How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

[Replying to POI in post #4260]

We've discussed many of these things multiple times and the rest are not relevant to the topic. I'll be summarizing my argument next.

[otseng]

This subtopic asks the question - is the universe created or eternal?

I assert it is created. POI asserts it is eternal.

1) Is it possible our known universe is eternal? If not, why not? I'm not sure if I've already offered the video, regarding this explanation about the possibility of our universe being eternal? Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist and philosopher, explains it much better than I can.
2) Also, if the scientific principle is true, that (paraphrased) - "matter can neither be created nor destroyed", then the concept to instead invent a 'creator God' then may become a non-starter?

The first evidence I presented the universe is created is the universe has a finite age:

According to NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe project, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion (13,700,000,000) years old—plus or minus 200 million years. (The NASA satellite, launched in 2001, measures the temperature of radiant heat remaining from the big bang.)

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-an ... e-universe

The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.77 billion years[14] of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP. In contrast, theories of the origin of the primordial state remain very speculative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

with advances in technology and the development of new techniques we now know the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 200 million years.

https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/f ... r/age.html

Scientists’ best estimate is that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.

https://www.newscientist.com/question/h ... -universe/

Since it has a finite age, then it was caused by something outside our universe. The universe cannot have been self-caused.

This is expressed in the Kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument

At this point, there is no specific claim Yahweh is the cause, but it can be a deist God, a theist God, Allah, or any other creator.

One argument against the universe coming out of nothing is claiming "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." I addressed this misunderstanding of the first law of thermodynamics:

Our universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed

The argument the universe is eternal based on matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed is a misunderstanding of the first law of thermodynamics.

The first law states:

"In general, the conservation law states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

"Within an isolated system, the total energy of the system is constant, even if energy has been converted from one form to another. (This is another way of stating the law of conservation of energy: that energy can not be created or destroyed but merely converted from one form to another.)"
https://www.britannica.com/science/laws ... modynamics

The law of conservation of energy (and matter) states:

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. In the case of a closed system the principle says that the total amount of energy within the system can only be changed through energy entering or leaving the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

The law only applies to an isolated or closed system. Obviously if a system is open and not isolated, matter/energy can enter and leave that system.

What is claimed is God created the system (universe) and added energy/matter into the universe. Even in a "naturalistic" explanation such as a multiverse, our universe would be created from something outside our universe.

So, the first law does not show our universe is infinite in age.

The second law of thermo shows it cannot be eternal:

There's only two options I can think of:
1. Universe is eternal and a closed system.
2. Universe is finite in age and an open system.

Option 1 is not possible because of the second law of thermo.

"The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: every energy transfer that takes place will increase the entropy of the universe and reduce the amount of usable energy available to do work (or, in the most extreme case, leave the overall entropy unchanged). In other words, any process, such as a chemical reaction or set of connected reactions, will proceed in a direction that increases the overall entropy of the universe.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap- ... modynamics

The amount of usable energy in the universe is constantly decreasing. At some finite point in the life of the universe, there will be no usable energy in the universe. This is called the heat death. At this point, the universe will have a uniform temperature and it's not possible for any work to happen.

The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze)[1][2] is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe will evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy, and will therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat ... e_universe

Since we are not experiencing heat death currently, the universe is not option 1.

There are two theories that have been presented for an eternal universe - steady state theory by Fred Hoyle and eternal inflation by Alan Guth.

I addressed the steady state theory here:

The video discusses the steady state theory of the universe (which is not a new theory as the clickbait title suggests). This has been abandoned by cosmologists decades ago.

This post, the latest in my series about cosmology, talks about the Steady State theory. This is an elegant alternative theory to the Big Bang, which was very popular among astronomers in the 1950s, but is now obsolete.

https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/2 ... te-theory/

What is one major problem with it? Because it violates the first law of thermo. This by itself would make it a supernaturalistic explanation since it violates the known laws of physics.

The Steady State theory gets round this by assuming that new matter is continuously created out of nothing at the incredibly small rate of 1 atom of hydrogen per 6 cubic kilometers of space per year.

https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/2 ... te-theory/

Why was this theory proposed? Because atheists do not like the idea of a universe that was created.

