|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Impossibility Of The Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: This, of course, is a logical error: Affirming the Consequent. This is where you say: A -> BB, therefore A The problem is that there may be other things that result in B. All squares are rectangles (being a square implies being a rectangle), but not all rectangles are squares (having a rectangle does not imply you have a square.) However, the contrapositive of a true statement is always true: A -> B~B, therefore ~A That's part of why there has to be a flood: They have pinned their theology on there having been a global flood. If there is no global flood, then their assumed theology falls apart. It doesn't occur to them that perhaps god doesn't exist the way they think. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: As you say, meh, not so much. The conclusion is precisely the same as the premise. They assume that if there were a global flood, this means their claim of god is true. It never occurs to them that it might be a different god (after all, the story of Noah is just a rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim and I doubt they're going to give allegiance to the Sumerian gods) or that something else might have caused the flood. If Joe is the Stabbing Killer, then we should find a body that was killed by stabbing. But just because we find a body that was killed by stabbing doesn't necessarily mean that Joe is the one who did it. If the god mentioned in the Bible is the Flooding Killer, then we should find evidence of a global flood. But just because we find evidence of a global flood doesn't necessarily mean that the god mentioned in the Bible was the one who did it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: That's because your argument isn't accurate, or at least isn't complete. It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum. They are out to prove the existence of the specific god that caused a global flood and that there is no other. That the Bible is accurate is merely a stepping stone on the way to claiming, "See?! God exists!" God gave us the Bible -> The Bible says there was a global flood -> We should find evidence of a global flood They then affirm the consequent: There was a global flood -> The Bible was right -> The god that gave us the Bible is the one, true god Please do not play dumb and pretend that the only thing that is being done is claiming that the Bible is correct. After all, there are lots of religious stories regarding floods. If there were a global flood during a time when people were alive, why would it be impressive to find that an oral tradition that goes back a few thousand years would have a story regarding a global flood? If god exists -> The Bible is true And here comes the logical error of affirming the consequent: The Bible is true -> God exists Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: What part of "Your argument isn't accurate" do you not understand? You write:
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. What part of "It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god" is somehow not in direct response to that? It would seem to be a blatant contradiction of your claim.
quote: I asked you very nicely not to play dumb. What part of "Your argument isn't accurate, or at least isn't complete. It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god" are you having trouble with? How does it not respond to your claim of "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"? Why do you think they are trying to prove the Bible accurate? Let us not be disingenuous and pretend that they are just playing at being Heinrich Schliemann and they will accord a finding of a global flood the same theological importance as the rediscovery of Troy. The only reason for the search of a global flood is to prove the existence of the god of the Bible. This is the same disingenuousness as those who advocate ID, insisting that they're not talking about god. Strange how when someone brings up the possibility that an intelligence other than god could be responsible for "ID," it is ridiculed.
quote: Are you truly that naive? Why do you think there is such a search? Are the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis not enough for you? How about Henry Morris' The Genesis Flood? The Institute for Creation Research has a museum just 20 minutes north of me. Exhibit #5 is about the flood. And then there's the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. What on earth do you think the "wedge" strategy is about? It's about getting creationism accepted as science and one of the ways to do that is to show the Bible to be accurate, as if that somehow shows that the Christian god is real. I have asked you very nicely on multiple occasions not to play dumb.
quote: But why do we care? Why is it that the only people who are so insistent that there was a global flood in contradiction to all the available evidence are the ones who are insisting that the Christian god exists, that the Bible is true in every word and deed? These very same people don't seem to think that Zeus and the rest of the Olympian pantheon have any connection to reality just because we've found the Iliad to be accurate. They certainly aren't going out of their way to show the accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, even though the story of Noah is a direct ripoff of the story of Ut-Napishtim. Can you show us a single person who is insisting that the flood actually happened who isn't using it as a justification for their theological position regarding the existence and identity of god? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:quote: Excuse me, but I brought it up in my very first post, Message 12:
Rrhain writes: They have pinned their theology on there having been a global flood. If there is no global flood, then their assumed theology falls apart. Now, why on earth do you think I'm talking about "theology" if I were just responding to a claim that a book was accurate? Yeah, that's right, because I wasn't. I was contradicting your claim that they were just talking about a book. Instead, they're trying to be able to say, "See? God exists!" But the only reason they can do so is because they're starting from a position that god leads to the Bible leads to the flood. To then go from the flood to god is to affirm the consequent. Again, there are myriad examples of flood myths. Why do they land on the god of the Bible?
