Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:BobSpence

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:
No presupposition involved. There is no prior event to trigger the decay at a particular instant, just the quantum energy states of the particles involved which determine the probability of decay in a given time interval. This is why I selected this example, our current understanding of this does not require any further causal process to trigger the decay event. All observations confirm it as a purely random event with a very specific rate of decay which allows things like radio-carbon dating to work so well.
No prior event that we know of. You cannot say with any certainty that there is no prior event. Due to the nature of the subject and the potential of quantum pairing there could very easily be a measurable prior event that we are simply incapable of detecting. The fact that the rate of decay is so predictable despite the seeming randomness of the decay itself suggests as much may be possible.
BobSpence wrote:
This example involves "Chaos Theory", which, to quote from the Wikipedia article, "studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a paradigm popularly referred to as the butterfly effect" I think you need to study both areas (particle decay and chaos theory) a bit more closely before being so dismissive.
Take your own advice. Never have the entire initial conditions of a system been known absolutely, as they must be if we were omniscient. The whole field of this science exists on the presupposition that we cannot know the initial conditions absolutely. You're applying current human understanding to a concept beyond human understanding and assuming they must mesh perfectly. But you're just assuming.

The science of Chaos Theory depends the FACT that we CANNOT know the EXACT state of a system with PERFECT precision and that the slightest error can have major effects on the future behaviour of the system.

'Omniscience' is not a coherent concept, it does not deserve a place in rational discussion, except to point out the problems with it.

The point remains, that the natural/physical world  does have an irreducible degree of uncertainty about its future course of events. Get used to it.

I think it truly would require a super-natural intelligence to know the future.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:The science

BobSpence wrote:
The science of Chaos Theory depends the FACT that we CANNOT know the EXACT state of a system with PERFECT precision and that the slightest error can have major effects on the future behaviour of the system.

I said that already. And it doesn't matter worth a shit, because WE are not OMNISCIENT.

BobSpence wrote:
'Omniscience' is not a coherent concept, it does not deserve a place in rational discussion, except to point out the problems with it.

Try telling that to a theist. Have you forgotten the context of the topic? I'll remind you. Caposkia, the theist, and I were having a discussion on his theism before you so rudely interrupted with comments inapplicable to our discussion. Fuck off.

BobSpence wrote:
The point remains, that the natural/physical world  does have an irreducible degree of uncertainty about its future course of events. Get used to it.

I think it truly would require a super-natural intelligence to know the future.

I think you should stop making failed attempts to defend brians stupidity. It has had a negative impact on your own intellect.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, my last comment on

Vastet, my last comment on Chaos theory was in reponse to your statement:

If the entire Earth system were known absolutely, then the weather in that system would be predictable.

which is simply wrong, and NOT consistent with what I have been saying.

However I doubt it's worth pursuing this discussion any further, especially with you getting pissed off to the point of referring back, irrelevantly, to our intercahange regarding Brian's comments. I hope others reading this have found my comments informative and/or interesting, even if you haven't.

Bye.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Vastet, my

BobSpence wrote:

Vastet, my last comment on Chaos theory was in reponse to your statement:

If the entire Earth system were known absolutely, then the weather in that system would be predictable.

which is simply wrong, and NOT consistent with what I have been saying.

However I doubt it's worth pursuing this discussion any further, especially with you getting pissed off to the point of referring back, irrelevantly, to our intercahange regarding Brian's comments. I hope others reading this have found my comments informative and/or interesting, even if you haven't.

Bye.

 

It is NOT wrong. It IS consistent with what you've been saying. You simply choose to be an asshole and butt into a conversation that has nothing to do with you in order to make a point I never disagreed with, because you also didn't pay any attention at all to the context.
Yes it is impossible for us to know the initial state of the system. But omniscience, by definition, is absolute knowledge, including the initial state of a system.
Yes omniscience is impossible, but I'm not the one saying god exists and is omniscient. I'm simply playing along to point out why it is impossible, or why god is fully responsible for everything if he is the creator and he is omniscient.

I repeat: Fuck off.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:BobSpence

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

Vastet, my last comment on Chaos theory was in reponse to your statement:

If the entire Earth system were known absolutely, then the weather in that system would be predictable.

which is simply wrong, and NOT consistent with what I have been saying.

However I doubt it's worth pursuing this discussion any further, especially with you getting pissed off to the point of referring back, irrelevantly, to our intercahange regarding Brian's comments. I hope others reading this have found my comments informative and/or interesting, even if you haven't.

Bye.

 

It is NOT wrong. It IS consistent with what you've been saying. You simply choose to be an asshole and butt into a conversation that has nothing to do with you in order to make a point I never disagreed with, because you also didn't pay any attention at all to the context. Yes it is impossible for us to know the initial state of the system. But omniscience, by definition, is absolute knowledge, including the initial state of a system. Yes omniscience is impossible, but I'm not the one saying god exists and is omniscient. I'm simply playing along to point out why it is impossible, or why god is fully responsible for everything if he is the creator and he is omniscient. I repeat: Fuck off.

 

This all started when some here thought they new him better than I did. This is highschool crap. He is not shattered by your ad homins nor will he lose any sleep over this. But he was simply miffed that at you over reacting to his mere disagreement. Believe me, if he reads something ANYONE says he agrees with he will say so. I did get a laugh out of you bringing me up claiming I was dumbing him down. How the fuck did I come up in all this?

Look dude, I don't mind you taking it out on me, but if you ever spent 5 minutes talking to him in voice or face to face you would know he has a very gentile personality. He dcsn't suck anyone's dick, much less mine simply because he disagrees with you sometimes.

Now to Caposkia, welcome back dude. Wondered where you went. I still have my fangs.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Oh and as far as the

 Oh and as far as the claimed attribue "omnscient" is very jermane to the topic of this thread. This thread is talking about the biblical flood and the claim "all knowing" applies to this claimed god. Trying to separate it from an ancient comic book and fictional character as if it were a lagit science topic is absurd.

There was no biblical flood and there is no such magical invisible being that is "all" anything. Science does not claim absolutes about the future, but there is pleanty of bad claims we can throw in the trash can without losing sleep over it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This all

Brian37 wrote:
This all started when some here thought they new him better than I did.

No. This started when you slipped so far down the hole of lies and delusions that it could no longer be ignored. He had nothing to do with it until he decided, for whatever reason, that your stupidity should be defended.

Brian37 wrote:
This is highschool crap.

Seeing as how you aren't even capable of high school level discussion, you're in no position to make such a comment.

Brian37 wrote:
He is not shattered by your ad homins nor will he lose any sleep over this.

So what? My goal is hardly to make Bob cry himself to sleep. My goal was to get him to stop derailing a discussion. Unsurprisingly, here you are to derail it further after he stopped.

Fuck off.

Brian37 wrote:
But he was simply miffed that at you over reacting to his mere disagreement.

It is not overreacting to slap a prick for involving himself in a debate uninvited. Especially when his goal appears to be undermining your position, when he's supposed to be on your team, without paying any attention to the context of the discussion.
You should know this by now. You've been slapped exactly the same way for exactly the same reason countless times. Hence my referring to you while I slapped him.

I don't care how nice someone might be. When they step into a discussion and attempt to undermine my position without paying any attention to where that position is grounded I'll tell them to fuck off.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
This all started when some here thought they new him better than I did.
No. This started when you slipped so far down the hole of lies and delusions that it could no longer be ignored. He had nothing to do with it until he decided, for whatever reason, that your stupidity should be defended.
Brian37 wrote:
This is highschool crap.
Seeing as how you aren't even capable of high school level discussion, you're in no position to make such a comment.
Brian37 wrote:
He is not shattered by your ad homins nor will he lose any sleep over this.
So what? My goal is hardly to make Bob cry himself to sleep. My goal was to get him to stop derailing a discussion. Unsurprisingly, here you are to derail it further after he stopped. Fuck off.
Brian37 wrote:
But he was simply miffed that at you over reacting to his mere disagreement.
It is not overreacting to slap a prick for involving himself in a debate uninvited. Especially when his goal appears to be undermining your position, when he's supposed to be on your team, without paying any attention to the context of the discussion. You should know this by now. You've been slapped exactly the same way for exactly the shame reason countless times. Hence my referring to you while I slapped him. I don't care how nice someone might be. When they step into a discussion and attempt to undermine my position without paying any attention to where that position is grounded I'll tell them to fuck off.

. Look man this is not a one on one thread first off. Secondly he has a degree in engineering which requires a shitload of math a nd science. No one is asking you .to like him or me, but prick hardly discribe him.  And obviously the context didn't come through in your post otherwise there would have been nothing for him to missunderstand if that is what you are claiming. 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:What sort

Jabberwocky wrote:

What sort of lab manipulations? Nothing was said of manipulations, was it? To my knowledge, they simply allow animals to reproduce (or in other examples I've read of, bacteria) and examine the results. Nothing more. Even if there was some sort of artificial population separation, what is it that tells you that observations made in the lab wouldn't necessarily equate to what happens in nature?
nothing equates nature like nature.  To modify that by any means is to suggest certain conditions needed to be met and may not have happened in nature even if the conditions are possible 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Why wouldn't I have used that example? Is it because it's a result of artificial selection (AKA human breeding)? Is that why you think I shouldn't have used that example?
yea, there was a lot of human influence in dog breeds.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
  I provided you examples in that above post. Did you read them? Furthermore, do you have any idea how much research I do for posts when it calls for it? I mean, I have no problem doing it, because I enjoy learning. Do you do any research while you make these posts? I provided examples of primates that are alive today that have some walking ability, but not as good as ours. I mentioned a specific example in the differences between the pelves of Au. Afarensis, and Au. Africanus, showing a progression. I mentioned that the only thing that differs in the pelves of all primates is the proportion. There is no extra bone, nothing of the sort. There is no feature in any of them so distinct that it couldn't have evolved from a common ancestor.   Now, it's late, so I'm going to try to speed through this response a bit. I do not have a complete list of fossil specimens showing a gradual evolution of the pelvis so gradual that you would accept it. The reason isn't because there isn't one. I'm actually not sure how much there is on this, but I'm almost positive that you would not accept it, because you are irrational.  I will look at a later date for myself though, as I find it fascinating. I will give you this though:
Quote:
McHenry (1994) summarizes the pelvic adaptations supporting bipedalism that are shared between A. afarensis and H. sapiens as follows:
  • Fossil specimens attributed to A. afarensis clearly indicate the presence of a lumbar lordosis, which, when combined with the thoracic kyphosis, facilitates habitual erect posture;
  • the sacral ala are expanded laterally, broadening the pelvis (creating a larger space to support the viscera);
  • the iliac blades are mediolaterally expanded (also creating more room to support the viscera), superioinferiorly shortened (making room for the lumbar lordosis), and anteriorly rotated. The rotation placed the origin of the anterior gluteals such that they became hip abductors, where they are critical to mediolateral pelvic stabilization during striding (Lovejoy, 2005). This rotation also moved the origin of the gluteus maximus muscles to positions from which they can control trunk extension sagittally at the time of heel strike;
  • the appearance of robust anterior iliac spines to support some hip and knee flexors;
  • and the appearance of a distinct iliopsoas groove, which carries another hip flexor used during bipedal gait.
(source http://www.wannabe-anthropologist.com/wba_writing_pelvis.php)Au. Afarensis (which you said was not human) sharing traits with us that are important to bipedalism. Does this not contain useful clues as to the origin of bipedalism?
it does.  I see a drastic difference in the link between example a compared to all B, C, and D.  What you describe above sounds like a good progression.  It makes sense that it's how it could have evolved.. do we have fossils of that exact evolution?
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Is it not? Ok. Then I insist that you explain to me how saying "like god" is anydifferent than saying "like magic" in any meaningful sense (where the phrases are used to explain something, as that was what this line of discussion was about) 
Ok.  God is not magic... our perception of God leads us to conclude magic but it is an irrational conclusion only because we can't comprehend God.  Magic is an excuse, not an explanation.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
I asked you for a gap, not "something like it". I want you to take what scientists believe to be the progression of simpler primates (perhaps somewhat similar to modern chimpanzees or gorillas), and name me one gap between two of those that is problematic; in your opinion, and insurmountable gap. So I ask you a third time. Name the gap. 
well it's the progression gap in general with any species.  we seem to be able to explain how a creature could evolve from one species to another, but when it comes to tangeable examples, they seem to be missing... every time.  I'm not sure what you mean by "name the gap"  meaning name the species taht the gap exists between?  for humans, probably the transitional fossile from the bent to the upright.  I'm not an expert in this field, but I haven't seen that... it seems that we see a progression of some primates eventually sort of walking upright, but the hip transition to our design is not quite there yet... then poof, there's the widened hip which allows the upright walk... how did that just happen between those two species?  Are we assuming one random moment in history one was born with the modified hip and then they all eventually followed suit?
Jabberwocky wrote:
Is it? I've never checked this. Provide me with a good easy-to-read source for it if you can. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just honestly want to know. 
um.... lemme see what I can find online... I've only read this in books and learned it from experts.  {I'm friends with a few experts in that field}well, it may not be the easiest read, but Wiki  goes into it a bit, and there's a link on that page that talks about selective breeding... that should give you the jist of it.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
So you're saying that no matter how unlikely it seems, it must be plausible because god was involved? If that's the case, you have made your conclusion and actually have no interest in discussion. 
that's not what I'm saying, but God would have taken that concern into consideration.  It is very possible that more frequent evolutionary booms occured to quickly progress the Kinds.  It is seen in our observations today therefore it is possible in nature and considering God was involved is even more likely of a possibility.  Why wouldn't it be if God was involved?  HOnestly, though we've been trying to rationalize through strictly natural means all these occurances, why is it so far fetched if God actually exists?  
jabberwocky wrote:
The scientific method isn't a "practice". It's a process. 
it is a process that is practiced just as coming to faith is a process... we can manipulate all the terminology we want, but when it comes down to it, the definition sticks.  Stop looking for excuses, are you really going to fight this?  It's not that difficult, really. 
Jabberwocky wrote:

 

*sigh*. First, I didn't say throat, did I? No. Good. Don't pretend I did. 

you said one tube.. but anyway

Jabberwocky wrote:

Second, you ignored everything I said, again! I proposed a better design that would completely separate the plumbing of these two functions to make choking not even a thing! YYou said "this works, because choking prevents the food from reaching the lungs". My solution would make this not even a remote possibility, unless you deliberately shoved food into your oxygen-hole (wherever god would have decided to put that). 

the flaw in your design is the olfactory sense.  Much of our ability to taste food is by smell... and we smell by inhaling air... if you move that, we likely would nto be able to taste very well.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have decided for religious reasons that "the way it works" is "the way it should work". I agree that there are reasons that things work the way they do. However, it is clearly NOT due to design, unless you want to credit a shitty designer. If we had the ability to re-plumb humans, that is probably a place some would begin (those who don't begin at the genitals/garbage disposals). 

you should really sit down adn think about it.. change one thing and think of all aspects that its' going to affect.  I mean, i'd rather not pee through my toe... and I'd hate to find out how hard it is to pee after I stub my urethra.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Compare

Beyond Saving wrote:

Compare my evidence to what you have presented in our other conversation about meteorology. You have shown nothing but that it can rain really hard for 1.5 minutes and then reason that it could rain close to that hard for 40 days, with no evidence that such a duration is even theoretically possible. You have declared that you 'proved' the flood was possible because of this reasoning.

On the other hand, I have shown that we have solid evidence and current examples on genes changing three different ways.

1. Hybridization-We know it has created a myriad of species because we have used it to create a myriad of species. (Mules, dogs, cats, etc.) We also know that it occurs naturally to some extent. The exact extent is admittedly unknown, but we know it has happened among species that are very distant, all the way to the kingdom level of our current scale.

2. We know that genes are transfered imperfectly close to 100% of the time. Every single instance where we can observe the genetic code of parents and child, we have observed mutations. Furthermore, we have observed among many species that some of these mutations become dominant-such as the skinks with part of their population having a large mutation causing them to give live birth. We have also observed that when populations of the same species are isolated, they mutate to the point where they are distinct enough for us to call them different species and also to the point that they can no longer interbreed (the relevant link here is the one about the mice).

Furthermore, we have observed these changes in humans. We are so genetically different from humans 2000 years ago that a genetisist a million years in the future would probably declare us different species. We are more genetically different from them than original homo-sapiens were from neanderthals. Why don't we call ourselves a different species? Some have suggested we should, but when written history makes it so easy to trace our roots it is difficult to see them as that different from us. Which is probably the largest thing you fail to grasp, the difference between species is not a bright line where you can easily say exactly when one species becomes another. Currently, the label species does not have a solid objective definition. The difference between a species and sub species is subjective.

This us exacerbated by our historical tendency to emphasize visual genetic variations when determining species. For example, in many areas, the species we label mule deer interbreed with the species we call whitetail all the time. Yet, within the whitetail species, there are 38 sub-species that are not all genetically compatable and are further related from each other than from mule deer. Yet we call them all 'whitetail' because they have the same color tail and same shape of antler growth.  

3. Genetic mutation as a result of parasites. This is another one we have no way of knowing how large or small effect it has had on speciation. Until recently, it was impossible for us to observe. As the link I have shown earlier, we have observed a radical change in insect populations, it is unknown if anything similar happened to humans, but is theoretically possible. 

 So we know that genes change at least three different ways. We know for an absolute fact that human genes have changed at least one of these ways over the last couple thousand years and we can also see a fairly significant genetic difference between children born today and people who are 100 today. I am not suggesting you believe something happened in the past that we have never observed, I am suggesting that hominids 2 mya fucked and procreated passing genes down in a manner very similar to how genes are passed today. To believe otherwise, you have to believe that what is happening right now that we are observing is the exception. 

Alright, here's the problem with your reasoning.  evolution is always happening... the flood, a one time event.  therefore evolution should have more evidence and sufficient evidence of all that allegedly occurs within its process... the flood... again only happened once and according to scripture would never happen again to that magnitude.  Initially if you remember you were questioning whether that was even meteorologically possible... I have sufficiently proven that such drastic rainfall that would need to occur within a fourty day period is quite possible.  I've also proven that significant amounts of the rainfall needed can fall in a very short period of time and that the fourty days of rain was even likely not consistent but probably moreso in waves.  

No I have not shown you an actual even that equates the flood... because it's never suppose to happen again.  Evolution again is suppose to happen again... and again and again... ti is happening as we speak and is constantly happening throughout history.  The fact that we have only equal amount of information regarding both topics should be seen as quite significant.  I can prove to you that a one time event in history was a logical factor especially if the creator of all things was conducting the process... that right there should be reasoning enough, but of course... you're trying to prove God doesn't exist through the impossibility of the flood... that is a circular illogical argument.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Yeah, you got it from creationist sites that spout it as a means of discrediting the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution, that is not what the theory is.

no, I got it from non-believers... soem on this site.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since we have compelling evidence of much smaller events that occurred long befire humans existed, why wouldn't we have evidence of this one? Like I said, the evidence wouldn't be something small. It would literally be something the size of Mount Everest or the Grand Canyon. I am as sure as can be that we have found everything that large on our planet.

the problem with that idea is if it's as big as you say, then we also must take into consideration that due to it's distance in history it likely would be found in segments and not altogether.  Geological movement has shown many times larger events are separated and/or found in more unlikely spots...

cool fact, Mount Washington in NH, a 6000 + foot peak is actually upside down.  The older rocks are at the top.  It is theorized that the glaciers rolled the mountain.  If a mountain that large could be rolled completely over, who's to say the flood shoudl be so easily found?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Like I said, that area of history bores me to tears. Study Canaan 4000 years ago. There are literally thousands of mind numbingly boring books on the subject. 

right and they all talk about Juda, the origin of the name Jewish... they may go back a bit further into the following of Ba'al and other followings that paralleled Jewish tradition and belief, but none that i have read so far have concluded an origin, rather it continues back to ironically where the origin of man is theorized to be.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Bullshit. There has never been an instabt in history that we know if where nothing happened. If nothing happened, that would be extraordinarily significant. What you are speaking of is the subjective significance YOU place on the events that occurred. Everyone else in the world puts a different significance on it and even among most of the individuals involved, it was probably completely insignificant. Just another day at the office where nothing noteworthy happened. We live in a society, as part of that our actions directly and indirectly affect others. Sometimes the effects are considered significant, sometimes they are not but they are always there and are exactly as significant as you choose to view them. There is absolutely no point in your life where others actions don't have an effect on you. So how do you determine whether a particular effect was caused by divine intervention? It seems to me that just because a series of effects benefitted you that you deem to be significantly beneficial you credit god. But what of all the effects which are significant and bad for you? Did god make those happen too?

that's a good questino though... I'm wondering if you'd be willing to asnwer that... How DO you determine whether a particular effect was caused by divine intervention?  I mean this seriously.  I want to know the answer you woudl come up with... if there really is a God, how would you know it was divine intervention?  What would prove to you it was God?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, yeah I can tell how hard you look for a rational explanation. I don't think it is just 'hokum', it just is not anything special or peculiar to religion and certainly not to a single religion. Every cult in the world has similar experiences. Drug users also have similar experiences. Mass psychology is apowerfull tool. It is only "The Spirit" if you choose to interpret it that way. Scan your brain while it is happening and we can see it isn't different from a number of human experiences and is one we can recreate.

lol, yea I'm sure you can... about as hard as you looked into the possibility of the flood right... no actually a lot more than that... but of course... effort is overrated on this thread right?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Except

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except other animals existed and were spread around the world hundreds of millions of years before primates existed. Are you now suggesting that the flood occurred hundreds of millions of years ago and somehow humanoids existed back then? I pointed out the inconsistency of Genesis as far as the order of creation and you took a very loose interpretation of 'day' to explain it. Do you now doubt that other animals existed before humans?

no... and the loose interpretatino of "day" is based on the original Hebrew word... which does not define a twenty four hour period.  Basically day was due to lack of a term in English to explain {an undetermined period of time that had a beginning and an end}

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am doubting your claims even more now. Computers only create what a program tells them to create. The program only does what a human tells it to do and only using the parameters that are input by humans. I am not talking about the 'meteorologist' you see on the six o'clock news who reads off a computer running a program the tv station paid tens of thousands of dollars for, who may or may not have taken a meteorology class or two in college. I am talking about the real meteorologists who devote their lives to analyzing weather, the models and attempt to figure out which variabkes are relevant, which are not and why our predictions are not yet 100% accurate. Computers help immesely because they can do math in a few seconds that would take a human days to do, but they don't create models without us telling them exactly which variables to use yet. Comments like this make me even more skeptical of your claims because I know a little about mathematical modeling.

