While his logic is at least semi-correct, his assumptions are unfounded, unproven and without basis in reality. The conclusion is thus false as well (GIGO).
It's a wager. One would have to wager that a king would flop next to make a full house and actually believe it to be so. Would one then bet the house because he is so certain a king will flop next? How can one wager a king will flop and then believe it's so without doubt?
But the wager is a penny against a lifetime supply of unlimited money. I'd bet, too, although the belief part can't happen.
It's not just a penny, though. It's a lifetime of worship, praise, proselytizing and living by a rigid set of ancient moral rules complete with judging everyone else. It's guilt and inadequacy and shame. It's being told (at least in Christianity) that you're unworthy of love or forgiveness without torture and blood sacrifice, and it's constant fear that you've forgotten to ask forgiveness for something and that you'll be sent to hell anyway.
All the while knowing it's just a wager. Convincing yourself a king will flop without ever seeing the king.
Penny is relative - relative to the prize which is eternity of bliss. Or so goes the claim - personally I think that an eternity of life would be the worst punishment possible, whether bliss or punishment makes little difference.
True, but if you bet the penny and you're wrong you will have wasted a penny and a lifetime preparing for an afterlife that doesn't exist as a best case scenario. At worst, you will have wasted everything to suffer in a different hell than the one you believed in.
... don't wanna stop the dialogue ... just need a little help with this comment ... do i understand you to say regarding the last that ... "if" there is a God one still is headed for hell ... or are you saying that God would be dissatisfied as He was the winning jackpot of a wager rather than the reward of faith ... and therefore reward the winner according to His stated requirements ... in short ... believe or perish ...
I'm saying that there's no way to tell WHICH god. So if you bet on the wrong one, then you're no better off than the non-believers - possibly even worse, since you've spent your life worshiping a being that isn't actually the "real" god. It goes back to my first post in response. There's a 50/50 shot - either there is a god or there isn't a god. The theist side has to divide their 50% by every god ever claimed. The atheist/agnostic/non-believer side remains at 50%. It seems that the smart bet, unless you flip a coin and happen to pick the one "right" god out of thousands, is still non-belief in light of the appalling lack of evidence.
Secondly, if there is a god - I'm pretty sure that if his attributes are accurate, he will know who is believing in him in order to hedge their bets, and who's believing in him out of love or adoration. A god that isn't smart enough to know that isn't one that is particularly worth worshiping.
Utterly ineffective. It appeals to fear which is a powerful motivator for some, but isn't good enough. Let alone the fact that the wager is skewed towards atheism. Either a god exists, or a god doesn't exist. These are the only two possibilities. So the 50% chance that a god does not exist stands. The other 50% in favor of a god then has to be divided by every good ever posited, which makes it a fraction for any particular god. Why wager when it's more likely that you'll pick the wrong one and end up worse off than not believing at all. If a god exists, would he be angrier that someone withheld belief sure to lack of evidence, or that someone spent their entire life worshiping someone else?
What are your thoughts now that it has been explained to you? Do you understand why educated and thinking people laugh at this so-called "wager"?
PW is so horribly flawed.
First, because belief is not a choice. If someone told me believing in unicorns would grant me eternal life, I can't just switch everything I know and understand about the world and start believing in unicorns if I just don't believe in them. I can lie about it, and say I do, but that wouldn't really be believing.
Second, because it assumes there's only two possible outcomes-- belief in Christianity, or non-believe. But what if you become a Christian and it turns out you've been worshiping a false messiah? Or that you have not been worshiping Allah properly? Or that you've offended the 'true God' Lucifer and other Pagan Gods by calling them devils?
In other words, Pascal pretends Christianity is a win-win situation here, when it's not. Christians could just as easily be the wrong ones on the side of that wager.
It's not either/or-- it's more like Russian roulette, with thousands of bullets in the chambers and only 1 empty chamber. Everyone is at risk.
The final problem is that PW assumes there is no problem with living a Christian life and turning out wrong. He's wrong-- if that's the only life you have to live, and you lived it untrue to yourself, all to avoid some imaginary 'hell', then you blew it.
