Alright, here's the problem with your reasoning.  evolution is always happening... the flood, a one time event.  therefore evolution should have more evidence and sufficient evidence of all that allegedly occurs within its process... the flood... again only happened once and according to scripture would never happen again to that magnitude.  Initially if you remember you were questioning whether that was even meteorologically possible... I have sufficiently proven that such drastic rainfall that would need to occur within a fourty day period is quite possible.  I've also proven that significant amounts of the rainfall needed can fall in a very short period of time and that the fourty days of rain was even likely not consistent but probably moreso in waves.  

No I have not shown you an actual even that equates the flood... because it's never suppose to happen again.  Evolution again is suppose to happen again... and again and again... ti is happening as we speak and is constantly happening throughout history.  The fact that we have only equal amount of information regarding both topics should be seen as quite significant.  I can prove to you that a one time event in history was a logical factor especially if the creator of all things was conducting the process... that right there should be reasoning enough, but of course... you're trying to prove God doesn't exist through the impossibility of the flood... that is a circular illogical argument.  

no, I got it from non-believers... soem on this site.

the problem with that idea is if it's as big as you say, then we also must take into consideration that due to it's distance in history it likely would be found in segments and not altogether.  Geological movement has shown many times larger events are separated and/or found in more unlikely spots...

cool fact, Mount Washington in NH, a 6000 + foot peak is actually upside down.  The older rocks are at the top.  It is theorized that the glaciers rolled the mountain.  If a mountain that large could be rolled completely over, who's to say the flood shoudl be so easily found?  

right and they all talk about Juda, the origin of the name Jewish... they may go back a bit further into the following of Ba'al and other followings that paralleled Jewish tradition and belief, but none that i have read so far have concluded an origin, rather it continues back to ironically where the origin of man is theorized to be.  

that's a good questino though... I'm wondering if you'd be willing to asnwer that... How DO you determine whether a particular effect was caused by divine intervention?  I mean this seriously.  I want to know the answer you woudl come up with... if there really is a God, how would you know it was divine intervention?  What would prove to you it was God?  

lol, yea I'm sure you can... about as hard as you looked into the possibility of the flood right... no actually a lot more than that... but of course... effort is overrated on this thread right?

well, I agree with you on this one except for one very important aspect... If God knows everything presently, then he would also know all POSSIBLE futures and thus would know that many different futuristic timelines could happen based on present chioces.  He likely would know the choices that were to be made based on present circumstance and could deduce the likely future, but again, if the future is not written, it cannot be known even if you think you know what is going to happen.  God being who He is can manipulate the present to work for His ideal future, but also can allow for alternative future timelines to happen which then would change the outcome of the further timelines that would occur.  

Really, you've gotten yourself in too deep.. to suggest what you are is to suggest you know everything there is to know...and you don't.

is time a created thing? or is it something that God would have had to take into consideration when creating.

exactly... and yet you want to avoid that explicit detailing in our conversation about God.  why?

they were your analogies... but anyway

I haven't assumed you didn't look hard enough, but you can look as hard as you want at an apple and it's still not going to be an orange.  Usually atheists make the mistake of assuming that theists think they haven't looked hard enough.  Theists in teh past have built this reputation so thanks to them, but I understand it's more of misdirection.  If you're debating on a theist site, then you're likely not talking to the right people if you're looking for god.... e.g. you're on here debating with me, so as far as I'm concerned, you're looking to win a debate, not seek God.  I have tried to work with you as far as a conversation to start in seeking God, but you are very resistant to that.  I can't find God for you.  I cannot open your heart to God for you.  YOu actually have to make the effort if you're looking for that guidance with me.  I can guide, but you have to try.  

Is that honestly what you're trying to do here?   

or I made a conclusion based on the reasoning you posted... try again... read it carefully first.  not this post, the one this originated from.  why would you think I'm judging you btw?

"So He said, 'Go forth and stand on the mountain before the Lord.' And behold, the Lord was passing by.  And a great and strong wind was rending the mountains and breaking the peices of rock before the Lord.  but the Lord was not in the wind.  and after the wind a great earthquake, but the Lord was not in the Earthquake.  After the Earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of a gentle blowing.  When Elijah heard ithe wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave.  And Behonld, a voice came to him and said. "What are you doing here Elijah."  1 Kings ninteen verses 11-14

first point.  God usually doesn't work with significant effects, so to be looking for something big would likely not help you find your way.  

Second point.  define non-physical.  The problem with that is we as humans define everything based on the physical, so to define what something non-physical is we'd always need to resort back to the physical... just to use an example, Ghosts.  "were the existence of ghosts ever be demonstrated beyond a doubt of their existence would automatically place them in the realm of the physical."  Wiki.    The best way I could define a non-physical being is to place it among the abstracts... something like the colors... colors don't have a phyical place in space and time, but we know they exist on physical objects because we see them, though there are spectrums of color that we do not see, yet in our scientific discovery we have found that they still exist.  The problem with the scientific discovery is we still depended on physical aspects to determine this.  

Does this help at all?

well, considering the definition above.. many people have written about it and documented the occurances, but there is still a large number of skeptics and so because they aren't actually a part of the physical, cannot be proven though written documentation or even apparently video documentation as some have exampled... 

