The Resurrection

[joer]

[Zzyzx]

[twobitsmedia]

[Cathar1950]

.

I am already quite aware of your inability to debate believers.

Are you willing to defend in debate the biblical account of a worldwide flood as being an event that actually, literally, physically, really happened on the Earth and to show evidence that the contention is true -- opposed to someone who does not accept your god beliefs?

I think the problem begins with the existence of God. If there's no God, then there was no flood. We have already been over this.

That is your claim. However, the evidence for a world wide flood would be independent from there being a god, or there not being a god.

And (again) what would the evidence be of a flood started by God and ended by God with no apparent natural warning or natural ending.?

We are not looking for its cause just some evidence it happened.
There are indications of large floods but nothing that would cover the world or mountains. Sumer seems to be where the story started and was used by others later. There are flood stories in the New World but again after the last ice age there were a number of those also. The Bible OT or NT is not a record.
They are stories.

[twobitsmedia]

.

I am already quite aware of your inability to debate believers.

Are you willing to defend in debate the biblical account of a worldwide flood as being an event that actually, literally, physically, really happened on the Earth and to show evidence that the contention is true -- opposed to someone who does not accept your god beliefs?

I think the problem begins with the existence of God. If there's no God, then there was no flood. We have already been over this.

That is your claim. However, the evidence for a world wide flood would be independent from there being a god, or there not being a god.

And (again) what would the evidence be of a flood started by God and ended by God with no apparent natural warning or natural ending.?

We are not looking for its cause just some evidence it happened.
There are indications of large floods but nothing that would cover the world or mountains. Sumer seems to be where the story started and was used by others later. There are flood stories in the New World but again after the last ice age there were a number of those also. The Bible OT or NT is not a record.
They are stories.

What evidence would there be for a flood that was not caused by natural causes, with no natural warning, coming very quickly and ending very quickly and unnatural, and ended and started by God? What benchmark do you use?

[Cathar1950]

.

I am already quite aware of your inability to debate believers.

Are you willing to defend in debate the biblical account of a worldwide flood as being an event that actually, literally, physically, really happened on the Earth and to show evidence that the contention is true -- opposed to someone who does not accept your god beliefs?

I think the problem begins with the existence of God. If there's no God, then there was no flood. We have already been over this.

That is your claim. However, the evidence for a world wide flood would be independent from there being a god, or there not being a god.

And (again) what would the evidence be of a flood started by God and ended by God with no apparent natural warning or natural ending.?

We are not looking for its cause just some evidence it happened.
There are indications of large floods but nothing that would cover the world or mountains. Sumer seems to be where the story started and was used by others later. There are flood stories in the New World but again after the last ice age there were a number of those also. The Bible OT or NT is not a record.
They are stories.

What evidence would there be for a flood that was not caused by natural causes, with no natural warning, coming very quickly and ending very quickly and unnatural, and ended and started by God? What benchmark do you use?

So it is kind of like it never happened.
After all if there are no signs and signs that say there was no break bewteen cultures I guess it is just a story.
I guess you would not have much to defend.
Maybe some have a misplaced trust in their Bible about the wrong things.

[twobitsmedia]

So it is kind of like it never happened.
After all if there are no signs and signs that say there was no break bewteen cultures I guess it is just a story.
I guess you would not have much to defend.
Maybe some have a misplaced trust in their Bible about the wrong things.

That's not what I said, I asked what kind of evidence would be expected. When we can conclude what it would be, I suspect we will find it.

[Zzyzx]

[AB]

[twobitsmedia]

.

There would be NO evidence of an imaginary flood, a mythical flood, a fictional flood.

You are right. Thats why the one you propose has no evidence. It puts you in kind of a win-win scenario of your own creation. You propose a flood that didnt happen and then challenge people to come up with evidence for this nonexistent flood and when they cannot you declare yourself the winner. If you could collect bets on it you could make a fortune.

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

I really find it hard to believe that people are still willing to defend the Biblical Flood as a literal event. I'm just going to leave it at that.