Then...
Naturalism and Atheism are also both invalid until validated.
Wait, they actually can’t be validated, ever!
So that makes them both invalid, pretty much forever.
Dang, forever is such a long time!
Last edited:
The Durupinar Noah's Ark Site
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
Then...
Naturalism and Atheism are also both invalid until validated.
Wait, they actually can’t be validated, ever!
So that makes them both invalid, pretty much forever.
Dang, forever is such a long time!
That's a different claim than the one you made earlier. I agree with this proposition. Showing that God exists would prove Naturalism false. Can you show that, then?
So your argument is that if the Noah story could be shown to be true in all its particulars (including warnings given to Noah by a supernatural being), then Naturalism would necessarily be shown to be false.
Okay. I can accept that. So, how's your Noah proof project coming along?
Also: you don't think any human being would think to build a boat when they saw weather coming that was likely to cause a flood?
Yep. Okay.
How are you going to establish that there was a Noah and that God told him something in advance?
Are you including the parts of the biblical account that mention a supernatural being in your hypothesis?
In principle, I guess you could go and look for evidence of a global flood, or of a man named Noah, or of an actual Ark that fits the biblical description. But if your aim is to disprove Naturalism by proving there is a God, then you're going to need to find some convincing evidence for the God itself.
What scientific evidence have you got? Try me.
What does sex have to do with this? If your real concern is about who is having sex with whom, why don't we talk about that instead of mucking around with the irrelevant Noah stuff?
And so....? It does not follow that if Naturalism is not proven that therefore your God exists.
You appear to be rambling. What are you talking about? What are these atheist countries you mention?
What research?
Last edited:
So is the existence of magical fairies at the bottom of my garden.
To that I say: it depends on what you mean by "free will". We've had some long discussions about that topic previously on this forum.
That's a big "if" you've got there. And even if you could prove that supernatural freedom exists, there's still a long way to go to get to proving that your God exists, isn't there?
Naturalism is validated every time we make a prediction, demonstrate it is true, and then observe it is true in every experiment that follows. Gravity would be an example here.
Supernaturalism is invalidated every time an experiment is done to try to prove it exists. Every. Single. Time. Praying for a unicorn would be an example here.
Choice seems pretty easy.
No.
Think about a murder trial. The usual verdicts are guilty and not guilty. But "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". Not guilty merely means that guilt was not established to the required standard of certainty.
When it comes to something like Naturalism, there aren't just two possibilities (valid, invalid) but three: valid, invalid, not proven valid.
It would be a mistake to assume that "not proven valid" is equivalent to "invalid", for the same reason that it would be a mistake to assume that "not proven guilty" is equivalent to "innocent".
If I say to you "I'm not convinced that God exists" then that's good evidence for my atheism. My statement doesn't prove I'm an atheist, because I could be lying to you. But it would be stupid of you to draw the conclusion that, having said that to you, I'm probably not an atheist, because my atheism hasn't been "validated".
If we want to follow your demands for absolute validation of all claims, then essentially nothing can be validated, ever - including the existence of you, your toothbrush and your God.
How will you ever go on living with this intolerable uncertainty?
No one has ever built a massive ship in a day or two in order to prepare for a local incoming, hour away, Storm event.
It would have taken years not days, or hours, to build the Ark.
Are you saying it could be built in a few days, or a few hours?
In the words of Miracle Max,
“It would take a miracle!”
Methodological naturalism is validated every day. Every time you drop a pencil and it does what you expect, methodological naturalism is validated.
Nobody has suggested that he voodoo general-purpose "naturalism" that you talk about can be validated.
As for atheism: Theism is invalid until theism can be validated. Atheism is the default until you can haul your God up onto the lab bench to be tested.
It's completely irrelevant:
What evidence do you have that links the rivets to a boat? (Remember that the formation is a natural geological formation.)
And if there was a boat (which there isn't) what evidence do you have to link that boat to Noah's ar4k?
If it exists, SHOW it to us.
That's a bold-faced lie.
No, I'm not saying that. I think it would be difficult to build a great big boat, big enough to carry two of every species of animal on Earth (including the dinosaurs, apparently).
How long did Noah take to build it, according the bible?
How many people worked on it? Just Noah and his family, or did he have help? Were his helpers happy to not get on the Ark when the time came for the Big Flood?
I think people should accept the science.
No. It is up to scientists - who are qualified to evaluate the evidence.
If you loved Mary Schweitzer, you wouldn't lie about her.
Naturalism is an impossible position to hold with absolute certainty. It is only a faith position.
I think that Mary Schweitzer is an amazing person.
And so.... ?
1) Naturalism should not be taught to our children in schools as if it is Scientific Fact, because it is not.
It is only faith and belief.
2) We all need to love and respect each other.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
agree
You might find this link informative:
https://thewell.intervarsity.org/voices/unlikely-paleontologist-interview-mary-schweitzer-part-1
she said:
enjoy
Last edited:
Then why do you misrepresemt her?
It doesn't matter what she has found in dinosaur bones. It wouldn't matter if she found a living dinosaur in her back yard. The fact is that she does not believe in a young earth.