[Qingu]

Originally Posted by airon

No its not. If one claims that a person cannot reason apart from a diety while attempting to reason apart from said diety then how could another ever take their argument seriously?

Though this is actually an excellent point. Most transcendentalist apologists I've debated with, you know, the ones who deny man's ability to reason autonomously, do plenty of autonomous reasoning themselves when trying to figure out if they're postmilleniasts, dispensationalists, pretermillenialists, theonomists, old-earth or young-earth, should be or shouldn't be ignoring "ceremonial" laws, etc. The hypocrisy of the presuppositional argument is unavoidable. So not only is it a stupid argument that can by its standards prove any belief whatsoever, it is also an unavoidably hypocritical argument. I definitely think it's the worst argument for Christianity out of the ones I've studied and I think it's hilarious and kind of frightening that so many people on this forum seem to think it has any validity.

[airon]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The definition of an ad-hominym logical fallcy is to discuss the person making the argument rather than the argument.

Yes, I know. But this specific argument is by nature different.

When someone makes an argument as to why something floats, it does not matter if he believe what he is saying.. it only matters what he says and if it is right.

Yes, I agree with you. However, in this specific argument, if the one arguing admits that he is able to argue apart from said deity, then his claim that he is unable to argue apart from the very same deity must be a false claim.

Same here. You seem to be arguing that if I hyponotyzed Qingu into believeing in Zelda, that suddenly the exact same thing said by the exact same person would go from invalid to valid. That's silly.

Normally, I would completly agree with you. But, the nature of this argument is a unique one.

Qingu did not say he was making the claim apart from Zelda... not in his arguments in favor of it anyway. Therefore it's as valid as yours (from my view). From his, it's obviously more valid because you are wrong.

Granted. But, unless he has had a sudden conversion, we all three know that he is making the claim apart from Zelda because he is an athiest. In the case of a conversion, i would be happy to have the discussion he proposed. And, if that be the case, I would cease to use PA because you guys are right, those claims can be made about any deity.

[airon]

Qingu -

I hope you don't mind us discussing your claims without you here. If any of this has offended you, please forgive me.

[JerryLove]

Granted. But, unless he has had a sudden conversion, we all three know that he is making the claim apart from Zelda because he is an athiest. In the case of a conversion, i would be happy to have the discussion he proposed. And, if that be the case, I would cease to use PA because you guys are right, those claims can be made about any deity.

The argument is valid or invalid. PA works or it does not work. If PA proves Christianity to an Atheist than it proves it to a Muslim.

More to the point, the PA argument, if compelling, should turn Qingu into a true believer in Zelda, as he has to borrow from Zelda to have logic (according to PA).

There is nothing unique about this argumnt that removes it from the standard battery of logical fallacies. We are discussing the validity of PA to prove a non-circular case. The fact that PA does not prove Christianity is illustrated by the fact that you can substitute other systems into the same argument without changing its support.

[airon]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The argument is valid or invalid. PA works or it does not work. If PA proves Christianity to an Atheist than it proves it to a Muslim.

It doesn't. I never claimed that it did.

More to the point, the PA argument, if compelling, should turn Qingu into a true believer in Zelda, as he has to borrow from Zelda to have logic (according to PA).

If he wishes to use the PA argument to defend his use of logic within Zelda, then yes, it should.

There is nothing unique about this argumnt that removes it from the standard battery of logical fallacies. We are discussing the validity of PA to prove a non-circular case. The fact that PA does not prove Christianity is illustrated by the fact that you can substitute other systems into the same argument without changing its support.

Like I just said, I won't use PA to try to prove Christianity. If an athiest attacks religion, I will attack his ability to reason using PA (as has been done 1,000 times on these boards). However, if another theist attacks Christianity specifically then other means must be used in its defense. But, we would be working from the presuppositions that some diety (or dieties) exist. We would then try to determine the nature of such a diety and, in comparison, the nature of man and how the two can be reconciled together.


P.S. Are you as bored at your job as I am at mine?

