A rational explanation for Noah's flood.

[john_morris_uk]

Science works within the rules that we observe but if a deity comes and fiddles with them you cant really ask for a scientific explaination.

I think that the point that I was trying to make is that its possible to believe in the 'big guy' without suspending scientific belief or rules.

The trouble is that some people's image of God is that of some sort of benign deity who sits and watches in amusement at the mess we make of the world, and who occasionally (or frequently?) interferes with what is going on. Conventual theology describes such a belief as Deism (which is heretical for those who are concerned about such things...!)

I find it much more productive or helpful to think about a Deity who created and continues to be part of the creation process.

I'll stop now before I really get going - I did admit to being a professional theologian after all...

 

[reginaldon]

I think that the point that I was trying to make is that its possible to believe in the 'big guy' without suspending scientific belief or rules.

The trouble is that some people's image of God is that of some sort of benign deity who sits and watches in amusement at the mess we make of the world, and who occasionally (or frequently?) interferes with what is going on. Conventual theology describes such a belief as Deism (which is heretical for those who are concerned about such things...!)

I find it much more productive or helpful to think about a Deity who created and continues to be part of the creation process.

I'll stop now before I really get going - I did admit to being a professional theologian after all...

Surely what you are describing as the some people's image of God is Theism and what you are espousing is Deism, or maybe the theology of the Divinity Dept of Christ Church Canterbury was adrift.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Surely what you are describing as the some people's image of God is Theism and what you are espousing is Deism, or maybe the theology of the Divinity Dept of Christ Church Canterbury was adrift.

Nope - I don't think so, see 2. below:

From the online dictionary of philosophy and theology:

de·ism   [dee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

My wife was at Christ Church Canterbury briefly, which is irrelevant, but with respect to your memory - I think you are mistaken is the polite version?

 

[pmagowan]

The belief in God does not require suspension of scientific thought, as you say. The two principles can run in parallel. The problem comes when you try to mix them up or justify one with the other. The bIlble gives some interesting stories which help to form a moral code. In fact you can believe it as fact and still be a scientist. Since The Big Guy hasn't set fire to any bushes or made large scale public displays recently we can not confirm scientifically his existance but we can still believe in it. With the unlimited power He is claimed to have then there really is no need to seek a scientific justification of any events He is claimed to have been involved in.
Religeon has made an enemy of science by trying to seek proofs which are not there and then being found out by scientific scruitiny. My view is that religeon should not be searching for proofs or making proclimations about our position in the universe. This only diminishes the requirement of faith and ultimately proves divisive.

 

[Alcyone]

IIRC, Bob Ballard was researching this some years back. There was a Discovery channel programme showing him visiting a suppposed flooded farms, some 200m or so underwater in the Black Sea.

I think this was subsequently shown to be something else, but if you Google Ballard and Noah's flood, I'm sure yoou can find the info.

 

[reginaldon]

Nope - I don't think so, see 2. below:

From the online dictionary of philosophy and theology:

de·ism   [dee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

My wife was at Christ Church Canterbury briefly, which is irrelevant, but with respect to your memory - I think you are mistaken is the polite version?

This is precisely what I am saying, and this seems to be your stance.

The Theist is the one who believes that God not only created the world et al, but as an omnipotent God may intervene as and whenever He wills.


Thank you for your polite aside.

 

[Jaytac]

The rational explanation to Noah's Flood is the same as for the rational explanation for all religions / gods...............some people are happy to swallow anything...............(the story of Jonah and the Whale may make this point ).

Nothing wrong with that - just don't give yourselves a headache trying to rationalise or (prove ) your chosen brand of hocus pocus.

Works for me and Santa every Xmas

 

[xxyyzz]

This story has long bothered my credulity as a Christian and a sailor. There is just not enough water to cover the Earth after just 150 days of rain – no matter how hard it rains.

You don't think that a god that created the entire universe in 7 days is capable of flooding the planet in 150?

It seems fairly straightforward logic that if you start with the premise of god existing there is no need to worry about whether there's enough water or not.

So the answer to this is that actually you doubt the existence of god.

BURN THE HERETIC, BURN HIM!!!!!

 

[KenMcCulloch]

Where does all that leave the tales of saving 2 of every species, and a handful of related humans?

(etc....)

There are some very entertaining calculations to be done in estimating the victualling requirements of the Ark. Each large predator (lion, tiger etc.) would need, say, half a sheep every day or two to keep body and soul together. All these extra sheep would need a supply of hay or turnips, apart from the ones to be consumed in the first 2 or 3 days obviously. Once you add all this up the Ark needs to be a lot bigger than specified in the book.

