Let's talk about Jonah now! Or Samson! Ooh ooh...Or that giant display of awesome power when the almighty God flexed his muscles and sent down that giant plague of....Grasshoppers? YEAH! BIG ONES!!! LOTS OF THEM!

(July 23, 2013 at 10:21 pm)catfish Wrote: Soooo, Imma gunna just assert that any idiotic moron who believes that the Bible specifically states a world-wide flood is clearly insane and quite delusional.

I suppose you are saying that you have to qualify a person as an "idiotic moron" first. Afterwards is when you attach "insane" and "delusional" to describe them only when they attempt to read the flood as a world-wide event.

Someone be trollin'!

One would have to be an equal to the global mouthbreather to assert or imply that any flood of any regional or local distribution as described in the narrative has ever occurred.

For the record, it has not, further.... such a shitstorm of inclement weather is not possible on this planet so far as we know. The narrative is irreconciliable with reality no matter how we choose to interpret it.

(July 24, 2013 at 9:03 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(July 23, 2013 at 10:21 pm)catfish Wrote: Soooo, Imma gunna just assert that any idiotic moron who believes that the Bible specifically states a world-wide flood is clearly insane and quite delusional.

I suppose you are saying that you have to qualify a person as an "idiotic moron" first. Afterwards is when you attach "insane" and "delusional" to describe them only when they attempt to read the flood as a world-wide event.

Someone be trollin'!

Yeah, and it be you...
Pay attention to what I quoted of you above. You're pretty dense too, huh?

---

(July 24, 2013 at 6:39 am)Stimbo Wrote: Glad to have you aboard, Mr Fish!

Did Noah’s Flood Cover the Whole Earth? by John D. Morris

Are you trying to convert me or something? I stopped reading after the guy said that God wrote the Bible.

(July 24, 2013 at 7:17 pm)catfish Wrote:

(July 24, 2013 at 9:03 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I suppose you are saying that you have to qualify a person as an "idiotic moron" first. Afterwards is when you attach "insane" and "delusional" to describe them only when they attempt to read the flood as a world-wide event.

Someone be trollin'!

Yeah, and it be you...
Pay attention to what I quoted of you above. You're pretty dense too, huh?

Hey, who's the one trying to twist words? I spelled yours out perfectly...you and I got off on the wrong foot for some reason, and because of that you're trying to convince me and others of something that's clearly special logic. That's called Trolling.

More evidence of your actions are within the next few lines of your post. You try to call Stimbo out on converting you because of an obscure line in that link. You are getting hung up on the details, and then you read too much into them; therein lies your problem.

I'm giving catfish the benefit of the doubt and presuming he was joking about the conversion thing, as we're sparring partners of old and my sense of dry humour is well known. Unfortunately, there are all too many people who do think "God" wrote the bible and who don't - or can't - question the legitimacy of what they read.

Answers in Genesis is held up as a trusted source by such people. Morris himself is president of the oxymoronic Institute for Creation Research and son of Henry Morris, the "father of creationism". Thus his own authority on the subject is touted as being beyond question, despite his qualifications being in civil, and geological, engineering. That's about as useful as me, with my NVQ in vehicle maintenance, getting trotted out as an authority for my opinions on medical research.

At the very least catfish, unless the irony was impenetrably thick, doesn't buy the AiG t-shirt.

(July 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: You believe your buddy that wrote the article you pasted back at me refuted everything in my "elephant". If you believe his lies, then you're just as deluded as he is. If anything in his claims can be proven, then where the hell is his Peace prize for bringing this argument to rest? That's right...it shouldn't even be an argument because he's fucking insane, and so is whoever believes the story of Noah's ark to be a literal account.

Actually he’s a genius (was published in Nature at the age of 22, beat 14 people at chess simultaneously, while he was blind-folded), and personally attacking him or me for that matter does nothing to establish your position.

Quote: He didn't address horseshit, but he ate a pile of it before spewing it all back out.

Simmer down.

Quote: The ark was built, but nothing else besides the size of it is known. Whether or not it was built for stability, movement, flight, or space travel is all speculation.