God is teaching us every day.  He has commissioned Us, his followers to be teh teachers while He's away for this time, but He has inspired a very large and exhaustive book, brought a physical manifestation known as Jesus Christ to people and has promised to return.. He goes on to say blessed are those who beleive and yet do not see... part of that is a challenge in faith and perserverence... I understand it helps us grow in our relationship... NO God is not absent, He just isn't sitting in the town square saying; "hey all, here I am.. yup, I'm really God... no I don't do autographs, please just accept me for who I am."  He's expecting those who are honestly interested in knowing Him to open their hearts and minds to Him.  

The thing is, if you can't trust His followers.. how can you trust Him?  and by His followers I dont' mean any person calling themselves a Christian, I mean true followers.  You say you're willing yet I see a lot of resistance from you.  Are you willing only if the evidence is physically presented?  

I'm willing to help you if you're honeslty willing.  

so much for being willing.

look at morals a hundred years ago then look at morals today.. tell me prophesy is not being fulfilled.  Better yet, look at statistics of sex, crime, marriage, etc in teh same time frame.  What do you see?

the progressino of Chrsitianity is currently in the South... I mean south of the Equator.  The north is losing focus.  There's a whole book on that.  The next Christiandom.  

Scriptures are not meant to be read like a normal book.  They are to be studied and cross referenced... individual books can be read like a normal book.  

You're right, but it's the consistency with what we have that leads a logical conclusion that the origins ahve not been changed.  The books were written much further from their time, but then again, people didn't have access to computers at the time... the compilation of a book did take a considerably larger amount of time to complete.  Also, as you said, the writings were done a bit later... does that mean the information wasn't documented until that time as well?

never huh... yea, you really are making an effort here. [sarcasm]

another big misconceptino is that followers of God aren't living.  I find Christians... true Christians that is, are crazier than non-beleivers.  they're also a lot freer when being crazy... not so concerned with the small things.  

I love this stuff too.  I think the question is knowing and determining.  Omniscience is not redefined by stating the quote above.  Omniscience is infinite knowledge... to suggest that it is restricted to knowing all that can be known is not limiting it to be anything less than still infinite knowledge... If it cannot be known than it is not known.  Bob spence explained it better using Quantum science, but infinite knowledge does suggest no limit to that knowledge but knowledge is still limited to what can be known universally.  

So for example, if there ever was something taht was knowable taht God didn't know, then He would not be omniscient, but if all knowable things are known to God, then God is omniscient by definition... the infinite aspect comes in when new things come possible to be known which then God would also know at that time... if that is even possible, which it likely is not, but then again, i wouldn't know.  that infinite knowledge would also imply that God knows all lines of future possibilities... to suggest that God knows the exact line of future events is reasonable if that is knowable based on present happenings, but understanding that there are many possible future timelines, any change in a future event can change the lineage which then would not have been known until the time of change.  God also is all powerful, therefore He is able to manipulate a present even to redirect a future into the timeline He wants it to go in.  Therefore, the idea of predestination is a possibility and I see reasoning as to why people believe taht is a reality, but I don't see reasoning in scripture to suggest taht God actually dictates the present to keep the future perfectly in line with Gods ideals... if that were so I believe there would never have been a fall in the beginning.  

Hey Brian... I saw you on another thread and then you disappeared?  I've been "back" for quite a while, where've you been?.. in fact, i never really took a break.  I think we've just been missing each other.  Hope all is well with you.  If you're here to stay, welcome 

Boys believe nothing by turning away & doubt Whispered I as I do

Yeah, whatever. I've accepted your loose interpretation of day. So can you answer the relevant questions? Do you agree that other animals existed long before humans? 

It hurts your significantly because weather is limited and while we might not know the exact limit, we know what is close to the limit and your hypothesis about the flood requires something that far exceeds what we believe is close to the limit. All of the models would have to be dramatically wrong for the possibility you claim to have "proven" to be possible.

Read the links I provided. Like I said, my education is limited to what I found on page one of Google. It is quite clear from the links that weather is not infinite and is controlled by the laws of physics. There is a physical limit to how long heavy rains can last, there is a physical limit to how closely those storms can happen in time and the models are close to recognizing what the limit is. The rain you hypothesized is well outside the range predicted by all the models I looked at. Since weather is a specialty of yours, it should be easy for you to tell me why I am wrong. Please provide links, because frankly I don't trust your word; everything I read goes opposite what you claimed earlier.

I love nudity in all forms except assertions. Naked men, naked women, naked sauce, naked wings, naked truth, Bare Naked Ladies etc. Love them all. Naked assertions- not a fan. I've repeatedly asked you to provide evidence. I would love to find evidence that such a storm is possible, it would be pretty damn awesome.

Except that according to the models, 240 is NOT possible. Given that I knew absolutely nothing when that statement was made, I had no evidence at all that it wasn't possible and the only evidence I had for it was your word. That is why I started researching, and everything I read- which I linked to here- says that it is not possible and that 240 feet in 40 days is a laughably ridiculous claim. Someone who specializes in weather should have known that such a claim is ridiculous on its face. Yet you made it anyway. So there are only a few possibilities

1. You exaggerated about your knowledge in the field meteorology

2. You knew the claim was ridiculous but you made it anyway hoping I would buy it

3. Wherever you got your meteorology education needs to send you a refund

4. The claim isn't ridiculous and 240 feet in 40 days might be possible in that case:

      a) I am completely wrong in my interpretation and you should be able to set me straight

      b) the currently accepted beliefs in the field of meteorology are completely wrong

Which is it? I suspect either 1 or 2 and I really hope that it is 1 because 2 is pretty offensive to me on a number of levels. 

I have never doubted that significant amounts of rain has happened and that significant floods have killed thousands of people in the past. We KNOW that has happened and we KNOW where, we KNOW approximately when. And it is easy to see how a person 5,000-10,000 years ago who just had their whole village wiped out in a flood would describe it as flooding the whole world and wiping out all of humanity. From their perspective, it was the whole world and every other human they knew died or can't be located. Add in a little exaggeration and a deity in the story telling over a couple hundred years, and it is very logical to expect the story of Noah. 40 feet is a shitload of rain and would cause a shitload of problems. But it isn't worldwide, it isn't going to kill every living creature on Earth and its worst effects are going to be localized and your boat isn't going to land on top of a mountain. We know approximately what 40 feet of rain would do, because we have seen close to that happen. Hint: it wasn't a worldwide flood and not everyone in the world, or even the village died. Most of the world didn't even notice.   

How the hell is 40 feet anywhere near enough? Not only am I "bent" on finding issues, I'm finding that dozens of them actually exist. I found a source I believe is credible. Like I said, I started knowing virtually nothing about the topic, so for all I know Dr. Lyon is the Amit Goswami of meteorology. You are the one who is supposed to be the specialist in this topic so tell me. Yet you continue to calculate potential rainfall using linear math and every credible source I have seen has confirmed that weather is not linear.

WHERE?!?!? All we have done is suggest that 40 feet MIGHT be possible. That is still above the maximum that Dr. Lyon suggests is possible and still above what all the models say is possible, but it is close enough that I will entertain the notion that it is possible.  

Okay, so if it takes 3-4 days, which is your number that I have not bothered finding any resource to confirm or deny it could happen 10-11 times in 40 days. Even if you assumed every 3-4 days you have 24 hours of world record rainfall, you are only at 50-60 feet. A lot of rain, yes. Not a worldwide flood. 

So then you believe it would have been possible to have a perfect world if only all people had made the right choices. But that's still bullshit. The earth itself, and much of the life on it, is decidedly fatal to humanity. Disease, volcanoes, earthquakes, debris in space, the sun, oceans, and lots more are constant dangers to people, who's choices do not have much or any impact against said dangers. Many of these things are stupidly predictable, even to a lowly human. A god would find them self evident. Yet here they are.
And there are no 'possible' futures in any case. Unlimited, perfect knowledge equates to a 0% failure rate in prediction.

Someone show Cap a mirror please, so he can read this to himself.

Without time there can be no change, and no god. No creation, no thought. If there is a god, time existed before it did. Or at the very least, it came to be simultaneously with that god. There certainly was no god before there was time.

I told you already. You aren't capable of understanding it. You have no appreciation for evidence or the scientific method or logic. I think I gave you an example anyway, though perhaps I'm thinking of a discussion with someone else. In case I didn't, a suspension of any of the laws of physics would pretty much only be explained by a god, so that would do well for an example. Of course, that wouldn't prove it was your god, but you have to start somewhere.
Ultimately, what I would want as evidence is irrelevant, as such I don't think on it. Your god is omnipotent and omniscient. I'm quite confident it can prove itself to me without needing my help.
If, of course, it exists.

LOL No they weren't. They are all yours. The road, the car, everything brought up by YOU.

Yes you did. You said so plain as day.

Great, bring in another analogy so you can later claim I brought it up. rofl.

I'm not trying to see an apple. This analogy is so flawed it's like the perfect representation of why theists are irrational. Maybe you try to see something specific when you look around (which illustrates why you see proof of god everywhere), but I don't. I just look. Whatever I see is what I see. I don't try to sort all my senses through a filter.
You theists think atheists are just like you, they just use a anti-god filter instead of a god filter. But most of us don't use a filter. Brian37 might have one. In fact I'd bet he does. But the rest of us don't filter. We absorb everything, and try to make it all fit together so it has a practical use.
Some theists are capable of doing both simultaneously (and accomplished great things along the way), but they are few and far between. Most just use their god filter to force everything under one roof. And they can never understand the atheist position so long as that filter is firmly in place.

Not exactly. I'm kinda trying to win a debate, but in doing so I seek someone who can defeat me.
You're quite right that you can't bring me to god. I've irrevocably destroyed your credibility too much for that to be even remotely possible. If anything, you've reaffirmed my position that your god exists only in your mind.
Maybe one day I'll find a theist who can debate me and actually has equal or greater understanding than myself, and they can bring me to god. But it won't be through my heart. I don't give my emotions power over my daily life, over my philosophy. You have to go through my mind. My logic, my knowledge, my understanding. Once a concept is accepted on that level, I allow my emotions to look it over to see how I feel about it. Not before. Emotions are a very untrustworthy thing to use to understand anything, as I've learned the hard way on more than a few occasions.

I did that the 1st time. Ever since hooking my PS3 up to a HDTV drastically reduced, if not completely eliminated, my text limit; I've been able to use the 6 windows the PS3 can display at once to scroll back through any discussion I'm taking part in with a twitch of my fingers. I recommend you try it, so you can be more accurate when you make claims on previous comments. If you're on a computer, you won't even be limited to 6 windows.
Why would I think you're judging me? Because you are:

"You are apparently incapable of being honest wtih yourself."