One of the elegant features of the Steady State theory is that because the Universe is infinitely old the question of its origin doesn’t arise. It has always existed. Unlike the Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory has no point far back in time when a ‘creation event’ occurred causing the Universe to come into being. To Fred Hoyle, who was a committed atheist, this was a particularly attractive feature of the theory.

https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/2 ... te-theory/

Why did cosmologists eventually abandon the steady state theory? Because it could not explain the CMBR.

However the real the nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory was the discovery in 1965 of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This is a weak background radiation which fills the whole of space and is the same in all directions. In the Big Bang theory this radiation is a relic or snapshot from the time the Universe was young and hot and was predicted before it was discovered. However, in the Steady State theory it is almost impossible to explain the origin of this radiation.

In the words of Stephen Hawking:
‘the Steady State theory was what Karl Popper would call a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified’

https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/2 ... te-theory/

I addressed eternal inflation here:

http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Ph ... %20forever.

Anybody can come up with a model. But what I'm asking for is evidence, which I don't see any in that article.

Here's what the article states:

The idea is that the universe is actually eternal. It existed at all times, so there is no beginning to explain.

The theory of eternal inflation says that once inflation starts, it never completely stops. Rather, it ends in places, and universes form there. We call them pocket universes because they’re not everything that exists. We are living in one of these pocket universes. And even though the pocket universes keep forming, there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession.

Each individual pocket universe will presumably ultimately die, in the sense that it will run out of energy and cool down. But in the big picture of all the pocket universes, life would not only go on eternally, but there’d be more and more of it every instant.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/custo ... big-ideas/

Does he actually present any evidence? I don't see any.

I find it very ironic scientists can continually come up with ad hoc ideas to support their naturalistic presupposition - dark matter, cosmic inflation, multiverse, and now eternal inflation. Is there any way we can detect any of these things? No. The idea of a multiverse even throws out what does it mean for something to be natural.

Is there actual evidence for an eternal universe? I've repeatedly been asking for this and none has been produced. The repeated response has been an appeal to authority, which is fallacious.

So all the evidence and logical reasoning that has been presented supports the universe being created and not being eternal.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #4260]

We've discussed many of these things multiple times and the rest are not relevant to the topic. I'll be summarizing my argument next.

A) Before I address your other response, IF I should even decide to, I first felt necessary to attend to this one. In regard to 'summarization', I do not see where this will get any of us? I'm basically the only one responding and I am admittedly not a "scientist." Most, if not all (here), likely do not understand cosmology and/or theoretical physics enough to offer constructive insight, (one way or another), because cosmology and/or theoretical physics are not topics of study for most. You state you are a 'scientist', which continues to beg the bigger question, why not submit your argument(s) for peer review? Let the 'scientists' which postulate or infer a differing position have a crack at your argument. Make this topic theoretical. Then link the results in your "summarization' here. I've already read your response that I should not offer an argument if I cannot back it up. Well, as I've already said, I cannot argue too much about 'gravity' or 'time' either, even though I have (positions) and might offer them. I'm in no position to truly challenge current 'models' and/or 'theoretical' positions in 'science'. Are you? If so, please do so. Claiming "victory" to a crowd, which is quite frankly ill-equipped to respond (in one way or another), including myself, because we have no extensive knowledge in some of the 'scientific' positions we hold, and because we are not experts in some of the (positions) we hold, is a very shallow 'victory'. My bad for bringing it up. I should have brought forth, from the jump, that I am not a theoretical physicist and do not possess the background to challenge any "scientist's" position on this topic. Further, if I was to instead just claim agnosticism to finite/eternal, I might instead have to defend WHY I do not hold to a positive position in either direction - in regard to the ongoing debate of a (finite vs eternal) universe Why? You have stated this before. (paraphrased) - The one's who remain agnostic just don't want to be challenged.

B) In topics for which your interlocutors are more equipped, you also claim premature "victory". Case/point, post 3830 for 'slavery' was never vetted. Quite frankly, from that point on, I lost initiative. When I legitimately pushed up on a topic for which I have invested true study time into, I saw your retreat, to only move on. So quite frankly, I have no motivation or initiative to do a deep dive as to why institutions like NASA, some of 'science', or individuals like Sean Carroll or Allen Guth argue for a possible eternal universe. But I likely will, since no one else in engaging here.

