JCC God Exists.

Yeah, there have been over 3000 gods worshiped by various cultures since the beginning of recorded history. When you understand why you reject all those other possible gods, then you'll understand why I reject the one you happen to worship.

This is also why Pascal's Wager is a flawed concept, because it doesn't take into account the possibility of multiple gods.

 

You're just saying it's improbable. Really, you're just saying it would be really difficult for it to happen, and that it hasn't happened, otherwise... that's not a good argument by itself. But, even if it is, if you factor in the existence of God, all things are possible. Even if there wasn't enough water on the earth, He could create it and then get rid of it. You see what I'm saying? It's like, in order for God to make sense, He must make sense in a world without God, but that's putting human limitations on a being that is infinite in all ways. The flood would be considered a miracle. If God exists, miracles are possible. But anyways, let's look at the second part of your comment. I'm getting this from a site I will cite. I would post the stuff it has to say about the rainfall (and other civilizations including flood legends is good support, but I'm not sure of their sources, so I won't, but you can look for yourself at the bottom), but I'm just going to stick to the stuff we don't need sources for: math. Here ya go:

"The volume of the ark would be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high. This equals 1,518,750 cubic feet and is comparable to 569 modern railroad boxcars. Therefore each boxcar, by comparison, would be 1,518,750 divided by 569, or 2,669 cubic feet of space. The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat. But, just to keep it safe let's consider the average size of an animal to be a sheep. The average double deck stock car holds 240 sheep. The Ark capacity would be about 569 x 240 equaling 136,560 animals of that size. However, that still is not accurate for our needs. Since most birds, reptiles, and amphibians are much smaller, let's double the boxcar capacity for them. Therefore, the boxcars could each hold 480 different kinds of birds, reptiles, amphibians.

Noah had to take two or seven of every kind of animal on the earth. Though it is not really known exactly what is meant by a biblical kind, it is generally considered to be animals that are fertile within their own groups. Any dog can breed with any dog, therefore, dogs are one kind. It would only be necessary to bring representatives of each kind since the parents could produce offspring that would carry the genetic information for all variations within their kind.

• Classification . . . . Number of Species . . . . Number of Kinds on the Ark
• Mammals . . . . . . . . .3,700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,700 (a few live in water).
• Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,200 (seven pairs according to Gen. 7:3)
• Reptiles. . . . . . . . . . .6,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,300
• Amphibians. . . . . . . .2,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500
• Fishes. . . . . . . . . . . .20,600. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero
• Other marine life . . . 192,605. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero
• Insects . . . . . . . . . . . 850,000 . . . (Since insects are very small, and a great many could be stored in a small area, calculation would be difficult.)
• Total . . . . . . . . . . . .1,072,305 . . . . . . . . . . . . .72,700

The total number of mammals would be 3,700 times two pair which equals 7,400 animals. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.

Since Gen. 7:3 says to take seven pairs of every bird then the total for birds would be 8,600 times two pair times 7 or 120,400 animals. 120,400 x 480 = 250 boxcars. The reptiles and amphibians would be 6,300 plus 2,500 or 8,800. 8,800 times two pair equals 17,600 animals. 17,600 divided by 480 = 37 boxcars.

The total number of boxcars used would be 318 with a total number of animals at 145,400. There would be 251 boxcars left over. That means that only 56% of the ark would be used for storing the animals. Obviously, then, the rest of the space would be used for food for the people and animals and sleeping quarters. In addition, considering that insects are extremely small, it is easily conceivable that they could be housed in part of the remaining space.

It should also be considered that many animals can hibernate. Additionally, predators and prey have been known to live peacefully together during situations of stress like fire, flood, or earthquake. In the Ark, animal behavior probably would have been different from normal daily life. Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.

Though this is only a brief analysis, it should present enough evidence that the Ark account is certainly within the realm of possibility."

http://carm.org/could-noahs-ark-hold-all-animals

 

The problem with that is much of the Bible is told as history. Specific timetables and genealogies are used, which is highly important to the over-arching story of the Bible from Genesis to the Gospel, in showing how God is faithful to his promises, and how he uses everything, even the bad stuff, together for good for those that love and serve Him. Even how he fulfilled his promise of all of the world being saved through the Jewish people, and Abraham being made into many nations. But back to your point, it simply isn't presented that way. It does include many literary styles throughout its many books, but the stuff you're talking about it often clearly literal and historical (or supposed to be presented that way). Once again, this is demonstrated in things like the dimensions of the Ark. It wasn't a "really big boat" it was a specific size. Noah didn't work on it "for a really long time," he worked on it for 120 years. And the length of life being shortened over time isn't an accident, either. You see it slowly shortening as man moves further from the events of the fall.

