Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-05-2015 09:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 02:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I presuppose reasonable things, such as the reliability of logic and my senses (while realizing that my senses can sometimes be deceptive). That is entirely different from presupposing that because a character in a story mentions a character from another story, the older character must have really existed and the story in which he appears must be literally true. That is only reasonable with the help of several additional dubious presuppositions. The whole thing is a house of cards. Noah is no more likely to have existed in real life than Captain Ahab. And if Jesus existed, he is highly unlikely to have been anything like the characters portrayed in the Gospels (yes, I said characters, plural -- because the Jesus of John's gospel is a different character than the Jesus of the other three gospels).

You certainly would be 100% correct, except for the things I've cited elsewhere--that there are reasonable pieces of evidence outside the Bible for things like the Flood, the historicity of Jesus, even the miracles of Christ, particularly, and most germane for you and I--the resurrection.

You must be making up your own definition of "evidence". I see very little evidence outside the Bible for the historicity of Jesus, and none at all for the flood, miracles, or the resurrection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
27-05-2015, 11:09 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2015 11:14 AM by Chas.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-05-2015 09:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 09:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Science assumes methodological naturalism. That has been proven to work by the results.

The success of this lends credence to the truth of ontological naturalism.


There are no facts that lead to the Bible, Jesus, or salvation - there are just delusions.

I call baloney. Ontological naturalism involves assumptions of an almost religious nature. In fact, that is why it is a synonym for metaphysical naturalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism makes no assumptions of a religious nature at all. It only assumes that what we can detect is what exists and nothing else.

The fact of the success of methodological naturalism supports the likelihood that metaphysical naturalism is correct.

Quote:Obviously, I would also disagree with your second point. The Bible is rife with facts, verifiable in archaeology and elsewhere. You merely are employing an anti-supernatural bias to everything in and outside the Bible in this universe also.

The Bible has some scant facts that have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the stories. There is no evidence of the miracles, including virgin births and resurrection; none for the flood or the creation stories, none for 900 year old people, and so on ad nauseum.

There is no evidence of the supernatural. I guess I must be biased in favor of actual evidence. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-05-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-05-2015 09:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You certainly would be 100% correct, except for the things I've cited elsewhere--that there are reasonable pieces of evidence outside the Bible for things like the Flood, the historicity of Jesus, even the miracles of Christ, particularly, and most germane for you and I--the resurrection.

I have checked out much of what you have said and I actually fail to see any reasonable piece of evidence for a global flood, miracles, or resurrection.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
28-05-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-05-2015 09:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. You feel you always come to the correct conclusion, while I am willing to admit my personal biases and past errors.

[Image: hum-bullshit-1024x768-wallpaper-861314.jpg]

Bullshit!

You still keep quoting the Bible like it is a reliable source when it been demonstrated to you multiple times just how unreliable it is. You still treat it like evidence, instead of a claim in search of (and failing to find) corroborative evidence.

So fuck off. Drinking Beverage

You still misunderstand. Am I disallowed to learn at TTA while remaining in my stance? I can learn without changing my mind, can't I? That does not mean I am here without learning new things.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 07:40 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-05-2015 11:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 09:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I call baloney. Ontological naturalism involves assumptions of an almost religious nature. In fact, that is why it is a synonym for metaphysical naturalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism makes no assumptions of a religious nature at all. It only assumes that what we can detect is what exists and nothing else.

The fact of the success of methodological naturalism supports the likelihood that metaphysical naturalism is correct.

Quote:Obviously, I would also disagree with your second point. The Bible is rife with facts, verifiable in archaeology and elsewhere. You merely are employing an anti-supernatural bias to everything in and outside the Bible in this universe also.

The Bible has some scant facts that have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the stories. There is no evidence of the miracles, including virgin births and resurrection; none for the flood or the creation stories, none for 900 year old people, and so on ad nauseum.

There is no evidence of the supernatural. I guess I must be biased in favor of actual evidence. Drinking Beverage

What is the "success" of metaphysical naturalism? Assuming everything that happens is natural and obeys only laws leads only to gaps in knowledge for every anomaly outside of those laws. A case in point would be being told here at TTA that the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy was not in operation when the Big Bang singularity first expanded--tantamount to saying, "Sure, it makes no scientific or naturalist sense that matter and energy arose from nowhere, but it couldn't have been the intervention of a thinking being(s) that caused it in this universe."

There is evidence of the supernatural. I've provide several worthy additions in this very thread. Yes, you have a bias. So do I. Which bias is correct?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(28-05-2015 07:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 11:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Metaphysical naturalism makes no assumptions of a religious nature at all. It only assumes that what we can detect is what exists and nothing else.

The fact of the success of methodological naturalism supports the likelihood that metaphysical naturalism is correct.


