting me irrelevant to history.

Mageth wrote, "Science can definitely tell us if something that is alleged to have happened was possible. And science tells us that the Biblical flood didn't happen. And not only that it didn't happen, but that it was impossible.

Science certainly can tell us what's possible in many cases. As in the flood: science can tell us that there was simply not enough water on the earth for a global flood of Biblical proportions to have happened.

Science can tell us that it is not possible for it to rain 40 days and 40 nights to cover up all the mountains on the earth (which would require it to rain at over 300 inches an hour - closer to 360).

Science can tell us that a 450 foot wooden boat would break apart and sink in a heartbeat."

And so on and so forth. I'll give you that science can indicate the unlikelihood or likelihood of what happened. It's not definitive. Inductive Reasoning 101. And as far as your examples Science can only tell us what could have happened if the natural was left to its own devices. It cannot tell us whether or not the Supernatural can interfere. If God got involved He couldn't accomplish the things required? And I think I would probably have to ask you to support the majority of your assertions. Namely that the ark would fall apart. there are great arguments that most of your assertions are wrong. But they don't matter in the end, 'cuz you're working from a naturalistic assumption to prove naturalism.

Also you mentioned somewhere that the texts were "obviously" meant to be myths. I find that sorta funny as well. It's completely unsupported, first of all. It's mere assertion (to take a popular phrase from you guys.) We are talking about an entire civilization that was supernaturally bent. They believed in the supernaturality of everything from Tree Gods to Sun Gods to whatever. They believe this stuff happened. I'm again, just shooting from the hip and don't want to get into an "intent of the author" debate, I'm more interested in the philosophical side of it. The possiblity of miracles, the assumption by you all that they don't occur. Then going on to say, "miracles can't occur, so obviously the authors meant it as a metahpor".

-Shaun

Faith

And therein lies the problem with the atheistic argument against biblical miracles. Science can only speak to that which is natural.