What happens when you ask enough questions

For some reason, being a naturalist atheist seems often to carry with it a great deal of intellectual hubris, such that one feels totally justified in throwing out naked assertions without feeling the need to justify them. That's what happened last week over at ERV between "Fred" and me, and I reproduce some snippets here, so as to display the power of presuppositions. Note how Fred never answers my questions.

Rho,

In the the extremely large portions that clearly discuss how to escape the wrath of God, which we all fully deserve, does it explain how a two year old escapes the wrath of God?

Posted by: Fred | July 18, 2011 7:53 PM

Yes, just like anyone else - the grace of Jesus.

Posted by: Rhology | July 19, 2011 12:09 PM

The grace of Jesus? Seems a little vague.

According to the link you provide, one must pray a little prayer, or in some other manner, ask for ticket to the heaven ride. How does a two year old do this (let alone, a newborn)? How did this work during the Israelite conquest of Canaan? (It's pretty certain that there was no conquest, but for the sake of argument, we'll pretend that it happened.)

Posted by: Fred | July 19, 2011 1:19 PM

Fred,

A two year old doesn't do that.
The Bible doesn't really tell us for sure what happens to young children who die, so I don't speak where God has not spoken.

How did it work during the conquest of Canaan? That's far simpler - those who had requested grace from the One True God receive it, and those who didn't, don't receive it.
And yes, I'm sure you have outstanding evidence that it didn't happen. You know, b/c sand never shifts in that area. And archæologists never miss stuff, never make new discoveries. That's so full of bologna.

Posted by: Rhology | July 19, 2011 2:01 PM

God doesn't tell us what happens to young children who die? Holy shit! Don't you think that this is a really, really big omission?

Maybe the problem isn't that "God hasn't spoken". Maybe the problem is Christian theology is badly flawed, so you have to duck the question.

Is it really "full of bologna" that's it's very unlikely that there was a conquest of Canaan by the Israelites? Well, there's a well-supported argument. Personally, I prefer to base arguments on the data.

It's not nearly as much bologna as you may think. You need to keep up with the literature. This is a part of the world that's been pretty thoroughly surveyed, and it's looking really good for the "no conquest hypothesis". But I guess you can keep hoping for the best. Some people play the lottery, some people hope that Indiana Jones will find Joshua's Sword.

Posted by: Fred | July 19, 2011 3:28 PM

Don't you think that this is a really, really big omission?

Yes, certainly it's big, but not as big as the Final Answer to, say, the tension between election and freewill, or the mystery of the Incarnation. Sometimes God doesn't show all His cards, and that's His business, call, and prerogative.

Maybe the problem is Christian theology is badly flawed, so you have to duck the question.

OK, I'm happy to let you expound on that. Flawed compared to what? And on what basis do you know it?
How do you know it would be better for God to reveal that particular mystery to us?

Is it really "full of bologna" that's it's very unlikely that there was a conquest of Canaan by the Israelites? Well, there's a well-supported argument.

A well-supported argument that bears the weight of a conclusion of a universal negative?
Cool! Do all the logicians and philosophers of the world know that universal negativesare actually possible?

You need to keep up with the literature.

Élitist gobbledygook. I've given a perfectly good reason to doubt "the literature" (which I doubt you're actually very familiar with), so I'd like to ask you to go ahead and respond to my challenge before introducing any more red herrings.

Posted by: Rhology | July 19, 2011 4:10 PM

"Sometimes God doesn't show all His cards."

Yes, yes, I know. It's a mystery. It's always a mystery.

Much of the New Testament is all about getting into heaven, Christian parents worry constantly about whether or not their kids will go to heaven, but God isn't going to answer the question about kids going to heaven? It simply doesn't make sense that this question would be left unanswered.

Flawed compared to what? It's flawed compared to a theology that could answer the question of what happens to kids who die. The flaw is that you can't find answer to this critically important question. The flaw is that the answer cannot be derived from the "goobledygook".

Is the archaeological literature really elitist gobbledygook? Only to the aggressively ignorant. For the rest of us, there's nothing elitist here. Anyone can understand the evidence if you chose to try.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a well-supported argument that bears the weight of a conclusion of a universal negative", but I think that you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that I know with absolute certainty that we will never find the evidence you need to support the conquest hypothesis. However, when one repeatedly fails to find what one expects to find, when one fails to find what really should be there if a given event really occurred, then it's fair to say the the hypothesis is almost certainly false.