quote: Now I'm confused. You originally said in Message 11:
Catholic Scientist writes: They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god. Now you're saying they are trying to prove god exists. Which is it? When you figure out your own argument, please let us know.
quote: You just contradicted yourself again. Which is it? Are they or are they not trying to prove the existence of god? Why on earth do you think that they're so gung-ho about justifying their preconception about a global flood? Since there are plenty of flood myths, why is it that they never mention that a global flood shows Gilgamesh to be accurate or that Greek myth is accurate? You never hear a talk about Ut-Napishtim or Deucalion and Pyrrha. Why is that, do you think?
quote: [...] quote: Huh? We get to work backwards in time? Your original point is actually a response to something I hadn't even said yet? No, Catholic Scientist, my Message 12 is a response to your Message 11. It is now up to you to justify your claim that "They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god." Don't play dumb. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bluejay responds to me:
quote: But we don't do that with any other piece of literature. Troy was a real place. It was sacked (multiple times). We still don't teach the Iliad in history or science class.
quote: And that's the logical error of affirming the consequent. They assume that the Bible comes from god and then use the Bible to prove the existence of god. Because god, then the Bible. Because the Bible, then god. Circular reasoning, affirming the consequent.
quote: What do you mean "yet"? Why does it matter that they have an intermediate point? Why is it none of them are ever using this information to justify Greek mythology? After all, they have a flood myth, too. And if the flood is true, then we need to start teaching the Iliad in science and history class, right? No? Then the idea that they are just trying to prove the Bible to be accurate is nothing but a distraction. To pretend that there is any hint of objectivity, "Just trying to find out what's true," is naive in the extreme.
quote: Behe is a religious apologist. While he has been careful about not giving too many speeches regarding the literal truth of the Bible, he has been caught saying so. He is, after all, a fellow of the Discovery Institute. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Do you truly not understand basic logic? It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you take. If you try to reverse the implications, you are engaging in the logical error of affirming the consequent: A -> B -> C C, therefore B, therefore A That is affirming the consequent just as much as if we were to remove B from the process and just do A -> C; C, therefore A. In fact, you're doing it twice. A square -> A rectangle -> A polygon A polygon -> A rectangle -> A square It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps we stick in there: A square -> a rectangle -> a quadrilateral -> a polygon -> a bounded, two-dimensional shape. If you try to reverse the process and start with the end as justification for the beginning, you are affirming the consequent. That's what "affirming the consequent" means.
quote: Huh? Where did I ask you anything? I contradicted you. Msg 1: "Joe's favorite color is red." Msg 2: "No, Joe's favorite color is blue." Msg 3: "I responded to that in Msg 1." Huh? That's not a response. Msg 1 has nothing to do with Msg 2. Msg 2 is a response to Msg 1. For you to say that you already dealt with that is simply repeating your argument. That isn't debate. You need to show why you think Joe's favorite color is red. For the third time: Can you show me anybody who is searching for evidence of a global flood that is going to use it as justification for anything other than the god of the Bible? Someone who will admit that it is exoneration for all the other flood myths out there?
quote:quote: That's not an answer. Why are they trying to prove the Bible accurate? Why is it they're trying to prove the BIBLE accurate? Why aren't they trying to prove the Iliad accurate? Can you show me anybody who is searching for evidence of a global flood that is going to use it as justification for anything other than the god of the Bible? Someone who will admit that it is exoneration for all the other flood myths out there? If not, where do you find justifcation that they aren't trying to prove the existence of their preconceived notion of god?
