by Wet Suit » Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:40 pm
> Genesis tells us that the ark rested "on the mountains of Ararat," meaning the range—a region, not simply a mountain. The location is vague, and there is no claim that it rested on Mt. Ararat, and certainly no claim that it rested at the top of it or even high on it.
It is funny how the interpretation of Biblical claims take a sudden "vague", "metaphorical" and "interpretive" turn when it is contradicted by rationality, evidence or science. Even if I grant you your interpretive hypothesis that the ark came to rest at the foot of a mountain range, and not on the mountain itself, the regional flood theory still falls apart. Let's, for the sake of the argument, assume the ark did not come to rest at an elevation of 5km above sea-level, but came to rest at the measly elevation of 30m about sea-level. (1) Water always flows toward the lowest point it can. In any given region there are valleys, rivers and lowlands which eventually connect to the sea, which means that (except if the region was a basin and was 100% surrounded by a 30m high natural wall, water would flow into the sea to achieve equilibrium, and a 25m high "flood" line would be impossible. (2) The second, and more fundemental, problem with your fairytale is that the rate of precipitation required to deposit 30m of water over a large region is physically impossible. The maximum hourly rate of precipitation physically possible is governed by three factors, namely (a) the precipitable moisture in the air column, which is a non-linear function of temperature, assuming no limiting evaporation upwind, (b) the dynamics of condensation, assuming no limitation on the availability of raindrop nuclei, and (c) the lateral advective delivery of moisture. The highest hourly precipitation ever measured in history is around 500mm, while the highest hypothetical precipitation rate is just under 1cm per hour. Let's defy physics and make it 2cm per hour (because magic). That equals 19m in 40 days at a precipitation rate double that of what is physically possible. I'll take the supernatural writings and musings of goatherders, who did not know where the sun went at night, with a pinch of salt.
> There are several cultural elements that we have to take into consideration.
None of which make any of the problems the flood myth faces go away. One has to believe that scientifically illiterate peasants' second hand writings of an oral tale passed down the generations, about a supernatural flood, is historically accurate, all while admitted that the same people thought that the earth was flat, stood on pillars etc. Makes total sense.
> In addition, when Gn. 7.19 uses the word "covered" for the mountains, we have to look elsewhere in the Bible for what "covered" means.
You are now defending a dogmatic claim by arguing semantics; that the word "cover" does not mean what it clearly is intended to mean in the context it was used, but that a vast array of other meanings could apply. You assert a selection of unfalsifiable hypothesis, to open up a space in which the dogmatic claim could possibly exist. Not a good argument at all.
> If this were the case in Genesis, it would suggest that the water reached 15 cubits upward from the plain, covering at least some part of the mountains.
So according to Google, 15 cubits = roughly 7m. Wow, what an immense part of the mountains 7m of water must have covered... so much so that all people in the area drowned and could not find a hill higher than 7m, so much so that birds could not rest anywhere and no one could see any mountains. All under the cover of 7m of water from the plain.
> We know, first of all, that consciousness is not physical, but rather is immaterial. It is generated in the brain but it has not material substance.
If consciousness is "generated in the brain", then yes consciousness has a material substance / basis. You can divorce the two from one another. There is no evidence that proves that consciousness is possible independant to the underlying biology of the brain, which means that it is an emergent property of our brain, which in turn means that consciousness is an emergent property of matter arranged in a certain way.
> If you start with only matter, and matter is all there is, then you argue against consciousness.
Wrong. This is a false equivalency. There is no seperation between matter and consciousness. The two are intertwined. The one emerges from the other.
> But this is a false argument because we know consciousness exists in reality.
Of course we do, as I've explained to you above. I also don't know why you are harping on about consciousness when I've never claimed consciousness does not exist. Of course it exists. You've claimed that "souls" exist, which is something different to consciousness. Consciousness, because it depends on the underlying structure of the brain to exist, in all probability ceases to exist when the brain decays. However, "souls" are claimed to be transcendal, for which there is of course exactly zero demonstrable, verifyible, objective or testable evidence of any sort. Only subjective personal tales, dogma and supernatural claims.
