Sodom and Gomorrah

alright guys, you have to read the whole paragraph to understand the point I was making.

Religious books generally make claims (A, B, C) about the relationship between God and man. these can be tested. it is that simple.

now, individuals can come up with reasons for why A, B or C are or are not seen in a particular instance, but they are doing that based on their personal interpretations of the event, not on the scripture itself.

ie: the God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is demonstrably not existent because there is little if any evidence that these cities existed in the first place, and none whatsoever that would be expected based on the literal description of the event (fire and brimstone would leave a mark modern archeology would be able to detect, as we can identify hearths from over 30000 years ago). There are ways to rationalize this, but in doing so, you are creating a God that isn't of scripture.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ie: the God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is demonstrably not existent because there is little if any evidence that these cities existed in the first place, and none whatsoever that would be expected based on the literal description of the event (fire and brimstone would leave a mark modern archeology would be able to detect, as we can identify hearths from over 30000 years ago).

First and foremost, the Book of Genesis was written around 5 - 6 centuries before the common era. Meaning that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had to take place before then.

This means that there would be very little evidence in the form of literature simply due to the fact that literature doesn't last for that long.

Secondly there are a number of meteor impact sites close to the Dead Sea, either of which may have been where the cities in question were located.

Originally posted by Astner
That has to be the poorest form of reasoning I've seen in a long time. Not only is it a textbook example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy, but it also clarifies your ignorance as far as geography and history are concerned.

right, keep holding out for phrenology and geocentrism

Originally posted by Astner
Secondly there are a number of meteor impact sites close to the Dead Sea, either of which may have been where the cities in question were located.

source?

Originally posted by Oliver North
alright guys, you have to read the whole paragraph to understand the point I was making.

Religious books generally make claims (A, B, C) about the relationship between God and man. these can be tested. it is that simple.

now, individuals can come up with reasons for why A, B or C are or are not seen in a particular instance, but they are doing that based on their personal interpretations of the event, not on the scripture itself.

ie: the God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is demonstrably not existent because there is little if any evidence that these cities existed in the first place, and none whatsoever that would be expected based on the literal description of the event (fire and brimstone would leave a mark modern archeology would be able to detect, as we can identify hearths from over 30000 years ago). There are ways to rationalize this, but in doing so, you are creating a God that isn't of scripture.

Is it common to find these types of fire sites? Is at all possible there some that can not be observed because they were not preserved that well or were cleaned over?

Is possible for natural forces to clean the area, cover, or humans to do the same thing?

Back to Galan's post. If you take the OT at face value than God being the God of all would with knowledge far exceeding our own known that Sodom and Gommorah needed to be destroyed for a good reason, and one would have to accept it.

IE Sodom and Gomoorah made a Free Will decision and God knew that it could destroy everything or hold dire consequences so cleansed the cities to protect everyone.

Originally posted by Newjak
How well preserved were these 30000 year old fire sites?

considering the materials are almost all things that degrade over time, not very well

now, these are 30000 years old and made from decaying matter, whereas we have fire and brimstone in amounts great enough to wipe 4 cities off the map (genesis includes more than just S&G in the judgement) only 5-6 thousand years ago. Sure, it is possible the evidence has decayed over time, but it is also possible that dinosaurs are alive today and we just havent found the evidence.

Originally posted by Newjak
Is it common to find these types of fire sites?

they are exceedingly rare, we are talking the literal first settlements of humans

Originally posted by Newjak
Is at all possible there some that can not be observed because they were not preserved that well or were cleaned over?

sure? and it is possible all time before this instant never existed and you are in a computer simulation

the study of history requires evidence /sigh

Originally posted by Newjak
Is possible for natural forces to clean the area, cover, or humans to do the same thing?

ok, but if we use that as a standard of evidence, I can literally make up anything about history and you have to say "well, we never know"

Its not a gotcha-moment to get me to admit I might be wrong... lol

Originally posted by Newjak
IE Sodom and Gomoorah made a Free Will decision and God knew that it could destroy everything or hold dire consequences so cleansed the cities to protect everyone.

sure, and now you have introduced a rationalization NOT FROM THE BIBLE, therefore making the God you are talking about NOT THE ONE FROM THE BIBLE, but rather one based on your own personal interpretations. Hence, my statement about THE GOD OF THE BIBLE remains true, and my statement that Gods not from the bible being unfalsifiable also still true.

Originally posted by Oliver North
right, keep holding out for phrenology and geocentrism

Now I could point out how in modern physics we don't deal with universal origins as far as coordinate systems are concerned, meaning that you could well describe the universe in a geocentric model. But I feel that I'd be wasting my time reenforcing your belief in that I might be the one who don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll leave it at that.

Oh, that's right—I remember now—you're one of those people who're against the right of religious freedom. That's why you make up blatant lies and reason poorly to counter any evidence supporting religious history.

Keep in mind that I'm not Christian either, but that doesn't mean that I have to lie.

Originally posted by Oliver North
source?

Originally posted by Oliver North
considering the materials are almost all things that degrade over time, not very well

now, these are 30000 years old and made from decaying matter, whereas we have fire and brimstone in amounts great enough to wipe 4 cities off the map (genesis includes more than just S&G in the judgement) only 5-6 thousand years ago. Sure, it is possible the evidence has decayed over time, but it is also possible that dinosaurs are alive today and we just havent found the evidence.

they are exceedingly rare, we are talking the literal first settlements of humans

sure? and it is possible all time before this instant never existed and you are in a computer simulation

the study of history requires evidence /sigh

ok, but if we use that as a standard of evidence, I can literally make up anything about history and you have to say "well, we never know"

Its not a gotcha-moment to get me to admit I might be wrong... lol

sure, and now you have introduced a rationalization [b]NOT FROM THE BIBLE, therefore making the God you are talking about NOT THE ONE FROM THE BIBLE, but rather one based on your own personal interpretations. Hence, my statement about THE GOD OF THE BIBLE remains true, and my statement that Gods not from the bible being unfalsifiable also still true. [/B]

Well it could be possible insert extreme comment to make my claims sound better.

I'm talking statistics my friend.

You made the claim well if we can find a fire site from 30000 years ago then obviously we can detect Sodom and Gomorrah with ease.

Just because we can do something doesn't meant there is a high probability of it happening. If we can only observe less than 1%, an estimation on my part, of firepits throughout history then it isn't good evidence to support your stance of if we can find firepits then surely we would have found the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.

So show me actual facts to support your stance if you want me to believe it.

I did not introduce my interpretations of God into the OT. In the bible people are stated to need to have faith in God's decisions and that he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they sinning.

Therefore according to the bible we must have faith that's God's decision to punish them was the right one because he is God. I introduced no new concept at all and used the Bible's version of God.

Originally posted by Astner
Another textbook example of a logical fallacy, this one would be a non-sequitur.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Originally posted by Astner
Oh, that's right—I remember now—you're one of those people who're against the right of religious freedom.

speaking of false statements and non-sequiturs...

Originally posted by Astner
Google maps, meteor craters and asteroid impact sites. Or you can just look it up in any Encyclopedia, I think there are a few hundred confirmed and unconfirmed sites worldwide.

if you wont provide evidence to support your claim, there is no use getting into this

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm talking statistics my friend.

no you aren't... you are weakly talking about probabilities...

Originally posted by Newjak
You made the claim well if we can find a fire site from 30000 years ago then obviously we can detect Sodom and Gomorrah with ease.

Just because we can do something doesn't meant there is a high probability of it happening. If we can only observe less than 1%, an estimation on my part, of firepits throughout history then it isn't good evidence to support your stance of if we can find firepits then surely we would have found the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.

so your actual position is that hellfire raining from the sky in a volume enough to destroy 4 cities would not leave a verifiable impact on the Earth?

if so, we simply disagree about the ontology, and I would suggest looking into things like, idk, the study of volcanic rock

Originally posted by Newjak
So show me actual facts to support your stance if you want me to believe it.

show you evidence of there being no evidence?

ok, exhibit A:

[a lack of evidence]

Originally posted by Newjak
I did not introduce my interpretations of God into the OT. In the bible people are stated to need to have faith in God's decisions and that he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they sinning.

the rationalization that God would hide the site is a rationalization

Originally posted by Oliver North
no you aren't... you are weakly talking about probabilities...

so your actual position is that hellfire raining from the sky in a volume enough to destroy 4 cities would not leave a verifiable impact on the Earth?

if so, we simply disagree about the ontology, and I would suggest looking into things like, idk, the study of volcanic rock

show you evidence of there being no evidence?

ok, exhibit A:

[a lack of evidence]

the rationalization that God would hide the site is a rationalization

Well what were the size of the cities, what would the blast radius have been, where was it located, what other types of phenomena happened around it or happens normally due to it's location? What were the size of the objects being hurtled down unto Sodom and Gomorrah?

