That’s a marvelous idea Lamar, a debate based on the area of your greatest expertise-passing gas!!
Moderator’s Note: Let’s not turn this into a scatological insult-flinging contest, m’kay? We may be descended from monkeys, but that doesn’t mean we have to act like them.
That’s irrelevant. Despite providing a premise, you still haven’t provided a debate. I can provide any number of premises (The Battle of Gettysburg, Red Dye #5, James Tiberius Kirk, Beans in Chili, etc.). But without an actual position or argument, the debate is non-existent.
Most of the people who have posted in this thread will most likely support an anti-literal reading of the Bible position. But the reason we’re poking holes in your posts is because they’re mostly incoherent and substanceless. Like **xtisme ** said, just come right out and make your argument. Until then, BOTH sides of the argument are going to be against you.
Not at all. Sure, God could do it: He could create a sweeeeeet extradimensional space into which the animals were herded, could provide a crew of robotic wranglers to give the animals all the exercise they needed, and could enact the Miracle of Pooplessness to prevent the Ark from becoming a floating cistern. No arguments about that.
The thing is, though, none of that was mentioned in the Bible. Those robots would’ve been kinda noticeable, don’tcha think? The Miracle of Pooplessness would’ve been recorded for, uh, posterity, right? But they don’t appear.
So we’ve got a few options at this point:
- The Bible’s accounting of the event left out so many important details that we must consider it inaccurate; or
- The Bible’s accounting of the event was mythic rather than factual; because it wasn’t based on reality, none of these logistical concerns occurred to anyone.
As an aside, ook.
Daniel
Left Hand of Dorkness said:
Ok…I assume that that is just being clever. Nonetheless, my point remains. If you (or anyone) is willing to accept the potential God exists, with all of the attendant powers that come with the job, one must accept that pulling off the Ark must have been a fairly simple task in relation to creating the solar system, galaxies, or creating life. (human and otherwise) (or the myriad of other things that God, if he exists, would have been required to figure out)
And even if one would not accept the existence (or rather the potential) of God, empirical evidence to support his non-existence doesn’t exist (within the human experience) so one would have to at least concede that he might exist, no matter how unlikely.
In the end, maybe the account is true. Maybe not. Either way, it is laughable to use “engineering” (as a catch all phrase to identify all of the logistical issues Noah would have faced) to refute the account. Who are you to say that God couldn’t have done it?
Have we gone from, “It’s impossible for logistical reasons”, to, “Ok, maybe God could have pulled it off, but we must still conclude that it is a fable because he didn’t list in detail just **how **he did it?”
The account is rich in some details. If God did indeed perform the act, he revealed what he wanted us to know, or what he considered pertinent or necessary. To say that you don’t know how he could have done it (while implicitly acknowledging I guess he could have…) but it’s still not acceptable because he didn’t share all of the details is as presumptuous as the previous statements.
We don’t have those options. Those are your options, based on your own logic and reasoning. Isn’t that correct?
I don’t even know where to begin with statement 1. Why must it be that, by definition, the account is innacurate because the author left out some details by either intent or accident? And, what are the details-----not just the details but how they are germaine to the thrust of the account and it’s message?
Give me some other options, and I’ll consider them; but these are the only ones I can think of. If the author left out crucial details by intent, then the author intended to deceive us, in which case His credibility is shot; if the author left them out by accident, then He’s an incompetent narrator, in which case both His credibility and His omnipotence are shot.
There is the option, of coures, that His method for handling these logistical problems was not noteworthy; however, that’s more of a stretch even than positing His existence. It’s worth metnioning that he gave Moses a full moon, but it’s not worth mentioning how he managed to feed all the animals on the ark? Nah, I’m not buying it.
The simpler explanation by far is that the story is fictional. That doesn’t deny the existence of an all-powerful being; that just denies that this story is an accurate representation of one of His murderous capers.
Daniel
In order:
- Lee’s fault.
- Ban It.
- Jean Luc Picard
- That’s blasphemy!