Also, there is evidence dug up for much of the events in the OT all the time. Jericho is a huge instance of this. The archaeology has so strongly supported the Biblical testimony, to my knowledge, is very nearly, if not completely, undeniable that that event occurred.

edit: oops- double post. Meant to copy/paste/edit into one above. Sorry, guys. :/

 

Well, he could exist but there are no proofs, while it cant be confirmed, i would say no, anyway, its good to believe in something. Please, if you have any objection or any proof (dont think you do) post it.

 

Trolls trolling trolls.

 

That has to be the worst use of math to cram animals into a small space to satisfy a need I have ever seen.

 

Well here's the stuff about Jericho. It's very long, but essentially it boils down to this:

The things that line up with the Bible:
• The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20).
• The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10).
• The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1).
• The siege was short (Joshua 6:15).
• The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20).
• The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18).
• The city was burned (Joshua 6:20).

The things that don't:
Most scholars seem to disagree with the time the Israelites entered Canaan. The Biblical account is, apparently, 1400 BC, which is when these events have been dated to, but most scholars, excepting a minority, agree that they did not enter Canaan until 150-200 years later.

I think I've realized I need to fully attack this thing from the ground up, addressing every point, but that will require my reacquaintance with the material. I'd also like to read another book on this subject over the next week or so, Tim Keller's Reason for God. So, I will continue to address those who have addressed me over the last few days as best I can, but reset for a more significant case to be made later. I believe I will also take a day off on Sunday, to let myself have a break from all of this, for me, and from me, for everyone else.

And this stuff, perhaps, may be able to prove the existence of God to you, but it's still a volitional act. Even faced with the evidence, we make a choice, and the strongest evidence is really what He does in our lives. I am convinced of God's existence because of what He has done in me and for me, again and again. I'm past the point of it being possible that He doesn't exist, even if I wrestle with doubt from time to time about this or that. That said, I enjoy and am willing to hear the other side's evidence, as well, because it is challenging, and always ultimately strengthening for me and my faith and my relationship with God, but it also helps me better understand others and love others more. It's not good for me to walk around saying "you're dead wrong and an idiot for believing this or that." I'd much rather say, "I understand why you believe that, and it makes sense, but I think this makes more sense. Let's look at why and see if you feel the same way. If not, that does change how I feel about you." And I'm getting better at that all the time, but clearly have room to grow. Of course, I need to have these conversations, debates, and arguments in order to face these bridges and become that person. So, thank you, all of you, for being engaging and patient with me, as I hope to be the same with you.

Jericho stuff source:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence.aspx

how? I'm not saying you're wrong, but how, specifically?

 

It also didn't take into account space for food to feed all these animals. The elephants alone would cause problems. They can eat up to 330 lbs of food a day. Luckily, there are only two species of elephant (Asian and African) so Noah only has to deal with 2 pairs. Now we're up to 1,320 lbs of food a day. Multiply that by 40 days and Noah has to have space on the ark for 52,800 lbs of food. Just for the elephants.

To make things easy on him, we'll assume that every animal can just drink rainwater so Noah won't have to worry about the 11 gallons a day each one will need (1,760 gallons of fresh elephant drinking water in total).

We'll also assume that each animal will go up topside to go to the bathroom over the edge of the ark so Noah and his family don't have to spend the entire time cleaning up after them. After all, they'll have their hands full feeding thousands of animals daily.

 

As they said, if they can mate with each other, we can consider that a kind. Can those animals cross-breed? (even if they can't, it's not entirely impossible, I would imagine, that both of those animals came from the same pair of elephants. The same could be said of many of these species of birds, etc. They could be overestimating how many animals were required)

Also as they said, many animals hibernate, and act differently when in danger.

Also as they said, according to their math, half of the ark would have been open for storing the very small animals and food.

oh, and once again, I believe it fits into the realm of possibility, but even if not, if God exists, miracles are possible. He provided manna from heaven for the Israelites in the wilderness, remember. I'll have to go back and re-read the specifics of what are said, but perhaps all of the animals were put into a deep sleep. In the Bible, Jesus and Moses, I believe, at least, when for periods of 40 days without food or water. I believe that is impossible, but nothing is impossible with God.

But I'm also not resting on that, either, I'm just saying, keep in mind that if God exists, the rules of nature do not apply to Him if he doesn't want them to. He invented the rules of nature, after all.