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by airon

Like I just said, I won't use PA to try to prove Christianity. If an athiest attacks religion, I will attack his ability to reason using PA (as has been done 1,000 times on these boards).

But if the argument is circular, the argument is circular. That's like me saying 'oh you don't believe in aliens because they inserted a mind probe into you'. You gotta prove either aliens exist or a mind probe exists.

In other words, you can't prove "X" by stating that all those who don't are just denying "X" because they have "Y," without first proving Y. To then prove the existence of Y just based upon X is completely circular.

Originally Posted by airon

P.S. Are you as bored at your job as I am at mine?

oh yes.

[airon]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Airon, I hope you realize the tricky situation you're getting yourself into. You are claiming that my argument for Babylonian religion is not valid because I do not believe in it. If I did believe in it, then it would (presumably) be valid, or at least as valid as Christianity is by your own standards.

So basically, all I have to do to prove that Babylonian religion is true is to find someone who actually believes in Tiamat and Marduk and Ea-Enki?

If I found such a person (I could certainly find numerous texts written by such people), would you think the presuppositional Babylonian religion argument is any more valid?

Sorry, dude, didn't mean to ignore your posts, I just now saw them.

Yes, if you believed in it, then your argument would be valid. That does not make it true, but it does keep you from sounding like a fool for arguing it. My belief in Christianity doesn't make Christianity true, but it does make my method of arguing a valid argument. If I were to claim that it is impossible to reason apart from christainity and then deny the truth of christianity, I would simply be a fool spouting nonsense.

Again, I would like to state that I won't use PA to argue for the truth of Christianity. Everyone here seems to think that I am. I only use it to attack athiestic claims. Like you have pointed out so many times, the PA claims can be made for any religion. I won't argue that.

[airon]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

But if the argument is circular, the argument is circular. That's like me saying 'oh you don't believe in aliens because they inserted a mind probe into you'. You gotta prove either aliens exist or a mind probe exists.

I never claimed it wasn't circular, nor will I. This debate has been hashed out time and time again by those far smarter than I.

In other words, you can't prove "X" by stating that all those who don't are just denying "X" because they have "Y," without first proving Y. To then prove the existence of Y just based upon X is completely circular.

Yes I can. You're not the boss of me.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by airon

Sorry, dude, didn't mean to ignore your posts, I just now saw them.

Yes, if you believed in it, then your argument would be valid. That does not make it true, but it does keep you from sounding like a fool for arguing it. My belief in Christianity doesn't make Christianity true, but it does make my method of arguing a valid argument. If I were to claim that it is impossible to reason apart from christainity and then deny the truth of christianity, I would simply be a fool spouting nonsense.

More accurately, you would be a sophist -- arguing something which you did not personally believe. However, sophist or no, an argument is separate from the beliefs of the person who argues it. That is to say, the logic of an argument stands alone.

Again, I would like to state that I won't use PA to argue for the truth of Christianity. Everyone here seems to think that I am. I only use it to attack athiestic claims. Like you have pointed out so many times, the PA claims can be made for any religion. I won't argue that.

But PA can be used to defend the truth of atheism too. See my thread about the Self-Existant Oscillating Universe.

[airon]

Originally Posted by Qingu

More accurately, you would be a sophist -- arguing something which you did not personally believe. However, sophist or no, an argument is separate from the beliefs of the person who argues it. That is to say, the logic of an argument stands alone.

Typically, I would agree with you. But, as I was attempting to explain to JerryLove previously, this particular argument is unique. It cannot be seperate from the beliefs of the arguer without being self-defeating.

I'll say this one more time: If the arguer says, "I cannot reason apart from 'x'" while at the same time saying that he is reasoning apart from "x," then his argument is ludicrous. IOW, one must submit to "x" in order to claim that reason can only come from "x."

But PA can be used to defend the truth of atheism too. See my thread about the Self-Existant Oscillating Universe.

Well, I doubt it, but I'll go check it out.