Since you are unable or unwilling to share actual knowledge, I decided to give myself a quick dilettante education on weather models. What I have found seems to confirm my suspicions. Numerical weather models use numerical partial differential equations. Good news for me because such equations are also used in economic theory which is an area I take more than a pedestrian interest in. The thing about PDEs is that they can create highly accurate models, but are virtually impossible to solve exactly with real world variables. This is due to the inability to provide enough starting data that is sufficiently accurate-for example, we know that weather is affected by current temperatures, but it is impossible to have an exact accounting of the precise temperature of every square inch. It is also due to the complexity of the equations themselves. Even the largest supercomputers are forced to round numbers and even the smallest error caused by rounding becomes magnified by the time a result is rendered. Which as far as I can tell is why weather us currently only predictable for about six days out before the rounding errors and initial variable information produces largely inaccurate results. With better computers and more precise initial data, we could theoretically predict specific weather much further out. We have the tech available, but it is a question of cost.

Furthermore, I learned that weather models use the primitive equations, which if you don't know are basically the laws of physics. Conservation of momentum, thermodynamics and conservation of mass. It is these equations which puts limits on weather models and gives them a wave shape on a graph as opposed to a shape that goes to infinity. So when you say there is no limit to weather, you are literally saying that the laws of physics are completely wrong. If you could provide even a shred of evidence that such a claim was true, your name would be known alongside the likes of Newton and Einstein. Below are some of the links I learnec this from, I found the colorado state presentation very informative for a brief overview. Like I said, I started knowing little this morning, so maybe I have missed some major innovation and I certainly can't speak with authority on the subject. If I am wrong, please correct me and point me to accurate sources.

all that you said is correct... I guess I should have said we don't know the limit to weather... but instead you decide to misconstrue it to mean something completely different... now that we're all educated on how computer models work... how does this help your case and hurt mine?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have not proven anything. You have failed to point me to a single relevant source. Exactly which weather model allows for this possibility? Based on what I have read, God couldn't manipulate such a series of storms unless he was willing to blatantly violate the laws of physics. But if he was going to intrude that much, why not just snap his fingers and kill everyone he wanted dead?

Ok, I've told you that weather is a specialty of mine... it seems that you believe your'e more of an expert, so please educate me... how would such a series of storms violate the laws of physics?   

Beyond Saving wrote:

Did you even try to understand your own damn link? The 1.5 inch a minute only lasted for a minute because it was a cloudburst, which is by definition a short lived event because clouds are a finite size. You can't just arbitraily decide it might be possible to maintain for even two minutes let alone four just because it fits your myth. Also, the event isn't going to happen the next day because it is caused by two extreme temperature pressures meeting at the same time. Once they have mixed, the pressure is equalized and the ground temperature is cooler. Even if you habe another high pressure cold front, the rain will be substantially less because the temperature and pressure to create another cloud burst no longer exists and it will take a long time for it to develop again. That is based on the link you provided and the links I included today. If I am wrong, provide a link from a respectable source explaining why.

I tried to look up the maximum theoretical 24 hour rainfall. The only source I found was Dr. Lyons. I have no idea how credible he is or if any of these claims were peer reviewed. It appears credible to me. He claims the maximum physically possible amount of rain for a single location is 378 inches over 30 days. 31 feet. Even if you assumed it continued to average a foot a day, which it certainly wouldn't, you are only at 40 feet. A far cry from the 240 feet of rainfall you said was needed.

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_12893.html

 

So is Dr. Lyon a fraud? Is he wrong? Is there another meteorologist woth a competing theory? Or am I supposed to take the word of you over him?

well first... are your eally trying to see the possibility or are you set on looking for any loop holes no matter how irratinoal?

second, I never said 240 was the necessary number, it was the possible number due to the information provided.  in other words, the evidences of how much rain has fallen over periods of time suggest that 240 was possible.  

third, lets use this persons information and lets assume during the actual flood only 40 feet of rain fell... now mind you there's an extra ten days that more rain could have fallen... but what kind of damage would we expect to see from fourty feet?  certainly if a significantly less amount can kill thousands, that much rain would also be a reasonable amount considering the terrain, local water sources, etc.   The point is, you even found more possible evidence of significant amounts of rain that have fallen and you're still doubting that something worse could have happened in pre recorded history... even without a God let alone having God involved in making it happen... which then makes this whole scenario a hundred times more plausible... 

I think we're going to be circular unless we start talking about the existence of God... probably on another thread.  You are bent on finding the issues regardless of whetehr there are any or not.  I mean lets' be reasonable... a rediculous amount of rain has been proven to fall in one minute... let's cut that rainfall in even an eighth of that amount and let it do that for an hour... each day for teh duration.  that still exceeds fourty feet.  

Your'e trying to rationalize your way out of something you're not giong to rationalize your way out of... the more research we do, the more reasoning we find that within the confines of the meteorological laws of Earth it is possible.  

I'll even address your temperature differentiation theory.  yes, you're right that weather equalizes instabilities in the weather.  I live in new England where these equalizations bring severe storms every three to four days because it offsets within 45 hours.  The equalibrium in a location does not stay especially when there's a specific pattern in place.  over 40 days taht can happen a significant number of times.  If the imbalance is severe enough, the rainfall that can be brought with it can be catestrophic.  Hate to say it, but you haven't much left to stand on here.. please do answer my questino I posted to you though.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Ridiculous. In

Vastet wrote:
Ridiculous. In fact, if you knew everything presently, you could accurately predict the future. So even if god didn't technically know the future, he'd still know the future. There's no way out of this one. Either god is omniscient and the creator and completely responsible for everything that has or ever will happen, or he isn't omniscient and he becomes only slightly more benign in having created a extremely dangerous universe and subjected life to those dangers without any compassion or concern for said life.

well, I agree with you on this one except for one very important aspect... If God knows everything presently, then he would also know all POSSIBLE futures and thus would know that many different futuristic timelines could happen based on present chioces.  He likely would know the choices that were to be made based on present circumstance and could deduce the likely future, but again, if the future is not written, it cannot be known even if you think you know what is going to happen.  God being who He is can manipulate the present to work for His ideal future, but also can allow for alternative future timelines to happen which then would change the outcome of the further timelines that would occur.  

Really, you've gotten yourself in too deep.. to suggest what you are is to suggest you know everything there is to know...and you don't.

Vastet wrote:

 Can you be more specific? I don't understand the question.

is time a created thing? or is it something that God would have had to take into consideration when creating.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
well, basically what you're saying is you can't be complaining right now.  becasue right now you're just asking me for flowers.. you don't know what you're looking for.
Obviously I do know what I'm looking for. I'm looking for flowers. I don't know what kind, so I ask you to choose one. I can then accept or reject your choice. I'd probably reject your choice, but that gives me no cause to be unhappy with you. Even though your choice was rejected, you helped me narrow my decision down. Maybe if I gave you a thousand bucks and asked you to get flowers and you brought dandelions I'd get upset with you, but I would have been explicit on what kinds of flowers you shouldn't get if I was paying for it. Thusly I'd have good reason to be upset.

exactly... and yet you want to avoid that explicit detailing in our conversation about God.  why?

Vastet wrote:

Ah yes, one of the biggest mistakes a theist can make is assuming the atheist just hasn't looked hard enough. As if the theist has any idea what the atheist has or hasn't done. I've spent years looking for a god. That's how I know the theist argument so well, and why I'm so confident rejecting your religion. Even here on this site I'm looking for a theist who can actually go somewhere in an argument. I tried going to theist sites, but always get banned and have all my posts deleted for winning a debate. So I can't use them. Also, if I go to a mechanic, I DO tell them how I want them to fix it. Letting them do whatever THEY think is right simply leads to a huge bill for a lot of shit I didn't need or want. I tell them what I'm willing to spend and the type/quality of part(s) I want. I don't give them a step by step guide on what to do, I don't have to. They learned it already. If they didn't, I wouldn't be taking my car to them. You're really bad at analogies.

they were your analogies... but anyway

I haven't assumed you didn't look hard enough, but you can look as hard as you want at an apple and it's still not going to be an orange.  Usually atheists make the mistake of assuming that theists think they haven't looked hard enough.  Theists in teh past have built this reputation so thanks to them, but I understand it's more of misdirection.  If you're debating on a theist site, then you're likely not talking to the right people if you're looking for god.... e.g. you're on here debating with me, so as far as I'm concerned, you're looking to win a debate, not seek God.  I have tried to work with you as far as a conversation to start in seeking God, but you are very resistant to that.  I can't find God for you.  I cannot open your heart to God for you.  YOu actually have to make the effort if you're looking for that guidance with me.  I can guide, but you have to try.  

Is that honestly what you're trying to do here?   

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
so then you're brainwashed
So you can't accept your inability to judge me, and must resort to more childish comments in your frustration.

or I made a conclusion based on the reasoning you posted... try again... read it carefully first.  not this post, the one this originated from.  why would you think I'm judging you btw?

Vastet wrote:

I'll give you an example when you positively define non-physical as something without referring to anything physical. Until then, I can't really give you an example, because I don't know what non-physical is. I'd be stuck in your world of anything goes, seeing jesus' face on my toast and completely abandoning the science and reasoning that allows me to understand anything, I can't go there, I've learned too much. I'm not ignorant enough to make shit up as I go like theists do. Maybe such an effect did happen and I missed it. But if so, it wasn't much of an effect. Certainly nothing that would qualify as evidence for the non-physical. There aren't many things that I've experienced that I don't have a solid explanation for. And all of them that I'm not 100% certain of still have potential explanations, I just can't say with certainty which applies. NONE of them could be adequately explained by something non-physical, because they can be explained by the physical.

"So He said, 'Go forth and stand on the mountain before the Lord.' And behold, the Lord was passing by.  And a great and strong wind was rending the mountains and breaking the peices of rock before the Lord.  but the Lord was not in the wind.  and after the wind a great earthquake, but the Lord was not in the Earthquake.  After the Earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of a gentle blowing.  When Elijah heard ithe wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave.  And Behonld, a voice came to him and said. "What are you doing here Elijah."  1 Kings ninteen verses 11-14

first point.  God usually doesn't work with significant effects, so to be looking for something big would likely not help you find your way.  

Second point.  define non-physical.  The problem with that is we as humans define everything based on the physical, so to define what something non-physical is we'd always need to resort back to the physical... just to use an example, Ghosts.  "were the existence of ghosts ever be demonstrated beyond a doubt of their existence would automatically place them in the realm of the physical."  Wiki.    The best way I could define a non-physical being is to place it among the abstracts... something like the colors... colors don't have a phyical place in space and time, but we know they exist on physical objects because we see them, though there are spectrums of color that we do not see, yet in our scientific discovery we have found that they still exist.  The problem with the scientific discovery is we still depended on physical aspects to determine this.  

Does this help at all?

Vastet wrote:
 I wouldn't make something up to rationalise an event. But if an explanation is available I won't think on it much, even if that explanation isn't actually the explanation (not that I'd know that at the time). It makes logical sense that if the non-physical could affect the physical, then it would. And it would do so repeatedly. And eventually someone would realise that something was happening that had no explanation. And they'd test it and write about it. Which would get others interested, and they'd write about it. And today it'd be in school texts everywhere, a challenge to all to find the explanation. Scientists everywhere would seek it out. Since such is not the case, and since I've never experienced anything that was completely unexplainable, I can dismiss the idea as fanciful nonsense.

well, considering the definition above.. many people have written about it and documented the occurances, but there is still a large number of skeptics and so because they aren't actually a part of the physical, cannot be proven though written documentation or even apparently video documentation as some have exampled... 

Vastet wrote:
 If god wants or needs us to do anything, then he certainly needs to prove he exists first. The only mistake here is your counterclaim. No god can expect anything of its creation when it hides itself. It doesn't have the right to expect anything. It has no business judging anyone, and it has no business taking any interest at all. If it does, then we are morally superior to god, since we can make exceptions for people who break laws they didn't know exist. We do it all the time. Whenever a new law is made or a law is changed, the police take an educational role instead of a punitive one. As do the courts. We also do it with children. When a child lies or steals for the first time, we don't throw them in prison. We teach them not to do it. Where is your god? It certainly isn't teaching anyone anything. Yet your religion would have me believe it wants to. Well I'm willing. Why is it hiding instead of teaching?

God is teaching us every day.  He has commissioned Us, his followers to be teh teachers while He's away for this time, but He has inspired a very large and exhaustive book, brought a physical manifestation known as Jesus Christ to people and has promised to return.. He goes on to say blessed are those who beleive and yet do not see... part of that is a challenge in faith and perserverence... I understand it helps us grow in our relationship... NO God is not absent, He just isn't sitting in the town square saying; "hey all, here I am.. yup, I'm really God... no I don't do autographs, please just accept me for who I am."  He's expecting those who are honestly interested in knowing Him to open their hearts and minds to Him.  

The thing is, if you can't trust His followers.. how can you trust Him?  and by His followers I dont' mean any person calling themselves a Christian, I mean true followers.  You say you're willing yet I see a lot of resistance from you.  Are you willing only if the evidence is physically presented?  

I'm willing to help you if you're honeslty willing.  

Vastet wrote:

If you want to stick to reality then stop talking about made up superbeings. While you're at it, I gave a second response based on the not-YEC-view, and it amuses me greatly that you just continue cherry picking little bits of what I say as if that was all I said. Can I then assume that since you have no response, your position is that we have 196,000 years to go before jesus returns?

so much for being willing.

Vastet wrote:

That doesn't tell me anything. I can't stomach the bible enough to read the whole thing. It's the worst writing I've ever encountered, and it is filled with vile and horrible things. If these are supposed to refer to church attendance, youthful rebellion, and people who love themselves being new, then you're living in a fantasy world far beyond my comprehension. Youth are rebellious. Always have been, always will be. Church attendance rises when catastrophe strikes, and falls when all is generally peaceful. Your church may be losing followers in some parts of the world, but gaining in others (honestly, your religion plateaued. It has reached as many people as it is going to. It can only go down from here. That is the unenviable future for anything that achieves dominance: there's nowhere left to go but second place). And people have always loved themselves, so again there's no prophecy to be found. If you want to convince me that it contains prophecies that are coming true, you're going to have to point out the prophecy and how it came true. Generally speaking, copy/pasting is frowned on here, but there are exceptions and this qualifies. Also, it isn't likely that the original writers of the bible or their estates are going to send cease and desist letters.

look at morals a hundred years ago then look at morals today.. tell me prophesy is not being fulfilled.  Better yet, look at statistics of sex, crime, marriage, etc in teh same time frame.  What do you see?

the progressino of Chrsitianity is currently in the South... I mean south of the Equator.  The north is losing focus.  There's a whole book on that.  The next Christiandom.  

Scriptures are not meant to be read like a normal book.  They are to be studied and cross referenced... individual books can be read like a normal book.  

Vastet wrote:

Uh uh. The oldest complete copy of the bible is from the 4th century. Hundreds of years after jesus, thousands of years after the birth of the religion that gave rise to christianity. The earliest writing of the new testament dates to the 2nd century. Absolutely NO writings or scriptures exist that could be considered the original work. So in fact you do not have sound reason to assume the writings used to make the bible are true to the original. Most or all of the books of the new testament are assumed to have been written 50 years to 110 years after jesus' birth (so he was already long dead before any were written). The oldest surviving fragments date to 15 years afterwards. And most came hundreds of years later. You have no solid history at all. A 15 year period is 15 years longer than it would take to change something. Not to mention who knows how long the new testament was passed on orally. There's a massively huge window for altering anything or everything.There's no original work remaining from the old testament either, so it is equally suspect. There's so much faith needed to believe your religion is true that it is astonishing anyone is gullible enough to fall for it.

You're right, but it's the consistency with what we have that leads a logical conclusion that the origins ahve not been changed.  The books were written much further from their time, but then again, people didn't have access to computers at the time... the compilation of a book did take a considerably larger amount of time to complete.  Also, as you said, the writings were done a bit later... does that mean the information wasn't documented until that time as well?

Vastet wrote:

There's a list of contradictions somewhere around here. Noone ever refuted them all. Maybe a couple of them, but a couple out of hundreds still leaves hundreds. I know for a fact you never refuted them all, and I know for a fact that the topic has been active since before you joined. Maybe you even responded to it, but you never refuted it. You can't, they are contradictions that exist within the bible. Anyone can pick up a bible and see them for themselves.

never huh... yea, you really are making an effort here. [sarcasm]

Vastet wrote:

\here is nothing to justify this. Just a typical theist who's been reduced to begging for mercy via emotional strings that aren't actually attached to anything. Maybe without christianity your life would be pointless and you'd have nothing to believe in anymore, but you're already there anyway so I don't get the hesitation. You'll be much better off getting to find real meaning in life than you will be stuck to a god that doesn't exist who's telling you your meaning with the mouths of people. Kinda sad that you're so empty that you'd say something like this. You need to start living while you still can. The clock is ticking.

another big misconceptino is that followers of God aren't living.  I find Christians... true Christians that is, are crazier than non-beleivers.  they're also a lot freer when being crazy... not so concerned with the small things.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote: There are

BobSpence wrote:

 There are at least two things which prevent perfect prediction of future events:

1. Quantum effects, which mean that the outcome of any interaction can only be known within a finite level of probability, within which pure randomness prevails.  For example, we can calculate with great preciison the probability that a given radio-active atom will decay in the next second, but the exact moment of decay is the most purely random event we know of.

2. Chaos effects, which arise in situations of non-linear feedback, where the effect of any interaction can be, in principle, amplified by an infinite amount, which means in practice that the outcome can be changed completely by an arbitrarily small change in the initial conditions. These effects are what puts definite limits on how far ahead we can predict the course of weather events, no matter how detailed our knowledge of the current state of the atmosphere.

So the reality is that, while things are not completely random, there is a degree of ultimate uncertainty in virtually any process. "Absolute knowledge of today" would NOT allow you "absolute knowledge" of the next second, let alone "forever".

Note that the quantum effects are part of empirical science, albeit a realm of Science which has been very thorougly confirmed. OTOH, chaotic interactions are mathematically derived, so we can be evem more confident that they exist.

...and if there was anyone who would know what they were talking about in this department, it would be you... thank you for your input.  It's good to see you again.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:That is

Jabberwocky wrote:

That is absolutely fascinating stuff! I would love to learn more for sure. 

When it comes to comparing to a god though, omniscience is a word that theists like to redefine as "knowing all that can be known". The question is, for a god, is knowledge of this randomness beyond his ability, or not? If it is, the word omniscience comes into disrepute as some try to change its definition. 

I love this stuff too.  I think the question is knowing and determining.  Omniscience is not redefined by stating the quote above.  Omniscience is infinite knowledge... to suggest that it is restricted to knowing all that can be known is not limiting it to be anything less than still infinite knowledge... If it cannot be known than it is not known.  Bob spence explained it better using Quantum science, but infinite knowledge does suggest no limit to that knowledge but knowledge is still limited to what can be known universally.  

So for example, if there ever was something taht was knowable taht God didn't know, then He would not be omniscient, but if all knowable things are known to God, then God is omniscient by definition... the infinite aspect comes in when new things come possible to be known which then God would also know at that time... if that is even possible, which it likely is not, but then again, i wouldn't know.  that infinite knowledge would also imply that God knows all lines of future possibilities... to suggest that God knows the exact line of future events is reasonable if that is knowable based on present happenings, but understanding that there are many possible future timelines, any change in a future event can change the lineage which then would not have been known until the time of change.  God also is all powerful, therefore He is able to manipulate a present even to redirect a future into the timeline He wants it to go in.  Therefore, the idea of predestination is a possibility and I see reasoning as to why people believe taht is a reality, but I don't see reasoning in scripture to suggest taht God actually dictates the present to keep the future perfectly in line with Gods ideals... if that were so I believe there would never have been a fall in the beginning.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:BobSpence

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:
The science of Chaos Theory depends the FACT that we CANNOT know the EXACT state of a system with PERFECT precision and that the slightest error can have major effects on the future behaviour of the system.
I said that already. And it doesn't matter worth a shit, because WE are not OMNISCIENT.
BobSpence wrote:
'Omniscience' is not a coherent concept, it does not deserve a place in rational discussion, except to point out the problems with it.
Try telling that to a theist. Have you forgotten the context of the topic? I'll remind you. Caposkia, the theist, and I were having a discussion on his theism before you so rudely interrupted with comments inapplicable to our discussion. Fuck off.  

seriously dude?  I see what Bob is adding is very relevant.  Bob is right, it is not a coherent concept.  it actually has a very open definition of "limitless"... a concept again that is not coherent... nothing we can comprehend is limitless.  I accept that about the definition.  

Just for the record... Bobspence's input up to this point is very relevant to my theism.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Now to

Brian37 wrote:

Now to Caposkia, welcome back dude. Wondered where you went. I still have my fangs.

Hey Brian... I saw you on another thread and then you disappeared?  I've been "back" for quite a while, where've you been?.. in fact, i never really took a break.  I think we've just been missing each other.  Hope all is well with you.  If you're here to stay, welcome 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Oh and as

Brian37 wrote:

 Oh and as far as the claimed attribue "omnscient" is very jermane to the topic of this thread. This thread is talking about the biblical flood and the claim "all knowing" applies to this claimed god. Trying to separate it from an ancient comic book and fictional character as if it were a lagit science topic is absurd.

There was no biblical flood and there is no such magical invisible being that is "all" anything. Science does not claim absolutes about the future, but there is pleanty of bad claims we can throw in the trash can without losing sleep over it.

I see your infinite wisdom and rationalism still preceeds you.  You haven't changed a bit.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Boys believe nothing by turning away & doubt Whispered I as I do

Boys believe nothing by turning away & doubt Whispered I as I do

 

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 Oh and as far as the claimed attribue "omnscient" is very jermane to the topic of this thread. This thread is talking about the biblical flood and the claim "all knowing" applies to this claimed god. Trying to separate it from an ancient comic book .. Science does not claim absolutes about the future,  but there is pleanty of bad claims  we can throw in the trash can  without losing sleep over it.

I see your infinite wisdom and rationalism still preceeds you.  You haven't changed a bit.

  HEY Cap --

 

  This is Dana. I have a mini-situation  that has arisen of late  and would like a character witness  based on what I have written. Any return in the form a reply need only be an honest one from you, K ?


 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 Oh and as far as the claimed attribue "omnscient" is very jermane to the topic of this thread. This thread is talking about the biblical flood and the claim "all knowing" applies to this claimed god. Trying to separate it from an ancient comic book and fictional character as if it were a lagit science topic is absurd.

There was no biblical flood and there is no such magical invisible being that is "all" anything. Science does not claim absolutes about the future, but there is pleanty of bad claims we can throw in the trash can without losing sleep over it.

I see your infinite wisdom and rationalism still preceeds you.  You haven't changed a bit.

Neither have you, which is why both the good cops and bad cops on this board are double teaming you. We will break you and you will end up eating barbecue kittens with us. But either way life is boaring if you simply only preach to the chior. As long as we both know it is just a frey and everyone gets to go home at night, glad to have one of my favorite chewtoys back.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That is absolutely fascinating stuff! I would love to learn more for sure. 

When it comes to comparing to a god though, omniscience is a word that theists like to redefine as "knowing all that can be known". The question is, for a god, is knowledge of this randomness beyond his ability, or not? If it is, the word omniscience comes into disrepute as some try to change its definition. 

I love this stuff too.  I think the question is knowing and determining.  Omniscience is not redefined by stating the quote above.  Omniscience is infinite knowledge... to suggest that it is restricted to knowing all that can be known is not limiting it to be anything less than still infinite knowledge... If it cannot be known than it is not known.  Bob spence explained it better using Quantum science, but infinite knowledge does suggest no limit to that knowledge but knowledge is still limited to what can be known universally.  

So for example, if there ever was something taht was knowable taht God didn't know, then He would not be omniscient, but if all knowable things are known to God, then God is omniscient by definition... the infinite aspect comes in when new things come possible to be known which then God would also know at that time... if that is even possible, which it likely is not, but then again, i wouldn't know.  that infinite knowledge would also imply that God knows all lines of future possibilities... to suggest that God knows the exact line of future events is reasonable if that is knowable based on present happenings, but understanding that there are many possible future timelines, any change in a future event can change the lineage which then would not have been known until the time of change.  God also is all powerful, therefore He is able to manipulate a present even to redirect a future into the timeline He wants it to go in.  Therefore, the idea of predestination is a possibility and I see reasoning as to why people believe taht is a reality, but I don't see reasoning in scripture to suggest taht God actually dictates the present to keep the future perfectly in line with Gods ideals... if that were so I believe there would never have been a fall in the beginning.  

Bob only opined as to why humans might never be able to know. We had this discussion about a year ago in another thread which led me to start seriously studying quantum physics. At the time, my ignorance in the field was huge. Bob's position is certainly the mainstream in the field right now, personally, I remain skeptical. I believe that some point in the future there will be a major breakthrough that is going to turn our current understanding of quantum physics on its head. I believe that the only reason anything appears random is because we don't understand it enough. The sole basis of that belief is all the other things in the world we believed were random in the past and it turns out they are not.

You and Vastet are not talking about what might or might not be possible for humans, you are talking about what might or might not be possible for a deity. A deity so powerful that it not only knows everything knowable, but also CREATED everything. Therefore, this being knows absofuckinglutely exactly how EVERYTHING works. The only possible way something could be random to such a being, is if it intentionally MADE it random. For such a being to then get angry with us mere mortals who are incapable of knowing even everything we know is possible to know when something it CREATED to be random to the point even it doesn't know and didn't come up with the result it wanted is ridiculous. The result could have been anything god wanted. God either wanted everything to turn out exactly as it is or god intentionally made things truly random. Either way, the only one who can be blamed is god. Blaming humans for it is no different than the gambling addict who blames the cards for not being right.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Alright,

caposkia wrote:

Alright, here's the problem with your reasoning.  evolution is always happening... the flood, a one time event.  therefore evolution should have more evidence and sufficient evidence of all that allegedly occurs within its process... the flood... again only happened once and according to scripture would never happen again to that magnitude.  

Floods happen all the time. We have evidence of literally thousands of floods, all were much smaller than the flood suggested in this story. We know what evidence of a flood looks like, we know that the larger the flood the larger the evidence, so it is quite rational to conclude that if a much larger flood occurred, there would be much larger amounts of evidence that it occurred. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Initially if you remember you were questioning whether that was even meteorologically possible... I have sufficiently proven that such drastic rainfall that would need to occur within a fourty day period is quite possible.  I've also proven that significant amounts of the rainfall needed can fall in a very short period of time and that the fourty days of rain was even likely not consistent but probably moreso in waves.

You have not sufficiently proven that such rainfall is possible. You have offered nothing except that sufficiently heavy rains have occurred for 1.5 minutes. My cliff notes version of Meteorology 101 quickly revealed that what is possible in 1.5 minutes is not physically possible for even an hour let alone 40 days straight. I have repeatedly asked for a reference to an expert who has a theory that such rain is possible. The only authority I have telling me it is possible is you, and I don't believe you because you also believe that humans were farming 2 million years ago and a bunch of other batshit crazy beliefs that I thought you didn't need to be an expert to laugh off as absurd. 

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

No I have not shown you an actual even that equates the flood... because it's never suppose to happen again.  Evolution again is suppose to happen again... and again and again... ti is happening as we speak and is constantly happening throughout history.  The fact that we have only equal amount of information regarding both topics should be seen as quite significant.  I can prove to you that a one time event in history was a logical factor especially if the creator of all things was conducting the process... that right there should be reasoning enough, but of course... you're trying to prove God doesn't exist through the impossibility of the flood... that is a circular illogical argument.  

I am not trying to prove god doesn't exist. I have said so a million fucking times. Whether or not the flood occurs bears no relation to the existence or non-existence of a deity. I would actually see it as a positive for god if the flood never happened because a god that slaughters every living being over a situation he created is flat out evil in my book. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

no, I got it from non-believers... soem on this site.

I'll bet you can't provide a single quote from a regular here who said that. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

the problem with that idea is if it's as big as you say, then we also must take into consideration that due to it's distance in history it likely would be found in segments and not altogether.  Geological movement has shown many times larger events are separated and/or found in more unlikely spots...

cool fact, Mount Washington in NH, a 6000 + foot peak is actually upside down.  The older rocks are at the top.  It is theorized that the glaciers rolled the mountain.  If a mountain that large could be rolled completely over, who's to say the flood shoudl be so easily found?  

Well we can discover something that was done by a measley glacier. A world wide flood is a hell of a lot larger, so why can't we find anything caused by that? 

 

Caposkia wrote:

right and they all talk about Juda, the origin of the name Jewish... they may go back a bit further into the following of Ba'al and other followings that paralleled Jewish tradition and belief, but none that i have read so far have concluded an origin, rather it continues back to ironically where the origin of man is theorized to be.

Bullshit. The history of ANY religion is much shorter than the history of homo sapien and that is if your definition of man is ONLY homo sapien (which throws your 2 million year ago flood theory out the window). There sure as hell is no evidence that homo erectus practiced any religion at all. It is doubtful that the species was mentally capable of coming up with the idea of a deity. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

that's a good questino though... I'm wondering if you'd be willing to asnwer that... How DO you determine whether a particular effect was caused by divine intervention?  I mean this seriously.  I want to know the answer you woudl come up with... if there really is a God, how would you know it was divine intervention?  What would prove to you it was God?  

I don't know. It seems for the modern religious that everything good that happens is caused by divine intervention and everything bad that happens is caused by free will. There have been times in history where people readily blamed god for all the bad such as the fire and brimstone sermons popular in the 1700's, which I think is a far more logical way of viewing the biblical god. 

As far as proving god, doing something that blatantly breaks the laws of physics would be a good start. Stop the Earth from spinning for 15 seconds with zero negative consequences. It wouldn't be absolute proof of god, but it would certainly plant a seed. Since he is all knowing, it should be easy for him to come up with an idea. I'm a mere mortal. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, yeah I can tell how hard you look for a rational explanation. I don't think it is just 'hokum', it just is not anything special or peculiar to religion and certainly not to a single religion. Every cult in the world has similar experiences. Drug users also have similar experiences. Mass psychology is apowerfull tool. It is only "The Spirit" if you choose to interpret it that way. Scan your brain while it is happening and we can see it isn't different from a number of human experiences and is one we can recreate.

lol, yea I'm sure you can... about as hard as you looked into the possibility of the flood right... no actually a lot more than that... but of course... effort is overrated on this thread right?

I believe I have put a significant amount of effort into this thread. Probably, far more effort than is rational. I've entertained theories from you that probably deserved to simply be laughed off as flat out ridiculous. Instead, I went through the effort to find evidence to show that your theory is ridiculous. If there is any point I have raised that you feel I did not provide sufficient evidence for, tell me. I have more links to resources much smarter than me. I am skeptical of EVERY claim, religious or not.

In my personal life, my business life, when someone says something I start digging for evidence that either supports it or fails to support it. If I can't find evidence the claim is true, I assume it is false. If I had a dollar every time someone presented me with some business idea that 'guaranteed' I would make an assload of money I would be underpaying my secretary like Warren Buffett. So get over it, it isn't because your claim is religious. That is how I treat all claims. Also, it is how claims are treated in science journals. The claims that survive the brutality of having everyone else try to shred them and prove them wrong are the ones that become mainstream science.   

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence regarding the meteorology, which IS a testable and provable claim. There should be some experts out there who have created models theorizing it is true. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except other animals existed and were spread around the world hundreds of millions of years before primates existed. Are you now suggesting that the flood occurred hundreds of millions of years ago and somehow humanoids existed back then? I pointed out the inconsistency of Genesis as far as the order of creation and you took a very loose interpretation of 'day' to explain it. Do you now doubt that other animals existed before humans?

no... and the loose interpretatino of "day" is based on the original Hebrew word... which does not define a twenty four hour period.  Basically day was due to lack of a term in English to explain {an undetermined period of time that had a beginning and an end}

Yeah, whatever. I've accepted your loose interpretation of day. So can you answer the relevant questions? Do you agree that other animals existed long before humans? 

 

Caposkia wrote:

all that you said is correct... I guess I should have said we don't know the limit to weather... but instead you decide to misconstrue it to mean something completely different... now that we're all educated on how computer models work... how does this help your case and hurt mine?

It hurts your significantly because weather is limited and while we might not know the exact limit, we know what is close to the limit and your hypothesis about the flood requires something that far exceeds what we believe is close to the limit. All of the models would have to be dramatically wrong for the possibility you claim to have "proven" to be possible.

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have not proven anything. You have failed to point me to a single relevant source. Exactly which weather model allows for this possibility? Based on what I have read, God couldn't manipulate such a series of storms unless he was willing to blatantly violate the laws of physics. But if he was going to intrude that much, why not just snap his fingers and kill everyone he wanted dead?

Ok, I've told you that weather is a specialty of mine... it seems that you believe your'e more of an expert, so please educate me... how would such a series of storms violate the laws of physics?

Read the links I provided. Like I said, my education is limited to what I found on page one of Google. It is quite clear from the links that weather is not infinite and is controlled by the laws of physics. There is a physical limit to how long heavy rains can last, there is a physical limit to how closely those storms can happen in time and the models are close to recognizing what the limit is. The rain you hypothesized is well outside the range predicted by all the models I looked at. Since weather is a specialty of yours, it should be easy for you to tell me why I am wrong. Please provide links, because frankly I don't trust your word; everything I read goes opposite what you claimed earlier.

Caposkia wrote:

well first... are your eally trying to see the possibility or are you set on looking for any loop holes no matter how irratinoal?

I love nudity in all forms except assertions. Naked men, naked women, naked sauce, naked wings, naked truth, Bare Naked Ladies etc. Love them all. Naked assertions- not a fan. I've repeatedly asked you to provide evidence. I would love to find evidence that such a storm is possible, it would be pretty damn awesome.

 

Caposkia wrote:

second, I never said 240 was the necessary number, it was the possible number due to the information provided.  in other words, the evidences of how much rain has fallen over periods of time suggest that 240 was possible.

Except that according to the models, 240 is NOT possible. Given that I knew absolutely nothing when that statement was made, I had no evidence at all that it wasn't possible and the only evidence I had for it was your word. That is why I started researching, and everything I read- which I linked to here- says that it is not possible and that 240 feet in 40 days is a laughably ridiculous claim. Someone who specializes in weather should have known that such a claim is ridiculous on its face. Yet you made it anyway. So there are only a few possibilities

1. You exaggerated about your knowledge in the field meteorology

2. You knew the claim was ridiculous but you made it anyway hoping I would buy it

3. Wherever you got your meteorology education needs to send you a refund

4. The claim isn't ridiculous and 240 feet in 40 days might be possible in that case:

      a) I am completely wrong in my interpretation and you should be able to set me straight

      b) the currently accepted beliefs in the field of meteorology are completely wrong

 

Which is it? I suspect either 1 or 2 and I really hope that it is 1 because 2 is pretty offensive to me on a number of levels. 

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

third, lets use this persons information and lets assume during the actual flood only 40 feet of rain fell... now mind you there's an extra ten days that more rain could have fallen... but what kind of damage would we expect to see from fourty feet?  certainly if a significantly less amount can kill thousands, that much rain would also be a reasonable amount considering the terrain, local water sources, etc.   The point is, you even found more possible evidence of significant amounts of rain that have fallen and you're still doubting that something worse could have happened in pre recorded history... even without a God let alone having God involved in making it happen... which then makes this whole scenario a hundred times more plausible...

I have never doubted that significant amounts of rain has happened and that significant floods have killed thousands of people in the past. We KNOW that has happened and we KNOW where, we KNOW approximately when. And it is easy to see how a person 5,000-10,000 years ago who just had their whole village wiped out in a flood would describe it as flooding the whole world and wiping out all of humanity. From their perspective, it was the whole world and every other human they knew died or can't be located. Add in a little exaggeration and a deity in the story telling over a couple hundred years, and it is very logical to expect the story of Noah. 40 feet is a shitload of rain and would cause a shitload of problems. But it isn't worldwide, it isn't going to kill every living creature on Earth and its worst effects are going to be localized and your boat isn't going to land on top of a mountain. We know approximately what 40 feet of rain would do, because we have seen close to that happen. Hint: it wasn't a worldwide flood and not everyone in the world, or even the village died. Most of the world didn't even notice.   

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

I think we're going to be circular unless we start talking about the existence of God... probably on another thread.  You are bent on finding the issues regardless of whetehr there are any or not.  I mean lets' be reasonable... a rediculous amount of rain has been proven to fall in one minute... let's cut that rainfall in even an eighth of that amount and let it do that for an hour... each day for teh duration.  that still exceeds fourty feet.

How the hell is 40 feet anywhere near enough? Not only am I "bent" on finding issues, I'm finding that dozens of them actually exist. I found a source I believe is credible. Like I said, I started knowing virtually nothing about the topic, so for all I know Dr. Lyon is the Amit Goswami of meteorology. You are the one who is supposed to be the specialist in this topic so tell me. Yet you continue to calculate potential rainfall using linear math and every credible source I have seen has confirmed that weather is not linear.

 

Caposkia wrote:
  

Your'e trying to rationalize your way out of something you're not giong to rationalize your way out of... the more research we do, the more reasoning we find that within the confines of the meteorological laws of Earth it is possible.

WHERE?!?!? All we have done is suggest that 40 feet MIGHT be possible. That is still above the maximum that Dr. Lyon suggests is possible and still above what all the models say is possible, but it is close enough that I will entertain the notion that it is possible.  

 

Caposkia wrote:

I'll even address your temperature differentiation theory.  yes, you're right that weather equalizes instabilities in the weather.  I live in new England where these equalizations bring severe storms every three to four days because it offsets within 45 hours.  The equalibrium in a location does not stay especially when there's a specific pattern in place.  over 40 days taht can happen a significant number of times.  If the imbalance is severe enough, the rainfall that can be brought with it can be catestrophic.  Hate to say it, but you haven't much left to stand on here.. please do answer my questino I posted to you though.

Okay, so if it takes 3-4 days, which is your number that I have not bothered finding any resource to confirm or deny it could happen 10-11 times in 40 days. Even if you assumed every 3-4 days you have 24 hours of world record rainfall, you are only at 50-60 feet. A lot of rain, yes. Not a worldwide flood. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Look man this

Brian37 wrote:
Look man this is not a one on one thread first off.

It remains extremely rude to interrupt a 1 on 1 conversation regardless of whether the topic is specifically for 1 on 1 debate. Fuck off.

Brian37 wrote:
Secondly he has a degree in engineering which requires a shitload of math a nd science.

And I don't. Yet somehow I'm still right and he's still an ass. And you're a dumb ass. Fuck off.

Brian37 wrote:
No one is asking you .to like him or me, but prick hardly discribe him.

It describes him just fine. Fuck off.

Brian37 wrote:
 And obviously the context didn't come through in your post otherwise there would have been nothing for him to missunderstand if that is what you are claiming. 

Bullshit. The context came through just fine. The issue arose because Bob is a lazy prick who didn't bother looking at my actual posts. He read a quote and decided he had to step in to enlighten me, and instead made an ass of himself. And then you decided to do the same, but all you're capable of doing is being an ignorant prick. I expect nothing more from you and I'm never disappointed. Bob on the other hand generally isn't an ignorant prick. But I guess this topic proves he's as capable of it as you are. Sad.
Fuck off.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:well, I agree

caposkia wrote:
well, I agree with you on this one except for one very important aspect... If God knows everything presently, then he would also know all POSSIBLE futures and thus would know that many different futuristic timelines could happen based on present chioces.  He likely would know the choices that were to be made based on present circumstance and could deduce the likely future, but again, if the future is not written, it cannot be known even if you think you know what is going to happen.  God being who He is can manipulate the present to work for His ideal future, but also can allow for alternative future timelines to happen which then would change the outcome of the further timelines that would occur.

So then you believe it would have been possible to have a perfect world if only all people had made the right choices. But that's still bullshit. The earth itself, and much of the life on it, is decidedly fatal to humanity. Disease, volcanoes, earthquakes, debris in space, the sun, oceans, and lots more are constant dangers to people, who's choices do not have much or any impact against said dangers. Many of these things are stupidly predictable, even to a lowly human. A god would find them self evident. Yet here they are.
And there are no 'possible' futures in any case. Unlimited, perfect knowledge equates to a 0% failure rate in prediction.

caposkia wrote:
Really, you've gotten yourself in too deep.. to suggest what you are is to suggest you know everything there is to know...and you don't.

Someone show Cap a mirror please, so he can read this to himself.

caposkia wrote:
is time a created thing? or is it something that God would have had to take into consideration when creating.

Without time there can be no change, and no god. No creation, no thought. If there is a god, time existed before it did. Or at the very least, it came to be simultaneously with that god. There certainly was no god before there was time.

caposkia wrote:
exactly... and yet you want to avoid that explicit detailing in our conversation about God.  why?

I told you already. You aren't capable of understanding it. You have no appreciation for evidence or the scientific method or logic. I think I gave you an example anyway, though perhaps I'm thinking of a discussion with someone else. In case I didn't, a suspension of any of the laws of physics would pretty much only be explained by a god, so that would do well for an example. Of course, that wouldn't prove it was your god, but you have to start somewhere.
Ultimately, what I would want as evidence is irrelevant, as such I don't think on it. Your god is omnipotent and omniscient. I'm quite confident it can prove itself to me without needing my help.
If, of course, it exists.

caposkia wrote:
hey were your analogies... but anyway

LOL No they weren't. They are all yours. The road, the car, everything brought up by YOU.

caposkia wrote:
I haven't assumed you didn't look hard enough,

Yes you did. You said so plain as day.

caposkia wrote:
but you can look as hard as you want at an apple and it's still not going to be an orange.

Great, bring in another analogy so you can later claim I brought it up. rofl.

I'm not trying to see an apple. This analogy is so flawed it's like the perfect representation of why theists are irrational. Maybe you try to see something specific when you look around (which illustrates why you see proof of god everywhere), but I don't. I just look. Whatever I see is what I see. I don't try to sort all my senses through a filter.
You theists think atheists are just like you, they just use a anti-god filter instead of a god filter. But most of us don't use a filter. Brian37 might have one. In fact I'd bet he does. But the rest of us don't filter. We absorb everything, and try to make it all fit together so it has a practical use.
Some theists are capable of doing both simultaneously (and accomplished great things along the way), but they are few and far between. Most just use their god filter to force everything under one roof. And they can never understand the atheist position so long as that filter is firmly in place.

caposkia wrote:
e.g. you're on here debating with me, so as far as I'm concerned, you're looking to win a debate, not seek God.  I have tried to work with you as far as a conversation to start in seeking God, but you are very resistant to that.  I can't find God for you.  I cannot open your heart to God for you.  YOu actually have to make the effort if you're looking for that guidance with me.  I can guide, but you have to try.  

Is that honestly what you're trying to do here?

Not exactly. I'm kinda trying to win a debate, but in doing so I seek someone who can defeat me.
You're quite right that you can't bring me to god. I've irrevocably destroyed your credibility too much for that to be even remotely possible. If anything, you've reaffirmed my position that your god exists only in your mind.
Maybe one day I'll find a theist who can debate me and actually has equal or greater understanding than myself, and they can bring me to god. But it won't be through my heart. I don't give my emotions power over my daily life, over my philosophy. You have to go through my mind. My logic, my knowledge, my understanding. Once a concept is accepted on that level, I allow my emotions to look it over to see how I feel about it. Not before. Emotions are a very untrustworthy thing to use to understand anything, as I've learned the hard way on more than a few occasions.

caposkia wrote:
or I made a conclusion based on the reasoning you posted... try again... read it carefully first.  not this post, the one this originated from.  why would you think I'm judging you btw?

I did that the 1st time. Ever since hooking my PS3 up to a HDTV drastically reduced, if not completely eliminated, my text limit; I've been able to use the 6 windows the PS3 can display at once to scroll back through any discussion I'm taking part in with a twitch of my fingers. I recommend you try it, so you can be more accurate when you make claims on previous comments. If you're on a computer, you won't even be limited to 6 windows.
Why would I think you're judging me? Because you are:

"You are apparently incapable of being honest wtih yourself."

That's a judgement. Furthermore, it's a judgement you can't possibly have any justification for. You don't even know me personally, and even knowing me personally wouldn't necessarily grant you that kind of insight on my character. You'd really have to spend time inside my head to know whether or not I'm honest with myself.
Perhaps if I'd given you some evidence to work with you could infer it, but no such evidence can be found. I don't lie. And when I'm wrong I adjust my position accordingly. I might be rude and ungracious in the process, but I might take it well. There's been a few times I was proved wrong here. I think Beyond Saving has the largest victory record over me, so he should be able to attest that it has happened. Generally speaking, many of our discussions have ended in stalemates, but there have been some clear victories won by him. I like to think I've won a few, but none come immediately to mind.

At any rate, I'm not brainwashed, and I'm ruthlessly honest with myself and everyone else. If I ever lie, it is an act of self defence (inapplicable on the internet), or a trap I'm hoping my prey falls into.

caposkia wrote:
"So He said, 'Go forth and stand on the mountain before the Lord.' And behold, the Lord was passing by.  And a great and strong wind was rending the mountains and breaking the peices of rock before the Lord.  but the Lord was not in the wind.  and after the wind a great earthquake, but the Lord was not in the Earthquake.  After the Earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of a gentle blowing.  When Elijah heard ithe wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave.  And Behonld, a voice came to him and said. "What are you doing here Elijah."  1 Kings ninteen verses 11-14

first point.  God usually doesn't work with significant effects, so to be looking for something big would likely not help you find your way.

So no dice on suspending gravity for a second or two eh? How disappointing. It would have been interesting.
Fortunately I'm not actually looking for anything specific. My mind is open to a multitude of possibilities.
As a matter of fact, such a voice as elijah experienced would certainly put shivers down my spine. Especially if it called me Vastet. Where's my voice? There would only be 3 possible conclusions:
1: Someone figured out who I am in real life. And while anyone working for a spy service could be capable of figuring it out, they'd REALLY have to work for it. My identity on the internet has been completely limited to a few identities that have no links to myself. I made a few errors here and there, so I'm sure someone working hard enough with sufficient resources and a 16 year archive of every site I ever went to with complete realtime direct access to all my emails and email accounts would figure it out fairly quickly. There are a very few people who've known my real identity, but none of them have motivation to volunteer that info to anyone, nor are they the type to play a trick on me.
2: God just spoke to me. Holy fuck.
3: I'm hearing things, hallucinating. Well problem with that is I don't hallucinate. I've been on lsd and mushrooms both, nothing. Oh I got fried, but no hallucinating. It was disappointing to be honest. So I have to reject this one, because I'm not insane. And I'm perfectly qualified to say so. I swear.

So in a twist of irony, a simple voice has a higher likelyhood for god than the other possibilities. I want a voice.

caposkia wrote:
Second point.  define non-physical.  The problem with that is we as humans define everything based on the physical, so to define what something non-physical is we'd always need to resort back to the physical... just to use an example, Ghosts.  "were the existence of ghosts ever be demonstrated beyond a doubt of their existence would automatically place them in the realm of the physical."  Wiki.    The best way I could define a non-physical being is to place it among the abstracts... something like the colors... colors don't have a phyical place in space and time, but we know they exist on physical objects because we see them, though there are spectrums of color that we do not see, yet in our scientific discovery we have found that they still exist.  The problem with the scientific discovery is we still depended on physical aspects to determine this.  

Does this help at all?

Not really, but I much appreciate your honesty.

caposkia wrote:
well, considering the definition above.. many people have written about it and documented the occurances, but there is still a large number of skeptics and so because they aren't actually a part of the physical, cannot be proven though written documentation or even apparently video documentation as some have exampled... 

No. What you have is a few million examples of people looking for a god, and accepting all kinds of stupid things as evidence. Did you hear about the jesus toast? Do you believe that god actually influenced the bread and toaster so an image of jesus would appear? I rather doubt you do. But I could be wrong.
At any rate, probability alone accounts for the toast. You put enough pieces of bread in enough toasters and you'll get a huge display of unique art. Some will look like jesus, some like luke skywalker. Some will just be burned black.
I have yet to see anything that would suggest an immaterial existence. I've never seen a ghost, never experienced 'lost time'. I've never had any experience that wasn't completely accountable to the physical world, where adding non-physical sources would simply raise more questions than it answered.

BTW, I'll take the opportunity to shit on wikipedia. If ghosts were proven to exist, that wouldn't necessarily mean they were physical. They'd have to be measurable with physical equipment too. If the immaterial does exist, then it stands to reason there would be immaterial tools that could potentially be usable. If such tools were used to prove ghosts exist, then ghosts could remain the incorporeal beings they are suggested to be.
END thought experiment. No need to respond to this, I'm just allowing my mind to wander for a break.

caposkia wrote:
God is teaching us every day.  He has commissioned Us, his followers to be teh teachers while He's away for this time, but He has inspired a very large and exhaustive book, brought a physical manifestation known as Jesus Christ to people and has promised to return.. He goes on to say blessed are those who beleive and yet do not see... part of that is a challenge in faith and perserverence...

I just can't buy that. What little of the book I've read simply screams out that it was written by ignorant people who were trying to explain everything. And does as good a job as I'd expect.
There's no evidence at all for jesus. If you take evolution and jesus and compare the evidence for both, you get the bible and a few pages of non-contemporary evidence for jesus, and a stack of books reaching beyond the moon for evolution.
If I'm to be kind and compare jesus not to a theory but another person in history, jesus still loses. No matter what historical figure I pick (except possibly other christian characters or characters from other religions), jesus is just not credible.

caposkia wrote:

I understand it helps us grow in our relationship... NO God is not absent, He just isn't sitting in the town square saying; "hey all, here I am.. yup, I'm really God... no I don't do autographs, please just accept me for who I am."  He's expecting those who are honestly interested in knowing Him to open their hearts and minds to Him.

What, there's no middle ground? The fact is that some people can believe in things for which there is no evidence, and some people just can't. I'm in the latter category. Even trying to believe makes me feel like a liar. Trying to believe anything that I don't KNOW makes me feel like a liar. Where's the relief for people like me? Does god only care about people who have the facility to believe in things that are unproven?

caposkia wrote:
The thing is, if you can't trust His followers.. how can you trust Him?

One thing at a time. I can't trust his followers because he said so, and personal experience backs it up. Trusting him is a bridge that can wait until I know he's there in the first place.

caposkia wrote:
and by His followers I dont' mean any person calling themselves a Christian, I mean true followers.

Everyone who calls themselves a christian says the same thing. How am I supposed to know? NOONE follows the bible absolutely and perfectly. I could take your word for it, but if you're wrong or lying then I'm fucking myself even more than I already am. Better I think to trust that if there is a god and that god is good, he'll forgive my inability to believe in him and won't take it into consideration. I think it far more risky to put faith in the wrong god than to do without faith.

caposkia wrote:
You say you're willing yet I see a lot of resistance from you.  Are you willing only if the evidence is physically presented?  

I'm willing to help you if you're honeslty willing.

I appreciate your willingness, but I don't think you can't help me. I'm getting close to the point where I don't think anyone can help me believe in a god. Even disregarding the why's way above near the top of this response leave other whys unmentioned. Some that are part of the discussion, and some that aren't (and will remain that way so I don't end up spending way too much time writing).

Don't think for a second that my resistance is conscious. While I do have a certain amount of conscious resistance to the idea of a god, it is entirely based on my involuntary and unconscious inability to believe in things that have no proof. You are more likely to convince me there's a unicorn on Pluto than that your god exists. That's because a trip to Pluto is feasible, and bringing a horse with a mutation that caused it to have a horn with you isn't outside the realm of possibility. It could probably be done today if someone was willing and able to spend the cash it would take to make it happen.
All gods cross a line though, at least all the ones I'm familiar with. They are really nothing more than the first superheroes man invented. They all require a certain... unreality is the only word I can come up with at the moment. In order for them to be real, the universe must be far different from what it seems to be. It's far more likely that the universe is exactly as it appears, and that gods are simply figments of the imagination.

caposkia wrote:
seriously dude?  I see what Bob is adding is very relevant.  Bob is right, it is not a coherent concept.  it actually has a very open definition of "limitless"... a concept again that is not coherent... nothing we can comprehend is limitless.  I accept that about the definition.  

Just for the record... Bobspence's input up to this point is very relevant to my theism.

Then you didn't read it properly. Bob rejects the concept of omniscience as absolutely ridiculous and impossible, and he gave a little bit of information as to why that is. You embrace omniscience as a characteristic of your god. Now it's true that your view of omniscience is a tiny tiny tiny bit closer to being possible than omniscience as defined by the English language, but not by any significant amount. Bob, and myself to some extent, reject omniscience outright as being as impossible as your god is. Knowing the velocity of every single particle in the universe would mean you don't know the location of any of them. So if you really want to take a step closer to reality, you'll have to drop the omniscience thing altogether. You don't necessarily have to disbelieve in god, but you can't suggest he knows everything. If he knew everything, the uncertainty principle would not apply to him, and predicting the future would be as simple as walking.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: And when I'm

Vastet wrote:
And when I'm wrong I adjust my position accordingly. I might be rude and ungracious in the process, but I might take it well. There's been a few times I was proved wrong here. I think Beyond Saving has the largest victory record over me, so he should be able to attest that it has happened. Generally speaking, many of our discussions have ended in stalemates, but there have been some clear victories won by him. I like to think I've won a few, but none come immediately to mind.

The only thing slightly incorrect here is "might". No, you are always rude and ungracious (and stubborn) in the process- if you weren't I would think I was being punked. Until two months later your position is modified when the topic comes up again. I'm the same way, noone likes to admit losing, or worse being wrong so recently after putting so much effort into defending a position before discovering it is indefensible.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
lol I really try to take

lol I really try to take being wrong well, it just doesn't tend to work out very often. It has got to be one of my greatest flaws. Sometimes I wonder if I can ever unlearn something without getting pissed off. Emotions can be really annoying sometimes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:  HEY

danatemporary wrote:

  HEY Cap --

 

  This is Dana. I have a mini-situation  that has arisen of late  and would like a character witness  based on what I have written. Any return in the form a reply need only be an honest one from you, K ?


 

Ok, you know I would be.  What's that about?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That is absolutely fascinating stuff! I would love to learn more for sure. 

When it comes to comparing to a god though, omniscience is a word that theists like to redefine as "knowing all that can be known". The question is, for a god, is knowledge of this randomness beyond his ability, or not? If it is, the word omniscience comes into disrepute as some try to change its definition. 

I love this stuff too.  I think the question is knowing and determining.  Omniscience is not redefined by stating the quote above.  Omniscience is infinite knowledge... to suggest that it is restricted to knowing all that can be known is not limiting it to be anything less than still infinite knowledge... If it cannot be known than it is not known.  Bob spence explained it better using Quantum science, but infinite knowledge does suggest no limit to that knowledge but knowledge is still limited to what can be known universally.  

So for example, if there ever was something taht was knowable taht God didn't know, then He would not be omniscient, but if all knowable things are known to God, then God is omniscient by definition... the infinite aspect comes in when new things come possible to be known which then God would also know at that time... if that is even possible, which it likely is not, but then again, i wouldn't know.  that infinite knowledge would also imply that God knows all lines of future possibilities... to suggest that God knows the exact line of future events is reasonable if that is knowable based on present happenings, but understanding that there are many possible future timelines, any change in a future event can change the lineage which then would not have been known until the time of change.  God also is all powerful, therefore He is able to manipulate a present even to redirect a future into the timeline He wants it to go in.  Therefore, the idea of predestination is a possibility and I see reasoning as to why people believe taht is a reality, but I don't see reasoning in scripture to suggest taht God actually dictates the present to keep the future perfectly in line with Gods ideals... if that were so I believe there would never have been a fall in the beginning.  

Bob only opined as to why humans might never be able to know. We had this discussion about a year ago in another thread which led me to start seriously studying quantum physics. At the time, my ignorance in the field was huge. Bob's position is certainly the mainstream in the field right now, personally, I remain skeptical. I believe that some point in the future there will be a major breakthrough that is going to turn our current understanding of quantum physics on its head. I believe that the only reason anything appears random is because we don't understand it enough. The sole basis of that belief is all the other things in the world we believed were random in the past and it turns out they are not.

You and Vastet are not talking about what might or might not be possible for humans, you are talking about what might or might not be possible for a deity. A deity so powerful that it not only knows everything knowable, but also CREATED everything. Therefore, this being knows absofuckinglutely exactly how EVERYTHING works. The only possible way something could be random to such a being, is if it intentionally MADE it random. For such a being to then get angry with us mere mortals who are incapable of knowing even everything we know is possible to know when something it CREATED to be random to the point even it doesn't know and didn't come up with the result it wanted is ridiculous. The result could have been anything god wanted. God either wanted everything to turn out exactly as it is or god intentionally made things truly random. Either way, the only one who can be blamed is god. Blaming humans for it is no different than the gambling addict who blames the cards for not being right.  


It is my understanding that God made a self sufficient design.  He made it to work perfectly and balance itself where imbalances occur.  He then created us to be in charge of that design and allowed us to make choices on our own accord for ourselves and that design.  I agree that much of what we see as random likely is not, but has a purpose.  It is interesting though that we are discovering how purposeful everything really is step by step. 

The problem with your perception is that God can choose anything...  God can choose to let us make our own choices... but then because He chose that, he's completely responsible for what we chose?  that makes no sense.  He has given us a whole book to guide us in our choices.. most of us in the world choose to ignore or manipulate the intent of the book and then try to blame the creator for our ignorance when it was a choice we decided to make.  God could have made us robots, but then what fun is that?  How do you build a relationship with a robot?  You can't.  God wants relationships, not minions. 

Consider what you said about the gambling addict... now they could blame the cards for not bieng right, or they could take the cards they got and make the best of it... in other words, if they have nothing, make everyone think you have something big and when they fold, you take what they have.  If you happen to be delt a great hand, take it in stride and string people along a bit before chopping them down.  In both instances you win.  A gambling addict would know this trick, but if they're blaming the cards, then they've gotten too greedy and will end up losing everything. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Floods

Beyond Saving wrote:

Floods happen all the time. We have evidence of literally thousands of floods, all were much smaller than the flood suggested in this story. We know what evidence of a flood looks like, we know that the larger the flood the larger the evidence, so it is quite rational to conclude that if a much larger flood occurred, there would be much larger amounts of evidence that it occurred. 

if its discoverable... do you think that all major floods have been discovered in history?   do you think that it is possible to find evidence for all major floods in history considering the geology of this planet?

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have not sufficiently proven that such rainfall is possible. You have offered nothing except that sufficiently heavy rains have occurred for 1.5 minutes. My cliff notes version of Meteorology 101 quickly revealed that what is possible in 1.5 minutes is not physically possible for even an hour let alone 40 days straight. I have repeatedly asked for a reference to an expert who has a theory that such rain is possible. The only authority I have telling me it is possible is you, and I don't believe you because you also believe that humans were farming 2 million years ago and a bunch of other batshit crazy beliefs that I thought you didn't need to be an expert to laugh off as absurd. 

I get the feeling that your'e looking for an example in meteorology of a 40 day flood event.... it just doesn't happen like that unless it was written down.  What I have shown you... let's go through it.

-- weather happens usually in waves

-- specific patterns in weather can cause constant rains in one area and severe droughts in other areas

-- drastic amounts of rain have been recorded to have fallen in short periods of time... a minute, an hour etc. 

Let's put it in perspective... What kind of flooding would you expect if any of a multi-inch rainfall happening in a minute and a half?  What if even just that multi-inch rainfall happened for one minute every day for 40 days and no other rain?  could it be possible that the flooding would be catestrophic?  That's a large amount of rain... Not realistic?

ok, let's put a rainforest type rainfall in a more arid location like a desert area... do you know what that would do to the land?  A land that is not conditioned to soak in such a volume of water like a rainforest can?  second class of meteorology 101, Earth that is not accustom to rain cannot absorb large amounts of rain and thus it will yeild flash floods where other locations wouldn't be fazed. 

Basically a proven volume of rainfall happening in the wrong area of the world can also cause catestrophic flooding... Really, you can come up with all the excuses you want, there's no way out of it... it's meteorologically possible...

Just to add insult to injury here, don't you think that if God was real, He would know how to manipulate His creation to make such a flood happen?  I mean that would be the simple most obvious answer to this really. 

You can come up with all the excuses you want... when it comes down to it, it really has nothing to do with me trying to convince yout hat the flood actually happened, it has to do with you accepting the existence of God.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am not trying to prove god doesn't exist. I have said so a million fucking times. Whether or not the flood occurs bears no relation to the existence or non-existence of a deity. I would actually see it as a positive for god if the flood never happened because a god that slaughters every living being over a situation he created is flat out evil in my book. 

or just if they all were rapists and murderers right?  or should all rapists and murderers be allowed to continue their crimes. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'll bet you can't provide a single quote from a regular here who said that. 

I'm not going to try and hunt the quotes down... If you're so inclined to prove me wrong though, you can start by looking at the Atheist Crusaders thread... likely said on there once or twice...... then again, you said regular... I can't be sure they were regulars..

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well we can discover something that was done by a measley glacier. A world wide flood is a hell of a lot larger, so why can't we find anything caused by that? 

you're still under the impression that the flood was litereally world wide huh...

Beyond Saving wrote:

Bullshit. The history of ANY religion is much shorter than the history of homo sapien and that is if your definition of man is ONLY homo sapien (which throws your 2 million year ago flood theory out the window). There sure as hell is no evidence that homo erectus practiced any religion at all. It is doubtful that the species was mentally capable of coming up with the idea of a deity. 

I love how when you don't have a rational defense or legitimate answer for something you're word of the day ends up being "bullshit".  Sure it maybe buys you some time, but it doesn't help your case.

Gee, could it be that there's no evidence of practiced religion becuase humans that far back in history likely didn't have the understanding or even need to make the artifacts and/or writings to support such a following?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't know. It seems for the modern religious that everything good that happens is caused by divine intervention and everything bad that happens is caused by free will. There have been times in history where people readily blamed god for all the bad such as the fire and brimstone sermons popular in the 1700's, which I think is a far more logical way of viewing the biblical god. 

As far as proving god, doing something that blatantly breaks the laws of physics would be a good start. Stop the Earth from spinning for 15 seconds with zero negative consequences. It wouldn't be absolute proof of god, but it would certainly plant a seed. Since he is all knowing, it should be easy for him to come up with an idea. I'm a mere mortal. 

well, all of these moments that I'm aware of where He might have broken any laws of physics without negative consequences have been documented in the Bible.  Are you suggesting that maybe God shoudl stop the Earth from spinning every 50 years or so just to make sure people like you believe in Him?  Does that sound logical to you?  