For example, you might claim that a given city was burned to the ground in 1805. So I dig down through the ruins of the city from the 1910 level to the 1720 level, and there is no evidence of burning anywhere between these two horizons. In that case, yes, the negative evidence strongly contradicts the hypothesis of a burning in 1800. The statement that the city almost certainly did not burn in 1800 is a very well-supported hypothesis. In the case of the conquest of Canaan, the repeatedly failure to find evidence to match the hypothesis leads to the well-supported conclusion that it almost certainly didn't happen.

"I've given a perfectly good reason to doubt "the literature"

God told you?

Posted by: Fred | July 19, 2011 4:33 PM

No, not even close to always. It's just that you happened to name a mystery; what am I supposed to do but correctly identify it?

Much of the New Testament is all about getting into heaven, Christian parents worry constantly about whether or not their kids will go to heaven, but God isn't going to answer the question about kids going to heaven?

Correct.

It simply doesn't make sense that this question would be left unanswered.

Oh. Well, I'm glad you're here to correct God.

Flawed compared to what? It's flawed compared to a theology that could answer the question of what happens to kids who die.

Alright, now take the next step.
You know that a theology that explicitly describes their fate would be superior...how?

Is the archaeological literature really elitist gobbledygook?

Only the parts of it that
1) think that they can give good reason to believe a universal negative, and
2) are blind to history enough to think that there are no more new discoveries to be made.

when one fails to find what really should be there if a given event really occurred

1) Have you ever heard of sand? And thousands of years? And the conjunction of the two?
2) Further, you beg the question against the biblical account by assuming it is not a dependable witness to those events. It says they occurred; why not accept that they did occur until proven that they didn't? As it stands, you're rejecting that they occurred based simply on biased assumption, and that's hardly fair.

you might claim that a given city was burned to the ground in 1805. So I dig down through the ruins of the city from the 1910 level to the 1720 level, and there is no evidence of burning anywhere between these two horizons.

That's so funny, though, b/c I'm not claiming a given city burned to the ground in 1805.
Sorry, not a very good analogy. You forgot to include a vast area of shifting sand, and thousands of years.

God told you?

I decided to be helpful and went ahead and repeated my reasons in this comment, b/c you apparently missed them the first time. Reading is important.

Posted by: Rhology | July 19, 2011 4:49 PM

"You know that a theology that explicitly describes their fate would be superior...how?"

If I lost an infant child, I want desperately want to know. I would really consider a theology that gave me an answer to be far superior to a theology that didn't, especially when so much of the theology is, in fact, all about getting into heaven or suffering eternal torture. This really is the key point. You create a theology focused on the central question of the afterlife and then you fail to answer the question.

I assume that you'll say "that's just your opinion", but it's also just your opinion that the theology is not flawed. It's your opinion that the absence of an answer is just fine. It's all just opinion. So, I guess we're stuck. I guess if you want to believe that the theology is flawless, I doubt if any arguments to the contrary will change that.

"Further, you beg the question against the biblical account by assuming it is not a dependable witness to those events. It says they occurred; why not accept that they did occur until proven that they didn't?"

Not true at all. See Willian Dever's approach. Oh, I forgot. That's elitist goobledygook.

Besides, your argument is that we can't prove that something didn't happen. Why not start with the assumption that every historical account of every culture on Earth is accurate? Now we're going to have to accept every historical account of every culture as accurate, because we can never prove that something didn't happen.

"...Are blind to history enough to think that there are no more new discoveries to be made."

Can you point to an archaeologist who says that there are no more new discoveries to be made?

"That's so funny, though, b/c I'm not claiming a given city burned to the ground in 1805. You forgot to include a vast area of shifting sand, and thousands of years."

Sigh. You don't know much about ANE archeology and ANE archeological sites, do you? The magic sand is going to fix everything for you. It's clear that you have no interest in learning more, and you're going to reject the archaeological evidence as "elitist goobledygook" before we start, so I suppose that brings this to an end.

Posted by: Fred | July 19, 2011 5:59 PM

I would really consider a theology that gave me an answer to be far superior to a theology that didn't

Thanks for the insight into your mind, but you're exactly right: that's called your opinion. I was thinking more along the lines of an argument.
and in point of fact, I have lost an infant child, and it tore me up. But *I* prefer a theology where it's all for a reason and Jesus saves me, a wretched sinner.
So, back to square one. Got an argument for us?

I guess if you want to believe that the theology is flawless, I doubt if any arguments to the contrary will change that.

Well, without an argument from you to the contrary, one might be forgiven for thinking that you don't have a good reason for thinking what you do.

