Instigator / Pro
0
1438
rating
7
debates
14.29%
won
Topic
#1786

The Flood is Not a Fairy Tale

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

No information

how is the flood a fairy tale. Like no matter how fake it is it is not a fairytale smh

-->
@SkepticalOne

We need voters on https://www.debateart.com/debates/1810/does-a-good-perfect-man-struggle-with-evil

Looks like an interesting debate! Let me know if you need voters.

-->
@3RU7AL

"Could have" is a conditional past tense conjugation. Such conjugation indicates an event that could have happened, but did not happen. You seem to imply that because God [that is a title, not a name] is omnipotent that He must act. You have the power to walk across the street against the traffic light, but it does not mean you must. God could have created perfect man, but He did not, did He? You think that was by accident? Nope, there was purpose in such a creation, just as there was purpose, as I explained, to prevent Noah's flood victims from crossing a threshold from which they could not reverse.

-->
@fauxlaw

"What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark..."

I see. Your own statement here seems to contradict the standard argument that "YHWH" is OMNIPOTENT.

Please explain.

-->
@BiblicalChristian101

If debating this again, I strongly suggest defining your terms in the description, along with things like if YEC is assumed. Possibly level of BoP as well, such as if you want to prove with fossil records that the entire surface of the earth was submerged, or the lighter one that many parts of the earth have been flooded.

-->
@3RU7AL

"Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story."
Does it? Your proof is an if/then statement? Not enough.
As a debate I initiated relates: If is the most functionally useless word in the language because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark - excepting the fishes of the sea and the on the ark.
The more germane point ignored is that to simply wave a wand and not allow the flood, which God initiated in the first place, would have allowed the people who were destroyed to continue their debauchery to the point that they would have denied themselves access to the most wonderful gift to man other than his life: the atonement of Jesus Christ. Expecting, by your generic pronoun use of God that you do not accept it yourself is entirely your choice, and that's the secondary point: the atonement is infinitely available to all who will accept it, and even if you don't agree with it, as the people of the flood who were destroyed did not. But, they were in a worse condition than that. They had the potential too sin further; to sin against the Holy Ghost, a sin so egregious, infinitely more serious than murder, there is no redemption from it, even if they later wanted to do so. Yes, the flood pre-dated Jesus, but, as said, the atonement is infinitely available, backward and forward in human history to all who will accept it before they reach the point of no return - sin against the Holy Ghost.
As the destroyed were about to cross that barrier of no return, God acted to take their mortal lives, and their mortal lives only, before they doomed their souls to damnation to a place with no doors. This was actually an act of love, by His preventive act, because it allowed them the opportunity to eventually repent of their less serious sins, if they were of a mind to accept the Lord's atonement. Same with the people of Sodom & Gomorrah; an act of ultimate love. God is a God of love, and He desires that we maintain our free agency, because if we remain obedient to Him by our agency, death by any means is not the end; it is merely a door. A door to further righteous living in glory with Him, if we are obedient now. The is why He allows suffering, because even death does not mean the end if we accept the atonement of Christ, and then act to be of service to others, demonstrating our gratitude to God for His gifts to us.

-->
@fauxlaw

"Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200?"

Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story.

(IFF) "YHWH" can do anything it wishes (THEN) it could have "saved" everything it wanted or deemed "good" including Noah +family and any animals it wanted to save WITHOUT AN ARK.

Being first to comment on a debate that has been posted for a month is troublesome. I just found this one and am intrigued by the arguments so far.
I have a few comments, just general observations.
1. I am troubled by the challenge to limit the period of the flood to 4,000 years. The Holy Bible, and its description of creation, notes the creative segments as "days." However, the Hebrew is Yom, יום, and it significance varies from a single day to a "period" of undefined duration. We cannot assume for simplicity sake that the individual segments of creation were 24-hour periods. Common sense with our gained knowledge of geological phenomena does not allow for such high-speed creation. I'll assume that God would follow natural law, and not black magic. After all, what's the hurry? Creation may have occupied billions of years. What is tat to a Being of infinite duration, and for whom "Time" is inconsequential. Does that crumble anybody'e cookie?
Also, specifically in the generations noted in Genesis, there are genealogical gaps. That means unaccounted for passage of time and possibly generations of it. So what? Why not just accept that the Bible is not as chronologically accurate as we might wish it was. What if Noah was 10,000 years ago? 20,000? To quote a the most innocent [tongue-in-cheek] investigate woman in history, "What difference does it make, now?"

Second, the conundrum of the storage of animals, food, water, hay, whatever, I like ascribing to ancients more capability and innovation that the TV show, Ancient Aliens, will grant them. According to that show, our ancestors were straw man dummies, who, without alien intervention, we would still be poking goats. What if, rather, Noah were a sort of genetic engineer, managing a floating laboratory of DNA samples of every beast and fowl on earth? if God can teach Noah how to build a ship, I suppose he can also teach a little genetic theory along the way. After all, I don't think Noah built his ship, maybe christened "Rome," in one day. No need for fish on board. As one of you suggested, Genesis allows for the creatures of the sea to survive. Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200? Refer to the lady with answers above.