Flood/no flood

[pgrmdave]

I think that what he is trying to say is that there are two kinds of sins - ones in which the act is inherently evil - murder - and ones in which the only sin is the disobediance of god - incest.

[maddog]

I'm sorry I missed this one. :rant:

 

If a speed zone is being changed in 3 weeks from today from 45mph to 30mph, you can't give someone a ticket for going 45mph. You can't ticket them for going that speed until the speed limit in the zone changes to 30mph. Same concept.

 

But if the sign is getting changed in three weeks wouldn't the "current" speed be 45mph ?

If the current speed was 45 and you were going faster, wouldn't it be possible to get a

ticket for going over the speed limit ? :D ;)

 

Sorry, if I misunderstood you. I was just using logic. :hihi:

 

Maddog

[maddog]

I think a lot of this thread is rambling to much. What I wonder of the main statement of

this thread is of whether or not there really was a flood; or whether it was "divinely"

created. These are two different points.

 

1. Flood/No Flood: I think it would be possible to come up with a scenario for a "natural

disaster" origin to a flood myth. It does not have to be earthquake/volcano in origin.

Geological record in what is thought to be the location is quite stable as Stagazer says

quite far back. I mentioned earlier in this thread of the flooding of the Mediteranean into

the Black Sea. That is one example. Were a comet to break up like Shoemaker-Levy did

to Jupiter a few years back and hit the Earth mostly in the oceans, sufficient wave could

have generated a lot of devistation. There is a book with this very hypothesis (I think it's

called "Enoch's Machine" -- I forget the Authors). There was a show on TLC or Discovery

that speculated on this and had interviewed people from all over the world. They had

found that most cultures around the world had a flood myth. This does not "prove"

anything. It is just a case for supporting that the myth came from an actual natural event.

 

2. Flood was divinely created...: This to me is somewhat "off topic". To argue one way

or the other, you would need to know what is meant by the word "divine". I get queasy

contemplating the bible as "literal"... :hihi:

 

Maddog

[sanctus]

 

I will try. When God gives a command in the Bible, it isn't necessarily the forbidden act that is the sin. If the act itself is not the sin, then disobedience to God is the sin. Therefore, prior to God's command to Israel not to commit incest, incest was not a sin because the sin was not incest. The sin was disobedience to the command of God. I hope that clarifies somewhat. If not, ask me to explain again. I feel that I have a sound argument for this point, so if you're not satisfied, I will definitely explain again.

 

 

 

 

I do not believe in god, but for this answer let's say good as described in the bible exists. If I'm not wrong god is "by definition" eternal.If something is eternal, there is no significance of before and after, as to be able to say something came after something else you need to have the conception of finite time span, what you can't have if you have always been and will always be. Therefore incest was a sin even if god didn't say it yet, as time doesn't really exist for god. What supports my claim as well is that if you commit a sin ingoring that it is a sin you still committted the sin.

Therefore god wasn't very coherent there.

 

 

My main source is (this time I got one) one of my favorite books ever: the author is called something like Capec (don't remeber the spelling, the name and the author is form the cech republic) and the book is called in german "das absolutum oder die gottesfabrik" which translates into something like "the absolute or the industry if god").

[Tormod]

I think a lot of this thread is rambling to much. What I wonder of the main statement of

this thread is of whether or not there really was a flood; or whether it was "divinely"

created. These are two different points.

No kidding. It would perhaps be wise to narrow down the scope a bit.

[Fishteacher73]

To look at each of these questions 1) Whether there was a catastrophic world wide flood; and 2) Whetheror not if such a flood occurred, was it a devine act?

 

1) It is physically impossible to have had a global deluge of water. Ther just is not enough of it, even if all the polar caps were melt, it would not submerge all the land. Although most ancient civilizations do have a flood myth, ther has been no collaberation in time line of these events among the various sources. Ancient cultures were quite disjointed and not really in contact w/ each other. Local isolated floods are a completely understandable phenomenon. To most of these cultures, it would be reasonable to deduce that all of what you are familiar w/ has been flooded, so all of creation must therefore have been flooded.

