• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
1137 said:
Materialists believe math isn't an objective ontology, that it's simply a concept. I agree it's absurd.
Click to expand...

"Objective ontology"?0

What is definitely not material is a person who thinks math does not exist,

Your criricism of the mental state of people who do not exist
is what is absurd here, seems to me.
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
ArtieE said:
And how would you know that? Are you familiar with all existing evidence in the universe?
Click to expand...

Yes, so far as I can tell I have seen all the proposed evidence for materialism. One reason I'm NOT a materialist is that I actually look into all different positions, which clearly cannot be expected for materialists.
 
Hockeycowboy

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Berlin said:
Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Thank about it - most of us believed in Santa Claus with the same passion as a deity until we knew better. I used to listen for the sled and hooves landing on my roof or a very fat man squeezing down my chimney. I believed it because it's what I was told for several years. I don't see any difference in religion.

Last, if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally. There is no room for riddles or interpretations. We know there are things in this world that are physically impossible. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean a miracle allowed an incident to negate physics. A man lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, Moses parting the red sea, Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.

Please join this discussion and explain your views.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

There are quite a few dogmatic statements you’ve made in this post.

I submit some evidences against your view:

Proofs of the Bible’s Authenticity.htm
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
1137 said:
Yes, so far as I can tell I have seen all the proposed evidence for materialism. One reason I'm NOT a materialist is that I actually look into all different positions, which clearly cannot be expected for materialists.
Click to expand...
You have seen all of the proposed evidence for materialism? I am impressed.

Why do you use the qualifier "proposed"? Do you think that some of the evidence you have seen for materialism is not evidence? You are turning down your tone a little bit, but now it appears that there may be some evidence for materialism that you have seen. Simply qualifying it as "proposed" does not make it go away.
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
You have seen all of the proposed evidence for materialism? I am impressed.

Why do you use the qualifier "proposed"? Do you think that some of the evidence you have seen for materialism is not evidence? You are turning down your tone a little bit, but now it appears that there may be some evidence for materialism that you have seen. Simply qualifying it as "proposed" does not make it go away.
Click to expand...

Proposed because it's not actually evidence for materialism. It's put forth as evidence for materialism but doesn't actually support it. Still better than someone pretending they have evidence that for some magic reason they can't produce ;)
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hockeycowboy said:
There are quite a few dogmatic statements you’ve made in this post.

I submit some evidences against your view:

Proofs of the Bible’s Authenticity.htm
Click to expand...
Wow! That is a really poor source. It did not start out bad but when it went into "The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah' it jumped the shark. There were pictures of natural erosional features and tried to claim they were temples and ziggurats. Shades of Ron Wyatt! By the way, the plural of "evidence" is "evidence". That source uses circular reasoning, the false claim that since some of the Bible is accurate all of it is accurate, and batcrap loonie claims, such as the one that I mentioned. It does not help your case.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
1137 said:
Proposed because it's not actually evidence for materialism. It's put forth as evidence for materialism but doesn't actually support it. Still better than someone pretending they have evidence that for some magic reason they can't produce ;)
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is not evidence for materialism? You are not an authority on your own, if someone posts evidence you need to be ready to refute it.

But before we go on I think that I see your error. You are trying to demand a philosophical proof for materialism, but materialism is more in the line of a scientific theory or hypothesis than an idea that can be proven true or false.

In the world of the sciences scientific evidence is simply evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. I have not claimed to be a materialist and since the term has never been properly defined, a link would be nice, then there is no way to say whether I would agree with it or not. You seem to want to exclude consciousness from Materialism, but I do not see how you could do that.

By the way evidence by itself is not necessarily proof. In fact in the sciences, or in law, there is no absolute proof. There is merely proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Philosophical arguments are usually not even based upon evidence but rather upon premises. One may need to demonstrate that a premise is reliable, but there are all sorts of "valid" philosophical arguments that fail because of false premises.
 
Hockeycowboy

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Berlin said:
Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Do you really think , since the event described posits God as the Source of the Global Flood, that His intervention would stop with the water, itself? That He wouldn’t control other events? It is naïve to not consider it.

The “mouths of the lions” were ‘controlled’ to save the prophet Daniel. God could’ve done the same on the ark.

As for all the animals involved, here’s an excerpt from an evidentiary look at the situation, detailing some probabilities.....

“Was every species on the ark? No! From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, in Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 24–25) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminological2 research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy. However, to be conservative in this study, the genus was set as equivalent to the original created kind. As for the clean animals that entered the ark in seven pairs, this added a modest number of additional animals, notably bovids (cow-like mammals) and cervids (deer-like mammals). Under these conservative assumptions, there were no more than 16,000 land animals and birds on the ark.

According to the Bible, the ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals, assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories today. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) are small. The largest animals were probably only a few hundred pounds of body weight.

It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and some dinosaurs. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area. God would likely have sent to Noah young (and therefore small, but not newborn) representatives of these kinds so that they would have a full reproductive potential for life after the Flood to repopulate the earth (Genesis 7:1–3). Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.”