That's a judgement. Furthermore, it's a judgement you can't possibly have any justification for. You don't even know me personally, and even knowing me personally wouldn't necessarily grant you that kind of insight on my character. You'd really have to spend time inside my head to know whether or not I'm honest with myself.
Perhaps if I'd given you some evidence to work with you could infer it, but no such evidence can be found. I don't lie. And when I'm wrong I adjust my position accordingly. I might be rude and ungracious in the process, but I might take it well. There's been a few times I was proved wrong here. I think Beyond Saving has the largest victory record over me, so he should be able to attest that it has happened. Generally speaking, many of our discussions have ended in stalemates, but there have been some clear victories won by him. I like to think I've won a few, but none come immediately to mind.

At any rate, I'm not brainwashed, and I'm ruthlessly honest with myself and everyone else. If I ever lie, it is an act of self defence (inapplicable on the internet), or a trap I'm hoping my prey falls into.

So no dice on suspending gravity for a second or two eh? How disappointing. It would have been interesting.
Fortunately I'm not actually looking for anything specific. My mind is open to a multitude of possibilities.
As a matter of fact, such a voice as elijah experienced would certainly put shivers down my spine. Especially if it called me Vastet. Where's my voice? There would only be 3 possible conclusions:
1: Someone figured out who I am in real life. And while anyone working for a spy service could be capable of figuring it out, they'd REALLY have to work for it. My identity on the internet has been completely limited to a few identities that have no links to myself. I made a few errors here and there, so I'm sure someone working hard enough with sufficient resources and a 16 year archive of every site I ever went to with complete realtime direct access to all my emails and email accounts would figure it out fairly quickly. There are a very few people who've known my real identity, but none of them have motivation to volunteer that info to anyone, nor are they the type to play a trick on me.
2: God just spoke to me. Holy fuck.
3: I'm hearing things, hallucinating. Well problem with that is I don't hallucinate. I've been on lsd and mushrooms both, nothing. Oh I got fried, but no hallucinating. It was disappointing to be honest. So I have to reject this one, because I'm not insane. And I'm perfectly qualified to say so. I swear.

So in a twist of irony, a simple voice has a higher likelyhood for god than the other possibilities. I want a voice.

Not really, but I much appreciate your honesty.

No. What you have is a few million examples of people looking for a god, and accepting all kinds of stupid things as evidence. Did you hear about the jesus toast? Do you believe that god actually influenced the bread and toaster so an image of jesus would appear? I rather doubt you do. But I could be wrong.
At any rate, probability alone accounts for the toast. You put enough pieces of bread in enough toasters and you'll get a huge display of unique art. Some will look like jesus, some like luke skywalker. Some will just be burned black.
I have yet to see anything that would suggest an immaterial existence. I've never seen a ghost, never experienced 'lost time'. I've never had any experience that wasn't completely accountable to the physical world, where adding non-physical sources would simply raise more questions than it answered.

BTW, I'll take the opportunity to shit on wikipedia. If ghosts were proven to exist, that wouldn't necessarily mean they were physical. They'd have to be measurable with physical equipment too. If the immaterial does exist, then it stands to reason there would be immaterial tools that could potentially be usable. If such tools were used to prove ghosts exist, then ghosts could remain the incorporeal beings they are suggested to be.
END thought experiment. No need to respond to this, I'm just allowing my mind to wander for a break.

I just can't buy that. What little of the book I've read simply screams out that it was written by ignorant people who were trying to explain everything. And does as good a job as I'd expect.
There's no evidence at all for jesus. If you take evolution and jesus and compare the evidence for both, you get the bible and a few pages of non-contemporary evidence for jesus, and a stack of books reaching beyond the moon for evolution.
If I'm to be kind and compare jesus not to a theory but another person in history, jesus still loses. No matter what historical figure I pick (except possibly other christian characters or characters from other religions), jesus is just not credible.

What, there's no middle ground? The fact is that some people can believe in things for which there is no evidence, and some people just can't. I'm in the latter category. Even trying to believe makes me feel like a liar. Trying to believe anything that I don't KNOW makes me feel like a liar. Where's the relief for people like me? Does god only care about people who have the facility to believe in things that are unproven?

One thing at a time. I can't trust his followers because he said so, and personal experience backs it up. Trusting him is a bridge that can wait until I know he's there in the first place.

Everyone who calls themselves a christian says the same thing. How am I supposed to know? NOONE follows the bible absolutely and perfectly. I could take your word for it, but if you're wrong or lying then I'm fucking myself even more than I already am. Better I think to trust that if there is a god and that god is good, he'll forgive my inability to believe in him and won't take it into consideration. I think it far more risky to put faith in the wrong god than to do without faith.

I appreciate your willingness, but I don't think you can't help me. I'm getting close to the point where I don't think anyone can help me believe in a god. Even disregarding the why's way above near the top of this response leave other whys unmentioned. Some that are part of the discussion, and some that aren't (and will remain that way so I don't end up spending way too much time writing).

Don't think for a second that my resistance is conscious. While I do have a certain amount of conscious resistance to the idea of a god, it is entirely based on my involuntary and unconscious inability to believe in things that have no proof. You are more likely to convince me there's a unicorn on Pluto than that your god exists. That's because a trip to Pluto is feasible, and bringing a horse with a mutation that caused it to have a horn with you isn't outside the realm of possibility. It could probably be done today if someone was willing and able to spend the cash it would take to make it happen.
All gods cross a line though, at least all the ones I'm familiar with. They are really nothing more than the first superheroes man invented. They all require a certain... unreality is the only word I can come up with at the moment. In order for them to be real, the universe must be far different from what it seems to be. It's far more likely that the universe is exactly as it appears, and that gods are simply figments of the imagination.