C) Further, I admit, like you, the term 'supernatural' carries with it quite a bit of baggage. Hence, can you and I at least agree on the following? 'Supernatural", in this context, would at least include the following: A willfully conscious and/or intervening agency which has ability to break some/any 'scientific' law(s). Examples: YWHW, Xenu, Jesus, Superman, Zeus, Odin, Thor, Apollo.?

(Forth request) Has 'god' ever been demonstrated anywhere, or only inferred everywhere? In abiding by your methodology, you brought up 'multiverses', not me. If 'science' can infer a multiverse, Otseng can infer a god. No, Otseng, you cannot. At least one universe has actually been demonstrated. Do we know of at least one 'god' which has been demonstrated?

D) The "god of the gaps" refers to the argument that gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence for God's existence and direct intervention. (i.e.):

As a matter of fact, it solves very little. Even basic things as gravity scientists have no idea how it works. We don't even know what exactly is light. Sure, we can describe those things, but we don't really know what those things are.

With the origin of the universe, we see another dead end that science has reached. Modern science can only reach so far in its methodology.

We can add the origin of life also to no one knows yet

If we both agree 'science' has much work to do, then let 'science' proceed. Further, we may never be able to see on the other side of the proverbial fence for some answers, so I guess that means 'god' is there?

You argue a Biblical global flood while others argue for a local Biblical flood. In reality, THE ANSWER can never be determined because the author is dead and cannot be asked. And 'god' doesn't seem to be answering the follow-up question. Just like in "science", some answers may never be obtained. Either because we have insufficient tools, lack knowledge, or will never be able to go outside our universe, etc? But nooooo! Where we cannot issue a solid answer, is exactly where 'god' is

In some instances, an answer cannot ever be demonstrated. Maybe origins of the universe fall into this category too? But yea, 'god of the gaps' to the rescue. Or, 'science' just does not want to admit it. If you live by the sword, you must die by the sword. You demonstrate you do not appreciate fallacious reasoning. And yet, you violate it with almost every post in this exchange.

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #4252]

A portion of 'science', who infers the universe may be eternal, (in this great unresolved debate), has just all been foiled by some found links on Google. These links you brought forth never occurred to any of them. They just want to deny 'god', obviously.

Hey look, I can do this too. Maybe our universe was created after all, but not by any actual 'intelligence':



Science is HARD, but Otseng solved the great debate for us. Thanks Otseng! :

https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~colema ... sponse.pdf

https://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm



Can 'creation' happen without a mind? (i.e.) Is "germination" mindful? And this is only AFTER we determine IF the universe is not, in reality, eternal. But, as it stands, the Kalam does not apply to the origins of the universe because premise 2 is not, at least theoretical. Hence, such advocates are placing the cart before the horse.

People can also watch an actual debate, where 'science' goes against a theist, in regard to the topic. And BTW Otseng, WLC mentions the laws of thermo here too (minute-18). And Sean Carroll has no response (minute-34), so debate over! :

[otseng]

You state you are a 'scientist', which continues to beg the bigger question, why not submit your argument(s) for peer review?

I've never stated I'm a scientist. I only stated I have an undergraduate and graduate degrees in science related fields.

I've already read your response that I should not offer an argument if I cannot back it up.

It's not just a response, it's the rules. If you don't support your claim, it's then just an unsupported claim.

I'm in no position to truly challenge current 'models' and/or 'theoretical' positions in 'science'. Are you?

Yes, I understand the basics of thermodynamics. No, I'm not a theoretical physicist. But we can debate anything here on this forum as long as we present evidence and logical arguments.

Claiming "victory" to a crowd, which is quite frankly ill-equipped to respond (in one way or another),

Who's claiming any victory? I've only simply gave my closing argument for the jury to make the decision.

I should have brought forth, from the jump, that I am not a theoretical physicist and do not possess the background to challenge any "scientist's" position on this topic.

Very few of us are professionals in the fields we are debating on in this forum. What gives skeptics the right to challenge Christianity when they aren't theological scholars? What right do skeptics have to defend evolution when they are not biology professors? How can posters argue about philosophy when they have no philosophy degree? Ultimately, their title shouldn't bar anyone from debating here. As long as they present sound arguments with evidence, it's allowable regardless of their current profession.