The ark’s purpose was to house animals and to survive a flood, therefore it was built for stability, not for traveling. This is consistent with its dimensions.

Quote:"For each point he makes, they both begin with the word "if". His credibility is lost on people with brains.

Is this supposed to be a point? We’re dealing with the feasibility of the flood account, and he’s demonstrating that it’s very feasible. Noah didn’t build the Ark in a week; he had more than enough time to get it right.

Quote: Isaak doesn't speculate or believe in things that aren't demonstrably true. This guy is a real piece of work, SW.

Isaak speculates! He speculates about how many animals would need to be taken aboard the ark, he speculates about how much food they’d need, he speculates about the structure of the ark, he speculates about how long it’d take to load the ark; Sarfati just proves his speculations are ill-founded and un-reasonable. Not only this, but Isaak claims to have read Woodmorappe’s book, and yet the majority of his points were already addressed in that book; so he was really just wasting everyone’s time.

Quote: If certain conditions were met, there could have been an ark. We don't know what the conditions were, and we don't know exactly its composition, so we need to be more skeptical than speculative here. So far, your elephant has only speculated on how it could be true; it is still horseshit.

No, we’re dealing with feasibility here, and the ark account is very feasible. You overplayed your hand by asserting it was all impossible and science had proven it couldn’t happen, but that’s obviously far from the truth.

Quote: You don't know how they disposed of it, if they did, or if god magically whisked it away every day. You just don't know, so you can't claim anything here to be factual.

You don’t know how they dispersed of it either, and yet you claimed it was not possible to do so. I am merely pointing out that it is very feasible to disperse of all of the waste on the ark. You’re trying to shift the goalposts.

Quote: Ask any zookeeper, and they'll tell you how much of a problem it is when an animal goes without their normal diet. You are also assuming they didn't eat meat, so your counter-argument is completely unjustified. I still smell horseshit, SW.

I am just basing my argument on the facts, all animals can resort to a vegetarian diet when needed, that’s a fact; so asserting they needed meat aboard the ark is not a valid objection.

Quote: Just because I don't agree with the article doesn't mean I didn't read it. Do you really think the Bible would convert me if I read it cover to cover again? Do you think the Book of Mormon would convert you if you but read it? My point here should be pretty obvious, methinks.

No, the Bible would not necessarily convert you, but that has no bearing on whether it’s true or not. The merits of arguments are not measured by their ability to persuade.

Quote: Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Read literally, it's self-contradictory. With special knowledge and special pleading, it's not. His interpretation is just that: an interpretation, and it's about as worthless as all the horseshit on that ark.

You’re misrepresenting Biblical literalism, we interpret the Bible in accordance to its literal style, and since Biblical writers commonly would make general claims and then give more details later we take that into account when interpreting the Bible. As a messianic Jew who is an expert in Hebrew, Sarfati is absolutely qualified to point this out. It’s not even a logical contradiction though; if I gather seven of a particular animal I also gathered two of that animal.

Quote: You suspected that a bit ago, and you're allowed to think I didn't read it. I don't care.

Your insistence on bringing up points already refuted in the article is evidence you are either being intentionally disingenuous or you just didn’t actually read the article. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming the latter was true.

Quote: I actually focused on this little snippet the most, because it's the only part of the article that actually delved into any kind of science. But in the end, it's simply wrong because the fossil record paints a very different picture of history and how many different species were alive back then. I'm going to stick with 1 1/2 million.

No, since the definition of a species is dependent upon producing fertile offspring you cannot use the fossil record to determine how many species there were. What Sarfati wrote is absolutely true, the Biblical “kind” could have been close to what we call families today, which means only 2,000 animals were needed aboard the ark, this would be enough to account for the species we observe today.

Quote: Also, 2000 animals for eight people to take care of? What a logistical nightmare. Apparently, not only did God kill everyone else on earth, but he must have had an underlying hatred for Noah as well as to make his family suffer on a cramped boat with, as your buddy says, 2000 animals.

