Post Any Evidence For God Here

[heavycola]

Because he created it. He bears responsibility in some fashion. Maybe he's just a bad god, but the picture more counters the benevolent god that the random one posters like to talk about and then not check back on.

the resources saved by the pictured child's death (that he otherwise would have consumed) instead went to another african who had a far better, more productive, and more fulfilling life.

- God

Actually, no. There is a good reason god does not help this kid and many others.

It's because god is giving humanity the opportunity to prove they don't need god. As you can see though, we miserably fail.

That's not a good reason. If I was watching my own child starve to death just to make some point about how unhelpful other people are, I'd be thrown in jail. It's the reasoning of a petty, evil person. Even if i believed in god that reasoning would make no sense at all.

The thing about all this spurious 'reasoning' - the rubbish moebius strip answers to questions like why does god let children starve to death in their millions? Why does evil exist? What about malaria and tsunamis, why does an omnipotent, all-merciful god allow this horror to happen every day? - is that they all twist themselves in theological knots in order to avoid the easiest, cut-through-the-gordian-knot and most gloriously simple answer: god does not exist.

See! That was easy.

[PLAYER57832]

Because he created it. He bears responsibility in some fashion. Maybe he's just a bad god, but the picture more counters the benevolent god that the random one posters like to talk about and then not check back on.

the resources saved by the pictured child's death (that he otherwise would have consumed) instead went to another african who had a far better, more productive, and more fulfilling life.

- God

Actually, no. There is a good reason god does not help this kid and many others.

It's because god is giving humanity the opportunity to prove they don't need god. As you can see though, we miserably fail.

That's not a good reason. If I was watching my own child starve to death just to make some point about how unhelpful other people are, I'd be thrown in jail. It's the reasoning of a petty, evil person. Even if i believed in god that reasoning would make no sense at all.

On an individual basis, sure. However, when we attacked Nazis Germany, despite trying to not harm innocents, we did. Was that wrong?

The thing about all this spurious 'reasoning' - the rubbish moebius strip answers to questions like why does god let children starve to death in their millions? Why does evil exist? What about malaria and tsunamis, why does an omnipotent, all-merciful god allow this horror to happen every day? - is that they all twist themselves in theological knots in order to avoid the easiest, cut-through-the-gordian-knot and most gloriously simple answer: god does not exist.

See! That was easy.

No, really, thanks for giving us a most classic example of absolute non-logic.

"I don't like the outcome, therefore it is bad" is something most of us learn is wrong when we are children. Somehow, though, when it comes to the big issues and God, some folks seem to think God should be like some great big candy-giver and make sure everything is wonderful. The problem is, if he did that, our lives would be very, very, very different. Its easy for us to say they would be better, but we cannot see all that God can see. Even the above "was it OK to attack Germany, even knowing that some innocents would be killed" is tough for us humans.

One thing is perfectly clear. Having free will means that we have the ability to make not just good decisions, but also bad ones. That, and without the bad, we would not be human.

[heavycola]

jeezy chreezy player. sometimes i wonder whether you are into some incredible long-game trollery. But I'll bite again.

Because he created it. He bears responsibility in some fashion. Maybe he's just a bad god, but the picture more counters the benevolent god that the random one posters like to talk about and then not check back on.

the resources saved by the pictured child's death (that he otherwise would have consumed) instead went to another african who had a far better, more productive, and more fulfilling life.

- God

Actually, no. There is a good reason god does not help this kid and many others.

It's because god is giving humanity the opportunity to prove they don't need god. As you can see though, we miserably fail.

That's not a good reason. If I was watching my own child starve to death just to make some point about how unhelpful other people are, I'd be thrown in jail. It's the reasoning of a petty, evil person. Even if i believed in god that reasoning would make no sense at all.

On an individual basis, sure. However, when we attacked Nazis Germany, despite trying to not harm innocents, we did. Was that wrong?

So the millions of starving children and the thousands that died in the tsunami and every other victim of what are called - ironically - acts of god, died for some greater good? Because otherwise your comparison makes absolutely no sense. If that is what you meant, then i'm sure it is of great comfort to grieving families everywhere. Sheesh.

The thing about all this spurious 'reasoning' - the rubbish moebius strip answers to questions like why does god let children starve to death in their millions? Why does evil exist? What about malaria and tsunamis, why does an omnipotent, all-merciful god allow this horror to happen every day? - is that they all twist themselves in theological knots in order to avoid the easiest, cut-through-the-gordian-knot and most gloriously simple answer: god does not exist.

See! That was easy.

No, really, thanks for giving us a most classic example of absolute non-logic.

