RE: Supernatural Evidence?
October 18, 2016 at 6:04 pm
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2016 at 6:14 pm by Soldat Du Christ.)
(October 18, 2016 at 5:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(October 18, 2016 at 2:25 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Proposition 1. Job 38:16
"Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?"
Discovered 1977
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/H...Floor.html
NOTICE: Lateral moves, ad hominums, and other evasions will not be noticed. Adress the evidence, and only the evidence presented.
What exactly is this supposed to be evidence of?
A passage which refers to the sources of water for the sea isn't necessarily referring to hydrothermal vents. It could be a figurative passage referring to an assumed source of the waters of the sea. It could be any number of things. I take it that you're claiming that because it refers to hydrothermal vents, and hydrothermal vents weren't known at the time, the only source of this information is a supernatural being. That's assuming an awful lot about what these mysterious sea springs that he refers to are.
"Moreover, we're not supernatural and we know about them, so obviously it doesn't take a supernatural event for the knowledge to be discovered."
We discovered them relatively recently, it does in fact require advanced technology.
"Perhaps it was aliens. You can't rule out a natural explanation if there is one for the fact that we have such knowledge by natural means."
You're getting on that alien boat with dawkins then huh? Whatever it takes to avoid the obvious.
"Again, as I stated in my first post, you can't trace a causal story back to God, so this isn't really evidence of Him or any other supernatural being."
You can reject it if you want, but that would make you unreasonable. I second what @the gentlemen bastard, said; "As long as it's testable, repeatable, verifiable and (most importantly) falsifiable."
This proposition certainly fits the bill, as well as many others i'll present.
"It could be any of a vast number of potential supernatural causes. And it could have a natural explanation. (Including that you're over interpreting the passage.)"
What is there to overinterpret about "springs of the sea" lol.
"Pinning your God belief on a questionable interpretation of a passage is weak."
It's called supporting evidence, you assume my epistimology is based on one sentence? I'm going to start calling you strawgirl. Get it? Like strawman fallacy but you're a girl? Ha
Don't worry there are plenty more where that came from, one at a time.
(October 18, 2016 at 6:04 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:(October 18, 2016 at 5:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What exactly is this supposed to be evidence of?
"A passage which refers to the sources of water for the sea isn't necessarily referring to hydrothermal vents. It could be a figurative passage referring to an assumed source of the waters of the sea. It could be any number of things. I take it that you're claiming that because it refers to hydrothermal vents, and hydrothermal vents weren't known at the time, the only source of this information is a supernatural being. That's assuming an awful lot about what these mysterious sea springs that he refers to are."
Exactly my point
"Moreover, we're not supernatural and we know about them, so obviously it doesn't take a supernatural event for the knowledge to be discovered."
We discovered them relatively recently, it does in fact require advanced technology.
"Perhaps it was aliens. You can't rule out a natural explanation if there is one for the fact that we have such knowledge by natural means."
You're getting on that alien boat with dawkins then huh? Whatever it takes to avoid the obvious.
"Again, as I stated in my first post, you can't trace a causal story back to God, so this isn't really evidence of Him or any other supernatural being."
You can reject it if you want, but that would make you unreasonable. I second what @the gentlemen bastard, said; "As long as it's testable, repeatable, verifiable and (most importantly) falsifiable."
This proposition certainly fits the bill, as well as many others i'll present.
"It could be any of a vast number of potential supernatural causes. And it could have a natural explanation. (Including that you're over interpreting the passage.)"
What is there to overinterpret about "springs of the sea" lol.
"Pinning your God belief on a questionable interpretation of a passage is weak."
It's called supporting evidence, you assume my epistimology is based on one sentence? I'm going to start calling you strawgirl. Get it? Like strawman fallacy but you're a girl? Ha
Don't worry there are plenty more where that came from, one at a time.
Damnit, sorry guys, the mobile app sucks
"'And the Lord maketh rifts in the floors of the seas. And from out these rifts he sendeth waters of exceeding heat, wherewith to replenish the oceans of the world he hath made.'"
That's not even how it works, hahahahaha. Good thing it's not you who wrote the book of job
And i understand your skepticism, but have you considered that god does not deem it neccecary information? Speaking from within the context, god was declaring his sovereignty by revealing impossible knowledge. In contrast to Job, who couldn't possibly know these things.