In topics for which your interlocutors are more equipped, you also claim premature "victory".

It's a false accusation. Where I have I ever claimed victory? Please cite the post.

What I have done is summarize all my arguments. But if skeptics think I've won because I've done that and they have not, then that's their own interpretation.

So quite frankly, I have no motivation or initiative to do a deep dive as to why institutions like NASA, some of 'science', or individuals like Sean Carroll or Allen Guth argue for a possible eternal universe.

It's not that hard of a topic and can easily be researched. The issue is if you make any claim on this forum, it can be challenged for that poster to back up that claim.

Further, I admit, like you, the term 'supernatural' carries with it quite a bit of baggage. Hence, can you and I at least agree on the following? 'Supernatural", in this context, would at least include the following: A willfully conscious and/or intervening agency which has ability to break some/any 'scientific' law(s). Examples: YWHW, Xenu, Jesus, Superman, Zeus, Odin, Thor, Apollo.?

No, I don't accept that definition. Why should it only be a willful conscious or agency? All I mean supernatural to mean is something that is not natural.

Has 'god' ever been demonstrated anywhere, or only inferred everywhere?

I've already responded to this multiple times. First off, it has nothing to do with the debate on if the universe is created or eternal. And so I see this as a red herring to avoid the actual debate. Secondly, you haven't defined what you mean by "demonstrating". If you mean provide direct physical evidence, of course I can't do that. That is why an inference is being used. If you reject an inference from being used, then you should also reject many things in science, including singularities, multiverse, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc.

If 'science' can infer a multiverse, Otseng can infer a god. No, Otseng, you cannot. At least one universe has actually been demonstrated.

Science can infer a multiverse because our universe has been demonstrated? No, just because we live in one universe it does not mean there are a multiplicity of other universes. Per your logic, you'll need to demonstrate the other universes, not our universe. If you cannot do this, then it's special pleading that I must demonstrate God's existence.

If we both agree 'science' has much work to do, then let 'science' proceed. Further, we may never be able to see on the other side of the proverbial fence for some answers, so I guess that means 'god' is there?

To reiterate, modern science can say nothing about whether God exists or not. We can only use logical reasoning instead to support our positions on God.

You argue a Biblical global flood while others argue for a local Biblical flood. In reality, THE ANSWER can never be determined because the author is dead and cannot be asked.

Irrelevant. We can analyze the claim because if there was a global flood, we should see physical evidence of that on earth. We don't need to ask God about it.

You demonstrate you do not appreciate fallacious reasoning. And yet, you violate it with almost every post in this exchange.

I'll let readers decide who is the one using fallacious reasoning.

[POI]

Yes, I understand the basics of thermodynamics. No, I'm not a theoretical physicist. But we can debate anything here on this forum as long as we present evidence and logical arguments.

Okay, then understanding the mere basics of a given theory, while some of 'science' still considers/infers/postulates 'eternal' is either conspiratorial and/or in direct denial to their own reality? Yes or no? Maybe instead do a deeper dive into the laws of thermo to keep up.

Here is what you stated:

The issue is more "I don't want to know" rather than "I don't know". People reject any idea that something might confirm the Bible, so they'd rather plead ignorance rather than confirm the Bible.

Alternatively, 'I don't know' is an intellectually honest answer, for many reasons, and does not posit "I don't want to acknowledge what I really infer." Your position is fallacious, (i.e.) god of the gaps - refers to the argument that gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence for God's existence and direct intervention.

************************************

Who's claiming any victory? I've only simply gave my closing argument for the jury to make the decision.

You excused follow-up, via post 3830, and let post 3821 stand without later removing/editing it as the actually summary argument. Topics were still unresolved. When people go to the summary, they may opt not to search down to see what else was said.

Very few of us are professionals in the fields we are debating on in this forum. What gives skeptics the right to challenge Christianity when they aren't theological scholars? What right do skeptics have to defend evolution when they are not biology professors? How can posters argue about philosophy when they have no philosophy degree? Ultimately, their title shouldn't bar anyone from debating here. As long as they present sound arguments with evidence, it's allowable regardless of their current profession.

Noted.

It's a false accusation. Where I have I ever claimed victory? Please cite the post.