You owe me for a new ironymeter. Do carry on:

"I don't like the outcome, therefore it is bad" is something most of us learn is wrong when we are children. Somehow, though, when it comes to the big issues and God, some folks seem to think God should be like some great big candy-giver and make sure everything is wonderful. The problem is, if he did that, our lives would be very, very, very different. Its easy for us to say they would be better, but we cannot see all that God can see. Even the above "was it OK to attack Germany, even knowing that some innocents would be killed" is tough for us humans.

One thing is perfectly clear. Having free will means that we have the ability to make not just good decisions, but also bad ones. That, and without the bad, we would not be human.

You accuse me of being illogical? 'Sure all these people die in horrendous ways, but abject misery and infant deaths are all part of god's love'.' That's exactly what I was talking about. I wasn't being illogical at all, quite the opposite. All this tortuous reasoning, all these contradictions - god loves us and is all-merciful vs why would god make sure everything is wonderful, for example - all the explaining away famine and disease as, what, tests for us rich people on the other side of the world (which is really quite disgusting) - it all vanishes into thin air the moment you consider the possibility that god does not exist. The reason god doesnt' intervene AT ALL or save starving children or calm earthquakes or soothe hurricanes is because he doesn't exist. And that is the only logical conclusion to draw.

[crispybits]

"I don't like the outcome, therefore it is bad" is something most of us learn is wrong when we are children. Somehow, though, when it comes to the big issues and God, some folks seem to think God should be like some great big candy-giver and make sure everything is wonderful. The problem is, if he did that, our lives would be very, very, very different. Its easy for us to say they would be better, but we cannot see all that God can see. Even the above "was it OK to attack Germany, even knowing that some innocents would be killed" is tough for us humans.

God is omnipotent. Have you heard of that recently. He can do anything that is not by nature impossible (like making square circles or weights too heavy for him to lift himself or whatever)

God is omnibenevolent. He has unlimited capacity for love, compassion and generosity.

God is omniscient. he knows everything that happens, everywhere, even our thoughts and desires.

Nobody is asking that God turns up and shows us a square circle or some other impossible thing. We are asking why a God that can do anything that is possible cannot make it rain to prevent drought and famine. He seemed to have no problem making it rain worldwide for 40 days and 40 nights (or 150 days depending which bit of Genesis you pay attention to) to cleanse evil from the world when it suited him, but he can't make it rain once every few days in Africa? We are asking why evil people like Hitler can rise to power when he has previously wiped out an entire city just because they were partying too hard in ways he didn't approve of? He couldn't send a single lightning bolt down to fry the guy before he did all that harm?

The only conclusion we can draw is that he doesn't know about it (but he's omniscient), he doesn't care about it (but he's omnibenevolent), he doesn't have the power to change it (but he's omnipotent), or maybe, just maybe, our definition of him is wrong (note - not that he doesn't exist, but that the thing we describe as "god" doesn't actually possess any or all of these traits.

Or "he works in mysterious ways", as you suggest. That we are too small to understand the greater plan and we should trust him that things will all work out for the best. And that seems to be a theme. Trust in God and everything will be OK in the end. Comforting isn't it. It's also not an expalanation for anything. It's an excuse, a cop-out. A god that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent could, without endangering our free will, appear every now and then in a personal visit to each and every one of us, just to say "hey, God here, hows your day going? Got any problems you need someone to talk to about?" That wouldn't be taking away our free will, we still get to act how we want and do what we want, but we also get proof that God exists and that he knows whats going on and he cares about us. It's not impossible for that to happen, after all he's done it before when he gave Moses the commandments, or on numerous other occasions when he appeared to various different prophets or whoever. If he matches your definitions shouldn't that be the least we expect?

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm very interested in having any believer (namely those Christian types) address the following part in bold:

"I don't like the outcome, therefore it is bad" is something most of us learn is wrong when we are children. Somehow, though, when it comes to the big issues and God, some folks seem to think God should be like some great big candy-giver and make sure everything is wonderful. The problem is, if he did that, our lives would be very, very, very different. Its easy for us to say they would be better, but we cannot see all that God can see. Even the above "was it OK to attack Germany, even knowing that some innocents would be killed" is tough for us humans.

God is omnipotent. Have you heard of that recently. He can do anything that is not by nature impossible (like making square circles or weights too heavy for him to lift himself or whatever)

God is omnibenevolent. He has unlimited capacity for love, compassion and generosity.

God is omniscient. he knows everything that happens, everywhere, even our thoughts and desires.