The Bible has some scant facts that have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the stories. There is no evidence of the miracles, including virgin births and resurrection; none for the flood or the creation stories, none for 900 year old people, and so on ad nauseum.

There is no evidence of the supernatural. I guess I must be biased in favor of actual evidence. Drinking Beverage

What is the "success" of metaphysical naturalism? Assuming everything that happens is natural and obeys only laws leads only to gaps in knowledge for every anomaly outside of those laws. A case in point would be being told here at TTA that the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy was not in operation when the Big Bang singularity first expanded--tantamount to saying, "Sure, it makes no scientific or naturalist sense that matter and energy arose from nowhere, but it couldn't have been the intervention of a thinking being(s) that caused it in this universe."

The conservation laws, as for all the physical laws, are descriptions of the behavior of this universe. What occurred before this universe is unknown.

You don't seem to understand what physical laws are.

Quote:There is evidence of the supernatural. I've provide several worthy additions in this very thread.

You have provided no credible evidence of anything supernatural.

Quote:Yes, you have a bias. So do I. Which bias is correct?

I am biased toward evidence. You either ignore it or make it up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
01-06-2015, 11:51 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(28-05-2015 07:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-05-2015 07:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What is the "success" of metaphysical naturalism? Assuming everything that happens is natural and obeys only laws leads only to gaps in knowledge for every anomaly outside of those laws. A case in point would be being told here at TTA that the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy was not in operation when the Big Bang singularity first expanded--tantamount to saying, "Sure, it makes no scientific or naturalist sense that matter and energy arose from nowhere, but it couldn't have been the intervention of a thinking being(s) that caused it in this universe."

The conservation laws, as for all the physical laws, are descriptions of the behavior of this universe. What occurred before this universe is unknown.

You don't seem to understand what physical laws are.

Quote:There is evidence of the supernatural. I've provide several worthy additions in this very thread.

You have provided no credible evidence of anything supernatural.

Quote:Yes, you have a bias. So do I. Which bias is correct?

I am biased toward evidence. You either ignore it or make it up.

I do know what a physical law is. But in this case, special pleading is used to allow for the creation of matter without creation from design.

I have provided credible evidence of paranormal events. You have a worldview that nothing paranormal may occur at any time, for any reason, in any location, and at any time. That's not a mere bias--you could meet the resurrected Jesus and then tell yourself you were hallucinating.

I go by evidence also, but I question whether you've ever studied Bible prophecy.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2015, 09:45 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Q its not our fault that you're dumb enough to consider bullshit as evidence.

There is no accepted evidence for a global flood or the resurrection of any human being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2015, 11:22 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Posting when I have a large enough moment.

(01-06-2015 11:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I do know what a physical law is. But in this case, special pleading is used to allow for the creation of matter without creation from design.

Okay... so you'll also understand when people say (And they have) that said physical laws (Which are actually our models for what we think is happening in the reality around us and we could be totally wrong) only work within this reality.

What came 'before' said laws could actually work/function we don't know... So, yes we can posit something 'other' instigated everything. The problem with such is that then how does one test such?

(01-06-2015 11:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I have provided credible evidence of paranormal events.

Citation please.

(01-06-2015 11:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You have a worldview that nothing paranormal may occur at any time, for any reason, in any location, and at any time. That's not a mere bias--you could meet the resurrected Jesus and then tell yourself you were hallucinating.

I, for one, do not discount anything supernatural... I just haven't been shown/given evidence of any such thing. Again, please provide information/proofs etc.

(01-06-2015 11:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I go by evidence also, but I question whether you've ever studied Bible prophecy.

Why should one study your religious tomes over any one elses again? Not only that.. but how does one ascertain the verascity of such? I've seen other posters here make counterclaims aginst your tomne and really haven't seen good refutations/counter claims by yourself against them.... :-k

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
02-06-2015, 05:43 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Is there any point to this thread besides demonstrating how a person wallows in delusion and denies and distorts evidence?

Q has serious cognitive impairment, you have to, to continue believing this nonsense.

Seriously, this is a supposedly adult person that believes in make believe, we could've been arguing how Santa Claus gets all of those toys on his sleigh. The argument is no different than how Noah got all of those animals on a boat.

This person qualitatively believes the same thing and I suppose he'll wallow in his sophistry and be quite proud of his intellectual prowess while he makes arguments for it.

This is literally a mind that has been deluded into believing anything, as long as it supports his world view.

He has literally been intellectually damaged by his religion, and he will deny it until the day he dies.

Does it get more pathetic than this?

Q is an intellectual train wreck, all we're doing now is standing here looking at it as we shake our heads at the intellectual catastrophe.

[Image: train-wreck.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: