Noah's Ark

[Bustem' Down]

No comments from me...but thought this was interesting none-the-less.

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm

I hate articles and websites like that. I don't believe it, but that's no reason to belittle the beliefs of others. The whole thing is written in such a condesending way that quite frankly offends me as an atheist.

 

[2ndAmendment]

If yours is a human “concocted” explanation how can it be based on “demonstrable truth”? Something that is concocted is made up; fictitious.

Those that cling to the belief there is no creator but rather rely on THEORIES like the big bang to prove our existence only find themselves left with questions that Christians don’t have to ask: How did it all get there if it wasn’t created? First of all there is no evidence of a big bang except through math. No one was there when the big bang happened. There is dispute in the scientific community about the big bang, whether it happened, how it happened, etc… Yet, many put their faith in the theory as fact. Regardless of what you think about the big bang, it still begs the question: How did the original matter get there. How does stuff just materialize out of nowhere? We Christians have an answer. The scientific community doesn’t.

When I worked at a location that studied explosions, we discussed the "Big Bang." General consensus was it could not have happened since the distribution of matter in the observed universe departed significantly from the distribution of matter from an explosion in a vacuum. Apparently others also have observed the problem so there is the search for "dark matter." Some dark matter has been discovered, but the distribution of matter still does not match the "Big Bang."

 

[Tonio]

I hate articles and websites like that. I don't believe it, but that's no reason to belittle the beliefs of others. The whole thing is written in such a condesending way that quite frankly offends me as an atheist.

I agree. If the intent is to criticize the idea of scriptural literalism, one can do that without belittling the people who believe in that literalism. Not only is it offensive (and I'm not even an atheist), it's also disappointing because it distracts from the science-based refutation of the Noah story.

 

[Tonio]

Regardless of what you think about the big bang, it still begs the question: How did the original matter get there. How does stuff just materialize out of nowhere? We Christians have an answer. The scientific community doesn’t.

As I mentioned in another thread, the Catholic Church has endorsed the Big Bang for decades. The mathematician who developed the hypothesis was also a Catholic priest.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

 

[Bustem' Down]

Yet, many put their faith in the theory as fact. Regardless of what you think about the big bang, it still begs the question: How did the original matter get there. How does stuff just materialize out of nowhere? We Christians have an answer. The scientific community doesn’t.

Physics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It was always there, no one created it.

 

[wxtornado]

How did the original matter get there. How does stuff just materialize out of nowhere? We Christians have an answer. The scientific community doesn’t.

I'm gonna guess that your answer is "God did it." Surely you hold your God to the same constructs as the universe, right? Where did your God come from? Did he materialize out of nowhere? If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

 

[PsyOps]

As I mentioned in another thread, the Catholic Church has endorsed the Big Bang for decades. The mathematician who developed the hypothesis was also a Catholic priest.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

I don't necessarily dispute the big bang. It doesn't serve well as a point to dispute the existence of God. Only certain scientists and atheist take this point. My take is, if God wanted a big bang he would have made it so. My point is, what came before that and how did it get there? Devoid of God, was matter always there in a continuous cycle of expansion and collapse? Humans tend to reject that things are just there. We want to know how it got there and why. So that still leaves us with the question: How did it get there?" I don't believe science will ever answer that question.

 

[PsyOps]

I'm gonna guess that your answer is "God did it." Surely you hold your God to the same constructs as the universe, right? Where did your God come from? Did he materialize out of nowhere? If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

According to the Bible God always was and ever is. If the universe doesn't need a cause then why study it? I don't need to ask where God came from because the Bible gives me that answer. It also gives me the answer as to where the universe came from. Now to study all the other physical natures of the universe... I'm all for it. I love it. But when you trace time back to that one big event that made everything I think it leads to one place.

 

[wxtornado]

According to the Bible God always was and ever is. If the universe doesn't need a cause then why study it? I don't need to ask where God came from because the Bible gives me that answer. It also gives me the answer as to where the universe came from. Now to study all the other physical natures of the universe... I'm all for it. I love it. But when you trace time back to that one big event that made everything I think it leads to one place.

I think the big diference between theists and atheists can really be summed up simply in that we disagree whether or not existence is driven by an overriding conciousness. Theists make the leap that there must be some higher thinking entity, whereas atheists see no reason to take this extra step; indeed, where the theist somehow sees taking this extra step as clarifying things, the atheist sees it as merely muddying them, and doing it without being able to demonstrate what it is they are talking about.

Look at every comment made by most (not all, but most) theists, and it becomes "what God wants us to do" - "We are here because we are supposed to know God", etc. "God wants us to become like him."

Okay, would that mean Zeus? No, it's from the bible - that's the blue print. What about the Qu'ran? No, it's the bible. Well what about (insert other "holy" text here), No -- those other god thingys are wrong.

And of course, other theists who believe in their theism say "Not the bible... (insert prefered "holy" book here). For most in this thread, it's about Jesus and the bible. Yet none of that is demonstrable. None of it. Not one single slice of it.