What if you're gay and spend your only lifetime without love because you fear those repercussions that are never coming-- when alternatively you could have had a happy life with a partner? Or what if your child was gay and you made him self-loathing and shamed all his life, causing him depression and fear, when he was doing something perfectly natural? Or what if you're a woman who does not want a child, but brings one into the world anyway out of fear of 'hell' should she have an abortion? What if you're that child brought into poverty and an abusive family who didn't really want you but feared abortion consequences?
As you can see, PW is beyond flawed logic. It makes no sense at all.
... thank you for your pleasant response ... it calls for a reply ...... two items ... are you saying lucifer is the true god or is that an option for comparison ... second, i don't know pascal's true beliefs other than he was making his "wager" statement from a Christian perspective which, though one may expand on it for debate, eliminates the numerous other supposed religions ... and like all defenseless dead folks, we can only assume what he meant or truly believed ... was he serious or was he doing an absurdum ... at this point, only God knows ...
What I'm saying is that IF Lucifer turned out to be the 'true God', then how does that help Christians who took PW? They have to face the true God in the afterlife and explain why they called him an evil devil fallen angel. If he's anything like they think YHWH is, he's going to be pissed and unforgiving.
To eliminate all other possibilities would make PW a 'sucker's bet'.,. because the fact is there are many possibilities. That's like saying your life depends on guessing whether an orange or an apple is hidden in a paper bag, when in fact it can be any fruit ever know (and maybe some unknown ones). Just by the odds, picking either an orange or an apple would likely mean you're screwed.
I don't know what PW meant to Pascal... I can only give my perspective on it as it was stated. I do know a lot of people have posed it to me seriously as if it was supposed to be a good argument. It's not.
As for "God only knows"-- maybe. But which one? That's exactly why the wager doesn't work.
... i would agree with you on the pw thing ... just picking brains ... faith is not a wager as some might think ... as to lucifer, that's another matter ... absent God (which i find impossible) we have no lucifer, a created being of God ... give him presence, as does the Bible, we see a most stupid being ... highest of angels wasn't good enough for him ... but then his stupidity or lack of total intelligence or whatever it might be called, shows ... he wants to be like the most high God ... does any intelligent being that wants to be in control only aspire to being like that which he would dispossess ... doesn't ambition aspired to be better, the best not just a copy of that which they want to dethrone ... the only answer is lucifer knows God to be omni- in all facets ... therefore stupidity shows to the utmost ... can one defeat that which is undefeatable ... no, yet our pointy tail demon continues ... in the corporeal world, it would be called insanity (as einstein once said) ... Biblical record shows he has lost on every occasion in his war with God ... ambitious, yes ... persistent, yes ... winner, no ... future ... perdition ... along with those that fail to recognize the God of creation ... but its their choice ... and i do appreciate your thoughts ... thanks again ...
Once again, you are forgetting that the Christian perspective is not the only one, and that is exactly the flaw I am pointing out.
Keep in mind: I don't believe in the existence of the Christian God OR the Christian devil, so this is all hypothetical to me.
What if Biblical record is totally wrong? What if YHWH doesn't even exist? What if Lucifer is and always was a beautiful Pagan God of Light that Pagans worshiped before Christian priests came and slandered him with biblical lies and falsehoods, calling him "Satan" and saying he was a mere rebellious punished angel?
And now Christians have to face Lucifer, the *real* God in this possible scenario, the *true* God, and explain why they took the word of a bunch of bronze-age goat-herders and participated in slandering him. A lot of hemming and hawing shall follow.
Let them explain that "Pascal's Wager" put them up to it. See if that cuts ice.
This is what I's saying is wrong with PW... it could only possibly work if there truly were ONLY 2 choices: Christianity or nothing. But, there is way way way way way more than 2 possibilities. The Bible might not be the "one true scripture". It might be drivel. Mythology.
The Hindu Upanishads might be the true scriptures. Or the Jewish scriptures (in which Jesus did not meet the messianic requirements, thus leaving Christians worshipers of a false messiah). Or perhaps the 'right' scriptures were the destroyed and forgotten oral traditions of ancient Pagans-- destroyed by whom? Christians.
According to Pascal's Wager, people who place their 'bet' on the Christian Bible are taking as much of a risk as anyone else in the world, and have just as much a chance of losing. It is just so not a 'sure thing' for Christians.
And once again I say-- believe is absolutely, positively *not* a choice.
So the very notion a God is evil enough to punish people for being wrong also poses a problem in PW.
... again, pw is a flawed theorem as I have already agreed ... however, i don't recognize nor consider any but the God of Heaven, the Creator ... as most call Him, the Christian God ... all else is, including pagan, middle east, far east gods are a fabrication, a corrupt copy of God (wanting to be like the most high God) ... they were and are fashioned after the timeless writings of the Bible, OT and NT ... lucifer does exist, yes ... an evil, insidious being who knows he is headed for a firery pit along with all his minions, fallen angels and any other being that choses to follow him ... the demonic hatred of all the God has spurs him to pull as many with him as possible ... but every individual must make their choice as they will be the ones the will either enjoy or suffer eternity ... by choice ... as was lucifers ... i suspect a searching, wondering atheist or agnostic will do better in front of God at judgement than the satan worshipers ... so i would invite you and all reading to consider their state before God ... we don't know what the next second will bring ...
Actually the God of the OT was fashioned after the Gods of previous cultures. One of which had 10 generations of leaders which lived extremely long lives sent by the heavens before the flood, just as the OT says happened only it was written and documented well before the OT. The research is fascinating and revealing and well worth it.
... if you are speaking of urartu or akkadian you only need look at the dates of their supposed beginning, existence and kingships to realize there are some faulty figures there ... however we must also be aware that no civilization of today can factually place their beginning prior to circa 2300 BC ... the time of the Great Flood ... and when they state otherwise, its always "hidden in uncharted antiquity" ... the Bible, the greatest history book ever written still stands ...
That's actually not true. And no one has been able to prove the date of the Great flood - and most scientists deny that a world-wide flood ever happened. There simply isn't any evidence to support it.
I would argue that you have to a) substantiate your claim that the Bible is the greatest "history" book of all time b) substantiate that it is actually history and c) substantiate that it still stands.
Keep in mind - recollecting real, historical places does not equate to actual history. If that were the case, then I could, in turn, argue that because the Spider Man comic books are set in New York City and New York City exists, then spider man is not only real, but historical.
... bouncing back and forth in this ping-pong of comments ... my turn ... there is always a demand by the adversaries of the Bible to show proofs but all that is given in response are opinions and supposed scientific discoveries, which usually change nothing or prove nothing ... where are any of the written verified proofs, not theories and opinions of supposed experts, that support your position(s) ... when one presents a position they should prepared to back it up with proofs, not theories opinions ... then too, i have no interest in debating that which supposedly happened before the creation of Adam until such time as one can show the fallacy or error that supposedly exists in the Bible, we are are not talking spelling and punctuation, etc. ... as to your 3 qs ... first, we can only address the secular/corporeal issues ... the unsaved man cannot understand the spiritual things of God ... (the saved man has enough trouble as it is at times, but study brings light) ... then defining Biblical words with secular understanding is trying mixing oil and water ... it doesn't (and don't bother trying to come up with some cutsie formula, it would be disingenuous if not ignorant ... answering your 3 qs... each is related to the others ... the Bible as a modern history text (though that is not its purpose) is in parallel with secular history timelines ... it proves itself by content and secular history proves it by timeline of events ... this would be my factual proofs ... circa 2300 BC is not 2300 BC as you misunderstood, but about that time ... this does not deny civilizations existed prior to the Flood ... on the contrary, the Bible recognizes this as "fact" ... my position is no present day civilization (Jew, Gentile or Hamatic), anywhere in the world, can factually date its beginning prior to circa 2300 BC ... pot shards, carbon date, strata dating (the biggest con of them all), etc. indicate civilizations but there is a lack or absence of evidence of thriving societies circa 2300 BC ... the connect the dots and fill in the blanks theories regarding this time are all supposition not to be taken as fact ...
Before we continue, can you please tell me the definition of a scientific theory?
