How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[InChrist]

Good point, but this is why science tests its hypotheses and invites criticism.

What would these facts pointing to a creator be? The history of science is one long progression of discoveries of natural explanations for phenomena previously ascribed to divine magic.
the "evidence" isn't ruled out. It's outside the purview of science. Science cannot examine or test the supernatural.

Well, you have a valid point there. Science can't test the supernatural. Nevertheless, I do think that one's foundational suppositions do affect one's interpretations of any evidence and observations. I think the natural world, the order of the universe, seasons, and so many other things point to a designer/Creator.

 

[Rise]

No, I went over why you failed.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming you demonstrated failure on my part doesn't make it true.
You must demonstrate with reasoned argumentation how specific examples of what I said were proved to have "failed" in order to prove your claim is true.

You can't logically claim you proved anything when you leave my arguments against your position unanswered and unchallenged.

And you need to be able to argue and think logically to provide "logical argumentation". You have not done that yet.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming I have not argued with logic doesn't make it true.
You must demonstrate with reasoned argumentation why specific examples of what I said are in logical error in order to prove your claim is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming you demonstrated failure on my part doesn't make it true.
You must demonstrate with reasoned argumentation how specific examples of what I said were proved to have "failed" in order to prove your claim is true.

There is no need for me to reinvent the wheel with every post. Now you are merely repeating your errors.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming I have no argued with logic doesn't make it true.
You must demonstrate with reasoned argumentation why specific examples of what I said are in logical error in order to prove your claim is true.

Last warning. Stick to the topic of the thread. Be polite. Your record is clear.

 

[Rise]

That is not true and you know it.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely claiming something is untrue doesn't make it so.
You must demonstrate with logical reasoning why it is untrue.

You keep forgetting how your rude behavior was a factor here. Aren't Christians supposed to be honest? Or at the very least not bear false witness against others?

Logical fallacy, red herring.

Unable to deal with the real issue being debated, you try to divert the argument into a different unrelated direction.

 

[Rise]

Now you are merely repeating your errors.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely claiming I am repeating errors doesn't make it true.
You must first demonstrate how anything I said is in error.

Stick to the topic of the thread.

This is an ironic admonition when you are the only one engaging in the logical fallacy of red herring, which diverts away from the real topic being discussed in order to avoid having to answer points to which you have no answer for.

 

[InChrist]

Why can't they believe that God created the universe so that it could run itself? It appears that you are trying to put limits on your version of God. Worse yet since all of the evidence tells us that life as we know it is the product of evolution, and that there was no flood, you are in effect saying that God lied.

Well, some do believe that God created the universe and then left to run on its own, but that does not sound like the God of love revealed in the scriptures and it contradicts the words of Jesus. So, in essence you are saying the scriptures and the accounts of the OT and Christ are lies. You believe the evidence as far as you understand it from the naturalistic perspective according to what science has discovered thus far, but what if there is more that is still unknown, that may yet verify the flood or other so-called supernatural events. Who is limiting God? I just choose to believe Him.over the finite views of humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, some do believe that God created the universe and then left to run on its own, but that does not sound like the God of love revealed in the scriptures and it contradicts the words of Jesus. So, in essence you are saying the scriptures and the accounts of the OT and Christ are lies. You believe the evidence as far as you understand it from the naturalistic perspective according to what science has discovered thus far, but what if there is more that is still unknown, that may yet verify the flood or other so-called supernatural events. Who is limiting God? I just choose to believe Him.over the finite views of humans.

And drowning a world of people sounds like a "loving God"? And no, Jesus used poetic language quite often. That does not make it a lie. If a person says "Granny is as old as the hills" is he lying?

The evidence is so clear and overwhelming that you are in effect calling God a liar if you claim that Genesis has to be accurate.

 

[InChrist]

And drowning a world of people sounds like a "loving God"? And no, Jesus used poetic language quite often. That does not make it a lie. If a person says "Granny is as old as the hills" is he lying?

The evidence is so clear and overwhelming that you are in effect calling God a liar if you claim that Genesis has to be accurate.

Depending on the situation and/or if God had a valid reason isn't it possible it could have been the right or loving thing to do. The scriptures indicate that God considered the people of that time evil to the extreme and gave them over 100 years of warning and time to repent. When Jesus spoke in parables or used poetic language He stated so. Yet, when He referred to OT accounts He spoke as if they were reliable, historical fact. I suppose you would say the account of Jesus feeding the 5000 with only two fish and five loaves of bread or Him walking on water is not reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depending on the situation and/or if God had a valid reason isn't it possible it could have been the right or loving thing to do. The scriptures indicate that God considered the people of that time evil to the extreme and gave them over 100 years of warning and time to repent. When Jesus spoke in parables or used poetic language He stated so. Yet, when He referred to OT accounts He spoke as if they were reliable, historical fact. I suppose you would say the account of Jesus feeding the 5000 with only two fish and five loaves of bread or Him walking on water is not reality.

I never took it that way, and I beg to differ. He did not. He called the mustard seed the smallest seed, yet there are many smaller than it. But as a poetic statement it works fine. I am sure that there are others as well. He may have been merely using an adage.

Tell me, how do you deal with all of the evidence that tells us that life evolved? That there was no flood?

 

[Valjean]

Well, you have a valid point there. Science can't test the supernatural. Nevertheless, I do think that one's foundational suppositions do affect one's interpretations of any evidence and observations. I think the natural world, the order of the universe, seasons, and so many other things point to a designer/Creator.

And you're in good company.
Intentionality has been assumed for thousands of years. It's only been recently that natural, understandable mechanisms, based on observable, testable evidence have been discovered. The findings tend to make God -- magical manipulation -- unnecessary.

Well, some do believe that God created the universe and then left to run on its own, but that does not sound like the God of love revealed in the scriptures and it contradicts the words of Jesus.

Quite so. But why this scriptural God of love? The world has lots of scriptures, and lots of Gods, and the OT God of war differs significantly from the NT God of love.

So, in essence you are saying the scriptures and the accounts of the OT and Christ are lies.

Lies are intentional misrepresentations. I'm saying the scriptures are folklore -- stories.

You believe the evidence as far as you understand it from the naturalistic perspective according to what science has discovered thus far, but what if there is more that is still unknown, that may yet verify the flood or other so-called supernatural events.

"What if?!" There is a lot still unknown, and every new thing discovered creates more questions, but when already established facts militate against a story like the flood, the burden is on the storyteller.
There are just so many facets of the flood story that are clearly impossible from the perspective of so many different disciplines, that skepticism is the only reasonable attitude.

 

[InChrist]

I never took it that way, and I beg to differ. He did not. He called the mustard seed the smallest seed, yet there are many smaller than it. But as a poetic statement it works fine. I am sure that there are others as well. He may have been merely using an adage.

Tell me, how do you deal with all of the evidence that tells us that life evolved? That there was no flood?

I'll try to get back to this tomorrow.

 

[Misunderstood]

Guys, (I say that inclusively to everyone, it is just a manor of speak here) I think we are taking this way to seriously. As I see it there is no way for either side to win this argument.

Christians and those believing in the Bible, is there anything that could be said to cause you to give up your faith? I think not. Even is someone was to prove there was no flood or the flood happened millions of years ago with irrefutable evidence; would that cause you to lose your faith? I hope not, I know I would not, we do not need science to keep our faith. We believe in God and the message He gives. The flood is just the history that He gave us, maybe it is just a story that we are to get a message from. I believe it to be true, but if God came down and told me it was just a story I would be OK with that also; the flood has no bearing on my faith.

Those who do not believe in the Bible, I will never call you stupid and hopefully do not insult you, I find your arguments thought out and intelligent. Even if some part of what has been said is proven false over time, what you have said has shown that you have thought them out, researched what you say and is not some crazy ramblings of a crazy person. (That I’m crazy could be said of me, as I have faith in something that you believe to be a fairy tail.) But how is this going to end? You prove with science the flood never happened, are we supposed to give up our faith because science says so?

In the OP this is said “My only assumption here will be that i[f] God exists he does not lie.” With that assumption we assume there is a God and He does not lie, since there is a God I feel the argument cannot be won. I kind of see the argument to be that if there was a flood, science has proven so many inconsistencies that God had to lie. Why? We are assuming God caused the flood, so if He was able to do that He has some supernatural power. If He did not have super natural powers He would not have been able to cause the flood. He would have had to wait for a natural event to cause the flood and then take credit that He caused it because He was upset with man kind.

Now God would need super natural powers to have caused the flood, which means He could have made it look as though there was no flood after it was over if He wanted, He could also have created mountains after the flood and made them look old, remember He has creative powers. Why would He have to make a mountain look new after He created it if He wanted it to look aged.