Nobody is asking that God turns up and shows us a square circle or some other impossible thing. We are asking why a God that can do anything that is possible cannot make it rain to prevent drought and famine. He seemed to have no problem making it rain worldwide for 40 days and 40 nights (or 150 days depending which bit of Genesis you pay attention to) to cleanse evil from the world when it suited him, but he can't make it rain once every few days in Africa? We are asking why evil people like Hitler can rise to power when he has previously wiped out an entire city just because they were partying too hard in ways he didn't approve of? He couldn't send a single lightning bolt down to fry the guy before he did all that harm?

The only conclusion we can draw is that he doesn't know about it (but he's omniscient), he doesn't care about it (but he's omnibenevolent), he doesn't have the power to change it (but he's omnipotent), or maybe, just maybe, our definition of him is wrong (note - not that he doesn't exist, but that the thing we describe as "god" doesn't actually possess any or all of these traits.

Or "he works in mysterious ways", as you suggest. That we are too small to understand the greater plan and we should trust him that things will all work out for the best. And that seems to be a theme. Trust in God and everything will be OK in the end. Comforting isn't it. It's also not an expalanation for anything. It's an excuse, a cop-out. A god that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent could, without endangering our free will, appear every now and then in a personal visit to each and every one of us, just to say "hey, God here, hows your day going? Got any problems you need someone to talk to about?" That wouldn't be taking away our free will, we still get to act how we want and do what we want, but we also get proof that God exists and that he knows whats going on and he cares about us. It's not impossible for that to happen, after all he's done it before when he gave Moses the commandments, or on numerous other occasions when he appeared to various different prophets or whoever. If he matches your definitions shouldn't that be the least we expect?

Haha, I've never thought of it that way, but that would be a lovely life.

"Yeah, I got a problem on making this decision about my future.... let's call a conference with God and see what he says."

[john9blue]

i already answered the bold part, bbs...

making the universe "better" (debatable whether it actually qualifies as "better", but let's assume that this is not the best possible universe) is impossible without breaking natural laws. sure, a truly omnipotent god could conjure up some food for that poor african kid, but that breaks conservation of energy. he could chuck a lightning bolt at teenage hitler, but he would be violating the laws of causality. so, you are asking god to do things that are impossible in this universe.

[BigBallinStalin]

i already answered the bold part, bbs...

making the universe "better" (debatable whether it actually qualifies as "better", but let's assume that this is not the best possible universe) is impossible without breaking natural laws. sure, a truly omnipotent god could conjure up some food for that poor african kid, but that breaks conservation of energy. he could chuck a lightning bolt at teenage hitler, but he would be violating the laws of causality. so, you are asking god to do things that are impossible in this universe.

Apparently, he's not omnipotent.

But why not omniscient + indirect intervention? Why not whisper "hey, that Hitler guy is going to be a bad dude," or "your son will die for septic shock unless you bring him to the hospital 2 weeks from now"?

And if one does not allow for any intervention (miracles), for that presumably would be impossible without breaking natural laws, then the concept of a Christian God (+others) would be impossible. Only the Deistic Thing would remain. Right?

[Nola_Lifer]

Because he created it. He bears responsibility in some fashion. Maybe he's just a bad god, but the picture more counters the benevolent god that the random one posters like to talk about and then not check back on.

the resources saved by the pictured child's death (that he otherwise would have consumed) instead went to another african who had a far better, more productive, and more fulfilling life.

- God

Actually, no. There is a good reason god does not help this kid and many others.

It's because god is giving humanity the opportunity to prove they don't need god. As you can see though, we miserably fail.

That's not a good reason. If I was watching my own child starve to death just to make some point about how unhelpful other people are, I'd be thrown in jail. It's the reasoning of a petty, evil person. Even if i believed in god that reasoning would make no sense at all.

The thing about all this spurious 'reasoning' - the rubbish moebius strip answers to questions like why does god let children starve to death in their millions? Why does evil exist? What about malaria and tsunamis, why does an omnipotent, all-merciful god allow this horror to happen every day? - is that they all twist themselves in theological knots in order to avoid the easiest, cut-through-the-gordian-knot and most gloriously simple answer: god does not exist.

See! That was easy.

It isn't so much that god doesn't exist. It is their idea of what god is that doesn't exist. God or god isn't this person who has emotions and a right of justice. You can't just put all these human qualities on something that we have no idea what the f*ck it is, and it isn't what some dude wrote down x amount of years ago. You know this and I quoted you to make the point that God may or may not exist but it is the idea of what that god is that doesn't exist in reality.

