Soooooooooo.....no rapture...again.

[Maddhattter]

Awww, come on, man. Even scientists and historians consider it a historic record. Are you really done already?

If that is the case, cite a source already. I'd appreciate it, if I am incorrect. I'd love to see that scientists and historians accept a global flood in which all the animals on the world survived by staying on a boat for 30 days and 30 nights. And that by all accounts, the world is only ~6000 years old.

As doing so, would destroy all scientific practices because none of them I've ever seen agree with these events as historical record.

[Denny]

If that is the case, cite a source already. I'd appreciate it, if I am incorrect. I'd love to see that scientists and historians accept a global flood in which all the animals on the world survived by staying on a boat for 30 days and 30 nights. And that by all accounts, the world is only ~6000 years old.

As doing so, would destroy all scientific practices because none of them I've ever seen agree with these events as historical record.

OK... one more just for you.

Look up Professor Cargill from UCLA. He utilizes all historic records from that era INCLUDING the Bible in his classes.

Now don't expect any more food for your silly debate from me.

[The King]

My faith in God is built on history as well. The Bible is a historic record and where I learned about God.

See how you're not really doing anything here?

If I may.....

Psalm 92:6
A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this.

[Maddhattter]

OK... one more just for you.

Look up Professor Cargill from UCLA. He utilizes all historic records from that era INCLUDING the Bible in his classes.

Now don't expect any more food for your silly debate from me.

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood


In order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many believers are willing to do.

By Robert R. Cargill, Ph.D.
UCLA Center for Digital Humanities
UCLA Qumran Visualization Project
May 2010

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

It would seem that Mr. Cargill does not agree with you.

[racrguy]

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood


In order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many believers are willing to do.

By Robert R. Cargill, Ph.D.
UCLA Center for Digital Humanities
UCLA Qumran Visualization Project
May 2010

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

It would seem that Mr. Cargill does not agree with you.

The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives.

[Denny]

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood


In order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many believers are willing to do.

By Robert R. Cargill, Ph.D.
UCLA Center for Digital Humanities
UCLA Qumran Visualization Project
May 2010

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

It would seem that Mr. Cargill does not agree with you.

I never said he agreed with me, just brought out that he utilizes the Bible for historical reference (which is what you asked for).

LOL @ racrguy for popping his head in here like he's got a dog in this race!

[Denny]

I wish I had something better for you, but he is a Christian that looks for proof and solid answers. Kind of weird from either "traditional" side, but it's whatever.

[Maddhattter]

I never said he agreed with me, just brought out that he utilizes the Bible for historical reference (which is what you asked for).

LOL @ racrguy for popping his head in here like he's got a dog in this race!

So, now you change your claim. Before, your statement was

Even scientists and historians consider it a historic record

If your citation clearly states in his articles that the flood WAS NOT historical, then he is clearly not using the bible as historical record. Also, of the two examples I asked for,

I'd love to see that scientists and historians accept a global flood in which all the animals on the world survived by staying on a boat for 30 days and 30 nights. And that by all accounts, the world is only ~6000 years old.

your source clearly states that at least one is false. Your source does not support your claim. It, in fact, states the opposite.

[racrguy]

If that is the case, cite a source already. I'd appreciate it, if I am incorrect. I'd love to see that scientists and historians accept a global flood in which all the animals on the world survived by staying on a boat for 30 days and 30 nights. And that by all accounts, the world is only ~6000 years old.

As doing so, would destroy all scientific practices because none of them I've ever seen agree with these events as historical record.

OK... one more just for you.

Look up Professor Cargill from UCLA. He utilizes all historic records from that era INCLUDING the Bible in his classes.

Now don't expect any more food for your silly debate from me.

I never said he agreed with me, just brought out that he utilizes the Bible for historical reference (which is what you asked for).

LOL @ racrguy for popping his head in here like he's got a dog in this race!

Apparently you're too inept to understand a question. And even if he HAD asked for the answer you gave, cite your source that says he does use the bible as a historical record. I can reference the bible all day long, that doesn't mean I accept it as a historical record.

[Maddhattter]

I wish I had something better for you, but he is a Christian that looks for proof and solid answers. Kind of weird from either "traditional" side, but it's whatever.

I think you, I and Mr. Cargill agree on several of the statements in this video. Including, but not limited to, the if you don't like my ideas, let's have a discussion, and being for peace.

This video, however, does not support your earlier claim of scientists and historians using the bible as historical record, if it was supposed to.

[Denny]

See, he views it both ways, just takes it piece by piece.



Now do you believe that the Bible is used as a historic source, or are you going to manipulate this too?

[Maddhattter]

See, he views it both ways, just takes it piece by piece.



Now do you believe that the Bible is used as a historic source, or are you going to manipulate this too?

Never claimed that it wasn't used as a historic source. I did claim that it was not used as historic record by scientists and historians. Something you still have not demonstrated.

Again, I think all three of us can agree on some of the things he says here in this video. He makes the claim that there are stories in the bible that are supported by scientific evidence, but never produces any examples of such in this video.

I can't say that I'm willing to blindly take an argument from authority. I'll even agree with him that some claims in the bible are supported scientifically. The bible claims there was a city named Jerusalem. No argument from me. Spider-Man comics claim there is a city of New York and again, no argument from me.

In that regard, the bible no more supports the God hypothesis, than Spider-Man comics support the Spider-Man hypothesis.

I would never make the claim that nothing in the bible is true. There certainly are elements of truth in the bible. This does not indicate that the rest of the bible is true, or historical record.

Just so we both know what a historical record is,

historical record - writing having historical value (as opposed to fiction or myth etc.)

https://www.thefreedictionary.com

https://www.dictionary.com

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=historical%20record

[V8tt]

In regards to all of the above posts/disagreements/arguments I will say this:

Denny (theists for that matter) claims that he doesn't have proof of God's existence, but I would disagree with him. What you guys are trying so hard to convince him of will NEVER happen. Denny and others in this conversation believe in the HEARTS and MINDS that God exists and that the Bible, for the most part, is true. For him that IS proof. I am sure Denny could give you countless examples of God's work in his life....which he would count as proof.

Someone who is as devout as Denny isn't going to change his mind and his life because of a few of you try to contort his beliefs. If he changed his mind because of someone on a forum board then he never really believed in the first place. You could show him how life can form (not saying this exists) from two amino acids and he will still hold true to his FAITH. For Denny and others it really goes beyond faith. Just as you believe the Sun will rise tomorrow, he believes that Christ died on the Cross for his sins (just an example).

Do you believe in quasars (just an example)? Show me proof. If you pull out a picture taken by Hubble, then I will show you the Shroud of Turin. Or I may show you a picture of Mount Ararat and the piece of ship embedded in the side. Proof and faith can sometimes be used interchangeably and still be correct. If I were an astronomer I may tell you that I have proof, based on longevity of stars and the rate of fuel consumption, that the Sun WILL rise tomorrow. I personally have FAITH that the Sun will rise tomorrow because it has every single day of my 36 years. I have no PROOF that it will and honestly neither do any scientists. All they have are scientifically based speculations that are pretty solid.

[Maddhattter]

In regards to all of the above posts/disagreements/arguments I will say this:

Denny (theists for that matter) claims that he doesn't have proof of God's existence, but I would disagree with him. What you guys are trying so hard to convince him of will NEVER happen. Denny and others in this conversation believe in the HEARTS and MINDS that God exists and that the Bible, for the most part, is true. For him that IS proof. I am sure Denny could give you countless examples of God's work in his life....which he would count as proof.