 

I think you're trying to gloss over the fact that the termites would have sunk the Ark.

 

If this is the case how do we have several dozen species of dogs and wolves today? They can breed with each other but you can only get a purebred Dalmatian from two other purebred Dalmatians. How do we have grey wolves and pugs and pitt bulls and poodles and coyotes and Labradors and every other species if just a few thousands years ago they all came from just two random canines?

This is true. Many animals do act differently when in danger. Or when confined in a small space (your math gave every animal the same space you would give a single sheep). Predators especially become violent and aggressive.

So the answer is "A wizard did it".

 

So then the response is "Oh well it does not matter what math/nature/science/reason/facts say because God".

 

Dalmations came from another dog. They may now be considered purebred and something in and of themselves, but most dogs have been bred from an older form. This is fairly well-documented. And it's been more than a few thousand years.

They said that animals can co-exist in danger. They specifically asserted this. Also, the average size of an animal was a cat, but they bumped it up to sheep for the purposes of the argument.

So the answer is "A wizard did it".[/quote]

You're not listening. As I said, I will argue it and not rest on that argument, and believe the evidence is there to a sufficient degree, at least from a logical standpoint, but you are presupposing there is no God, or that God acts as if he does not exist. I'm saying, if the story of Noah is true, then God exists, and thus the flood was a miracle aka the breaking of natural laws for the purposes of a sign or message from God.

I will argue it on your side of reasoning because that is where the argument lies, but I'm attempting to make it clear that, if God exists, it doesn't matter what the science is, you understand?

It's like the user who was asking for a sign many pages ago. If God exists, there are signs all around you, including this thread. You ask for reasoning for the existence of God and here you are. But if you don't believe in God, almost nothing will convince you, you will not see signs, so we must operate in the realm of God not existing in order to prove His existence. You have to work towards that conclusion, which is fair, for the purposes of a debate.

But once again... think about how this conversation in the light of God existing, for a second.

No, because I still believe that all of those things support His existence. I also believe that, sometimes, He operates outside of them. Again, if He exists, He did create them all, and thus that is possible. They are His instruments.

But, again, I will reinforce that I will discuss and debate these things on your side of the argument.

 

How 'bout we think in the realm of we-don't-know, hear+soul. How 'bout we do that.

Because yes, if a God like yours exists, then we may just assume any magic we can imagine. You're right. But then you're arguing from an unsupported supposition. You may as well talk about the weather.

So we start out with: we don't know if God exists. Again, any other starting point is useless.

Do we see anything unexplainable? NO!
Ergo: God does not exist.

 

In the words of Dr. Ray Stantz: "Never met him."

 

i am willing to believe anything is true if people two thousand years ago took the time to write it down. of course in another two thousand years people will probably think twilight is real. accept bella in your heart and forever shall ye sparkle.

 

The problem is that once you invoke the supernatural, you are no longer arguing facts. Nothing supernatural has ever been proven to have occurred. You can say "all things are possible with God," but that is a non-argument.

For what it's worth, the Bible says you can move mountains with just your faith alone. So let's try an experiment. I want you to move Mount Everest into the ocean, and leave it there long enough for such an event to be documented.

 

Your post would be a good point, except that's not what happened in this thread. Decepticon didn't try to use miracles to prove the Bible. He used them to point out that your reasoning was circular.

Your entire discussion about Noah's ark boiled down to "You can't do impossible things because they are impossible." That's just restating your lack of belief in the Bible. It's not an argument about why its accounts are wrong, as you originally claimed it would be.

 

I guess it boils down to whether one is making an historical argument for the existence of God, that is, by introducing stories like Noah's Ark and employing historical method as a way of arriving at a conclusion which supports the proposition that God exists. Historical method is all about probabilities as there are never certainties when dealing with historical evidence Miracles, by definition, are highly improbable and extraordinary events. From an historical point of view then, not a theological point of view, miracles would be the least likely explanation for an event, particularly when a more probable scenario could be proposed to explain the same event.

 

SMH @ the shameless Presuppositionalism on display

 

It's not so much that I believe the Noah's ark story is true or not true. It's more that any time someone tells me they believe it is true, I don't believe them. I have absolutely no volitional control over whether I believe someone who tells me they believe in its literal truth. I try to take them at their word, but can't.

 

It is a shibboleth. Biblical literalism makes people feel special, I guess. Allows them to believe that they answer a higher power or higher truth than that which is human constructed. It is a kind of sublimated narcissism.