The Impossibility Of The Flood

I thought that they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible.

I was thinking more along the lines of:The Bible says there was a flood.
Look, there really was a flood.
Ergo, the Bible was correct about the flood.They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.Even if it is "just another mythicized version of a flood story", it would still be correct in that it happened.For it to not have happened at all shows an inerrancy in the Bible and the literalists cannot have that, so they try to prove that the flood did exist.

Meh, not so much. The conclusion is not the same as the first premise.....What is concluded is that the Bible is correct in saying that a flood occured. The conclusion is not that the Bible does, in fact, say that there was a flood. That's pretty much what I was saying, or trying to say. They have to show that the flood occured so they can show that their theology has been pinned correctly.If there wasn't a flood, then the Bible is not inerrant and their whole theology falls apart.

Not in the argument that I provided. That's a different argument than the one I provided.Fail.

It would be nice if you responded to my argument, the argument that I actually provided, instead of making up an argument for me and the responding to that.In Message 9 I wrote:

quote:

---

I thought that they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible.

---

and in Message 11

quote:

---

They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.

​

Even if it is "just another mythicized version of a flood story", it would still be correct in that it happened.

​

For it to not have happened at all shows an inerrancy in the Bible and the literalists cannot have that, so they try to prove that the flood did exist.

---

Please do not be dumb and respond to arguments that I’m not making.I haven’t seen many arguments for the flood that conclude that god exists. Care to link to a few?My point is that, for one, yeah it’s obvious that an argument for the flood and concluding that god exists is illogical, and for two, people generally, when arguing for the flood, are not trying to prove that god exists but rather prove that the Bible has some accuracy to it. It would be impressive that the Bible actually got some things right. It would add veracity to the Bible, not prove that god exists.

The part where it took you two posts of seemingly misrepresentation before you brought it up. They are trying to prove the Bible accurate in order to add weight to their position of god existing. They are trying to prove the flood to prove the Bible accurate. But they really aren’t taking the fallacious leap from proving the flood to concluding god exists.They really aren’t Affirming the Consequent in the way that you laid it out. You’ve answered this, yourself, in Message 12: And I answered it in Message 11:

quote:

---

They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.
Even if it is "just another mythicized version of a flood story", it would still be correct in that it happened.
For it to not have happened at all shows an inerrancy in the Bible and the literalists cannot have that, so they try to prove that the flood did exist.

---

Wow, I can hardly believe what I'm reading. I remember seeing Crashfrog bitch about how disingenuous you are with the misrepresentation n'stuff, but I never really saw it for myself and didn't really 'get' what he was saying.But damn, I get it now.Well, wait... Is English not your first language? Because that would make sense. They try to prove the Flud to prove the Bible. Then they use the proof of the Bible to prove God exists. They do not leap from the Flud to God's existence and Affirm the Consequent like you are saying. If I say in message 1 that my favorite color is red, and then you ask me in message 2 what my favorite color is, I will say that I already answered that in message 1.Now who's playing dumb? Or are you just trolling me? Because they are trying to prove that the Bible is accurate, like I've been saying. .|.. ^.^ ..|.

---

ABE:Bluejay seems to get it just fine:

quote:

---

Here's how I see it. There are two steps in the IDist’s argument:

​

1. Prove the Bible is accurate, so it will be permitted in science and history
2. Once it’s shown to be scientifically accurate, we can use it to prove God

​

I agree with you (Rrhain) that the overall goal for all IDists/creationists is to prove God, and that that goal definitely permeates the entire process. But, I agree with Catholic Scientists that at least some IDists have made the distinction between the two steps above and are trying to tackle number one without going to number two (yet).

---

What's your problem?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

I stand by my original assessment... They are trying to add weight to the Bible. If your standard is science, then they'll try to be sciencey. I don't think they care about a natural, godless, explanation for themselves but that they're trying to get to your standard. I don't think its because of the existence of the naturalistic explanation, if it was then we'd have to have magical explanations for mundane things. Its all about the Bible and whether or not the explanation contradicts it. I doubt God is actually written out of the picture (e.g. would they think that god did not make the flood because they have the natural explanation?), they're just putting up the naturalistic explanations because that's what their audience wants. I think you're talking about two different approaches and are seeing too much causation in the correlation you've noticed.They start with the Bible. Now, take "things that really exist and have a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation" and see if they contradict the Bible. If they do, then invoke magic. If they don't, then thank god (or whatever). Now, take something the Bible says really exists but for which we do not have a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation. If the audience is fellow Bible believers, then nobody cares about a natural explanation. But if your audience is scientists, then you'll need to come up with a natural explanation if you want them to consider that the Bible was correct in saying that the thing really happened.

Yes, you're right. They don't want any contradictions with the Bible. Although if push came to shove, they would probably fall on magic too for the flood, imho. A noticeable affect on reality.Jesus turning water into wine one time at some party isn't something that would effect reality in a way that we could notice today.A global flood is not something that could go unnoticed. Assuming the Bible is correct, there has to be evidence of the flood (but there doesn't have to be evidence of water being turning into wine one time).

What do they do instead? Not really. will you expound?And I don't think your example is very analogous. I think a better analogy would be them explaining how the soles of Jesus' feet must have been repelling the surface of the water by some force, or something more like that. Do they really replace the miraculous with the non-miraculous? I thought it was more of explaining the miraculous with the non-miraculous. With the flood specifically, yes. I think that's because it couldn't have gone unnoticed so that explanation is required.But for something unnoticeable like walking on water, I don't think they'd do the same. Do you?

Indeed. I think its a necessity born from practicality. Its just too easy to show that the flood didn't really happen. They have to have these explanations to maintain the whole thing. For other miracles they don't.

Of course, and the invitation IS open...But while we're waiting