God revealed nothing of the sort - the author did any revealing, and that author was not God (indeed, it would seem silly to even claim that God “inspired” the tale, since inspiration surely would have been unnecessary had the event happened as described - why would God choose to inspire someone to put pen to paper who was several generations removed from the event, rather than those who had a front-row seat, so to speak, and thus could better recount God’s hand in the proceedings?).
Of course one can very well argue that God can do anything. Unfortunately, such an argument nets us absolutely nothing in terms of understanding either the world around us, or God. To say that God could have “engineered” the Ark so as to circumvent any of the real-life engineering and logistical problems is to raise the question, well why bother with the whole flood and ark thing in the first place? Just zap dead everyone but Noah and kin and 2 of every animal (except for the domesticated ones), and be done with it.
Either God is knowable, or He is not. If He is knowable, then asking “why” or “how” is entirely valid - why did God choose the Flood? How did God deal with the obvious problems presented by such a choice? And so on. And a better answer than, “He can do anything!” is warranted, I think.
And if He is not knowable, then you’ve got a whole 'nother kettle of worms. “God works in mysterious ways” is a two-edged sword; an inscrutable God must (or should, at the very least) necessarily raise doubt as to true intentions.
Damn. —drops handful of poo—
Slight hijack–I heard a lecture several years ago in which the prof talked about the story of Noah’s Ark having been found written on stone or clay or something in a village of a civilization (was it Sumerian…?) that waaaaaaay pre-dated the time the story was supposed to have happened. Which would have interesting implications with regards to the real origins of the tale, the folklore/mythology involved, how such a thing made it into the Bible, etc. Anybody know anything about this?
Flood myths are common to most of the world’s primitive cultures. It’s understandable. In times of poorer communication and limited education, if everything you can see is flooded, it is logical to believe that the whole world is, too.
Boy, there sure are a lot of them…thanks, Musicat.
I think it was the Sumerians that I heard about in that lecture. The basic story there is very similar to Noah’s Ark. For that matter, so are just about all of the stories from the “Near East,” as well as (so far as I can tell from some skimming) a bunch from Asia, and even North America–dude builds boat, brings animals, often told to do so by a god figure. Eeenteresting.
I saw a special on the Discovery Channel (I think) where Ballard (the guy that found the Titanic) went in search of evidence of a general flood that might have spawned the myth. I think it was in the black sea…some kind of ice dam that burst and flooded the entire area. I don’t remember if he ever did find evidence that people lived in the pre-flooded area (its now at the bottom of the sea of course) or not…its been quite a while since I saw the show.
-XT
It may not be quite that simple.
As Musicat says, the existence of flood myths is really not that surprising. It is therefore not at all obvious that the Noah story need have been inspired by any specific real-life flood.
One of my favourite animes, Spriggan (based on Hiroshi Takashige’s stories of Yuu Ominae, an “immortal man”), has a really neat plot based on a premise like this.
Archaeologists have discovered Noah’s Ark in pristine condition, embedded in a mountain in the Middle East, but while it appears to be made of gopherwood, it’s impervious to any attempts to gain entry.
When terrorists threaten to take over the site and raid the secret of Noah’s Ark for their own purposes, Yuu and his cohorts are enlisted to guard it and protect the scientests from attack.
One particularly brilliant band of terrorists manages to penetrate the ship’s hull, and…
[spoiler]It turns out that Noah’s Ark is a super-advanced weather-control device. It didn’t just survive the Noachian Deluge - it caused it!
An unknowable science wraps the vessel in a sort of stasis. The hull is indeed made of gopherwood, but is held in a state of timelessness that renders it invulnerable to external mechanics. The inside of the ship enjoys a similar effect such that conditions inside are much like they were when it came to rest thousands of years ago.
The craft is much larger on the inside than it is on the outside (TARDIS, anyone?), allowing for an impossible carrying capacity. In one particulary memorable scene, Yuu and his friend Jean come across a huge “stable” filled with the corpses of the dinosaurs who apparently “didn’t make it.”[/spoiler]
While I’m the kind of guy who doesn’t take to Von Daniken-esque quackery kindly, it does tend to provide a neat backstory to completely fanciful sci-fi features … <cough>Aliens vs. Predator <cough>