There is no health in us.

[Alien]

The weird thing is that Alan seems to be proposing utter relativism.   Thus, someone may find something credible, so then - what?  I don't see where this is going, except that (again) there seem to be no constraints left, since probably lots of mad things are believed by somebody, the obvious example being abduction by aliens.

Deep sigh.

My point is that Floo's claim that something is "less than credible" is a pretty pointless statement on its own. "Less than credible" in whose opinion?

[Shaker]

If I'm following along correctly - I'm in haste as the cat is just about to go to the vet - you seem, Alan, to be defending here a thoroughgoing subjectivism, which is interesting from someone who has tried to defend an objective morality 

[Nearly Sane]

I meant 'less than credible', rather than 'incredible', sorry about that.

You are OK on this, Floo. You have been saying "less than credible" rather than "incredible", but please answer. "Less than credible" in whose eyes? Yours? If so, then, to be blunt, so what? If you mean "less than credible" in other people's eyes as well, again, so what? Why is it less than credible in their eyes?

This makes the challenge even worse, since this means that if anyone believes anything, anyone who says it is not credibie, just has to accept that for someone somewhere it is. This means if I find someone who finds it credibie that Jesus is a voodoo doll that was vomited up by a mole, you will just have to nod and say 'if someone believes it, then it is credibie'

It would be good if you got your predator taxis sorted out.

As I have mentioned above, if Floo had said, "It is less than credible in my (Floo's) eyes" it would have been a statement worth responding to.

And since you have not phrased your post ' it would have been a statement worth responding to in my eyes', you would be doing the same thing you are complaining about.

[Alien]

If I'm following along correctly - I'm in haste as the cat is just about to go to the vet - you seem, Alan, to be defending here a thoroughgoing subjectivism, which is interesting from someone who has tried to defend an objective morality 

Nope. Credibility is very subjective. What you find credible, I may not and vice versa. One of Floo's mantra's is about stuff being "less than credible". In what way? In whose opinion? That is all I have asked.

As for any link to objective morality, that is one hell of a leap. Have you thought of taking up the long jump?

[Alien]

I meant 'less than credible', rather than 'incredible', sorry about that.

You are OK on this, Floo. You have been saying "less than credible" rather than "incredible", but please answer. "Less than credible" in whose eyes? Yours? If so, then, to be blunt, so what? If you mean "less than credible" in other people's eyes as well, again, so what? Why is it less than credible in their eyes?

This makes the challenge even worse, since this means that if anyone believes anything, anyone who says it is not credibie, just has to accept that for someone somewhere it is. This means if I find someone who finds it credibie that Jesus is a voodoo doll that was vomited up by a mole, you will just have to nod and say 'if someone believes it, then it is credibie'

It would be good if you got your predator taxis sorted out.

As I have mentioned above, if Floo had said, "It is less than credible in my (Floo's) eyes" it would have been a statement worth responding to.

And since you have not phrased your post ' it would have been a statement worth responding to in my eyes', you would be doing the same thing you are complaining about.

Nope. I have explained my position throughout.

[Shaker]

Nope. Credibility is very subjective. What you find credible, I may not and vice versa. One of Floo's mantra's is about stuff being "less than credible". In what way? In whose opinion? That is all I have asked.

Excellent so far.

As for any link to objective morality, that is one hell of a leap. Have you thought of taking up the long jump?

No, never, although I was fairly good at it when I was at school.

I've often thought of why you, who have wasted so many electrons on defending objective morality, are still unable to simply and clearly - as far as such things ever can be clear, I mean - make your case and prove your argument.

I know why, but I don't think that you do.

[Nearly Sane]

I meant 'less than credible', rather than 'incredible', sorry about that.

You are OK on this, Floo. You have been saying "less than credible" rather than "incredible", but please answer. "Less than credible" in whose eyes? Yours? If so, then, to be blunt, so what? If you mean "less than credible" in other people's eyes as well, again, so what? Why is it less than credible in their eyes?