Avoidance to post 3830... It was hand-waved and/or went unchallenged. From then on, in all honesty, I lost some initiative to performing any further real deep dive(s) and/or getting into the weeds for topics in this thread there-after. I feel it's a futile endeavor in our exchanges to deep-dive topics for which I am not extremely well-versed within. Why? the 'slavery' topic attests to this.

It's not that hard of a topic and can easily be researched. The issue is if you make any claim on this forum, it can be challenged for that poster to back up that claim.

Solving some of the biggest unanswered questions, (like "universal origins", "origins to life", etc) is/are not going to be 'resolved' simply by finding a few preferred "Google" links to fit ones own a priori or a posterori position(s). But it still takes no more than common sense to infer these topics are still not 'resolved' to at least the "theoretical" level. And this is where you wish to hang your hat for 'god'. This is where you wish to infer 'science' adheres to Romans 1:19-22, per the quote above. When alternatively, I've given logical reasons to the alternative.

No, I don't accept that definition. Why should it only be a willful conscious or agency? All I mean supernatural to mean is something that is not natural.

Then I see this topic as irrelevant. If all 'supernatural' could be is 'multiverse(s)', but not also be something 'mindful/willful/conscious', which intervenes, then you are still no closer to 'god' at all. All 'supernatural' fundamentally then means is 'other laws' working outside our 'known' laws. Case/point, the universal law(s) within some stated 'parallel universe' may work differently that this universe's laws. Okay, but if that other 'universe' never tries to willfully or mindfully intervene with this one, who cares? All 'supernatural' means is anything which operates outside our universe but has no willful intent to communicate with humans. 'Supernatural' becomes a superfluous term.

The goal is to tie something, not only broadly "supernatural", but also necessarily willful, and also with intent, to exchange with humans. This thread was created to present logical reasoning to infer willful exchange with humans. (i.e.) Why trust the Bible? The Bible asserts that a supernatural willful agency intervenes and communicates with humans. Establishing that we have laws, which do not align with 'science', gets us no closer to this claim at all. It's a waste of time.

First off, it has nothing to do with the debate on if the universe is created or eternal. And so I see this as a red herring to avoid the actual debate.

The question does directly relate. The time to infer existence of something is after it has first been demonstrated. I asked for one actual example of any god(s). Can you do that? NO! Alternatively, we can give one example of a "universe", which is the one we are in. If any 'god(s)', at all, can be identified anywhere, then, and only then, is it logical to infer the possibility, or to place 'god' on the (set-of-options) list. Prior to this, it's nothing but a faith-claim alone. Just like I could infer or postulate 'universe-creating-pixies', also based upon 'faith', or a 'gaps' argument alone. In essence, the time to infer a 'god' is after demonstration, or, sighting actual identification. Can you do that? No!

Secondly, you haven't defined what you mean by "demonstrating".

See above.

If you mean provide direct physical evidence, of course I can't do that.

So, you concede the Bible does not count either? I guess we are done here.

If you reject an inference from being used, then you should also reject many things in science, including singularities, multiverse, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc.

Fine, I reject all inferences to (singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter) until they can first be demonstrated, which means I must reject 'god(s)' too. Now I'm logically consistent I do not accept any inference which cannot first be demonstrated. My life has changed nada!

If you wish to continue inferring 'god', while straight up telling me you cannot demonstrate him, then it is you who are still committing special pleading.

Science can infer a multiverse because our universe has been demonstrated? No, just because we live in one universe it does not mean there are a multiplicity of other universes. Per your logic, you'll need to demonstrate the other universes, not our universe. If you cannot do this, then it's special pleading that I must demonstrate God's existence.

I disagree. I asked for the demonstration of any god(s). The 'scientific' claim is that other 'universes' exist outside our universe. We do not have evidence for 'universe-creating-pixies', or any other asserted mindful agency, like 'god(s).' These inferred other 'universe(s), may abide by differing laws. We know of at least one universe to exist, ours. Do we know of any god(s) anywhere, at all, with any attributes at all to match? If not, then it should not be inferred until first demonstrated.

To reiterate, modern science can say nothing about whether God exists or not. We can only use logical reasoning instead to support our positions on God.