[heavycola]

i already answered the bold part, bbs...

making the universe "better" (debatable whether it actually qualifies as "better", but let's assume that this is not the best possible universe) is impossible without breaking natural laws. sure, a truly omnipotent god could conjure up some food for that poor african kid, but that breaks conservation of energy. he could chuck a lightning bolt at teenage hitler, but he would be violating the laws of causality. so, you are asking god to do things that are impossible in this universe.

i can think of three times when god supposedly conjured up food. Manna, the wedding at Cana, the loaves & fishes... so he intervened regularly and miraculously (a miracle could be defined as an event counter to the laws of nature) for thousands of years, but that is impossible today. Of course it is.

ACT 1

A Martian lands next to a refugee camp on ethiopian/somalian border, and has a nosey around.
MARTIAN: this is horrible! children are dying here every day from preventable diseases... why don't you help?
XIAN PASSERBY: Well i give to charity, and i pray for them every day.
MARTIAN: You pray for them?
XIAN: Yes. I pray to our all-loving, all-merciful, all-powerful god.

The MARTIAN looks about himself again and blinks.

MARTIAN: That's not funny.
XIAN: I wasn't joking.

MARTIAN (over his intercom): It's ok guys - start the invasion. These people are delusional.

THE END

[crispybits]

It isn't so much that god doesn't exist. It is their idea of what god is that doesn't exist. God or god isn't this person who has emotions and a right of justice. You can't just put all these human qualities on something that we have no idea what the f*ck it is, and it isn't what some dude wrote down x amount of years ago. You know this and I quoted you to make the point that God may or may not exist but it is the idea of what that god is that doesn't exist in reality.

+1

See this argument is heading in the same direction as the gay marriage one - it's not that us skeptics are saying "there is no God", there might well be, and by some definitions of what God is he is in fact necessary. We're just saying that your definition sucks, given what we observe around us. Words like "God" have cultural significance and power, and claiming you have the only true, right definition for these based on some book written thousands of years ago by a totally different culture with a totally different understanding of how the universe works, and modified several times in the interim period for political purposes, is not very credible really is it?

[heavycola]

Because he created it. He bears responsibility in some fashion. Maybe he's just a bad god, but the picture more counters the benevolent god that the random one posters like to talk about and then not check back on.

the resources saved by the pictured child's death (that he otherwise would have consumed) instead went to another african who had a far better, more productive, and more fulfilling life.

- God

Actually, no. There is a good reason god does not help this kid and many others.

It's because god is giving humanity the opportunity to prove they don't need god. As you can see though, we miserably fail.

That's not a good reason. If I was watching my own child starve to death just to make some point about how unhelpful other people are, I'd be thrown in jail. It's the reasoning of a petty, evil person. Even if i believed in god that reasoning would make no sense at all.

The thing about all this spurious 'reasoning' - the rubbish moebius strip answers to questions like why does god let children starve to death in their millions? Why does evil exist? What about malaria and tsunamis, why does an omnipotent, all-merciful god allow this horror to happen every day? - is that they all twist themselves in theological knots in order to avoid the easiest, cut-through-the-gordian-knot and most gloriously simple answer: god does not exist.

See! That was easy.

It isn't so much that god doesn't exist. It is their idea of what god is that doesn't exist. God or god isn't this person who has emotions and a right of justice. You can't just put all these human qualities on something that we have no idea what the f*ck it is, and it isn't what some dude wrote down x amount of years ago. You know this and I quoted you to make the point that God may or may not exist but it is the idea of what that god is that doesn't exist in reality.

Absolutely. But a light-the-touchpaper-and-stand-back, non-interventionist god, is ultimately just a cool philosophical idea, because its existence or lack thereof can have no effect on our lives or can ever be known to us. You may as well believe in a demiurge as not believe in one.

As for the judaeo-xian ideas about god - it's just so farkin obvious that these concepts of a supreme being are nothing but reflections of us and our social mores. God can be wrathful and vengeful, he can be loving and compassionate, he can be cruel, kind, jealous, petty... it all depends on who and where you are in history (same as with every god or group of gods you care to name: Allah, Zeus et al, Krishna, Huitzilopochtli, Osiris, etc etc - all products of their time). And i 'm sure there are thousands of books' worth of theology written to explain these discrepancies away, when you can do it in four words: humans invent their gods.

[Lionz]

Crispy,

How about we watch some debates with two sides presented together if we are essentially pasting other's words back and forth?

http://www.creationtoday.org/category/t ... o/debates/

You pasted stuff referring to theory of humans named Walt Brown and Kent Hovind and John Baumgardner? I'm not even claiming any of them has a correct theory on how the flood occured whether there is good evidence attacking theories of them or not, but did any of them even claim a preflood canopy was more than 40 feet thick or that a rock crust was floating on water?