Willian Dever's approach.

And how does he know which parts of the narrative are fictional and which aren't?

Why not start with the assumption that every historical account of every culture on Earth is accurate?

For those of us who are NOT total neophytes in the study of history, that IS in fact what we must do: start with the presumption of innocence and only with good reason reject parts or the whole. But that's hardly what you've done.

Can you point to an archaeologist who says that there are no more new discoveries to be made?

The point sailed meters over your head, it would appear.
Let me spell it out for you - since your argument was that no evidence of the Israelites' psg thru the desert etc has ever been found, therefore it's improbable it happened.
And that's just it - HAS BEEN found. Past tense. Archaeologists have made premature judgments about the Bible's unreliability numerous times throughout history and then made to look silly by later discoveries. You'd think such a history would produce a little humility, but Fred is either too ignorant or obstinate to let facts get in the way of his biased hubris.

You don't know much about ANE archeology and ANE archeological sites, do you? The magic sand is going to fix everything for you.

never said anything about "magic".
But I would suggest that, you know, sand moves. And archaeologists don't have billions of dollars to dig up the entire Sinai. 

Posted by: Rhology | July 19, 2011 9:13 PM

Got an argument for us?

First, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your child. Had I known, I might not have raised the point in the first place. However, as to the argument, I've made the argument. A theolology that makes the afterlife, heaven, hell, etc., a central focus is flawed when it fails to provide an answer to the question of the fate of infants.

As I said, it's an astonishing omission. It strongly suggests a theology created by the flawed human mind. I understand that it does not prove beyond all doubt that the theology is human-created, but it does suggest this. If you chose to not see this as a flaw, then that's your choice. I understand that this will have no impact on your belief. This is your choice and your opinion.

As to Dever, if you'd read his books, you'd know that Dever starts by assuming that a give passage of the Bible could certainly be true. He then tests the hypothesis that a given description of a given event is accurate. If he finds evidence to support the narrative, he says so, and he thinks that much of the later history of the Old Testament is accurate. On the other hand, if a considerable amount of evidence is clearly pointing against the accuracy of the narrative, he says that the narrative is not accurate for a given event and time.

"For those of us who are NOT total neophytes in the study of history, that IS in fact what we must do: start with the presumption of innocence and only with good reason reject parts or the whole. But that's hardly what you've done."

So, now you're a trained historian who knows how historians do their reseach? I think that you'll find that many historians do not start with a "presumption of innocence". Good historians are far more skeptical than this.

Regardless, many ANE archaeologists have, in fact, started with a presumption of innocence! They did the very thing you say that they should do. After all, ANE archaeology was started by believers, not skeptics. It's the evidence that turned the believers into skeptics. Parts of the narrative were, in fact, rejected for good reasons. Again, see Dever as an example of someone who was changed by the evidence. I think that you should become familiar with the evidence before you draw your conclusions about what I have done or about what ANE archaeologists have done.

"Archaeologists have made premature judgments about the Bible's unreliability numerous times throughout history and then made to look silly by later discoveries. You'd think such a history would produce a little humility, but Fred is either too ignorant or obstinate to let facts get in the way of his biased hubris."

Uh, no, I'm aware of the cases to which you refer. Please do not jump to conclusions about my knowledge of the subject. (Hittites, right?)

How many times do I have to repeat it? I'm NOT saying that I know with absolute certainty that we will never find the evidence you need to support the conquest hypothesis!!! Yes, I know that new discoveries can change things. How many times do I have to say this before you notice that I'm saying it?

However, when one repeatedly fails to find what one expects to find, when one fails to find what really should be there if a given event really occurred, then it's fair to say the the hypothesis is almost certainly false. Yes, sand moves. But occupation sites do not. If you find a site occupied throughout the period in question and you dig down through the layer that dates to the time of the alleged conquest and you DON'T find a burn layer, then what can you conclude? When you do this at occupation site after site, and you find the same result, what do you conclude? This cannot be explained away by "moving sand". I'm not being obstinate. At the moment, the conquest hypothesis appears to be strongly disproved, and that's a fact. You really, really need to dig into the available data.

