Which is why i have a hard time with people using science as their absolute proof there is no God.If you are a Christian and are going to use the Bible as the foundation of your faith, yes.
There may not be absolute proof but the day someone can show one ounce of even probable proof that God isn't a figment of the human imagination is the day I'll start thinking. Science doesn't set out to prove God doesn't exist, It shows the probability of him to be zilch
Which is why i have a hard time with people using science as their absolute proof there is no God.
Well it's a good thing then that no one here is using any science as absolute proof that there is no god then isn't it?
Science wouldn't say it has absolute proof there is no god, as I've already said absolute proof only exists in mathematics, and you generally can't prove a negative anyway.
How do you go from saying a global flood didn't happen to saying god doesn't exist? Some people believe in god but don't even have a global flood in their religious books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
If you are a Christian and are going to use the Bible as the foundation of your faith, yes.
That's not a problem for the validity of scientific evidence, that's a problem for the individual Christian to work out. Deciding something isn't true because you don't like the consequences of it being true is a logical fallacy and flawed reasoning.
In reality lots of Christians use the Bible as the foundation for their faith but acknowledge that not all of it is historically accurate. Just like most Christians do not think that the solid dome above the earth described in the Bible is real, or the four pillars that hold up a flat disc of the earth is real, they read the flood account for what the author is trying to say about man and god, not for an accurate description of history.
I posted a link to a Christian geologist as an example of a Christian who accepts that.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
That's not a problem for the validity of scientific evidence, that's a problem for the individual Christian to work out. Deciding something isn't true because you don't like the consequences of it being true is a logical fallacy and flawed reasoning.
Is this where the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy should be inserted?
What I want to know from "Great Flood believers" is not only where all the water came from to deluge the earth, but also where it all went afterward?
The small blue sphere above the globe on the left represents all of the water on, under and above the earth (the pink sphere on the right is all of the air at 1 atm of pressure).
Visually, it is easy to see that there is simply not enough water on earth to 'flood it.' Imagine how much larger that blue sphere would need to be to cover the entire earth to a depth of 5.5 miles (height of Mt. Everest)?
*** Answer to my question:
Bored at work and based on my calculations, to raise the sea level on the earth to a height of 8.85km (Mt. Everest) above its current level would require an additional 2.263 Billion km^3 of water. If condensed into a single sphere, it would have a radius of 814 km.
For comparison's sake, the blue drop illustrated above represents only 1.4 Billion km^3 of water. So for the flood to have happened, an amount of water 50% greater than all of the water currently on earth would need to be suddenly added and then removed from the earth, all without leaving a discernible trace.
Please don't take my word for these numbers, check my math! I used d:earth=12,756.2km ***
~firebug
Last edited by firebug; 05-20-2010 at 11:06 AM.
Reason: Added my math solution; Clarified intent
The Following User Says Thank You to firebug For This Useful Post:
Which is why i have a hard time with people using science as their absolute proof there is no God.If you are a Christian and are going to use the Bible as the foundation of your faith, yes.
Well this is why I have trouble in why you believe in God.
If you are playing the "absolute proof" card how can you be so firm in your belief in God?
I get that it is your culture and that is fair but if you are going to make a balanced judgment on if there is a God isn't there more in the negative column?
Time and time again God was used to explain what we couldn't and as we learn more the goalposts of faith get pushed further and further.
I guess in some way are melons just work differntly. At least we are not going to kill each other over it.
Regardless of if the Bible is fact or fiction, its interesting that it is still the #1 most widely read book on Earth. http://www.squidoo.com/mostreadbooks
I don't know how accurate these numbers are, and I'm assuming it takes into account all religions.
Regardless of if the Bible is fact or fiction, its interesting that it is still the #1 most widely read book on Earth. http://www.squidoo.com/mostreadbooks
I don't know how accurate these numbers are, and I'm assuming it takes into account all religions.
The Big Mac is the number one selling burger in the World.
Regardless of if the Bible is fact or fiction, its interesting that it is still the #1 most widely read book on Earth. http://www.squidoo.com/mostreadbooks
I don't know how accurate these numbers are, and I'm assuming it takes into account all religions.
Is this where the no true Scottsman fallacy should be inserted?
What I want to know is not only where all the water came from, but also where it all went?
The small blue sphere above the globe on the left represents all of the water on, under and above the earth (the pink sphere on the right is all of the air at 1 atm of pressure).
Imagine how much larger it would need to be to cover the entire earth to a depth of 5.5 miles (height of Mt. Everest)?
*** Answer to my question:
Bored at work and based on my calculations, to raise the sea level on the earth to a height of 8.85km (Mt. Everest) above its current level would require an additional 2.263 Billion km^3 of water. If condensed into a single sphere, it would have a radius of 814 km.
For comparison's sake, the blue drop illustrated above represents only 1.4 Billion km^3 of water.
Don't take my word for it, check my math! I used d:earth=12,756.2km ***
~firebug
Visually, it is easy to see that there is simply not enough water on earth to 'flood it.' Imagine how much larger that blue sphere would need to be to cover the entire earth to a depth of 5.5 miles (height of Mt. Everest)?