And to reiterate, scientific tools are ever-advancing, but also may never be adequate. We may also not ever have the ability to demonstrate what is outside this universe, nothing outside our universe, (if anything at all), has been demonstrated to come tell us. This includes the Bible.

Irrelevant. We can analyze the claim because if there was a global flood, we should see physical evidence of that on earth. We don't need to ask God about it.

It is relevant. My point is that neither of you can prove the intent of the author. The author is dead. It will be forever unknown. Just like maybe 'science' can never prove certain position(s). Maybe they too are unknowable? i.e. as already stated above -- (lack of tools, lack in knowledge, and/or no communication from outside our universe).

And this is another reason why I care not to do a deep dive and try to explore the position as to why 'science' infers 'eternal'. "Science" does not agree to an asserted 'global flood'. I see no 'conspiracy' here because even IF there happened to be some type of local or global flood, this would have absolutely nothing to do with Bible veracity. We already know the Bible was right about "some" physical stuff. Heck, I even think a physical Jesus existed. All it could mean is that the ancients associated a flood with 'willful intention'.

I'll let readers decide who is the one using fallacious reasoning.

Well, it's you. You apply the god of the gaps at almost every turn.

********************************************

Unvetted points, from post 4254:

- Even IF we were to discover the universe was 'created', does 'creation' demonstrate "willful agency" > "natural processes"?

- Science is really really really hard. I posted a link, showing a summation of a chapter regarding 'quantum fluccuations'. Which infers 'creation out of nothing'. I guess we discovered 'god'. But of course, they are "supernatural." But even IF they are, prove mindfulness. (https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~colema ... sponse.pdf)

- I did a deep dive, and provided a video, which directly pushes back on your assertion about the "laws of thermo". See the bottom video, at (~minutes-18) for WLC's assertion, and then pick back up again at (~minute-34) for Carroll's rebuttal.

[Difflugia]

Yes, I understand the basics of thermodynamics.

You quite clearly did not when we discussed the relationships between kinetic energy, potential energy, and heat three years ago. Did that change in the meantime?

I'll let readers decide who is the one using fallacious reasoning.

Some of us figured that out three years ago.

[POI]

Yes, I understand the basics of thermodynamics.

You quite clearly did not when we discussed the relationships between kinetic energy, potential energy, and heat three years ago. Did that change in the meantime?

I'll let readers decide who is the one using fallacious reasoning.

Some of us figured that out three years ago.

Thanks Difflugia. Would you mind locating your rebuttal, so it can be seen here in this thread? I really do not feel like going into deep depths about the laws of thermo, while also knowing 'science' has already considered it, and that no scientist who is worth their weight in salt would still publicly state 'eternal', while knowing the laws of thermo.

[Difflugia]

Thanks Difflugia. Would you mind locating your rebuttal, so it can be seen here in this thread? I really do not feel like going into deep depths about the laws of thermo, while also knowing 'science' has already considered it, and that no scientist who is worth their weight in salt would still publicly state 'eternal', while knowing the laws of thermo.

The substance is in these two comments: comment 1:

Actually, there is no magic involved in the FM. There is no appeal to supernatural causation.

Without divine intervention, it's implausible before we even worry about sedimentation patterns. You wrote: "During the rupture phase as the subterranean water gushed out, the force of the water coming out eroded a lot of the soil/rocks and carried it high into the atmosphere and deposited it rapidly around the world." Any kinetic energy in the system ("carried it high into the atmosphere") must have come from the potential energy in the rocks that God created above the subterranean water. Even if we start our natural, non-magical cascade after the creation event, any kinetic energy in the system must then be reconverted into potential energy (in this case, by lifting something else) or it will stay kinetic energy in the form of heat. It's not an accident that the imperial unit for energy is the "British thermal unit," or BTU. This also applies to the "vapor canopy." If, by whatever mechanism, the water in the "vapor canopy" returned to Earth, both the potential energy and heat of vaporization in that water would be released as kinetic energy in the form of heat.

Here are a few round numbers:

Potential energy is equal to mass x acceleration due to gravity × height, E = mgh. The SI units for these are joules, kilograms, meters per second², and meters.

