Was Noah's the only sailing vessel?

[_Some Schmo]

Personally, when one begins with the POSSIBILITY that there may be a deity, then the Noah story is quite plausible. Why is it necessary for this deity to always reveal himself within the framework we (humans) suggest? You may find this deity callous and capricious, fine, that's an argument we can thrash about. But to categorically claim there is no deity because Noah could not have happened is non-sensical. A deity ( or at least a powerful one of many sub-deities) is certainly capable to be active contrary to what we "know" to be possible.

Note: I am not claiming that the Noah story is not possible. And I am quite comfortable with a literal interpretation.

But if god intervenes like that which is suggested necessarily by the Noah story, that would be an instance where we have proof of god, and hence, no need for faith.

I wish religious types would make up their minds on these matters.

by the way, anyone who's ever had tropical fish in a home aquarium knows that the ph balance (among other things like temperature) in the tank has to be perfectly maintained at all times or the fish will die. How on earth did all the marine life survive this flood with such a massive disruption to the conditions of there environment? I don't remember two of every fish being brought on board.

[_Scottie]

I don't remember two of every fish being brought on board.

Did it say somewhere that fish were excluded? It makes as much sense as anything that Noah had water tanks with perfect temperature, ph balance, enough room for them to swim around, etc.

Yes, even for Great Whites. Sure, why not.

[_Jersey Girl]

Sethbag

I'm curious where Noah got ~11 months' worth of fresh water on the Ark; water enough not only for him and his family, but indeed for the entire ark full of thirsty animals. I can see where he might have gotten fresh water during the first 40 days, but what about the next 11 months they were still at sea before they finally came to rest on dry land?

Hmmm...in the 40 days I assume you're talking about using rainwater for hydration. What about the next 11 months? Are you saying that it didn't rain at all for a year? Just curious what conclusions you're drawing in the comments above and what you base them on?

[_Jersey Girl]

Sethbag

Bottom line is that the global flood wiping out all of humanity save for Noah's family, a few thousand years ago, is unequivocally contradicted by mountains of credible evidence. It simply didn't happen. Period. And people can believe what they want, and that fact isn't changed.

From what do you draw your conclusions that the Bible refers to a global flood? Also, I'd like to see mountains of credible evidence that a Global (or even local) flood didn't occur during that time period.

Could you post that for us, Sethbag?

[_Hoops]

But if god intervenes like that which is suggested necessarily by the Noah story, that would be an instance where we have proof of god, and hence, no need for faith.

I wish religious types would make up their minds on these matters.

I'd be interested in exactly what "type" I am. But let's leave that for now.

So you're saying since all people don't see proof of God, then that means the Noah story can't be true? Well, let's turn that around. Since the earliest recorded history man-kind has worshipped some being greater or different than themselves. Therefor, there must be a God (s).

Of course you don't subscribe to that, but I don't understand your point. Mine is, simply, this:

If one begins with the assumption - whether it's based on evidence (which I doubt) or not - that there is no god, then, certainly, the Noah story is difficult.

If one begins with the assumption that there is some deity, then the Noah story suddenly becomes possible.

Then there's the great unwashed middle - the agnostic. A humanistic religion all its own. Those who piously lecture the rest of us about our intolerance and our intellectual shortcomings.

[_Some Schmo]

But if god intervenes like that which is suggested necessarily by the Noah story, that would be an instance where we have proof of god, and hence, no need for faith.

I wish religious types would make up their minds on these matters.

I'd be interested in exactly what "type" I am. But let's leave that for now.

So you're saying since all people don't see proof of God, then that means the Noah story can't be true? Well, let's turn that around. Since the earliest recorded history man-kind has worshipped some being greater or different than themselves. Therefor, there must be a God (s).

Of course you don't subscribe to that, but I don't understand your point. Mine is, simply, this:

If one begins with the assumption - whether it's based on evidence (which I doubt) or not - that there is no god, then, certainly, the Noah story is difficult.

If one begins with the assumption that there is some deity, then the Noah story suddenly becomes possible.

Then there's the great unwashed middle - the agnostic. A humanistic religion all its own. Those who piously lecture the rest of us about our intolerance and our intellectual shortcomings.

What I was getting at was the fact that people who believe in god will often say things like, "Well if god proved himself to us, we wouldn't need faith." I take this to mean this is the reason god doesn't perform miracles or intervene. But in order for the Noah story to be plausible, you're suggesting that there's a god who does intervene, to the point where the only explanation for a particular phenomenon is a miracle. That would be a witness-able proof. God doesn't hand out proof, otherwise, no faith would be needed. (Side note: I can think of no greater scam perpetrated on all of mankind as the one concerning some intrinsic need for and benefit of faith. The world's oldest profession is not prostitution; it's con artistry. I've explicitly asked what the intrinsic benefit of faith is [where god is concerned] and no viable answer has ever been offered).

