Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Rational_Gaze · April 21, 2010, 5:28pm

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Isn’t an ark a big boat and an arc a mathematics term?[/quote]

Can’t believe I didn’t spot that earlier!

TheBodyGuard · April 21, 2010, 5:30pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Ok so Noah’s Ark is bullshit according to push. He is not trying to convince anyone such a ridiculous story happened.[/quote]

He said neither. So what’s you fucking point?[/quote]

I think Push can stand up for himself just fine. Do we really need daisy chain cliques when debating? He and his opinions, as well as yours hopefully, can stand on their own merit without an agent.

Rational_Gaze · April 21, 2010, 6:17pm

You mean back when this thread was about Noah’s ark?

TheBodyGuard · April 21, 2010, 6:38pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You make a good point. If you insist on dismissing the Creator you MUST assign godlike attributes to the universe, namely that it is eternal (among other things). [/quote]

Push, I do not insist on dismissing a creator. Maybe I’m dismissive of the biblical creator, but not of a creator. But putting it in your terms, setting aside Genesis and the dogma of the good book, I ask you; if God is eternal, why not the universe? What created God if He is not eternal? If he is not eternal, what existed? I think the argument for the eternal nature of the universe (and God if you desire) is strong.

“In the beginning” is too simple. Too human. It describes the human experience - not that necessarily of the universe or of God.

TheBodyGuard · April 21, 2010, 6:48pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The correct term is “Uncaused-cause”… However, timelessness, does not necessarily mean ‘no order’.
For instance the speed of light is time=0, correct? Technically an unabated beam of light is infinite in it’s existence, yet it has origin.

Second, nothing just “is”. You cannot point to one thing in the entire universe that exists unaffected. If you can fill me in, I am dying to hear about it.
If ‘just is’ was a sufficient answer that fact that relativity breaks down in to infinities wouldn’t be a problem, same with QM. Physicists realizes the same things as philosophers, an infinite regress begs the question and is a fallacy. You cannot infinitely disassemble the universe, there is a stop somewhere. That’s why string theory came in to existence, that’s why TP’s are on a quest for a ‘theory of everything’.[/quote]

You are truly exhausting and can’t see past your own problems with time and this discussion is circular!

The speed of light is not time. We attach time to it. It’s an artificial construct! It’s the language of humans, not physics. That various theories break down when confronted with infinite is a direct result of the attempt to start from a first cause!

You keep hounding about nothing just “is” and you want me to point to some example. I have - repeatedly. If the universe always existed, if it is eternal, then it just “is”. You cannot imagine just “is”, because you again are trapped in the articifical construct of time and the need for a first cause beginning or prime mover.

Allow me to flip this back on its head at you, and ANSWER the questions! If God is eternal, why not the universe? Is God not eternal? If he is not eternal, what was there before God? Who created God? Is not a God that is not eternal then a God that came from nothing? And according to you, something cannot arise from nothing? If the universe is not eternal, what existed outside the big bang? Where did the material come from? You’re trapped in the visible universe, constrained by artificial time. I believe there was ALWAYS something, and that the universe is ALWAYS changing - whether that change is according to a plan or is random, I do not have an opinion.

In a place where there is no time, there does not have to be a “stop somewhere”. And PTs have realized that time in fact is poorly understood and may in and of itself be the problem. I believe this is what Hawkings was getting at, in my very own limited understanding of his very brilliant mind. The thought that time does not truly exist as we “experience” it, is not new. And perhaps the theory of everything will come together when we eliminate it, among other discoveries.

I hope you realize that with every retort, you are firmly in the time trap - you cannot talk about regression, first cause, big bang, etc., without being in that paradigm. At least acknowledge that simple fact! If you want to hold onto the time dogma, fine. We agree to disagree. You will not convince me that we understand what we call “time”. You will not convince me that you have a better handle on the problem of time than some of our greatest minds! You cannot come here and name drop various theories, but ignore that which really confounds our greatest minds - TIME!