And what about Greenland is 40,000 years old if ice cores there have a maximum depth of 10-14 thousand feet and a WWII plane was under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years? And where is a 10,000 year old tree anywhere without calling on some clonal colony with a root system theorized to be that old? And why assume ice caps are postflood? And why assume typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, or syphilis are preflood? And why assume there was not natural selection and variation within kinds since the flood that created variety inside and outside water if you consider how many dog breeds existed 1,000 years ago and take a look at the Palestrina Mosaic?

http://s8int.com/phile/dinolit57.html

"Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity."

Seriously Talk Origins? How much more similar could things be if history was passed down orally over thousands of years and Noah is still called almost the same exact thing across the earth in various legends?

If there is something considered your #1 most impressive piece of evidence against Genesis 7:11 or a global flood in general, then how about we try to be tidy in reasoning together and we address that and move on from there?

Heavycola,

If dollars have symbolism associated with Egypt and the Craft and they refer to the word seclorum, how about we keep an eye out for secular propaganda whether cave dwelling people based in Afghanistan managed to take out WTC 7 or not? Is Operation Northwoods a kooky conspiracy theory?

"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro."
-http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

All,

"9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/john9.htm

Do we know what others did before being born or how much others deserve to suffer or how much anyone else suffers to begin with? And even if there is alot of unjust stuff taking place on earth currently, what should we expect if the devil is considered the prince of this world and Yahushua suggested wheat could be hurt by gathering tares without waiting for them to both grow first? How about we have patience?

And why would He make it rain in Africa if He was mad about sin and did not want it to rain there? Do you want a Creator who never gets angry or jealous and want one who never judges? What if He is very real and you will simply not like Him even if you learn all about Him? Not sure what YHWH has actually said and not sure if there is a perfect English translation of anything, but here are pastes from a Bible missing some bold font or something similar because of some not showing up with pastes maybe...

17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

17:10 I YHWH search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

3:39 Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?

30:24 The fierce anger of YHWH shall not return, until he have done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it.

45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I YHWH do all these things.

14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, YHWH of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

14:17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, YHWH of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith YHWH will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

[crispybits]

Crispy,

How about we watch some debates with two sides presented together if we are essentially pasting other's words back and forth?

http://www.creationtoday.org/category/t ... o/debates/

You pasted stuff referring to theory of humans named Walt Brown and Kent Hovind and John Baumgardner? I'm not even claiming any of them has a correct theory on how the flood occured whether there is good evidence attacking theories of them or not, but did any of them even claim a preflood canopy was more than 40 feet thick or that a rock crust was floating on water?

OK, find me one that's actually both sides together stating their views, the one you posted isn't a debate it's a sermon with a Q&A session at the end.

Have a look at the references within my source. They are on record as having proposed these things. They may not have said that a preflood canopy was 40 feet thick, but they have said that the water was stored up in the atmosphere and god released it, and from that we can look at measurements anybody can make in a lab about humidity, and pressure, and fluid/gas dynamics, and find that in order for there to be what they propose, would mean that certain other conditions would also be present.

And what about Greenland is 40,000 years old if ice cores there have a maximum depth of 10-14 thousand feet and a WWII plane was under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years? And where is a 10,000 year old tree anywhere without calling on some clonal colony with a root system theorized to be that old? And why assume ice caps are postflood? And why assume typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, or syphilis are preflood? Why assume there was not natural selection and variation within kinds since the flood that created variety inside and outside water if you consider how many dog breeds existed 1,000 years ago and take a look at the Palestrina Mosaic?

http://s8int.com/phile/dinolit57.html

The planes were near the coast in southern Greenland, where snowfall is both heavier and more variable than in arctic/antarctic conditions. ice cores aren't taken from places like that because the melt/freeze cycle can be repeated many times within a year, so the cores would not give good dating evidence of anything. Ice cores taken from stable, permanent bodies of ice, such as those deep in the arctic/antarctic, have been found to be consistent with other scientific dating methods, and by methods other than simply counting the layers. We can look at massive volcanic eruptions, both from within recorded history (Pompeii) and before it, where we can use numerous other dating methods to work out when they happened, and then we can look for the layers of volcanic dust trapped within the cores to see when they appear, and we can say that "this layer is X years old", and being scientific we then don't ignore that evidence, but we make sure our theories of how we're dating other layers fits with the facts.

Why assume diseases are post-flood? God made all living things remember, in the first 6 days. According to a literal young earth interpretation God must have made the diseases, because they are living organisms.