Then you didn't read it properly. Bob rejects the concept of omniscience as absolutely ridiculous and impossible, and he gave a little bit of information as to why that is. You embrace omniscience as a characteristic of your god. Now it's true that your view of omniscience is a tiny tiny tiny bit closer to being possible than omniscience as defined by the English language, but not by any significant amount. Bob, and myself to some extent, reject omniscience outright as being as impossible as your god is. Knowing the velocity of every single particle in the universe would mean you don't know the location of any of them. So if you really want to take a step closer to reality, you'll have to drop the omniscience thing altogether. You don't necessarily have to disbelieve in god, but you can't suggest he knows everything. If he knew everything, the uncertainty principle would not apply to him, and predicting the future would be as simple as walking.

lol I really try to take being wrong well, it just doesn't tend to work out very often. It has got to be one of my greatest flaws. Sometimes I wonder if I can ever unlearn something without getting pissed off. Emotions can be really annoying sometimes.

Bob only opined as to why humans might never be able to know. We had this discussion about a year ago in another thread which led me to start seriously studying quantum physics. At the time, my ignorance in the field was huge. Bob's position is certainly the mainstream in the field right now, personally, I remain skeptical. I believe that some point in the future there will be a major breakthrough that is going to turn our current understanding of quantum physics on its head. I believe that the only reason anything appears random is because we don't understand it enough. The sole basis of that belief is all the other things in the world we believed were random in the past and it turns out they are not.

You and Vastet are not talking about what might or might not be possible for humans, you are talking about what might or might not be possible for a deity. A deity so powerful that it not only knows everything knowable, but also CREATED everything. Therefore, this being knows absofuckinglutely exactly how EVERYTHING works. The only possible way something could be random to such a being, is if it intentionally MADE it random. For such a being to then get angry with us mere mortals who are incapable of knowing even everything we know is possible to know when something it CREATED to be random to the point even it doesn't know and didn't come up with the result it wanted is ridiculous. The result could have been anything god wanted. God either wanted everything to turn out exactly as it is or god intentionally made things truly random. Either way, the only one who can be blamed is god. Blaming humans for it is no different than the gambling addict who blames the cards for not being right.  

yes

Everything in the universe is limited if you want to look at it that way... there is a finite amount of energy and energy is not created or destroyed.. therefore there can never be more power than the universe can muster.  What that limit is is far beyond our comprehension though.  I love how though we haven't a clue to the limit of weather on Earth you still seem to think you have an iron clad reasoning as to why this particular flood could have never happened.  I have provided not one or two, but several examples of rediculously extreme weather that could constitute even just a fraction of the flood's weather pattern and you've decided that it couldn't happen despite your lack of knowledge on the subject... I love how you do that. 

Alright, first let's explain how everything I claim goes opposite of what I've claimed earlier.  I have read your links.. not very helpful for your case.

it would be it that no one has found that evidence yet... why do you think I'm more capable than those who have dedicated their lives to it?

Alright, show me your reasoning Ted F.  I mean summarize it... tell me how what you've researched has sufficiently proven that 240 ft in 40 days is not possible.... oh, and "it hasn't happened" isn't sufficient. 

but enough to wipe out life where necessary.  agian, you need to reread some of this thread.. we've already confirmed the worldwide idea as not necessarily true. 

The bible isn't even 2000 years old. It is not proof of a god. It is proof that people can make up a bunch of things and get other people to believe those things.

The support comes from the definition of the terms. Time isn't an entity, it is a method of measuring change. If nothing changes, then time doesn't exist. If time doesn't exist, then nothing changes. The probable smallest measurement of time is a planck second. It should not be possible to have a smaller measurement, according to the laws of physics. It is the time it takes for light to travel a planck length in a vacuum. A planck length is 1.616199(97)×10 ^-35 metres, It is significantly smaller than a proton. This paragraph describes the smallest measure of time that is possible if we are not mistaken about the laws of physics. Since it is the same laws that allow us to have aeroplanes and running water it is safe to assume we have the laws of physics down.
A thought takes considerably longer than a planck second to form. Without any planck seconds, thought is impossible. It takes trillions of planck seconds just for you to blink. Without any planck seconds, you can not blink. In order for thought or action to take place, there must be time. If anything exists, and can change in anyway, then time must exist so that change can occur. Thus time > god, even if there is a god.

I don't care much how he works. If he wants me to have faith in him then there's only one path for it to be possible: he has to prove himself. I cannot believe in him without proof of him. Period.

Acceptance is an emotional state. Open mindedness doesn't equate to blindly believing in anything.

I'm not running at all. I'm hunting. But your cowardly god hides from me.

I'm not the one making excuses.

He doesn't have greater knowledge than me. I demonstrated quite adequately that I was already aware of everything he referred to, and how it was inapplicable and irrelevant to the discussion. And it is inapplicable and irrelevant to the discussion.
Furthermore, he was not trying to lead me towards your god anyway, so he doesn't qualify under the parameters I specifically laid out.

You are describing yourself. I haven't been proved wrong, in or outside my mind, so all you're doing is laying red herrings.

You say that because you've lost again and need to save face in your retreat from the debate.

That's funny. Polly wanna cracker?

For those who don't get it, I'm pointing out he's just repeating my dismissal of his credibility, as if anyone's credibility had been destroyed but his own.