Once again, if you claim the Bible is the ultimate authority, that is a positive claim, and you are responsible for proving it. Attempting to shift the burden of proof to try to force someone to disprove your assertion before you've proved it in the first place is backwards.
... hhmmm ... could it be you have no answers ... yep, i'll go with that til you show your proofs there is no God and the Bible is ... well if you don't want to believe secular history ... not much else to say on this ... but its been pleasant ...
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.
I'm sorry you feel that way. As I explained, until the Bible is proven to be an authority, the burden of proof is one the person asserting that it is. You're making the claim, not me. I am withholding acceptance of that claim until it is sufficiently proven, which you haven't even tried beyond making the claim in the first place. Assertions are not evidence. Usually when someone tries to shift the burden of proof, it is because they recognize that they cannot provide evidentiary support for the claim they made, so they try to force the other person into a refuting a claim that was never sufficiently proven initially.
I noticed that you didn't even attempt to answer my question. Could it be that you don't know, yet you're minimizing the word theory anyway?
No, actually I was speaking of the people of Sumer. Almost 7.5 thousand years ago. Look it up.
There's no evidence of a great flood ever happening, let alone a time for the alleged great flood.
The Bible is not evidence of anything; it's yet to be proven a valid source.
"Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/eviden … d=17884533
I don't know if you realize it... but that means nothing.
I mean you ask for proof every day and when someone provides you with something that you could just dwell on for a few minutes, you make emoticons. EMOTICONS! lol... Seriously?
Scrabble is my game, this is yours. In an actual debate, can you imagine a Christian providing you with actual proof, that came from a secular source, supporting their belief... and you held up an emoticon? What are you doing? Do you even know anymore?
But you didn't hold up anything other than one religionist's opinion and claimed that a sea shell was evidence of a global flood. So I did the only sensible thing and laughed. Please go ahead and provide actual evidence of a global flood and I will respond appropriately.
Nothing supports your irrational belief. I don't know if you realize it, but your unsupported claims mean nothing. Might as well add an "I believe" emoticon.
lol. Do you all call one another for support? You just all appear at once with all sorts of different claims and tactics.
I will continue to throw any thing I find out there for you that might alert some tiny spark within your being that God is real, He created you and He loves you. You can hate me for it, but I wish only the best for you.
I don't hate you for it, I pity you and hope you seek professional help some day soon in order to alert some tiny spark of reality. More unsupported claims of non existent beings is not helping. In a real debate you would offer some proof of your claims.
Prove there isn't a God. You will refute my evidence, so save me the effort.
You do not have proof, you have theories and suppositions.
I have experiences and the testimonies of ppl for thousands and thousands of years.
But Radman has already claimed that we lie, so what is the point?
If I could give you proof that God exists. Irrefutable proof... would you believe? Would you spend time in the word and in prayer, getting to know who He really is?
Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy, Beth, but how very Kevin Sorbo of you. I have never once seen you present any actual evidence. Maybe when and if you do you will find that the response to your claims changes for the better. I just doubt that you're either willing or able to try.
Yes. I would believe if you gave me irrefutable proof.
Dear Beth, having conversations with your own mind isn't proof of anything other than one talking to ones self. Now, if that voice can supply evidence that you can't have then I'd pay attention. I mean really, all the millions of Muslims praying to God several times a day, one would think the voice in their head would tell the to pray to Jesus instead. Why aren't all the Catholics being told to pray to Beth's version of God instead? You see we don't have to prove God doesn't exist as we don't claim he does, so we will leave you to supply some or any evidence without making a logical fallacy.
Dear Terry, that is one condescending post. I'm ok with it though.
We are not on a first name basis, you can call be Mr. Rad Man if you like, but I understand that some like to do a little detective work on Facebook, that's your choice I guess.
I'm sorry if it sounds condescending, but the article you posted clearly talked about a local flood in the area and even drew parallels with stories of floods and sole survivors thousands of year before the said time of Noah. How you can read that and not understand any of it is beyond me, perhaps it's call denying for Jesus?
Can I interject something here? Totally unrelated to the topic...I think we should avoid using a person's real name if they haven't revealed it in their profile or chosen it as their user name. Even if you know it and are their friend, it's really a breach of their online privacy to address them that way without their permission.
