Faith

Thank you for that concession. I hope it wasn't too painful for you.

atheist

This "almost" is the same almost that makes your radio play, your car go vroom, your lawn grow, your heart beat, the sun rise... Can't you hear the radio that "almost" plays, ride in cars that "almost" go vroom, makes you grass "almost" grow, your heart "almost" beat, and the sun "almost" rise everyday?

There is a methodology to science. This includes the science that says, with near certainty, that a global flood did not happen.

I would've thought that you weren't interested in that sort of thing, because any science I cite will be disqualified simply because it is "science" and therefore cannot explain or find evidence of biblical miracles.

Take a tour of a local observatory. You can take a peek at the science of our solar system. While you marvel at how well this science can predict past and future positions, trajectories, and velocities of celestial bodies, you can check the math for determining how many days were in a Devonian year. Then try to contain your excitement when you discover how this coincides with coral growth during this same period. More amazing yet, is how this also coincides with radiometric dating, as do tree rings and ice cores samples, not to mention geological data (including volcanic erruptions) and fossil records - all of which I'm not an expert on, but please... Science isn't some sort of esoteric, hard to understand mumbo-jumbo as to be unaccessable to who aren't "experts".

Something that I find really cool is that many of the experts are available and quite approachable. Do you have a specific question? Shall we start bugging a few geologists with questions about global floods? I'm sure I can find at least one that'll bite. Would it just be a waste of time, because a "scientific-almost-certainly" isn't as good as "god-did-it"?

Mageth

I've supported it quite thoroughly on this thread, thank you.

I'm always a bit taken aback when someone insists on telling me what I am assuming. Perhaps you're supernaturally reading my mind?

I haven't relied on that assumption in this thread, BTW.

There's an assertion for you - an unsupported one at that. Now produce some evidence that supports the likelihood that supernaturality does attain in this universe. Good luck.

Other than the fact that I haven't claimed to be a "metaphysical naturalist" on this thread (I may or may not be; that's not germane to the discussion, and not necessary to make the arguments I have), the "main difference" between MN and MT is that MN assumes "only natural", and MT assumes "natural+supernatural". That's not exactly a huge revelation, BTW.

I don't need to be a geologist to present the arguments I have, or reach the conclusions I have. IOW, it's simply not germane whether I'm a geologist or not, just like it's not germane whether I'm a MN or not.

But trust me, I've "read up" enough on geology, history, archaeology, etc etc, and am capable of thinking things through on my own enough, to come to the conclusion that the global flood in the bible didn't happen, and couldn't have happened as described, and is indeed a myth. You have to resort to magic to explain it as described, and I've presented problems with that explanation.

We have a very good idea how many species existed at the time (about as many as now; actually, probably more as we've been quite busy exterminating species lately). And any reputable marine engineer could explain to you better than I have why the boat described in the bible would not work.

Any fifth grader could figure out why a pair of Galapagos turtles couldn't make their way to the ark.

No, that's not the point. One doesn't have to be a metaphysical naturalist to conclude that Noah's flood didn't happen; many, many theists have reached the same conclusion (though many of them would perhaps say it "probably" didn't happen).

Really? Dang, I woulda never thought of that! Just to think, if you believe iin a supernatural realm, you'll approach a text that makes supernatural claims very differently than if you don't believe in the supernatural.

If you're speaking to me (which I assume you are) I definitely know what metaphysical naturalism means, I'm familiar with the arguments in support of it and against it (and for supernaturalism), have found the arguments for MN are very strong and the arguments against it (and for supernaturalism) are exceedingly weak, and have discussed it extensively.

So what discussion about the viability of metaphysical naturalism have I missed out on, exactly? You certainly haven't provided anything I haven't heard before on this thread.

Umm, so?

Umm, so? Appeal to Popularity gets one nowhere, unless you think there's something magical about numbers.

A bit of a switch there from naturalism/supernaturalism to atheism/theism. The're different topics (though related), as I believe I've mentioned before.

Haven't said nor implied on this thread, at least not yet, that rational people cannot hold both "views". But I must ask which views you (or Pantinga) are talking about before I can really agree or disagree. Are you talking about atheism and theism, metaphysical naturalism and metaphisical supernaturism/metaphysical theism, or what?