Actually, there would have been a ton of space on the ark. Not only this, but the people on board the ark would have had plenty of time every day to tend to the animals (each person tending to 12 animals an hour would be more than sufficient even if every animal needed daily attention, which is not the case, many animals such as reptiles do not require tending to on even a weekly basis); like I said, Noah had plenty of time to plan this voyage.

Quote: I'm flustered because you're acting like a stubborn five year old when I know you're much smarter than this! If you believe this rot, then why is it so hard, let's say, to believe that Hercules accomplished his twelve labours?

I do not reject the existence of Hercules based upon that story.

Quote: From a flood that supposedly lasted a year and 10 days? Not because of that, no. But if you knew how mountains formed (meaning their elevation was not always so high), then you wouldn't even need to postulate a global flood.

You just proved my point! Creationists do not believe the flood covered Mt. Everest; they believe Mt. Everest forming is what pushed the flood waters back into the sea, which is supported by the Bible. It seems even Biblical authors knew how such mountains were formed. We just simply reject your uniformitarian assumptions.

“You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7 At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.” Psalm 104:6-9 (ESV)

Quote: You're right, I'm not as familiar on these things. But that's because I don't make it a habit of researching things that require bucketloads of speculation. The Oceanic floors raised? You only get that from first assuming that there was a seven day period of creation. That kind of thinking isn't for me. I like to use my imagination on theories that have potential.

Actually, the theory is supported by systems modeling and is completely consistent with our current understanding of physics. Sarfati discussed this in the article you said you read.

Quote: I suppose you'll never know for sure. I'm sure glad I'm not going to try and convince you that I did.

You’re right; you did nothing to convince me that you actually had read the article.

Quote: You mean no scientist out there wanted to prove the Bible correct with evidence?

Many have done so.

Quote: Also, why should we assume a Global Flood happened? Because the Bible said so? This is such a huge logical fallacy. Say the flood really happened, but there was no Bible - scientists would measure the age of the earth without factoring in a flood, but they would probably stumble upon the evidence for one. Take that example, and flip the evidence, that is, there is a bible, but there was no flood.

I’ll go through this one more time. In order to establish an old age for the Earth you must first assume uniformitarianism; that is that we explain phenomena we observe using the present rates of change we observe. This assumption rules out a global flood a priori because it ignores catastrophes. When we take into account a catastrophe such as a global flood the evidence is exactly what we would expect to find, billions of animals and plants buried (suddenly) in rock layers laid down as water deposited sediment all over the earth.

Quote: You need to stop this conspiracy theory of yours that there is an agenda against the Bible. Defending that piece of crock doesn't get anyone very far in this life. I ridicule the thing because it is worthy of a good mockery. However, I can't say any research into scientific theories is anti-biblical because when I do sit down to learn and read, I don't even factor the bible into my studies. Now piss off about that idea, unless you want to move on to talk about your holy book.

I’ve gotten plenty far in life defending God’s word. When you attack scripture with theories that assume scripture is wrong ahead of time you’re really only begging the question though.

Quote:The term gravity itself is descriptive. I'm not going to go down this ill-fated rabbit hole with you. I'm okay that you don't like my answer. BTW, have you ever known the properties of gravity to change?

So you cannot tell me what actually causes the pen to fall? Additionally, you cannot appeal to past trials in order to justify your assumption that future trials will resemble past trials because this form of justification makes that same assumption, so it’s a circular rationalization.

Quote: Also, science only changes because new evidence arises. If a scientific theory is wrong today, I'm okay with propagating it anyway because I'm still being true to the available, demonstrable and reproducible evidence. You are being true to zero evidence when you put your faith in god.

Yes, you’re trusting that the venture that has always been wrong in the past is somehow right today. I am trusting in He who actually makes that venture even possible in the first place.

Quote: I must unfortunately come to the conclusion that you are blind. The point was lost on you anyway, so I'm done with that.

No bold, go back and check.

Quote: It's very relevant if he wants me to worship him.

Everyone will eventually, some in life- the rest after death.

Quote: You're not squirming out of this one so easily. Say that your assumption that direct revelation was closed was wrong (and god was real, and direct revelation was true, and yadda yadda), then if God told you to kill me, would you feel justified doing so?

