Originally posted by ckoh1965No that's not what I meant.
In fact that's exactly what God did! Somehow, He apparently made a mistake. He thought humans would worship him unconditionally. He thought humans would be good and obidient unconditionally. But he was wrong. Some humans were bad, in fact I dare say a fair number of humans were bad! They still are! So God flooded the whole world and started over again. That is if there's any truth in the story of the ark, of course.
Flooding the Earth, getting someone to build an Ark, saving selected individuals and species ... all of this is a bit much for a being who apparently is omnipotent and capable of anything.
Why go through the rigmarole of a flood?
Why not just start again - from scratch?
Of course, if you understand the historical basis behind the Ark story it starts to make a bit more sense, based as it was on regular floods in the Tigris and Euphrates region of the Middle East.
For the early biblical authors, this region was their 'world' so when it flooded, it was as if the whole world was under water. How do you explain this if you don't have a better understanding of climate, geography, hydrological cycles, etc?
Attribute it to a vengeful God.
Originally posted by amannionYes, I get you now. Wow... start from scratch, now that would be something! If God's making robots, maybe it's a viable option to start over. Otherwise he's gonna have to start over, and over and over. And things will always go wrong again and again and again.
No that's not what I meant.
Flooding the Earth, getting someone to build an Ark, saving selected individuals and species ... all of this is a bit much for a being who apparently is omnipotent and capable of anything.
Why go through the rigmarole of a flood?
Why not just start again - from scratch?
Of course, if you understand the historical basis behi ...[text shortened]... erstanding of climate, geography, hydrological cycles, etc?
Attribute it to a vengeful God.
Originally posted by ckoh1965So God isn't omniscient then?
In fact that's exactly what God did! Somehow, He apparently made a mistake. He thought humans would worship him unconditionally. He thought humans would be good and obidient unconditionally. But he was wrong. Some humans were bad, in fact I dare say a fair number of humans were bad! They still are! So God flooded the whole world and started over again. That is if there's any truth in the story of the ark, of course.
Originally posted by ckoh1965But for an omnipotent being surely starting over would be no hassle.
Yes, I get you now. Wow... start from scratch, now that would be something! If God's making robots, maybe it's a viable option to start over. Otherwise he's gonna have to start over, and over and over. And things will always go wrong again and again and again.
You could even speed up time to get to where you want to go in terms of development.
Maybe to avoid things going wrong God might be able to create a world without these pesky humans ... but oh wait! We're still here ...
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't know what to think, really. To be quite honest, as you can probably tell from the tone of my original post, I am not even convinced with the truth of this ark story in the first place. As I said, it defies logic!
So God isn't omniscient then?
But I was responding to the suggestion that God could have started over again. And I said that's what he did, IF that story about the ark was true.
So if this ark business is true, then it would suggest (in my opinion) that God made a mistake and that was his silly way of correcting it. And then maybe after that he realised that his creations were not so perfect after all. So many improvements could be done. And so instead of starting over from scratch again and again, he probably decided to do it through the process of evolution. I'm not saying that that's how it happened, just an idea of a possible explanation! I don't believe that that is the case though.
Originally posted by ckoh1965I just like pointing out from what theists say to me the logical incompatibilities of their "belief". For example, the presence of sufferring in the world is logical proof that God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. God being in any fallable shows he cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent.
I don't know what to think, really. To be quite honest, as you can probably tell from the tone of my original post, I am not even convinced with the truth of this ark story in the first place. As I said, it defies logic!
But I was responding to the suggestion that God could have started over again. And I said that's what he did, IF that story about the a ...[text shortened]... ened, just an idea of a possible explanation! I don't believe that that is the case though.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI fully agree with you on this. In fact, I pretty much argued on similay points to whodey above, although I was implying that God does not exist or he's dead! Here's a paragraph of his response:
I just like pointing out from what theists say to me the logical incompatibilities of their "belief". For example, the presence of sufferring in the world is logical proof that God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. God being in any fallable shows he cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent.
So tell me, was God dead when Adam was allowed to partake of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil? Was God dead when Cain was allowed slay his brother? Was God dead when his people were allowed to be held in bondage in Egypt for hundreds of years? Was God dead when his people were conquered and taken into captivity by such powers as the Assyrians and Babylonians? Was God dead when he allowed his own Son to die on a cross? I think many of us have uttered the same words of Christ as he was dying on the cross, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" and we continue to do so. You see your arguement is that because we suffer, (ie because there is sin in the world and we are allowed to sin), there must not be a God. Unfortunatly, both the sinner and the innocent are effected in much the same way. Did Christ deserve his fate? He too was innocent but suffered because of others sin. Sin is simply a destructive and nondiscriminating force.
