what if it is Noah's Ark

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Now you're pulling a Gordon Gekko. His logic is often: "God does not do things the way I would do them, therefore He does not exist." Well, I cannot possibly argue that because I don't doubt that you would do things differently.

I can only argue from the facts and that is that the Genesis Flood story is scientifically reasonable, that there was a Mesopotamian Flood at the approximate time and there are Flood accounts in the majority of cultures around the globe.

And there are many explanations for why God allowed Noah to take 100 years to build the ark, etc., but I don't see the point in debating it.
More...
I suggest you try and read properly what is posted, instead of running up the wrong tree every two seconds.

This is YOUR logic... not GG's nor mine.

"Could God do such a thing? Well, of course. Being a theist, I believe anything is possible for God. But why believe in that when such a spectacular requirement is not even needed?"

Your words. So I ask you yet again.... why believe in a bible, when such spectacular requirements within it are not even needed ???

The spectacular Ark and flood, plus the myriad of other spectacular stuff...not needed.
This is the argument YOU have made .....Why believe in a God whose spectacular actions are not needed.

The answer is I think, you don't. You write your own words and meanings into the bible in an attempt to manipulate your way around its nonsense. All I have seen you do is create yet more nonsense in trying to create your own alternative bible.


I can only argue from the facts and that is that the Genesis Flood story is scientifically reasonable, that there was a Mesopotamian Flood at the approximate time and there are Flood accounts in the majority of cultures around the globe.

The facts are that the Genesis flood is not reasonable. It is the absurdity of it which brings it nowhere near scientifically reasonable. It is simply, not reasonable.

And there are many explanations for why God allowed Noah to take 100 years to build the ark, etc., but I don't see the point in debating it.

Me neither. It is just as absurd as the rest of it.
 
Quote from aphexcoil:

Who are you to decide how god should or should not act?
More...
In your hurry to jump into an emotional defence of the religious apologists, you apparently were unable to read what I posted.

Just how does the word could which I wrote, get replaced with the word should in your reading of it ??


Any God worth its salt could make itself clear in half a dozen words and one action....is not, by any reasonable stretch of imagination, my decision on how any God should or should not act.

I could only approve of any God - which had given me the reasoning to question, scrutinize and examine my approval of it - as being worth its salt, if it expected me and was pleased for me to do so.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

Faith has no legitimacy from your perspective, nor perhaps the perspective of material science, yet that doesn't mean that is has no legitimacy.

You are hardly the ultimate authority on what is or is not legitimate when it comes to human experience.

Were we computers, bound by only the digital processing of linear and relativistic logic, I would agree with your conclusion.

However, we are more than computers with more than limited senses and relativistic intellect at our disposal.

You have made so many references in the past to validation on the basis of scientific "fact" as to make your present denial of science validating anything quite Kerryesque.
More...
Faith has no legitimacy from your perspective, nor perhaps the perspective of material science, yet that doesn't mean that is has no legitimacy.

Yes it does, until you can show how faith has its own legitimacy of itself, without the need to use evidence (of which none is yet forthcoming) to show its legitimacy.

You are hardly the ultimate authority on what is or is not legitimate when it comes to human experience.

Then neither are you

Were we computers, bound by only the digital processing of linear and relativistic logic, I would agree with your conclusion.

By your own remarks, you are not the ultimate authority (not any other form of authority from what I have seen) to make that conclusion about human experience.

However, we are more than computers with more than limited senses and relativistic intellect at our disposal.

You have yet to show how that statement is a legitimate one.

You have made so many references in the past to validation on the basis of scientific "fact" as to make your present denial of science validating anything quite Kerryesque.

I swear, you get more strange each time :D :D
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

This is the vanity of the atheist, that they denounce the existence of God, and at the same time have a faith of how God should, could, or would act.

How absurd that they would claim to know more about how God should act than God Himself, given that God is understood to be an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Eternal Personality.

Given it is by the limits of their intellect that they evaluate and judge God, is it any wonder that they never find Him?
More...
Who suggested anyone had faith in how (any) God should, could, or would act?? Only you it seems.

How absurd that they would claim to know more about how God should act than God Himself, given that God is understood to be an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Eternal Personality.

Then how absurd it is that anyone would claim to know about how God is ONLY... understood to be an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Eternal Personality,... and therefore s/he might not be !?!?

Given it is by the limits of their intellect that they evaluate and judge God, is it any wonder that they never find Him?

You evaluate and judge God as ONLY understood to be an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Eternal Personality, by the limits of your intellect . By that then you will have difficulty finding a light switch, will you not?

Not much progress there then.
 
rid yourself of the obvious C-R-A-P that is religion and start using your head....

noah-ark.jpg
 
Quote from Gordon Gekko:

rid yourself of the obvious C-R-A-P that is religion and start using your head....

noah-ark.jpg
More...
Come on, GG, religion is needed... especially by God!
 
the writers of the bible were too stupid to realize that the omnipotent being they concocted wouldn't even need a boat. you can tell they thought like a human as they made it up. they were probably like, "hmm how do we save the animals?" "put them on a boat!" because that's what a human might think at first. a creator of the universe OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT NEED TO FIDDLE AROUND WITH BOATS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TASK!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET A CLUE, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top