In any case, and in advance, I can't see how it would be rational, or even possible, for a person to be both an atheist and a theist, or both a MN and a MT

I've said several times that I understand how it's possible that the flood could magically have obtained assuming the supernatural, though I've expressed that that leads to absurdity, and I'm quite up on the differences between/arguments for and against naturalism and supernaturalism (and atheism/theism), so I don't exactly see where the disagreement we clearly do not have is. In the supernatural realm, perhaps?

Mageth

It wasn't a "concession". I entered this thread with that understanding. Not to mention the fact that I'd made a similar statement at least once earlier in the thread. Therefore, I felt no pain at all.

Irishbrutha

How quaint (referring to "atheist's" final comment). One of my best friends is an astrophysicist. I have a huge respect for science. He's also a believer by the way. He'll be on these boards eventually. But even he will admit that geology is nothing like astronomy. The exactness with which a mathematical calculation can predict the movement of planets just doesn't relate to our discussion except that it provides a better picture of the complexity of the world and the improvement with which we've been able to create methods to understand it. I totally respect scientific conclusions. And I totally disagree with your last statement. If science concluded something categorically distinct from biblical revelation I'd have to reconcile that with my belief in inerrancy. That's what I.D. is. An attempt to do that. I just haven't heard, and as unpleasant as this may sound to you, a decent case made as to why geologists can be so certain of its non-occurence. Until I have, my metaphysical system allows for such an event as it's not logically impossible. Epistemically it's not irrational to adhere to the concept of revelation. Therefore I choose to place a great deal of historical authority in the biblical record.

As long as you continue to compare currently occuring events to historical events you're never going to be on the same page as I am. Science cannot tell us that the Flood did not happen. Better way to look at it -> History is never certain unless we were the ones experiencing the event. That's just plain common sense. The further from the event I get the less I can say about its occurence with certainty. So I honestly ask you,,,,what do geologists say about the Flood? More telling, what do geologists say about geologic history? Is there anything that might fit within a flood-occurence? I can't imagine that there isn't. You're right though, if there is a God, His record of the event is going to be much more conclusive than historical method or scientific method. And why wouldn't it be? You guys wave that flag and then don't even examine its rationality. Of course I'm going to believe that God's record is right. Why wouldn't I? Especially if I believe, again, that there are good reasons to believe in that God. And if those reasons are supported by both reason and personal experience, then I'm going to place a lot of subjective weight in scripture. I don't understand what the problem is. Why do you place so much subjective weight in science? Because it made you a computer? Recognize that I say this in full recognition that science has brought us a long way practically and that I'm fascinated with astronomy and cosmology. But science cannot tell me one way or the other whether a supernatural God did or didn't touch the natural at some past point in the timeline.

-Shaun

Irishbrutha

Actually you did claim to be a metaphysical naturalist. Your metaphysic and epistemology will determine the rational possibility of the Flood. I have stated that supernaturally the flood could have occured. You have stated that it could not.

"I've said several times that I understand how it's possible that the flood could magically have obtained assuming the supernatural, though I've expressed that that leads to absurdity"

Dude are you listening to our arguments? Define absurdity before I continue. As I understand it, absurdity is logically impossible. Or lack of rational obtainment. The possibility of a Flood occuring in history is in no way counter to logical possibility. Please also recognize that the word magic has nothing to do with supernatural. God is able to manipulate nature. Magic is the occurence of supernaturality without cause. There is very much a cause in miracles, just not a natural one. And that cause is the Creator's interaction with the natural world. It only becomes absurd when you start randomly postulating other supernatural occurences without any reason. As I stated above there is very much reason within Christian Theism to presume that the biblical record is correct. The testimony of historical witnesses is one. Do you know of anyone postulating the green dragon theory? Or that fairies are in their room? See my above post. And there are good reasons to believe in the supernatural, natural theology is one. The revelation of God into one's personal life is another. Your lack of that experience does not a universal make. The wonderful thing about that principle is that in the theist's case, one veridical experience of God validates our belief in His existence. While no matter how many non-theists do not have that experience, the validation of His non-existence is still only understood in terms of probability.