We've been having one. I haven't counted how many naked assertions and claims I've refuted or fallacies I've pointed out, but there's been dozens. You've yet to win a single point. And no, I'm not referring to a score.

No no I don't have any difficulties accepting I'm wrong. I just don't take it well. I still accept I'm wrong and change my perspective accordingly.
It doesn't happen very often at all. In all the years I've been here I have been demonstrably wrong fewer times than I have fingers. And there was never a theist on the other side of the discussion.

No I already pointed out the alternative explanations and dismissed them as being less probable than a god. I did so humourously so maybe you thought I was being sarcastic, but I was serious as well as attempting to be mildly amusing.

Then god is irrational. There's always a middle ground. The universe isn't black and white, it is full of colours.

Proof is objective, not subjective. It is true that someone can under some conditions accept things for proof subjectively, but the equations that describe gravity are not subjective proof. If you use them to do something like fly, you are likely to succeed. If you ignore them and try to do it another way you will certainly fail. The existence of gravity cannot be subjectively dismissed. Proof is as simple as letting go of any object that weighs more than the particles that make up the atmosphere. No matter who lets it go it will drop. Objective proof. In order for any scientific concept to be universally accepted, there must be objective proof, not subjective proof. Time, space, gravity, evolution, all proven objectively.

Then there is no god, because that's what the proof in my head says.

Wherever he said all men are sinners.

Well I haven't met any. And I've met a LOT of people. But I'm young yet, somewhat. I may yet have half or more of my life yet to live. Maybe I'll meet one someday.

Fuck me. No wonder you sound like you don't have a clue, because you get your meteorology from Hollywood. You mean the same "The day After Tomorrow" that Dr. Andrew Weaver said "the science-fiction movie The Day After Tomorrow creatively violates every known law of thermodynamics” and has been trashed by every respectable climate scientist? 

I think you are a flat out liar and don't have the first fucking clue about meteorology. Unless you can point me to some respectable source that supports your hypthoses, or can explain to me with some sort of intelligent explanation as to why Dr. Lyons is wrong, I am done talking to you. I can deal with ignorance, I don't like flat out liars and I think it is obvious that you lied about your meteorlogical knowledge so I am going to cease wasting time on you.  

I resisted mentioning this so as not to interrupt your conversation, which I must say was an interesting diversion from most arguments I've seen regarding the flood that never happened, but since you're declaring an end I feel that resistance evaporating.
I always approached the discussion based on available water. Namely that there isn't enough water on Earth to create such a flood regardless of meteorological possibilities. Even if the Earth could be subjected to a storm such as the tale requires, it could never flood the entire Earth simply because there isn't enough water on Earth to flood Earth. The reference below, though out of date with recent discoveries, is still pretty accurate.

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

Now I could sit here and do the actual math that would be required to show how much water there would need to be to flood the majority of the surface and/or the entire surface, but the picture in that source is, I think, a stronger argument than a bunch of equations that may or may not even be understood. But if anyone is actually interested in a interesting tidbit about the potential rain in the atmosphere at any given moment, I'll quote the article:

"About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water."

So if ALL the water in Earths atmosphere were to fall instantly as rain, there would not be any significant effect. Not when talking about a catastrophic flood that covered the surface and killed most things that lived anyway. An inch just doesn't qualify. Most locations on coastlines would face disaster, and the swelling of lakes and rivers as the water drained into them would cause significant problems for landlocked locales, but very few cities would face actual destruction. Anyone living near mountains would only have to deal with slight flooding for a week or two before all the water drained away. Some places actually face that kind of rainfall seasonally, and the effects might actually be beneficial to those populations.

Another quote from the article is interesting:
"If all of the world's water was poured on the contiguous (lower 48 states) United States, it would cover the land to a depth of about 107 miles (145 kilometers)."

Now THAT sounds like the flood of the bible. Unfortunately for the christian argument, the US makes up only a fraction of the Earth. Literally.
9,826,675 km² out of 510,072,000 km². Or 1.927%.

Extrapolating these figures suggests that if all the water on Earth fell from the sky at once, the surface would be covered to a depth of 2.8 km, if the surface was uniform (no mountains, no valleys, no oceanic basins, etc.). As the surface is not uniform, and as the oceans would have to cease to exist to get that much water into the air in the first place, the entire surface could not be coated in water.

Furthermore, such a massive removal of water from inside the Earths crust could actually halt plate tectonics permanently. The magnetic field of the Earth would also be drastically altered. The dynamo inside the Earth that generates the field might even be completely shut down, rendering the planet unfit for life as we know it.

Even if the worst case scenario were somehow avoided, the results could not go undetected. There would be evidence of this event everywhere. Objective proof of the flood would have been announced centuries ago.

it came from a model, I never said anything about the credibility of the model, nor how the movie manipulated it to work with their story.  The model literally was the picture of the storms you saw on the screen for a few seconds during the movie... not the idea they came up with as to how the storms worked.   You really are looking for excuses....and you completely lost focus of the point which was many theoretical models have been formed and none have logical proof of how the ice age actually started and if we can't even get that right, why do you think we'd be better at making a model of the flood storms? 

...and I majored in Meteorology.  

but you're right.. we are done wasting time on each other. 

I'm going to attempt to give you a bit more insight into my character. Why not? Either you understand me better or you don't get where I'm going with my theme and sub-themes.