The whole idea of a 'global flood' is a bit ridiculous.
What was considering 'global' at that time? It was unlikely that people traveled further than a 1,000 miles anyways. And the Bible only talks about one region or one group of people being involved in the 'flood.'
Regardless of if the Bible is fact or fiction, its interesting that it is still the #1 most widely read book on Earth. http://www.squidoo.com/mostreadbooks
I don't know how accurate these numbers are, and I'm assuming it takes into account all religions.
No doubt that the Bible is the most influential book human civilization has ever produced. Many many scholars dedicate their lives to understanding it, and I think the fact/fiction outlook does it a disservice.. I don't think any of the various authors of the Bible wrote it as a historical document (well except maybe the genealogies, chapter upon chapter of mind numbing genealogies.. screw you ancient authors) but always as something for the people of their time to help their people understand why things were the way they were.
I think read like that, the Bible makes a lot more sense and is more meaningful.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
The whole idea of a 'global flood' is a bit ridiculous.
What was considering 'global' at that time? It was unlikely that people traveled further than a 1,000 miles anyways. And the Bible only talks about one region or one group of people being involved in the 'flood.'
I'd have to agree, that this story which has been a part of ancient lore well before the bible has some connection to reality, but that instead of the world being flooded it was just a massive flood in a habited area.
Explorer Robert Ballard found a flooded area that seems to have been a possible site for the origin of this great flood story:
Quote:
Off the coast of northern Turkey, 311 feet (95 meters) below the Black Sea, explorer Robert Ballard has discovered remains of an ancient structure that was apparently flooded in a deluge of biblical proportions. The find may lend credence to a theory that a Black Sea flood gave rise to the Noah story and other flood legends.
Today Ballard, famous for finding Titanic, confirmed that his research team, sponsored in part by the National Geographic Society, has identified a wooden structure on a gently sloping shelf near the convergence of two submerged ancient river beds.
“This is an incredible find,” Ballard said in a telephone call to the National Geographic Society from the expedition ship Northern Horizon. “It consists of [the remains of] a single building with a hewn beam and wooden branches that formed the walls and roof of a structure—most likely a house. We have also found and photographed stone tools, possibly a chisel or an axe, and ceramic storage vessels, all untouched since the flooding of the Black Sea.”
The find represents “the first concrete evidence for the occupation of the Black Sea coast prior to its flooding,” says expedition archaeologist Fredrik Hiebert, of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. “This is a major discovery that will rewrite the history of civilizations in this key area between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.”
The wooden structure is the only building sighted so far during the expedition. As the search continues, the team hopes that additional finds will suggest a settlement pattern along the ancient coastline. Using sonar profiles, Ballard’s team has identified more than 50 potential search areas similar to the site of the structure.
In reality lots of Christians use the Bible as the foundation for their faith but acknowledge that not all of it is historically accurate. Just like most Christians do not think that the solid dome above the earth described in the Bible is real, or the four pillars that hold up a flat disc of the earth is real, they read the flood account for what the author is trying to say about man and god, not for an accurate description of history.
This is definitely a very relevant point, of course you are going to have segments who believe in literal translation still. Touching on what Azure (I think) said before is that perhaps a lot of these events in older books are more perception based or localized occurrences in the case of the Flood.
What was considering 'global' at that time? It was unlikely that people traveled further than a 1,000 miles anyways. And the Bible only talks about one region or one group of people being involved in the 'flood.'
In fact the term "whole earth" in the flood account in Hebrew is kol erets, kol meaning all and erets meaning land or earth (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=H0776&t=KJV). Just like in earlier scriptures: The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. Gen 2:11
The global flood account makes much more sense if you look at that Hebrew cosmology picture I put up, in fact the creation account and so much of the OT makes more sense when you look at it as if you had that mental picture of reality in mind.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
This is definitely a very relevant point, of course you are going to have segments who believe in literal translation still. Touching on what Azure (I think) said before is that perhaps a lot of these events in older books are more perception based or localized occurrences in the case of the Flood.
Pretty much.
Another thing about the 'global flood' belief. Psalm 104:9 widely regarded as the 'creation psalm' says this.
Quote:
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.
Obviously talking about God and the creation of the sea.
Also, another thing people forget is that when the Bible mentions the 'whole earth'....there is a very good chance it means 'people' and not actually the physical earth.
There are many verses in the Bible where the 'earth' was talked about in conjunction with people and not the physical world as we know it.
And like I said before, at that time 'global' was the 1,000 mile radius people knew about. Even if the Bible was written later on after the flood, all the author knew was that everyone except those in the ark had been killed, and to him that was 'global.'
If you apply it to our time. There are a lot of tribes in the Amazon and in other desolate areas around the world that have absolutely no contact with the outside world. In fact they probably don't even know we exist. To them 'global' will be their village and the land around them. Or at least as far as they travel. They don't see the bigger 'picture' as well do.
Hell, until we began sending satellites up into space we never really understood what global meant either.