Originally posted by ckoh1965Here's where Occam's Razor can be usefully applied:
I don't know what to think, really. To be quite honest, as you can probably tell from the tone of my original post, I am not even convinced with the truth of this ark story in the first place. As I said, it defies logic!
But I was responding to the suggestion that God could have started over again. And I said that's what he did, IF that story about the a ...[text shortened]... ened, just an idea of a possible explanation! I don't believe that that is the case though.
I have this Ark story and two possible interpretations of it.
1. It's true and all of the inconsistencies and inaccuracies and bizarre events need to be accounted for (as some people have demonstrated on this thread.)
2. It's a myth that is based on some historical events - floods in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys - used to make meaning from and sense of local events some thousands of years ago.
I'll go with 2. It's simpler.
Originally posted by amannionI am also inclined to believe that the second explanation is the correct one. But in doing so, I am also indirectly saying that the bible is inaccurate. And this is something what people like whodey would disagree on the spot!
Here's where Occam's Razor can be usefully applied:
I have this Ark story and two possible interpretations of it.
1. It's true and all of the inconsistencies and inaccuracies and bizarre events need to be accounted for (as some people have demonstrated on this thread.)
2. It's a myth that is based on some historical events - floods in the Tigris an ...[text shortened]... om and sense of local events some thousands of years ago.
I'll go with 2. It's simpler.
The bible is sending the message that everybody died in the flood, except for Noah and his immediate family members. But according to your second explanation, if the rest of the world was not flooded, then it follows that there must have been a lot of survivors there. The bible says we are all descendents of Noah's family, but that can't be true in the light of your second explanation for the ark account?
Originally posted by ckoh1965Ah but that assumes that the Bible is an accurate and historical account.
I am also inclined to believe that the second explanation is the correct one. But in doing so, I am also indirectly saying that the bible is inaccurate. And this is something what people like whodey would disagree on the spot!
The bible is sending the message that everybody died in the flood, except for Noah and his immediate family members. But accordin ...[text shortened]... 's family, but that can't be true in the light of your second explanation for the ark account?
Certainly some of the individual books it contains were written in this way, but the overwhelming majority were not.
Most were written as interpretations of events rather than accounts of events. You might think of them as the 'blogs' of their times rather than the news stories.
They were written to make meaning of events rather than accurately describe events.
This makes no sense to a modern interpretation which is why we have threads such as this. 'Either it's true or else the whole thing is rubbish!'
It needn't be such an either or.
We can read the biblical stories for the messages they contain and for what lies behind the text rather than for their clearly inconsistent and inaccurate reality.
Originally posted by ckoh1965If you want to claim that the Bible is accurate in its account of the Flood first you'll have to address every contradiction and anomoly in the story.
I am also inclined to believe that the second explanation is the correct one. But in doing so, I am also indirectly saying that the bible is inaccurate. And this is something what people like whodey would disagree on the spot!
The bible is sending the message that everybody died in the flood, except for Noah and his immediate family members. But accordin ...[text shortened]... 's family, but that can't be true in the light of your second explanation for the ark account?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/6.html
Originally posted by ckoh1965Mitochondrial DNA alone shows the idea that the entire human population decended from 2 people less than 6,000 years ago to be rubbish.
I am also inclined to believe that the second explanation is the correct one. But in doing so, I am also indirectly saying that the bible is inaccurate. And this is something what people like whodey would disagree on the spot!
The bible is sending the message that everybody died in the flood, except for Noah and his immediate family members. But accordin ...[text shortened]... 's family, but that can't be true in the light of your second explanation for the ark account?
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut this is hardly likely to convince die hard biblical literalists now is it?
Mitochondrial DNA alone shows the idea that the entire human population decended from 2 people less than 6,000 years ago to be rubbish.
It assumes that:
1. one knows what the hell mitochondrial DNA is
2. one agrees with evolutionary interpretations of said DNA
I'd question both of these, if I was a literalist.
I think the better way to attack these clear misreadings of the Bible is to examine the reality of the worlds that the bible stories were created in, and the one we find ourselves in now.
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergMy whole point to trying to get you to evaluate human worth is to assess what makes us different from the animals. If you say we are mere animals, you make us equal to animals. This is simply not the case. You must believe the same way since you eat them. If we are then above the animals, we are then extraordinary. I dare say this to be miraculous in and of itself and I don't equate such superiority with intellect alone. I suppose you could credit evolution with for this superiority, but why do human beings only seem to be in this category?
This commonality doesn't really effect me...I find my existance as a human more preferable than I imagine I would as a wilderbeast but less preferable than being a wealthy, healthy genius musing, I have to make the best of what I have...as do dogs, cat is particular argument I wonder?..how does it tie in with miracles or Noah's flood?