If God is real and direct revelation is true then I cannot be wrong because God has said he’s closed revelation (Revelation 22 and Jude 3). Your hypothetical is impossible and therefore meaningless.

Why is it morally wrong for God to kill someone?

Quote: You condone turning people into Lemmings? I just wonder if these people are only subsisting on another person's testimony or if they are actually considering the concepts for themselves.

No, I have a moral obligation to speak the truth.

Quote: On that note, I talk with you not because I want to deconvert you, however nice that would be, but instead to get rational thoughts flowing between us. You can choose to listen or not, but I'll feel good if I at least get my point across.

Your purpose would be better served by not engaging in personal attacks and fallacious appeals to ridicule.

Quote: Now it feels like we're getting someplace good with this. Maybe we should drop the whole Noah's Ark thing because it pisses me the fuck off and instead focus a bit more on this stuff, what do you say to that?

Too late, I’ve already responded to that portion of your post; you do not have to respond to my points if you do not wish to.

Quote: Anyway, I want to hear more about why you think monotheism is more defensible than polytheism. To me, either claim seems just as baseless as any claim to a supernatural being or beings, but I suppose you're coming from a position that already accepts god as true. Is it because the OT says in the Ten Commandments that there will be no other gods before Yahweh? I'm assuming there's much more to this.

It’s actually fairly simple, in a polytheistic world it’d be impossible to know anything because the preconditions of knowledge require that only one God exists. Mormonism is obviously just a perversion of Christianity; one that has introduced several logically fatal flaws to the faith. Take for example the law of eternal progression; Mormons cannot explain where that law came from and why all of the gods must follow it. In Christian monotheism such laws derive directly from God’s immutable nature.

Quote: All babies are born atheists. They have to be indoctrinated before they can believe in a god. This may be considered by the Christian community as Atheist Propaganda...and I don't care because it's spot on.

No, babies are not philosophically capable of being atheists or theists. An examination of world populations indicates that cultures default to supernaturalism, and the majority of people default to monotheism. This truth is easy to arrive at through the things that God has made.

Quote: What do you think? I'm not doing this silly dance with you; we were talking about claims that are out of the ordinary.

As I have already established, “God exists” is a very ordinary claim. “God doesn’t exist” is in fact the fringe claim to make.

Quote: I'm pretty cool like that. My wife and I tell each other that we're good for one another since we aren't afraid to call the other out on his or her bullshit.

Is your wife religious?

Quote: Actually, that's exactly why it works.

Huh? You said that the positive claim bears the burden of proof, and yet any claim can be made into a negative claim so that rule won’t work.

Quote:Do you mean I'm not allowed to disbelieve scripture? Disbelief doesn't need to be proven, so I'm not going there with you.

No, I am saying you’re no more neutral than someone who assumes scripture is true ahead of time because no neutral ground exists on this matter.

Disbelief does not require proof? Well fine, I disbelieve in materialism, I disbelieve in atheism, I disbelieve in Darwinism, I disbelieve in secularism, I disbelieve in agnosticism, and I disbelieve in naturalism. That was easy enough

(July 24, 2013 at 9:14 am)Rhythm Wrote: For the record, it has not, further.... such a shitstorm of inclement weather is not possible on this planet so far as we know. The narrative is irreconciliable with reality no matter how we choose to interpret it.

Sure it’s possible. I love how you have to claim something is impossible “so far as we know”, well is it impossible or not?

(July 25, 2013 at 5:20 am)Stimbo Wrote: despite his qualifications being in civil, and geological, engineering. That's about as useful as me, with my NVQ in vehicle maintenance, getting trotted out as an authority for my opinions on medical research.

No, that’s only a problem if someone argues, “the flood happened because Morris says so!” Of course that’s not what creationists argue at all so that point was irrelevant. A geological engineer is perfectly capable of arguing that the flood did in fact occur. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Simmer down.