First off, I’m not sure what I’m trying to convince him of. I’ve never told him that his particular blend of supernatural wonder-friend doesn’t, or can’t exist. All I’ve done is repeated the definitions of words, so that we are communicating with each other using the same language, and explained how the burden of proof works. Something you, based on your entire post, either ignored or didn’t bother look at.

I would also like to know how it is that you can tell him what proof he does and does not have? If I said I believe something on faith, then I have no proof. That does not mean that there is no proof, just that I don’t have it.

Now, just like everyone else, including myself, you don’t get to redefine words at your whim. Faith and belief is not proof.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

1proof
noun \ˈprüf\
Definition of PROOF
1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2
obsolete : experience
3
: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4
archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5
: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6
a plural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b : a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c : a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d : a test photographic print made from a negative
7
: a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8
a : the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b : strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol>

Please notice that nowhere in the definition does belief count as proof, or is proof defined as belief.

While I usually like to cite several sources for definitions, for the sake of space, I’m only going to use one. I can, however, provide more upon request.

Someone who is as devout as Denny isn't going to change his mind and his life because of a few of you try to contort his beliefs. If he changed his mind because of someone on a forum board then he never really believed in the first place. You could show him how life can form (not saying this exists) from two amino acids and he will still hold true to his FAITH. For Denny and others it really goes beyond faith. Just as you believe the Sun will rise tomorrow, he believes that Christ died on the Cross for his sins (just an example).

Do you believe in quasars (just an example)? Show me proof. If you pull out a picture taken by Hubble, then I will show you the Shroud of Turin. Or I may show you a picture of Mount Ararat and the piece of ship embedded in the side. Proof and faith can sometimes be used interchangeably and still be correct. If I were an astronomer I may tell you that I have proof, based on longevity of stars and the rate of fuel consumption, that the Sun WILL rise tomorrow. I personally have FAITH that the Sun will rise tomorrow because it has every single day of my 36 years. I have no PROOF that it will and honestly neither do any scientists. All they have are scientifically based speculations that are pretty solid.

You do still not understand the definitions of the words you’re using, or you’re trying to redefine them. I agree, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. That does not mean that I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. While faith and belief are not mutually exclusive, they are not interchangeable. Faith is belief in the absence of proof. Belief is not faith in the absence of proof, nor is it belief in the absence of proof. It is because the sun has risen every single day in your 36 years that you believe the sun will rise. The only way you can have the same faith in the sun that theists have in their deity is if you have never before seen the sun rise. It is proof. The math and science all agree that the sun will not die out any time soon. Now, could we be wrong? Of course we could, but that in no way validates any other helio-ascension hypothesis out there. That’s not how science and reason work.

All scientific tests ever run on the shroud of turin, that I know of, have all indicated that it is an elaborate fake. So, to compare the shroud of turin to a picture from the hubble telescope is a false analogy, and insulting to astronomers everywhere. The picture of Mount Ararat proves nothing more that Mount Ararat exists and that you assume what is pictured there is a piece of a ship embedded in the side of it. To make that assumption would require disregarding, or being ignorant to, all evidence that it may not be a ship, and that the same phenomena has occurred elsewhere by purely naturalistic means.

Just to reiterate,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

1faith
noun \ˈfāth\
plural faiths
Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Notice that nowhere in here is proof mentioned, aside from a specific reference to a lack thereof. I don’t redefine terms, make up rules, or move the goal post in these discussions. I use words as our language defines them, not how I want them to work. In order for all of us to communicate, we all have to be working off the same basis of definitions, i.e. the dictionary, since that’s what our language uses, so that we are not talking about different things. So please, dispense with the redefining of words, and stick to using them as they are defined.

[jdgregory84]

Ah, this post again...

OK, we'll go from there.

What would you call a person that doesn't believe that God doesn't exist, but is still open to the idea that He can exist?

You're under the impression that agnostics think that the christian god can exist. Not anything else. Most agnostics that I've spoken with believe that there probably is a higher power but no religion understands what that higher power is.