Introduction to Biblical Nonsense Part 1: Noah's Ark

[RickD]

No Kenny, I don't. That's why I asked you to explain the logic behind it.

Look at it this way; of all the intelligent beings in existence, none of them I call God. So if one or more of said intelligent beings is behind the development of the Universe, logic should tell you I do not call it God!
Please tell me you are getting it this time because I cannot think of an easier way of explaining it to you.

K

Are you applying god-like characteristics (such as cosmological creation) to non-god "intelligent beings?" If so, you're describing a God and simply labeling it at otherwise. A infinite being is required to bring forth a finite universe (assuming the universe is finite), and infinite existence is a great making property exceeding the limitations of a physical intelligent being; logic would tell me this being you're describing is a God regardless of what you call it.

I may have missed your point, I'm a bit slow on topics like this.

The only other conclusion I can dream up from your statement is that non-god beings with an incredible technological understanding 'created' our universe (a theory I've actually heard respectable people present). I simply view this as "kicking the can down the road."

And the Deist is correct.

That's what I'm trying to get Ken to understand. A rose by any other name, is still a rose.

See Kenny? You don't have actually believe in a personal ,Theistic God, in order to understand the concept of Him.

Unless I'm wrong, and HFD is a closet Theist...

[Kenny]

The only other conclusion I can dream up from your statement is that non-god beings with an incredible technological understanding 'created' our universe (a theory I've actually heard respectable people present). I simply view this as "kicking the can down the road."

If this civilization had the technology for time travel, would you still call it kicking the can down the road?

Ken

[RickD]

Hi, I'm Kenny. I believe in a civilization of godlike beings who can time-travel, and create the universe. But I absolutely cannot believe in God!

[HappyFlappyTheist]

The only other conclusion I can dream up from your statement is that non-god beings with an incredible technological understanding 'created' our universe (a theory I've actually heard respectable people present). I simply view this as "kicking the can down the road."

If this civilization had the technology for time travel, would you still call it kicking the can down the road?

Ken

Yes I would. Time travel, in the sense of backwards in time, is not possible unless you are transcending into a different universe. Transcending into a different universe for time travel requires a multiverse; the multiverse is not a testable hypothesis while the finite universe model (BBT) is a testable theory and has been tested. The multiverse is thus the least likely of our 2 options.

The baggage with backwards time travel is also quite immense, more immense than a creator being in my opinion. But....that's a very subjective statement and does't really matter, just tossing it out there. I view -finite universe with infinite creator being- > -alien society evolved on a different planet to an extreme, learned to manipulate the multiverse (hypothesis with very little current evidence) with insanely advanced technology, time traveled backwards, had unfathomably even more extreme technology to create an entire universe pinpointed to a quadrillionth , then decided to leave and not be involved-
I think at this point you'd be better off just saying the universe (referring to every universe and all that inhabits it) is a regressable infinite and our universe came by chance. This then goes back to a completely different argument and doesn't deal at all with what we call the omnipotent being that created the universe.

[abelcainsbrother]

ABC, you say that there are sediments from a world wide flood that covered everything, including mountain tops, is that right?

Is this sediment found at the bottom of the ice, or it between layers?

When you post to me could you stick to the ideas, and skip all the editorializing?

I said there was climate change that caused a drought,that produced dust and even posted a link about how it effected a certain people and this dates to the time of Noah's flood,it is in the margin of error.I have not really got into an explanation with scientific reasons for a world wide global flood.I briefly explained how it could've happened but that's all.I'll just reiterate my point that the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but the oceans go down over 36,000 feet,this is deeper than any mountain is on land is tall as Mt Everest is 29,000 feet and this proves that it is possible to have had a worldwide global flood covering the mountains if the oceans were much shallower than they were before the flood.