This makes the challenge even worse, since this means that if anyone believes anything, anyone who says it is not credibie, just has to accept that for someone somewhere it is. This means if I find someone who finds it credibie that Jesus is a voodoo doll that was vomited up by a mole, you will just have to nod and say 'if someone believes it, then it is credibie'

It would be good if you got your predator taxis sorted out.

As I have mentioned above, if Floo had said, "It is less than credible in my (Floo's) eyes" it would have been a statement worth responding to.

And since you have not phrased your post ' it would have been a statement worth responding to in my eyes', you would be doing the same thing you are complaining about.

Nope. I have explained my position throughout.

Nope, in my eyes, you have not, and in my eyes, you are being a hypocrite

[Alien]

I meant 'less than credible', rather than 'incredible', sorry about that.

You are OK on this, Floo. You have been saying "less than credible" rather than "incredible", but please answer. "Less than credible" in whose eyes? Yours? If so, then, to be blunt, so what? If you mean "less than credible" in other people's eyes as well, again, so what? Why is it less than credible in their eyes?

This makes the challenge even worse, since this means that if anyone believes anything, anyone who says it is not credibie, just has to accept that for someone somewhere it is. This means if I find someone who finds it credibie that Jesus is a voodoo doll that was vomited up by a mole, you will just have to nod and say 'if someone believes it, then it is credibie'

It would be good if you got your predator taxis sorted out.

As I have mentioned above, if Floo had said, "It is less than credible in my (Floo's) eyes" it would have been a statement worth responding to.

And since you have not phrased your post ' it would have been a statement worth responding to in my eyes', you would be doing the same thing you are complaining about.

Nope. I have explained my position throughout.

Nope, in my eyes, you have not, and in my eyes, you are being a hypocrite

Let me to try to clarify any misunderstanding then.

Floo said that certain Christian claims are "less than credible". I have pointed out that "credible" means, "Able to be believed; convincing" according the OED. I have pointed out that whether a claim is able to be believed or is convincing depends on the person looking at it as well as the claim itself. The reason I have brought this up is because Floo seemed to be basing her requirements for evidence or other reasons to accept those claims on the claims being "less than credible", which seems circular to me. It may be that certain evidence or other reasons to accept those claims is indeed required, but it is not just because they are "less than credible" in Floo's eyes.

I hope that clears things up.

[Jack Knave]

Alien,

They would say not, just that the physical action has been replaced by "But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?
spiritual stuff, as that is easier to fake than the physical action because it can now be checked out where as people making it up, in those times, generations later couldn't be checked out in those days.

Sorry, I don't understand your point here. Would you please put it in words that I, a man from Norfolk, can understand. Ta.

I thought you went to Cambridge?

Yes, thanks.

Didn't they teach you English

No, I gave that up after my GCE English Language Grade 1 to continue to study Chemistry, Physics and Maths (with some German for fun) to A and S level then on to Cambridge for my BA in Natural Sciences. Is that what you mean?

and intellectual understanding there?

Teach me "intellectual understanding"? As in "recognise when a sentence is badly written?

It's not hard to understand what I'm saying.

Perhaps you don't understand what you yourself wrote?

Also, didn't they teach you manners either about replying to peoples' posts such as mine on my thread, "What Is God Made From?", post 482

What about it? I have had a busy week and am trying to catch up. That post is a long one and I have restricted myself to short posts while I've been busy. I'll get to your post 482.

As for my post above it is obvious. Usually these destructions were either natural events which were remembered and passed down through the generations and used, falsely, to show God's actions and judgements or they were simply made up to bolster the leaders' beliefs and to instil fear and awe etc. into the believers; and to brag to other tribes and faiths about how mighty their God was. Basically it was a PR stunt done consciously or unconsciously.

So that is the conclusion you have come to. What is your evidence for this?

Hint - you might be better to say that you see insufficient reason for assigning them to the agency of a God.

Someone said this : ""But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?"