Agreed. I think she was trying to make that point since her name is no longer part of her hubpages identity, yet it keeps being used.
No, she told us to use her name. I've never told her my name, but I think I know where she got it from.
I might agree with that, except that her name is indeed on her profile. I think that is something we should all be more careful about.
So if I click on your page, am I going to find your FB link with your name, husband's name, mother in law's name displayed for everyone to see? Family pics? Job? Children's names? I have not investigated anyone. You are as private as you want to be on the internet. I am not going to join a new argument just to satisfy the need of someone wanting to stand on their hind legs. Life is hard enough.
Seriously? I feel like that's a bit of an overreaction. But to answer your question, my full name is on my profile. And I wasn't attempting to start an argument. I was making a suggestion. Have a lovely day.
Do you see my name when you click on my profile? Oh well.
Firstly, no one is denying the possibility of a local flood. They happen all the time. Localized floods are a far different thing than a global flood. He found signs of a local food.
Secondly, what you just posted directly contradicts what doc young claimed, that the flood occurred in 2300 bc, and that no presently existing civilizations existed prior to that, which is absurdly false.
I didn't claim that Doc Young knew when the world wide flood happened. Nor did I claim that ABC news knew the correct date. It is a question that has obviously not been answered. It would be odd for "Robert Ballard, one of the world's best-known underwater archaeologists" not to know the difference between a local flood and the possibility of the biblical flood.
Robert Ballard never claimed a global flood. He found evidence for a catastrophe around the block sea. The Black Sea is not the whole world. To find evidence of a global flood, you would have to go global, which is not what his research in the area of the black sea did.
From the article:"It probably was a bad day," Ballard said. "At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under."
That's not a global flood.
I read the article, but I thank you for pointing out the things you thought I might have missed.
I'm not the one who drew the parallel to the flood Ballard discovered and a global flood. Maybe you should shoot a note to ABC news and give them your theories.
They didn't claim global flood either. They actually went out of their way to say "great" flood, meaning it was big. The only person who seems to be extrapolating global out of regional or great is you.
I guess you missed the intro?
"Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard
Dec. 10, 2012
By JENNA MILLMAN, BRYAN TAYLOR and LAUREN EFFRON
Lauren Effron More from Lauren »
PHOTO: This ark, located an hour south of Amsterdam, is a replica of Noahs Biblical boat. Underwater archaeologist Bob Ballard is in Turkey, looking for evidence that the Great Flood happened."
Noahs biblical flood, called the great flood, never specifies anywhere in the article that it was global. Many Christians claim it was not global. Again, you're the only one extrapolating.
So the Bible says Noah's flood was global.
The article uses the comparison of Noah's flood.
Believe me, I am sometimes hard pressed to do a solid math equation, but this really seems like 2+2 to me.
The Bible says it was global. The article says regional in multiple places. Going out of their way to avoid saying global after talking about regional floods means that they are not claiming or adding global. Extrapolation.
Aside from semantics, however, and a pointless argument, they only found evidence of a catastrophic event around the black sea - you know, where they were actually looking.
Ill be honest with you. I didn't bring up the pointless argument.
Didn't you provide the article as evidence of a flood, seeing the word "great" and "biblical" while not realizing it specifically talked about evidence in a very specific region of a regional catastrophe? My bad. I must have gotten you confused with someone else.
If I were you, I would contact the writer of that story, ABC news and the renowned archeologist for using the words "Noah" "Biblical" and "flood" together in the title of their story to describe Ballard's discovery. It sure was easy for someone like me to get confused.
Yes, you are most certainly the one who drew the parallel to the flood Ballard discovered and a global flood. I went back an read the article this time and I was right about the ice age ending and of course it says nothing of a global flood and talks specifically about a region flood and parallels it to recent floods.
Even Rabbi Burt Visotzky, a professor of Talmud and Rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York said "Those are mythic numbers (people living for 800 or 900 years), those are way too big. We don't quite know what to do with that. So sometimes those large numbers, I think, also serve to reinforce the mystery of the text."