Also, from what I can tell, you dont' want to know God, so with all the negative things you have to say about Him, why would He stop the whole planet from spinning just so you can believe?  Yes, I'm sure it's not just for you right?  Still doesn't make sense... If you look at world wide statistics, God doesn't need to do that to get the majority to "believe". 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I believe I have put a significant amount of effort into this thread. Probably, far more effort than is rational. I've entertained theories from you that probably deserved to simply be laughed off as flat out ridiculous. Instead, I went through the effort to find evidence to show that your theory is ridiculous. If there is any point I have raised that you feel I did not provide sufficient evidence for, tell me. I have more links to resources much smarter than me. I am skeptical of EVERY claim, religious or not.

well, same here really... and so far I feel everything you have provided so far wasn't sufficient be it that I have confronted all of it... now yes, you've come up with reasoning as to why you had trouble accepting my reasoning and I'd come back with why I had trouble accepting your reasoning, but all in all, regardless of what we think of each other's reasoning, it has been insufficient.  The gist i get from you is I haven't meteorologically proven to you that such a flood has happened, so it must not have, there is no evidence we've found... and you seem to be still on the world wide flood rather than localized as I had discussed way back in this thread considering the migration patterns of people at the theorized time in history... theorized mind you by us on this thread from back and forth discussion... so more of a guess really... can't even call it a theory, which then makes any attempt at discrediting human ability at the time of the flood insufficient until we can better solidify an actual date.  This goes along with the evolution of creatures be it that we never officially defined "Kind" and ultimately came up with excuses as to why it was such an unrealistic term... even though we don't understand it.   Be it that we can't determine "Kind" we also then can't determine exactly how many pairs of animals were actually on the arc and thus any excuse taht they either couldn't have evolved in time to be where they are today or couldn't have fit are also insufficent until we can solidify a more concrete definition of "Kind". 

So all in all, all this "sufficient evidence" that has been provided against the possibility of the flood has been based off of... well... guesses really... which makes that evidence less than sufficient until we can come up with more empirical guesses... which then could be deemed legitimate theories... and then likely should be published in some science journal because we then would be the first to come up with such detailed hypotheses about the Noah flood.  So you can provide more links if you want, but I'm sure they'll likely be based off the guesses we've already made and the assumptions you stick with regardless of what has already been discussed in this thread which will then deem those links insufficient for support of your reasoning.

Beyond Saving wrote:

In my personal life, my business life, when someone says something I start digging for evidence that either supports it or fails to support it. If I can't find evidence the claim is true, I assume it is false. If I had a dollar every time someone presented me with some business idea that 'guaranteed' I would make an assload of money I would be underpaying my secretary like Warren Buffett. So get over it, it isn't because your claim is religious. That is how I treat all claims. Also, it is how claims are treated in science journals. The claims that survive the brutality of having everyone else try to shred them and prove them wrong are the ones that become mainstream science.   

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence regarding the meteorology, which IS a testable and provable claim. There should be some experts out there who have created models theorizing it is true. 

well, based on what you just said, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence yourself then  and you logically woudl deem this claim true.  but for some reason, i feel your reasoning is going to change now.

Be it that meteorology is a strength of mine and you admitted to knowing very little about it, what is your basis?  YOur assumption that there should be models theorizing such an event is not realistic... meteorology can come up with plausible models, but they mean nothing until we actually observe them in actual weather patterns... If you watch the movie "The day After Tomorrow" the storms they show in that movie are based off of actual models theorizing how the ice age actually came into being.  Why are they just in the movies?  because they mean nothing until we see it happen because it's only a model.  There are many out there who believe that storms could never become that large on Earth based on the simple fact that we've never seen a storm get that big and cause such a drastic change in temperature.  does that mean then that the ice age never happened?  no, of coures not, there's all kinds of evidence for it happening, but what's in question is how it happened, quick or slow.. based on other evidence we have, the theory is that it came on rather suddenly. 

also, let's use your reasoning for a moment about a "mere glacier'  if a mere glacier can roll a six thousand foot mountain, why is it so hard to believe geology could have very effectively covered up teh major flood event of Noah's time to a degree that has not allowed us to find it yet? 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yeah,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, whatever. I've accepted your loose interpretation of day. So can you answer the relevant questions? Do you agree that other animals existed long before humans? 

yes

Beyond Saving wrote:

It hurts your significantly because weather is limited and while we might not know the exact limit, we know what is close to the limit and your hypothesis about the flood requires something that far exceeds what we believe is close to the limit. All of the models would have to be dramatically wrong for the possibility you claim to have "proven" to be possible.

Everything in the universe is limited if you want to look at it that way... there is a finite amount of energy and energy is not created or destroyed.. therefore there can never be more power than the universe can muster.  What that limit is is far beyond our comprehension though.  I love how though we haven't a clue to the limit of weather on Earth you still seem to think you have an iron clad reasoning as to why this particular flood could have never happened.  I have provided not one or two, but several examples of rediculously extreme weather that could constitute even just a fraction of the flood's weather pattern and you've decided that it couldn't happen despite your lack of knowledge on the subject... I love how you do that. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Read the links I provided. Like I said, my education is limited to what I found on page one of Google. It is quite clear from the links that weather is not infinite and is controlled by the laws of physics. There is a physical limit to how long heavy rains can last, there is a physical limit to how closely those storms can happen in time and the models are close to recognizing what the limit is. The rain you hypothesized is well outside the range predicted by all the models I looked at. Since weather is a specialty of yours, it should be easy for you to tell me why I am wrong. Please provide links, because frankly I don't trust your word; everything I read goes opposite what you claimed earlier.

Alright, first let's explain how everything I claim goes opposite of what I've claimed earlier.  I have read your links.. not very helpful for your case.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I love nudity in all forms except assertions. Naked men, naked women, naked sauce, naked wings, naked truth, Bare Naked Ladies etc. Love them all. Naked assertions- not a fan. I've repeatedly asked you to provide evidence. I would love to find evidence that such a storm is possible, it would be pretty damn awesome.

it would be it that no one has found that evidence yet... why do you think I'm more capable than those who have dedicated their lives to it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except that according to the models, 240 is NOT possible. Given that I knew absolutely nothing when that statement was made, I had no evidence at all that it wasn't possible and the only evidence I had for it was your word. That is why I started researching, and everything I read- which I linked to here- says that it is not possible and that 240 feet in 40 days is a laughably ridiculous claim. Someone who specializes in weather should have known that such a claim is ridiculous on its face. Yet you made it anyway. So there are only a few possibilities

Alright, show me your reasoning Ted F.  I mean summarize it... tell me how what you've researched has sufficiently proven that 240 ft in 40 days is not possible.... oh, and "it hasn't happened" isn't sufficient. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Okay, so if it takes 3-4 days, which is your number that I have not bothered finding any resource to confirm or deny it could happen 10-11 times in 40 days. Even if you assumed every 3-4 days you have 24 hours of world record rainfall, you are only at 50-60 feet. A lot of rain, yes. Not a worldwide flood. 

but enough to wipe out life where necessary.  agian, you need to reread some of this thread.. we've already confirmed the worldwide idea as not necessarily true. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So then you

Vastet wrote:
So then you believe it would have been possible to have a perfect world if only all people had made the right choices. But that's still bullshit. The earth itself, and much of the life on it, is decidedly fatal to humanity. Disease, volcanoes, earthquakes, debris in space, the sun, oceans, and lots more are constant dangers to people, who's choices do not have much or any impact against said dangers. Many of these things are stupidly predictable, even to a lowly human. A god would find them self evident. Yet here they are. And there are no 'possible' futures in any case. Unlimited, perfect knowledge equates to a 0% failure rate in prediction.

which God has proven over and over again in the Bible... that would go onto a whole new topic of prophesy. 

But it's all bullshit to you...

Vastet wrote:

 Someone show Cap a mirror please, so he can read this to himself.

Did the mirror thing... I never claimed to know everything.

Vastet wrote:

Without time there can be no change, and no god. No creation, no thought. If there is a god, time existed before it did. Or at the very least, it came to be simultaneously with that god. There certainly was no god before there was time.

now please support your reasoning... all of it empirically on the statement you just made.

Vastet wrote:

I told you already. You aren't capable of understanding it. You have no appreciation for evidence or the scientific method or logic. I think I gave you an example anyway, though perhaps I'm thinking of a discussion with someone else. In case I didn't, a suspension of any of the laws of physics would pretty much only be explained by a god, so that would do well for an example. Of course, that wouldn't prove it was your god, but you have to start somewhere. Ultimately, what I would want as evidence is irrelevant, as such I don't think on it. Your god is omnipotent and omniscient. I'm quite confident it can prove itself to me without needing my help. If, of course, it exists.

oh God is quite capable of proving Himself to you, but why do you think God works that way? 

Vastet wrote:

Not exactly. I'm kinda trying to win a debate, but in doing so I seek someone who can defeat me. You're quite right that you can't bring me to god. I've irrevocably destroyed your credibility too much for that to be even remotely possible. If anything, you've reaffirmed my position that your god exists only in your mind. Maybe one day I'll find a theist who can debate me and actually has equal or greater understanding than myself, and they can bring me to god. But it won't be through my heart. I don't give my emotions power over my daily life, over my philosophy. You have to go through my mind. My logic, my knowledge, my understanding. Once a concept is accepted on that level, I allow my emotions to look it over to see how I feel about it. Not before. Emotions are a very untrustworthy thing to use to understand anything, as I've learned the hard way on more than a few occasions.

When we say your heart, it's not about emotions, but acceptance and open-mindedness.  I can tell you're trying to win a debate the whole time, unfortunately you're not even debating, you're just running.   yes, i know you don't see it that way, but it's excuse after excuse... you're looking for someone with greater knowledge than you, well He came on... a non-believer mind you, but He made a very relevant comment and you said "fuck off".  no, I'm not referring to Brian, but I'm glad I saw that interaction... it was basically proof that in your mind, no one will ever prove you wrong because you're convinced you're right.  

Your perceptions are way off for these types of conversations... you will not win debates... you have not even begun debating.  You have irrevocably destroyed your credibility as far as I'm concerned really.  I have talked to you as long as I have becuase you have shown me glimmers of intelligence here and there and I was hoping I could coherese you into an intelligent conversation or debate, but every time we get close, you start running again.  Honestly, do you care to have a real debate?

Vastet wrote:

 "You are apparently incapable of being honest wtih yourself." That's a judgement. Furthermore, it's a judgement you can't possibly have any justification for.

alright, how about your comment about having difficulty accepting when you're wrong... I've notice that happens a lot, but you finally admitted it in a previous post.  I woudl say that's justification right there.

Vastet wrote:

 So no dice on suspending gravity for a second or two eh? How disappointing. It would have been interesting. Fortunately I'm not actually looking for anything specific. My mind is open to a multitude of possibilities. As a matter of fact, such a voice as elijah experienced would certainly put shivers down my spine. Especially if it called me Vastet. Where's my voice? There would only be 3 possible conclusions: 1: Someone figured out who I am in real life. And while anyone working for a spy service could be capable of figuring it out, they'd REALLY have to work for it. My identity on the internet has been completely limited to a few identities that have no links to myself. I made a few errors here and there, so I'm sure someone working hard enough with sufficient resources and a 16 year archive of every site I ever went to with complete realtime direct access to all my emails and email accounts would figure it out fairly quickly. There are a very few people who've known my real identity, but none of them have motivation to volunteer that info to anyone, nor are they the type to play a trick on me. 2: God just spoke to me. Holy fuck. 3: I'm hearing things, hallucinating. Well problem with that is I don't hallucinate. I've been on lsd and mushrooms both, nothing. Oh I got fried, but no hallucinating. It was disappointing to be honest. So I have to reject this one, because I'm not insane. And I'm perfectly qualified to say so. I swear. So in a twist of irony, a simple voice has a higher likelyhood for god than the other possibilities. I want a voice.

somehow i feel like that wouldn't even work, because you would rationalize some other cause for the voice you think you heard... or you'd likely second guess the occurrance altogether.

Vastet wrote:

  adding non-physical sources would simply raise more questions than it answered.

definitely does

Vastet wrote:

  What, there's no middle ground? The fact is that some people can believe in things for which there is no evidence, and some people just can't. I'm in the latter category. Even trying to believe makes me feel like a liar. Trying to believe anything that I don't KNOW makes me feel like a liar. Where's the relief for people like me? Does god only care about people who have the facility to believe in things that are unproven?

no, there is no middle ground with God.  and God cares about everyone... proof as you should know is subjective... what is proof for one person is not proof for another regarding the same subject... granted there are universal proofs that most of humanity can't argue, but God is not one of them... Believers have proof... as far as a believer is concerned, God is proven in many many ways, to a nonbeliever, of course God is unproven.  The releif for people liek you is the realization that proof is in your head. 

Vastet wrote:

 One thing at a time. I can't trust his followers because he said so, and personal experience backs it up. Trusting him is a bridge that can wait until I know he's there in the first place.

Where did God say not to trust His followers?

Everyone who calls themselves a christian says the same thing. How am I supposed to know? NOONE follows the bible absolutely and perfectly. 

no one you know anyway... of course no one is perfect, but there are those out there who actually use the Bible as their guide to life.  Those people you can see a difference in.. they are very different from the rest when you meet them in life. 

Vastet wrote:

 I appreciate your willingness, but I don't think you can't help me. I'm getting close to the point where I don't think anyone can help me believe in a god. Even disregarding the why's way above near the top of this response leave other whys unmentioned. Some that are part of the discussion, and some that aren't (and will remain that way so I don't end up spending way too much time writing). Don't think for a second that my resistance is conscious. While I do have a certain amount of conscious resistance to the idea of a god, it is entirely based on my involuntary and unconscious inability to believe in things that have no proof. You are more likely to convince me there's a unicorn on Pluto than that your god exists. That's because a trip to Pluto is feasible, and bringing a horse with a mutation that caused it to have a horn with you isn't outside the realm of possibility. It could probably be done today if someone was willing and able to spend the cash it would take to make it happen. All gods cross a line though, at least all the ones I'm familiar with. They are really nothing more than the first superheroes man invented. They all require a certain... unreality is the only word I can come up with at the moment. In order for them to be real, the universe must be far different from what it seems to be. It's far more likely that the universe is exactly as it appears, and that gods are simply figments of the imagination.

If what you posted above is a bit of insight into your thought process, then I have a close friend that is just like that.  I understand what you are saying. 

Vastet wrote:

Then you didn't read it properly. Bob rejects the concept of omniscience as absolutely ridiculous and impossible, and he gave a little bit of information as to why that is. You embrace omniscience as a characteristic of your god. Now it's true that your view of omniscience is a tiny tiny tiny bit closer to being possible than omniscience as defined by the English language, but not by any significant amount. Bob, and myself to some extent, reject omniscience outright as being as impossible as your god is. Knowing the velocity of every single particle in the universe would mean you don't know the location of any of them. So if you really want to take a step closer to reality, you'll have to drop the omniscience thing altogether. You don't necessarily have to disbelieve in god, but you can't suggest he knows everything. If he knew everything, the uncertainty principle would not apply to him, and predicting the future would be as simple as walking.

I know Bob does not agree with what i believe, but his input was still relevant and helpful.  I respect him for his scientific knowledge.  I've had conversations with him in the past.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:which God has

caposkia wrote:
which God has proven over and over again in the Bible... that would go onto a whole new topic of prophesy. 

The bible isn't even 2000 years old. It is not proof of a god. It is proof that people can make up a bunch of things and get other people to believe those things.

caposkia wrote:
now please support your reasoning... all of it empirically on the statement you just made

The support comes from the definition of the terms. Time isn't an entity, it is a method of measuring change. If nothing changes, then time doesn't exist. If time doesn't exist, then nothing changes. The probable smallest measurement of time is a planck second. It should not be possible to have a smaller measurement, according to the laws of physics. It is the time it takes for light to travel a planck length in a vacuum. A planck length is 1.616199(97)×10 ^-35 metres, It is significantly smaller than a proton. This paragraph describes the smallest measure of time that is possible if we are not mistaken about the laws of physics. Since it is the same laws that allow us to have aeroplanes and running water it is safe to assume we have the laws of physics down.
A thought takes considerably longer than a planck second to form. Without any planck seconds, thought is impossible. It takes trillions of planck seconds just for you to blink. Without any planck seconds, you can not blink. In order for thought or action to take place, there must be time. If anything exists, and can change in anyway, then time must exist so that change can occur. Thus time > god, even if there is a god.

caposkia wrote:
oh God is quite capable of proving Himself to you, but why do you think God works that way? 

I don't care much how he works. If he wants me to have faith in him then there's only one path for it to be possible: he has to prove himself. I cannot believe in him without proof of him. Period.

caposkia wrote:
When we say your heart, it's not about emotions, but acceptance and open-mindedness.

Acceptance is an emotional state. Open mindedness doesn't equate to blindly believing in anything.

caposkia wrote:
I can tell you're trying to win a debate the whole time, unfortunately you're not even debating, you're just running.

I'm not running at all. I'm hunting. But your cowardly god hides from me.

caposkia wrote:
yes, i know you don't see it that way, but it's excuse after excuse..

I'm not the one making excuses.

caposkia wrote:
you're looking for someone with greater knowledge than you, well He came on... a non-believer mind you, but He made a very relevant comment and you said "fuck off".

He doesn't have greater knowledge than me. I demonstrated quite adequately that I was already aware of everything he referred to, and how it was inapplicable and irrelevant to the discussion. And it is inapplicable and irrelevant to the discussion.
Furthermore, he was not trying to lead me towards your god anyway, so he doesn't qualify under the parameters I specifically laid out.

caposkia wrote:
no, I'm not referring to Brian, but I'm glad I saw that interaction... it was basically proof that in your mind, no one will ever prove you wrong because you're convinced you're right.  

You are describing yourself. I haven't been proved wrong, in or outside my mind, so all you're doing is laying red herrings.

caposkia wrote:
Your perceptions are way off for these types of conversations... you will not win debates... you have not even begun debating.

You say that because you've lost again and need to save face in your retreat from the debate.

caposkia wrote:
You have irrevocably destroyed your credibility as far as I'm concerned really.

That's funny. Polly wanna cracker?

For those who don't get it, I'm pointing out he's just repeating my dismissal of his credibility, as if anyone's credibility had been destroyed but his own.

caposkia wrote:
I have talked to you as long as I have becuase you have shown me glimmers of intelligence here and there and I was hoping I could coherese you into an intelligent conversation or debate, but every time we get close, you start running again.  Honestly, do you care to have a real debate?

We've been having one. I haven't counted how many naked assertions and claims I've refuted or fallacies I've pointed out, but there's been dozens. You've yet to win a single point. And no, I'm not referring to a score.

caposkia wrote:
alright, how about your comment about having difficulty accepting when you're wrong... I've notice that happens a lot, but you finally admitted it in a previous post.  I woudl say that's justification right there.

No no I don't have any difficulties accepting I'm wrong. I just don't take it well. I still accept I'm wrong and change my perspective accordingly.
It doesn't happen very often at all. In all the years I've been here I have been demonstrably wrong fewer times than I have fingers. And there was never a theist on the other side of the discussion.

caposkia wrote:
somehow i feel like that wouldn't even work, because you would rationalize some other cause for the voice you think you heard... or you'd likely second guess the occurrance altogether.

No I already pointed out the alternative explanations and dismissed them as being less probable than a god. I did so humourously so maybe you thought I was being sarcastic, but I was serious as well as attempting to be mildly amusing.

caposkia wrote:
no, there is no middle ground with God.

Then god is irrational. There's always a middle ground. The universe isn't black and white, it is full of colours.

caposkia wrote:

proof as you should know is subjective... what is proof for one person is not proof for another regarding the same subject.

Proof is objective, not subjective. It is true that someone can under some conditions accept things for proof subjectively, but the equations that describe gravity are not subjective proof. If you use them to do something like fly, you are likely to succeed. If you ignore them and try to do it another way you will certainly fail. The existence of gravity cannot be subjectively dismissed. Proof is as simple as letting go of any object that weighs more than the particles that make up the atmosphere. No matter who lets it go it will drop. Objective proof. In order for any scientific concept to be universally accepted, there must be objective proof, not subjective proof. Time, space, gravity, evolution, all proven objectively.

caposkia wrote:
The releif for people liek you is the realization that proof is in your head.

Then there is no god, because that's what the proof in my head says.

caposkia wrote:
Where did God say not to trust His followers?

Wherever he said all men are sinners.

caposkia wrote:
no one you know anyway... of course no one is perfect, but there are those out there who actually use the Bible as their guide to life.  Those people you can see a difference in.. they are very different from the rest when you meet them in life. 

Well I haven't met any. And I've met a LOT of people. But I'm young yet, somewhat. I may yet have half or more of my life yet to live. Maybe I'll meet one someday.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It is my

caposkia wrote:

It is my understanding that God made a self sufficient design.  He made it to work perfectly and balance itself where imbalances occur.

"Perfectly"? You have a weird conception of perfect. 

 

caposkia wrote:

  He then created us to be in charge of that design and allowed us to make choices on our own accord for ourselves and that design.  I agree that much of what we see as random likely is not, but has a purpose.  It is interesting though that we are discovering how purposeful everything really is step by step. 

What evidence have we ever found that things have a purpose other than the purposes arbitrarily assigned by us? 

 

caposkia wrote:

The problem with your perception is that God can choose anything...  God can choose to let us make our own choices... but then because He chose that, he's completely responsible for what we chose?  that makes no sense.

We can only choose because he gave us the choice. When you ask someone where they want to eat for dinner, you can hardly be mad if they choose something you don't want- you gave them the choice.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

  He has given us a whole book to guide us in our choices.. most of us in the world choose to ignore or manipulate the intent of the book and then try to blame the creator for our ignorance when it was a choice we decided to make. 

1. He didn't provide the book until millions of years after we existed.

2. He failed to provide evidence that the book is any different than any other religious book written. 

 

caposkia wrote:

God could have made us robots, but then what fun is that?  How do you build a relationship with a robot?  You can't.  God wants relationships, not minions. 