quote: Right...that's helpful. So the only way to justify your argument is to say, "Fuck you"? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bluejay responds to Catholic Scientist:
quote: Name one. Same argument to you as to CS: Show me a single person who is searching for evidence of a global flood who will claim that it is justification for every culture's flood myth and doesn't restrict himself to just the Bible. Besides, it doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you take. If you reverse the implication, you are engaging in the logical error of affirming the consequent. In fact, adding intermediate steps simply compounds the problem as you are affirming the consequent at every level. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bluejay responds to me:
quote: No, it's a theory vs. practice mindset. Yes, it is theoretically possible that someone out there is treating the Bible as an historical document along with all of the other great historical documents such as the Iliad and the Bhagavad Gita and thus is searching for evidence of a global flood to place these texts within an historical context, but let's be honest: They aren't the ones claiming there was a global flood. Instead, they're making comments that the story of a flood is probably the result of the telling and retelling of a local flood and the one that seems to have originated in the western Mediterranean could have origins in a natural dam breaking.
quote: And I'm saying they don't. Yes, it is theoretically possible that they're interested in the historicity of the Bible and will only use it in the synthesis of their argument, not the analysis, but in practice, they don't. The argument is that god gave us the Bible, the Bible says there was a flood, therefore we must insist there was a global flood which will be proof of god. Circular argument, affirming the consequent.
quote: In theory, no. In practice, yes. Name me a single person who isn't arguing exactly that. No, not a person who is treating it as an intellectual exercise. I want someone who is seriously claiming that there was a global flood and that there is evidence to show it.
quote: But that just means they're repeating the logical error. It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you take. If you reverse the arrows of implication, you are engaging in the logical error of affirming the consequent. Implication doesn't work that way.
quote: Well, that would contradict your previous claim of their intentions:
just because they have the end goal in mind, obscuring their judgment about the evidence, it doesn't mean they're not taking the necessary steps. It turns out that they are, indeed, not taking the necessary steps. They're just trying to baffle you with bullshit by throwing in a lot of intermediary steps so that they don't have to say that "flood = god." It's the exact same reason why they started calling it "intelligent design" rather than "creationism." They wanted to be able to have their religious argument without mentioning the word "god." But just because they don't use the word "god" doesn't mean that they aren't trying to prove the existence of god through an illogical reverse implication. Name me a single person who isn't arguing that a global flood necessarily means the god of the Bible is true. Again, not someone who thinks of it as an interesting exercise. Someone who actually thinks there was a global flood and that there is evidence to show for it. You will note that I was the one who brought up the fact that there are other flood myths out there. Therefore, it would seem to be the case that I would accept that there is some actual knowledge to be learned from investigating the possibility of such a common story across multiple cultures. But if you're only going to say that this means the Bible is true and never mention any of the others, then you're not treating it as an example of cultural and historical geology. You're doing it to prove the existence of your vision of god. Theory is lovely. Let's talk about reality. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bluejay responds to me:
quote:quote: Which leaves me wondering just who it is you're talking about, then. If there isn't anybody who doesn't claim an actual flood who doesn't also then use it to insist that the god of the Bible is the one, true god, then how is this argument not an example of affirming the consequent?
quote: And those same people claim they're not talking about god when they bring up "intelligent design." We don't believe them when they do the latter, why should we believe them when they do the former? They're the very same people.
quote: Because they know they will be letting the cat out of the bag if they do. Since invoking god is clearly not science, they simply restate everything to specifically avoid mentioning god and then pretend that they're being sweet and innocent, praying that everybody will be as gullible as they are disingenuous.
quote: Because they're playing you. "See? We're not talking about god! We never used the g-word!" As if simply not saying "god" doesn't mean you're not talking about god. But look at the keywords in your first reference: Fountains of the Great DeepWindows of Heaven Where did those terms come from? That's right...the Bible. No other mythological source is mentioned. Gee, I wonder if they're not trying to prove god out of this. The very first sentence of the abstract:
In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Noah's Flood. Wait a second..."Noah's" flood? Why not "Deucalion and Pyrrha's" flood? Why not "Ut-Napishtim's" flood? Gee, I wonder if they're not trying to justify the existence of the biblical god. And later on:
Because of the enormous explanatory and predictive success of the plate tectonics model (reviewed in [122,124]), we feel that at least some portion of plate tectonics theory should be incorporated into the creation model. "Creation model"? Gee, I wonder what they're up to.