-Shaun

trendkill

What do you think of Hume's contention that testimony can only be sufficient to establish reasonable belief if its falsity would be more miraculous than its truth?

Many people have testified, and some continue to testify today of the existence of fairies.

How? It appears to me that absolute verification (beyond the need for probability assessment) is a tall order, to put it mildly. Wouldn't you need to establish that your own perceptions were literally infallible? How do you do this?

Mageth

And you don't understand that if there is absolutely no evidence that an event described in a book full of descriptions of supernatural events actually happened, and that many of the elements described for that event in the book are not possible (speaking "naturally" possible), that one can indeed determine with certainty that that event did not happen as described? (hint: impossible things don't happen by definition).

Yes, you can resort to magic to explain how the impossible happened and why there is no evidence that the event did happen, but then all hope for knowledge is out the window. It's possible that the universe was created five days ago.

We don't know that there was a battle at Gettysburg in July 1863? That Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo? That D-Day occurred on June 6, 1944?

Give me a break. That argument might fly in philosophy class, but in the real world it's simply not the case. There are a lot of things we can know with certainty (and many that we cannot know with certainty).

In any event, I'm not simply arguing from the lack of evidence that the global flood happened; that, in and of itself, would justify the "probably" qualifier. I combine that with the impossibility of the elements of the story (which is not an argument from "history"). Combined, it's reasonable to conclude that the flood depicted in Genesis did not happen, and could not have happened, as described. Actually, even without considering the lack of evidence in the geologic record, it's reasonable to conclude that, because impossible things do not happen, by definition. Once again, you'd have to resort to magic. But note that the Bible does not explain all the impossible events depicted in the flood accounts with magic; one would just have to assume that they were somehow magically done. Not satisfying at all.

So, you don't know that you were born on your birthday, or that you were married on a certain day, or what you had for lunch yesterday?

Finally, something we can both agree on.

The majority of geologic scholarship says that there is no evidence of such a worldwide flood. Add to that the impossibility of that much water, and it raining 300 inches or so an hour, and Galapagos turtles swimming to the Middle east, etc etc, and voila! the biblical flood did not happen, with certainty.

I'll trump your logical possibility with the ace of physical impossibility.

I don't believe I've said otherwise. Magic can be used to trump anything. So what?

All sorts of things are logically possible that aren't physically possible. It's logically possible that gravity will reverse tomorrow and we'll all go flying off into space. And it's logically possible that Mt. Everest was once covered by several cubits of water for about a year in the last 15,000 years or so. But there is not, and was not, that much water on earth, so it's not physically possible. It's logically possible that a pair of Galapagos tortoises could swim from their island in the Pacific to the Middle East and back again, but it's not physically possible. Of course, assuming magic, those things are magically possible, but so is everything else that's "logically possible."

A hasty generalization, that. I have not associated "fundamentalism" with "irrational". And I'm well aware that fundamentalism /= evangelicalism. But you have amply demonstrated the essential point of this thread, from the OP, that "...while most American Xians will claim to be "liberal", when pressed on the matter, most of them will adopt a rather fundie stance. That is WRT to the Genesis creation, Noah's ark, the Exodus." IOW, you appear to be arguing against a strawman of the OP's original observation.

And I have not disagreed on that point - except that there are "good reasons to believe" that such a flood occurred. There are none. And you certainly haven't produced any. And, once again, you are essentially confirming the observation made in the OP.

I've presented evidence that is "darn near conclusive" (to use your words) that the flood as depicted in the Bible did not happen. And I've mentioned before that geologists know what the evidence of a flood looks like, and would easily be able to detect the evidence for a flood of biblical proportions in the last 15,000 years (or 100,000 years, etc), and have found no such evidence in the geological record. Further, I have mentioned other fields, such as archaeology, where absolutely no corroborating evidence of the biblical flood can be found - indeed, evidence to the contrary is found instead. And I've explained why several elements of the flood are impossible. So what more are you wanting, exactly?

You appear to be rather adamant about confirming the observation made in the OP.

And I don't get the Ice Age comment, BTW.

