Mageth

Not necessarily.

Bzzt. Nope. That would be "philosophical" or "metaphysical" naturalists, not atheists. Note that many atheists are also metaphysical naturalists, and all metaphysical naturalists are atheists.

Nope. Science can tell us some things didn't (or did) happen.

Science can tell us what did or did not happen (not always, of course).

Why sure, assuming the supernatural, which there is no reason to do. But science doesn't deal with the supernatural. And I haven't tried to use science to tell anyone whether the supernatural can interfere, BTW.

Anyway, if you assume supernatural "magic" is possible, then nothing's really knowable, is it, and absolutely anything, any explanation, is possible. You can't rule out anything. The entire universe, including your memories, could have been created 5 days ago. Diseases might really be caused by demons rather than germs. Etc. etc. That's why science assumes mehodological naturalism when investigating the universe. Assuming the supernatural makes science impossible.

It's really more of a maritime engineering issue than a science issue. Wooden boats over a certain length (about 300 feet) run into the "hogback" problem where the bow and stern sag without massive bow-to-stern structural bracing. Without the bracing, the hull will split under its own weight and stress. And this is using keel and rib construction. Greater hull length requires iron and steel construction

I bet. Let's hear them, and then we'll see how "great" they are. And note that we've probably heard them all before. You're not the first person to try to float the ark while it's raining over 300 inches an hour.

Umm, no. I was working from a rational position to illustrate why the Global Flood depicted in Genesis is impossible as described and therefore is a myth. I'm not trying to "prove naturalism" here.

Let's see; it couldn't have happened, it didn't happen, yet someone wrote a tale of it happening centuries after it allegedly happened. IOW, the person made it up. It's a myth.

And, no, it's not unsupported. Someone intentionally made up a fantastic story (myth) of a global flood, probably by borrowing a pre-existing myth and embellishing it to make YHWH appear more awesome. The original myth may or may not have been loosely based on an actual local flood. That explains the Biblical account, and matches the evidence, far better than that it actually happened.

Someone making up a story (and it's obviously "made up", as it didn't, couldn't have, happen as described) is very unlikely to believe what he's making up actually happened.

What I'm saying is that it didn't happen as described, and it couldn't have happened as described. I've never made the argument "miracles can't occur, so obviously the authors meant it as a metahpor", BTW.

But yes, if a powerful, supernatural, God exists, it could "miraculously" have transported all the animals, shrunk them down to the size of ants so he could get the millions of them all on the ark, flooded the earth with a miraculous 300+ inch an hour rain, all the while holding the ark together with supernatural glue, and then wiped out the evidence. But that's rather a weak and unsatisfactory position to take, IMO. Why would God go through all that trouble; being magic and all, he could have just annihilated all the undesirables without a year-long flood. A far more satisfactory explanation, one that explains what we actually see and know, is that it is a myth, from which metaphrorical meaning may be derived if you're so inclined.

atheist

And therefore, miracles and the supernatural are all moot. It doesn't matter if anything miraculous happened or not, because, as far as we can tell, it didn't.

Mageth

Yes, and that is why science can speak about whether the Flood depicted in the bible happened or not. Naturally, the account includes many impossibilities. Naturally, there is absolutely no evidence that such a flood ever occurred.

But assuming the supernatural, yes, it could have happened (see my last post), and science cannot prove otherwise. But then, the supernatural argument becomes absurd rather quickly. Anything I or anyone else propose is just as assertible as the flood under the supernatural argument. E.g., it's supernaturally possible that the universe was magically created, including your memories, five days ago. It's supernaturally possible that an invisible fire-breathing dragon lives in your garage. It's supernaturally possible that Joseph Smith really did dig up some gold tablets, etc. And so on and so on.

Mageth

In any case, this thread is rapidly making a lie out of the title, as most christians appear to be out-of-the closet fundies.

funinspace

What I find so interesting is that the Xian world seems so much more polarized these days. 50 years ago C.S. Lewis had no problem recognizing the Flood and Joshua's solar object demands to be utter fantasy (See God in the Dock). And he is generally still considered a good Xian writer even these days. Yet few of the literalists seem to notice his milder take on miracles.

Though on the general thread theme, I would somewhat disagree with the generalization. There are lots of Mainstream Protestants who have no problem accepting an imperfect Bible. They just don't generally start with that assumption. Yet they are accommodating to views of things askew. How else to explain female preachers and the growing acceptance of homosexuality within their flocks et.al.?

DK

Irishbrutha

No Mageth, science can only tell us what "probably" happened. Until you understand that this is a moot discussion.

You wrote, "Let's see; it couldn't have happened, it didn't happen,"

How on earth are you gonna support this statement?

"And, no, it's not unsupported. Someone intentionally made up a fantastic story (myth) of a global flood, probably by borrowing a pre-existing myth and embellishing it to make YHWH appear more awesome. The original myth may or may not have been loosely based on an actual local flood. That explains the Biblical account, and matches the evidence, far better than that it actually happened."

Assertion. Unsupported assertion at that. You're assuming that all background evidence supports the likelihood that supernaturality does not obtain in this universe. That simply isn't the case. And that's the main difference between metaphysical naturalists and metaphysical theists.

-Shaun

P.S. are you a geologist Mageth? I'm certainly not and so will not attempt to argue the possibility that the flood did or didn't occur until I"ve read up on it. I also don't think we can say how many species existed at the time, nor whether the ark would hold up. In the end the point is whether or not one is a metaphysical naturalist or not. If you're not you will approach the texts very differently than if you are. That's that bias that all the "newly introduced to intellection" believers on the board keep crying foul about. I don't cry foul, I just think you can't carry on the discussion of textual literalness (which I still am saying that no one actually is) with believers until you've had the discussion about the viability of metaphysical naturalism. And btw, metaphysical naturalists are not exactly a majority. Meaning that to so casually mock the concept that people are supernaturalists (as Starboy did) doesn't seem to be intellectually honest to the idea that there a great many people who find naturalism to be rationally insufficient to describe reality.