Plus I gave a link about how science could change their view that the water on this earth came from inside the earth,instead of comets,If this is true? Then it will show the oceans were much shallower and would be evidence for Noah's flood,the fountains of the deep were opened up in Noah's flood and this could be explained by Noah's flood,plus the drought and dust,add it all up and it would be evidence for a world wide Noah's flood.

[abelcainsbrother]

What happened in 2345 BC?

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf030/sf030p02.htm

[Kenny]

No Kenny, I don't. That's why I asked you to explain the logic behind it.

Look at it this way; of all the intelligent beings in existence, none of them I call God. So if one or more of said intelligent beings is behind the development of the Universe, logic should tell you I do not call it God!
Please tell me you are getting it this time because I cannot think of an easier way of explaining it to you.

K

Are you applying god-like characteristics (such as cosmological creation) to non-god "intelligent beings?" If so, you're describing a God and simply labeling it at otherwise.

I don't know what you consider "god-like" characteristics; perhaps you should describe them. I am talking about a technologically advanced race of beings who are flawed, imperfect, evolved; meaning they are born and they die, and are responsible for the existence of the Universe in the same way I am responsible for the existence of the corn I picked from my garden. Now if that is what you consider "god-like" characteristics, your answer is yes. If not, then I am talking about something totally different.

Ken

[Kenny]

Hi, I'm Kenny. I believe in a civilization of godlike beings who can time-travel, and create the universe. But I absolutely cannot believe in God!

C'mon Rick; you know better than that! I am saying the likelihood of such a race of people responsible for the Universe is equal to the likelihood of your idea of God being responsible in my book. How you can conclude from the information I gave that I believe the existence of one but not the other is beyond me; I suspect you were just trying (unsuccessfully) to be funny!

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Evidence?

[Kenny]

Evidence?

What type of evidence are you looking for?

Ken

[HappyFlappyTheist]

I don't know what you consider "god-like" characteristics; perhaps you should describe them. I am talking about a technologically advanced race of beings who are flawed, imperfect, evolved; meaning they are born and they die, and are responsible for the existence of the Universe in the same way I am responsible for the existence of the corn I picked from my garden. Now if that is what you consider "god-like" characteristics, your answer is yes. If not, then I am talking about something totally different.

Different responce Kenny, the one you quoted wasn't dealing at all with your alien friends. You seemed to say, quite blatantly, that if an intelligent being created the universe you would still not call it God. This is illogical.

Your alien friends are even more illogical, as already discussed, as you're either kicking the can down the road or hinting that a physical regressable infinite exists. A regressable infinite is not testable and thus the least likely of our 2 options (between a testable, modeled, probable finite and a hypothesized, unprovable regressable infinite). Feel free to go back and actually read my last post on this alien, time-traveling creation absurdity.

[Kenny]

I don't know what you consider "god-like" characteristics; perhaps you should describe them. I am talking about a technologically advanced race of beings who are flawed, imperfect, evolved; meaning they are born and they die, and are responsible for the existence of the Universe in the same way I am responsible for the existence of the corn I picked from my garden. Now if that is what you consider "god-like" characteristics, your answer is yes. If not, then I am talking about something totally different.

Different responce Kenny, the one you quoted wasn't dealing at all with your alien friends.

Oh so I've got "alien friends" now? Alien means not of this planet. Is God of this planet? Is Jesus your friend? Perhaps you are the one with the alien friends.

You seemed to say, quite blatantly, that if an intelligent being created the universe you would still not call it God. This is illogical.

No; I said quite blatantly; I am not dismissing the POSSIBILITY of an intelligent being responsible for the existence of the Universe, and I currently do not call any being God.

Your alien friends are even more illogical, as already discussed, as you're either kicking the can down the road or hinting that a physical regressable infinite exists.

I am doing neither; I am simply acknowledging possibilities no matter how small

A regressable infinite is not testable and thus the least likely of our 2 options

[/quote]
Your "God did it" explanation is not testable either! If "not testable" is a reason for dismissal; at least try to be consistent about it!