The other aspect of of specifically the Noah story is the pure logistics of it. Forget the nightmare of colecting, housing and feeding this paired menagerie, but the simple fact of genetics would not allow this to happen. A pair of animals is not enough genetic diversity to produce a sustainable population. We see evidence of this today with the captive chetah population (Which is much larger than just a pair). even concedeing these very unlikely events to have alllowed this to occur, basic science refutes this version of the past.

 

2) Having ruled a global flood pretty much makes the second question obsolete.

[jp3089]

Hey maddog,

 

glad to discuss with you again.

 

I'm sorry I missed this one. :rant:

Me too. ;)

 

 

But if the sign is getting changed in three weeks wouldn't the "current" speed be 45mph ?

If the current speed was 45 and you were going faster, wouldn't it be possible to get a

ticket for going over the speed limit ? :D ;)

Of course. That's not the point of that story, though.

 

Sorry, if I misunderstood you. I was just using logic. :hihi:

I'm not sure it's completely logical to take an illustrative story and try to reason with it. The point of the story was merely to illustrate my point. It wasn't a story for dissection. :D

 

Thanks for your questions, maddog. I hope this clarifies.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

[jp3089]

Well spoken, Fish. However, I do have a few comments to make.

 

To look at each of these questions 1) Whether there was a catastrophic world wide flood; and 2) Whetheror not if such a flood occurred, was it a devine act?

 

1) It is physically impossible to have had a global deluge of water. Ther just is not enough of it, even if all the polar caps were melt, it would not submerge all the land. Although most ancient civilizations do have a flood myth, ther has been no collaberation in time line of these events among the various sources. Ancient cultures were quite disjointed and not really in contact w/ each other. Local isolated floods are a completely understandable phenomenon. To most of these cultures, it would be reasonable to deduce that all of what you are familiar w/ has been flooded, so all of creation must therefore have been flooded.

The other aspect of of specifically the Noah story is the pure logistics of it. Forget the nightmare of colecting, housing and feeding this paired menagerie, but the simple fact of genetics would not allow this to happen. A pair of animals is not enough genetic diversity to produce a sustainable population. We see evidence of this today with the captive chetah population (Which is much larger than just a pair). even concedeing these very unlikely events to have alllowed this to occur, basic science refutes this version of the past.

 

2) Having ruled a global flood pretty much makes the second question obsolete.

 

Your presumption from the beginning of your point 1 was that there was NOT a Divine Entity/Power. You stated that a world-wide flood was "physically" impossible. A Divine Power by definition, would transcend our physical laws. Therefore, something "physically" impossible for us would not be impossible for a Divine Power.

 

If any argument over miracles starts with the presupposition that there is no God, every "miracle" must either be explained by science, or ruled a falsehood. As I stated in an earlier post, we cannot prove that God DOES exist, nor can we prove that He DOES NOT exist. Therefore, I think that your argument needs to take into consideration that there is a possibility of a Divine Power, and if that Divine Power exists, He is not bound by our physical laws. Therefore, a flood being "physically" impossible does not apply if we are taking the possibility of an existent Power into consideration, which I feel we must.

 

Let me know what you think.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

[jp3089]

I think that what he is trying to say is that there are two kinds of sins - ones in which the act is inherently evil - murder - and ones in which the only sin is the disobediance of god - incest.

Exactly! Awesome answer pg.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

[Fishteacher73]

What you reply seems to state is that if an event depicted iin the Bible were fundamentally impossible, it had to be the work of God, correct? Not to be confontaional, but if that is your stance, why try to debate such issues on a scientifically based board? A counter-example really should not be used to prove your point...My point doesnt stand up to logic, so therefore it proves my point because my point is illogical?

[sanctus]

Now I understand a bit better I think what pgrmdave wants to say. On what basis can you (ie. JP, as you agree, and pgrmdave) say there is an act which is inherently evil? It would mean it's an absolute! You bring the example of murder, well isn't there a way to commit murder and it's not evil? For example, as you believe in god, if you think god tells you that you have to kill someone, it would not be evil. Or another example a bit more realistic (from my viewpoint!), a situation where yo find yourself facing the choice (and it's the only choice) kill or get killed?

There is no such thing as something always beeing evil.

So explain yourself better way after incest wasn't a sin from the start.

[jp3089]

Hey there fish.

 

What you reply seems to state is that if an event depicted iin the Bible were fundamentally impossible, it had to be the work of God, correct? Not to be confontaional, but if that is your stance, why try to debate such issues on a scientifically based board? A counter-example really should not be used to prove your point...My point doesnt stand up to logic, so therefore it proves my point because my point is illogical?

