Probably why not all theologians accept that the flood happened as described in the Bible.
The overwhelming body of science from multiple fields shows that there was no such flood; only religious doctrine argues for it.
I would agree that the evidence makes the described flood seem quite unlikely. It doesn't even seem plausible to me with all the animals and what not. Maybe it happened, but I don't see how.
In this case, "common sense" has to rule out such or flood unless you have changed its meaning entirely.
This particular doctrine does indeed seem to be conflict with common sense. It makes me dubious about it.
...but I don't see many believers willing to do that.
I would guess you are right, but I would also guess not all of them have considered all the evidence. I do think theology without considering physical evidence is more likely to go astray then that which doesn't. Perhaps you would be surprised that C.S. Lewis (someone I have quite a respect for) was also dubious of many of the reported Old Testament miracles.
How then do you propose to use "common sense" while supporting the exact opposite?
I don't propose to do so at all.
Originally this discussion centered on a common sense based argument against a naturalistic view of the cosmos. The argument was disregarded by some on the basis that it did not use science, and that theology and philosophy were not reliable.
Up until your entry, the arguments against the validity of all of "philosophy" and "theology" were ironically, entirely philosophic and/or theological. Albeit they were really poor arguments, but still they were certainly not "science". So no category was left but sort of a dumbed down philosophy and/or theology.
You are the first to allude to some specific body of scientific evidence, which I give you credit for, although obviously the argument around this allusion is by necessity philosophic and/or theological. So your attempt to descredit philosophy and theology is only mostly absurd instead of entirely absurd.
As an amateur theologian, you are alluding to some evidence found by science in your formation of a doctrine against accepting the flood of the Bible at face value. Thus, demonstrating that either theology is not categorically invalid, or that your argument, being theological, is invalid.
No, the argument is entirely based on science. The question of a global flood 4350 years ago can be directly tested by science with no help from theology or philosophy. The scientific evidence comes from such diverse fields as archaeology, genetics, sedimentology, geology, and many of the life sciences. There is either evidence to support such a claim, or there is not. In the case of this particular claim, there is not.
So your attempt to descredit philosophy and theology is only mostly absurd instead of entirely absurd.
Sorry, no attempt was made to discredit either field. The example I gave dealt with an approach, using "common sense," which you brought up. I pointed out a case of what I, as a scientist, thought common sense would do if applied to the claim of a global flood 4350 years ago. You apparently agreed with my assessment.
As an amateur theologian, you are alluding to some evidence found by science in your formation of a doctrine against accepting the flood of the Bible at face value.
I am not a theologian of any kind, nor do I play one on TV. But I do archaeology and I have yet to see evidence of a flood in the areas where I have worked that parallels the requisites of a global flood 4350 years ago. Rather, I have seen overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To me, "common sense" (this is where we started) suggests that there was no such flood.
Thus, demonstrating that either theology is not categorically invalid, or that your argument, being theological, is invalid.
You jumped the shark with that one. Is that philosophy or theology or one of those squishy fields?