Pete

The problem with your view Dan was that the Ark would of had to sail over higher mountains than mount Hermon to get to mount Hermon and if the water was that high then much of the land around the whole of Asia, Europe Africa and America would of had to be flooded. There is no evidence of this. It matters not how you pack it Dan the biblical account is not possible if the flood was in China.

The other aspect of the topic is unless you can entertain the possibility that the bible may not be true then your not a free thinker. You need to be able to be open to other possibilities and reestablish your thoughts accordingly. You begin with the bible is fact and end with the same. Ergo your not a free thinker.

Dan the last time I spoke you believed the flood was in China and Noah's ark sailed over the mountains to get to mount Hermon. It's a case of any explanation will do as long as it proves the bible correct. Maybe the flood was on the moon tomorrow.

Not looking for your answers is not the same as not looking for answers. We look at science to provide the answers and you look at myth Dan.

I don't believe in a biblical world wide flood and think the story of Noah is adopted from other religions. However, this does look interesting. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology

I never mentioned any God in my last statement. I was picking up on Dan saying that there is no life elsewhere. I thought that was a sweeping statement being as there is so much out there we don't know of. To a rough scale if the earth was a pin head then the sun would be the size of LA. Our next nearest star would be the distance from LA to Denver and the next again would the distance somewhere in Brazil. That is the distance and loads of objects between. To say that there is no life elsewhere is a bit of a jump to conclusions. Dan then mentioned his god. On that separate point I find that god somewhat difficult to talk about as I find it difficult to define and the bible description confused. I have mentioned two topics now and as I am sure Dan's grasp of science is a strain, as is the bible's, I am sure he will say something about his god now. Boring

We can hold out the possibility that life may exist elsewhere in the universe. No one is confirming that until we know. That is being open minded. Dan you said that there is no life elsewhere. How would you know that. We talk about a possibility and you talk in confirmation. It is for that reason that it is you needing to prove that statement. Even if I believe I believed in creation one needs answer why there is at least 13 billion light years of known space just for this speck of cosmic dust. It just feels ludicrous.

I did not say you need observation of a god to confirm its existence, just evidence of a reaction that is there. As for your astronomy arguement, it is possible life does exist in one form or another on other planets. It is just a matter of finding them. However, even in our solar system many scientists are hoping for evidence of life on the moons Europer and Titan. The fact that the universe is so massive suggests it is not just about our creation. We know of about 13 billion light years across the universe and who knows beyond that. The universe itself suggests the genesis story is nonsense. As a point, the light from the most distant objects still show it forming. That is because the light has taken so long to get here. As for your burning house argument, I have seen biblical archeologists in action. They find a pile of rocks and insist it must be something from the bible. Totally ignoring the masses of things that existed back then that was not mentioned in the bible. That argument does not stand Dan.

The lack of evidence for something is not the same as evidence of lack of something. That said, it does not confirm its likelihood or support its existence. In fact, the more a thing thing is without evidence either by it's existence or reaction to that we know exists the less likely it is to exist. Hence, an atom can be thought likely because of its reaction but a god is not confirmed by it's lack reaction to existence or tested existence.

The word God can be describing many things. I guess if there is a conscious god then to separate itself from the processes of just functions I look for logical sequences of suggested thought and consistency. However, that may be a mistake because it maybe possible for a stupid blundering god. With the biblical god I see Inconsistencies in that you have an OT god who is busy destroying all in its path and a NT god that is prepared to die to save everyone. That to me causes cognitive dissonance and I see a break in the logical pathways. That is one of the reasons I don't see the biblical good as possible. It is the quandary a good God that is also a psychopathic killer, a loving god who cannot forgive disobedience or caring God who claims to intervene but does not. That to me is evidence of inconsistency and the absence of reality, but I could be wrong a stupid, temperamental, inconsistent, or a illogical god may exist.