My first ever recollection of direct confrontation with the idea of religion is not a pleasant one. You probably suspected as much, I've found christians automatically assume a bad experience must have turned the person away. But I don't really consider it a bad experience, even though it was unpleasant at the time. It taught me that people other than myself are not necessarily like me at all. That a simple idea can bring about viciousness and violence. That the LACK of an idea can provoke the same, and possibly also bring about the same from an alternative position. It was one of the most enlightening moments in my life.

I was just a kid, grade 4 or below. The details are blurry, because the details weren't important. I think it was a substitute teacher, but I don't know for sure. I had a teacher in grade 4 who was so horrible my parents pulled me out and sent me to private school (she ended up getting fired not long after, ha ha). It could have been her, but I feel like this happened earlier than that. That said, memories from that long ago are missing so many details that I can't say with any certainty that it was before. It had to be grade 4 or earlier, that's the best I can say with certainty.

She asked the class to 'draw something greater than yourself'. I'm guessing most of the kids drew jesus or god or some character in moslem mythology (there were a number of families living in the area who'd fled the war in Lebanon). But I was stumped. I sat there staring at the paper and not knowing what to do.

At some point the teacher came up and asked why I hadn't drawn anything. I told her. She said I had to believe in something. If not god, nature perhaps. I can't say I had any appreciation for what god was, it was a word that held no definition in my mind. My parents didn't bring me up within a religion. They never even mentioned it. I'd read the word in a book or two MAYBE, but I had no idea what god was supposed to be. But this lady was getting pissed, and when adults were pissed, at that age I sat down and shut the fuck up. Parents were still allowed to smack their kids around back then, and I experienced that a few times. I doubt I knew teachers weren't allowed to. Regardless, this was not the time to ask questions was my instinct, and I today agree with the decision made in ignorance then.

Coupling that with the other suggestion: nature. But nature wasn't greater than me, it was different from me. Already I had enough of a grasp of reality to know you can't compare the forces in nature to a person. How is one greater than the other? There's not enough information to go on. I need an adjective clause (I had to look that up lol I hate English) to work with, but there isn't one on offer.

So this lady starts raging and that's that. I don't know if she wanted to hit me, I didn't get a sense she was going to, but I was flatfooted at the whole thing and completely preoccupied. I think I just closed down and ignored it while trying to comprehend what had just happened.

After that I found out a little bit more about religions by trying them. I got blamed for stealing a teachers car keys when I hadn't. I was threatened with expulsion. A friend of mine suggested I pray with him, and basically told me to put my hands together and close my eyes and beg god for help. As it happens, the teacher never found her keys, and I wasn't expelled. But then the school was a very small one with very few students. They needed the tens of thousands of dollars my parents were willing to give them. At the time the middle class still existed and my parents could afford it, though I'd be lying if I said they didn't have to make sacrifices to do it. It was expensive, and my parents didn't drill that into me but I heard them talking here and there and I knew.

I tried the praying thing a few more times because I wasn't yet smart enough to put the economics together and I didn't yet know the teacher never found her keys (but I did find out). I only used it when I thought something bad was about to happen to someone, but it never seemed to actually do anything. This is when I tried reading bits of the bible, but it was nasty so I stopped. Even then I recognised flaws. Thou shalt not lie? pfft everything lies. Animals lie, people lie, clouds lie. Some creatures are so good at lying you can't even see them while they do it. Deception is an advantage in nature, provided it isn't used all the time but when necessary. Refusing to use deception equates with suicide in my eyes. Same as refusing to cause violence or kill. None of these things should be used offensively, but they are all perfectly ok to use defencively.

So I tried meeting your god through his book and was repulsed. On to the next. Wait.. what's next? Oh I guess there's satan. What if I try him? But there isn't anything on satan except what's in the bible, and I'm not reading the bible. So I gave that up pretty quickly. Gave it about as much effort as I could for awhile, but satan was as silent as god. The music was better, but music doesn't validify a religion.

I took a bit of an interest in Greek and Roman and Norse mythology, but those gods were dead, if they ever existed. Remarkably interesting, far more so than god or satan had been, but noone was worshipping them anymore. They were just stories really.

Then The Craft came out in theatres, and I was entranced. A new religion! I'd never heard of wicca before. I was 17 at this point. And the internet still didn't exist. Not as far as I was concerned anyway, I'd never heard of it.

So I tried wicca for a bit. But it didn't do anything either. And it made more claims than anything else before it.

I never tried being a moslem or a jew, but they were based in the same general idea as christianity and christianity had turned me off. I immersed myself a little bit in some Asian things, but none of them were really interesting.

During all this time, without even realising it will inevitably become the foundation of my necessary rejection of religion in general, I'm learning about science. As I test religions out, I'm also performing experiments in school. I learn about making hypothesis' and testing them. I learn about critical thinking and logic. And then one day I am forced to try using this complicated new internet thing by Squaresoft, who's guide to Final Fantasy IX was useless without. I swear to you my FFIX guide has more content written by ME within it than the company printed.

Anyway, one day as I'm flipping through pages I notice a link was on every page. It was barely noticeable, and it simply said f'orum'. Thus was I introduced to forums, on what must have been one of the most popular forums at the time. I became a teacher of all things Final Fantasy as I opened topic after topic with wrong information inside.

Then one day I saw a topic about religion. Within were a christian and a atheist arguing about religion. I wasn't impressed with either of them. The christian was typical and the atheist was an idiot. But suddenly I had a new word to look up. Atheist. And that's when I realised there WERE people who reasonably rejected religion and got away with it, and suddenly I wasn't haunted by my childhood experience anymore. I didn't have to believe in a god of some kind. I didn't have to think anything was greater than anything else without an adjective clause to properly categorise the question to make it answerable. I was free.

