Flood "Science"

[Peter]

Why do Christians insist that the flood story of the Bible have a natural explanation when God Magic is a ready answer.

[JP Cusick]

So, please demonstrate you understand what I have written by describing my post in your own words to avoid miscommunication. To summarize: Your definition of miracle is meaningless, and your personal meaning or justification is likely based on fallacious principles. Additionally, your depiction of the natural world is uninformed and arrogantly ignorant of what intellectuals and scientists actually know to be true.

My complaint is that the definition of "natural" is far too exaggerated.

The word "nature" is really just another name for a God = the nature God.

As such nature can not do anything unless nature has some form of intelligence, and it would have to have life = nature would have to be alive.

If our solar system is natural - then nature is the name for God as the creator.

If mathematics is natural then nature must be a mathematician.

[Neatras]

Well, not only is the word miracle meaningless, now so is "god." Let's get back to real topic, which is the fictional flood.

[H.sapiens]

The planet earth spinning around at high speed perfectly in empty space and being held by invisible powers - that is a far bigger and grander miracle then any magic or miracle as told in the Bible.

'cept it's not a miracle, by any stretch of the imagination.

I see it as a miracle, and to repeat - it is a bigger miracle than anything told in the Bible.

Not only is it perfectly spinning in empty space, but the gravity is an invisible force stretching out from the Sun to hold our earth in place, and the other force of the magnetism which protects the earth is invisible too, so what more can one ask of a grand spectacular miracle than that?

This could even be seen as one heck of a magic trick.

Calling our solar system as "natural" is a huge stretch of that word.

As to the "Clarke's Third Law" ~ the solar system is not advanced technology.

nat·u·ral
adjective
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. "carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

You toss off words like miracle and natural and you have't the vaguest idea of what they actually mean. You think that it sounds good and in a fit of intellectual laziness you just go with it. Sorry ... that is not good enough.

[H.sapiens]

The planet earth spinning around at high speed perfectly in empty space and being held by invisible powers - that is a far bigger and grander miracle then any magic or miracle as told in the Bible.

'cept it's not a miracle, by any stretch of the imagination.

I see it as a miracle, and to repeat - it is a bigger miracle than anything told in the Bible.

Not only is it perfectly spinning in empty space, but the gravity is an invisible force stretching out from the Sun to hold our earth in place, and the other force of the magnetism which protects the earth is invisible too, so what more can one ask of a grand spectacular miracle than that?

This could even be seen as one heck of a magic trick.

Calling our solar system as "natural" is a huge stretch of that word.

As to the "Clarke's Third Law" ~ the solar system is not advanced technology.

nat·u·ral
adjective
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. "carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

You toss off words like miracle and natural and you have't the vaguest idea of what they actually mean. You think that it sounds good and in a fit of intellectual laziness you just go with it. Sorry ... that is not good enough.

[Peter]

Another big problem with the flood myth is that the entire human genome had to descend from a handful of humans (mostly related genetically). We know that's quite impossible without god magic. So please, stop trying to convince us that the flood myth was totally possible without magic.

[JP Cusick]

nat·u·ral
adjective
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. "carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

Nature can not "cause" anything unless nature has some kind of intellect.

Science and people use this terminology constantly of "nature" and "natural" without regard to the fact that you and they are giving human qualities to nature of intelligent intentions, or more correctly giving nature the qualities of God.

If nature made antiseptics as said by your dictionary God then nature must know what makes an antiseptic.

If the Big-Bang is a natural event then Nature is the Creator - the Creator God is thereby Nature.

The name "Mother Nature" is another name (a synonym) for the Creator God.

The laws of nature means that "Nature" is the lawgiver, and thereby Nature is the God.

Also "Nature's God" is the God of Deism. Link HERE.

[Neatras]

The above is an exercise in sophistry. JP Cusick attempts to poison the well by declaring that anything natural must have an active intelligence behind it. This is so far removed from a logical statement that debating against it would take orders of magnitude more time to rebut the senselessness, and would get us no closer to a solution to the OP. Nor do I think it productive to let Cusick assert his baseless premise and act as if it's reasonable. Let's get back on topic. If Cusick wants to continue with his red herring, he's free to do so after composing an actual argument.

[JP Cusick]

The above is an exercise in sophistry. JP Cusick attempts to poison the well by declaring that anything natural must have an active intelligence behind it. This is so far removed from a logical statement that debating against it would take orders of magnitude more time to rebut the senselessness, and would get us no closer to a solution to the OP. Nor do I think it productive to let Cusick assert his baseless premise and act as if it's reasonable. Let's get back on topic. If Cusick wants to continue with his red herring, he's free to do so after composing an actual argument.

It just means that you are a Deist having "Nature" as your God, and you are not really an Atheist.

This is a common mistake for people who claim to be non-believers or Atheist as they do not comprehend the real meaning of God or of religion.

And saying "Mother Nature" is just another name for the same God as every other religion which uses their own inaccurate names.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 17 by JP Cusick]

I will say this only once, because the moderators apparently do not believe this is an infraction of the rules (despite me having a dialogue with Otseng about this very thing occurring).

You, JP Cusick, do not have the authority to tell me what I believe or what I am, especially in direct contradiction to what I say about my own beliefs.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 17 by JP Cusick]

I will say this only once, because the moderators apparently do not believe this is an infraction of the rules (despite me having a dialogue with Otseng about this very thing occurring).

You, JP Cusick, do not have the authority to tell me what I believe or what I am, especially in direct contradiction to what I say about my own beliefs.

Second!