I know that is kind of a cop out of an argument, but I do not see how a person can win against it. But no mater what you say or prove, those who have faith will always be thinking it in the back of their minds. “I’m not sure how God did it but I know He did”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guys, (I say that inclusively to everyone, it is just a manor of speak here) I think we are taking this way to seriously. As I see it there is no way for either side to win this argument.

Christians and those believing in the Bible, is there anything that could be said to cause you to give up your faith? I think not. Even is someone was to prove there was no flood or the flood happened millions of years ago with irrefutable evidence; would that cause you to lose your faith? I hope not, I know I would not, we do not need science to keep our faith. We believe in God and the message He gives. The flood is just the history that He gave us, maybe it is just a story that we are to get a message from. I believe it to be true, but if God came down and told me it was just a story I would be OK with that also; the flood has no bearing on my faith.

Those who do not believe in the Bible, I will never call you stupid and hopefully do not insult you, I find your arguments thought out and intelligent. Even if some part of what has been said is proven false over time, what you have said has shown that you have thought them out, researched what you say and is not some crazy ramblings of a crazy person. (That I’m crazy could be said of me, as I have faith in something that you believe to be a fairy tail.) But how is this going to end? You prove with science the flood never happened, are we supposed to give up our faith because science says so?

In the OP this is said “My only assumption here will be that i[f] God exists he does not lie.” With that assumption we assume there is a God and He does not lie, since there is a God I feel the argument cannot be won. I kind of see the argument to be that if there was a flood, science has proven so many inconsistencies that God had to lie. Why? We are assuming God caused the flood, so if He was able to do that He has some supernatural power. If He did not have super natural powers He would not have been able to cause the flood. He would have had to wait for a natural event to cause the flood and then take credit that He caused it because He was upset with man kind.

Now God would need super natural powers to have caused the flood, which means He could have made it look as though there was no flood after it was over if He wanted, He could also have created mountains after the flood and made them look old, remember He has creative powers. Why would He have to make a mountain look new after He created it if He wanted it to look aged.

I know that is kind of a cop out of an argument, but I do not see how a person can win against it. But no mater what you say or prove, those who have faith will always be thinking it in the back of their minds. “I’m not sure how God did it but I know He did”.

The problem is that if you say that Genesis is accurate you are also claiming that God lied. Why would you say that?

 

[Misunderstood]

If Genesis is accurate it would not show God Lied. I know you do not believe in God and that science is what will tell us the past. With that belief you feel God had to lie if your evidence is true. But if God can do anything the flood could have happened the way the bible says and after the flood He could have changed it to look any way He wanted to get it ready for man kind again.

 

[Native]

I agree with those of you who reject "The Flood" as "once upon a time happened on the Earth". Still, such a story is told all over the world in numerous cultures as it is mentioned here:

The Flood Myth - Flood myth - Wikipedia
List of Flood Myths - List of flood myths - Wikipedia

- I am convinced that this story contains real knowledge and I´m also convinced that this ancient story is misconceived and distorted by later authors who failed to connect this myth to its correct celestial realms.

We humans describe the celestial imagery in our own images. If you observe a white vaulted structure in the nighttime stretching over the entire Sky, the only option is to find a similar structure on the Earth in order to describe the celestial image.

This is exactly what our ancestors did regarding the Milky Way figure. Among other earthly figures, several cultures found a geographic river/flood and named the Milky Way figure after this river, but as times went on, the celestial connection was forgotten and when later scholars read about this ancient story, they thought that this celestial river in fact once have covered the entire Earth.

The Milky Way River runs all around the Earth up in the Sky and not ON the Earth. Of course this Milky Way imagery was observed by all ancient cultures and this is why we have many cultural stories of this astronomical/cosmological imagery.

Ancient myths are IMO much more than hearsayings and mumbo jumbo. In many cases they contains real cosmological knowledge observed by humans who lived very much in contact with nature.

 

[nPeace]

He brings up facts that cast doubt on the physical possibility of the biblical narrative.
If I were to claim there was a family living next door to me, in a matchbox, with a pet elephant, I expect you'd come back with some well reasoned facts about known sizes of people and elephants vs matchboxes that would cast doubt on the possibility of my assertion being correct. This is what we're doing in this thread, is it not?

I don't find any facts in anything he presented.
Like I said he injected his own ideas into the narrative.

Where in the narrative does it say "every species".
Where in the narrative does it say "lions needed x amount of meat"? Did lions eat meat according to the Genesis account?