Show me the evidence that suggest since we can find firepits from 30000 years that we can find all things related to fire or fire like destruction throughout history. Or show me where it gives us a high probability of finding such things?

Where did I say God hid the city cause I don't remember saying that at all?

Originally posted by Newjak
Well what were the size of the cities, what would the blast radius have been, where was it located, what other types of phenomena happened around it or happens normally due to it's location? What were the size of the objects being hurtled down unto Sodom and Gomorrah?

given my position is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest these things ever existed, I don't see why the burden would be on me to provide any of that information

Originally posted by Newjak
Show me the evidence that suggest since we can find firepits from 30000 years that we can find all things related to fire or fire like destruction throughout history. Or show me where it gives us a high probability of finding such things?

It is a matter of scale, the force of the destruction, and the materials in question.

A city, made of stone, destroyed by overwhelming supernatural force would be order of magnitude more likely to leave some detectable trace than would the organic, decomposing matter of ancient hearths. Proof of this would be, you know, cities destroyed by volcanoes being almost perfectly intact thousands of years later, there being more ruins from civilizations that used stone in their construction, etc...

like, really, your argument seems to be "it could have happened", and fine, it "could have", but there are an infinite number of "could haves" that I really don't find that to be a convincing position at all. Like I said, the study of history requires evidence...

Originally posted by Newjak
Where did I say God hid the city cause I don't remember saying that at all?

sorry, I misinterpreted when you said "cleansed"

Originally posted by Oliver North
given my position is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest these things ever existed, I don't see why the burden would be on me to provide any of that information

It is a matter of scale, the force of the destruction, and the materials in question.

A city, made of stone, destroyed by overwhelming supernatural force would be order of magnitude more likely to leave some detectable trace than would the organic, decomposing matter of ancient hearths. Proof of this would be, you know, cities destroyed by volcanoes being almost perfectly intact thousands of years later, there being more ruins from civilizations that used stone in their construction, etc...

like, really, your argument seems to be "it could have happened", and fine, it "could have", but there are an infinite number of "could haves" that I really don't find that to be a convincing position at all. Like I said, the study of history requires evidence...

sorry, I misinterpreted when you said "cleansed"

So explain to me with actual evidence why we would have found them by now if they existed.

So are we assuming that it was supernatural force that did this? In that case unless you have great knowledge of supernatural forces everything you're gonna say from this point on is moot on the subject imo.

But let's assume you mean measurable circumstances, you are right in that it would be easier to detect a burned out city destroyed by fire and brimstone from the sky then a firepit. If that was the only statement to take into account.

But first how did the firepits get preserved and survive the centuries unlike the millions of others that existed? How does that correlate into the preservation of a city.

Even if you want to adheretly stick to your notion of firepit equals discovering a city easier, I do agree it is easier to find cties, considering the firepit is a rare occurrence itself how much easier is finding a city compared to that?

Is it easier but still rare to find?

What types of numbers and data are you using to come to this?

And like Astner said there are areas around the Dead Sea where it is possible that the damage you are talking about exists.

Originally posted by Newjak
Correction your stance as stated above was that if they did exist we would have found them.

So explain to me with actual evidence why we would have found them by now if they existed.

re:

Originally posted by Oliver North
It is a matter of scale, the force of the destruction, and the materials in question.

A city, made of stone, destroyed by overwhelming supernatural force would be order of magnitude more likely to leave some detectable trace than would the organic, decomposing matter of ancient hearths. Proof of this would be, you know, cities destroyed by volcanoes being almost perfectly intact thousands of years later, there being more ruins from civilizations that used stone in their construction, etc...

Originally posted by Newjak
So are we assuming that it was supernatural force that did this? In that case unless you have great knowledge of supernatural forces everything you're gonna say from this point on is moot on the subject imo.

yes, if god destroyed the cities, it was supernatural...

Originally posted by Newjak
Even if you want to adheretly stick to your notion of firepit equaks discovering a city easier, considering the firepit is a rare occurrence itself how much easier is finding a city compared to that?

4 cities that were part of a major disaster and that we ostensibly know the locations of

it should be fairly simple actually, unless for some crazy reason there is absolutely no trace of it left, but given the circumstances and the plethora of other sites that exist from this period, no evidence at all is pretty damning.

you can disagree with that, sure. I think it is crazy, but if you are steadfast to the position that it is harder to find the ruins of 10000 year old cities than 30000 yo firepits, sure, great, rock on

Originally posted by Newjak
What types of numbers and data are you using to come to this?

again, I can't provide numbers for data I don't think exists

Originally posted by Newjak
And like Astner said there are areas around the Dead Sea where it is possible that the damage you are talking about exists.

such as?

Originally posted by Newjak
Back to Galan's post. If you take the OT at face value than God being the God of all would with knowledge far exceeding our own known that Sodom and Gommorah needed to be destroyed for a good reason, and one would have to accept it.

IE Sodom and Gomoorah made a Free Will decision and God knew that it could destroy everything or hold dire consequences so cleansed the cities to protect everyone.

That's Hitler-level mentality right there. Not joking. But what else would would expect from an entity with enough ego to make a comment like this?:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Originally posted by Galan007
So like I said: this would mean that God did kill-off those cities just for choosing to live a particular lifestyle that he didn't agree with. He gave them the gift of free will and said "do as you will." They did as they wished. He killed them for it, just to prove a point.

That's Hitler-level mentality right there. Not joking. But what else would would expect from an entity with enough ego to make a comment like this?:

It might seem cruel and unusual to you but if it serves the greater purpose then who are we to question?

so, not only do we have morality wrong, we have it so wrong that we are completely unable to know what is right (ie, we are disgusted by what is moral)?

Originally posted by Newjak
I think the counter to that would be how would you know better than God what is right and wrong?

I see his slaying of S&G as hypocritical, and moreover, malevolent. It's like a smoker killing you for using chewing tobacco... Just because he thought it was gross.

Originally posted by Oliver North
re:

yes, if god destroyed the cities, it was supernatural...

[b]4 cities that were part of a major disaster and that we ostensibly know the locations of

it should be fairly simple actually, unless for some crazy reason there is absolutely no trace of it left, but given the circumstances and the plethora of other sites that exist from this period, no evidence at all is pretty damning.

you can disagree with that, sure. I think it is crazy, but if you are steadfast to the position that it is harder to find the ruins of 10000 year old cities than 30000 yo firepits, sure, great, rock on

again, I can't provide numbers for data I don't think exists

such as? [/B]

What is the probabilities we would have found such a city.

Well in that case if we are assuming the whole thing is Supernatural then you have no evidence to back anything you claim. For instance explain to me how Supernautral fire works, does it leave the same types of damage as normal fire? Does it burn as hot, or hotter or is very precise?

It doesn't matter if you feel it doesn't exist you can still provide data and numbers as to why you feel it doesn't exist?

As in I don't think it exists because the probability of finding asteroid damage conclusive enough to destroy a city the size of Sodom and Gomorrah is 99% because the damage would produce a minimum 5 mile diameter that unless completely covered, unlikely do to the environmental factors surrounding the area, by some obstruction would have been spotted via satellites that constantly monitor the area.

Since in the proposed areas of Sodom and Gomorah their exist no such impact areas,although Asnter claims there are, I can safely deduce with a 90% certainty that they don't exist and have never existed.

Mind you all of that is hog wash cause I don't know the numbers but I think you get the general idea.

Instead you say well we can find a firepit 30000 years ago therefore a city is much easier to find therefore S&G can not exist.

Well what does that mean. How accurately can we find firepits from that age. Does that mean if we go to an area and say well we don't see a firepit does that mean I can say with 99% certainty a firepit did not exist in that particular area since we didn't find one?

And how does firepit probabilities relate to cities? Is a city 30 times as likely to be found in an area if it existed than a firepit? A thousand times?

If you want to say I don't believe the city exists cause it just seems unlikely to me. Fine I doubt you will find a person to argue with you or have reasonable points to say you are wrong, logically it's hard to think of us not finding a city or an area like it, but to sit here and act like you have definitive proof it couldn't have existed isn't the same.

That claim denotes you have actual factual data to support your claim in that you know numbers and data sets to prove it.

Originally posted by Galan007
I don't. All I can go by are the 10 standards of right and wrong that God himself supposedly delivered to Moses/mankind-- one of which was: "Thou shalt not kill."

I see his slaying of S&G as hypocritical, and moreover, malevolent. It's like a smoker killing you for using chewing tobacco... Just because he thought it was gross.

Originally posted by Newjak
Those are rules for mankind to follow. Once again who are you to decide that God was a hypocrite for doing it or evil for doing it. It once again states you know better than God.

The proverb "do as I say, not as I do" is not something I would expect from a 'supreme' entity.