If someone wants me to accept an unjustiied belief, then they have to justify the belief and prove that that there is something in the belief and it's not just supported by fiction and unsubstantiated repetitive dogma. It should be something I can question in my own mind without emotional blackmail by saying I will be punished by their believed unsubstantiated god for doing so. I am 65 years of age and witnessed much suffering and hurt as people make sense of this life in desperate conditions. I can say I want a chance for me and everyone to be forgiven because there are many hurts in this life. The idea of a so called god who cannot see that and wants to destroy all who do not have a said belief is for me immoral and then when I see that god has no evidence or intervention and watched so many die in war, disease, hunger, disaster, poverty and can sit back and watch 6 million Jews being massacred, or others in the new years day tidal wave and so many other events and then has the blatant cheek to say that God loves us then forgive me if I vomit with the revulsion. I demand real proof and not notion.

Yeah! Dan, So full of love. NOT

Me too. It is strange coming to a no religion part of the forum and preaching religion. Dan may believe as he does but he will not get converts here

Just so.

I am not trying to get converts but some Faith's won't let it go there. I could easily live and let live but not when I feel hammered all the time by strained arguments designed to shoot my viewpoint down. I am agnostic and That is that. I am not interested in converts. Most evangelical Faith's do a good enough job on their own because despite all the effort they put into it there is still no empirical evidence and it's no more than a belief coupled with an assertion and twisting arguments to suit their ministry. As an atheist or agnostic they want facts and that is what their ministry is always short of. Also because of the lack of evidence I just can't be bothered to treat what they are saying with respect and listen. Maybe if they don't understand what atheist or agnostic means then maybe I should spell it out with "I just can't be bothered and will not be bothered ".

Dan and CML I am leaving and looking for a more rational conversation. Bye

Well for me they are just stories. Your just giving your own interpretation. Archeology is still arguing where the temple was and where was David's court. There is no trace or other evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed. There is no evidence that Jesus existed or that there was a registry of births that they had to go too. There are so many gaps. All the fundies do is twist the story until it fits something. The possibility that the story could be wrong never enters their heads.

I think we are getting a flight of ideas and no pattern of a logical thought path. I think it's time to disengage. There is no point. Thanks Cuchalain and Jonathan.

Yes!

CML I give you one for persistence. I hope you understand this, but producing more unproven notions does not make an unprovable stance more provable. Logical progression is based on one provable truth built on another. The more I read the more fanciful nonsense it all seems. So if you have no proof then I disengage. Not because you and Dan win but I see no point in the conversation.

Dan, I have pointed out that there is no Archeology proof Jesus existed, the so called historical proofs have been faked, and as the story of Jesus was written after the prophesies all this points too is the story was written to cooinside with OT writings. The OT writing are totally understood differently by the Jews who wrote them to the distortion that christendom later prescribed them. In short you have nothing of substance except biblocist dogma. Peaceful solutions here is to live and let live but that involves respecting our differences. Something Dan won't do and will keep coming back. They other thing is quoting scripture does not add substance to someone who doubts the scripture and sees it as nonsense. It is meaningless as proof of anything but repetitive dogma.

That for me is twaddle. If you only have faith in something unproven, and without substance then what do you have? Nothing. Why do I need trust in anything else without substance. I know some believe in fairies , pixies, and goblins but does that mean they have gained anything more for having faith in them. No. Actually Dan I do have faith in something. I have faith that you have nothing of substance or worth putting my faith in. Does that make me more respected? No of course not. So for me your statements is a nonsense.

Belief is not knowledge. It maybe knowledge about a belief but it's nothing more. Its empty unproven nonsense. Its matters little how much knowledge you have Dan about nothing , it is still nothing without proof. A million times nothing is still nothing. You have no proof and until you do I can understand people not wanting to talk to you about it.

History shows that the church is quite capable of creating hell on earth. The numbers that have been killed, drowned, burnt alive, hung, poisoned , or just plain tortured in its name is massive.

Frightening