Ive seen discovery channel show that seemed to indicate that the area was covered in water that would match a Flood of the magnitude explained using science.
Not sure of the shows name but they went to the peaks of the middle east to look for flood evidence in strata that dated back to a time when the flood might have occurred. The show seemed to conclude that the evidence existed that could support the statement. They didnt say it proved it happened conclusively.
So things can occur outside of God’s plan?
It’s evidence of something (brain states, for instance), but not necessarily the supernatural. As to supporting evidence, there’s plenty of studies done on confabulation, temporal lobe seizures, etc.
Eye witness testimony is shaky - it’s overturned in courts because it’s often unreliable.
I know. I just wanted you to know that there are those who are not literalists
Yes, but the possibility of random occurrence isnt proof it was. It is just a possibility
I didnt make that assumption. You called him an ass hole. The Bible says God is a vengeful God. Many would take that as an ass hole.
I dont know they guy he speaks of.
neither is evidence against God either so youre defaulting to a belief, not necessarily a truth.
]
One of the definitions of a prophecy is a prediction of the future. This doesnt mean that God did it. It just means it is seen. God didnt “use” Hitler, satan did.
This is an omnipotent God who lets us live our lives by choices we make and then judges us by those choices. We are not puppets on strings in a theatre used to entertain God.
We live our lives based on our choices. Those choices can negatively affect others.
I personally dont see “The Plan” as detailed as many people interpret it. Jesus was a part of His plan. Me typing here on the internet isnt. My typing this response also doesnt stop His plan. Not every minutia of life has an effect
See 3b. The physical world. That is, the natural world.
Science does not deal with the supernatural, which is not bound by physical laws.
Yeah, that’s bullshit. There is zero evidence, and substantial counter-evidence, for the claim that there was ever a global flood. It simply didn’t happen. Have there been regional floods? Of course. But that’s not the Tanakh’s claim. It’s just a fact, there was never a global flood. Those who rely on such claims are admitting that they do not have a factual basis for their argument.
I would disagree with this, but fair enough.
Again, I dont agree, but it is vetted. Eyewitness accounts have also been reliable.
That is why discounting it based on a preconceived opinion isnt science.
For science to be accurate, it must look for the answer, not the answer you may want. Science has been wrong in the past.
I’m not sure what you are getting at here - it seems to me that you are suggesting that we should accept eye witness testimony in some cases, just on face value. My point is that there are reasons not to do this.
I might be misinterpreting you here though.
Yes, science has been wrong in the past, but the point of science is not that it provides 100 % certainty, just that it’s the best method we have for figuring out things in the world.
Again, Im only recounting the show on The Discovery Channel.
But to an individual of that area, it very well may have been local, and to them, it was global as reported. Perspective is a key here. Since there was no life at the tip of Everest, would God have need to bury it under water? What about the poles?
As I said earlier, im not a literalist. I tend to read the Bible and attempt to understand it with the perspective of who is writing it, and based my understanding of that context.
To them, it very well may have been global.
My deity is in Virginia for the next few days on business. I have photographs of her, and can reach her via cellphone, but other than that I am weak on direct evidence.
Science may be used to investigate the supernatural whenever it intersects with and effects the natural..and most supernatural claims I have seen do just that.
If you deny or disparage Her in the presence of others, will they independently verify her Acts of Vengeance?
Let me see if I can clarify
1st person accounts are “evidence”. Evidence is not necessarily fact. It can be, but it isnt always.
As we have discussed, that “evidence” can be influenced based on personal perceptions that are not accurate.
In this thread, someone discounted a personal account based on their preconceived opinion, not based on evidence. That discount may have been accurate, but it was an assumption a guess. Science does postulate, but to include or deny evidence is based on research, not just a knee jerk response. Postulates are based on what we investigate, and postulates can be wrong.
Im not saying all 1st person accounts are accurate. Im saying they shouldnt be knee jerk discounted just because it conflicts with what one may believe, if indeed this is a scientific conclusion
Does that make sense?
Here’s the thing - yes, there was probably a local flood that the original myth was based on. There are local floods all over the place, which probably account for the local myths. Those local myths probably interpreted the flood as being global.
Why prefer the Bible’s flood instead of the Sumerians? The Sumerian’s account predates the Bible’s account.
Not sure where you are going here - why would God actually have needed to flood the world (local or not) to begin with?
That’s fine. Are you aware that quite a few scholars believe there are at least two accounts of the flood contained within the Bible’s narrative?
Major goalpost shifting.
So we’ve gone from a magical, global flood to a “to them” global flood, which is really local. That, of course, means that the story isn’t true. And if we’ve already accepted that the universality of the flood is counterfactual, why not look at the rest of the narrative too?
Im not sure its a preference. See below for what I mean
The reason for the flood was because Man (the species) had degenerated so far from God that He essentially wanted to start over. Thus, this would be the preference to the Bible Flood, rather then the Sumarian. The Rainbow is Gods promise never to do it again
You mean 2 floods? Not sure what youre saying here. And let me preface, I am no scholar. LOL
Verily. Therefore I anoint her with oil.
Huh, that sounds like the beginning of an easily-won wager…