Implausibility of the flood tale

[Zzyzx]

.
In a thread discussing the different lengths of time Genesis assigns to the Earth being flooded, mention was made of other implausibilities of the flood tale -- including:

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man
2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward
3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward
4) Eight people providing for millions of diverse animals (some carnivores) for a year
5) Repopulating all the continents with humans and other animals in a few thousand years (and producing the great genetic diversity known to exist).

Are those (and other) implausibilities sufficient grounds to conclude that in all likelihood the flood tale is fable, legend, myth, folklore or fiction?

If not, why not? What rational explanation can be made for them?

[JLB32168]

If you're not a fundamentalist, then what's the explanation for this? Did this event happen or not?

God told Noah to take animals aboard the ark so that not all livestock would be destroyed – since people have to eat.

If it did happen, then how is the story in Genesis any good, since its grossly exaggerated in practically every detail?

Whether or not it’s “any good� is a subjective opinion so why debate it?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 181 by JLB32168]

God told Noah to take animals aboard the ark so that not all livestock would be destroyed – since people have to eat.

Couldn't God have just conjured up more animals? If God is worried about a food supply, why go through with a flood at all, whether local or global? You make it out as if God cannot create and has to take steps to save some animals so as to have some to breed more. This flies in the face of everything God is claimed to be.
A story about a man saving his livestock from a flood by putting them on a boat makes sense. A story about a man being told by an all powerful creator god to save animals so as to have breeding stock later on doesn't make sense.

[JLB32168]

Couldn't God have just conjured up more animals?

Yes, but why is that important? Is it your assertion that because God could do something that he would have done it?

[rikuoamero]

Couldn't God have just conjured up more animals?

Yes, but why is that important? Is it your assertion that because God could do something that he would have done it?

So then the stated reason that both you and Genesis gave (so that there would be animals later) doesn't make sense now. Why go through this rigmarole of saving some animals if this God could just pop more into being? Why, if he wants more animals after the flood, does he go through the effort of having Noah save some? Why, if he wants there to be animals after the flood (whether local or global) does he go through with a flood at all?

[JLB32168]

So then the stated reason that both you and Genesis gave (so that there would be animals later) doesn't make sense now.

So God commanding Noah to preserve some animals makes no sense because God could have created all animals that had been destroyed. I would counter that just because God could so something doesn’t mean that God has to do it and assuming that because God could do X means that God must do X is a nonsensical way of thinking.

Not that it’s related to the present question but I believe that, at a minimum, deism is the logical choice regarding the question of God. Strong atheism simply makes no sense since A) all beliefs must be supported by empirical evidence, and B) beliefs that contradict empirical evidence cannot be tolerated. Given those two premises, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though empirical evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected empirically. In spite of the lack of empirical evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist continues to believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god. That, of course, contradicts the “tenet� that all beliefs should be based upon empirical evidence. The whole world-view is just self-refuting or “whacked.�

[Excubis]

So then the stated reason that both you and Genesis gave (so that there would be animals later) doesn't make sense now.

So God commanding Noah to preserve some animals makes no sense because God could have created all animals that had been destroyed. I would counter that just because God could so something doesn’t mean that God has to do it and assuming that because God could do X means that God must do X is a nonsensical way of thinking.

Not that it’s related to the present question but I believe that, at a minimum, deism is the logical choice regarding the question of God. Strong atheism simply makes no sense since A) all beliefs must be supported by empirical evidence, and B) beliefs that contradict empirical evidence cannot be tolerated. Given those two premises, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though empirical evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected empirically. In spite of the lack of empirical evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist continues to believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god. That, of course, contradicts the “tenet� that all beliefs should be based upon empirical evidence. The whole world-view is just self-refuting or “whacked.�

Now although I agree in a way that God would not need to act the way we think yet if God exists should not God be consistent?

The problem is that the universe, earth, life all follow logic in their workings, this we now quite well. What kind of logic can it follow? Well all things when able take the path of least resistance or change (adapt) to a given resistance. Therefore if there is a God and God created things to be in such a way would not God actions be similar or at least comparable? Now this is of course if one had actual evidence of a world wide flood that occurred at the same time and if you believe there is then you must also believe the earth is really, really old since it is same science that can show when the earth was once covered by water but oh no actually that was before any landmasses were around.

The flood story is a story nothing more. Yes there is a flood in the area but not world wide and it would of not wiped out all "kinds" of animals.

[JLB32168]

Now although I agree in a way that God would not need to act the way we think yet if God exists should not God be consistent?

