Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 30, 2014 at 1:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: So can we agree that your initial claim led to an either-or fallacy?
So, your magical third option is just that: God magically, somehow, maybe made it so there was no babies so when he killed everyone he didn't kill babies, because thinking about God killing babies makes you uncomfortable, despite there being no other reason to believe this was the case? Can we agree on that?
Not an answer to my question.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: I mean, yeah, sure. I'll grant you your third option so long as you admit that there isn't any evidence it's actually the case, and that you're just throwing it out as a hypothetical to counter my complaint that God didn't save the babies because there were none to save.
I think we need to define evidence here. An analogy. An incomplete record of a census taken of your neighborhood was only a sample of 4 of the 20 houses in your neighborhood. Now let's say the record of those four houses was a husband and a wife and no children. What's the 'evidence' in this analogy? The 'evidence' is: 20 house neighborhood, four houses recorded, four men, four women, and four marriages. This is the 'evidence'. From there we look at the evidence and draw certain conclusion(s). We then test the conclusion by the evidence we've gathered and any additional evidence that may be needed. So back to the analogy, with the given evidence we can easily conclude that there are no children in the neighborhood, because all the available evidence we have does not contradict that conclusion. We could also conclude that everyone in the neighborhood is married, What we would have to do to prove these conclusion conclusively is go door to door in your neighborhood and check the other 15 houses to either prove or disprove our initial conclusions.
With the account we have of the flood, the record is incomplete. We cannot go back in time to take a census to prove the conclusion that there were no babies at the time of the flood. This is why I have been clear to say this is not proof. But 'not proof' does not equal 'not evidence'. The evidence we have (four men, four women, no children) does not conflict with the conclusion (there were no children) I have drawn.
It seems on this forum there is too much falsely equivocating evidence with conclusions with proof. These words are not interchangeable.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: I've never understood this "God kills children for their parent's mistakes" argument.
That argument hasn't been made in this thread. Deflection is not an answer nor an argument.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: So... God didn't care if the people repented? The purpose of the warning wasn't to get them to be good?
"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" Repentance leads to salvation, that is the concern of God. Once salvation has occurred it is then that we are "saved unto good works." Noah wasn't saved because he was good, he was good because he was saved.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:
God has a very weird way of communicating his intents and doling out justice. He seems more concerned with killing people he doesn't like than raising good people. This would be like the difference between me explaining to my girls why they should behave in a certain manner and leading by example, as opposed to making vague and distant threats and beating them when they didn't listen. One could almost conclude I was beating them solely because I wanted to, and that I wasn't actually interested in their moral or physical well being...
You now have a perfect example in Jesus Christ to follow and a clear call for repentance, will you repent of your sins and place your faith and trust in Jesus Christ?
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: Sure. But it's not like you're setting up a good argument, or anything. It's akin to saying "just because the sun rises in the east because of the direction of the Earth's rotation doesn't mean it was like that 5,000 years ago.". That's technically just as true, but without a compelling reason to think that, I'm not going to believe it was the case.
You have a right to believe whatever you want about the past, my point is simply that you have not come to this belief logically.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:
(April 30, 2014 at 1:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Where do you get your Biblical support for this statement?
Noah and his family was righteous and everyone else wasn't. I thought that was pretty well understood. He's obviously "not like them", so I don't know why you would think you can assume Noah's family structure was in any way indicative of everyone else's family structures.
Go back to post #66 where this quote was taken from. The context of the quote is not about the righteousness Noah but about there being no biblical support that there were no children at the time of the flood but rather that the bible says the contrary (that there were children at the time of the flood). I'm asking for biblical support for that statement.
(May 2, 2014 at 10:46 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:
(April 21, 2014 at 11:31 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: The burden of proof lies with the original claim. Shifting the burden of proof (a fallacy) is requiring the contrary view point to be proven in order to prove the original claim false. In our conversation, the original claim is that God killed innocent children. Any and everyone making the claim bears the burden of proof. Asking me to prove that He didn't (kill innocent children) is asking me to prove the contrary and would be shifting the burden of proof to me, and would thus be fallacious. I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary.
The quote above is that science can prove the original claim. I'm asking for clarification on that assertion. This is not shifting the burden of proof as it is evidence for the initial claim and thus bears the burden of proof.