> The problem for an atheist is how consciousness can come from mere chunks of matter.
It is not a problem at all. Why is it a problem?
> Since consciousness is immaterial, that you can exist in a disembodied state.
No it is not. Consciousness is not immaterial. Consciousness is not proven to exist without the underlying structure of the brain, which is made of matter. Consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon, an emergent property of matter. It is not proven to be independently "immaterial" with transcendal properties as you incorrectly suggests.
> Some possible evidence of this is offered by those who have had "near death experiences" (not the "Heaven is for Real" type, but rather the kind that are well documented by people who were remotely viewing and accurately reporting events that took place while they were dead, including events in remote locations).
Personal tales and yarns about supernatural claims are not scientific evidence for anything. They are subjective, unverifiable, unfalsifiable and untestable. Sorry.
> We also know that quantum mechanics doesn't work with materialism (the general notion that everything may be defined and explained in terms of matter.
Wrong. Our model of physics is currently inadequate at quantum level, but there is no evidence of any kind that proves that quantum reality is separate or incompatible with matter. This is either embarrassing ignorance, or you are lying. Both are bad.
> In quantum mechanics the question that is asked makes a difference, which brings in intent / will / mind, and this does not fit with matter.
Wrong. I'm too exhausted at this point to explain to you why your faux-understanding of quantum physics is incorrect, but you are dead wrong in your "claims". Dunn Kruger comes to mind.
> Science nor psychology has come anywhere near disproving the existence of an immaterial soul.
That is not how logic works. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. You (as well as science) has not yet disproved the existence of a pink rhinoceros living inside Pluto. Does that mean it exists for real? Tell me, if I claimed it existed, how would you go about proving it's non existence? Can you give is a summary of how you would go about it? This is a logical fallacy of epic proportions.
> Logic, by contrast, is almost proof in itself that an immaterial part of us exists.
Sigh.
> Genesis tells us that the ark rested "on the mountains of Ararat," meaning the range—a region, not simply a mountain. The location is vague, and there is no claim that it rested on Mt. Ararat, and certainly no claim that it rested at the top of it or even high on it.
It is funny how the interpretation of Biblical claims take a sudden "vague", "metaphorical" and "interpretive" turn when it is contradicted by rationality, evidence or science. Even if I grant you your interpretive hypothesis that the ark came to rest at the foot of a mountain range, and not on the mountain itself, the regional flood theory still falls apart. Let's, for the sake of the argument, assume the ark did not come to rest at an elevation of 5km above sea-level, but came to rest at the measly elevation of 30m about sea-level. (1) Water always flows toward the lowest point it can. In any given region there are valleys, rivers and lowlands which eventually connect to the sea, which means that (except if the region was a basin and was 100% surrounded by a 30m high natural wall, water would flow into the sea to achieve equilibrium, and a 25m high "flood" line would be impossible. (2) The second, and more fundemental, problem with your fairytale is that the rate of precipitation required to deposit 30m of water over a large region is physically impossible. The maximum hourly rate of precipitation physically possible is governed by three factors, namely (a) the precipitable moisture in the air column, which is a non-linear function of temperature, assuming no limiting evaporation upwind, (b) the dynamics of condensation, assuming no limitation on the availability of raindrop nuclei, and (c) the lateral advective delivery of moisture. The highest hourly precipitation ever measured in history is around 500mm, while the highest hypothetical precipitation rate is just under 1cm per hour. Let's defy physics and make it 2cm per hour (because magic). That equals 19m in 40 days at a precipitation rate double that of what is physically possible. I'll take the supernatural writings and musings of goatherders, who did not know where the sun went at night, with a pinch of salt.
> There are several cultural elements that we have to take into consideration.