I basically said that as it can't be faked like that today, because we know much more about natural phenomena, and such events of this nature aren't used as signs of God's judgement anymore - except by the loonies. But in those days such misguidances about God's judgement were used because they didn't know any better.

Today, God's judgement has been whisked into the metaphysical of the spiritual arena because it is safe from man's scientific and reasoning powers and as such can't be disproved and meddled with. 

[Jack Knave]

Alien,


"But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?

Because of Noah's sacrifice (Genesis 8:20-22) God said he would never again destroy all life by a flood. Interesting, huh.

Why was God so crass as to use a flood? Why kill off all the animals as they hadn't sinned? Why devastate the land?

Why not?

Isn't your God intelligent and efficient. Why be heavy handed when you can produce the same effect and judgement by being more moderate and temperate and not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Jack Knave]

Why was God so crass as to use a flood? Why kill off all the animals as they hadn't sinned? Why devastate the land?

So that no-one would escape.

Its judgement was on the people not the animals and plants nor on devastating the fertile soils, which a flood would do.

[Leonard James]

Its judgement was on the people not the animals and plants nor on devastating the fertile soils, which a flood would do.

Quite! "God" could just have created a disease to kill off all the humans, and made Noah and family immune to it.  He clearly didn't think of that.

[BashfulAnthony]

Its judgement was on the people not the animals and plants nor on devastating the fertile soils, which a flood would do.

Quite! "God" could just have created a disease to kill off all the humans, and made Noah and family immune to it.  He clearly didn't think of that.

Start a thread on the Flood:  we haven't had one for a few days!

[Alien]

..
Someone said this : ""But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?"

Maybe, but the whole of civilisation has not gone bad. Maybe that is why. I'm not sure.

I basically said that as it can't be faked like that today, because we know much more about natural phenomena, and such events of this nature aren't used as signs of God's judgement anymore - except by the loonies. But in those days such misguidances about God's judgement were used because they didn't know any better.

Today, God's judgement has been whisked into the metaphysical of the spiritual arena because it is safe from man's scientific and reasoning powers and as such can't be disproved and meddled with.

You are free to believe that if you so wish. If we look at the Flood though, Genesis claims that, in some way, God spoke to Noah beforehand. If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

Unless you are a philosophical naturalist of course, in which case you will have rejected any such evidence out of hand.

[Alien]

Alien,


"But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?

Because of Noah's sacrifice (Genesis 8:20-22) God said he would never again destroy all life by a flood. Interesting, huh.

Why was God so crass as to use a flood? Why kill off all the animals as they hadn't sinned? Why devastate the land?

Why not?

Isn't your God intelligent and efficient. Why be heavy handed when you can produce the same effect and judgement by being more moderate and temperate and not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Animals die.

[Brownie]

It also suggests that non-Christians cannot do good?

Please tell me there aren't really any people who believe such obvious rubbish?

I doubt that any thinking Christians believe that Len.
Remember being told that the guidelines are there to stop us going too far and, to put it in the vernacular, so we don't get too up ourselves  .

(May I just say, off topic, I love Shaker's avatar!)

[Shaker]

If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

Unless you are a philosophical naturalist of course, in which case you will have rejected any such evidence out of hand.

No, not good evidence at all - and you don't even have to be a philosophical naturalist to think so.

[Nearly Sane]

If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

Unless you are a philosophical naturalist of course, in which case you will have rejected any such evidence out of hand.

No, not good evidence at all - and you don't even have to be a philosophical naturalist to think so.

Oh dear is Alan trying to sneak in some idea of non methodologically naturalistic evidence by shoehorning  a bit of random incredulity to a made up assertion and avoiding any of the work of establishing a method , that one he has been asked for for years and hundreds of times but never provides? That would be awfully desperate of him

[Shaker]

Hm 

[Gordon]

If we look at the Flood though, Genesis claims that, in some way, God spoke to Noah beforehand. If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

So the story goes.

How have you excluded the possibility that this is no more than an ancient myth, and how have you confirmed aspects of the story (for instance, that there was an Ark build by Noah et al) as being historical facts?