Where is a 10,000 year old tree? There isn't one. You're evading, because nobody is claiming a 10,000 year old tree, but simply that by looking at tree ring patterns on both current, living trees and also samples of wood preserved with the rings still measurable, we can build a consistent record of tree ring growth going back 10,000 years. (To elaborate, tree rings grow by different amounts each year depending on factors like climate. Tree ring dating isn't just counting the tree rings, it's matching the very complex patters of differing thicknesses to show that a series of rings could only have formed in one particular series of years)

Finally, we don't assume that there has ben no natural selection. In fact we assume the opposite, but bringing human interference in cross-breeding dogs for human purposes in as proof the natural world works that fast is not valid. We could cross a peacock with a pigeon tomorrow and create a whole new species, does that mean that natural selection will cross peacocks and pigeons?

"Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity."

Seriously? Is that is a perfect example for showing people how desperate Talk Origins truly is or what? How much more similar could things be if history was passed down orally over thousands of years and Noah is still called almost the same exact thing across the earth in various legends?

If there is something considered your #1 most impressive piece of evidence against Genesis 7:11 or a global flood in general, then how about we try to be tidy in reasoning together and we address that and move on from there?

Have any of the "very similar" flood myths or names like Noah been found in a culture before Christian missionaries went racing around the world on their divine quest to save everyone's souls? The Chinese accounts which have very similar details and very similar stories only start cropping up ater Christianity is brought to the country. Traditional stories recorded before Christianity came along share very few details with the biblical flood story. Neither do the other recorded traditions we can find all over the world that were recorded before Christian missionaries went out there.

Yes almost all cultures have a flood myth, but floods are common events, and it's hardly a stretch to imgaine that at some point every ancient culture either suffered from or witnessed the effects of a massive local flood, and then developed a story to explain why the flood happened (because they wouldn't have had evidence available to them of really high levels of snowfall in the mountains hundreds of miles away that was melting, or an ice dam breaking, or just really heavy rain. Where they were it was just nice and normal and then suddenly - whoosh - flood. The only consistent thing in all of the different confirmed pre-missionary flood myths is that there was a lot of water involved, a small number of people managed to survive by various different methods (not all flood myths have boats in them even), and the survivors then rebuilt their society.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the dinosaurs and the elephants were both alive at the same time before the flood, why did only the elephants make it to high ground, while the dinosaurs (including the flying ones) seem to have been buried at the very bottom of the sea and covered with very very many layers of sediment?

If the geological record was formed all in one go by a massive flood, why do we find footprints and raindrops in the middle of the strata, when these things are not possible to have impacted the sediment under massive amounts of water?

If humans were alive at the same time as dinosaurs before the flood, why is there no evidence of humans, let alone a human civilisation advanced enough to build a boat, in the same layer as the dinosaurs? A hammer or a chisel can't run away from a flood so the tools needed couldn't have escaped to high ground. Or did all the humans that died pick up their entire civilisation and carry it to higher ground, buildings and all, before they just gave up and died?

And what of all the humans that were killed? We can find animal skeletons dating back to before the dinosaurs in the fossil record, but never once have we found any fossilised human bones in strata more than about 100,000 years old. If the flood came all at once shouldn't humans be drowned and buried in the same layers as the dinosaurs?

[BigBallinStalin]

Step aside, Lionz. I'll handle this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the dinosaurs and the elephants were both alive at the same time before the flood, why did only the elephants make it to high ground, while the dinosaurs (including the flying ones) seem to have been buried at the very bottom of the sea and covered with very very many layers of sediment?

Don't you see? The dinosaurs never lived! God put only their bones in the Earth in order to test our faith. Shall we conclude that you have failed the Faith Test?

If the geological record was formed all in one go by a massive flood, why do we find footprints and raindrops in the middle of the strata, when these things are not possible to have impacted the sediment under massive amounts of water?

Another test of faith!

If humans were alive at the same time as dinosaurs before the flood, why is there no evidence of humans, let alone a human civilisation advanced enough to build a boat, in the same layer as the dinosaurs? A hammer or a chisel can't run away from a flood so the tools needed couldn't have escaped to high ground. Or did all the humans that died pick up their entire civilisation and carry it to higher ground, buildings and all, before they just gave up and died?

I'ma go with: Stretch that Test of Faith! HRRRRUUUGGHHHHH!!!

And what of all the humans that were killed? We can find animal skeletons dating back to before the dinosaurs in the fossil record, but never once have we found any fossilised human bones in strata more than about 100,000 years old. If the flood came all at once shouldn't humans be drowned and buried in the same layers as the dinosaurs?

God works in mysterious ways.