My scientifically proving the flood would actually shift the burden of proof to me. The op claimed the flood for the sake of the discussion.[hide]
Shifting the burden of proof to me again? Is a man who is on record as getting drunk once a drunkard, is being drunk once exceedingly wicked? Outside of Christ there is no one who can fullfill the requirements of the law. This is recorded throughout all the men of great faith. All men sin, all the men of the bible, everyone who has ever lived, including me and including you. What happens next is of greater importance. Will you repent of your sin and place your faith and trust in Christ, or will you continue to live your life of unbelief and sin?
Your initial claim involves so called 'magic'. To initially claim 'magic' as a possibility then reject any concievable possibility is inconsistant.
On one side of the coin if you read the judgments in the OT you'll notice that God often waits until the "fullness of sin" or for "sin to be complete." In other words He waits for the crimes to be great enough to warrant the punishment. On the other side of the coin it is written, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God is patient, not wanting any to perish. Noah was a preacher of righteousness for about 100 years as he called people to righteousness and told them how to escape the coming judgment. Mankind was forewarned then as they are now. No one listened then, who will listen today?
While I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary (burden of proof) and I wouldn't need Biblical support to show that you're using an either-or fallacy, only an example of a third option, I don't mind providing a defense. Actually there is Biblical support for there being no one younger than the age of accountability. The only families named in the account at the time of the flood were Noah and his wife, Noah's three sons and their wives. So there are four married couples, and (after Noah and his wife had the three sons) there was not one child among them their entire married lives (pre-flood about 100 years). 100% of the named families had zero children for at least 100 years. While this is not conclusive proof that no other families had children it is the Biblical support for my claim you have asked for.
...Can you scientifically demonstrate the global flood you and your religion claims happened, and how it's possible we see no evidence for, and it is impossible based on everything we know about physics and the geologic history the planet?
I think it is now your turn to explain to me you understand the burden of proof. There are other threads devoted to the evidences for and against the flood. Proof of the flood is an entirely different topic of conversation than the one we are having.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
(May 2, 2014 at 2:26 pm)Godschild Wrote: Exactly why did Everest need to be that high at that time.
What, did the flood push it up? You and your pseudoscience.
I ask a question and that's all you have, pseudoknowledge on your part.
In response to your latest comments, you seem to enjoy twisting what was said into ignorant babble. Like the bone marrow, I added that to the other reasonable ideas. You call what I say as a scientific flood, I'll ask again, define a scientific flood if you can?
I never said that the waters carved out oceans or pushed up mountains,
that's what you have dreamed up in your own mind because you can't accept reasonable explanations nor can you debunk them, you play the dodge game poorly.
Exactly why do you have a problem with wolves eating fish, there would be plenty of living, dying and dead fish, why would the wolf pass up easy prey for prey that may have moved into a different area where the wolves were not, logical for prey. It would be logical for the wolves to hunt an easier prey, like fish in shallow lakes and ponds, many of which were drying up. So you see you have and I think purposely, missed the point, why can't you accept that the omniscient God of creation actually used His powers at creation to allow the flood to be a natural event, what's wrong with God's power being used at creation for this event?
As for the time line you need to study the story and do research into the Hebrew language, I mean how blind does one have to be to ignore all facts of the story.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
(May 5, 2014 at 9:14 am)Godschild Wrote: Exactly why do you have a problem with wolves eating fish, there would be plenty of living, dying and dead fish, why would the wolf pass up easy prey for prey that may have moved into a different area where the wolves were not, logical for prey.
Because wolves aren't discerning, they have instincts designed to hunt certain prey animals, and it would only take one kill to drive a species extinct in those early post-flood days.
See, you keep bitching about how nobody here will research your "facts" but it's clear that you have no knowledge about biology and population mechanics before you make your claims.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am (This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 9:52 am by RobbyPants.)
(May 4, 2014 at 10:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Not an answer to my question.
Yes it is. your magical third option is that God magically made it/waited so that there were no babies so no babies were killed, thus absolving your god from having killed babies.
I admitted that it is a possible third option. I'll agree it was an either or fallacy if you admit your third option is one you're making up with no evidence to paint a prettier picture.