Without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary. What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.

What about the provisions for the animals? It can be shown that the food would have filled only 6 to 12 percent of the volume of the ark, and the potable water only an additional 9 percent of the same.3”

Excerpt from: How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them?


EDIT.....
Combine the latter with this study: ‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’
 
Last edited:
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Wow! That is a really poor source. It did not start out bad but when it went into "The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah' it jumped the shark. There were pictures of natural erosional features and tried to claim they were temples and ziggurats. Shades of Ron Wyatt! By the way, the plural of "evidence" is "evidence". That source uses circular reasoning, the false claim that since some of the Bible is accurate all of it is accurate, and batcrap loonie claims, such as the one that I mentioned. It does not help your case.
Click to expand...

Your take on "evidences" actually wont hold up. A good G.N. always double checks.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hockeycowboy said:
Do you really think , since the event described posits God as the Source of the Global Flood, that His intervention would stop with the water, itself? That He wouldn’t control other events? It is naïve to not consider it.

The “mouths of the lions” were ‘controlled’ to save the prophet Daniel. God could’ve done the same on the ark.

As for all the animals involved, here’s an excerpt from an evidentiary look at the situation, detailing some probabilities.....

“Was every species on the ark? No! From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, in Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 24–25) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminological2 research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy. However, to be conservative in this study, the genus was set as equivalent to the original created kind. As for the clean animals that entered the ark in seven pairs, this added a modest number of additional animals, notably bovids (cow-like mammals) and cervids (deer-like mammals). Under these conservative assumptions, there were no more than 16,000 land animals and birds on the ark.

According to the Bible, the ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals, assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories today. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) are small. The largest animals were probably only a few hundred pounds of body weight.

It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and some dinosaurs. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area. God would likely have sent to Noah young (and therefore small, but not newborn) representatives of these kinds so that they would have a full reproductive potential for life after the Flood to repopulate the earth (Genesis 7:1–3). Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.”

Without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary. What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.

What about the provisions for the animals? It can be shown that the food would have filled only 6 to 12 percent of the volume of the ark, and the potable water only an additional 9 percent of the same.3”

Excerpt from: How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them?
Click to expand...

Sixteen thousand animals? Do you realize how much hyper-evolution that would require after the flood?

I always wonder when the flood believers think that the magic stopped. No evidence of five vertical miles of water, nowhere that it could have come from, nowhere it had to go to. Why drown everyone? Why not just magic them dead? That would be far less work. Why make it look as if there never was a flood? Isn't that an act of deception? Why are you claiming that God lied?
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Hockeycowboy said:
Do you really think , since the event described posits God as the Source of the Global Flood, that His intervention would stop with the water, itself? That He wouldn’t control other events? It is naïve to not consider it.

The “mouths of the lions” were ‘controlled’ to save the prophet Daniel. God could’ve done the same on the ark.

As for all the animals involved, here’s an excerpt from an evidentiary look at the situation, detailing some probabilities.....

“Was every species on the ark? No! From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, in Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 24–25) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminological2 research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy. However, to be conservative in this study, the genus was set as equivalent to the original created kind. As for the clean animals that entered the ark in seven pairs, this added a modest number of additional animals, notably bovids (cow-like mammals) and cervids (deer-like mammals). Under these conservative assumptions, there were no more than 16,000 land animals and birds on the ark.

According to the Bible, the ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals, assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories today. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) are small. The largest animals were probably only a few hundred pounds of body weight.

It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and some dinosaurs. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area. God would likely have sent to Noah young (and therefore small, but not newborn) representatives of these kinds so that they would have a full reproductive potential for life after the Flood to repopulate the earth (Genesis 7:1–3). Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.”

Without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary. What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.

What about the provisions for the animals? It can be shown that the food would have filled only 6 to 12 percent of the volume of the ark, and the potable water only an additional 9 percent of the same.3”

Excerpt from: How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them?
Click to expand...


There is no need for such calculations.

There is well over a hundred thousand years of ice
accumulated at the south pole.

That is incompatible with a world wide flood.

Does it matter? If God there be, he doesnt need
the flood story to be real for him to be.
If there is a god, does it matter if one
goes about telling of his role in a rather horrific act,
when the story is actually a myth?

Worth some thought and study, due diligence and all, no?
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Audie said:
suture self, but you've not done your due diligence either
Click to expand...
There may be a source that disagrees with me, but I did not find one. I found several that did agree with me. Posting them all would have been overkill. That would appear to be "due diligence" in this case. Of course the word can be used as a verb, but that was not the case in the post that I replied to.

No answer for the related question?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hockeycowboy said:
You must be replying to Sudzy Zone.... I don't read his tactless, arrogant replies.
Click to expand...

Oh my! A tactless and arrogant reply from Hockeycowboy.

Truth be told he merely got tired of being corrected. A bit harshly at times, but then he went out of his way to earn that sort of reply. A simple error is corrected politely. But rudely posts often have blunt replies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top