You cannot even imagine just “is”, a universe that always existed, without time. That’s why you received my earlier, curt and offensive reply.
[/quote]

You make a good point. If you insist on dismissing the Creator you MUST assign godlike attributes to the universe, namely that it is eternal (among other things). [/quote]

I wanted to reply to this again. It appears to me that you embarce an anthromorphic vision of God. Fine. Perhaps my view of divinity is in fact rooted in the universe - that spark. It only make sense that since I reject dogmatic religion, of course my view of God would be a bit more spiritual - it does not however “dismiss the Creator”. If God does not exist one with the Universe, if He is not that very energy and expanse, if he is not that spark which I believe to be present in ALL life, where may I ask does he reside? On a throne in heaven?

You read the bible and apparently have faith in it. Fine. I do not cricize that. I read the bible and see the inescapable language, emotional trappings and limited intellect of man. It does not mean that ultimately we do not believe in the same principles and mores. The message is largely wholesome, and perhaps divinely inspired insofar as I believe we all have that spark. The rest? To me it’s clearly man talking.

TheBodyGuard · April 21, 2010, 7:42pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You make a good point. If you insist on dismissing the Creator you MUST assign godlike attributes to the universe, namely that it is eternal (among other things). [/quote]

Push, I do not insist on dismissing a creator. Maybe I’m dismissive of the biblical creator, but not of a creator. But putting it in your terms, setting aside Genesis and the dogma of the good book, I ask you; if God is eternal, why not the universe? What created God if He is not eternal? If he is not eternal, what existed? I think the argument for the eternal nature of the universe (and God if you desire) is strong.[/quote]

I believe the use of logic inevitably and eventually leads anyone who accepts the idea of a Creator to the perfectly rational concept of a Creator who wants his creation to know Him.

There’s obviously a whole lot more in that statement than I am willing to expound on at this moment because here in Montana we are experiencing our first few days of a fleeting Spring and my son wants me to go dirt bike riding and his girlfriend wants me to go horseback riding and the birds are singing and the sun is shining and therefore I am content to wander away from my computer.[quote]

“In the beginning” is too simple. Too human. It describes the human experience - not that necessarily of the universe or of God.[/quote]

It’s almost like it…was written…to humans. Funny deal.[/quote]

Not exactly your best effort but I understand the call of spring.

When you say it’s logical for a Creator to want his creation to know him, you have once again fallen into an anthromorphic trap. And at the same time, you have injected quite a bit of human arrogance into that ideal, such that human life on this tiny planet among trillions of other planets (likely) somehow is so important. I know we think we’re pretty important, but we may be no more than a simple celled lifeform among a universe teaming with life. But I’ll play along this theme anyway. I think that our creator has shown us perfectly who he is through life. Look around you, at life, the earth, the stars. I see God. I don’t need a book to tell me about the divine. And if we go beyond those texts that were decided by HUMANS to include within your bible, we will find passages such as that found in the Gospel of Thomas - “Jesus said: I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there”.

You speak of logic and rationalism. Those are human constructs like time. I see a universe that has rules, many undiscovered, some uncovered by physics, and many social rules uncovered by the human experience. And those rules include how to live peacefully and what usually occurs when you don’t. Those are universal truths, because like gravity, they exist, not because your bible told you they exist.

Personally, I feel like I know God far better now than I ever did from reading the Bible. I’ve already explained to you why I can’t accept it. Knowing this, how fruitful could this continued discussion be? You will never change my mind, and I never yours

mse2us · April 21, 2010, 8:53pm

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
17 Pages. So what’s the final conclusion? Did Noah’s Arc really happen?

Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]

This answer is for those that have faith in the Bible, in God and Jesus. Those that do not have faith or only believe in parts of the Bible need not respond to this.

