Noachian Flood discussion - Bible skeptics vs Lion IRC and friends :)

[SelfSim]

Then this will really confuse you.

Confucius says have no friends not equal to yourself. Jesus says love your enemy.

So you then attempt to exclude participants other than those on your OP list? .. As well as the objective science they cite?

 

[Lion IRC]

So I'd like to keep my discussion to the topic of whether the Flood actually happened in reality.

You mean the Noachian Flood right?
The one described in in the bible.

 

[Lion IRC]

So you then attempt to exclude participants other than those on your OP list? .. As well as the objective science they cite?

No not at all. All are welcome and I love science,
My point was that whatever argument you bring based on apparent scientific evidence should be brought to bear upon the actual text itself. Not some paraphrased version of what you think the text means/implies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who are they?

Good one!

 

[Lion IRC]

I disagree with the claim that we must provide a passage number that a particular bit of science is refuting. There is much that happens when a large volume of water is let loose that is not described in the Bible. To say that any scientific point needs to refute a particular passage would render any discussion about such things not permitted, which I think is unfair.

Im just trying to save you the heartache (and tears) of asserting that scientific 'fact' xyz refutes something not referred to in the text.

You can throw in everything including the kitchen sink but I'm only defending what the bible actually states.

 

[Bradskii]

Also, I'd be happy to assume that God can perform miracles, but that leads to a whole bunch of other problems. If God can do miracles, why couldn't he just save all the animals miraculously instead of by having them travel to the middle east so they could get on the ark? For some, such as sloths and kangaroos, the journey would have been extremely impractical, if not impossible. And why didn't he just miraculously blink out all the people who displeased him instead of sending the flood to drown them (which is a particularly horrible way to die, from what I've heard). ever occurring.

I learned a long time ago not to get involved with flood threads. If you start with the premise that God is omnipotent...well, I could defend the flood account myself.

I generally make a statement, ask one question and leave it at that:

God is meant to have drowned every living thing. All humans. All men and women. All children. All babes in arms. All women who were actually pregnant at the time. And it must have included women who were in the process of actually giving birth. All perishing in abject terror.

Is that the omnipotent God in which you want me to believe?

 

[Lion IRC]

I'll start my discussion with you by asking if there is any real-world evidence that points to a worldwide flood ever occurring.

Yes, the historical document which quite recently came to be known as "The Bible".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, the historical document which quite recently came to be known as "The Bible".

The bible is the claim not the evidence.

 

[Lion IRC]

I learned a long time ago not to get involved with flood threads. If you start with the premise that God is omnipotent...well, I could defend the flood account myself.

Now ^THIS^ is a rational skeptic.
That's why I said to @Kylie ...you don't really wanna debate the Flood with me. You literally cannot win that argument.

I generally make a statement, ask one question and leave it at that:

God is meant to have drowned every living thing. All humans. All men and women. All children. All babes in arms. All women who were actually pregnant at the time. And it must have included women who were in the process of actually giving birth. All perishing in abject terror.

Is that the omnipotent God in which you want me to believe?

Yes. And thankyou for bringing up the real elephant in the room.
Biblical theist defenders of the Flood account should not be squeamish. We shouldn't give a hall pass to the skepic's myth hypothesis simply because it saves us having to deal with the inconvenient fact that people were drowned in their hundreds, thousands, millions...by God.

If you don't think the end justified the means, don't even bother trying to defend biblical [mortality] morality.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Please note that (in this thread) I'm only offering a defense of what the bible actually says about Noah and The Flood. It's not necessary for me refute claims based on what the bible doesn't say - arguments from silence. (Eg. The bible doesn't assert that all mountain tops were all simultaneously completely covered with water. Neither does it assert that the height of Mt Everest and the depth of the Marianas Trench were the same back then as they are today.)

I think you need to tell us what you consider the bible actually says. Genesis 7:20 "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." What do you consider this means?

 

[Lion IRC]

The bible is the claim not the evidence.

Yes, I know that's what you think.
I can say the same about a scientist who claims Pluto is a planet, or that thalidomide is safe. They claim to have seen something in a microscope, telescope, etc. Do I believe them?

Im here to defend what the bible presents as a factum historicum. If you disbelieve what is written, you can present counter factuals irrespective of whether you refer to the bible as a "claim" or "evidence". Your response doesnt depend on the semantics of claim vs evidence.

A witness in court gives evidence in the form of claims.

 

[Lion IRC]

the mountains were covered." What do you consider this means?

Welcome Bungle_Bear

I think it means what it says.
Is there a point of contention that I'm missing?
Does mountain mean something other than what I presume you and I agree is its plain meaning?

I certainly don't engage in word games where mountain, in the bible, really means mole hill.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think you need to tell us what you consider the bible actually says. Genesis 7:20 "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." What do you consider this means?

Biblical water is very viscous?

 

[Lion IRC]

No.
I dont want to rely on those sort of word games either.
I dont need to.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No.
I dont want to rely on those sort of word games either.
I dont need to.

I'm sorry for trying to find an alternative explanation from "the water rose to the height of the highest mountain" to having a viscous smear of water clinging to all the mountains.

If all we can discuss is the text, then all you will get is word games.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Saying I prefer no micro aggressions is my way of inviting them



Then this will really confuse you.

Confucius says have no friends not equal to yourself. Jesus says love your enemy.

wow.

lovely day

 

[Lion IRC]

Hey? That's you!!!


Oops. ##needs an expletives warning##

 

[Kylie]

You mean the Noachian Flood right?
The one described in in the bible.

Are you suggesting that the flood described in the Bible didn't actually happen and is just a story?

 

[Kylie]

Im just trying to save you the heartache (and tears) of asserting that scientific 'fact' xyz refutes something not referred to in the text.

You can throw in everything including the kitchen sink but I'm only defending what the bible actually states.

So when I present a scientific fact that shows that some sign that is caused by a large volume of water does not exist and thus disproves the flood, you'll just turn around and say, "But the Bible never says that happened, so your fact is meaningless."

That doesn't change the fact that if there was a flood, there would have been a large volume of water which would have left that particular trace which we can demonstrate does not exist, and yet you've left yourself a convenient "out" to avoid discussing it.

 

[Kylie]

I learned a long time ago not to get involved with flood threads. If you start with the premise that God is omnipotent...well, I could defend the flood account myself.

Of course, it also leads to a whole lot of scrambling to explain why God didn't just snap his fingers and blink out all the bits he didn't like, thus avoiding the need for a flood and ark and worldwide mass migration of animals in the first place.