One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

I think I remember putting forth that it didn't happen the way described in the Bible. Proving that it's plausible doesn't prove me wrong on what I said. It's too bad you don't see it this way. You did a little goal post shifting yourself though. Not directly, but you tried to show me that since basically every ancient culture has a flood story, then it MUST have happened. By that line of reasoning, every culture also has a creation and god story, so does this mean that there MUST be a god?

Every exercise in feasibility I proposed was consistent with the account in scripture, so I did in fact refute your claim that the Biblical flood account was impossible. I simply provided multi-cultural flood accounts as evidence to support the reality of the global flood, which it is. You’ve provided no counter explanation to explain this evidence.

“The more cross cultural the folklore, the more likely it is based upon actual experience.”- Lynne McNeill, Assistant Professor of Folklore, Utah State University

Part of science is poking holes in the theories of one another sure. But you're basing your claim on the idea that there's only one way to skin a rabbit. Basically, there are multiple lines of reasoning on Abiogenesis. It goes without saying that if there's life elsewhere, it's entirely feasible that it did not spring up the same way it did on earth. We're still not certain that it was Abiogenesis that caused the first single-celled organisms, but we can't say that it's a baseless theory no matter how much you want it to be.

Sure, there are multiple lines of reasoning on Abiogenesis, but not a single one of those lines of reasoning can explain how organic life can arise from non-life without an intelligence guiding it. Since that is precisely what is required in order for Abiogenesis to be a viable theory it is relegated to the realm of wishful thinking.

So, if I follow you correctly, you're saying that the fact that there's evidence at all for anything means that there must be a god? This makes a person wonder who's really skipping steps here.

Yes! Now we’re getting somewhere! You’ve completely skipped explaining how you can make sense of the concept of scientific evidence and the necessary preconditions for interpreting it without God existing. I do not believe you can do so in a purely natural Universe.

Are you sure it's your not your own immaturity that's keeping you from being a bit more colorful with your words?

Yes, I am sure. It is far more difficult for a child to exercise restraint than it is for an adult.

Straw man. No thanks.

It’s not a straw-man at all, you asserted that all supernatural experiences exist solely in people’s minds and then you claimed this is something that has been observed to be true. So please explain how you observed this to be true.

Thinking that we are observing a false reality when we are awake is unnecessary since no other reality than this one can be proven to exist.

This does not prove that the existence of any reality is necessary, or that any reality that exists is knowable to us through our senses. In order to prove naturalism you must first prove these two points. This is rather enjoyable, I get to play the role of the skeptic for once.

I accept that this reality is actual, and that's really all there is to it.

Well shucks, if we’re allowed to do that then I accept that God exists and that’s really all there is to it; so I now have proven God exists with the same level of certainty that you can prove the natural Universe exists.

Not a problem. Now that I've shown you that accepting this reality as fact is more or less the default position since nothing outside it can be proven, how about you go about proving that your god exists.

It’d be the default position if you could prove this reality exists; you merely asserted it existed so you have yet to do that. The fact you claim to perceive the existence of this reality does not prove it in fact does exist, many people claim to perceive the existence of god.

Faith is not a sure knowledge, if that's what you're getting at. Glad I could nip that in the butt.

That’s not how scripture uses the term, so to use it that way in reference to scripture is committing the fallacy of equivocation. Scripture uses faith to mean a trust or confidence in something, not to mean belief without evidence as atheists always try to assert.

Faith (noun)- confidence or trust in a person or thing (Webster’s)