Hmm.... That's not what I was trying to say. I think the Bible is clear that the flood was a work of God, but I wasn't trying to use the reasoning that you wrote about in your first sentence up there.

 

 

Let me try again. Your point was very logical. However, it started with a presupposition that God was not in any way involved in the flood. If we enter the possibility of God's existence (only the possibility) then suddenly a completely "physical" explanation of something such as the flood isn't the only possible explanation.

 

I think that's clearer. I hope so at least. Let me know, fish.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

[jp3089]

Hi again Sanctus! I'll do my best to clarify what I'm trying to get across.

 

Now I understand a bit better I think what pgrmdave wants to say. On what basis can you (ie. JP, as you agree, and pgrmdave) say there is an act which is inherently evil?

Biblically? Conscience. (That isn't a valid answer for a science forum, though). But Biblically, it would be conscience. Cain KNEW it would be wrong to murder Abel. How did he know? Conscience. Again, this is not a scientific answer, but a Biblical one. The question posed by Sanctus was a Biblical one, so that's why it was answered Biblically.

 

 

It would mean it's an absolute! You bring the example of murder, well isn't there a way to commit murder and it's not evil? For example, as you believe in god, if you think god tells you that you have to kill someone, it would not be evil.

I believe God did that in the Bible. But it was always consequences for sin. It was never in vain or "just for the fun of it". God will not kill just to kill. That is an inherently evil act. God will never contradict himself. Therefore, God will never tell someone to kill someone else just for kicks. And God's orders for things like that came only to His people, Israel.

 

Or another example a bit more realistic (from my viewpoint!), a situation where yo find yourself facing the choice (and it's the only choice) kill or get killed?

That brings up a whole new discussion: Just War Theory. I have to be honest, among Christians that very question has not yet been resolved.

 

There is no such thing as something always beeing evil.

Really? To me, genocide will always be evil. Slavery will always be evil. Blind, pointless murder will always be evil.

 

 

So explain yourself better way after incest wasn't a sin from the start.

My apologies again for not speaking clear enough.

 

Thanks Sanctus! What a cool name! I think it means "holy" in Greek.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

[Fishteacher73]

By physically impossible I mean that there just is not enough water in existence to cover the globe. There are too many scientific counter-examples of a global flood and the Biblical story of Noah (See my earlier post) for the event to be conceived as factual. By saying that the event defys logic and science therefore it must be an act of a devine nature, is pre-supposing there is a supernatural being out ther pulling the strings much more so than me saying that it defys logic and scientific principles so it must not be true.

[lindagarrette]

If any argument over miracles starts with the presupposition that there is no God, every "miracle" must either be explained by science, or ruled a falsehood. As I stated in an earlier post, we cannot prove that God DOES exist, nor can we prove that He DOES NOT exist. Therefore, I think that your argument needs to take into consideration that there is a possibility of a Divine Power, and if that Divine Power exists, He is not bound by our physical laws. Therefore, a flood being "physically" impossible does not apply if we are taking the possibility of an existent Power into consideration, which I feel we must.

JP

A miracle is by definition not explainable by science.

[Tormod]

As I stated in an earlier post, we cannot prove that God DOES exist, nor can we prove that He DOES NOT exist. Therefore, I think that your argument needs to take into consideration that there is a possibility of a Divine Power, and if that Divine Power exists, He is not bound by our physical laws.

 

We do not need to disprove the existence of any god in order to rule divinity out of a scientific discussion. If everything that we cannot disprove should be taken into account, then no discussion would ever get anywhere.

 

By definition, all things in our universe are bound by the laws of nature. Nothing can escape that and still exist within our universe. There are some exceptions, however - it is not known what happens to matter inside a black hole (although we are starting to see the beginning of a new era in this field) - but we can make deductions, and test them, and in general use the scientific method to study them.

 

The argument that "a divine power is a possibilty" is simply a tautology. Yes, it is a possibility, but it is not a necessity. Do a search for "pink unicorn" here at the forums for some interesting views on this. You might have to do some digging.

[Tormod]

In fact, go straight to the Wiki source:

 

Invisible Pink Unicorn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn