Ruby said: "the earth itself gave plenty of early warnings."
That is a misleading statement. It is of no use for the earth to give such signs, if a civilisation cannot do the following;
detect as many of the signs as necessary, interpret them correctly, and then sound the warning in enough time.
"When the tsunami struck on December 26, 2004, the Indian Ocean had no early warning system to speak of—at least nothing like the Pacific Ocean's array of tide gauges, seismometers, deep ocean sensors, high-tech buoys, and communication systems.
The Pacific system's seismometers happened to detect the Indian Ocean earthquake that created the tsunami.
"We had seismic signals," Charles McCreery said. "But we had no sea-level data to detect or measure the tsunami and no system for disseminating a warning." McCreery is the director of the U.S. government's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) in Ewa Beach, Hawaii."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1223_051223_tsunami_warning.html
...
(sorry if this seems off-topic, Cofty)
Ruby- What would you say regarding the early civilisations that did not even have enough knowledge to interpret any of the signs that we know of today? Why did God not warn them of what was to occur?
(The following is about Pompeii)
"His uncle, known as Pliny the Elder...was not only the senior military officer in the district, but possibly the most well informed living Roman on matters of natural science. His 37-volume Natural History is the longest work on science in Latin that has survived from antiquity... And the sighting of a column of smoke 'like an umbrella pine' on the far side of the Bay triggered a response more of curiosity than of alarm in him...
Pliny's casual reference to earth tremors 'which were not particularly alarming because they are frequent in Campania' reveals the Roman's comprehensive ignorance of the link between seismic activity (earth tremors) and volcanic activity...
The volcanologists of today constantly monitor any changes in levels of seismic activity...
The catastrophic magnitude of the eruption of AD 79 was connected with the extended period of inactivity that preceded it. A long interval combined with mounting seismic activity is a sure sign of impending disaster.
Of course, the Romans could not know this."
"...the earthquakes that Pliny described so casually were more than just portents. Current thinking, however, had not yet caught up with their significance. We know this because, by an extraordinary coincidence, the philosopher Seneca, advisor to the emperor Nero, wrote a discussion of the scientific causes of earthquakes only a few years before the eruption.
Seneca's treatise on the causes of natural phenomena included an entire book on earthquakes, and at the time he was writing, the news was coming in freshly of the catastrophic earthquakes in Campania of AD 63, which caused extensive damage to both Pompeii and Herculaneum.
Seneca writes that he regarded it as likely that earthquakes in different parts of the world were interconnected, and even that they were linked to stormy weather, but he draws no link with volcanic activity. Indeed, he goes so far as to reproach the landowners who were deserting Campania for fear of further earthquakes."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/pompeii_portents_01.shtml
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
defender of truth
-
Ruby456
Seneca writes that he regarded it as likely that earthquakes in different parts of the world were interconnected, and even that they were linked to stormy weather, but he draws no link with volcanic activity. Indeed, he goes so far as to reproach the landowners who were deserting Campania for fear of further earthquakes."
defender of truth please see Lucretius' (99-c. 55 bc) on the nature of things book 6 for connections that were made between earthquakes and volcanic activity in circulation at the time. The BBC does acknowledge other sources of knowledge and indeed there were many - imo Lucretius seeks the most consistently naturalist explanations. Pliny the elder and Seneca did have an agenda which was to use their authoritative positions to try to reduce panic and restore order wherever possible - in fact sometimes going to the point of neglecting or even suppressing info that could have saved lives.
-
cofty
Ruby - Totally off-topic.
-
Ruby456
please stop stereotyping me cofty.
edit: lucretius imo is strongly connected to providence, to Darwin, to Freud, to the problem of evil
-
cofty
Ruby -Please explain the specific connection between L ucretius, Darwin, Freud and Pliny the Elder and the topic of this thread which is...
How do christians reconcile the god of christian theism with the Asian tsunami on 26th December 2004?
-
defender of truth
[I've had to sneak onto my parents computer to post this, so don't expect me to reply if you ask anything.]
RUBY- Seeing as you went to such lengths to reply to the 2nd part of what I said, could you please respond to the first part? Here it is again:
Ruby said: "the earth itself gave plenty of early warnings."
I replied: That is a misleading statement. It is of no use for the earth to give such signs, if a civilisation cannot do the following;
detect as many of the signs as necessary, interpret them correctly, and then sound the warning in enough time.
"When the tsunami struck on December 26, 2004, the Indian Ocean had no early warning system to speak of—at least nothing like the Pacific Ocean's array of tide gauges, seismometers, deep ocean sensors, high-tech buoys, and communication systems.
The Pacific system's seismometers happened to detect the Indian Ocean earthquake that created the tsunami.
"We had seismic signals," Charles McCreery said. "But we had no sea-level data to detect or measure the tsunami and no system for disseminating a warning." McCreery is the director of the U.S. government's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) in Ewa Beach, Hawaii."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1223_051223_tsunami_warning.html -
Ruby456
well I wrote out a reasonable reply but when I hit submit I was told the webpage was not available and as I am working on something akin to epicurean ataraxia (tranquility) and my time is short I will reply another time.
anyway Mcreery's statement supports my points more than it does cofty's as he maintains that the earth did not supply any warnings to enable people to take evasive action. Other than that I found Mcreery's statement very disturbing.
-
cofty
Ruby - are you seriously suggesting that the 250 000 people who died all around the Pacific Rim on 26th December 2004 ought to have detected some sort of early warning, that so far you have not defined, and therefore it was their own fault and god is not to blame?
I am trying hard but I have not the slightest clue what your point is. I suspect you don't either.
-
jgnat
I'll take a shot at Ruby's point. If humankind were perfectly attuned to nature's rumblings, we would be able to avoid such calamity without God's intervention. Am I close?
-
Ruby456
jgnat - the reason I'm asking questions is because even if we agree that God's non intervention proves that God does not exist we are still left with the task of addressing the question of evil/suffering. I thought that psacramento's point that suffering has purpose resonates with my own outlook despite him being a believer and me being an atheist. On this understanding then humans are in a state of change just as God is (God according to psac). So yes nature comes into it but so does culture.