If you have faith in Jesus then you should believe that Noah’s Arc DID happen. Jesus was in heaven during the time period the Bible states that the flood took place. In the Gospels Jesus himself mentions the flood event at Matthew 24:37-39 which states:

“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

God also inspired Peter to write about the flood event at 2 Peter 2:5 and 6 which states:

“and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people; and by reducing the cities SodÃ???Ã??Ã?Â´om and GoÃ???Ã??Ã?Â·morÃ???Ã??Ã?Â´rah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come.”

And 2 Peter 3:5-7 which states:

“For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.”

So if you’re a man of God and believe that God inspired the Bible then the flood and Noah’s Arc is and actual event that did happen.[/quote]

And somewhere in all that, I think we were supposed to bring a virgin girl to the mouth of the volcano and to appease the gods, sacrafice her.
Sorry, but the OT and NT are very disconnect and describe two very different gods. If you cannot see the hand of man there, I’m sorry for you. The bible does not even describe the same god.
The stories are unoriginal, including a savior, and a resurrection after 3 days. If you think a perfect, benign, loving God would resort to jealousy, vengeance and anger, I feel sorry for you. Those are the emotions and traits of man, and they corrupt the biblical text clearly. The god of the OT is too busy smiting, plaguing, flooding, hell and other destructive acts that you will excuse me if I want to believe in something a bit less man made and a bit more divine. Using the bible to prove the bible is the depth of desperation and fallacy.

[/quote]

I don’t know what you’re talking about in the first sentence.

That’s far from the truth. God plays a more prominent role in the Hebrew (OT) scriptures because he deals directly with his chosen people the Israelites. The main theme of the Bible is the vindication of God’s name and sovereignty through the seed he promised to produce at Genesis 3:15 which of course is Jesus. Through this seed Jesus, God is going to destroy Satan and fulfill his original purpose for the earth and humans which is perfect humans and perfect conditions that the first human pair experienced before they sinned. God made a covenant with Abraham that this seed would come from his lineage and that his lineage would be his chosen people until that seed was produced. Abraham’s lineage came to be the Israelites. So in the Hebrew scriptures we see God’s direct dealing with the Israelites that would eventually produce this promised seed. He clearly stated to them that if they listened to him they would receive blessing and that is what happened. He would protect them from the surrounding nations and he helped them prosper as a nation. He also stated that if they disobeyed him they would be punished. When they disobeyed, he removed his spiritual protection and not only would they not prosper but they were often conquered and taken into captivity by surrounding nation. But once they were sorry for their disobediance God would forgive them.

Now once this seed was produced from the nation of Israel the Christian-Greek (NT) scriptures tone does change. The Law Covenant ends and Jesus’ role becomes more prominent because he is now the head of the Christian congregation. The nation of Israel is no longer God’s chosen people so he no longer has direct dealing with the nation of Israel. At John 14:6 Jesus stated that he was the “WAY” and that no one could approach his father except through him. Jesus was now the intermediary between humans and God. Just how the seed would fulfill God’s purpose comes into greater focus and is emphasized throughout the Christian-Greek scriptures. Jesus’ death now makes it possible for a “Little Flock” of humans to go to heaven and the majority of humans to live forever on earth in a global paradise. His death also does away with the animal sacrifices that the Israelites were required to make to have their sins forgiven. Putting faith in Jesus was the first step to have sins forgiven and this too is emphasized. Once Jesus’ followers formed the Christian congregation additional guidance and direction was needed so they could remain in God’s favor. That’s why God inspired the Bible writers to write letters to the Christian congregations to provide encouragement, settle disputes and to warn them when they were doing wrong.