None of which make any of the problems the flood myth faces go away. One has to believe that scientifically illiterate peasants' second hand writings of an oral tale passed down the generations, about a supernatural flood, is historically accurate, all while admitted that the same people thought that the earth was flat, stood on pillars etc. Makes total sense.
> In addition, when Gn. 7.19 uses the word "covered" for the mountains, we have to look elsewhere in the Bible for what "covered" means.
You are now defending a dogmatic claim by arguing semantics; that the word "cover" does not mean what it clearly is intended to mean in the context it was used, but that a vast array of other meanings could apply. You assert a selection of unfalsifiable hypothesis, to open up a space in which the dogmatic claim could possibly exist. Not a good argument at all.
> If this were the case in Genesis, it would suggest that the water reached 15 cubits upward from the plain, covering at least some part of the mountains.
So according to Google, 15 cubits = roughly 7m. Wow, what an immense part of the mountains 7m of water must have covered... so much so that all people in the area drowned and could not find a hill higher than 7m, so much so that birds could not rest anywhere and no one could see any mountains. All under the cover of 7m of water from the plain.
> We know, first of all, that consciousness is not physical, but rather is immaterial. It is generated in the brain but it has not material substance.
If consciousness is "generated in the brain", then yes consciousness has a material substance / basis. You can divorce the two from one another. There is no evidence that proves that consciousness is possible independant to the underlying biology of the brain, which means that it is an emergent property of our brain, which in turn means that consciousness is an emergent property of matter arranged in a certain way.
> If you start with only matter, and matter is all there is, then you argue against consciousness.
Wrong. This is a false equivalency. There is no seperation between matter and consciousness. The two are intertwined. The one emerges from the other.
> But this is a false argument because we know consciousness exists in reality.
Of course we do, as I've explained to you above. I also don't know why you are harping on about consciousness when I've never claimed consciousness does not exist. Of course it exists. You've claimed that "souls" exist, which is something different to consciousness. Consciousness, because it depends on the underlying structure of the brain to exist, in all probability ceases to exist when the brain decays. However, "souls" are claimed to be transcendal, for which there is of course exactly zero demonstrable, verifyible, objective or testable evidence of any sort. Only subjective personal tales, dogma and supernatural claims.
> The problem for an atheist is how consciousness can come from mere chunks of matter.
It is not a problem at all. Why is it a problem?
> Since consciousness is immaterial, that you can exist in a disembodied state.
No it is not. Consciousness is not immaterial. Consciousness is not proven to exist without the underlying structure of the brain, which is made of matter. Consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon, an emergent property of matter. It is not proven to be independently "immaterial" with transcendal properties as you incorrectly suggests.
> Some possible evidence of this is offered by those who have had "near death experiences" (not the "Heaven is for Real" type, but rather the kind that are well documented by people who were remotely viewing and accurately reporting events that took place while they were dead, including events in remote locations).
Personal tales and yarns about supernatural claims are not scientific evidence for anything. They are subjective, unverifiable, unfalsifiable and untestable. Sorry.
> We also know that quantum mechanics doesn't work with materialism (the general notion that everything may be defined and explained in terms of matter.
Wrong. Our model of physics is currently inadequate at quantum level, but there is no evidence of any kind that proves that quantum reality is separate or incompatible with matter. This is either embarrassing ignorance, or you are lying. Both are bad.
> In quantum mechanics the question that is asked makes a difference, which brings in intent / will / mind, and this does not fit with matter.
Wrong. I'm too exhausted at this point to explain to you why your faux-understanding of quantum physics is incorrect, but you are dead wrong in your "claims". Dunn Kruger comes to mind.
> Science nor psychology has come anywhere near disproving the existence of an immaterial soul.
That is not how logic works. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. You (as well as science) has not yet disproved the existence of a pink rhinoceros living inside Pluto. Does that mean it exists for real? Tell me, if I claimed it existed, how would you go about proving it's non existence? Can you give is a summary of how you would go about it? This is a logical fallacy of epic proportions.
> Logic, by contrast, is almost proof in itself that an immaterial part of us exists.
Sigh.