(May 4, 2014 at 10:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: That argument hasn't been made in this thread. Deflection is not an answer nor an argument.
It's as much of an answer as your "I never understood X" thing was, either. The point is, you accept your apologetics based on not understanding another's point of view. You don't question the morality of your god and choose to blame "the wicked".
I'm merely doing the same to illustrate the futility.
(May 4, 2014 at 10:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: You now have a perfect example in Jesus Christ to follow and a clear call for repentance, will you repent of your sins and place your faith and trust in Jesus Christ?
No. There's no evidence he's real. It's also a non sequitur. Jesus wasn't mentioned in the flood story.
(May 4, 2014 at 10:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: You have a right to believe whatever you want about the past, my point is simply that you have not come to this belief logically.
...and you didn't come to yours logically.
The difference here is I don't believe the hypothetical analogy I set up. You either do believe that demographics were different (so God wouldn't kill babies), or you don't believe that, and you're just submitting it as a hypothetical to be pedantic.
The point is, that's how you sound when you posit a "maybe it was really this way even though I don't have any reason to believe it" argument.
(May 4, 2014 at 10:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Go back to post #66 where this quote was taken from. The context of the quote is not about the righteousness Noah but about there being no biblical support that there were no children at the time of the flood but rather that the bible says the contrary (that there were children at the time of the flood). I'm asking for biblical support for that statement.
I never said the Bible said there were children. You said that Noah had no children, and that is all the Bible said. I said that you're both drawing from a tiny sample size and that Noah was already explicitly stated to be different than the rest of the population.
The point is: you are making the assertion there were no children to absolve your god. It is reasonable to assume there were children because that's the normal state of being for human populations. The flood story didn't mention gravity, the sun rising in the east, or that people needed to breath oxygen and couldn't breath under water. Why aren't you arguing against those things?
You're just making believe to make your story easier to swallow.
(May 5, 2014 at 9:14 am)Godschild Wrote: You call what I say as a scientific flood, I'll ask again, define a scientific flood if you can?
I never said that the waters carved out oceans or pushed up mountains,
You saying that all that mythology could have been explained by science. You then go and start spouting a bunch of pseudoscience and poorly understood facts to explain it away. And before you complain that I accepted the story as true in the OP and am now complaining it's false: I accepted it as true for sake of argument given that God would have had to have used [something] to get the flood to happen as described and for there to be no evidence of it now.
You did say the water carved out the oceans, because you asserted that all the water is still here, and that the oceans are now deeper. You asked why Everest would have been that tall back then. If not the flood, did something else push it up? What? Give evidence, please.
(May 5, 2014 at 9:14 am)Godschild Wrote: As for the time line you need to study the story and do research into the Hebrew language, I mean how blind does one have to be to ignore all facts of the story.
Day X = no where for the dove to land. Day X + 7 = dove finds a leaf. None of the rest of the passages matter for the time line.
What about ancient Hebrew language changes this? Site the reasons for your assertion.
(May 5, 2014 at 9:14 am)Godschild Wrote: Exactly why do you have a problem with wolves eating fish, there would be plenty of living, dying and dead fish, why would the wolf pass up easy prey for prey that may have moved into a different area where the wolves were not, logical for prey.
Because wolves aren't discerning, they have instincts designed to hunt certain prey animals, and it would only take one kill to drive a species extinct in those early post-flood days.
See, you keep bitching about how nobody here will research your "facts" but it's clear that you have no knowledge about biology and population mechanics before you make your claims.
Wolves eat fish and will take even a long dead animal from bears if they can and who knows maybe they did kill some animals that were on the ark, those that God desired to go into extinction and feed the wolves, there's nothing wrong with my biology nor my population mechanics.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
May 5, 2014 at 4:32 pm (This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 4:33 pm by Godscreated.)
(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote:
(May 5, 2014 at 9:14 am)Godschild Wrote: You call what I say as a scientific flood, I'll ask again, define a scientific flood if you can?
I never said that the waters carved out oceans or pushed up mountains,
You saying that all that mythology could have been explained by science. You then go and start spouting a bunch of pseudoscience and poorly understood facts to explain it away. And before you complain that I accepted the story as true in the OP and am now complaining it's false: I accepted it as true for sake of argument given that God would have had to have used [something] to get the flood to happen as described and for there to be no evidence of it now.