[heavycola]

Heavycola,

If dollars have symbolism associated with Egypt and the Craft and they refer to the word seclorum, how about we keep an eye out for secular propaganda whether cave dwelling people based in Afghanistan managed to take out WTC 7 or not? Is Operation Northwoods a kooky conspiracy theory?

"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro."
-http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

where to start...

Yes I have read all about northwoods. Some salient facts -
a) it was rejected by kennedy (oh noes, look what the reptilian shapeshifters did to him in revenge!11!!! etc)
b) it seems to go to great lengths to fake various incidents - a passenger plane hijack, a plane shot down by migs - rather than, say, save a bunch of time and money by actually killing thousands of US citizens
c) it's available to be read by everyone, which suggests it isn't a conspiracy theory - it's more of a published document.

The dollar bill
1) do you really think seclorum means secular?
2) if nomadic desert tribesmen from 3000 years ago can write a book about their angry, rape-happy god that you are still quoting from today, then what's so strange about cave dwellers in afghanistan accomplishing something?
2) you are mental. (i ran out of enthusiasm. Been too long arguing with crazies on here.)

And why would He make it rain in Africa if He was mad about sin and did not want it to rain there? Do you want a Creator who never gets angry or jealous and want one who never judges? What if He is very real and you will simply not like Him even if you learn all about Him? Not sure what YHWH has actually said and not sure if there is a perfect English translation of anything, but here are pastes from a Bible missing some bold font or something similar because of some not showing up with pastes maybe...

<insert OT stuff that we are supposed to disregard when it suits us>

Do you want to worship a creator who gets so angry at the imperfections that he built into us himself that he withholds water from the poorest countries on earth? That is fucked up. if that was my dad, I would disown and kill him myself. God isn't mysterious, he's just a vindictive bastard. He makes Xenu look like Oprah.

[crispybits]

Just for the sake of balance, I think we should clearly show the evidence for both sides of this debate:



oops...

[john9blue]

But why not omniscient + indirect intervention? Why not whisper "hey, that Hitler guy is going to be a bad dude," or "your son will die for septic shock unless you bring him to the hospital 2 weeks from now"?

whisper? sound is energy, so that violates conservation of energy.

And if one does not allow for any intervention (miracles), for that presumably would be impossible without breaking natural laws, then the concept of a Christian God (+others) would be impossible. Only the Deistic Thing would remain. Right?

not sure if that's ALL that would remain, but generally, yes. and that's why i'm going to ignore cola's post.

[BigBallinStalin]

But why not omniscient + indirect intervention? Why not whisper "hey, that Hitler guy is going to be a bad dude," or "your son will die for septic shock unless you bring him to the hospital 2 weeks from now"?

whisper? sound is energy, so that violates conservation of energy.

And if one does not allow for any intervention (miracles), for that presumably would be impossible without breaking natural laws, then the concept of a Christian God (+others) would be impossible. Only the Deistic Thing would remain. Right?

not sure if that's ALL that would remain, but generally, yes. and that's why i'm going to ignore cola's post.

WEll, that's all good to hear. By "believer," I should've stated theist because generally I support the deistic interpretation to be the only possibly true conception of "god."


As for the other theists out there, here ya go:


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&start=1245#p3861405


Otherwise, your conception of "god" is full of it.

[crispybits]

I think one of the main (if not the single overbearing) problem with debates like this is the nature of belief in God. We can see, just in the last 5 pages, that Lionz and john9blue have very different internal definitions for what God is and what he has done. There are likely as many or more theological points they would disagree on as those they would agree on. Therefore any arguments against their personal interpretations should be kept distinct and separate, just as you would not try and go in with a catch-all argument to oppose rationalism, empiricism and physicalism, because they are all slightly different philosophies with different strengths and weaknesses.

What would be really helpful, just for the sake of the human race and our eternal spiritual health and well-being, would be if all the theists could get together and work out between themselves what God actually is. I mean you don't get scientists from different disciplines saying that (for example) life is different things. There is a set definition that everyone agreed on, and any debates or disagreements around if something is alive or not can be hung on that framework (and the framework can be challenged, but that's quite obvious to see when it happens because it's defined)

So how about it, in fact I'll make it even easier, how about only all you Christians (because other religions will only make it more complicated) start a thread here and have it out between yourselves about what you can all agree that God is. We'll stay out of it, I'm sure I could find and PM all the atheists, agnostics, anti-theists and skeptics that have taken part in this kind of debate in the last year and ask them nicely to leave you to it. And when you guys come up with that acceptable definition, let us know, and we'll use that as our starting point, instead of us saying "X disproves God defined as A" and hearing "well I believe in God defined as B" so we say "Y disproves God defined as B" only to hear "but Y is irrelevant to God defined as A" and we end up running round and round in circles....