Again, I don't think that you are fully aware of the degree to which the region has been surveyed, and the narrative tested. I'm not just talking about the passage through the desert. I'm talking about the pre-exodus from Egypt period, the conquest of Canaan, and for that matter, the global flood as well. Keep in mind the degree to which the modern Israel ties its identity to the (Hebrew) Bible and justifies its political views and actions by reference to the Bible. This nation has poured significant resources into the effort to prove that things like the conquest of Canaan occurred. I don't know if it's billions, but I'll bet the investment could be measured in the hundreds of millions. The land has been surveyed and surveyed again. Nobody, repeat, nobody wants to find the evidence to support the narrative in its entirety more than the Israelis. But it's just not happening. The evidence continues to directly contradict significant parts of the narrative.

In the end, you've already told me how you respond to the evidence. "Elitist goobledegook. So, what more needs to be said? What's the point of showing you evidence? You've made up your mind before examining the evidence, which, ironically, is what you keep accusing me of doing.

Posted by: Fred | July 19, 2011 10:27 PM

First, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your child. Had I known, I might not have raised the point in the first place.

Thanks.
It's OK, though; I brought it up, fighting blind emotionalism with clear-sighted emotions.

A theolology that makes the afterlife, heaven, hell, etc., a central focus is flawed when it fails to provide an answer to the question of the fate of infants.

Prove it. How many times do I have to ask you to prove it?

It strongly suggests a theology created by the flawed human mind.

Based on what standard, precisely?
If you choose to not answer my questions, then that's your choice. I understand that this will have no impact on your belief. This is your choice and your opinion.

On the other hand, if a considerable amount of evidence is clearly pointing against the accuracy of the narrative, he says that the narrative is not accurate for a given event and time

OK, well, thanks for the assertions.

now you're a trained historian who knows how historians do their reseach?

1) Never said I was a trained historian. Apparently you're a bit of a neophyte in the art of debate as well.
2) You yourself said a few lines ago:

"As to Dever, if you'd read his books, you'd know that Dever starts by assuming that a give passage of the Bible could certainly be true."

3) And yes, I do happen to know it b/c I've listened to historians lecture.
4) And that approach makes way more sense than the approach you've been proposing, upon analysis. Just throw out EVERYthing we think we know about history if we're going to approach it with a radical skepticism like that which is the logical conclusion of your proposal. Have fun with that, though; I'm sticking with the idea that people actually sometimes wrote true things and had a reason for it.

Please do not jump to conclusions about my knowledge of the subject. (Hittites, right?)

That's one example, yes.

Yes, I know that new discoveries can change things. How many times do I have to say this before you notice that I'm saying it?

I'm just waiting for you to do more than say it once; I'm waiting to see you apply it consistently throughout your discourse.
How many times do you have to say this before you notice that you're saying it?

when one repeatedly fails to find what one expects to find, when one fails to find what really should be there if a given event really occurred, then it's fair to say the the hypothesis is almost certainly false.

Or your reading of the text/location/age was flawed.
You know, I've read the OT pretty extensively and more than a couple times. It doesn't give exacting specifications or locations for where its narrated events took place.
Further, you need to prove that it's possible to prove that one has the right depth to dig, for example. How does one know one has dug far enough? Self-referential appeals to "strata"? Please.
Also, you may have heard this before: sand moves. Did you know that? How can that possibly be accounted for with any degree of probable knowledge? We're talkingthousands of years, during which nobody was around to record the shifting of sand.

But occupation sites do not.

LOL! How could you possibly know that?

You really, really need to dig into the available data.

I tend not to waste my time with "data" until I have a good reason to think the people giving me the data have reasonable assumptions. So far, you've given me every reason to think otherwise.

Nobody, repeat, nobody wants to find the evidence to support the narrative in its entirety more than the Israelis.

You're aware that modern Israel, ever since its founding, has been a highly secular nation with very few true believers living in it? I'm supposed to have confidence that they're not operating on faulty assumptions...why?

In the end, you've already told me how you respond to the evidence. "Elitist goobledegook.

B/c I've had this convo before and you're repeating the way it went last time(s). I keep waiting for you to prove me wrong, to give some good reason to think you may be on to something, and I keep getting disappointed.
Presuppositions always doom the naturalist since naturalism as a system is itself fatally philosophically flawed.

What's the point of showing you evidence? You've made up your mind before examining the evidence, which, ironically, is what you keep accusing me of doing.

That's so funny, b/c I can show you scads of evidence for the existence of God. But what's the point of showing you evidence? You've made up your mind before examining the evidence, which, ironically, is what you keep accusing me of doing.

@Spence #54

have spent long hours in one-to-one discussions with Catholic priests

I'm sorry to hear that.
It's not discussion with a knowledgeable Christian, no. Not even close.

your assertion is still rude about other people's beliefs

It should go without saying that sometimes painful truths are regarded as rude by the shallow.