According to Google, the specific heat of water is 4.2 kJ/kg per degree Celsius. 4200 J/kg (m²s²) ÷ 9.8 m/s² is 430 m. That means that the amount of energy to send an amount of water 430 meters into the air is enough to raise its temperature one degree. If the water fell back down, that much energy went somewhere as heat. According to Google, the Earth contains about 1.4 × 10²¹ kg of water. How much of that was sent how high? What was the water temperature to start with? You said in the other thread that the superheated, subterranean water "lost" energy, but that's not how energy transfer works. If it "lost" energy, it lost it as heat to something else, like the atmosphere. Most systems that we're familiar with "lose" heat energy because the world around us is such a huge heat sink that the scale difference is enormous. When you stop your car, the brake pads will get very hot very quickly (why they used to be made of asbestos), but then lose the heat to the larger system by making it just a smidge hotter in relative scale. If our car and brake pads were an appreciable fraction of the Earth, though, the "lost energy" is no longer negligible.

Despite being in the Ark, Noah would certainly have been "poached" without divine intervention.

comment 2:

That means that the amount of energy to send an amount of water 430 meters into the air is enough to raise its temperature one degree.

I'm not so sure your calculations entirely apply. Your calculations would be for thermal energy, but not for kinetic energy. Yes, if the water was just sitting still and energy was applied to it, it would raise the temperature. But, during the rupture phase, the water was eroding rock and being thrust into the air. So, energy was being expended for these kinetic actions.

I think you're misunderstanding what "expended" means in this case. It's kind of nonintuitive, but if I drop a rock on the ground and it stops, the potential energy from holding the rock above the ground becomes kinetic energy as the rock falls. When the rock stops, the kinetic energy is transferred to the Earth, but doesn't disappear. In a frictionless universe, the kinetic energy would take the form of a wave that would travel through the medium forever, but friction converts what you're calling kinetic energy into heat (heat is technically kinetic energy for the purposes of energy conservation).

When the water shoots up, it erodes the rock by moving it. If the rocks are moving up (i.e. away from the center of gravity), then the kinetic energy is becoming potential energy. If they fall again, the potential energy once again becomes kinetic energy without loss (conservation of energy). Energy "lost" to friction becomes what we're calling heat. When the rocks stop moving, either whatever stopped them or the mass of the rocks themselves gains the energy. Friction ultimately converts the energy (again losslessly) into heat. When we talk about energy loss, that loss is the conversion to heat.

If there is enough potential energy stored in the rock layer atop the subterranean reservoirs to shoot the water up in the air, that energy ends up as heat if that water comes to rest at any point below its maximum height. As I said before, this is counterintuitive because things like the surface of the Earth, the atmosphere, and the oceans are immensely massive heat sinks compare to even the largest rock we might drop. You're talking, though, about the ocean itself, or some huge fraction of it, replacing the dropped rock. If a thousand kilograms of water is shot 430 meters in the air and returns to the surface, that energy will impart enough heat to have raised that thousand kilograms one degree celsius. Some of it might go into the air, some into the rock, and some into a larger pool of water, but the energy never disappears. Ultimately, it would be radiated away into space, but that takes time and without divine intervention, it's longer than Noah has.

The response is in this comment and is simply denial:

Some of it might go into the air, some into the rock, and some into a larger pool of water, but the energy never disappears.

Yes, the energy does not disappear. My only point is the energy is not solely transferred to heat up the water, but is transferred to other areas as well, including erosion of rock, ejection of water, movement of land mass, etc.

[otseng]

Who's claiming any victory? I've only simply gave my closing argument for the jury to make the decision.

You excused follow-up, via post 3830, and let post 3821 stand without later removing/editing it as the actually summary argument. Topics were still unresolved. When people go to the summary, they may opt not to search down to see what else was said.

That's not claiming victory, so you have not backed up your false accusation of me. There's no need to drag out a topic forever and constantly rehash the same things over and over (which we're doing now) after I've extensively covered a topic and given people plenty of time to make their case.

And what topic has actually resulted in resolving anything on this forum? Who's the arbiter to judge the resolution on a topic? There's no expectation on this forum of resolving things. The only expectation is to provide logical reasoning and evidence to support a position.

Avoidance to post 3830... It was hand-waved and/or went unchallenged.

For those interested, here's your post:
viewtopic.php?p=1142566#p1142566

People can read our exchange and see we spent a lot of time covering it.