Yet he is perfectly willing to punish us for 'choosing' not to have a relationship with him- even though there is zero evidence that he exists (as admitted by you)

 

caposkia wrote:

Consider what you said about the gambling addict... now they could blame the cards for not bieng right, or they could take the cards they got and make the best of it... in other words, if they have nothing, make everyone think you have something big and when they fold, you take what they have. 

Yeah, that doesn't always work. Often when you bluff all in you will be called. I've been on both sides of that equation. Sometimes the best you can do with a hand is lose the minimum.

 

caposkia wrote:

 A gambling addict would know this trick, but if they're blaming the cards, then they've gotten too greedy and will end up losing everything. 

Exactly, and god is blaming the cards. WE are the cards- the variable aspect that god has introduced into his game of solitare. We have extremely limited knowledge, we have very little control over our environment and we can't even be 100% certain that we exist. Yet he blames us for not choosing what he thought we should choose. How could we? How could we possibly make the same choice an omnipotent, omnipresent being would make?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Be it that

caposkia wrote:

Be it that meteorology is a strength of mine and you admitted to knowing very little about it, what is your basis?  YOur assumption that there should be models theorizing such an event is not realistic... meteorology can come up with plausible models, but they mean nothing until we actually observe them in actual weather patterns... If you watch the movie "The day After Tomorrow" the storms they show in that movie are based off of actual models theorizing how the ice age actually came into being.  Why are they just in the movies?  because they mean nothing until we see it happen because it's only a model.  There are many out there who believe that storms could never become that large on Earth based on the simple fact that we've never seen a storm get that big and cause such a drastic change in temperature.  does that mean then that the ice age never happened?  no, of coures not, there's all kinds of evidence for it happening, but what's in question is how it happened, quick or slow.. based on other evidence we have, the theory is that it came on rather suddenly. 

also, let's use your reasoning for a moment about a "mere glacier'  if a mere glacier can roll a six thousand foot mountain, why is it so hard to believe geology could have very effectively covered up teh major flood event of Noah's time to a degree that has not allowed us to find it yet? 

Fuck me. No wonder you sound like you don't have a clue, because you get your meteorology from Hollywood. You mean the same "The day After Tomorrow" that Dr. Andrew Weaver said "the science-fiction movie The Day After Tomorrow creatively violates every known law of thermodynamics” and has been trashed by every respectable climate scientist? 

I think you are a flat out liar and don't have the first fucking clue about meteorology. Unless you can point me to some respectable source that supports your hypthoses, or can explain to me with some sort of intelligent explanation as to why Dr. Lyons is wrong, I am done talking to you. I can deal with ignorance, I don't like flat out liars and I think it is obvious that you lied about your meteorlogical knowledge so I am going to cease wasting time on you.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: The bible

Vastet wrote:
The bible isn't even 2000 years old. It is not proof of a god. It is proof that people can make up a bunch of things and get other people to believe those things.

expected reaction... not very well researched though... you do realize the Bible is not one book right?

Vastet wrote:

The support comes from the definition of the terms. Time isn't an entity, it is a method of measuring change. If nothing changes, then time doesn't exist. If time doesn't exist, then nothing changes. The probable smallest measurement of time is a planck second. It should not be possible to have a smaller measurement, according to the laws of physics. It is the time it takes for light to travel a planck length in a vacuum. A planck length is 1.616199(97)×10 ^-35 metres, It is significantly smaller than a proton. This paragraph describes the smallest measure of time that is possible if we are not mistaken about the laws of physics. Since it is the same laws that allow us to have aeroplanes and running water it is safe to assume we have the laws of physics down. A thought takes considerably longer than a planck second to form. Without any planck seconds, thought is impossible. It takes trillions of planck seconds just for you to blink. Without any planck seconds, you can not blink. In order for thought or action to take place, there must be time. If anything exists, and can change in anyway, then time must exist so that change can occur. Thus time > god, even if there is a god.

your reasoning is as far as we know.  no one has actually stopped time, so I don't see the empiricism in your reasoning really.  I understand it.  The reason why you came up with the reasoning you did seems logical, but that literally puts life on a very specific line... how then does time occur differently for those things moving at different speeds?  This goes back to Einstine.  

Vastet wrote:
 

 


caposkia wrote:
oh God is quite capable of proving Himself to you, but why do you think God works that way? 
I don't care much how he works. If he wants me to have faith in him then there's only one path for it to be possible: he has to prove himself. I cannot believe in him without proof of him. Period.

well, He has, but you don't believe that, so now what.

Vastet wrote:

Acceptance is an emotional state. Open mindedness doesn't equate to blindly believing in anything.

I see acceptance can be seen as an emotional state.  Open mindedness never implied blind belief, it's actually considering all possibilities.

Vastet wrote:

I'm not running at all. I'm hunting. But your cowardly god hides from me.

There's the first problem... We don't find God, God finds us... but He finds us when we are open to Him.

Vastet wrote:

He doesn't have greater knowledge than me. I demonstrated quite adequately that I was already aware of everything he referred to, and how it was inapplicable and irrelevant to the discussion. And it is inapplicable and irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore, he was not trying to lead me towards your god anyway, so he doesn't qualify under the parameters I specifically laid out.

oh really, I'd love to see an intelligent science debate between you and Bobspence...

anyway just your comment that it was inapplicable proves you really don't understand what he was presenting.  Of coruse He wasn't trying to lead  you to my god... this is a thread about the flood and he simply was clarifying some science being discussed.  I'm not one to advocate for those who's intent is opposing my God, but he in my experience has shown rationality in thought when it comes to relevant information.... and of all people on this site, he knows his science.    He has shown honest and rational reasoning to be as to why He doesn't believe.  I fully understand his mindset when it comes to God. 

Vastet wrote:

 That's funny. Polly wanna cracker? For those who don't get it, I'm pointing out he's just repeating my dismissal of his credibility, as if anyone's credibility had been destroyed but his own.

Who are you trying to convince with that statement... if what you said is true, no one needs the narrative... they'd be intelligent enough to figure that out on their own..  If you have to explain a joke, then the joke wasn't funny.. if you have to rationalize your response, then your response is not valid,. 

Vastet wrote:

We've been having one. I haven't counted how many naked assertions and claims I've refuted or fallacies I've pointed out, but there's been dozens. You've yet to win a single point. And no, I'm not referring to a score.

between you and me, it has been banter, not a debate.  Instead of words like "naked assertions, fallacies, delusions, ignorance, etc" a true debator would use empirical refutations based on research or logical reasoning.  You have failed to do that in many instances. 

Vastet wrote:

No no I don't have any difficulties accepting I'm wrong. I just don't take it well. I still accept I'm wrong and change my perspective accordingly. It doesn't happen very often at all. In all the years I've been here I have been demonstrably wrong fewer times than I have fingers. And there was never a theist on the other side of the discussion.

right...

Vastet wrote:

No I already pointed out the alternative explanations and dismissed them as being less probable than a god. I did so humourously so maybe you thought I was being sarcastic, but I was serious as well as attempting to be mildly amusing.

what if you dreamed the conversation... would you consider that it actually happened?

Vastet wrote:

Then god is irrational. There's always a middle ground. The universe isn't black and white, it is full of colours.

that thought is irrational.  Sure the universe isn't black and white it is full of colors, but each color that presents itself is in and of itself.. there.  Either IT is or IT isn't... there is no "maybe it's there" whether you're sure of it or not.   If you really really think about it, the universe is never gray.  e.g.  either you're dead or you're alive, you cannot be both at the same time.  either the sun is there or it's not, the stars exist or they don't... it's not debatable. 

Vastet wrote:

Proof is objective, not subjective. It is true that someone can under some conditions accept things for proof subjectively, but the equations that describe gravity are not subjective proof. If you use them to do something like fly, you are likely to succeed. If you ignore them and try to do it another way you will certainly fail. The existence of gravity cannot be subjectively dismissed. Proof is as simple as letting go of any object that weighs more than the particles that make up the atmosphere. No matter who lets it go it will drop. Objective proof. In order for any scientific concept to be universally accepted, there must be objective proof, not subjective proof. Time, space, gravity, evolution, all proven objectively.

you're confusing evidence with proof.  Evidence is objective... but what that evidence proves is the subjective part. 

Vastet wrote:

Then there is no god, because that's what the proof in my head says.

...and there's the subjectivity. 

Vastet wrote:

Wherever he said all men are sinners.

So then no one can be trusted... ever, by your reasoning. 

Vastet wrote:

 Well I haven't met any. And I've met a LOT of people. But I'm young yet, somewhat. I may yet have half or more of my life yet to live. Maybe I'll meet one someday.

it seems maybe you haven't... I hope you do.  there must be someone near you.  Maybe we'll meet someday ;]


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I resisted mentioning this

I resisted mentioning this so as not to interrupt your conversation, which I must say was an interesting diversion from most arguments I've seen regarding the flood that never happened, but since you're declaring an end I feel that resistance evaporating.
I always approached the discussion based on available water. Namely that there isn't enough water on Earth to create such a flood regardless of meteorological possibilities. Even if the Earth could be subjected to a storm such as the tale requires, it could never flood the entire Earth simply because there isn't enough water on Earth to flood Earth. The reference below, though out of date with recent discoveries, is still pretty accurate.

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

Now I could sit here and do the actual math that would be required to show how much water there would need to be to flood the majority of the surface and/or the entire surface, but the picture in that source is, I think, a stronger argument than a bunch of equations that may or may not even be understood. But if anyone is actually interested in a interesting tidbit about the potential rain in the atmosphere at any given moment, I'll quote the article:

"About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water."

So if ALL the water in Earths atmosphere were to fall instantly as rain, there would not be any significant effect. Not when talking about a catastrophic flood that covered the surface and killed most things that lived anyway. An inch just doesn't qualify. Most locations on coastlines would face disaster, and the swelling of lakes and rivers as the water drained into them would cause significant problems for landlocked locales, but very few cities would face actual destruction. Anyone living near mountains would only have to deal with slight flooding for a week or two before all the water drained away. Some places actually face that kind of rainfall seasonally, and the effects might actually be beneficial to those populations.

Another quote from the article is interesting:
"If all of the world's water was poured on the contiguous (lower 48 states) United States, it would cover the land to a depth of about 107 miles (145 kilometers)."

Now THAT sounds like the flood of the bible. Unfortunately for the christian argument, the US makes up only a fraction of the Earth. Literally.
9,826,675 km² out of 510,072,000 km². Or 1.927%.

Extrapolating these figures suggests that if all the water on Earth fell from the sky at once, the surface would be covered to a depth of 2.8 km, if the surface was uniform (no mountains, no valleys, no oceanic basins, etc.). As the surface is not uniform, and as the oceans would have to cease to exist to get that much water into the air in the first place, the entire surface could not be coated in water.

Furthermore, such a massive removal of water from inside the Earths crust could actually halt plate tectonics permanently. The magnetic field of the Earth would also be drastically altered. The dynamo inside the Earth that generates the field might even be completely shut down, rendering the planet unfit for life as we know it.

Even if the worst case scenario were somehow avoided, the results could not go undetected. There would be evidence of this event everywhere. Objective proof of the flood would have been announced centuries ago.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

It is my understanding that God made a self sufficient design.  He made it to work perfectly and balance itself where imbalances occur.

"Perfectly"? You have a weird conception of perfect. 

Where in the world is there a constant instability in the atmosphere? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What evidence have we ever found that things have a purpose other than the purposes arbitrarily assigned by us? 

think of the precipitation cycle, the atmospheric cycle, why bees are attracted to flowers and why a certain flower resembles a female bee, etc.  cycles have purposes, otherwise, they wouldn't need to cycle. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

We can only choose because he gave us the choice. When you ask someone where they want to eat for dinner, you can hardly be mad if they choose something you don't want- you gave them the choice.

I'm willing to bet if you dictated to that same person where they were to eat, they wouldn't be eating with you. 

your reasoning fails to take into consideration the relationship aspect and why choice is an option.  it also fails to take into consideration the options aspect.  God gives us chocies, but using your analogy, God says, would you like to eat at resturant A,  B or C and your answer is D... does God then have the right to be upset with you?  Do we then have a right to get mad when we chose outside the spectrum of choices provided? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

1. He didn't provide the book until millions of years after we existed.

2. He failed to provide evidence that the book is any different than any other religious book written. 

The book wasn't necessary until milliions of years after, people had a different relatinoship with God back then. 

God provided the book AS evidence... it is the other books that need to prove themselves.  Considering the spiritual battle, ti is logical that other religious books would emerge.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet he is perfectly willing to punish us for 'choosing' not to have a relationship with him- even though there is zero evidence that he exists (as admitted by you)

oh please quote me on that if you will.

and again it's not about the relationship... it's about your chioces.  e.g. whether you are for or against the government, if you're living in this country, you are still subject to its laws.. same with God. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, that doesn't always work. Often when you bluff all in you will be called. I've been on both sides of that equation. Sometimes the best you can do with a hand is lose the minimum.

even then you didn't lose much.. I think you get the point though

Beyond Saving wrote:

Exactly, and god is blaming the cards. WE are the cards- the variable aspect that god has introduced into his game of solitare. We have extremely limited knowledge, we have very little control over our environment and we can't even be 100% certain that we exist. Yet he blames us for not choosing what he thought we should choose. How could we? How could we possibly make the same choice an omnipotent, omnipresent being would make?

EXACTLY  that is the point that the people of the Exodus never understood. [in reference to your final statement]

If you want to make us the cards then let's put it in perspective.. if we are mere cards to God, then God is simply discarding the bad cards and keeping the good ones in His hand. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Be it that meteorology is a strength of mine and you admitted to knowing very little about it, what is your basis?  YOur assumption that there should be models theorizing such an event is not realistic... meteorology can come up with plausible models, but they mean nothing until we actually observe them in actual weather patterns... If you watch the movie "The day After Tomorrow" the storms they show in that movie are based off of actual models theorizing how the ice age actually came into being.  Why are they just in the movies?  because they mean nothing until we see it happen because it's only a model.  There are many out there who believe that storms could never become that large on Earth based on the simple fact that we've never seen a storm get that big and cause such a drastic change in temperature.  does that mean then that the ice age never happened?  no, of coures not, there's all kinds of evidence for it happening, but what's in question is how it happened, quick or slow.. based on other evidence we have, the theory is that it came on rather suddenly. 

also, let's use your reasoning for a moment about a "mere glacier'  if a mere glacier can roll a six thousand foot mountain, why is it so hard to believe geology could have very effectively covered up teh major flood event of Noah's time to a degree that has not allowed us to find it yet? 

Fuck me. No wonder you sound like you don't have a clue, because you get your meteorology from Hollywood. You mean the same "The day After Tomorrow" that Dr. Andrew Weaver said "the science-fiction movie The Day After Tomorrow creatively violates every known law of thermodynamics” and has been trashed by every respectable climate scientist? 

I think you are a flat out liar and don't have the first fucking clue about meteorology. Unless you can point me to some respectable source that supports your hypthoses, or can explain to me with some sort of intelligent explanation as to why Dr. Lyons is wrong, I am done talking to you. I can deal with ignorance, I don't like flat out liars and I think it is obvious that you lied about your meteorlogical knowledge so I am going to cease wasting time on you.  

it came from a model, I never said anything about the credibility of the model, nor how the movie manipulated it to work with their story.  The model literally was the picture of the storms you saw on the screen for a few seconds during the movie... not the idea they came up with as to how the storms worked.   You really are looking for excuses....and you completely lost focus of the point which was many theoretical models have been formed and none have logical proof of how the ice age actually started and if we can't even get that right, why do you think we'd be better at making a model of the flood storms? 

...and I majored in Meteorology.  

but you're right.. we are done wasting time on each other. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:expected

caposkia wrote:
expected reaction... not very well researched though... you do realize the Bible is not one book right?

A collection of books contained in a book is still a book. That they are different books alters nothing.

caposkia wrote:
our reasoning is as far as we know.  no one has actually stopped time, so I don't see the empiricism in your reasoning really.  I understand it.  The reason why you came up with the reasoning you did seems logical, but that literally puts life on a very specific line... how then does time occur differently for those things moving at different speeds?  This goes back to Einstine.

Relatively, of course. Are you attempting to suggest that god experiences time differently than us? If so, that doesn't address the fact that he must still experience time in order to do anything. Faster or slower doesn't matter, time must still apply.
How about I reverse this on you and ask you how thought and action could occur without time? Then back up your argument empirically. I'll wait.

caposkia wrote:
well, He has, but you don't believe that, so now what.

Well he hasn't, but you don't believe that. So now what?

caposkia wrote:
I see acceptance can be seen as an emotional state.  Open mindedness never implied blind belief, it's actually considering all possibilities.

Considering ALL possibilities includes considering the possibility there is no god. After considering all the possibilities humanity has come up with (or at least all the ones I've been exposed to), that one makes the most sense.

caposkia wrote:
There's the first problem... We don't find God, God finds us... but He finds us when we are open to Him.

Well I still have a little piece of me willing to consider the possibility, and I'm not hiding. He's running out of time though. I'm not getting any younger.

caposkia wrote:
oh really, I'd love to see an intelligent science debate between you and Bobspence...

The fact that one hasn't happened yet after years of coexistence on this site strongly suggests we are on about the same level. This was the first time in my recollection that he challenged something I said, and HE was wrong because he failed to account for the context of the discussion. He likely has more expertise in some areas, and I in others. But it's pretty obvious that we are both well grounded in science and have a vast wealth of knowledge and experience to draw upon.

caposkia wrote:
anyway just your comment that it was inapplicable proves you really don't understand what he was presenting.

Nope. But this response proves that you don't, and nor do you understand the terminology you attempt to hijack to defend your invisible friend. Either your god is omniscient or it isn't. If it isn't, then the uncertainty principle applies, and god would not be capable of predicting the future with absolute accuracy. But if your god is omniscient, then the future is as obvious to him as light is to us. Completely and absolutely predictable.
Renounce omniscience and accept reality. Or continue to hide the truth from yourself. The choice is yours.

caposkia wrote:
Of coruse He wasn't trying to lead  you to my god... this is a thread about the flood and he simply was clarifying some science being discussed.

Omniscience isn't science, and has no basis in science. Bob was responding to a point that didn't actually exist in the conversation. He made an error. Plain and simple.

caposkia wrote:
I'm not one to advocate for those who's intent is opposing my God, but he in my experience has shown rationality in thought when it comes to relevant information.... and of all people on this site, he knows his science.    He has shown honest and rational reasoning to be as to why He doesn't believe.  I fully understand his mindset when it comes to God.

Then you understand my mindset far better than you think you do.

caposkia wrote:
Who are you trying to convince with that statement.

Noone. Just pointing out a funny to those who have impaired senses of humour.

caposkia wrote:
if what you said is true, no one needs the narrative... they'd be intelligent enough to figure that out on their own..  If you have to explain a joke, then the joke wasn't funny.. if you have to rationalize your response, then your response is not valid,. 

These are all opinions, and thus I need not address them.

caposkia wrote:
between you and me, it has been banter, not a debate.

Between you and me, this has been a debate. At this point I'll direct you to the nearest dictionary so you can learn what qualifies as banter and debate.

caposkia wrote:
Instead of words like "naked assertions, fallacies, delusions, ignorance, etc" a true debator would use empirical refutations based on research or logical reasoning.  You have failed to do that in many instances. 

I haven't failed to do it once, let alone multiple times. Your acceptance of being specifically refuted and being informed of the fallacies you hold dear isn't necessary. In fact, I'd be shocked if you accepted the truth.

caposkia wrote:
right...

Indeed. And as you cannot provide any examples to the contrary, I can sit back and gloat.

caposkia wrote:
what if you dreamed the conversation... would you consider that it actually happened?

Yes. Any time I've experienced a dream that in any way conflicted with my understanding of the universe, I immediately became aware that I was dreaming. After which I gain all kinds of crazy abilities. In effect, I literally become god. Absolute master of everything. I can alter matter and energy at will, and do anything I want. Generally I choose to fly at incredible speeds because it's so fun, but there are not many limits to what I can do and flying isn't always what I feel like doing.
If a voice I wasn't responsible for was speaking to me, then I would be forced to conclude it was coming from something else. If it was simply saying 'wake up, phone!' or something like that, I would obviously conclude someone was trying to wake me up, and I'd attempt not waking up. If it said 'hey Vastet, I'm god. The christian one', I'd have no basis with which to argue. I'd probably ask some questions, and then wake up a christian.

caposkia wrote:
that thought is irrational.

Your response to that rational thought is irrational.

caposkia wrote:
Sure the universe isn't black and white it is full of colors, but each color that presents itself is in and of itself.. there.  Either IT is or IT isn't... there is no "maybe it's there" whether you're sure of it or not.   If you really really think about it, the universe is never gray.  e.g.  either you're dead or you're alive, you cannot be both at the same time.  either the sun is there or it's not, the stars exist or they don't... it's not debatable. 

Schrödinger's cat disagrees with you, and so do I.
Also, I'm not talking about god itself having a middle ground. Obviously it either exists or it doesn't. What I'm referring to is evidence of god, which god can manipulate at will via omnipotence (since you're so stuck on omniscience I'm going to have some fun and declare that omnipotence is as incoherent a term as omniscience is. Pro tip: Bob would agree).

caposkia wrote:
you're confusing evidence with proof.  Evidence is objective... but what that evidence proves is the subjective part. 

No you're confusing evidence with proof. The object falling is evidence. The mathematical equation that accurately describe the object falling is the proof. Objective proof.

caposkia wrote:
...and there's the subjectivity.

Nope, objectivity. I'm aware that your religion was invented by primitive people. I'm aware that the book of books they wrote and compiled based on that invention is demonstrably false in many of its claims. And I'm aware that your god is physically impossible according to all the science of the universe that I've spent most of my life studying and testing. I don't know if there's a god or gods, but I do know your god doesn't exist.

caposkia wrote:
So then no one can be trusted... ever, by your reasoning.