[Sempai.Hanz]

I'm new to this topic and I've read through all the posts and one post in particular struck my attention:

Quote of JerryLove: "When someone makes an argument as to why something floats, it does not matter if he believe what he is saying.. it only matters what he says and if it is right."

In that thought process. Lets look at the validity of certain defining sections of the bible. If we can, in fact, prove the validity of key points - it would bring, in my mind, some closure to this debate.

This thread specifically deals with the book of genesis, the creation stories of the bible and also, less directly, the new testament stories.

Lets look at Genesis. Yes, it is similar to many stories including the indiginous people of my country, Australia. This has been presented as a negative. Would it not stand to reason that if the world was created in such a way and many different peoples expressed that same creation, with elements of their own culture, that this would only ratify the stories?

Debates regarding Genesis often bring up contention, especially in the atheist crowd, because it draws a conclusion that man has something (or someone) to answer for higher than himself. Add to this that there is so much apparent scientific evidence that argues that the world has evolved rather than being specifically created.

The parallel between creation and evolution is not as close as people often draw. Science, as a form of wisdom, knowledge and understanding has no grounds to include evolution under its' banner. It falls outside of the realm of science and, in all honesty, cannot be considered fact under the very guidelines which seek to argue its validity. Evolution, in itself, is a religion rather than a fact/theory because it cannot be repeated in a controlled environment (the key scientific law which is required for scientific fact). Rather than get caught up in Evolution vs. Creation - my intent was to rather give evidence for the case to display the truth of Genesis. There are countless pieces of scientific evidence that not only proves creation - but also subsequent stories found in Genesis. I will list two main pieces of evidence regarding the subsequent stories (rather than enter into a evolution vs. creation debate).

Noah's Ark: There are arid parts of both Africa and Australia where scientists have found perfectly fossilised fish and shellfish. Why is this important? In itself it is not important as there are many finds like this all over the world. However, in this case, the method of fossilisation and the depth of the specimans has left scientists clueless. And why is that? their reasoning for the positioning, depth and perfection in the fossilisation process is such that only a flood of gigantic proportions that would cause the coastal waters to be joined in-land (where such waters do not exist) in a short space of time. Ok, you are thinking, but a tidal wave could do this. But there is more information. This was not a dumping of fish on a dry ground like in a tidal wave. This was a rapid enlargement of the oceans that allowed fish and other sea life to live in-land for a period of time. This water then rapidly decreased and as the water evaporated/subsided the sea-life was fossilised in the mud. I know you are thinking "so? it doesn't prove the story of Noah's Ark nor does it prove that God flooded the earth". Let's look at something - There is physically not enough water on the planet to cover both Australia and Africa to allow the sea-life to dwell in-land for any period of time. This does not even look at the fact that all other continents would have to be covered for this to be the case. In a world where everything has to be understood and explained for it to be believed - why is it that we have this FACT that this occurred, we have no human explanation but we do have an explanation in Genesis that rely's on something bigger than ourselves intervening.

The Tower of Babel: I didn't mean to talk so much already so I will make this one brief. The huge tower of Babel: That was built to reach God and which caused the scattering of all the people in the world. Nice story? Good analogy of our place? Tells us God is God? Well, recently it became more than that. Archiologists have begun unearthing in the middle-east what? You guessed it - The Tower of Babel. I will have to look up my journals and paperwork to find the country but they began digging at the base of a mountain in the middle-east and discovered that the mountain wasn't actually a mountain. It was a man-made structure with a large circular base (not in the style of egyption, mayan or any of the great historical builders) that is literally the size of a mountain.

That's two small "proofs" of Genesis. I'm sure with a little research I could present more. The only other thing I wanted to address is a noted historian of the time of Jesus - Josephus. This man was not a Christian, he was Jewish and he recounts the historical accuracy of much of the latter old testament as well as key events of the new testament. Those arguing against the validity of Genesis (and therefore the entire bible) forget that Jesus and his diciples performed many historically documented, not just biblically recorded, miracles. Such as people being raised from the dead, speaking languages which have never been learnt and more. Jesus himself is recorded to have appeared to THOUSANDS after his ressurection. This isn't speculation or hearsay - but historically documented.