A flood of that magnitude that recently would definitely leave an easily detectable bathtub ring virtually everywhere you looked. In addition, since there was no place for all that water to go, we would still be living on "Waterworld". Or at least as many of us as could fit on the still-magically-floating ark.

I sorta pulled that number out of my hat, but that's approximately as long as civilizations have been around. Make it 100,000; the same still holds.

atheist

Great!

Geology and astronomy (and biology, and chemistry, and physics, ...) do relate to our discussion because it is the corroboration of all of these sciences that conspire to show, with almost certainty, that there was no global flood.

Then you have some reconciliation to take care of...

Let's ask some Christian geologists!

I just sent an email:


Metaphysical logic? Sounds like an oxymoron. And you say that it is not irrational to rely on 'revelation', adn at the same time, you ask that I support my claims. Apparently, biblical authority doesn't need support any claim except through the "power of YWWH" - and neither do you?

Why not? Science tells us about a whole bunch of stuff that did happen, and global flood is not one of them.

Saying that science cannot tell us that a global flood didn't happen is like saying science cannot tell us that the earth's atmophere wasn't made of pure helium. But I suppose that if the bible said so (which would be amazing just in that people back then knew what helium is), you would believe it.

History leaves an evidence trail. The trail of evidence does not support the miracles portrayed in the bible.

I've sent an email for an "official" opinion - from Christian geologists even!

From what I understance, there are plenty of examples of floods. Try a quick google of "Black Sea" and "flood" for a real good one.

Your god hasn't presented its case. All we have are stories - anecdotal evidence - in an ancient book: hardly a scientific volume! The bible competes with real science that gives hard evidence for a natural history of earth.

Subjective science? Maybe that's a good description of ID.

I put weight on the fact that real science produces tangible evidence, and has a much better propensity for obective interpretation. Scripture simply assumes an authoritative stance.

Then please, indulge for second, and attempt to follow what I was trying to communicate in my last post. Each field of science corroborates the following statement: A supernatural god is both unneccessary, and non-evident in our universe.

Mageth

Where on this thread did I claim to be a MN? And once again, whether or not I am a MN is not essential to my arguments on this thread, nor will my "metaphysic and epistemology determine the rational possibility of the Flood." I find the possibility of the flood "irrational" regardless of my "metaphysic and epistemology."

And where on this thread have I stated that the flood could not have occurred supernaturally? I've said just the opposite several times, actually.

"inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense."

And apparently you haven't even read mine, because I've explained several times why assuming the magical leads to absurdity. Assuming the magical leads to conclusions that are inconsistent with "reason or logic or common sense." Assuming the magical makes it magically possible that the universe was magically created "as is" five days ago, or yesterday, or five minutes ago. And there may well be an invisible dragon in your garage, or a magical, invisible little elf in your stomach, or fairies in your garden. That's inconsistent with "reason or logic or common sense" in my book.

See above.

Neither is it logically impossible that all the matter in the universe will vanish one minute from now.

I would say the physical impossibility qualifies under "reason" and "common sense", though I personally don't put much stock in common sense.

Actually, magic originated as the "ability to manipulate nature", and that's pretty much how it's still defined. And there is cause associated with magic. Magic is simply not well defined as "supernaturality without a cause". Read the following:

http://www.bartleby.com/196/5.html

As there is cause associated with magic, though whether it's natural or supernatural depends on who you're talking to.

Anyway, I think magic is a good, broad term to define the "ability to manipulate nature", no matter who's doing the manipulationg or through what means.

It becomes absurd because, once you allow someone or something the "ability to manipulate nature", anything, absolutely anything, is possible.

There is no testimony of historical witnesses to the flood in the Bible. The same is true for many of the other events portrayed there, including the resurrection, BTW.

BTW, by your own arguments against the capabilities of historians etc, you can only "presume that the biblical record" has some probability of being correct, not that it is correct.

A subject for a different thread, I suppose, but I fail to see how natural theology gives one good reason to believe in the supernatural. It might support one's pre-existing belief in the supernatural, perhaps.

So, we can't trust historians, we can't trust science, and we can't trust geologists, but we can trust a warm, fuzzy feeling a lot of people get? Sheesh.