Poll: Did the Biblical Flood really occur?

[Lightning Waltz]

I find it funny that people want scientific explanations of biblical events, then when adequately explained, some of these same people claim the science is evidence that the events were not caused by God.

I don't know what "people" you are referring to, since I never asked you for scientific explanations of biblical events....

In any event, I've never seen you "adequately explain (with a scientific explanation)" a miraculous biblical event, anyway...

But, you're right...if you were to "adequately explain (with a scientific explantion)" a miraculous biblical event, it would no longer be a miraculous biblical event.... Miracles, by definition, are beyond the laws of science as we understand them.

[glockmail]

Again though, you're taking God's existence as a given. Most scientifically minded people believe God was created by man, not the other way around. Keeping this in mind, when talking about what caused the natural disasters described in the Bible, most scientifically minded people attribute these events to natural phenomenon and not to what they perceive as an imagined deity.

The big problem with trying to attribute events to God is that all events in our universe can be explained by natural processes. When you know that the positive or negative charge of ions in the air molecules cause lightening, it's difficult to then insert God into the equation. What it comes down to in the end is faith. I'm convinced that you can't prove God's existence. Whether this is on purpose by God's own design or because God just isn't there and never was to begin with is something none of us will ever know for sure until we actually die.

I have heard that most scientists (not simply “many”) are convinced of God’s existence. As a practical scientist myself, I'm convinced that you can prove God's existence, since the chance for certain physical occurrences happening otherwise is infinitesimally small. It is similar to making a decision based on DNA evidence, where the probability of a match is 99-point several nines percent.

Scientifically this would be conclusive evidence. Some would argue that this is not proof positive. Although technically correct, I assert that position would be unreasonable.

[Lightning Waltz]

I have heard that most scientists (not simply “many”) are convinced of God’s existence.

I'm not sure on that, though I wouldn't doubt it. But, you will note, the percent of scientists that believe in a "God" is significantly less than the general population.

[glockmail]

…

But, you're right...if you were to "adequately explain (with a scientific explantion)" a miraculous biblical event, it would no longer be a miraculous biblical event.... Miracles, by definition, are beyond the laws of science as we understand them.

An example of a miraculous physical event occurring would be the sighting of a large comet or “star”, shortly after a virgin birth, and other related events that fulfill scripture. There may be scientific explanations for each, but taken together, the probabilities of them all occurring together is infinitesimally small.

[Lightning Waltz]

As a practical scientist myself, I'm convinced that you can prove God's existence, since the chance for certain physical occurrences happening otherwise is infinitesimally small. It is similar to making a decision based on DNA evidence, where the probability of a match is 99-point several nines percent.

Scientifically this would be conclusive evidence. Some would argue that this is not proof positive. Although technically correct, I assert that position would be unreasonable.

BTW, probability after the fact doesn't work.

It's like a lottery winner claiming that she didn't win because the chances are so small that she could have won...

[Lightning Waltz]

An example of a miraculous physical event occurring would be the sighting of a large comet or “star”, shortly after a virgin birth, and other related events that fulfill scripture. There may be scientific explanations for each, but taken together, the probabilities of them all occurring together is infinitesimally small.

Yeah, Biblical prophecy is a funny thing...
First, the writers of the NT had the OT to go off of. It would be extremely easy to write the story that agrees with the earlier prophecies.
Second, you have to assume that the stories in the Bible are actually true...that a "star" did actually appear right after a "virgin birth"...
Third, prophecies are subject to heavy interpretation. Just look at horoscopes if you want an example...

[glockmail]

BTW, probability after the fact doesn't work.

... ...

Explain what this has to do with my example.

[glockmail]

Yeah, Biblical prophecy is a funny thing...
First, the writers of the NT had the OT to go off of. It would be extremely easy to write the story that agrees with the earlier prophecies.
Second, you have to assume that the stories in the Bible are actually true...that a "star" did actually appear right after a "virgin birth"...
Third, prophecies are subject to heavy interpretation. Just look at horoscopes if you want an example...

1. The writers simply reported what happened.
2. As we have four independent witnesses, or Gospels, we have corroboration of evidence. The fact that the witnesses were persecuted for their beliefs, yet expressed them openly anyway, speaks for their credibility.
3. Agreed. But when you take into account multiple prophesies during a small time frame your argument begins to lose favor.

[Lightning Waltz]

Explain what this has to do with my example.

I have heard that most scientists (not simply “many”) are convinced of God’s existence. As a practical scientist myself, I'm convinced that you can prove God's existence, since the chance for certain physical occurrences happening otherwise is infinitesimally small. It is similar to making a decision based on DNA evidence, where the probability of a match is 99-point several nines percent.

Scientifically this would be conclusive evidence. Some would argue that this is not proof positive. Although technically correct, I assert that position would be unreasonable.

Anything else?

[Lightning Waltz]

1. The writers simply reported what happened.

The writers simply told a tale...

2. As we have four independent witnesses, or Gospels, we have corroboration of evidence. The fact that the witnesses were persecuted for their beliefs, yet expressed them openly anyway, speaks for their credibility.

Biblical scholars disagree on how many independant accounts we actually have, but in any event, it's not uncommon for a group of people to maintain the same lie.

And the fact that people die for what they say, or even believe in, doesn't make what they believe in actually true. Or, do you credit the beliefs of the 9/11 bombers the same way that you credit the writer(s) of the gospels?

3. Agreed. But when you take into account multiple prophesies during a small time frame your argument begins to lose favor.

Again, huge assumptions about the truth of the tale that was told.

[glockmail]

Anything else?

Yes, you failed to equate the two arguments.

[glockmail]

[1]The writers simply told a tale...



[2]Biblical scholars disagree on how many independant accounts we actually have, but in any event, it's not uncommon for a group of people to maintain the same lie.

[3]And the fact that people die for what they say, or even believe in, doesn't make what they believe in actually true. Or, do you credit the beliefs of the 9/11 bombers the same way that you credit the writer(s) of the gospels?



[4]Again, huge assumptions about the truth of the tale that was told.

1. Good luck proving that.
2. Actually the vast majority of biblical scholars agree in just four Gospels. That's why they're in the Bible.
3. Yet none of the 9-11 highjackers were witnesses of the actual events that they believe in.
4. Not nearly as big as assuming that they are false, IMO.

[LOki]

Here's to hoping, anyway.

[Lightning Waltz]

1. Good luck proving that.

Good luck proving that they told anything more than a tale...

2. Actually the vast majority of biblical scholars agree in just four Gospels. That's why they're in the Bible.

First, many scholars believe that all four of the "original gospels" are based on one. Also, it is of note what is left out of the earliest of the 4 "original gospels"....

3. Yet none of the 9-11 highjackers were witnesses of the actual events that they believe in.

You assume that the writers of the gospels, were...

4. Not nearly as big as assuming that they are false, IMO.

Heh, prove things are possible beyond the laws of physics as we understand them, and then we'll talk.

[Lightning Waltz]

Yes, you failed to equate the two arguments.

Yeah...excuse me a moment. Temporalilly blinded by my eyes stuck rolling into the back of my skull.