One question for Christians

[Bad Writer]

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.

Let's recount a few things real quick about this flood. Could there have been a flood? Many cultures say yes. Was it global? Probably not, as that would require more water than is found on earth. Could there have been just 2000 animals on board? Possibly. But were there? The fossil record says there were over 1 million species alive at that time that can still be found today, so no. Could all the animals have survived extinction for an entire year? Only if there was divine intervention to keep them alive, yes. If god created all the water specifically for the flood, how did marine biology survive at all? Again, divine intervention. Could all diets have been adhered to for the animals? No way. Could all special habitats be artificially constructed on an ark such as Noah's? No way.

The list of improbabilities and impossibilities (without divine intervention, of course) goes on. In the realm of things that are not supernatural, the flood is impossible. You did not prove anything except that if you twist the evidence just right and just the right amount of God juice to the formula, you can have yourself a good ol' global flood. Congratulations on the SW brand of special pleading.

My claim was that the Deluge was impossible, and I did so from a purely godless stand point. You never refuted that; you assumed that I had to add god into the equation, and that's a foul on you.

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

And you have no way of knowing what that experience was.

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.

They always show how it's possible without an intelligence guiding it. You just choose to ignore that fact.

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.

The fact that there's scientific evidence just proves that there are laws in our universe, but the evidence does not preclude the existence of god. I'm not sure what you're on about, but it seems to be a special school of logic that only admits SW and co.

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.

You're acting as if I didn't choose to use colorful language.

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.

Something being supernatural is a qualifier that people attach to something that they can't explain by natural means. This does not preclude the existence of god; rather, it just means that we either don't understand the phenomenon yet, or we just never will. It's completely okay to say, "I don't know." Filling the gaps with god is irresponsible and is described as an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. "We can't explain it so god must have done it." That's what astronomers were saying about the planets centuries ago, saying that they wandered the skies at random because God willed it to be so. Now we completely understand why those planets move the way they do, that it's actually not random, and that there are completely natural explanations for how planets, stars, and galaxies form. The best part is that there's no need to put god in that explanation either.

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.

If you mean that faith is the same level of certainty that accepting this reality of ours as factual is, then you've made a grave error. Even the biblical definition of faith is not as sure as that. Faith is the knowledge of things that are unseen, the hope for that which is true, according to the Bible. That definition itself is nonsensical, just like saying that God is both all just and all merciful, despite these concepts being completely at odds with one another. The Biblical version of faith is more irresponsible than the dictionary's, for it presupposes that something unseen is true, that if you have faith in something that comes from god, then it must be true, so you're okay.

We can't rely on old definitions that make no sense. You can either understand what faith really means, or you can believe false definitions from a 2000 year old book and be even more wrong than using the other form of faith. At least the real version of faith doesn't mix knowledge in there with it. That would be silly.

Any way you want to describe it, you can't weasel your way out of the fact that to everyone else, you're believing in something that hasn't proven to be real or true. That's your faith. That's why it's blind. That's why you're, for all intents and purposes, wrong.

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.

I can prove that I can perceive this reality by observing it and seeing if my sense can detect the same things that the senses of other people do. On the other hand, the people claiming the existence of god can't prove that they perceive him in a way that can be demonstrated, tested, and reproduced every time.

Really, I'd like to know why you're trying to get me to perform mental gymnastics on this. I'm calmly stating these things, and I'm proving to you very clearly the reality of my position. Surely you don't believe you're actually in the Matrix, do you? If you do, do you have proof?