I'm not sure there is an inconsistency here. Can you elaborate?

Therefore if there is a God and God created things to be in such a way would not God actions be similar or at least comparable?

I would say that God's actions automatically accomplish the greatest good as we define it. Perhaps it's an inscrutable good that we will not understand this side of existence, but I accept that telling Noah to save some animals in the ark accomplishes the greater good. Certainly the ark is compared to the Church today in that Christianity strongly advises people that it behooves them to be in it so if the ark serves as an object lesson then one could argue that this accomplishes the greater good than merely creating more animals out of the dust.

This doesn't mean that this is the definite reason, but it is a possible reason. I'm sure I could hypothesize a lot more if I opted to do so.

But I agree with you in that I don't believe the flood was worldwide and I don't think that the text demands a world wide flood and have explained why I don't believe it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 187 by JLB32168]

I would say that God's actions automatically accomplish the greatest good as we define it. Perhaps it's an inscrutable good that we will not understand this side of existence,

This is something that I just cannot agree with. You call something 'good' then immediately in the next sentence say it's inscrutable. I've said it before on many other threads, but if one calls something inscrutable, one can't also call it good. It's one or the other. If it's good, then it's not inscrutable, you were able to examine it somehow and come to a conclusion that it's good. If it's inscrutable, then you have no leg to stand on when you call it good, you have just admitted to not being able to examine it, you don't know whether or not it is good.

I also do not agree with the idea that it's inscrutable HERE, but on the 'other side of existence' (you mean after death?) it is scrutable, examinable. Again, you have no leg to stand on when you make this claim. You yourself have not died and come back, and the person you believe did (Jesus) we have debated over before and I don't agree that he did.

[JLB32168]

This is something that I just cannot agree with.

Okay.

You call something 'good' then immediately in the next sentence say it's inscrutable.

Do you have conclusive evidence that a highest good, of necessity, will be manifestly obvious to everyone or is this just your opinion that “inscrutable� and “good� are mutually exclusive?

If it's good, then it's not inscrutable, you were able to examine it somehow and come to a conclusion that it's good.

I submit that an action can be the highest good and yet not be known by everyone. You disagree and say that that’s impossible. What is the logical process you used to arrive at this conclusion?

If it's inscrutable, then you have no leg to stand on when you call it good, you have just admitted to not being able to examine it, you don't know whether or not it is good.

I’ve possibility on my side. You have an unverifiable opinion on yours because you’re making a positive assertion, namely, that something, if it is the highest good, must definitely be apparent to everyone. I don’t think you can prove that.

I think you need to reconsider who has no leg on which to stand since you’re the one making absolute assertions w/o the requisite proof to support those conclusive conclusions while I’m only making hypotheticals.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 189 by JLB32168]

I’ve possibility on my side.

But you don't show how strong this possibility is. You have this thing that you claim could be the highest good, that you also claim is inscrutable. Since it's inscrutable, you have no way of determining whether or not it actually is the highest good. There's a possibility yes, and I won't deny that, but if it's inscrutable, why should I or anyone else agree with you that it is the highest good?

Do you have conclusive evidence that a highest good, of necessity, will be manifestly obvious to everyone or is this just your opinion that “inscrutable� and “good� are mutually exclusive?

I am not saying that 'good' and 'inscrutable' are mutually exclusive. I'm saying that we, as humans, cannot apply both descriptors to the same thing, since we have a burden of proof. It could very well be that what you say is correct, but again, (and I'm getting a serious feeling of deja vu here), you have to show your work. I have no reason to believe that this thing is both good and inscrutable, since in order for you to make the case that this thing is good, it has to be examinable. We both have to be able to look at this thing and examine it.
Also, I never said anything about manifestly obvious to everyone. Strawman.

I submit that an action can be the highest good and yet not be known by everyone.

I agree, but notice what you're doing here. Inscrutable has a meaning - it means cannot be examined. Incapable of being analyzed. This is different than 'known by everyone' since not everyone is going to take the time and effort to examine it. When you call this thing inscrutable, it means that you, me nor anyone else are capable of examining it and analyzing it. Therefore, for you to then call it good means you have no evidence. You have disqualified yourself. It's as stupid and asinine as claiming that even though you were in the middle of the jungle for five years with literally no contact with the outside world, you somehow are able to determine who the winner of the last Superbowl was.
That's what you look like to me. Someone who disqualifies himself from making claims about things, and yet somehow reports on what those things are, is somehow able to describe them.