We feel that this model is not only capable of the explanatory and predictive success of conventional plate tectonics, but is also capable of clarifying a number of Scriptural claims and explaining some physical data unexplained by conventional plate tectonics theory. "Scriptural claims"? What's up with that?
As creationists we could also use the services of a geochemist to develop a model for the origin of carbonates and precipitites during the Flood. Well, there you have it. Creationism is a religious claim. They're doing this research in the service of creationism. It is being done solely to prove the existence of god. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
quote: And I'm contradicting you. They're trying to make belief in god "scientific." Since society has turned to science for answers to questions, they are trying to use the tools of science to justify their theology. Now, none of them need this. Not one of them believe in god because of any experiment. In fact, there isn't a single experiment you could possibly carry out that would make them change their mind about god. But seeing as how they're facing a world that wants evidence, they're trying to come up with something that would be convincing.
quote: And yet, when you look at their overall action, that is clearly what they are doing. After all, if "they're just hoping peoples' faith will take them the rest of the way," then they wouldn't be so specific about which god you're supposed to wind up with. Remember, science hinges on the ability for you to say that everything you thought you knew about everything is wrong. That there was a global flood is no more evidence of the Bible than it is evidence of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and yet these people never point to Babylonian mythology.
quote: ...except that they did. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bluejay responds to me:
quote: It is evidence of everything. Yes, you discuss the interpretation of your results, but you have to do it within the context of all the other evidence available. The fact that these "investigators" never mention any other source of a flood story except the Bible shows that they aren't actually trying to interpret the evidence as proof of the Bible. That's already been assumed. Which means they are assuming that which they are trying to prove. Circular argument, affirming the consequent.
quote: That's precisely my point! They're using their "research" to prove that god exists! They're not talking about a flood for a flood's sake. They're not actually trying to show the physical possibility of a flood. They're trying to prove that god exists. But they only reason they're looking for a flood is because god told them that there was a flood. God -> flood. Flood, therefore god. That's affirming the consequent. It doesn't matter that there's an intermediary step of the Bible in between. The fact that they never talk about all the other flood myths being just as justified by their so-called "evidence for a global flood" shows that they aren't interested in simple geology. They're trying to prove the existence of god.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? That's exactly what they're saying. When you say that it is "still okay to believe in god, biblical literalism, etc." you are directly saying, "These results prove god." That's the entire point.
quote: They don't need to. They know that they cannot use the g-word lest the game be revealed for what it is. That doesn't mean they're not talking about god.
quote: They most certainly did. That's the entire point behind saying, "It's still okay to believe in god, biblical literalism, etc."
quote: Oh, they most certainly do. We know that evolution can be proven to act right in front of your eyes and they know that god acts right in front of theirs. Thus, they intend to show even more evidence of the bibilcal god acting so that it can be proof that god exists and they can then use that to further their political agendas.
quote: Um, you do realize you just proved my point, right? If they are using the results to "rationalize their irrational faith in god," then they are trying to prove the existence of god. That's the entire point behind a rationalization: To prove something.
quote: It most certainly is! If there was a global flood, then all sorts of flood myths become reality, the vast majority of which are not the Bible's...especially since the Bible's story isn't even original to the Bible but is a plagiarism of the Babylonian story. For them to conclude that the BIBLE is true because of a flood is to assume what they were trying to prove.
quote: But the only thing they've managed to say is, "There was a flood." That doesn't fit the facts to the story except in the most superficial sense. That's why we don't accept the finding of Troy to be affirmation of the Iliad. It's too general. Because the story of Noah is a direct rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim, to show that there is any validity to the Bible's telling of events will require much more evidence.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? When a creationist talks about "Scripture," they aren't referring to a literary analysis. They are talking about the "word of god."
quote: But that's precisely what they're doing! God made a flood. Look! We have a flood! Therefore, god exists! We proved it "scientifically"!
quote: But the entire point behind saying, "The Bible was right," is to then immediately say, "And thus, the god described therein exists." It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you put in. If you reverse the arrows of implication, you are affirming the consequent. The way you show that they aren't doing so is to show me a single person who searches for evidence of a flood who then admits that this is justification for every single flood myth out there. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024