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, well... scientists tend not to agree on much, either.

[crispybits]

But, generally speaking, scientists work towards concrete definitions, and they clearly define those definitions, and if there is controversy then generally the contested definitions are not used to prove/disprove other areas of science. There will be exceptions in this, particularly in highly theoretical (meta)physics, but in general for most practical every-day science the definitions are fairly well set, and where they aren't there is a process being undertaken to work out which definition is closest to reality.

I'm not suggesting we use the scientific method for God, but it seems odd to me that there can be so many different and entirely personal definitions if the thing they are defining is not only the same thing in all instances, but it's also something that has (allegedly) communicated with us about it's nature and wants us to accept it and love it and embrace it as the truth and the light and the only way to eternal happiness. Surely amongst theists there should be some common ground that can be established where everyone is happy with the definition, even just as a starting point, and that this definition can then be used to provide a framework to further claims about the more precise nature of God.

[PLAYER57832]

But why not omniscient + indirect intervention? Why not whisper "hey, that Hitler guy is going to be a bad dude," or "your son will die for septic shock unless you bring him to the hospital 2 weeks from now"?

whisper? sound is energy, so that violates conservation of energy.

And if one does not allow for any intervention (miracles), for that presumably would be impossible without breaking natural laws, then the concept of a Christian God (+others) would be impossible. Only the Deistic Thing would remain. Right?

not sure if that's ALL that would remain, but generally, yes. and that's why i'm going to ignore cola's post.

"natural laws" mostly just apply on normal Earth conditions.. or within our known universe. They are not truly absolute.

[jimboston]

No one has yet refuted the evidence (for God's existance) I have previously posted...



I consider this to be HARD evidence.

[heavycola]

But why not omniscient + indirect intervention? Why not whisper "hey, that Hitler guy is going to be a bad dude," or "your son will die for septic shock unless you bring him to the hospital 2 weeks from now"?

whisper? sound is energy, so that violates conservation of energy.

And if one does not allow for any intervention (miracles), for that presumably would be impossible without breaking natural laws, then the concept of a Christian God (+others) would be impossible. Only the Deistic Thing would remain. Right?

not sure if that's ALL that would remain, but generally, yes. and that's why i'm going to ignore cola's post.

"natural laws" mostly just apply on normal Earth conditions.. or within our known universe. They are not truly absolute.

NICK gdmf CAVE

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

Again: Where's a dating method that does not assume both a starting point and constant rate of change based on a preconceived view of what happened in the past and what can calibrating radiometric dating methods with postflood coral and trees and ice do to help us date stuff from before the flood?

It is not possible to date something without assuming a start point. If there is no start point, a date is meaningless. One can date something from the beginning of something, or start from now and count backward, but there is no way to date anything without assuming a start point. Without a start point, a date is just a number. It loses all other meaning. While such a thing might apply to god, everything in the natural world has a start point, and can thus be dated by the assumption that it had a start point. All dating methods also rely on a constant rate of change, since all dating standards are based on standardized measurements of the sun or moon or the seasons or something like that. I don't quite understand why you are creating these limitations.

Can you define scientific evidence if you are honestly trying to claim there is no scientific evidence for the flood?

Sure. Floods leave particular sedimentary deposits. If there was a worldwide flood, we would see this deposit in the geological column at the same depth, at approximately the same size, covering the entirety of the world. It would be composed of one or few very large layers, and it would have a large diversity of fossils. If it occurred approximately five thousand years ago, these fossils would all be carbon dated to that approximate time period, and the flood layer would be very near to the surface. Almost anywhere in the world, someone with a shovel and Bible would be able to dig down to the flood layer very easily. Entire fossilized forests that covered much of the world would be beneath our feet, littered with the bones of bunnies, kittens, and baby birds. Ancient cities buried mere feet below ground would carry scenes of mummified torment that would make Pompeii seem like a warm day at the beach. Men and women clutched together with masks of terrible agony. Infants and toddlers with crushed bodies, limbs ripped at awful angles a few yards from their tortured mothers. An entire museum of the horrors of nature mere meters below everyone on this planet. A canvas of destruction and death dedicated to the glory of god.

Grab a shovel and tell me what you find. Hell, we're both in Atlanta, aren't we? I'll even come help.

How about we step outside a box if we are in one and we not rely on mainstream media or scientific journals for truth?

I'm fine with this, but I don't have as much time as I used to. Can you pick the evidence that you think is best or otherwise your favorite? Let's keep our focus somewhat narrow so that I can keep up.