That makes no sense... the fact that they're all different books alters pretty much everything... they weren't all written at the same time, but at different times over thousands of years... that's quite significant if you ask me.  Each book was also compiled and translated among the most important texts of the times by the monks who were tasked to accurately and unbiasly translate and/or transcribe official texts. 

A collection of books contained in a book is still a book, but it's also still a collection of books... a collection of books from different authors from different generations and walks of life.  I can't comprehend how you can downplay that logically.

wait for what?  empirical evidence for something no living creature on Earth has ever experienced?  Alright, lets' talk time differential.  I do believe God experiences time differently.  Empricism?  alright, did you ever read that the clocks on satalites have to be set different than clocks here on Earth?  YOu can easily google how time on Earth is unique to Earth and that time anywhere else is going to be moving at a different pace because each object moves through time at a different rate.  God does not live on Earth so it is logical that He would experience time differently. 

The theory now is that when time stops nothing can happen... but the concept of time stopping is illogical be it that it's understood by Einstein that time is not what is moving, but rather we are moving through time.  So what happens when we stop moving through time?  This cannot be empirically concluded, but be it that we see that things happen in a process based on the time elapsed, the thought that is not even a single thought process could happen in a state of no time progression.  Then again, Those who have experienced time differential [namely astronauts and anyone who has exceeded the sound barrier a few times over] have not personally experienced a differential in time, but rather noticed that atomic clocks were slightly off and/or their watches were off by several minutes when returning to Earth. 

In conclusion, it seem that to those who are moving through time, the one who is in a state of no time progression would appear to be doing nothing... if that person is even percieved.  They may faze out of existence for those who are moving through time especially at an Earth pace.  Though that person might still feel quite normal and be able to do things... no one really knows.  There are other theories that suggest someone who is in a state of no time progression could see all time past, present and future and observe any and all moments in history and was is to come.  I don't fully agree with the future aspect of it, but it makes sense too be it that we are moving through it.  it would make more sense to me that to the person in a state of no time progression that the person themselves might not be frozen, but everything around them might appear frozen be it that it all is moving through the time that they are stationary in. 

Something tells me though you're not quite following all this... if you are, please explain your perspective of this information based on what I just said. 

Alright, but my perspetive is based on evidence around the world, in the Bible and others understanding and experiences of coming to know God.  What is your perspective based on?

absolutely it does.... and here's a perfect moment to restate my intentions on this site.  I come here with an open mind, to learn more about Truth, whatever that might be.  What makes sense is a very subjective matter, because I could just as confidently say; 'after considering all the possibilities humanity has come up with, considering the possibility that there is a God makes the most sense...'  So we're back to the now what question.

funny you mention time here.  It's not God that's running out of time.  It is my understanding that God is waiting for you.  You said there's a little piece of you willing to consider the possibility.  What would be the tipping point for that little piece of you?  If that little piece is waiting for a grande' entrance from God in some way, that's not the way to God.  It's like sitting on the other side of a night club waiting for that hot girl in the corner to make the moves on you... not gonna happen my friend, she's waiting for you to make the move.... and it doesn't matter whether she knows your waiting or not.  It comes down to whether you really want to work on a relationship with God or not.  If you don't make the trip over to the girl, you will never meet her... If you don't make the walk to God, you will never know Him. 

Why do you need to make the effort?  Because God wants to know you're not only going to want the relationship with Him, but you're going to work to keep it.

well, part of the theory is that it came on quite suddenly and not that it was strictly climate change, though of coruse that was the reason why it stuck around for so long. 

I've talked about recorded weather that shows extreme rainfall amounts in short periods of time.  I've talked about patterns and how it likely came in waves, I've talked about how the right conditions can cause major flooding for extended periods of time in one area while causing severe droughts in other areas.  Considering all of that, it is logically possible that such a drastic flood could be localized into the humanly populated area of Earth during that time.  The other possibility is a stalled system with a more steady rainfall.   As long as there's a feeder airflow from a tropically moist location, a storm could go on forever theoretically... though typically weather patterns do not allow that... then again, the weather on Jupiter proves that it is possible.   

I'm curious, what would you expect the model to desplay as proof that it's possible?? 

no, but I am trying to explain it to someone who claimed they don't know much about it and linear is easier to understand/comprehend... what more are you looking for specifically that I'm not giving you linearly... besides this model proving the possibility of such a flood. 

The model I "appealed" to was IN a movie... I knew you'd ignore that fact though regardless of the direct statement prior about the model.

Ugh I am not dealing with this when I've been drinking. Maybe tomorrow.

 Sketch

A link to a basic sketch of the equations. The orange one is Dr. Lyons, the blue is mine and the green most closely matches the records I had access to. And Cap's is the laughable red. It goes out 40 days. 

That's pretty cool thanks. I even understand it lol.

40-50 feet is a shitload of rain. Did your research tell you what kind of area that could cover?

This makes me wonder how quickly that rain would drain away. I suspect it would drain fairly quickly for the first couple of feet, but then the rate would slow as the ground became saturated and the atmosphere became extremely humid from the evaporation. At some point it would drain so slowly as to be imperceptible. Then it would result in new bodies of water where before there was plains and especially valleys, which should be capable of altering the climate in the affected region. Such changes should be detectable in core samples.