Now look at the atheist claim: We interact with existence, we try to explore it, we are right sometimes, we are wrong others, we have specifc methods to establish knowledge, we add to the collective purpose and move on - all of that is demonstrable. You demonstrate it by reading this post and replying to it. It's a universal experience, and even those who don't accept materialism live by its guidelines, even when they insist it isn't so, they do so by using those guidelines.

That's pretty compelling anecdotal evidence.

 

[Tonio]

It doesn't serve well as a point to dispute the existence of God. Only certain scientists and atheists take this point.

In the case of the scientists, there is a huge difference between disputing the existence of God and disputing a literal reading of any religion's scripture. Personally, I don't automatically reject the idea of the divine. I do reject the idea of treating any scripture as literal fact, including treating the existence of deity as a self-evident fact or assumption. Science cannot address the supernatural because such phenomena cannot be tested like natural phenomena. It's certainly possible that a supernatural entity was behind the Big Bang, but that cannot be proven. And even if there was evidence for it, that would not bring scripture any closer to being proven literally true. Besides, why would we have to read scripture literally?

 

[Roughidle]

It's certainly possible that a supernatural entity was behind the Big Bang, but that cannot be proven. And even if there was evidence for it, that would not bring scripture any closer to being proven literally true. Besides, why would we have to read scripture literally?

Thats where faith comes into play for the theists. To believe without proof is faith. Case in point: If I was to jingle my pocket and tell you I have two coins in my pocket, you by the evidence of the sound may choose to believe me by evidence. Now if I told you the two coins were quarters in my pocket you may choose to believe me by faith. Now here's the rub...you may ask me to show you the quarters and prove this to you. If I comply and show you the quarters to assure you that what I say is true, I would have destroyed your faith.

 

[Midnightrider]

Thats where faith comes into play for the theists. To believe without proof is faith. Case in point: If I was to jingle my pocket and tell you I have two coins in my pocket, you by the evidence of the sound may choose to believe me by evidence. Now if I told you the two coins were quarters in my pocket you may choose to believe me by faith. Now here's the rub...you may ask me to show you the quarters and prove this to you. If I comply and show you the quarters to assure you that what I say is true, I would have destroyed your faith.

there is a difference in believeing you may have two quarters in your pocket b/c you jingle them and believing that you are responsible for inventing money, the metal its made of, the people who use it and even the pocket its kept in b/c you make a clanking sound coming from your pocket.

aside from that i have to second tonio's last post....

 

[Roughidle]

there is a difference in believeing you may have two quarters in your pocket b/c you jingle them and believing that you are responsible for inventing money, the metal its made of, the people who use it and even the pocket its kept in b/c you make a clanking sound coming from your pocket.

Would that make me omnipotent or just an inventor?

 

[Tonio]

Now if I told you the two coins were quarters in my pocket you may choose to believe me by faith. Now here's the rub...you may ask me to show you the quarters and prove this to you. If I comply and show you the quarters to assure you that what I say is true, I would have destroyed your faith.

I don't see the comparison as accurate. Hypothetically, I could reach into your pocket myself. Or I could watch the coins fall out of your pocket when you sit down and then inspect the coins. In either case, I could verify your claim myself instead of simply accepting your word for it. That is only possible with natural phenomena. With supernatural phenomena, there is simply no way to verify any claim. And more importantly, there are numerous claims from numerous religions. Since none of them can be verified, I see no reason to treat any one claim as any more valid than any other. One person's faith does not constitute another person's fact.

 

[Midnightrider]

Would that make me omnipotent or just an inventor?

it would make you nothing, unless i decided to believe it, so you would be nothing in this case

 

[Roughidle]

I don't see the comparison as accurate. Hypothetically, I could reach into your pocket myself. Or I could watch the coins fall out of your pocket when you sit down and then inspect the coins. In either case, I could verify your claim myself instead of simply accepting your word for it. That is only possible with natural phenomena. With supernatural phenomena, there is simply no way to verify any claim. And more importantly, there are numerous claims from numerous religions. Since none of them can be verified, I see no reason to treat any one claim as any more valid than any other. One person's faith does not constitute another person's fact.

I was merely illustrating the idea of faith through story. Which is in my opinion exactly how religion works. Ideals expressed thru stories not to be taken as historical fact have been the preferred teaching methods of ancient wisemen ever since people began to live as tribes. I believe religion is born of fear of death and the unknown that awaits. In trying to fathom where we may be headed when we die many look to the past in hopes of finding answer in where we came from. Neither may ever be known to the living.
The same applies in either of your hypothetical scenarios would result in the same end, the destruction of faith.

 

[Tonio]

I was merely illustrating the idea of faith through story. Which is in my opinion exactly how religion works. Ideals expressed thru stories not to be taken as historical fact have been the preferred teaching methods of ancient wisemen ever since people began to live as tribes.