I don't know if any of this helps. You guys are all speaking quite intellectually and I am by no means a philospher, theologian or historian - but I have a keen interest in this topic cause I like to know how good my God is.

On a personal note: I feel sad for those who do not believe in God. He believes in you. If it is a question of not wanting to believe in something you cannot see or touch - then just look at the miracles that have happened and that are still happening. I'd like to be able to spend eternity with you and so I pray that your hardness of heart would be melted by God and that you would find your worth in Him.


----

"God is Dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is Dead" - God

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Sempai.Hanz

I'm new to this topic and I've read through all the posts and one post in particular struck my attention:

Welcome to the boards, dude.

Lets look at Genesis. Yes, it is similar to many stories including the indiginous people of my country, Australia.

Not really. What Australian creation stories are you referring to? I'm not aware of much besides cargo cults, and those are obviously derived from foreign influence. We know very little about the Austrlain aboriginal religions. It appears htat like most animists they were, on the whole, into ancestor worship. There is also the idea of the Dreamtime, which has no analogue in Western mythology that I'm aware of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchera
See generally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_mythology

This has been presented as a negative. Would it not stand to reason that if the world was created in such a way and many different peoples expressed that same creation, with elements of their own culture, that this would only ratify the stories?

Yes, it would. The problem is that creation stories aren't the same. The most widespread (recorded) creation myth is the "creaiton via division of chaos" trope that you find all over the Mediteranean (including the Hebrew Bible). Marduk divides Tiamat's body into intelligible parts in the Enuma Elish, Yahweh divides the pre-existant waters into intelligible parts in Genesis, I'm going from memory here, but I believe it was Prajapati who divides up the existence/nonexistence, and the gods who churned the sea of Somu in Hindu mythology; Baal defeated Lotan and stretched out the heavens in Canaanite mythology, and Gaia and Ouronous divided themselves out of the pre-existant chaos in Greek mythology. As you can see, the Bible fits right in with this trend of creation myths.

However, it differs greatly from "first man" creation myths found in aboriginal tribes, of ancestors crawling out of the underworld, or later creation myths where creation is just built by an architect-like god, who is essentially hired by a more powerful god (like Brahma and Vishnu/Shiva in Hindu mythology). Even later, you start to get the idea of "creation ex-nihilo," or creation out of nothing, which is taken from Greek philosophy (though not their mythology). This is the Christian idea of creation, and it is found absolutely nowhere in the Bible or, for that matter, in any other culture besides the Greek and Hindu philosophic traditions.

So much for widespread Christian creation myths.

The parallel between creation and evolution is not as close as people often draw. Science, as a form of wisdom, knowledge and understanding has no grounds to include evolution under its' banner. It falls outside of the realm of science and, in all honesty, cannot be considered fact under the very guidelines which seek to argue its validity. Evolution, in itself, is a religion rather than a fact/theory because it cannot be repeated in a controlled environment (the key scientific law which is required for scientific fact).

Since you're new to the boards, I'll spare you a long reply. You should just go through and read all the various threads about Evolution to see why you are wrong. Though I'll summarize:

1. Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories, by definition, are proven.
2. Evolution is testable. It has been observed via many examples of speciation. It is testable, in that it makes useful predictions. These experiments are all repeatable and have all been repeated.

Noah's Ark: There are arid parts of both Africa and Australia where scientists have found perfectly fossilised fish and shellfish. Why is this important?

It's not. Parts of the continents used to be under the ocean. Thus, they have fossilized shelfish in their soil.

Ok, you are thinking, but a tidal wave could do this. But there is more information. This was not a dumping of fish on a dry ground like in a tidal wave. This was a rapid enlargement of the oceans that allowed fish and other sea life to live in-land for a period of time. This water then rapidly decreased and as the water evaporated/subsided the sea-life was fossilised in the mud.

Straw-man. Nobody is thinking a tidal-wave did this. Much of the continents used to be underwater. Via plate tectonics, volcanos, and other fun stuff, those parts are now above ground. You are either making the mistake of assuming that the continents are static things that have always existed at the elevation the're at now, or the mistake of assuming that the earth is less than billions of years old and thus has no history of submerged plates and volcanos.

I know you are thinking "so? it doesn't prove the story of Noah's Ark nor does it prove that God flooded the earth". Let's look at something - There is physically not enough water on the planet to cover both Australia and Africa to allow the sea-life to dwell in-land for any period of time.

Correct, like I said above, this is explained by the fact that certain parts of the continents -- no doubt the parts we've found shellfish fossils on -- were below water many millions of years ago.

Interestingly, your statement falsifies a global flood. You said there is not enough water to cover all the continents in a flood (you're correct, if all the ice caps melt, the water level would only rise by 275 feet; Mt. Everest is something like 15,000 feet high). So how could the whole earth have been flooded like the Bible says?

This does not even look at the fact that all other continents would have to be covered for this to be the case. In a world where everything has to be understood and explained for it to be believed - why is it that we have this FACT that this occurred, we have no human explanation but we do have an explanation in Genesis that rely's on something bigger than ourselves intervening.

But you just said there isn't enough water to flood the whole earth. That's a fact ... so is the fact that continents shift elevations over long periods of time due to plate tectonics and volcanic activity. So not only does the evidence point away from a Biblical flood, it actually makes a Biblical flood impossible.

The Tower of Babel: I didn't mean to talk so much already so I will make this one brief. The huge tower of Babel: That was built to reach God and which caused the scattering of all the people in the world. Nice story? Good analogy of our place? Tells us God is God? Well, recently it became more than that. Archiologists have begun unearthing in the middle-east what? You guessed it - The Tower of Babel. I will have to look up my journals and paperwork to find the country but they began digging at the base of a mountain in the middle-east and discovered that the mountain wasn't actually a mountain. It was a man-made structure with a large circular base (not in the style of egyption, mayan or any of the great historical builders) that is literally the size of a mountain.

Please cite it. The tower of Babel is widely believed to be the central ziggurat of the ancient city of Babylon. Herodotus and Nebuchadnezzer both mention it.

There is also a Babylonian myth about Ea-Enki and Enlil confusing the tongues of mankind, by the way.

The only other thing I wanted to address is a noted historian of the time of Jesus - Josephus. This man was not a Christian, he was Jewish and he recounts the historical accuracy of much of the latter old testament as well as key events of the new testament.

Josephus mentions a group of people called Christians who were followers of a man named Jesus Christ ... he is writing, of course, in 80 AD, 50 years after Jesus got crucified. How on earth do you think he recounts the historical accuracy of anything?

Note that Josephus also claimed that in 68 AD, two years before the temple was destroyed, there were many prophetic signs that everyone saw, such as a cow giving birth to a lamb, a comet shaped like a sword that hung in the sky for a very long time, and a floating army with soldiers and chariots that appeared in the clouds.

Those arguing against the validity of Genesis (and therefore the entire bible) forget that Jesus and his diciples performed many historically documented, not just biblically recorded, miracles.

Okay, show me one extra-Biblical recount of anything Jesus did (or of Jesus, for that matter).

Such as people being raised from the dead, speaking languages which have never been learnt and more. Jesus himself is recorded to have appeared to THOUSANDS after his ressurection. This isn't speculation or hearsay - but historically documented.

No, it's not. There is no extra-biblical mention of Jesus' name, aside from Josephus' little snippet (and of course, the church fathers writing in the 2nd and 3rd century). There are certainly no mentions of any of the miracles that you are talking about. There is absolutely nothing written about Jesus from the period that he was actually alive and on earth.

I don't know if any of this helps. You guys are all speaking quite intellectually and I am by no means a philospher, theologian or historian - but I have a keen interest in this topic cause I like to know how good my God is.