I gave your post a kudo for this line, Stat. I couldn't help but giggle when I read it.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(July 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

---

You believe your buddy that wrote the article you pasted back at me refuted everything in my "elephant". If you believe his lies, then you're just as deluded as he is. If anything in his claims can be proven, then where the hell is his Peace prize for bringing this argument to rest? That's right...it shouldn't even be an argument because he's fucking insane, and so is whoever believes the story of Noah's ark to be a literal account.

---

Actually he’s a genius (was published in Nature at the age of 22, beat 14 people at chess simultaneously, while he was blind-folded), and personally attacking him or me for that matter does nothing to establish your position.

Offense is taken, not given, though I will admit that I like to ruffle feathers a bit. If you feel like I'm compromising this guy's genius status, then maybe I am. Besides, all you've proven to me is that he's good at writing articles, and he is really damn good at chess. As far as subscribing to something that may or may not be true...that doesn't sound very smart to me.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The ark’s purpose was to house animals and to survive a flood, therefore it was built for stability, not for traveling.

A man built his house out of straw for stability, but the wind still blew it down. I could have a stable deck of cards, but a breath of air can topple it.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:"For each point he makes, they both begin with the word "if". His credibility is lost on people with brains.

Is this supposed to be a point? We’re dealing with the feasibility of the flood account, and he’s demonstrating that it’s very feasible. Noah didn’t build the Ark in a week; he had more than enough time to get it right.

You don't have to like it, but the point I'm making is that it's all conjecture....so yes, it's a point.

So what's "more than enough time" mean? How many years are we talking about? Ballpark.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Isaak doesn't speculate or believe in things that aren't demonstrably true. This guy is a real piece of work, SW.

Isaak speculates! He speculates about how many animals would need to be taken aboard the ark, he speculates about how much food they’d need, he speculates about the structure of the ark, he speculates about how long it’d take to load the ark; Sarfati just proves his speculations are ill-founded and un-reasonable. Not only this, but Isaak claims to have read Woodmorappe’s book, and yet the majority of his points were already addressed in that book; so he was really just wasting everyone’s time.

Don't twist my words! Of course Isaak has to speculate on what the conditions had to be like for the flood to have occurred, but those aren't the reasons why he doesn't believe the flood. He's providing other ways of looking at things in order to think critically about an outrageous claim like saying the Noah's Ark story is true.

What I'm saying that he doesn't speculate about are the things that Isaak does believe in. As for wasting everyone's time, it all depends on what you consider a waste. I suppose if he got you to read his arguments, don't you think he probably thinks of that as a win, even if he didn't convince you?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: You don't know how they disposed of it, if they did, or if god magically whisked it away every day. You just don't know, so you can't claim anything here to be factual.

You don’t know how they dispersed of it either, and yet you claimed it was not possible to do so. I am merely pointing out that it is very feasible to disperse of all of the waste on the ark. You’re trying to shift the goalposts.

I never claimed to know. I'm definitely saying that we can't know this for a fact. We can't know any of this for a fact. We have to trust a 2000 year old text, and that's why I don't believe in it. Why don't we trust the "Epic of Gilgamesh"?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Ask any zookeeper, and they'll tell you how much of a problem it is when an animal goes without their normal diet. You are also assuming they didn't eat meat, so your counter-argument is completely unjustified. I still smell horseshit, SW.

I am just basing my argument on the facts, all animals can resort to a vegetarian diet when needed, that’s a fact; so asserting they needed meat aboard the ark is not a valid objection.

Asserting they went without meat is not a valid claim either, because you have no proof that that's what they did. What kept the animals higher up on the food chain from instinctually going after their natural prey?

What kept them from eating Noah's family?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Just because I don't agree with the article doesn't mean I didn't read it. Do you really think the Bible would convert me if I read it cover to cover again? Do you think the Book of Mormon would convert you if you but read it? My point here should be pretty obvious, methinks.

No, the Bible would not necessarily convert you, but that has no bearing on whether it’s true or not. The merits of arguments are not measured by their ability to persuade.

