Re: Science, God, and Free Will

On Nov 9, 6:39 pm, Ben Standeven <be...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 8, 11:30 am, part...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Nov 6, 6:04 pm, rem6...@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:

[...]

There is no way that the high priests of the Middle East, who hired
scribes to write their myths, then died 3000 years ago, can *now*
guarantee anything. They were just men, and now they've been dead
for 3000 years. If their "guarantee" isn't good, how are you going
to collect damages? Their "guarantee" is worthless, get used to it.

That's exactly the point. They couldn't have been *so* wise, so
maybe the prophecer wasn't them...

For example, it might have been their descendants, who already knew
(or at least assumed) that they survived...

The Bible wasn't written before the destruction of the 1st Temple,
as some Jews (the Yamanides) were then isolated from all other Jews in
the world, until modern times, and yet have the same version of the
Bible. But anyway, even if you take the latest date in which the Bible
could have been written, many attempts to destroy the Jews were made
afterwards, and failed. So the validity of the historical verification
of this prophecy doesn't change by your assumptions.

[...]

Please give specific evidence against the Flood, if you have any. We
can then try to find their underlying assumptions, and see where the
bible contradicts these assumptions.

I was going to give some examples, but then I noticed:

[...]

It may be interpreted that physics laws were different (earth
didn't preserve its angular momentum), or some other catastrophe
has occured (a tiny back hole passing by, or such).

Only an idiot would try to prop up an ancient myth like that.

You agreed that past survival isn't a guarantee for the future.
Can't you extrapolate this principle to the past, too? the current
(apparent) constancy of physics laws says nothing on what happened
thousands of years ago. If you thought that bible is idiotic, surely
you'll agree that the belief in nature laws is worse?

There's not much point in presenting "evidence" about what happened
thousands of years ago, if I'm not allowed to make "assumptions" about
how things worked in the past. For example, you have no "evidence"
that the Jews or the Bible existed three thousand years ago, that is
not based on such "assumptions".

Of course you have to make some assumptions. If you choose to make
anti-Biblical ones, you're likely to get anti-Biblical conclussions.
That's fine. But if, then, you argue that you have anti-Biblical
factual evidence, that's a fallacy. What I was arguing, is that there
isn't any anti-Biblical factual evidence - only anti-Biblical
assumptions.

any extrapolation on current physics laws and solar system's
behaviour into the past, is anti-Biblical, ...

Who the *** cares? The entire Universe is anti-Biblical in that sense.

In what sense?

In the sense that "any extrapolation on current physics laws and solar
system's behaviour into the past, is anti-Biblical." There must have
been _some_ physics laws and solar system behavior back then, and
there must be such now, at great distances from us. Yet, these things
are "anti-Biblical" according to you. (Although I confess I don't see
why.)

Why do you assume that the physics laws that applied then, exist now
in a great distance from us? If, for example, the earth just didn't
conserve its angular momentum during the Flood, and does it since
then, it's perfectly consistent with the Biblical story. Do you think
that in this case, something far away from us, will not conserve its
angular momentum now? why?

You may decide that this assumption is foolish. That's fine
(although senseless - there's no reason to blindly extrapolate current
physics to the past. It can only be an assumption). But then, your
conclussions can't contradict the Bible, and that's my point.

.