The article then draws the parallel of Noah and "The Epic of Gilgamesh" which was being passed down for centuries before Noah appeared in the Bible.
"The earlier Mesopotamian stories are very similar where the gods are sending a flood to wipe out humans," said biblical archaeologist Eric Cline. "There's one man they choose to survive. He builds a boat and brings on animals and lands on a mountain and lives happily ever after? I would argue that it's the same story."
Just another example of lying and denying for Jesus. You read an article and somehow misunderstood and gave it to us as prove of a global flood.
One might just find that what he is talking about lines up with the end of an ice age when the water levels were much lower than what we have today.
It's not beneath people to lie for Jesus. Some even deny for Jesus, like denying evolution.
So - you weren't really looking for a discussion then? You just wanted to spread unsubstantiated nonsense and have an argument about a majikal flood that never happened.
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.
I understand that you believe that, but how do you demonstrate it to be true? Your God is simply one in a long line of worshiped deities, some going back for thousands of years, prior to when the Bible depicts events. Even early Christian writers acknowledge that jesus is similar to earlier gods in an attempt to pause and convert pagans. Believing it is one thing asserting it as fact without backup is entirely something else.
... one has to be able to separate "Christian writers" from "believing Christian writers" ... there are a lot folks around today that don't believe this and that as stated in the Bible ... they say so from pulpits in "Christian churches" ... the pseudo-sciences spit out things daily and folks grab onto them just as quickly ... but the folks that believe their daily, weekly, monthly, yearly updates won't have these vain experts standing next to them when its time to give an accounting to God ... the Bible is able to prove itself ... never been proven wrong, never will ... and i rest comfortably in that ...
Funny... the Gods you call 'copies' came first (People were worshiping Pagan Gods before the concept of YHWH or Satan ever was invented).
You speak of the OT, which was based on Jewish scriptures, and Jews never (and still don't) believe Satan was a 'fallen angel' or a 'devil'. In Judaism, he always has, and still works, for YHWH. I find that ironic that you would bring it up, considering the whole Christian concept of 'satan' was nothing more than a mistranslation of the original Hebrew scriptures.
Insisting there's only 2 possibilities (your God or no God) does not make it true, though. You might have made your choice and wish to ignore all others, but it doesn't mean other possibilities don't exist.
Like I said, I don't believe in the Christian concept of God or devil at all. In fact, I think there's a better chance that Pagan Gods are the true Gods and the Christian God and Devil are the cheap fabrications. But if it's possible for one God to exist and be the 'true' one, it's possible for any of the others to exist and be the 'true' one. Pagans, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. are all just as sincere in their beliefs as you are in yours.
Anyone who believes there's a higher power has to consider the possibilities. or they can never claim to know truth.
So strange... so many ppl willing to take the risk.
Maybe if we just tried to explain what we've experienced b/c we want good for all these ppl.
Yes - what a risk. Allah might punish you for not following the one true god.
Jokes... I joke a lot. I don't make a lot of jokes about being judged by a righteous God.
Seems a risky wager.
Well, the god you claim to worship is such a nasty piece of work I would not lower my morals low enough to worship it. Sorry - I have standards.
What if the Muslims are right?
My heart goes out to you. If I could help in some way, I would.
I would offer the care you need if I could, sadly I suspect you would reject it.
I do - you should seek professional help.
That doesn't sound like kindness. It just sounds like more mockery.
I will leave you to your fun.
No - I genuinely think you could benefit from professional help. Goodbye.
You're probably right, though not for the reasons you think.
So I traded in every letter but my A.
Look what I got.
See the little teacher's face to the left of the word? Even he is very saddened by the thought of it.
Yes - how sad that you need to start facing reality without your crutch.
Giant Oyster Fossils Found at 13,000 Feet
Over 500 fossilized oysters were found in 2001 by Cuban paleontologist, Arturo Vildozola near the town of Acostambo, nearly two miles above sea level in the Andes mountains of Peru. The bi-valve, ocean dwelling mollusks indicate quite obviously that at one time, despite the high altitude, that these mountains had been under water, as would happen in a worldwide flood. The fossilized oysters (Plagiostoma giganteum) reached a width of 12 feet and weighed up to 650 pounds.