If one start off with their own ideas, and ignore what those who actually read the Bible tell them, they will present ridiculous arguments, simply 1) because they don't care what the Bible says - because I am sure he heard it said before, the Bible said "of every kind" - every kind of cat doesn't mean every species of cat; 2) because he holds to his belief that the animals existed millions of years ago, so Australia actually looked like it does today 4000 years ago.

Also, I did give information on why reasoning that animals lived in polar regions, is only based on their own ideas. It does not mean that those ideas are factual.

If done correctly, dating methods are reliable -- and they're consilient. The dates come from multiple sources.

The cities Gnostic cites aren't the only ones that apparently lived through the flood, all unawares, and there are also plants, corals, &al that evidently missed it, as well as undisturbed, pre-flood strata and fossils.
Lots of evidence militates against the flood story.

You are not saying that man has designed a perfect instrument, in which there is nothing that can cause its data to be inaccurate, are you?

 

[nPeace]

I'd cut nPeace some slack. He seems sincere, he seems honestly interested in what we're saying, his responses are polite and well considered. His persistence here despite considerable criticism is impressive.

Thank you. I greatly appreciate that coming from one I consider to be a gentleman on these forums... and I mean that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If Genesis is accurate it would not show God Lied. I know you do not believe in God and that science is what will tell us the past. With that belief you feel God had to lie if your evidence is true. But if God can do anything the flood could have happened the way the bible says and after the flood He could have changed it to look any way He wanted to get it ready for man kind again.

If a person does something and then plants false evidence to cover up his crime that is lying. The believers in the flood myth have in effect claimed that God is lying.

 

[nPeace]

Are you joking, nPeace?

First you give me some definitions on evidence, and then you talk of primary sources as such, and then you write this at the end:



Sorry, but neither the gospel of Matthew, nor Josephus in Antiquities, provide 1st-hand eyewitness accounts to the Flood, so as a literary evidences, not very reliable.

Second, although according to traditions, Moses have been attributed to being the author to the Genesis, but there are no evidences that ancient Hebrew writing existing in the late Bronze Age, which Moses supposedly lived (late 2nd millennium BCE).

But the fact, there are no literary texts in the Bronze Age, regarding to Flood or to Moses, it is highly unlikely that Moses wrote anything in Bronze Age, let alone existing to write the Genesis and Exodus.

The oldest writing of the Old Testament is a late 7th or early 6th century BCE fragments from scrolls found in Ketef Hinnom cave, near Jerusalem, that served as a tomb.

The scrolls are known today as the “Silver Scrolls” because the materials used is silver. It contained passage in Numbers 6, regarding to the Priestly Blessing.

There are nothing older than these scrolls.

But the oldest Hebrew writings, are the Gezer Calendar and Zayit Stone, written in 10th century BCE in Paleo-Hebrew (Old or ancient Hebrew). Neither inscriptions contain anything from the Old Testament.

No, you didn't put it in the proper perspective.
The event - the flood - is mentioned by the eyewitnesses and passed on in letter form - the texts written by Moses - the primary source.

Documents centuries later, and other physical evidence seen by others, is the secondary source, which verifies the primary source.
That's the evidence - whether weak or strong.

It's up to critics now to disprove the evidence. That's you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't find any facts in anything he presented.
Like I said he injected his own ideas into the narrative.

Really? You are that blind?

The proper action to take when you do not understand something is to ask questions politely. Instead you have been rude.

Where in the narrative does it say "every species".
Where in the narrative does it say "lions needed x amount of meat"? Did lions eat meat according to the Genesis account?

I see that you do not understand your own book of myths. It does not use the word species, it uses the word "kind". That is never defined, species is the closest word we have and since the myth says that it happened very recently, at least on an evolutionary time scale, species is the best translation. And lions, in case you forgot, are carnivores.

If one start off with their own ideas, and ignore what those who actually read the Bible tell them, they will present ridiculous arguments, simply 1) because they don't care what the Bible says - because I am sure he heard it said before, the Bible said "of every kind" - every kind of cat doesn't mean every species of cat; 2) because he holds to his belief that the animals existed millions of years ago, so Australia actually looked like it does today 4000 years ago.

You are projecting your flaws upon others. You are the one with mere beliefs. We have knowledge. We can explain how we know what we know.

Also, I did give information on why reasoning that animals lived in polar regions, is only based on their own ideas. It does not mean that those ideas are factual.

Where? I must have missed that.

You are not saying that man has designed a perfect instrument, in which there is nothing that can cause its data to be inaccurate, are you?

One does not need a perfect instrument. Why would you even make such a claim?