• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Things that are unprovable, unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, unsupportable, untestable, unverifiable.... are pretty much by definition irrelevant to anything whatsoever.

Just like that undetectable dragon that lives in my garage.
Or the undetectable pile of rocks that block your lane on the highway.
You won't be slamming your breaks. You won't be changing lanes. You won't even slow down.

Because those things that are undemonstrable, unfalsifiable and untestable are things that have no detectable manifestation whatsoever and aren't a factor in anything.
And things that have no detectable manifestation and aren't a factor in anything, are as irrelevant as can be.

It's in fact pretty much what "irrelevant" means, in broad terms.
Wrong.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is what I call focusing on the pixel while missing the bigger picture.
Anyway why do you test scriptures without the possibility of God when those scriptures say it was done by God? We all know some scripture is likely made up though.

But with the Bible overall the morals are very amazing.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No. Correct.

You are welcome to try and explain why you think it's wrong.
I'm rather curious of how you think some entity X is "relevant" to anything whatsoever, when this X is undetectable in every manner to the extent that it is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

To say such things are "relevant", would make non-existent things (which are infinite in number, only really limited by human imagination) just as relevant.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No. Correct.

You are welcome to try and explain why you think it's wrong.
I'm rather curious of how you think some entity X is "relevant" to anything whatsoever, when this X is undetectable in every manner to the extent that it is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

To say such things are "relevant", would make non-existent things (which are infinite in number, only really limited by human imagination) just as relevant.
Because science assumes everything is explainable. Have they tested that itself?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Anyway why do you test scriptures without the possibility of God when those scriptures say it was done by God? We all know some scripture is likely made up though.

First of all, nobody ever determined that gods are actually possible. In fact, nobody ever even provided a proper definition for what a god is. So we can't even begin to asses how possible (or impossible) it is.

Secondly, I don't care what books / stories claim if there is no evidence to support those claims.
I can write you a book and write in it that aliens did it. Does not mean that aliens actually did it, nor would that provide you with a rational reason to actually entertain that idea.

We know of only 1 entity that can be held responsible for writing books and that entity is humans.

But with the Bible overall the morals are very amazing.

No. Biblical morality is absolutely horrendous. It's moral bankruptcy to boot.
I could write a whole book about how immoral and despicable it is.

Our 21st century humanistic morality is VASTLY superior to the depraved barbaric nonsense found in that mysogenistic, homophobic, genocidal, infanticidal, morally bankrupt ancient tale.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Because science assumes everything is explainable. Have they tested that itself?

1. that is simply not true at all

2. you aren't actually addressing the point I raised, nor are you answering the question actually asked.

I repeat:

How is entity X "relevant" and in what way, if X is an unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, unverifiable thing that is indistinguishable from non-existent things, with no detectable manifestation whatsoever?
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
First of all, nobody ever determined that gods are actually possible. In fact, nobody ever even provided a proper definition for what a god is. So we can't even begin to asses how possible (or impossible) it is.

Secondly, I don't care what books / stories claim if there is no evidence to support those claims.
I can write you a book and write in it that aliens did it. Does not mean that aliens actually did it, nor would that provide you with a rational reason to actually entertain that idea.

We know of only 1 entity that can be held responsible for writing books and that entity is humans.



No. Biblical morality is absolutely horrendous. It's moral bankruptcy to boot.
I could write a whole book about how immoral and despicable it is.

Our 21st century humanistic morality is VASTLY superior to the depraved barbaric nonsense found in that mysogenistic, homophobic, genocidal, infanticidal, morally bankrupt ancient tale.
You're welcome to believe those things. I disagree. Peace out.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
1. that is simply not true at all

2. you aren't actually addressing the point I raised, nor are you answering the question actually asked.

I repeat:

How is entity X "relevant" and in what way, if X is an unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, unverifiable thing that is indistinguishable from non-existent things, with no detectable manifestation whatsoever?
How is entity X "relevant" and in what way, if X is an unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, unverifiable thing that is indistinguishable from non-existent things, with no detectable manifestation whatsoever?
Why no detectable manifestation?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You are unscientific to assume there cant be a God. Not only is it unprovable it is outside the realm of science.

History proves that man creates gods in his own image and has since before writing. Thousands of gods. Are any of them real? You believe one is. You discount all the others. Many people do not believe your god is real. They believe their god is real.

It is silly to expect proof or disproof for silly things. However, many humans do have the ability to use critical thinking and logic when evaluating claims. Critical thinking and logic tell us that all gods are the creations of man's imaginings.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Just like you don't know about that undetectable dragon that follows you around everywhere you go.

And for the same reason, nobody would have a rational reason to claim such a dragon is following you. Or that aliens are hiding.

Why mock undetectable dragons? An artist just sold an invisible sculpture for $18,300.

An invisible sculpture has just sold for $18,000 | Creative Bloq
An invisible sculpture has just sold for $18,000
By Georgia Coggan about 5 hours ago

We thought we'd seen it all from the art world when that banana was taped to a wall. But the trend of slightly bizarre art sales has just been taken one step further by an invisible sculpture, which has sold for... wait for it... $18,300. You may want to read that again. An invisible sculpture. $18,300.​

This mind-blowing project (which needed none of our essential art techniques whatsoever) was the brainchild of 67-year old Italian artist Salvatore Garau. Entitled 'Io Sono', or 'I am', the invisible piece was initially put up for auction at between $6000 and $9000. However, the price was actually raised after a flurry of initial bids. We certainly admire the confidence of the artist, that's for sure.​
According to AS.com, the artist is philosophical about the piece, asserting that it is not simply nothing, but a vacuum. "The vacuum is nothing more than a space full of energy, and even if we empty it and there is nothing left, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that 'nothing' has a weight," Garau said. "Therefore, it has energy that is condensed and transformed into particles, that is, into us."​
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
By definition of being undetectable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable. :rolleyes:
Because you ignore anything that appears divine out of hand. Once again, can you prove the Universe is completely governed by rules? You can't, and you can't disprove God. Many smart people have reasoned and believed in God.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

So if you can believe ... or even question ... whether or not there was really a world wide flood from 6 to 10 thousand years ago, then you have not questioned the tale or are unwilling to do so.



The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".

OK lets start with this one, why not?


what woudl we expect to find in the fossil record if there was a global flood?

what would we expect to find if evolution by natrual selection + old earth is true?

what do we acctually find?
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
History proves that man creates gods in his own image and has since before writing. Thousands of gods. Are any of them real? You believe one is. You discount all the others. Many people do not believe your god is real. They believe their god is real.

It is silly to expect proof or disproof for silly things. However, many humans do have the ability to use critical thinking and logic when evaluating claims. Critical thinking and logic tell us that all gods are the creations of man's imaginings.

Most people worship the same God. Many smart people use critical thinking and logic and come to the conclusion that there is a God, even if they can't pass along the belief to others.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Also,

It was claimed by someone that overall the Bible did not have good moral values. What about the Garden of Eden, the 10 commandments, and stopping the worship of idols in favor of an abstract God?
 
Top