Ken

[HappyFlappyTheist]

No; I said quite blatantly; I am not dismissing the POSSIBILITY of an intelligent being responsible for the existence of the Universe, and I currently do not call any being God.

If you're defining the universe as all that exists, you are describing a God! Maybe you need to define what exactly a God for you would be.

A regressable infinite is not testable and thus the least likely of our 2 options

The option was not "god did it" vs. "multiverse is real." I'm not sure what you're rambling about.
That quote in it's context was referring 2 the option between a truly finite universe and regressable infinite universe. One is currently scientifically accepted and has a very strong basis for belief, the other is pure horse dung and un-scientific as it's not testable. I never claimed the obvious logic flow stemming from this to be testable, it's just that, logic flow.

Oh so I've got "alien friends" now? Alien means not of this planet. Is God of this planet? Is Jesus your friend? Perhaps you are the one with the alien friends.

Alien doesn't actually mean "not of this planet" and an alien named jesus does mow my lawn, though I wouldn't call him my friend.
If you're defining "alien" as something supernatural and transcending the parameters of this physical universe, you're again describing a god without labeling it as such. If you're defining alien as " evolved creatures from a different planet with time traveling and universe creating capabilities" you're kicking the can further down the road without actually addressing the issue of true creation.

Perhaps you've yet to see the dots connected. If a true finite exists (the entire universe and all that encompasses it), it is logically coherent to state some-thing transcending universal parameters caused a true something -being the universe- to begin existing. This "some-thing" must be defined as a God. You're not conveying clearly what exactly a God would be for you thus why you reject this notion. So again, clarify. What is a God kenny?
And yes, I do view the above more logical than advanced space aliens as I'm not kicking the can down the road.

[Kenny]

No; I said quite blatantly; I am not dismissing the POSSIBILITY of an intelligent being responsible for the existence of the Universe, and I currently do not call any being God.[/quote]

If you're defining the universe as all that exists, you are describing a God! Maybe you need to define what exactly a God for you would be.

For the sake of this conversation; let’s go with the God described in the Bible. That means he is:
All knowing
All good
All powerful
Non evolving; has always existed, and always will
Has a son named Jesus
Creator of the Universe and all within it,
And all the other stuff people attribute to this God.
He can’t just be one of those things; he must be ALL of them.

A regressable infinite is not testable and thus the least likely of our 2 options

The option was not "god did it" vs. "multiverse is real." I'm not sure what you're rambling about.
That quote in it's context was referring 2 the option between a truly finite universe and regressable infinite universe. One is currently scientifically accepted and has a very strong basis for belief, the other is pure horse dung and un-scientific as it's not testable. I never claimed the obvious logic flow stemming from this to be testable, it's just that, logic flow.

Dude! Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote and what you wrote. The claim you attributed to me, and effectively dismantled; was actually a claim YOU made! Yes you were the rambler; not me. It appears you don’t need me to find flaws in your argument“ as Richard Pryer used to say; you kickin’ yo own…….(well you know; another name for a donkey)

Ken

[HappyFlappyTheist]

Your "God did it" explanation is not testable either! If "not testable" is a reason for dismissal; at least try to be consistent about it!

This was your response to the quote that I posted and the one I was responding to. I was more or less defending the quote that I posted (the one you responded to), I didn't "dismantle" it. Did you actually read through my post? If you did it should've been pretty obvious I wasn't arguing with myself and rather responding to you. I'll re-post it for you with your quote above.

"The option was not "god did it" vs. "multiverse is real." I'm not sure what you're rambling about.
That quote in it's context was referring 2 the option between a truly finite universe and regressable infinite universe. One is currently scientifically accepted and has a very strong basis for belief, the other is pure horse dung and un-scientific as it's not testable. I never claimed the obvious logic flow stemming from this to be testable, it's just that, logic flow. "

Since I've now clarified that I'm not schizophrenic, back to point.