From then on, in all honesty, I lost some initiative to performing any further real deep dive(s) and/or getting into the weeds for topics in this thread there-after. I feel it's a futile endeavor in our exchanges to deep-dive topics for which I am not extremely well-versed within.

I was not well-versed in slavery in the Bible either. But I took the time, money, and energy to research the topic. If people don't want to do the research, that's fine, no need to debate me. But if people are going to debate me, I expect them to do their homework and not just continually present fallacious arguments.

If you reject an inference from being used, then you should also reject many things in science, including singularities, multiverse, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc.

Fine, I reject all inferences to (singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter) until they can first be demonstrated, which means I must reject 'god(s)' too. Now I'm logically consistent I do not accept any inference which cannot first be demonstrated. My life has changed nada!

Well, that's good that you're willing to be logically consistent. I'm also logically consistent and do allow science to infer things (singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc). And my argument is simply if scientists are allowed to infer things to exist that are not demonstratable, then I'm simply using the same logic.

But where you are logically inconsistent is the same scientists you appeal to, Alan Guth and Sean Carroll, do believe in singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc.

I already assume NASA, Alan Guth, and Sean Carroll are aware of the laws of thermo. before some Christian comes along to pose a contradiction/other. The question then becomes, is/are NASA, Guth, and Carroll 'spinning/deflecting/rationalizing' to protect science or not?

If you wish to continue inferring 'god', while straight up telling me you cannot demonstrate him, then it is you who are still committing special pleading.

As you've acknowledged, scientists are not able to do this as well. So, my use of the same logic of the scientists demonstrate I'm not special pleading. Where special pleading comes in is scientists can use inference and I cannot.

I asked for the demonstration of any god(s). The 'scientific' claim is that other 'universes' exist outside our universe.

And I asked for a demonstration of any other universe. The claim is there are other universes, not that we live in our universe. So saying our universe exists is not demonstrating another universe exists.

It is relevant. My point is that neither of you can prove the intent of the author.

Also irrelevant. You don't need to know the intent of God to demonstrate if a global flood occurred or not.

"Science" does not agree to an asserted 'global flood'. I see no 'conspiracy' here because even IF there happened to be some type of local or global flood, this would have absolutely nothing to do with Bible veracity.

We see biases in scientists and I brought this up at:

No. It's because of the bias against anything that remotely comes close to the Bible.

When Bertz theorized a cataclysmic flood to explain the Scablands, geologists automatically rejected it, even though he had plenty of evidence for it. No geologist was going to accept anything that would confirm the Bible. It was only until Pardee came along and proposed an ice dam as the cause did geologists accept a local flood explanation of the Scablands. However, Bertz had much more evidence for the flood than did Pardee for an ice dam. It was only until a non-Biblical explanation could be offered would it be accepted.

The very word "Catastrophism" was heinous in the ears of geologists. To
think in terms of massive, precipitous changes (beyond the occasional
earthquake or volcano) was unacceptable, and the very idea of a sudden,
colossal flood smacked too much of Biblical thinking, of a return to
Noah, the ark, and the fifteen cubit depth (22.5 feet) of water which
drowned the world (Genesis 7:20). It was a step backwards, a betrayal
of all that geological science had fought to gain.
It was heresy of the worst order.

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_or ... tz_re.html

We already know the Bible was right about "some" physical stuff. Heck, I even think a physical Jesus existed. All it could mean is that the ancients associated a flood with 'willful intention'.

I'm not arguing for the flood from a theological point of view and explore why God did it. I'm simply arguing if God did it, then there should be some evidence of it, especially if it was a global flood. And we can use science to validate this claim if it's true or not.

You apply the god of the gaps at almost every turn.

I've explained this multiple times that I'm not using a god of the gaps.

I'm not giving a god of the gaps argument because I'm presenting evidence and logical arguments to infer the existence of God. I'm not simply saying because we do not have a naturalistic explanation, then God did it. Further, I'm not presenting a retreating position, but presenting it as a falsifiable explanation. If there is a viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that comes along, I will shut this forum down.

Also, here's an example where things will never be resolved because we've gone over this multiple times. So, the fact that a topic goes unresolved means nothing. I'd rather summarize my position and let the readers assess.