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

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I've spent a lot of time at skeptics annotated bible. I'm pretty sure I grasp the category. I also understand the term "arguendo".

Do you understand the term "disingenuous"?
...as in, engaging in a debate about the plausibility of the Noachian Flood and then...

...oh well your God doesn't even exist so I win

Disingenuous is stating that you will defend the Noachian flood to all and then saying that you have to accept all statements as to the magical powers of the supernatural character to an audience that a priori does not accept the supernatural.

 

[Speedwell]

There is evidence. The flood was documented in the historical document you call The Bible.

What evidence have you offered us that Genesis is an historical document?

There is also extra-biblical corroboration of an ancient deluge of epic proportions in the oral traditions of almost every other culture on earth.

Yes, floods happen. And?

 

[SelfSim]

No it doesn't.
In debating terms, its a non-sequitur.

References (from the Bible) please?

Your difficulty with the Triune nature of God doesn't compel disbelief in the Flood any more than my struggle with the concept of infinite regress means that Transubstantiation is true.

Is not my problem .. its an internal inconsistency, sourced from the Bible, which undermines its own espoused concept of 'Truth'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes 'we' do.
You might not. But you don't get to tell me and hundreds of billions of your fellow humans that they DIDNT experience divinity.

First, there are only about 7-8 Billion humans around, and of those 5-7 billion claim to believe in a god (discounting for non-believers and small children). I used to be one of them and I never experienced "divinity", so the number of "divinity experiencers" is certainly lower.

 

[Lion IRC]

First, there are only about 7-8 Billion humans around, and of those 5-7 billion claim to believe in a god (discounting for non-believers and small children).

The number of theists who have ever lived is in the Hundreds of Billions.

 

[Lion IRC]

What evidence have you offered us that Genesis is an historical document? ...

There was a time BEFORE the bible was written when someone thought the flood happened. Evidence PRIOR to the bible. The bible meets the definition of a historical record insofar as it is in writing, and insofar as it purports by assertion, to show what happened to real human beings.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The number of theists who have ever lived is in the Hundreds of Billions.

The estimates we can find are about 108 billion total humans in history. Many of them would be animists and ancestor worshipers. I wouldn't quite call them "theists". Even so, for those that claim to have had a divine experience, is that evidence that the divine exists. Particularly given the variety of divinities they have experienced. But let us proceed to more of this text we are "skeptical" of...

 

[Lion IRC]

References (from the Bible) please?

No. Sorry.
Im not debating the Trinity with you.
If you think [insert abstract theological conundrum here] is a defeater of Noah's ability to construct an ark, fill it with animals, remain afloat for the duration of the flood and survive to repopulate the Earth, I simply cannot agree with your logic.

 

[Lion IRC]

Disingenuous is stating that you will defend the Noachian flood to all and then saying that you have to accept all statements as to the magical powers of the supernatural character to an audience that a priori does not accept the supernatural.

I dont say bible skeptics "have to accept" the existence of a supernatural entity.
I start out with the assumption that they don't/won't.

If your principal objection to the Noachian Flood is that..."there's no God, (premiss) therefore no Flood (conclusion)" just say so.

I would agree with you that IF God didn't do the supernatural heavy lifting, then the Noachian Flood is a non-starter. But that's precisely why I say Flood debates end in tears for bible skeptics.

You literally can win your argument because it depends on you showing either that God doesn't exist. Or that God isn't able.

Do you assert either of those propositions?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would agree with you that IF God didn't do the supernatural heavy lifting, then the Noachian Flood is a non-starter. But that's precisely why I say Flood debates end in tears for bible skeptics

THe "friend" of your title (and in this thread) is the only other person I've seen proud of being indexed on that site.

 

[Speedwell]

There was a time BEFORE the bible was written when someone thought the flood happened. Evidence PRIOR to the bible. The bible meets the definition of a historical record insofar as it is in writing, and insofar as it purports by assertion, to show what happened to real human beings.

By that criterion, so is Huckleberry Finn. There was a time before it was written that someone thought that rivers existed and people floated down them on rafts. The story purports by assertion to show what happened to real human beings--just like any other work of historical fiction.

 

[Lion IRC]

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed.
I expected more scientism and less theology as the counter-apologetic line of argument against the biblical flood account.

Where is the argument from salinity and the ability of fresh water fish to survive?
Thermohaline circulation. Plate tectonics. Hydrological cycles. Speciation. Animals hibernating in the ark. Olive branches....

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed.
I expected more scientism and less theology as the counter-apologetic line of argument against the biblical flood account.

Where is the argument from salinity and the ability of fresh water fish to survive?
Thermohaline circulation. Plate tectonics. Hydrological cycles. Speciation. Animals hibernating in the ark. Olive branches....

You wanted to discuss the text and tie specific criticism to specific verses. Are you complaining that you mostly got what you asked for?

Do you have any more text, or are you done?

 

[Lion IRC]

The average depth of water below current sea level versus the average height of land above current sea level makes it a simple mathematical reality that there is more than enough water to flood the entire planet.
The average depth of the ocean is around 3,000 to 4,000 metres.
The average height of land above sea level is about 840 metres.
The ocean covers about 2/3 of the earths surface.
You do the maths.

 

[Speedwell]

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed.
I expected more scientism and less theology as the counter-apologetic line of argument against the biblical flood account.

Where is the argument from salinity and the ability of fresh water fish to survive?
Thermohaline circulation. Plate tectonics. Hydrological cycles. Speciation. Animals hibernating in the ark. Olive branches....

There's no point. All you've got is a story in an old book. Any scientific critique of its plausibility can be countered by invoking supernatural intervention.

 

[Lion IRC]

You wanted to discuss the text and tie specific criticism to specific verses. Are you complaining that you mostly got what you asked for?

Do you have any more text, or are you done?

The purpose of the thread was to provide bible skeptics an opportunity to present their objections to the biblical account.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The average depth of water below current sea level versus the average height of land above current sea level makes it a simple mathematical reality that there is more than enough water to flood the entire planet.
The average depth of the ocean is around 3,000 to 4,000 metres.
The average height of land above sea level is about 840 metres.
The ocean covers about 2/3 of the earths surface.
You do the maths.

Did I miss the verse this is described in? I might have gotten distracted at the repetition in the Noah story and skipped it in error.

 

[Astrophile]

The (fairly ignorant and easily falsified,) claim that tsunamis have a maximum height of 30 metres doesn't even put a dent in Genesis 6.

A tsunami could progressively swamp mountains on one side of the globe, then move on to swamp mountains on the opposite side of the globe. Thus, ALL the mountains were covered.

First, except for megatsunami restricted to confined bodies of water (e.g. Lituya Bay and Icy Bay), can you cite any tsunami that was significantly higher than 30 metres?

Second, are you still saying that the flood included tsunami that were high enough to swamp mountains, that a single tsunami could swamp mountains on opposite sides of the globe, and that they were much higher than the familiar tsunami produced by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and gravity slides of sea-bed sediments? If so, where does Genesis 6 describe these tsunami?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.)

Hmmm. doesn't seem like these current fact - counter facts are needed...

 

[SelfSim]

The purpose of the thread was to provide bible skeptics an opportunity to present their objections to the biblical account.

Which isn't the purpose of this forum.