The fossils were disseminated over a wide area. The oysters were found closed suggesting that they had not been eaten, or had died a natural death. The shells of dead oysters tend to open and the fact that they were closed suggests that they were prevented from opening by burial in silt and earth.
It should further be noted, no remnants of Oyster hiking or climbing gear were found, bringing doubt to the theory that the oysters climbed the mountains themselves.
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Seashells … of_a_flood
http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/frank … report.htm
I'm not sure that creationism today or answers in Genesis is a reputable source for information about science, geology or, well, anything.
Neither, obviously is a world renowned archaeologist or news source.
Numerous times when I used to engage in these conversations in the forums I would point out that covering the mountains was no big feat if the mountains weren't mountains yet. I would go on to explain how that might be, but no matter how clear I tried to make it I would be shouted down with how impossible miles of water covering the earth was. Detractors heard nothing I said, always referring back to miles and miles of water depth being required for such a ludicrous idea.
At least this forces the Scientism crowd to come up with what I have been saying all along. Not really looking to engage in a forum where this is not even the topic, but the repeated cries for evidence prompted me to break silence and post.
Fits to a "T", regardless if the universal mantra is denial.
Fits what to a t, and what am I denying, exactly? Do you somehow know me in person away from hp to make that assertion?
Only how you represent yourself here. For all we know in real life you are still a Baptist missionary and this is just for fun. You are correct that we have no way to know the truth about anyone here.
The problem is that you can't get away with making stuff up. There are fossils towards the tips of mountains. How did they get there? Could it be because of the biblical flood? Sure, why not. Now how do you prove casualty, rather than just saying "the flood did it" without providing supporting evidence? Could it also be a result of something other than the flood? Sure. Now what is the evidence in support of that?
I don't see that being scientifically literate as being a follower of scientism, and I don't see that asking for evidence instead of a magical explanation for something is a bad thing, I'm sorry. I was not a part of any conversation I can recall with you about the flood, so I can't speak for what was our wasn't said. From my previous interactions with you about other science related material, your apparent disdain for it accept when it appears to support your position is off-putting. I'm sorry we can't see eye to eye to discuss, though.
I love science. Always have. Never cared for the religions that have been spawned by the exploitation of it based not on facts, but compounded interpretations of what real facts may mean. For reference purposes, I collectively call all the denominations of this Scientism, although hardly anyone who would qualify based on the beliefs they espouse would claim the moniker. Not meant to be pejorative, considering it leaves in tact all the beliefs those it describes, claim. Again, I guess we are a bit off topic.
Out of curiosity, what would/could possibly be the benefit of such actions?
Just reinforcing her point that we don't really know each other. At least not when everyone wants evidence and proof.
... i fail to see how "... the mountains were covered ..." Genesis 7:20, and not have the water spill over into the next valley, and the next valley, and the next valley, etc. ... whatever happened to the pure sciences, such as physics? ...
I am not at home where I have research materials, but let me ask you how tall a mountain is? I know the smallest registered is under 500ft, while the tallest hill has a summit of nearly 2400 ft. If most terrain were relatively level it wouldn't take much to be a "mountain".
So your are saying 7 thousand years ago there were no mountains? All these mountain grew to there current height within the last 7 thousand years?
Please understand we have done this all before, and while I actually enjoy it, I don't have time. I just was providing some food for thought since the oysters force those who would normally avoid it to see it is possible the entire earth could have been covered and the mountains raised up after since clearly that was the progression in that local. Lots of sea fossils are found in mountains all over. Go figure.
So two quick answers and back to work...
If you started primarily with fresh water, that is what you would see.
Considering I believe God could create another universe in literally no time if He chose to do so, raising mountains up quickly to provide dry land when ending the flood would hardly be a reach.
Please take no disrespect, Rad. I enjoy the banter, but don't have the time right now. I pop in when I can and use whatever time I can spare...I would do it much more if I could.