 

[Alcyone]

There are some very entertaining calculations to be done in estimating the victualling requirements of the Ark. Each large predator (lion, tiger etc.) would need, say, half a sheep every day or two to keep body and soul together. All these extra sheep would need a supply of hay or turnips, apart from the ones to be consumed in the first 2 or 3 days obviously. Once you add all this up the Ark needs to be a lot bigger than specified in the book.

Loaves and fishes, Ken. Basic mistake mate.

Why isn't this in the Lounge, btw?

 

[reginaldon]

Loaves and fishes, Ken. Basic mistake mate.

Why isn't this in the Lounge, btw?

Some far more meaningful responses now, which have left the 'rationalising' Christians floundering rather.
Howbeit I note the OP did introduce the thread as a 'rational' explanation for Noah's flood
so this is what was required.

If this were in the Lounge, it would have degenerated into a rumble and anyhow many of us seem to have deserted the Lounge long ago.

 

[xxyyzz]

Why do religious people think a rational explanation helps when it's completely unnecessary?

If there were a rational explanation for the flood, then it would obviate the need for a god to have kicked it off in the first place. If you don't believe in god then there is no compulsion to believe in a global flood event either.

 

[Alcyone]

Why do religious people think a rational explanation helps when it's completely unnecessary?

If there were a rational explanation for the flood, then it would obviate the need for a god to have kicked it off in the first place. If you don't believe in god then there is no compulsion to believe in a global flood event either.

Well, personally, I'm a firm believer that there is a rational explanation for everything, the missis excepted, naturally.

I don't think there is a need to explain the flood account in the Bible, but, as others have pointed out, there is a recurring flood myth in many civilizations. That does not make it true, but if there is evidence that something like the Black Sea deluge did happen, there may be a link.

Proof? Never. A possible link between a number of tenuous myths and a theoretical event in history, I'm happy with that.

 

[snowleopard]

Why isn't this in the Lounge, btw?

And the Ark was a ****?

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

I am happy with the idea of a (to us) "localised" flood affecting proto civilisations somewhere in Eastern Med/Asia Minor/Fertile Crescent as being compatible with archeological theory and evidence. I am also comfortable with the idea of God. I also like the idea that God created what we think of as the laws of physics and the parameters of the Universe and considers Himself bound by them. The fact that we may not understand all the laws and parameters, or may not have discovered them does not automatically mean that what we call a miracle does not obey a law of which we are ignorant.

For God, in my limited understanding, nothing is imposible.

 

[whipper_snapper]

There are some very entertaining calculations to be done in estimating the victualling requirements of the Ark. Each large predator (lion, tiger etc.) would need, say, half a sheep every day or two to keep body and soul together. All these extra sheep would need a supply of hay or turnips, apart from the ones to be consumed in the first 2 or 3 days obviously. Once you add all this up the Ark needs to be a lot bigger than specified in the book.

And of course the genetic imprints of such bottlenecks in diversity would be screamingly obvious. And they are not there.

It simply did not happen. There is no debate there. (Unless some deity fixed history in a perverse way to cover the tracks of the ark, in which case we cannot trust anything in recorded history or even in our own memories, never mind the bible.)

 

[Ludd]

If the YBW forum had existed at the time of the Flood, would Noah have posted his story on Scuttlebut or PBO? Or would he have been very daring and chosen the Mobo dark side?

Logic says he'd have posted in the Lounge,after a jar or three!

 

[xxyyzz]

Well, personally, I'm a firm believer that there is a rational explanation for everything, the missis excepted, naturally.

If god exists though, then god doing stuff is a rational explanation.

 

[KenMcCulloch]

And of course the genetic imprints of such bottlenecks in diversity would be screamingly obvious. And they are not there.

It simply did not happen. There is no debate there. (Unless some deity fixed history in a perverse way to cover the tracks of the ark, in which case we cannot trust anything in recorded history or even in our own memories, never mind the bible.)

I understand that some American 'creationists' believe fossils were put there by G to test our faith. Doesn't seem to have been a very succesful ploy, does it?

 

[Cruiser2B]

It's not an unreasonable hypothesis, especially since a similar deluge (albeit in reverse) will happen when Nigara Falls finally erodes away to ?Lake Superior and drains it.

Niagara Falls is between Lakes Erie and Ontario; Lake Superior is three lakes upstream (past St Clair and Huron). As Superior is so much deeper than the rest, the better part of southern Ontario would need to be eroded to drain it.