So when people talk about this stuff, they're being inconsistent. Miracles are proof of god's handy work (and, by extension, his existence). God performs miracles. God doesn't hand out proof. Well... which is it? These statements can't all be true.

I don't know what type you are either. It sort of sounds like your the religious type, but who knows for sure? It's not really important or central to the point I was making.

[_Scottie]

But if god intervenes like that which is suggested necessarily by the Noah story, that would be an instance where we have proof of god, and hence, no need for faith.

I wish religious types would make up their minds on these matters.

I'd be interested in exactly what "type" I am. But let's leave that for now.

So you're saying since all people don't see proof of God, then that means the Noah story can't be true? Well, let's turn that around. Since the earliest recorded history man-kind has worshipped some being greater or different than themselves. Therefor, there must be a God (s).

Of course you don't subscribe to that, but I don't understand your point. Mine is, simply, this:

If one begins with the assumption - whether it's based on evidence (which I doubt) or not - that there is no god, then, certainly, the Noah story is difficult.

If one begins with the assumption that there is some deity, then the Noah story suddenly becomes possible.

Then there's the great unwashed middle - the agnostic. A humanistic religion all its own. Those who piously lecture the rest of us about our intolerance and our intellectual shortcomings.

What I was getting at was the fact that people who believe in god will often say things like, "Well if god proved himself to us, we wouldn't need faith." I take this to mean this is the reason god doesn't perform miracles or intervene. But in order for the Noah story to be plausible, you're suggesting that there's a god who does intervene, to the point where the only explanation for a particular phenomenon is a miracle. That would be a witness-able proof. God doesn't hand out proof, otherwise, no faith would be needed. (Side note: I can think of no greater scam perpetrated on all of mankind as the one concerning some intrinsic need for and benefit of faith. The world's oldest profession is not prostitution; it's con artistry. I've explicitly asked what the intrinsic benefit of faith is [where god is concerned] and no viable answer has ever been offered).

So when people talk about this stuff, they're being inconsistent. Miracles are proof of god's handy work (and, by extension, his existence). God performs miracles. God doesn't hand out proof. Well... which is it? These statements can't all be true.

I don't know what type you are either. It sort of sounds like your the religious type, but who knows for sure? It's not really important or central to the point I was making.

The "God won't make himself known" is for the masses. There have always been a few prophets that God supposedly speaks to. These few prophets know of His existence.

Noah and company could be in the camp of prophets. And since God was killing everyone else on the planet, I suppose that proving Himself by flooding the Earth was a moot point at the time.

[_Some Schmo]

The "God won't make himself known" is for the masses. There have always been a few prophets that God supposedly speaks to. These few prophets know of His existence.

Noah and company could be in the camp of prophets. And since God was killing everyone else on the planet, I suppose that proving Himself by flooding the Earth was a moot point at the time.

Well isn't that convenient? That god character sure is a wily one.

So, am I to understand that prophets don't need faith in god? Doesn't seem very fair, does it?

[_Scottie]

The "God won't make himself known" is for the masses. There have always been a few prophets that God supposedly speaks to. These few prophets know of His existence.

Noah and company could be in the camp of prophets. And since God was killing everyone else on the planet, I suppose that proving Himself by flooding the Earth was a moot point at the time.

Well isn't that convenient? That god character sure is a wily one.

So, am I to understand that prophets don't need faith in god? Doesn't seem very fair, does it?

It's not like they were born and had daily conversations with God... They proved their faith first, THEN became prophets.

Either that or they wrote a pretty mediocre book, with a healthy amount of the Bible in it, and claimed to be a prophet....one or the other.

[_Some Schmo]

The "God won't make himself known" is for the masses. There have always been a few prophets that God supposedly speaks to. These few prophets know of His existence.

Noah and company could be in the camp of prophets. And since God was killing everyone else on the planet, I suppose that proving Himself by flooding the Earth was a moot point at the time.

Well isn't that convenient? That god character sure is a wily one.

So, am I to understand that prophets don't need faith in god? Doesn't seem very fair, does it?

It's not like they were born and had daily conversations with God... They proved their faith first, THEN became prophets.

Either that or they wrote a pretty mediocre book, with a healthy amount of the Bible in it, and claimed to be a prophet....one or the other.

Well, given Joseph Smith's shady backgound, what seems most likely?

Does it really demonstrate a high level of faith to be out conning people into investing in your treasure hunting schemes? Is god really that hard up for messengers? God's standard of faith must be pretty low. People should be lined up around the continent for their turn at seer/revelator. I wonder why he hasn't talked to me yet.