I get what you're saying, but the evidence shows that the Himalayas started growing some 45 million years ago and the Appalachian belt some 450 million years ago. You just claim God did it because he can and then we are left with wondering why he would introduce all that conflicting evidence? One of the way they determine the age of mountains is look at the kind of sea shells they may find on the mountains and consult palaeontologists and archaeologists. You seem to be ignoring all of the evidence and using your imagination to come up with answers.
A global flood would have killed every fresh water fish, and left all the lakes salty with salt water fish, sharks and whales.
We've been over this before you are right, but I blows my mind to see someone ignore evidence to maintain a belief.
I agree with your statement, we just disagree about who it applies to. Of course, we also disagree about the "evidence". We probably agree about the facts, although I expect you may consider some of the interpretations of the actual facts to be facts themselves, and that then becomes your evidence.
The difference is I'm not trying to maintain a belief, I'm trying to find the truth.
Again you have made a statement we agree on in the sense that I could make it back to you, verbatim.
But you are trying to maintain your belief by ignoring the evidence that is directly in front of you so your universe lines up with what the bible says. I'm not doing that because I hold no belief. If the evidence said mountains started to rise 7 thousand years ago, I'd except that. If there were evidence for a global flood 7 thousand years ago, I'd except that as well. What do the experts that don't have a vested interest in lying and denying for Jesus say? You know, the people looking for the truth, like Darwin and the first geologist who came to the conclusion that the earth is millions of years old. You just notice sea shells on mountains and claim it's because of a global flood 7000 years ago rather than studying the sea shells and finding out that they are millions of year old.
Hard facts don't tell you any of that. Your "evidence" is comprised of interpretations and speculations regarding what the hard facts might mean. If you want to weave a tale supporting something much more far fetched than a monkey sitting at a keyboard long enough producing "War and Peace", such as macro-evolution, you better give yourself millions, or better yet, billions of years. Otherwise even the most optomistic wishful thinkers won't find it plausible.
LOL, yet here we are, apes sitting and typing on a keyboard. And you said it couldn't happen.
... it really makes no difference since the previous verse makes it clear that Moses is talking about every/all hills and mountains ... unless the water stood up likes the "walls" of water in Exodus 14:22, and there is absolutely no reference to this, the laws of physics would have the water "seek its own level" ... so if the "mountains were covered" by 22.5 feet of water, that would mean all the earth ... Genesis 7:19 ...
I'm going to give this a shot, I understand your beliefs will not allow you to see the reason behind my point, but I'll do it anyway.
The Black sea is an example of what happens when sea levels rise over land. It was a fresh water lake during the last ice age, there is plenty of evidence of this in beaches underwater, camps and fresh water snail shells. The black sea is currently salt water sea.
If there were a global flood why do we currently have fresh water lakes? Wouldn't they all be salt water?
If you choose not to believe, I can't offer you anything else. I wish you well.
How strange that you asked me that question then. Still - at least you now admit you have no proof. Thank you.
by Alexander A. Villarasa 4 years ago
In an essay arguing for the validity of global warming , Tim O'Reilly, (the founder and CEO of O'Reilly media) used Pascal's Wager, an articulation by the 17th century philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal who argued for the existence of God in the face of the failure of reason and...
by abt79 3 years ago
If You do not believe in God, what do you have to lose by believing in God?In my opinion, even though some believe God is nonsense, is there any "risk" involved in theism?
by College politico 8 years ago
Recently I wrote a hub on faith and imagination. Since I was interested in hearing others opinions on how we should use faith in our imagination I started a thread on this forum. Unfortunately it was high-jacked and the topic at hand was not able to be discussed. So this is basically my second...
by Fairbear 9 years ago
Speaking only for myself here. I can't see inside other people's minds, so I don't if it's the same for them. When a person tells me about God and Jesus and the whole nine yards, my first natural inclination is that there is no real truth in it. This non-belief just occurs naturally without any...
by enderw1ggins 3 years ago
The debate is Theism Vs. Atheism. The spirit of this particular thread is solely for a more formal discussion of the topic. There are rules...which obviously can be broken but should be followed out of courtesy.1.) Sources for arguments of fact need to be cited. There are exceptions to this rule if...
by Nichol marie 3 years ago
If you do not go to church, but you believe in God, are you still considered religious?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|