Ah, the goodness of God ... well, that's another debate

On a personal note: I feel sad for those who do not believe in God. He believes in you. If it is a question of not wanting to believe in something you cannot see or touch - then just look at the miracles that have happened and that are still happening. I'd like to be able to spend eternity with you and so I pray that your hardness of heart would be melted by God and that you would find your worth in Him.

I really do appreciate the sentiment. Though technically, it's God's fault that my heart is hardened.

[JerryLove]

Not really. What Australian creation stories are you referring to?

From what I recall from PBS, there's one where man is crossing the desert and gets hungry and kills some critter, brining death into the world.

[superflyguy]

Yes, I'm a creationist, but I don't try to claim knowlege of how God created the earth. If you tell me he used evolution, that's fine with me, because it's not central to my doctorine. If you tell me he did it in exactly 6 periods of exactly 24 hours, that's just as theologically irrelevant to me. I will therefore argue for any reasonable explaination of what God could have done.

Originally Posted by Qingu

1. Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories, by definition, are proven.
2. Evolution is testable. It has been observed via many examples of speciation. It is testable, in that it makes useful predictions. These experiments are all repeatable and have all been repeated.

That is slightly hard to trust, mainly because it would be so easy for scientists to defeat a major creationist argument simply by citing a valid experiment that demonstrated speciation. Therefore, it seems likely that the experiments were judged to be flawed. I would deem it to be no more credible than some of the evidence that scientists attack evolutionists for. Additionally, that provide evidence only that they can become unable to mate, and shows neither that a mutation can increase both complexity and viability, which would be necessary for Humans to evolve from bacteria. They may be repeatable experiments, and may have been repeated, but until I have evidence that they were repeated by multiple credible institutions, published, and survived a reasonable amount of scientific scrutiny, I see very little reason to trust them. In the mean time, CalTec and Michigan State University have prooved, in a much more verifiable(albeit digital) manner, that macroevolution can occurr and produce increasingly complex species. avida

Originally Posted by Qingu

But you just said there isn't enough water to flood the whole earth. That's a fact ... so is the fact that continents shift elevations over long periods of time due to plate tectonics and volcanic activity. So not only does the evidence point away from a Biblical flood, it actually makes a Biblical flood impossible.

So let's say that a long time ago, there was no mount everest, and there was absolutely nothing more than 275 ft above sea level. Just for good measure, let's say sea level was 100 ft lower because the ice caps and glaciers were larger, therefore making a melt increase sea level by a nice bit more than the highest elevation on land. The glaciers melted, the earth flooded, the polar floodwater re-froze and tectonic activity caused big mountains to form after the world was covered. Extremely unlikely, yes, but not impossible. And he was only destroying all life, which there's not much of at the top of everest, so there'd be no reason for him to bother. If god's omnipotent, he can create the other 14725 feet of water anyway. More to the point, there are several non-literal ways to translate the Noah passage.

Originally Posted by Qingu

There is absolutely nothing written about Jesus from the period that he was actually alive and on earth.

Jesus was resurrected, and is omnipresent. Therefore, all gosples were written from a period when he was alive and on the earth. Even this is written from a time when he is alive on this earth.

Returning to the topic, that would have been better phrased 'alive and incarnate'. If there was this living guy that you believe will make the world eternally his kingdom, would you write down everything he did so that he'd be remembered? He's going to have to be alive forever to rule the planet forever after all, and it's not likely that a ruler would be forgotten by his people during his reign. News is exchanged by word of mouth, much of the population is illiterate, and the census just wants numbers, not detailed biographical information. Who had reason to write about him? Not many people. The less is written about him, the less likely it is that any of what's written will last. It's likely that the writings will be debated anyway. Anything he himself can leave behind can be just as easily faked or mis-attributed. He'd have to do something really important for people who didn't think he was going to subjugate the world to write about him, and then he would either remain uncrucified or have sinned.