Your reasoning. Your religions reasoning, to be specific. I do have the ability to trust people. Because I don't believe the claims of the bible. I don't believe in sin, or that all people are inherently corrupted by evil. But in order to accept the bible is true, I must believe in these things. Catch 22 right there.

caposkia wrote:
it seems maybe you haven't... I hope you do.  there must be someone near you.  Maybe we'll meet someday ;]

That would be cool. Hopefully we could chat over things other than religion. I pretty much exclusively limit discussion about religion to the internet. I recognise that faith is important to people, and I don't go out of my way trying to destroy it. Every time a theist brings up religion in person I warn them that they don't want to do that. I'm an atheist and I've withstood years of debates against hundreds of people of varying faiths. From priests to evangelists to simple sheep of the flock (it occurs to me that could be interpreted as insulting, I assure you it isn't intended that way. I'm using terminology that I've personally witnessed authorities in the church use regularly to describe the average believer. If there's a term you would consider more suitable I'd be happy to hear..er..read it) and none of them have done anything but hammer the nails of science into the coffin of god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to attempt to give

I'm going to attempt to give you a bit more insight into my character. Why not? Either you understand me better or you don't get where I'm going with my theme and sub-themes.

My first ever recollection of direct confrontation with the idea of religion is not a pleasant one. You probably suspected as much, I've found christians automatically assume a bad experience must have turned the person away. But I don't really consider it a bad experience, even though it was unpleasant at the time. It taught me that people other than myself are not necessarily like me at all. That a simple idea can bring about viciousness and violence. That the LACK of an idea can provoke the same, and possibly also bring about the same from an alternative position. It was one of the most enlightening moments in my life.

I was just a kid, grade 4 or below. The details are blurry, because the details weren't important. I think it was a substitute teacher, but I don't know for sure. I had a teacher in grade 4 who was so horrible my parents pulled me out and sent me to private school (she ended up getting fired not long after, ha ha). It could have been her, but I feel like this happened earlier than that. That said, memories from that long ago are missing so many details that I can't say with any certainty that it was before. It had to be grade 4 or earlier, that's the best I can say with certainty.

She asked the class to 'draw something greater than yourself'. I'm guessing most of the kids drew jesus or god or some character in moslem mythology (there were a number of families living in the area who'd fled the war in Lebanon). But I was stumped. I sat there staring at the paper and not knowing what to do.

At some point the teacher came up and asked why I hadn't drawn anything. I told her. She said I had to believe in something. If not god, nature perhaps. I can't say I had any appreciation for what god was, it was a word that held no definition in my mind. My parents didn't bring me up within a religion. They never even mentioned it. I'd read the word in a book or two MAYBE, but I had no idea what god was supposed to be. But this lady was getting pissed, and when adults were pissed, at that age I sat down and shut the fuck up. Parents were still allowed to smack their kids around back then, and I experienced that a few times. I doubt I knew teachers weren't allowed to. Regardless, this was not the time to ask questions was my instinct, and I today agree with the decision made in ignorance then.

Coupling that with the other suggestion: nature. But nature wasn't greater than me, it was different from me. Already I had enough of a grasp of reality to know you can't compare the forces in nature to a person. How is one greater than the other? There's not enough information to go on. I need an adjective clause (I had to look that up lol I hate English) to work with, but there isn't one on offer.

So this lady starts raging and that's that. I don't know if she wanted to hit me, I didn't get a sense she was going to, but I was flatfooted at the whole thing and completely preoccupied. I think I just closed down and ignored it while trying to comprehend what had just happened.

After that I found out a little bit more about religions by trying them. I got blamed for stealing a teachers car keys when I hadn't. I was threatened with expulsion. A friend of mine suggested I pray with him, and basically told me to put my hands together and close my eyes and beg god for help. As it happens, the teacher never found her keys, and I wasn't expelled. But then the school was a very small one with very few students. They needed the tens of thousands of dollars my parents were willing to give them. At the time the middle class still existed and my parents could afford it, though I'd be lying if I said they didn't have to make sacrifices to do it. It was expensive, and my parents didn't drill that into me but I heard them talking here and there and I knew.

I tried the praying thing a few more times because I wasn't yet smart enough to put the economics together and I didn't yet know the teacher never found her keys (but I did find out). I only used it when I thought something bad was about to happen to someone, but it never seemed to actually do anything. This is when I tried reading bits of the bible, but it was nasty so I stopped. Even then I recognised flaws. Thou shalt not lie? pfft everything lies. Animals lie, people lie, clouds lie. Some creatures are so good at lying you can't even see them while they do it. Deception is an advantage in nature, provided it isn't used all the time but when necessary. Refusing to use deception equates with suicide in my eyes. Same as refusing to cause violence or kill. None of these things should be used offensively, but they are all perfectly ok to use defencively.

So I tried meeting your god through his book and was repulsed. On to the next. Wait.. what's next? Oh I guess there's satan. What if I try him? But there isn't anything on satan except what's in the bible, and I'm not reading the bible. So I gave that up pretty quickly. Gave it about as much effort as I could for awhile, but satan was as silent as god. The music was better, but music doesn't validify a religion.

I took a bit of an interest in Greek and Roman and Norse mythology, but those gods were dead, if they ever existed. Remarkably interesting, far more so than god or satan had been, but noone was worshipping them anymore. They were just stories really.

Then The Craft came out in theatres, and I was entranced. A new religion! I'd never heard of wicca before. I was 17 at this point. And the internet still didn't exist. Not as far as I was concerned anyway, I'd never heard of it.

So I tried wicca for a bit. But it didn't do anything either. And it made more claims than anything else before it.

I never tried being a moslem or a jew, but they were based in the same general idea as christianity and christianity had turned me off. I immersed myself a little bit in some Asian things, but none of them were really interesting.

During all this time, without even realising it will inevitably become the foundation of my necessary rejection of religion in general, I'm learning about science. As I test religions out, I'm also performing experiments in school. I learn about making hypothesis' and testing them. I learn about critical thinking and logic. And then one day I am forced to try using this complicated new internet thing by Squaresoft, who's guide to Final Fantasy IX was useless without. I swear to you my FFIX guide has more content written by ME within it than the company printed.

Anyway, one day as I'm flipping through pages I notice a link was on every page. It was barely noticeable, and it simply said f'orum'. Thus was I introduced to forums, on what must have been one of the most popular forums at the time. I became a teacher of all things Final Fantasy as I opened topic after topic with wrong information inside.

Then one day I saw a topic about religion. Within were a christian and a atheist arguing about religion. I wasn't impressed with either of them. The christian was typical and the atheist was an idiot. But suddenly I had a new word to look up. Atheist. And that's when I realised there WERE people who reasonably rejected religion and got away with it, and suddenly I wasn't haunted by my childhood experience anymore. I didn't have to believe in a god of some kind. I didn't have to think anything was greater than anything else without an adjective clause to properly categorise the question to make it answerable. I was free.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:it came from

caposkia wrote:

it came from a model, I never said anything about the credibility of the model, nor how the movie manipulated it to work with their story.  The model literally was the picture of the storms you saw on the screen for a few seconds during the movie... not the idea they came up with as to how the storms worked.

It didn't come from a model. If is fucking Hollywood. They make up computer animations of what they think will look cool, they don't give two shits if it is close to reality and there is no reason they should. 

 

caposkia wrote:

  You really are looking for excuses....and you completely lost focus of the point which was many theoretical models have been formed and none have logical proof of how the ice age actually started and if we can't even get that right, why do you think we'd be better at making a model of the flood storms? 

So you are saying that there is no scientific theory for how the ice age started? Really? Is that what you are saying? Because that is either extreme ignorance on a topic you claim to have knowledge in or another outright lie because we have had models which theoretically explain the ice age since at least the 70's (I'd link them here, but as someone who majored in meteorology and lived through the 70's, you should remember when they were first theorized and later supported with evidence)- that is how the whole global warming set of theories that are so politicized now got started, was using those models. Of course, now you are getting into climate modeling, not weather modeling which is a whole different beast. The climate doesn't matter when the question is "What is the most rain physically possible in a 40 day period?" Because for the question you can assume that the climate is ideal to create the maximum potential rain. I still await for you to refer me to just ONE theoretical model that supports your 240 ft figure. I don't care if it takes great liberties with climate. I'm just looking for ANY model that predicts such rains are POSSIBLE in ANY kind of condition. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

...and I majored in Meteorology.  

Then you better get your money back because you appear to be completely incapable of holding an intelligent conversation about meteorology. The fact that you have continually used linear equations to calculate potential rainfall shows an obvious disregard for meteorlogical facts. Anyone who took a meteorology 101 course would know that NONE of the models in meteorology are linear. Am I wrong? 

 

caposkia wrote:

but you're right.. we are done wasting time on each other. 

Yeah, until you can put together some cohesive explanation for why my meteorological points are wrong, why Dr. Lyons is wrong and/or point me to a model or theoretical paper that comes close to supporting what you said is possible I can only assume one of two things: you are a liar, or you think I am too stupid to educate. Given that the model you appealed to was a fucking movie, I'm leaning the former. If the latter, please educate me and if you do I will go back and answer the other posts I ignored.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: A collection

Vastet wrote:
A collection of books contained in a book is still a book. That they are different books alters nothing.

That makes no sense... the fact that they're all different books alters pretty much everything... they weren't all written at the same time, but at different times over thousands of years... that's quite significant if you ask me.  Each book was also compiled and translated among the most important texts of the times by the monks who were tasked to accurately and unbiasly translate and/or transcribe official texts. 

A collection of books contained in a book is still a book, but it's also still a collection of books... a collection of books from different authors from different generations and walks of life.  I can't comprehend how you can downplay that logically.

Vastet wrote:

Relatively, of course. Are you attempting to suggest that god experiences time differently than us? If so, that doesn't address the fact that he must still experience time in order to do anything. Faster or slower doesn't matter, time must still apply. How about I reverse this on you and ask you how thought and action could occur without time? Then back up your argument empirically. I'll wait.

wait for what?  empirical evidence for something no living creature on Earth has ever experienced?  Alright, lets' talk time differential.  I do believe God experiences time differently.  Empricism?  alright, did you ever read that the clocks on satalites have to be set different than clocks here on Earth?  YOu can easily google how time on Earth is unique to Earth and that time anywhere else is going to be moving at a different pace because each object moves through time at a different rate.  God does not live on Earth so it is logical that He would experience time differently. 

The theory now is that when time stops nothing can happen... but the concept of time stopping is illogical be it that it's understood by Einstein that time is not what is moving, but rather we are moving through time.  So what happens when we stop moving through time?  This cannot be empirically concluded, but be it that we see that things happen in a process based on the time elapsed, the thought that is not even a single thought process could happen in a state of no time progression.  Then again, Those who have experienced time differential [namely astronauts and anyone who has exceeded the sound barrier a few times over] have not personally experienced a differential in time, but rather noticed that atomic clocks were slightly off and/or their watches were off by several minutes when returning to Earth. 

In conclusion, it seem that to those who are moving through time, the one who is in a state of no time progression would appear to be doing nothing... if that person is even percieved.  They may faze out of existence for those who are moving through time especially at an Earth pace.  Though that person might still feel quite normal and be able to do things... no one really knows.  There are other theories that suggest someone who is in a state of no time progression could see all time past, present and future and observe any and all moments in history and was is to come.  I don't fully agree with the future aspect of it, but it makes sense too be it that we are moving through it.  it would make more sense to me that to the person in a state of no time progression that the person themselves might not be frozen, but everything around them might appear frozen be it that it all is moving through the time that they are stationary in. 

Something tells me though you're not quite following all this... if you are, please explain your perspective of this information based on what I just said. 

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
well, He has, but you don't believe that, so now what.
Well he hasn't, but you don't believe that. So now what?

Alright, but my perspetive is based on evidence around the world, in the Bible and others understanding and experiences of coming to know God.  What is your perspective based on?

Vastet wrote:

Considering ALL possibilities includes considering the possibility there is no god. After considering all the possibilities humanity has come up with (or at least all the ones I've been exposed to), that one makes the most sense.

absolutely it does.... and here's a perfect moment to restate my intentions on this site.  I come here with an open mind, to learn more about Truth, whatever that might be.  What makes sense is a very subjective matter, because I could just as confidently say; 'after considering all the possibilities humanity has come up with, considering the possibility that there is a God makes the most sense...'  So we're back to the now what question.

Vastet wrote:

Well I still have a little piece of me willing to consider the possibility, and I'm not hiding. He's running out of time though. I'm not getting any younger.

funny you mention time here.  It's not God that's running out of time.  It is my understanding that God is waiting for you.  You said there's a little piece of you willing to consider the possibility.  What would be the tipping point for that little piece of you?  If that little piece is waiting for a grande' entrance from God in some way, that's not the way to God.  It's like sitting on the other side of a night club waiting for that hot girl in the corner to make the moves on you... not gonna happen my friend, she's waiting for you to make the move.... and it doesn't matter whether she knows your waiting or not.  It comes down to whether you really want to work on a relationship with God or not.  If you don't make the trip over to the girl, you will never meet her... If you don't make the walk to God, you will never know Him. 

Why do you need to make the effort?  Because God wants to know you're not only going to want the relationship with Him, but you're going to work to keep it.

caposkia wrote:
oh really, I'd love to see an intelligent science debate between you and Bobspence...
The fact that one hasn't happened yet after years of coexistence on this site strongly suggests we are on about the same level. This was the first time in my recollection that he challenged something I said, and HE was wrong because he failed to account for the context of the discussion. He likely has more expertise in some areas, and I in others. But it's pretty obvious that we are both well grounded in science and have a vast wealth of knowledge and experience to draw upon.

not to me.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
anyway just your comment that it was inapplicable proves you really don't understand what he was presenting.
Nope. But this response proves that you don't, and nor do you understand the terminology you attempt to hijack to defend your invisible friend. Either your god is omniscient or it isn't. If it isn't, then the uncertainty principle applies, and god would not be capable of predicting the future with absolute accuracy. But if your god is omniscient, then the future is as obvious to him as light is to us. Completely and absolutely predictable. Renounce omniscience and accept reality. Or continue to hide the truth from yourself. The choice is yours.

my response that you don't understand what he was presenting proves that I don't understand what he was presenting?  I said it was relevant... you seemed to suggest here that it in fact was.  Sounds like there might be one of us that does understand... no, it's not you.. I know you'd try to respond with taht.

Vastet wrote:

Omniscience isn't science, and has no basis in science. Bob was responding to a point that didn't actually exist in the conversation. He made an error. Plain and simple.

ok, but omniscience is a philisophical understanding, and science is based on philosophy... it actually originated with philosophy.   

Vastet wrote:

Then you understand my mindset far better than you think you do.

if you're trying to compare your mindset to Bobs, you're not even close.  I actually comprehend how he can't grasp the concept of God.  My perspective of you is still aprehension and lack of understanding. 

Vastet wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
Who are you trying to convince with that statement.
Noone. Just pointing out a funny to those who have impaired senses of humour.
caposkia wrote:
if what you said is true, no one needs the narrative... they'd be intelligent enough to figure that out on their own..  If you have to explain a joke, then the joke wasn't funny.. if you have to rationalize your response, then your response is not valid,. 
These are all opinions, and thus I need not address them.

no, they're empirical based on other situations such as these.  Either way you need not address them.

Vastet wrote:

 I haven't failed to do it once, let alone multiple times. Your acceptance of being specifically refuted and being informed of the fallacies you hold dear isn't necessary. In fact, I'd be shocked if you accepted the truth.

well, I'd steal that exact quote above, but that would get a bit redundant... debates aren't based on opinions of self sufficiency.

Vastet wrote:

Yes. Any time I've experienced a dream that in any way conflicted with my understanding of the universe, I immediately became aware that I was dreaming. After which I gain all kinds of crazy abilities. In effect, I literally become god. Absolute master of everything. I can alter matter and energy at will, and do anything I want. Generally I choose to fly at incredible speeds because it's so fun, but there are not many limits to what I can do and flying isn't always what I feel like doing. If a voice I wasn't responsible for was speaking to me, then I would be forced to conclude it was coming from something else. If it was simply saying 'wake up, phone!' or something like that, I would obviously conclude someone was trying to wake me up, and I'd attempt not waking up. If it said 'hey Vastet, I'm god. The christian one', I'd have no basis with which to argue. I'd probably ask some questions, and then wake up a christian.

let me know if that happens

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
that thought is irrational.
Your response to that rational thought is irrational.

your response to that irrational thought response being irrational is irr.... wait... yea, this isn't going anywhere.

Vastet wrote:

 Schrödinger's cat disagrees with you, and so do I. Also, I'm not talking about god itself having a middle ground. Obviously it either exists or it doesn't. What I'm referring to is evidence of god, which god can manipulate at will via omnipotence (since you're so stuck on omniscience I'm going to have some fun and declare that omnipotence is as incoherent a term as omniscience is. Pro tip: Bob would agree).

I know Bob would agree here, but Bob wouldn't need to be it that his take on God is non-existent. 

 Schrödinger's cat defies the law of non-contradiction when being discussed beyond the molecular level.  If you want to get literal with that whole concept, then nothing ever dies.  But I think you're getting way over your head with that reference.

Vastet wrote:

No you're confusing evidence with proof. The object falling is evidence. The mathematical equation that accurately describe the object falling is the proof. Objective proof.

well, there is objective proof, but not all proof is objective, only the evidence.

Vastet wrote:

Nope, objectivity. I'm aware that your religion was invented by primitive people. I'm aware that the book of books they wrote and compiled based on that invention is demonstrably false in many of its claims. And I'm aware that your god is physically impossible according to all the science of the universe that I've spent most of my life studying and testing. I don't know if there's a god or gods, but I do know your god doesn't exist.

then there really is no part of you that would accept God, even if you heard that voice in your dream because if you do hear it, you already know that voice doesn't actually exist.

Vastet wrote:

 Your reasoning. Your religions reasoning, to be specific. I do have the ability to trust people. Because I don't believe the claims of the bible. I don't believe in sin, or that all people are inherently corrupted by evil. But in order to accept the bible is true, I must believe in these things. Catch 22 right there.

it's interesting becuase I find that I trust people more as a believer... granted I don't trust everyone, but I find true followers more trusting than non-believers.  I think the catch 22 is in your head.  Your reasoning doesn't hold water... unless you want to start talking Bible.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
it seems maybe you haven't... I hope you do.  there must be someone near you.  Maybe we'll meet someday ;]
That would be cool. Hopefully we could chat over things other than religion. I pretty much exclusively limit discussion about religion to the internet. I recognise that faith is important to people, and I don't go out of my way trying to destroy it. Every time a theist brings up religion in person I warn them that they don't want to do that. I'm an atheist and I've withstood years of debates against hundreds of people of varying faiths. From priests to evangelists to simple sheep of the flock (it occurs to me that could be interpreted as insulting, I assure you it isn't intended that way. I'm using terminology that I've personally witnessed authorities in the church use regularly to describe the average believer. If there's a term you would consider more suitable I'd be happy to hear..er..read it) and none of them have done anything but hammer the nails of science into the coffin of god.