You did say the water carved out the oceans, because you asserted that all the water is still here, and that the oceans are now deeper. You asked why Everest would have been that tall back then. If not the flood, did something else push it up? What? Give evidence, please.
(May 5, 2014 at 9:14 am)Godschild Wrote: As for the time line you need to study the story and do research into the Hebrew language, I mean how blind does one have to be to ignore all facts of the story.
Day X = no where for the dove to land. Day X + 7 = dove finds a leaf. None of the rest of the passages matter for the time line.
What about ancient Hebrew language changes this? Site the reasons for your assertion.
You ask for evidence, yet you haven't given one scientific fact to discredit what I've stated.
As for finding the leaf, I answered that possibility in a earlier post, I'll state it again, why did the dove have to go in the direction of the tree the first time out. The scripture doesn't say the dove lit on anything to get the leaf, what makes you think the dove couldn't hover at the very small tree and pull the leaf from the tree. Have you ever watched a dove city boy, they are able to hover with great skill.
After the dove returned with the leaf the scriptures say it took 1 month and 17 days for the land to become dry, it was at this time that God told Noah to release the animals not when the dove returned with the leaf. Want to take a guess at why, no, I thought so, could it have been to muddy and silty for the animals at the time of the doves return with the leaf.
GC
(May 5, 2014 at 4:11 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:
That might be true, it's for sure you can't reason a better answer.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
The guy who believes in the noahs ark story is mocking someone else for not reasoning! We award the coveted 'Hypocrite of the week' award to GC! Kudos to you for being so totally shameless.
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain
'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House
“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
What you're arguing defies everything we know about physic, geology, biology, (e.g., the locations of modern day species like the Koalas in Australia that could not have survived without their only native food source, nor the trek from Mt. Arrat to swim thousands of miles across the Indian Ocean), genetics, the amount of water currently on earth, on top of just not making any damn sense.
It doesn't need to be refuted. It's funny watching you do mental backflips trying to account for it, but the story itself just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
You fully believe it, and will dismiss any amount of reasonable objection with "Because God," so what's the point in arguing anything with you?
May 6, 2014 at 3:08 am (This post was last modified: May 6, 2014 at 4:49 am by Esquilax.)
(May 5, 2014 at 4:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Wolves eat fish and will take even a long dead animal from bears if they can and who knows maybe they did kill some animals that were on the ark, those that God desired to go into extinction and feed the wolves, there's nothing wrong with my biology nor my population mechanics.
GC
That'd be a really good point if Noah had set sail with an ark full of wolves. Do you believe Noah survived the flood on a wolf-ark, GC?
There are more animals than just wolves. Some of them eat plant life that literally could not be found in the area the ark set down, and would have starved to death on a journey back to where their food actually grows. Some species exclusively predate land animals; those hawks that Noah took with him still have hunting instincts to chase rabbits, you know. As I said- and you didn't even attempt to address- it would only take a single kill to utterly devastate a species for a period of at least a few weeks.
What about the parasites, GC? The ones that require a living host for them to kill in order to survive? What about the insects that gestate inside the corpse of another insect that they kill as part of their breeding cycle? What about praying mantises, who kill their mate once coupling is completed? That's a breeding cycle of diminishing returns, there; they would definitely go extinct. What about all the tree dwelling creatures that would be out of a home, bound to the ground since a flood of that size would decimate plant life, and well outside of their niche? Easy prey, those would be.
See, this is the problem when you have an infantile story that can't stand up to the scrutiny of a globalized, scientific world, and you're forced to defend it. You have to zoom in on single issues so hard that you ignore even the contradictions present there, because the moment you look at the full picture, or even how certain aspects of it interplay with one another, the entire story falls apart.
And in the middle of it all is you, GC, claiming that your knowledge of biology is okay because you've solved the wolf problem, assuming all the wolves played exactly as nicely as you want them to, with no reason to do so.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
There are other threads devoted to the evidences for and against the flood. Proof of the flood is an entirely different topic of conversation than the one we are having.
![[Image: dedyzete.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F05%2F06%2Fdedyzete.jpg)