I’m not sure what you mean by the stories being unoriginal, but yes the Bible does show that God has emotion he can actually be hurt by his servants. And yes if one his servants that he is protecting and blessing decides to make a man made image and bow down to it of course he is going to be jealous. God being perfect has nothing to do with him showing emotions. Love and happiness is an emotion that humans have and the Bible clearly states that God has these same emotions. The Bible states that we are made in his image so we have the same emotions as God and the rest of the spirit creatures in heaven. If you read the Hebrew scriptures there are relativly few destructive acts.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about because I did not use the Bible to prove the Bible. I started my reply by stating that it was only intended for people who have complete faith in the Bible. I realized that if you don’t believe the Bible was inspired by God it’s going to be extremely hard to convince someone that what’s in it is true.

pat · April 21, 2010, 8:45pm

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
You are truly exhausting and can’t see past your own problems with time and this discussion is circular!
[/quote]
No, it’s quite linear actually.

[quote]
The speed of light is not time. We attach time to it. It’s an artificial construct! It’s the language of humans, not physics. That various theories break down when confronted with infinite is a direct result of the attempt to start from a first cause! [/quote]
Where did I say the speed of light is time? That’s right I did not. However, it’s widely accepted that the speed of light is time = 0. In other words, no matter or energy can exceed this threshold. When traveling at this threshold time stands still, it cannot move…Or are you claiming Einstein is wrong??

“That various theories break down when confronted with infinite is a direct result of the attempt to start from a first cause!” ← No, “first cause” would be the end point.
They break down typically when explaining the gravity of black holes and the equation ends up being 1/0 or infinity. It breaks down because it does not solve the problem. Infinity does not solve the problem of gravity in a black hole. You claim to be a student of this stuff, but you don’t seem to be familiar with the most basic rudimentary theories.

You claim the universe just “is” in the absence of all evidence to the contrary. The universe and everything in it has origin, it can and has been measured, how “long” it’s existed, how much “space” it occupies and even how much it weighs. So your conceiving this notion of perpetual existence from universe with a begining is simply wrong. It may never stop existing, but it had a beginning. If it did not, then all these scientists looking for it’s origins, are wasting their time.

An uncaused-cause by definition could not be created and must necessarily exist with out beginning or end. If it was begotten or brought into existence in anyway, then said uncaused-cause would not be uncaused. God is, what just is. Nothing else fits the definition.

It seems to me you are the one trapped by a very rigid definition of time and you’re the one not understanding it. I am quite comfortable with it. What you are not getting is that contingency does not need time to be a factor. Things can and do depend on each others existence outside the temporal realm. So it is possible that things are begotten and yet eternal. However, the more that is being learned about black holes, the less that seems likely to be the case.
You’re thinking that origin and beginning must be in a temporal order and that is simply not the case.
What was before the big bang? According to the TP’s, mathematicians and the like are claiming singularities, vacuum, and ‘dark energy’ resulting from the behavior of these particles. Sounds good to me, I don’t actually know beyond what info is available.

Again, you are getting screwed up by temporal constraints. You cannot break things down infinitely. Arguing against an infinite regress does not argue against infinity. As you disassemble “stuff” each different thing shares common layers, these layers roll in to one, not many. Reverse engineering causation reveals that all things have common origin.

Again, you’re the one getting all fucked up with time. I don’t need time for my arguments; contingency does not need it, period. Each thing in the universe, as the universe itself exists because of something else. Whether it occurred in time or not, does not make this fact, not true. Pure simple logic bears this out. The one thing science in all it’s wonder cannot do, is trump raw naked logic. There has never been an instance in which it has happened, ever. At the core of every discipline is a philosophy, that’s why each expert in a given field gets a Phd; or a Doctor of Philosophy. At the core of philosophy is logic at the core of logic is deductive reasoning. That is what cosmology is based on and in 3000 years it has not been proven wrong.
There is no dogma here, this is pure deduction. Look it up, research what I said all you want. Google till you puke, it’s not going to prove me wrong.

And find me one thing that exists, physical or metaphysical, that has no contingency. I already took God, so you can’t have that one. The universe is clearly contingent, so that’s not it.

pat · April 21, 2010, 9:19pm