[Jack Knave]

..
Someone said this : ""But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?"

Maybe, but the whole of civilisation has not gone bad. Maybe that is why. I'm not sure.

I basically said that as it can't be faked like that today, because we know much more about natural phenomena, and such events of this nature aren't used as signs of God's judgement anymore - except by the loonies. But in those days such misguidances about God's judgement were used because they didn't know any better.

Today, God's judgement has been whisked into the metaphysical of the spiritual arena because it is safe from man's scientific and reasoning powers and as such can't be disproved and meddled with.

You are free to believe that if you so wish. If we look at the Flood though, Genesis claims that, in some way, God spoke to Noah beforehand. If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

Unless you are a philosophical naturalist of course, in which case you will have rejected any such evidence out of hand.

That's pure speculation, a what if. My post was in reference to human nature (making shit up etc.) and the fact that it was men who wrote of what they claimed God did or judged on. Nowhere do we have God communicating with us, today, directly. It is all from third parties, and that being, men doing what men do, writing and creating narratives.

Sadly, we do have accounts of people claiming things like the end of the world by a given date and surprise, surprise we're still here!!! I'll believe it when I see it.

[Jack Knave]

Alien,


"But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?

Because of Noah's sacrifice (Genesis 8:20-22) God said he would never again destroy all life by a flood. Interesting, huh.

Why was God so crass as to use a flood? Why kill off all the animals as they hadn't sinned? Why devastate the land?

Why not?

Isn't your God intelligent and efficient. Why be heavy handed when you can produce the same effect and judgement by being more moderate and temperate and not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Animals die.

Animal's live!!! What's your point?

Or, if they die what is the point of them?

[Alien]

If we look at the Flood though, Genesis claims that, in some way, God spoke to Noah beforehand. If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

So the story goes.

How have you excluded the possibility that this is no more than an ancient myth, and how have you confirmed aspects of the story (for instance, that there was an Ark build by Noah et al) as being historical facts?

I can't totally exclude it. Have you totally excluded the possibility that it actually happened?

Be that as it may, that does not affect the veracity (or not) of my statement above.

[Alien]

..
Someone said this : ""But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?"

Maybe, but the whole of civilisation has not gone bad. Maybe that is why. I'm not sure.

I basically said that as it can't be faked like that today, because we know much more about natural phenomena, and such events of this nature aren't used as signs of God's judgement anymore - except by the loonies. But in those days such misguidances about God's judgement were used because they didn't know any better.

Today, God's judgement has been whisked into the metaphysical of the spiritual arena because it is safe from man's scientific and reasoning powers and as such can't be disproved and meddled with.

You are free to believe that if you so wish. If we look at the Flood though, Genesis claims that, in some way, God spoke to Noah beforehand. If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

Unless you are a philosophical naturalist of course, in which case you will have rejected any such evidence out of hand.

That's pure speculation, a what if. My post was in reference to human nature (making shit up etc.) and the fact that it was men who wrote of what they claimed God did or judged on. Nowhere do we have God communicating with us, today, directly. It is all from third parties, and that being, men doing what men do, writing and creating narratives.

Sadly, we do have accounts of people claiming things like the end of the world by a given date and surprise, surprise we're still here!!! I'll believe it when I see it.

You're 2000 years too late, mate. 2000 years ago God did communicate directly. You could even have sat down and have a cuppa with him if you were in Israel.

[Alien]

Alien,


"But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?

Because of Noah's sacrifice (Genesis 8:20-22) God said he would never again destroy all life by a flood. Interesting, huh.

Why was God so crass as to use a flood? Why kill off all the animals as they hadn't sinned? Why devastate the land?

Why not?

Isn't your God intelligent and efficient. Why be heavy handed when you can produce the same effect and judgement by being more moderate and temperate and not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Animals die.

Animal's live!!! What's your point?

Or, if they die what is the point of them?

My point is that you seemed to claiming that there was a problem with God letting animals in a certain area of the planet live for less time than they would normally have done.