Actually, they are. The definition clearly states that arguments are started for the purpose of persuading:

ar·gu·ment
/ˈärgyəmənt/
Noun
1. An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
2. A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

By this logic, arguing the Bible is either:

1. Meant to incite anger in me
or
2. Meant to persuade me

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: ...since the definition of a species is dependent upon producing fertile offspring you cannot use the fossil record to determine how many species there were. What Sarfati wrote is absolutely true, the Biblical “kind” could have been close to what we call families today, which means only 2,000 animals were needed aboard the ark, this would be enough to account for the species we observe today.

The idea of "families" in regards to the biblical "kinds" is an interesting premise. In science, families include both animals and plants. Noah took care of all the kinds/families of animals, but what about the plants that could not survive under water?

How did the olive tree survive?

Is there a clear definition given in the bible as to what "kind" is?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Also, 2000 animals for eight people to take care of?

Actually, there would have been a ton of space on the ark.

What did it look like inside the ark?

Maybe there's space for the animals, but what about all the space for the food? Could this food have lasted for a year give or take? If it did, how did they do it?

How did they condition the wood of the ark not to decay?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not only this, but the people on board the ark would have had plenty of time every day to tend to the animals (each person tending to 12 animals an hour would be more than sufficient even if every animal needed daily attention, which is not the case, many animals such as reptiles do not require tending to on even a weekly basis); like I said, Noah had plenty of time to plan this voyage.

By your calculations, the family had at best 3 hours of sleep per person each day for over a year. Is that correct?

How old was each family member?

What was the ratio of men to women?

Did the animals breed?

Did any die?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: ...why is it so hard, let's say, to believe that Hercules accomplished his twelve labours?

I do not reject the existence of Hercules based upon that story.

That's not what I asked. His actual existence aside, I asked why you can't believe that Hercules accomplished these labours of his? Why is it easier to believe in the Noah's Ark story?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: In order to establish an old age for the Earth you must first assume uniformitarianism; that is that we explain phenomena we observe using the present rates of change we observe.

This concept was conceived in the 18th century, and even modern geologists don't hold as strictly to it as they used to.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This assumption rules out a global flood a priori because it ignores catastrophes.

And that's why geologists dismiss it. They are forced to factor in meteors hitting the earth, global ice ages, etc.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: When we take into account a catastrophe such as a global flood the evidence is exactly what we would expect to find, billions of animals and plants buried (suddenly) in rock layers laid down as water deposited sediment all over the earth.

Why does this conclude a global flood? There are sediments all over the globe, but there are reasonable explanations how they got there, and it didn't have to be at the same time.

How can you be certain that these sediments settled merely 4000 years ago all at once? How do you know that it was sudden?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I’ve gotten plenty far in life defending God’s word. When you attack scripture with theories that assume scripture is wrong ahead of time you’re really only begging the question though.

Assuming that they're right in the first place is fallacious. Why is this mode of thinking looked down upon? Do we not assume innocence until proven guilty?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So you cannot tell me what actually causes the pen to fall? Additionally, you cannot appeal to past trials in order to justify your assumption that future trials will resemble past trials because this form of justification makes that same assumption, so it’s a circular rationalization.

No, you're proposing that I chase after a strawman. All I needed to do was describe gravity and its properties, not show you the engine it runs on. Why are you trying to bait me into chasing you down a rabbit hole?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Also, science only changes because new evidence arises. If a scientific theory is wrong today, I'm okay with propagating it anyway because I'm still being true to the available, demonstrable and reproducible evidence. You are being true to zero evidence when you put your faith in god.

Yes, you’re trusting that the venture that has always been wrong in the past is somehow right today. I am trusting in He who actually makes that venture even possible in the first place.

I'm not at all suggesting that the venture was/is wrong; you did.

By this bit of reasoning that you hold to science, how do you trust in the Bible then? Were the translations of the Bible in the past wrong since new translations are always coming out?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No bold, go back and check.

I don't know why you weren't able to see it, but here it is, reproduced:

Me: You can't justify what you don't know. For all we can tell god created a giant firefly in the sky to light the world for that day.
SW: Sure, but that would still give us days without the Sun, so what’s your point?