Excellent point. I suggest it's possible to absorb the lessons from the stories without believing in the supernatural. Maybe "God" was simply a plot device used by the storytellers to embody certain ideas.

I believe religion is born of fear of death and the unknown that awaits. In trying to fathom where we may be headed when we die many look to the past in hopes of finding answer in where we came from. Neither may ever be known to the living.

That's reasonable. My point is that scriptural literalism does not limit its claims to the unknown that lies beyond death. It makes claims about the natural world, which amounts to making claims about people. It claims, for example, that pain in childbirth and the Flood were caused by God to punish humans for sinfulness. (Personally, I suspect the authors of those ideas were attempting to give humans control over things that humans cannot control.)

 

[Roughidle]

Possibly...I think the religious views on creation are simply man's desire to know who we are and where we came from. The primatives would likely look to the heavens without aid of scientific knowledge. The rumbling of thunder for instance would sound beastly and powerful but always remain unseen. The bravest and smartest would gain leadership status by harnessing the fears of the others and give them explanation(i.e. the Thunder God), thus seemingly having connection to it. Thus is the wiseman is born and the powers to him given.
I'm perhaps getting a bit off subject but this is a great issue for debate and spawns many threads.

 

[Bustem' Down]

According to the Bible God always was and ever is. If the universe doesn't need a cause then why study it? I don't need to ask where God came from because the Bible gives me that answer. It also gives me the answer as to where the universe came from. Now to study all the other physical natures of the universe... I'm all for it. I love it. But when you trace time back to that one big event that made everything I think it leads to one place.

You do not study the univers to find out it's cause, but to understand the nature of physics. Every physicist out there will tell you that we cannot look back in time to see the big bang and what was before it. It's actually not that important, what is important is the forces that make it happen.

 

[PsyOps]

I think the big diference between theists and atheists can really be summed up simply in that we disagree whether or not existence is driven by an overriding conciousness. Theists make the leap that there must be some higher thinking entity, whereas atheists see no reason to take this extra step; indeed, where the theist somehow sees taking this extra step as clarifying things, the atheist sees it as merely muddying them, and doing it without being able to demonstrate what it is they are talking about.

I don’t consider believing in a “higher thinking entity” is an extra step. It’s an integral part of my life. And it’s not necessarily for the purpose of finding clarity but rather a spiritual reality that, by nature, clarifies things. I can’t explain what compels someone to seek and believe in God. But I do understand why the atheistic view of God would muddy up their vision of the world.

Look at every comment made by most (not all, but most) theists, and it becomes "what God wants us to do" - "We are here because we are supposed to know God", etc. "God wants us to become like him."

Of course this is how God is seen. God did create us; in his image no less. I would think that would cause Him to have a certain expectation of us. If you made a car wouldn’t you expect it to work under the conditions in which you made it?

Okay, would that mean Zeus? No, it's from the bible - that's the blue print. What about the Qu'ran? No, it's the bible. Well what about (insert other "holy" text here), No -- those other god thingys are wrong.

I can’t speak to the Greek Bible (if there was one) or the Quran, or any other religion. It’s not my intent to dismiss those religions but I am Christian and can really only speak about the faith.

And of course, other theists who believe in their theism say "Not the bible... (insert prefered "holy" book here). For most in this thread, it's about Jesus and the bible. Yet none of that is demonstrable. None of it. Not one single slice of it.

None of it is demonstrable to you, because you don’t believe. Not one bit of what you claim moves me further from my God nor removes any of the evidence I need to convince me of His existence. Again, how do I explain something spiritual to someone that does not live in that same plane?

Now look at the atheist claim: We interact with existence, we try to explore it, we are right sometimes, we are wrong others, we have specifc methods to establish knowledge, we add to the collective purpose and move on - all of that is demonstrable. You demonstrate it by reading this post and replying to it. It's a universal experience, and even those who don't accept materialism live by its guidelines, even when they insist it isn't so, they do so by using those guidelines.

Is this to imply Christian don’t explore and interact with existence? You use things you can touch, math and other measures to explain our world. These are all valid measures and means but only goes so far in explaining our universe. But given your argument that all atheists observe and how it is observed is demonstrable then how do you explain the lack of demonstrable proof that the big bang even happened? Stephen Hawking’s explanation of black holes that everything is utterly destroyed in a black hole then coming around to admitting he was wrong and concluding a new theory that parallel universes exist? Scientists used to believe that the universe had uniformity to it; that it was shaped (sort of) round, then they found out there are spots that break that theory wide open. That the universe if very lumpy and non-uniform. Science tries to explain what is far away and happened billions of years ago using math and conditions that exist on this earth. I believe most of their math is right. But when I start hearing about things like “black energy” that our scientists are unable to explain… well have we considered that these forms of “unexplained” immense energy could be God? Naw… couldn’t be right? We just leave it as unexplained until we somehow prove what it is; through math. I find it strange that non-believers would cling to abstract explanations based on math but refuse to believe something as abstract as God.