Abbie was rude about Evangelical beliefs, and her sardonic tone follows from her own views on religion.

I know she's rude; I read this blog regularly.
My problem is that she was IGNORANT, and it makes her rudeness that much more ridiculous.

But applying such double standards are only likely to reinforce my atheism, not challenge it.

Nobody can make you think these things through consistently, sadly. But hopefully my explanation here will clarify for you.

Posted by: Rhology | July 20, 2011 8:31 AM

I'll keep this short, because I've had enough of banging my head against a wall.

"Just throw out EVERYthing we think we know about history if we're going to approach it with a radical skepticism like that which is the logical conclusion of your proposal."

NOT at all what I'm saying, and you know it. I've cited Dever as an example, and this is not at all what Dever does.

"You're aware that modern Israel, ever since its founding, has been a highly secular nation with very few true believers living in it?"

You obviously know nothing about the sponsorship of archaeology by the Israeli government. More aggressive ignorance.

"How does one know one has dug far enough? Self-referential appeals to "strata"? Please."

Please, please, please take the time to learn something about archaeological methods.

For crying out loud, I give up. You refuse to try to understand what I'm saying and your ignorance of the subject it too much for me to overcome. You prefer to reject the evidence as "elitist goobledegook", and that's that. What a waste of time. I'll leave you to your fairy tales.

Posted by: Fred | July 20, 2011 9:39 AM

NOT at all what I'm saying, and you know it. I've cited Dever as an example, and this is not at all what Dever does.

It's the logical conclusion of what you're saying. I'm sorry you haven't thought it thru sufficiently.
Besides, you said:
It's pretty certain that there was no conquest, but for the sake of argument, we'll pretend that it happened.

But as we've seen, you have no idea whether it happened and have no way to access that fact. Doesn't stop you from making these pretty strong assertions about it, though, does it?

Please, please, please take the time to learn something about archaeological methods.

Please, please, please answer my questions.

. You prefer to reject the evidence as "elitist goobledegook", and that's that.

Fortunately, anyone can read our conversation and see how accurately you've summed it up here. Ta ta.

Did you really have to throw in some anti-Catholic bigotry, too?

Ignorance. You have no idea how much I know about RC theology, but you apparently don't care whether you cast ignorant aspersions, as long as you're doing it to a Christian.

Posted by: Rhology | July 20, 2011 10:49 AM

...

Rho,

So, you really think that there was a global flood and that the human population of the world was reduced to eight people? God killed all of the other humans? Noah and his family were the best humans to save? Every population of every terrestrial vertebrate species was reduced to two or seven individuals? When did this happen?

I'm not sure I want to argue about this as I think it's probably futile, but I am curious about your beliefs.

Posted by: Fred | July 20, 2011 3:44 PM

Yes to all, except "best humans to save". God chose them b/c He wanted to be kind to them, out of love.
Happened, IDK, around 6-7K years ago, I think. Hard to tell.

You'll laugh, and I couldn't care less, but I would like to ask you to give me a good reason to think this is incorrect. Not assertion. Argument.

Posted by: Rhology | July 20, 2011 7:49 PM

"Yes to all, except "best humans to save". God chose them b/c He wanted to be kind to them, out of love."

God didn't want to be kind to any of the other humans? Not a one of them, whether they were better than Noah or not? If Noah, et al., aren't the best, then it appears that Noah's selection was quite arbitrary. Noah just won the lottery.

"Happened, IDK, around 6-7K years ago, I think. Hard to tell."

Yeah, I can imagine that it's hard to tell. However, it's interesting that you don't go with the AiG date of 2500 BC.

"You'll laugh, and I couldn't care less, but I would like to ask you to give me a good reason to think this is incorrect. Not assertion. Argument."

Well, let's see. I could give you archaeological evidence, but you reject archaeology. Geological evidence? Paleontological evidence? Genetics? Biogeography? These would be rejected, rejected, rejected and rejected.

So what's the point? Maybe someone else is in a masochistic mood, but my head is still sore. I just wanted to confirm my suspicions.

I'm not laughing. This is too sad for laughter.

Posted by: Fred | July 20, 2011 10:17 PM

Fred said:
you've got to count the misses as well as the random hits

And what if I asked you to prove that the hits were random?
Do you think that Christianity holds to some sort of "prayer -> affirmative reply" necessary connection?
It's sort of ignorant, really.

God didn't want to be kind to any of the other humans?

Yes, there were 7 others in the ark.
But no, not any of the others.