The bold was my point here.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Everyone will [worship him] eventually, some in life- the rest after death.

I'm going to lose my free will and be forced to worship him?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If God is real and direct revelation is true then I cannot be wrong because God has said he’s closed revelation (Revelation 22 and Jude 3). Your hypothetical is impossible and therefore meaningless.

My hypothetical is a hypothetical. Hypotheticals create situations that may or may not ever be real. This particular hypothetical was definitely a bit of a no win situation. I really appreciate the fact that you are more moral than your god.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why is it morally wrong for God to kill someone?

Yes.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Your purpose would be better served by not engaging in personal attacks and fallacious appeals to ridicule.

You're right. I should watch what I say or She bears might jump out from hiding in the woods and maul me.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Anyway, I want to hear more about why you think monotheism is more defensible than polytheism. To me, either claim seems just as baseless as any claim to a supernatural being or beings, but I suppose you're coming from a position that already accepts god as true. Is it because the OT says in the Ten Commandments that there will be no other gods before Yahweh? I'm assuming there's much more to this.

It’s actually fairly simple, in a polytheistic world it’d be impossible to know anything because the preconditions of knowledge require that only one God exists.

Can you leave out the special knowledge? I want to know why it's easier to defend monotheism than polytheism. How is it impossible to know anything in a polytheistic world? Why wouldn't the many gods make themselves or their plans known as the one Yahweh supposedly has?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Mormonism is obviously just a perversion of Christianity; one that has introduced several logically fatal flaws to the faith. Take for example the law of eternal progression; Mormons cannot explain where that law came from and why all of the gods must follow it.

Perhaps it's a perversion, but how do you know that? How do you know their claims to being the original Church of Christ are not true? For that matter, how do you know that Islam isn't true?

Speaking of eternal progression, they actually can explain where it came from: their prophet Joseph Smith revealed it to them. Was Joseph Smith a false prophet?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, babies are not philosophically capable of being atheists or theists.

Being an atheist means that one does not believe in a god, whether it's intentionally or ignorantly. A baby is the latter: they do not have any beliefs in a deity, so they are atheists, or non-theists, if you will.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As I have already established, “God exists” is a very ordinary claim. “God doesn’t exist” is in fact the fringe claim to make.

Abolition of slavery was once a fringe idea, and so was women's rights. Gay rights are becoming more and more prominent every day. What does atheism being a fringe idea have anything to do with a belief in god being more or less valid? Was abolition of slavery always valid, or did it become more valid over time?

For the record, I do not claim "God does not exists". I simply do not believe in claims about deities. No claim, just rejection of claims.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Is your wife religious?

Irrelevant.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Actually, that's exactly why it works.

Huh? You said that the positive claim bears the burden of proof, and yet any claim can be made into a negative claim so that rule won’t work.

You don't make the rules, and neither do I. Wikipedia: Philosophic Burden of Proof

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Disbelief does not require proof? Well fine, I disbelieve in materialism, I disbelieve in atheism, I disbelieve in Darwinism, I disbelieve in secularism, I disbelieve in agnosticism, and I disbelieve in naturalism. That was easy enough

You can disbelieve all you want, but things that demonstrably exist, such as Buddhism, must be recognized as real (no belief or faith necessary). Atheism and agnosticism are real, and since they have no tenets, there is nothing to disbelieve, since they are merely statements of disbelief themselves.

SW, I've posed a ton of questions to you in this last post. I would greatly appreciate it if you answered them. I do my best to answer your questions, and I'm positive you can do the same for me. I do enjoy this debate; I hope you know that.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I’ve gotten plenty far in life defending God’s word. When you attack scripture with theories that assume scripture is wrong ahead of time you’re really only begging the question though.

Affirming the consequent. You seem to be confused about horses and carts...and the order in which they should be described.

(July 25, 2013 at 11:56 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Assuming that they're right in the first place is fallacious. Why is this mode of thinking looked down upon? Do we not assume innocence until proven guilty?

You sir have the patience of a saint. You have concisely raised
irreconcilable objections. I really enjoyed reading such carefully worded thoughts. Bravo!