-->
@TheUnderdog
You might enjoy this,
Noah's ark makes no sense
Posts
Total:
55
-->
@Lemming
Or a family of fisherman surviving a regional flood.
Or, the fertile crescent flooded on the regular and inspired a Sumerian myth,
-->
@oromagi
There are many good reasons to argue that the existence of magical Gods is unproven. I don't think finding fault with Genesis is one of them.
DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
-->
@Lemming
@Intelligence_06
There is no such thing as "historical fact".
HISTORY = UNFALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS
-->
@BrotherDThomas
...which is obviously true because these other life forms exist today,
OBVIOUSLY.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, way to discourage me from learning history. I guess after reviewing my first exam, I basically wasted an hour for nothing.
-->
@rosends
So creation ex nihilo makes perfect sense but somehow you draw the line at a boat?
NOUMENON = GOD(S)
-->
@Tradesecret
God made a world.
Ok,
The world stuck its fist up at God.
Well, god made them and raised them.
If your children hate you, can you really blame the kids?
God tolerated this for a while - and then when he could not anymore - he judged it.
Wow, this sounds like a case of incompetent-designer/parent AND impatient/homicidal outburst.
I mean, why would a god care if humans ignored it or made fun of it? Can a god die if nobody believes in it?
If some kids hated me or ignored me, I certainly wouldn't slaughter them.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well, way to discourage me from learning history. I guess after reviewing my first exam, I basically wasted an hour for nothing.
Check this out if you have a spare 5 minutes and 16 seconds,
-->
@TheUnderdog
The existence of God is not dependent on the Bible being true or false. God exists independent of the Bible, no story can make that plausible or not plausible. There are many human conceptions of God and stories that reflect God's existence, if you were to go about it this way, you would have to prove that all stories and interpretations about God within all cultures are inaccurate, seems like a worthless effort.
Rather...if God makes sense to you, or the idea of creation in and of itself seems more plausible to you (which it is) then start with that alone, don't start with a story in some spiritual book and think you've somehow managed to disprove that premise. Creation as a legit proposition and God's existence are much more simplistic than you are making it out to be, you're just beating around the bush a bit hanging on to irrational ways of trying to find faults within a plausible concept.
Start with the reality that creation works first and foremost, then work your way out from there. You don't need a book to establish God exists, that's working azz backwards.
For example, read through this thread and get an idea of how creation could work without using any particular Holy Book to establish your proposition.
Once you've established a proposition using logic, evidence and common sense then you can use spiritual sources as a cross reference. Nothing more, that's all they are good for.
The order of operations should be more like this.....
A) Creation seems plausible to me, it's a very likely premise
B) I can make sense of it using my own mind/logic along with a wide variety of knowledge and information
C) There are many sources (religious/spiritual) that have come to the same conclusion
D) Those sources may reflect truth, but also may reflect error, they are human ideas and concepts
E) My conclusions and premises aren't hinged on whether or not religious sources contain truths or errors, they are first based on what I truly accept as plausible/true
F) If I see something within another religious source that I concur is rational and truthful, it is useful to me
G) If I see something within a religious source that I find silly or irrational it is not useful for me as legit information, I disregard it
H) My beliefs and acceptance of a Creator are based on solid ideas and concepts irrelevant of any religious sources, because first I have agreed that it is a useful/true proposition
I) Religion and spirituality as a whole.....are only useful for me to obtain useful bits of knowledge and information should I view them as concrete or accurate, they don't control my input or output of ideas and observations regarding God's existence
J) My belief/acceptance that God exists is solid, it is first based on what I believe and observe to be true.......no outside source can render that obsolete, outside sources could only ever attribute to what I already understand to be true
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no such thing as "historical fact".HISTORY = UNFALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS
I suppose it's difficult to experiment upon history using the scientific method, it only happens once.
Though similar or near identical events may occur afterward.
-->
@EtrnlVw
You don't need a book to establish God exists,
GOD(S) = NOUMENON
-->
@3RU7AL
GOD(S) = NOUMENON
You have this plastered all over the forum, I wonder if it's supposed to be your idea of an argument. I'll be the first to tell you that spirituality transcends the immediate physical sense perceptions but that in no way implies God is unknowable and or cannot be perceived at all. Not when you understand the nature of consciousness and the soul as it is proposed within the spiritual framework. In other words I don't agree with such an assertion, saying/claiming it is only an opinion. You have to actually make an argument as to why you assert or believe God is both unknowable and cannot be perceived at some level of experience. God is both knowable as well as perceived, this should be obvious when you look at the full scope of human experience. To say it's not so is to deny the history of human experience as it is.