I would be  more than happy to talk about many things besides religion if we ever met.  Though I do not limit my conversations about religion to the internet, I tend to restrict those conversations to those who intentionally focus on the topic. 

none of what you said was insulting.  it is a very dispensationalist perspective, i see where it comes from.  the sheep of the flock is a very accurate term to describe the average believer.. the issue with that perspective is that the priests and evangelists would also fall under the category of "simple sheep of the flock" and would not be viewed by God as any different than the rest. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm going to

Vastet wrote:
I'm going to attempt to give you a bit more insight into my character. Why not? Either you understand me better or you don't get where I'm going with my theme and sub-themes. My first ever recollection of direct confrontation with the idea of religion is not a pleasant one. You probably suspected as much, I've found christians automatically assume a bad experience must have turned the person away. But I don't really consider it a bad experience, even though it was unpleasant at the time. It taught me that people other than myself are not necessarily like me at all. That a simple idea can bring about viciousness and violence. That the LACK of an idea can provoke the same, and possibly also bring about the same from an alternative position. It was one of the most enlightening moments in my life. I was just a kid, grade 4 or below. The details are blurry, because the details weren't important. I think it was a substitute teacher, but I don't know for sure. I had a teacher in grade 4 who was so horrible my parents pulled me out and sent me to private school (she ended up getting fired not long after, ha ha). It could have been her, but I feel like this happened earlier than that. That said, memories from that long ago are missing so many details that I can't say with any certainty that it was before. It had to be grade 4 or earlier, that's the best I can say with certainty. She asked the class to 'draw something greater than yourself'. I'm guessing most of the kids drew jesus or god or some character in moslem mythology (there were a number of families living in the area who'd fled the war in Lebanon). But I was stumped. I sat there staring at the paper and not knowing what to do. At some point the teacher came up and asked why I hadn't drawn anything. I told her. She said I had to believe in something. If not god, nature perhaps. I can't say I had any appreciation for what god was, it was a word that held no definition in my mind. My parents didn't bring me up within a religion. They never even mentioned it. I'd read the word in a book or two MAYBE, but I had no idea what god was supposed to be. But this lady was getting pissed, and when adults were pissed, at that age I sat down and shut the fuck up. Parents were still allowed to smack their kids around back then, and I experienced that a few times. I doubt I knew teachers weren't allowed to. Regardless, this was not the time to ask questions was my instinct, and I today agree with the decision made in ignorance then. Coupling that with the other suggestion: nature. But nature wasn't greater than me, it was different from me. Already I had enough of a grasp of reality to know you can't compare the forces in nature to a person. How is one greater than the other? There's not enough information to go on. I need an adjective clause (I had to look that up lol I hate English) to work with, but there isn't one on offer. So this lady starts raging and that's that. I don't know if she wanted to hit me, I didn't get a sense she was going to, but I was flatfooted at the whole thing and completely preoccupied. I think I just closed down and ignored it while trying to comprehend what had just happened. After that I found out a little bit more about religions by trying them. I got blamed for stealing a teachers car keys when I hadn't. I was threatened with expulsion. A friend of mine suggested I pray with him, and basically told me to put my hands together and close my eyes and beg god for help. As it happens, the teacher never found her keys, and I wasn't expelled. But then the school was a very small one with very few students. They needed the tens of thousands of dollars my parents were willing to give them. At the time the middle class still existed and my parents could afford it, though I'd be lying if I said they didn't have to make sacrifices to do it. It was expensive, and my parents didn't drill that into me but I heard them talking here and there and I knew. I tried the praying thing a few more times because I wasn't yet smart enough to put the economics together and I didn't yet know the teacher never found her keys (but I did find out). I only used it when I thought something bad was about to happen to someone, but it never seemed to actually do anything. This is when I tried reading bits of the bible, but it was nasty so I stopped. Even then I recognised flaws. Thou shalt not lie? pfft everything lies. Animals lie, people lie, clouds lie. Some creatures are so good at lying you can't even see them while they do it. Deception is an advantage in nature, provided it isn't used all the time but when necessary. Refusing to use deception equates with suicide in my eyes. Same as refusing to cause violence or kill. None of these things should be used offensively, but they are all perfectly ok to use defencively. So I tried meeting your god through his book and was repulsed. On to the next. Wait.. what's next? Oh I guess there's satan. What if I try him? But there isn't anything on satan except what's in the bible, and I'm not reading the bible. So I gave that up pretty quickly. Gave it about as much effort as I could for awhile, but satan was as silent as god. The music was better, but music doesn't validify a religion. I took a bit of an interest in Greek and Roman and Norse mythology, but those gods were dead, if they ever existed. Remarkably interesting, far more so than god or satan had been, but noone was worshipping them anymore. They were just stories really. Then The Craft came out in theatres, and I was entranced. A new religion! I'd never heard of wicca before. I was 17 at this point. And the internet still didn't exist. Not as far as I was concerned anyway, I'd never heard of it. So I tried wicca for a bit. But it didn't do anything either. And it made more claims than anything else before it. I never tried being a moslem or a jew, but they were based in the same general idea as christianity and christianity had turned me off. I immersed myself a little bit in some Asian things, but none of them were really interesting. During all this time, without even realising it will inevitably become the foundation of my necessary rejection of religion in general, I'm learning about science. As I test religions out, I'm also performing experiments in school. I learn about making hypothesis' and testing them. I learn about critical thinking and logic. And then one day I am forced to try using this complicated new internet thing by Squaresoft, who's guide to Final Fantasy IX was useless without. I swear to you my FFIX guide has more content written by ME within it than the company printed. Anyway, one day as I'm flipping through pages I notice a link was on every page. It was barely noticeable, and it simply said f'orum'. Thus was I introduced to forums, on what must have been one of the most popular forums at the time. I became a teacher of all things Final Fantasy as I opened topic after topic with wrong information inside. Then one day I saw a topic about religion. Within were a christian and a atheist arguing about religion. I wasn't impressed with either of them. The christian was typical and the atheist was an idiot. But suddenly I had a new word to look up. Atheist. And that's when I realised there WERE people who reasonably rejected religion and got away with it, and suddenly I wasn't haunted by my childhood experience anymore. I didn't have to believe in a god of some kind. I didn't have to think anything was greater than anything else without an adjective clause to properly categorise the question to make it answerable. I was free.

I thank you for being so candid with me about your life.  It shows you're really trying to be sincere.  I can see better where you're coming from.  Funny thing is, you're right Biblically when you say; "I didn't have to believe in a god of some kind.  I didn't have to think anything was greater than anything else without an adjective clause to properly categorise the question to make it answerable.  I was free".  You are free in all of it regardless.  I see it that God makes us free, but you see it as no God makes us free.  I see you were trying a lot of new things and not getting much satisfaction out of them.  God never promised contentment when following Him.  He only promised life.  He warns us that walking in Jesus is a dangerous path and that there are a lot of negative things that could happen to us because of that. 

Your teacher was obviously way out of line.  And when you got accused of stealing the keys you prayed... you failed to realize the answer to your prayer likely was you not getting expelled when that would have been the logical result if they were so sure it was you.  if they never found the keys then they never found the culprit most likely.  Which leads me to believe that it's likely they never stopped thinking it was you.... but you didn't get expelled.  Of course I don't know all the details, so it's really speculation. 

I think you look for big events when prayer happens and the realistic result is usually extremely subtle, but it's like the butterfly effect... the subtle results now turn into big changes later. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So you

Beyond Saving wrote:

So you are saying that there is no scientific theory for how the ice age started? Really? Is that what you are saying? Because that is either extreme ignorance on a topic you claim to have knowledge in or another outright lie because we have had models which theoretically explain the ice age since at least the 70's (I'd link them here, but as someone who majored in meteorology and lived through the 70's, you should remember when they were first theorized and later supported with evidence)- that is how the whole global warming set of theories that are so politicized now got started, was using those models. Of course, now you are getting into climate modeling, not weather modeling which is a whole different beast. The climate doesn't matter when the question is "What is the most rain physically possible in a 40 day period?" Because for the question you can assume that the climate is ideal to create the maximum potential rain. I still await for you to refer me to just ONE theoretical model that supports your 240 ft figure. I don't care if it takes great liberties with climate. I'm just looking for ANY model that predicts such rains are POSSIBLE in ANY kind of condition. 

well, part of the theory is that it came on quite suddenly and not that it was strictly climate change, though of coruse that was the reason why it stuck around for so long. 

I've talked about recorded weather that shows extreme rainfall amounts in short periods of time.  I've talked about patterns and how it likely came in waves, I've talked about how the right conditions can cause major flooding for extended periods of time in one area while causing severe droughts in other areas.  Considering all of that, it is logically possible that such a drastic flood could be localized into the humanly populated area of Earth during that time.  The other possibility is a stalled system with a more steady rainfall.   As long as there's a feeder airflow from a tropically moist location, a storm could go on forever theoretically... though typically weather patterns do not allow that... then again, the weather on Jupiter proves that it is possible.   

I'm curious, what would you expect the model to desplay as proof that it's possible?? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 

...and I majored in Meteorology.  

Then you better get your money back because you appear to be completely incapable of holding an intelligent conversation about meteorology. The fact that you have continually used linear equations to calculate potential rainfall shows an obvious disregard for meteorlogical facts. Anyone who took a meteorology 101 course would know that NONE of the models in meteorology are linear. Am I wrong? 

no, but I am trying to explain it to someone who claimed they don't know much about it and linear is easier to understand/comprehend... what more are you looking for specifically that I'm not giving you linearly... besides this model proving the possibility of such a flood. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, until you can put together some cohesive explanation for why my meteorological points are wrong, why Dr. Lyons is wrong and/or point me to a model or theoretical paper that comes close to supporting what you said is possible I can only assume one of two things: you are a liar, or you think I am too stupid to educate. Given that the model you appealed to was a fucking movie, I'm leaning the former. If the latter, please educate me and if you do I will go back and answer the other posts I ignored.

The model I "appealed" to was IN a movie... I knew you'd ignore that fact though regardless of the direct statement prior about the model.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:well, part of

caposkia wrote:

well, part of the theory is that it came on quite suddenly and not that it was strictly climate change, though of coruse that was the reason why it stuck around for so long. 

Not for the most recent ice age. There is a theory stating that there was an ice age millions of years ago that came suddenly from a comet impact that killed off the dinosaurs. There are many millions of years between dinosaurs and humans. There was an ice age much more recent from 110,000 to 12,000 years ago that wasn't sudden at all. (The peak glaciation was about 22,000 years ago)

 

caposkia wrote:

I've talked about recorded weather that shows extreme rainfall amounts in short periods of time.  I've talked about patterns and how it likely came in waves, I've talked about how the right conditions can cause major flooding for extended periods of time in one area while causing severe droughts in other areas.  Considering all of that, it is logically possible that such a drastic flood could be localized into the humanly populated area of Earth during that time.  The other possibility is a stalled system with a more steady rainfall.   As long as there's a feeder airflow from a tropically moist location, a storm could go on forever theoretically... though typically weather patterns do not allow that... then again, the weather on Jupiter proves that it is possible.   

I'm curious, what would you expect the model to desplay as proof that it's possible?? 

Any model that suggests the capacity of 240 feet in 40 days. Since I am generous, I'll settle for any model that can suggest 100 feet in 40 days. Absolutely any model that even suggests that it is possible. I am setting the bar lower than a crack whore...

 

caposkia wrote:
 

no, but I am trying to explain it to someone who claimed they don't know much about it and linear is easier to understand/comprehend... what more are you looking for specifically that I'm not giving you linearly... besides this model proving the possibility of such a flood.

I'm ignorant of meteorology, not a fucking idiot. I understand modeling very well. I work with quadratic, exponential and logarithmic models on a daily basis. So throw the most complex model you have at me. If I don't understand it, I will ask questions. A linear model means nothing if it has zero relation to reality. I'm not interested in an elementary discussion, push the bounds of my abilities. When you can honestly reply to me saying "You're just an idiot who doesn't get it" we are on the right track and I will work to make myself less of an idiot. 

 

Quote:

The model I "appealed" to was IN a movie... I knew you'd ignore that fact though regardless of the direct statement prior about the model.

Where is this model outside the movie? Every climatologist I have ever seen reference the movie had nothing to say but how terribly unrealistic it was. Where is the climatologist who said it has any accuracy whatsoever? Can you at least provide a source for this one small point?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ugh I am not dealing with

Ugh I am not dealing with this when I've been drinking. Maybe tomorrow.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I resisted

Vastet wrote:
I resisted mentioning this so as not to interrupt your conversation, which I must say was an interesting diversion from most arguments I've seen regarding the flood that never happened, but since you're declaring an end I feel that resistance evaporating. I always approached the discussion based on available water. Namely that there isn't enough water on Earth to create such a flood regardless of meteorological possibilities. Even if the Earth could be subjected to a storm such as the tale requires, it could never flood the entire Earth simply because there isn't enough water on Earth to flood Earth. The reference below, though out of date with recent discoveries, is still pretty accurate. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html Now I could sit here and do the actual math that would be required to show how much water there would need to be to flood the majority of the surface and/or the entire surface, but the picture in that source is, I think, a stronger argument than a bunch of equations that may or may not even be understood. But if anyone is actually interested in a interesting tidbit about the potential rain in the atmosphere at any given moment, I'll quote the article: "About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water." So if ALL the water in Earths atmosphere were to fall instantly as rain, there would not be any significant effect. Not when talking about a catastrophic flood that covered the surface and killed most things that lived anyway. An inch just doesn't qualify. Most locations on coastlines would face disaster, and the swelling of lakes and rivers as the water drained into them would cause significant problems for landlocked locales, but very few cities would face actual destruction. Anyone living near mountains would only have to deal with slight flooding for a week or two before all the water drained away. Some places actually face that kind of rainfall seasonally, and the effects might actually be beneficial to those populations. Another quote from the article is interesting: "If all of the world's water was poured on the contiguous (lower 48 states) United States, it would cover the land to a depth of about 107 miles (145 kilometers)." Now THAT sounds like the flood of the bible. Unfortunately for the christian argument, the US makes up only a fraction of the Earth. Literally. 9,826,675 km² out of 510,072,000 km². Or 1.927%. Extrapolating these figures suggests that if all the water on Earth fell from the sky at once, the surface would be covered to a depth of 2.8 km, if the surface was uniform (no mountains, no valleys, no oceanic basins, etc.). As the surface is not uniform, and as the oceans would have to cease to exist to get that much water into the air in the first place, the entire surface could not be coated in water. Furthermore, such a massive removal of water from inside the Earths crust could actually halt plate tectonics permanently. The magnetic field of the Earth would also be drastically altered. The dynamo inside the Earth that generates the field might even be completely shut down, rendering the planet unfit for life as we know it. Even if the worst case scenario were somehow avoided, the results could not go undetected. There would be evidence of this event everywhere. Objective proof of the flood would have been announced centuries ago.

Yeah, but Cap is arguing that it wasn't really a worldwide flood (don't ask me how one can base their argument on the Bible being right and then claim that the Bible is wrong on a rather large detail) he is arguing that it was localized and all life on the planet was apparently in the same place. Cap initially suggested 240 feet of rain in 40 days, which even if it was in a localized area I could agree that it would essentially be worldwide for prehistoric man and many animals. If proven, I think a flood that large would certainly be evidence that there is some reality behind the story.

Anyway, I found the topic interesting and had hoped to glean some knowledge from Cap because he claims significant experience in meteorology. I can only conclude he lied about his credentials, is lying about what is possible and thinks I'm an idiot, or he is a genius that has some new meteorlogical model that is better than anything so far created.

Since Cap is unable or unwilling to share his knowledge let alone link to some relevant sources I could learn from, I've done some research on my own. Pulling the rainfall world record numbers from NOAA and analyzing them in terms of inches of rain by minutes. Doing what I would call an initial trend analysis, I discovered that there is in fact a consistent trend.

I started with 38 data points from 1 minute up to 43200 minutes (30 days). That led me to a trend line using the exponential equation y=1.5661*x^0.5262. A third order polynomial equation seemed to get the best fit, but those are useless when you try projecting beyond the known data. The exponential had an R-squared of 0.99, so that is incredibly strong correlation. (For those who don't work with stats an R-squared of 1.00 is perfect correlation and 0 is no correlation at all- so 0.99 is excellent.

Quite happy with this equation, I did some more research and found more data points bringing the total up to 55 with world record rainfalls up to two years. The equation performed fairly well with its predictions ranging from 78%(at 4 days) to 168% (at 330 days) of actual recorded world records. On average, the equation predicted 107% of the actual record with a definite trend that the longer the rainfall the prediction tended to be higher than actually recorded. No doubt limiting factors such as seasons start coming in to play when you are talking several months, which this simply model makes no effort to account for. It is assuming that it is always the rainiest season. The standard deviation for the equation related to recorded rainfall was 20%. That means if the data is good, we can statistically be 99.7% certain that any prediction of a record rainfall using this equation will be between 47%-167% of the actual record.

At 40 days, this equation predicts 500.9 inches. 41.7 ft. Not far from the 36 ft predicted by Dr. Lyons. After I noticed that, I plugged in his predictions and discover that he also used an exponential equation. Specifically, y=2.3831*x^0.4745. Which puts it much higher with short term rain (under 15 minutes) and leveling out and being lower for long term rain. However, since the question was what is the maximum theoretically possible rain, and both my equation and Dr. Lyons occasionally dipped below 100% of recorded rainfall, I decided to tweak the equation a little to give Cap the best chance possible. 

I decided to put an inherent upward bias in the equation, using y=1.925*x^0.5262 I like the 0.5262 exponent better than Lyons because it results in smaller deviation from the records I had available-maybe he has more data than me- regardless, it makes the numbers larger so that helps Cap and I am really bending backwards to give Cap the best possible numbers for his argument.) This resulted in a curve where no point fell below 102% of what was actually recorded. On average, it was 132% of the recorded rainfall and had a standard deviation of 25%. That equation predicts 616 inches after 40 days. So call it 51 feet. That is the most I could get to and is most likely unrealistic since all my biases were towards making the equation higher.

Using a linear equation like Cap has continued trying to do y=1.5*x results in a near 0 R-squared and predictions average of 15,879% of actual recorded results with a standard deviation of 30,914%. In other words, the equation is not at all related to the data and you would be better off throwing darts at a wall of random numbers to predict maximum possible rainfall. Which someone with a background in meteorology should know offhand.       

Anyway, just wanted to share my statistical analysis with anyone who is interested and has followed this discussion. No doubt, there are meteorologists out there using models far more complex that use the physical constants, factor in variables other than just time and are infinitely more complex could come up with more precise estimations. But the one thing that should be crystal clear is that rainfall isn't linear and the maximum possible rainfall in 40 days is probably somewhere around 40-50 feet. 

  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Sketch A link to a basic

 Sketch

 

A link to a basic sketch of the equations. The orange one is Dr. Lyons, the blue is mine and the green most closely matches the records I had access to. And Cap's is the laughable red. It goes out 40 days. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 As far as the idea of a

 As far as the idea of a weather system stalling, Cap is also wrong. It is a frequent cause of severe weather, but it cannot last indefinitely. I had trouble finding info at first because it is called 'atmospheric blocking' which someone who majored in meteorology should know... anyway, turns out there is  a good amount of research. Surprise, surprise, our atmosphere is different from Jupiter. 

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/356/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00376-012-2006-y.pdf?auth66=1407168653_d8fb55eef67e849b6a46a77cd9...

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/phdtheses/The%20predictability%20of%20atmospheric%20blocking.pdf

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yeah,

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yeah, but Cap is arguing that it wasn't really a worldwide flood (don't ask me how one can base their argument on the Bible being right and then claim that the Bible is wrong on a rather large detail) he is arguing that it was localized and all life on the planet was apparently in the same place. Cap initially suggested 240 feet of rain in 40 days, which even if it was in a localized area I could agree that it would essentially be worldwide for prehistoric man and many animals. If proven, I think a flood that large would certainly be evidence that there is some reality behind the story.

Anyway, I found the topic interesting and had hoped to glean some knowledge from Cap because he claims significant experience in meteorology. I can only conclude he lied about his credentials, is lying about what is possible and thinks I'm an idiot, or he is a genius that has some new meteorlogical model that is better than anything so far created.

Since Cap is unable or unwilling to share his knowledge let alone link to some relevant sources I could learn from, I've done some research on my own. Pulling the rainfall world record numbers from NOAA and analyzing them in terms of inches of rain by minutes. Doing what I would call an initial trend analysis, I discovered that there is in fact a consistent trend.

I started with 38 data points from 1 minute up to 43200 minutes (30 days). That led me to a trend line using the exponential equation y=1.5661*x^0.5262. A third order polynomial equation seemed to get the best fit, but those are useless when you try projecting beyond the known data. The exponential had an R-squared of 0.99, so that is incredibly strong correlation. (For those who don't work with stats an R-squared of 1.00 is perfect correlation and 0 is no correlation at all- so 0.99 is excellent.

Quite happy with this equation, I did some more research and found more data points bringing the total up to 55 with world record rainfalls up to two years. The equation performed fairly well with its predictions ranging from 78%(at 4 days) to 168% (at 330 days) of actual recorded world records. On average, the equation predicted 107% of the actual record with a definite trend that the longer the rainfall the prediction tended to be higher than actually recorded. No doubt limiting factors such as seasons start coming in to play when you are talking several months, which this simply model makes no effort to account for. It is assuming that it is always the rainiest season. The standard deviation for the equation related to recorded rainfall was 20%. That means if the data is good, we can statistically be 99.7% certain that any prediction of a record rainfall using this equation will be between 47%-167% of the actual record.

At 40 days, this equation predicts 500.9 inches. 41.7 ft. Not far from the 36 ft predicted by Dr. Lyons. After I noticed that, I plugged in his predictions and discover that he also used an exponential equation. Specifically, y=2.3831*x^0.4745. Which puts it much higher with short term rain (under 15 minutes) and leveling out and being lower for long term rain. However, since the question was what is the maximum theoretically possible rain, and both my equation and Dr. Lyons occasionally dipped below 100% of recorded rainfall, I decided to tweak the equation a little to give Cap the best chance possible. 

I decided to put an inherent upward bias in the equation, using y=1.925*x^0.5262 I like the 0.5262 exponent better than Lyons because it results in smaller deviation from the records I had available-maybe he has more data than me- regardless, it makes the numbers larger so that helps Cap and I am really bending backwards to give Cap the best possible numbers for his argument.) This resulted in a curve where no point fell below 102% of what was actually recorded. On average, it was 132% of the recorded rainfall and had a standard deviation of 25%. That equation predicts 616 inches after 40 days. So call it 51 feet. That is the most I could get to and is most likely unrealistic since all my biases were towards making the equation higher.

Using a linear equation like Cap has continued trying to do y=1.5*x results in a near 0 R-squared and predictions average of 15,879% of actual recorded results with a standard deviation of 30,914%. In other words, the equation is not at all related to the data and you would be better off throwing darts at a wall of random numbers to predict maximum possible rainfall. Which someone with a background in meteorology should know offhand.       

Anyway, just wanted to share my statistical analysis with anyone who is interested and has followed this discussion. No doubt, there are meteorologists out there using models far more complex that use the physical constants, factor in variables other than just time and are infinitely more complex could come up with more precise estimations. But the one thing that should be crystal clear is that rainfall isn't linear and the maximum possible rainfall in 40 days is probably somewhere around 40-50 feet.

That's pretty cool thanks. I even understand it lol.

40-50 feet is a shitload of rain. Did your research tell you what kind of area that could cover?

This makes me wonder how quickly that rain would drain away. I suspect it would drain fairly quickly for the first couple of feet, but then the rate would slow as the ground became saturated and the atmosphere became extremely humid from the evaporation. At some point it would drain so slowly as to be imperceptible. Then it would result in new bodies of water where before there was plains and especially valleys, which should be capable of altering the climate in the affected region. Such changes should be detectable in core samples.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.