This would take us into a discussion of natural theology. We'd spend some time discussing the rational differences and in the end conclude that both atheism and theism have good reasons for acceptance. And like Plantinga said, it is perfectly understandable that rational people will hold both views. For the Christian theist it's properly basic that supernaturality obtains. Vice versa for the naturalist. Again this is something that will take us way off topic. But to discuss the Flood's occurence requires a metaphysical understanding between both parties. ONe which we clearly do not have.

atheist

Actually, that "probably" is "almost certainly", like 99.98% +-0.01%, like several methods/fields of science corroborate the same accepted history.

Irishbrutha

Almost is still almost. And I'd like to see the case for that percentage laid out.

-Shaun

P.S. The point of my above post was also to illustrate that "fundamental" does not equal supernaturalist. That's ridiculous and I stated why above.

Mageth

And until you can understand that science absolutely can tell us what did or didn't happen in certain cases if there is enough evidence to establish a fact (e.g., that there was no worldwide flood in 4000 BCE or so, or that the reason a certain person died was a heart attack), this discussion would appear moot from my perspective. Imagine a doctor telling his patient that "The sonogram image shows an 8-week-old fetus in your womb; therefore, you are probably pregnant." Or "The autopsy revealed a massive brain hemmorhage, but otherwise Mr. Jones was completely healthy; therefore, Mr. Jones probably died of a brain hemmorhage." Or, to be consistent with the flood account, imagine a scientist examining a house on a hill after a flood and finding no evidence of water damage in the house and an obvious waterline halfway down the hill, and saying "This house probably wasn't covered by water in the flood."

One more time, there is absolutely no evidence of a global flood in the geologic record over the last 15,000 years. Therefore, science can unequivocally tell us that a global flood did not happen in the last 15,000 years.

It is true that science typically deals in probabilities, but there are some things that science (or other means) can determine to have happened or not have happened with certainty.

Things that can't happen don't happen. The flood account depicted in the Bible is impossible as described. Therefore, it didn't happen.

BTW, there has been no presentation on this thread of how the flood could have happened as decribed other than a resort to magic, and there has been no evidence presented to support an assertion that the flood did, or may have, happened. So your argument appears to be an attempt to shift the burden of proof. I've explained why the flood couldn't have, and didn't, happen; the onus should really be on the person claiming the positive argument (that the flood could have or did happen) to provide evidence to support their argument.

Meanwhile, the Biblical flood account remains a myth. The story doesn't float.

Irishbrutha

Wow, I respect your discussion Mageth that's why I usually respond to some of your stuff when I do. But after all this time you haven't accepted the uncertainty of inductive evidence? Also, personally experiencing the fetus in one's womb is not equivalent to evidence for an event some thousands of years ago. If we keep going down this road we're gonna have to break into historical method and scientific method and all the mish mashing that entails. But any reasonable person will understand that we do not "know" what happened in history via science. We don't know what happened in history at all. For those events that science can inform us about we utilize science to give us a picture of what was probable. But certainty apart from personal experience is never possible. I would argue that it is never possible even from personal experience.

But what we are talking about is a 'non-event'. And science is even more bereft of certainty when it comes to the proof of the Flood's non-occurence. It cannot achieve certainty, nor can it achieve high probability I would say, unless someone can give me a geological reason otherwise that's supported by the majority of scholarship. And should that reason be provided I would gladly retract the last portion of my statement. But again it doesn't affect my supernaturalism, it only affects the percentage of probability. Which does not affect whether the event could or could not have happened. to say an event could not have happened is to say that it was rationally impossible. That simply is not the case. It is not logically impossible, therefore it is possible.

There's no onus of "proof" one way or the other at this point. This point is contained within a much broader discussion. And that's the rational yield of metaphysical naturalism and the viability of the Christian God. If there are good reasons to believe that the Christian God exists, then there are good reasons to believe that He could cause the Flood and the events that transpired. It's not really a question. If there is good reason to believe the Christian God exists, and there are good reasons to believe the bible is His revelation to the world, He is a God of truth, then there is good reason to believe that His word accurately records events that it does. I happen to accept that there are good reasons to believe the above. Therefore it is not my onus to show you why the Flood could have happened. All I have to do is show that it's logically possible. 'cuz all I'm trying to do is show that "fundamentalism" (which you guys associate with "irrational") is not evangelicalism. I agree that fundamentalists shun rational discussion and don't care about the consistency of their faith and reason. I'm trying to say that it is not irrational to hold the viability of supernatural events and that in the case of the Flood there are good reasons to believe it occured within a rational Theistic metaphysic. Since that's what I adopt I think there are good reasons to believe the Flood happened and that very very conclusive evidence would have to be discovered before I would change my position (I would change my position on the Flood were there demonstrated - A) evidence that is darn near conclusive, and b) a reason to believe that geologists know waht to look for, and that things such as the "Ice Age" cannot be counted as such evidence for instance. I'd need to know that geologists can actually guarantee that their predictions concerning what a flood would look like are accurate. That in itself is debatable. anyway, enough for now. Mageth you have way too much time on your hands I simply cannot spend as much time as you guys on these threads.

-Shaun

One more thing, why did it have to happen in the last 15,000 years?