Not a one of them, whether they were better than Noah or not?

There is no one good, no, not one.

Noah just won the lottery.

Gosh, I could've sworn I said that God chose him out of love and mercy. Not "lottery".

However, it's interesting that you don't go with the AiG date of 2500 BC.

Chalk that up to my lack of interest in a solid date for the Flood. 2500 BC is fine with me.

I could give you archaeological evidence, but you reject archaeology

What ridiculous statements.
I have asked you specific questions, and you've chosen mockery rather than substantive answers. Let the reader judge whether what I've said = "reject archaeology".

Posted by: Rhology | July 21, 2011 12:26 PM

“And what if I asked you to prove that the hits were random?”

How about looking at climate data for April in Texas? You know, it does occasionally rain in Texas. There does not appear to be anything the least bit unusual about what happened in April. You want me to prove beyond all doubt that God didn't make it rain in April?

In the meantime, three months after the prayer proclamation, the drought is more severe, Texas is experiencing one of the hottest, driest summers in history, and Texas agriculture is in the crapper. If we're going by the "empirical evidence", I would have to conclude that if God made a little rain in April, he seems to have lost interest since then. Texas is screwed, blued and tattooed.

“Do you think that Christianity holds to some sort of "prayer -> affirmative reply" necessary connection?”

Actually, I don’t. This would subject prayer to the possibility of testing, and prayer would not hold up well. Christians are not so stupid as to put prayer to the test when they know how the testing would go.

“Yes, there were 7 others in the ark.”

Yes I know. Do you see the “et al.”?

"Gosh, I could've sworn I said that God chose him out of love and mercy. Not "lottery"."

Since Noah was no better, or at least, not the best, his (and the family’s) selection is arbitrary. It’s like winning the lottery.

“What ridiculous statements. “

Ridiculous? The minute I mentioned mainstream ANE archaeology, you rejected it as "elitist goobledegook" before we even started to discuss it. This is not rejecting archaeology?

I started to try to explain how archaeology could be used to test the conquest hypothesis, but you rejected the key and essential concept of stratigraphy right off the bat. Reject stratigraphy and you reject archaeology and and that ends the discussion.

"I have asked you specific questions, and you've chosen mockery rather than substantive answers. Let the reader judge whether what I've said = "reject archaeology"."

And I quote Rho…”You have no idea whether it happened and have no way to access that fact.” See any rejection there? Since much of our ability to understand what happened in the past is based on archaeology, and since you claim that I have "no way to access" past events, what else am I supposed to conclude about your attitude towards archaeology?

Yes, let the reader judge. You started with "elitist goobledegook", and went downhill from there. I tried to give you substantive answers, but as I said, you reject the use of stratigraphy in archaeology, so what’s the point? You will always conclude …”you have no idea whether it happened and have no way to access that fact.”

I have no doubt that a discussion of geology, paleontology, genetics and biogeography would go the same way.

Pointless. 

Posted by: Fred | July 21, 2011 1:17 PM

Fred,

How about looking at climate data for April in Texas?

And you can prove it's random...how?

You want me to prove beyond all doubt that God didn't make it rain in April?

Well, you said He didn't, so I'm just asking you to step up and substantiate your assertions.
I know, atheists hate it when I ask that, but I like asking it.

if God made a little rain in April, he seems to have lost interest since then.

...or maybe He didn't lose interest at all, but is withholding rain for some other reason(s).
You're free to speculate, of course, but it's all just your bare opinion.

This would subject prayer to the possibility of testing, and prayer would not hold up well.

...and you're ignorant of the biblical doctrine of man's sinful limitations vs God's holy sovereignty, such that we often pray bad prayers and God answers No.

“Yes, there were 7 others in the ark.”

Yes I know. Do you see the “et al.”?

Ah, sorry. I missed the et al. Fair enough.

Since Noah was no better, or at least, not the best, his (and the family’s) selection is arbitrary. It’s like winning the lottery.

Yeah, it's not much like winning the lottery. God chose them. Lottery = random. God's choice = intentional choice.

you rejected it as "elitist goobledegook" before we even started to discuss it.

And for the 6th time, i gave reasons, which you haven't dealt with.

Reject stratigraphy and you reject archaeology and and that ends the discussion.

Let me translate:
Reject the assumptions archaeologists make without evidence and you reject archaeology and and that ends the discussion.
Cool, glad we had this little talk. Argument from unsavory consequences, you got it!

Posted by: Rhology | July 21, 2011 4:42 PM