Just consider the circumstances. It would make less sense if we had writings about him from his time.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Okay, show me one extra-Biblical recount of anything Jesus did (or of Jesus, for that matter).

unfortunately, you want evidence of him from his time, but nobody would have had any reason to write about him until after his time.

slightly-miscellaneous note: The epistles(letters) which were written by the apostles provide evidence that the gospels were not merely a set of tales which came to be believed long after they were written. Paul's letters have been dated as earlier than any of the written gospels, and Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. Accounts of him knowing Jesus are clearly incompatible with him believing myths that he never met the subject matter of.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by superflyguy

That is slightly hard to trust, mainly because it would be so easy for scientists to defeat a major creationist argument simply by citing a valid experiment that demonstrated speciation.

You'd think, wouldn't you? Well, I posted a link to the many observed cases of speciation. I hope you'll help convince your fellow creationists they're wrong.

What usually happens when a creaitonist is confronted with this evidence is that they will say, "okay, that's evidence of speciation, but do you have any evidence of a lizard turning into a bird? Because that's what evolution claims happens!"

(In fact, evolution does not claim that happens at all.)

So let's say that a long time ago, there was no mount everest, and there was absolutely nothing more than 275 ft above sea level. Just for good measure, let's say sea level was 100 ft lower because the ice caps and glaciers were larger, therefore making a melt increase sea level by a nice bit more than the highest elevation on land. The glaciers melted, the earth flooded, the polar floodwater re-froze and tectonic activity caused big mountains to form after the world was covered. Extremely unlikely, yes, but not impossible. And he was only destroying all life, which there's not much of at the top of everest, so there'd be no reason for him to bother. If god's omnipotent, he can create the other 14725 feet of water anyway. More to the point, there are several non-literal ways to translate the Noah passage.

Let's say a long time ago the world was flat. Then some men from the East tried to sail to wear the gods lived in the West even after the gods told them they were forbidden to do so. So the gods get mad, move their place of living to high heaven, and bend the world up around itself so it's round instead of flat; so now men can sail as far west as they want but will only end up right back where they started. Meanwhile the resulted catastophe of the earth bending up on itself would redistribute fossils all over the geologic column.

Is this impossible? No, not with omnipotent gods who control the laws of physics. It could happen, and since it says it happened in J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion, it must have happened, right?

Returning to the topic, that would have been better phrased 'alive and incarnate'. If there was this living guy that you believe will make the world eternally his kingdom, would you write down everything he did so that he'd be remembered? He's going to have to be alive forever to rule the planet forever after all, and it's not likely that a ruler would be forgotten by his people during his reign. News is exchanged by word of mouth, much of the population is illiterate, and the census just wants numbers, not detailed biographical information. Who had reason to write about him? Not many people. The less is written about him, the less likely it is that any of what's written will last. It's likely that the writings will be debated anyway. Anything he himself can leave behind can be just as easily faked or mis-attributed. He'd have to do something really important for people who didn't think he was going to subjugate the world to write about him, and then he would either remain uncrucified or have sinned.

Just consider the circumstances. It would make less sense if we had writings about him from his time.

Well, this is something we've discussed (me and Cuziam) at length on the "Did Jesus Exist" thread. I agree; I don't think a small-to-moderately popular miracle worker in Jerusalem like Jesus would have many scribes writing everything what he says, nor do I think much of these writings would survive, unadulterated or at all.

slightly-miscellaneous note: The epistles(letters) which were written by the apostles provide evidence that the gospels were not merely a set of tales which came to be believed long after they were written. Paul's letters have been dated as earlier than any of the written gospels, and Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. Accounts of him knowing Jesus are clearly incompatible with him believing myths that he never met the subject matter of.

Paul's letters were the earliest, but were believed to have actually been composed around 50 AD at the earliest. Paul also himself admits that he never saw Jesus in the flesh. I personally believe the evidence shows that Paul is a charlatan and a pedagogue, but unfortunately his brand of Christianity is the one that survived the Niceene convention.