The soul can experience phenomenon transcendent of the immediate physical sense perception due to the reality that the soul exists independent of them. In this light, you could compare the full scope of sense perception to channels or frequencies like that of radio waves and the immediate physical channel of perception is only one of many channels/frequencies.....and all levels of experience are still a phenomenon. This includes everything that can be experienced outside the immediate physical sense perception, within the whole arena of spirituality.
Knowing of God is simple, the information and facts have already been presented in many forms from many sources. Whether those forms have been accurate or even in error is irrelevant, what it comes down to is recovering the correct information which isn't so hard as it relates to anything else that makes sense.
Perceiving God or experiencing God is much more complicated I admit, at least in terms of demonstrating it but not at all in terms of explaining it and showing how it works. Each soul originates with the Creator, that is their true identity and all knowledge and experience that pertains to that reality can be obtained regardless of whether or not there exists obstacles.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'll be the first to tell you that spirituality transcends the immediate physical sense perceptions...
We are in 100% agreement on this point.
...but that in no way implies God is unknowable and or cannot be perceived at all.
It is important to draw a bright line between (REAL-TRUE-FACT/QUANTA) (AND) (PRIVATE-EXPERIENCE-OPINION/QUALIA).
-->
@EtrnlVw
Not when you understand the nature of consciousness and the soul as it is proposed within the spiritual framework.
We might be talking about two different things.
I'm saying that you can't "KNOW" god(s) (QUANTA).
I believe you are suggesting that you CAN "EXPERIENCE" god(s) (QUALIA).
You CAN "KNOW" that you remember an "EXPERIENCE", but that knowledge is unfalsifiable (indistinguishable from OPINION/GNOSIS).
-->
@EtrnlVw
In other words I don't agree with such an assertion, saying/claiming it is only an opinion.
How do you, personally, distinguish OPINION from FACT?
-->
@EtrnlVw
You have to actually make an argument as to why you assert or believe God is both unknowable...
(IFF) "god" is omniscient, omnipotent, and the sole "creator" of all things (THEN) "god" necessarily is all things and is all knowable and unknowable things.
(IFF) humans are incapable of knowing all things (THEN) humans are incapable of knowing "god".
If you prefer a different definition of either "god" or "human", please let me know and I will demonstrate in your preferred vernacular.
...and cannot be perceived at some level of experience.
One might conceivably be able to have an UNFALSIFIABLE, personal "experience" of "god(s)", but that experience is necessarily indistinguishable from OPINION/QUALIA/GNOSIS.
-->
@EtrnlVw
The soul can experience phenomenon transcendent of the immediate physical sense perception due to the reality that the soul exists independent of them.
What exactly do you mean when you say "the soul exists".
What is your preferred definition of "exists"?
-->
@EtrnlVw
...you could compare the full scope of sense perception to channels or frequencies like that of radio waves and the immediate physical channel of perception is only one of many channels/frequencies.....and all levels of experience are still a phenomenon.
Actually, "phenomenon" is very specifically what you CAN empirically QUANTIFY.
You can imagine any number of "dream channels" you can "tune into", but they can not be said to be either "REAL", "TRUE", OR "FACT".
-->
@EtrnlVw
This includes everything that can be experienced outside the immediate physical sense perception, within the whole arena of spirituality.
Just like dreams.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Knowing of God is simple, the information and facts have already been presented in many forms from many sources.
Please explicitly identify one or more "facts" that you personally believe supports this claim.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Perceiving God...
Only if you conflate "perceiving" with "imagining".
...or experiencing God...
Just like a dream.
...is much more complicated I admit, at least in terms of demonstrating it...
Right, you can't exactly "see" "hear" "smell" "taste" or "touch" it.
...but not at all in terms of explaining it and showing how it works.
Well, you can imagine any number of hypothetical frameworks, but if the person you're talking to has no memory of GNOSIS (AGNOSTIC), they might hear your words, but they will not "know".
-->
@3RU7AL
You might enjoy this,
To paraphrase;
' If can't convince myself some how then I might start questioning others things about Yahweh that don't make sense '.
And we can't have that can we? So what we should do is tell everyone that doesn't believe that millions of every species fitted and existed and survived in the Ark for over 5 months, that they "are missing" and or "do not understand the context". And when asked to put the story into a understandable /believable context we should just run away and pretend that request for context was never asked for.
-->
@Stephen
.
Stephen,
As a TRUE Christian, I have to accept that there were thousands upon thousands of animals and EVERY "Breathing Life Form" x 8 pairs were upon the ark, even though the boat was only 510 feet long. :(. This is what separates a TRUE Christian like me from a pseudo-christian like Tradesecret and RoderickSpode when they bring in their laughable SNL comedy skits regarding Noah's Flood to make it work. These two Bible fools will pay upon Judgment Day for sure, praise Jesus' revenge!
.
-->
@Stephen
So what we should do is tell everyone that doesn't believe that millions of every species fitted and existed and survived in the Ark for over 5 months,
I think we should demand a demonstration.