Literal belief in the flood story

[Simon Moon]

There are a multitude of cultures from all over the world that existed from before the time of the alleged flood, and continued after it.

If there was a worldwide flood destroying everyone except Noah and family, how do literalists explain these other cultures?

Japan, China, South and Central America, Africa, etc. None have any interruption in their cultures. Japan and China in particular were quite literate, yet there is no mention.

Then there's the really uncomfortable thought that the entire human population was repopulated via incest.

It seriously takes more credulity to believe in a literal flood than a flat earth.

[Minimalist]

If that is your standard hermeneutic, then, according to those circles, by nature education yields idiocy.

Anyone who treats the babble as anything aside from a collection of primitive horseshit does not have the right to question the rationality of anyone who doe not.

There are no talking snakes or earth-covering floods, jackass.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If that is your standard hermeneutic, then, according to those circles, by nature education yields idiocy.

Anyone who treats the babble as anything aside from a collection of primitive horseshit does not have the right to question the rationality of anyone who doe not.

There are no talking snakes or earth-covering floods, jackass.

The world is full of talking snakes. They disguise themselves as politicians and preachers.

[orangebox21]

I was with your post until here. How can you scientifically demonstrate that 4000 years ago, the thoughts of mankind were not exceedingly wicked?

Can you scientifically demonstrate there was a flood, and that you understand why reversal of the burden of proof is not proof nor valid?

The burden of proof lies with the original claim. Shifting the burden of proof (a fallacy) is requiring the contrary view point to be proven in order to prove the original claim false. In our conversation, the original claim is that God killed innocent children. Any and everyone making the claim bears the burden of proof. Asking me to prove that He didn't (kill innocent children) is asking me to prove the contrary and would be shifting the burden of proof to me, and would thus be fallacious. I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary.

The quote above is that science can prove the original claim. I'm asking for clarification on that assertion. This is not shifting the burden of proof as it is evidence for the initial claim and thus bears the burden of proof.

My scientifically proving the flood would actually shift the burden of proof to me. The op claimed the flood for the sake of the discussion.

Is "Okay, maybe God drowned every baby on earth, and every other man, woman and child, but they were all really bad anyway, except the 900 year old drunk and company" really a compelling argument to you?

Shifting the burden of proof to me again? Is a man who is on record as getting drunk once a drunkard, is being drunk once exceedingly wicked? Outside of Christ there is no one who can fullfill the requirements of the law. This is recorded throughout all the men of great faith. All men sin, all the men of the bible, everyone who has ever lived, including me and including you. What happens next is of greater importance. Will you repent of your sin and place your faith and trust in Christ, or will you continue to live your life of unbelief and sin?

True. A couple options:
God orchestrated the timing of the flood in such a way that there was no person before the age of accountability at the time. None existed so as to drown.

While possible in the strictest sense of the word, it's doubtful. With more and more generations, they would start to all blend together, making there be children continuously. Case in point: my dad is a child from the oldest of seven children. He has a cousin who is the youngest of the youngest of those seven children. That kid (my dad's generation) is only five years older than me. My cousin is actually older than him, despite being a generation behind. So, for several generations, there was at least one person below the age of accountability just in my family alone.

Your initial claim involves so called 'magic'. To initially claim 'magic' as a possibility then reject any concievable possibility is inconsistant.

The other problem with this is basically, God decides they're so bad that he needs to kill them all that he... waits for years until somehow all the generations are space out just so.

On one side of the coin if you read the judgments in the OT you'll notice that God often waits until the "fullness of sin" or for "sin to be complete." In other words He waits for the crimes to be great enough to warrant the punishment. On the other side of the coin it is written, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God is patient, not wanting any to perish. Noah was a preacher of righteousness for about 100 years as he called people to righteousness and told them how to escape the coming judgment. Mankind was forewarned then as they are now. No one listened then, who will listen today?

Oh, and there's no biblical support for it either. You're just making it up to try and make it so God didn't kill any children.

While I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary (burden of proof) and I wouldn't need Biblical support to show that you're using an either-or fallacy, only an example of a third option, I don't mind providing a defense. Actually there is Biblical support for there being no one younger than the age of accountability. The only families named in the account at the time of the flood were Noah and his wife, Noah's three sons and their wives. So there are four married couples, and (after Noah and his wife had the three sons) there was not one child among them their entire married lives (pre-flood about 100 years). 100% of the named families had zero children for at least 100 years. While this is not conclusive proof that no other families had children it is the Biblical support for my claim you have asked for.

[Esquilax]

The burden of proof lies with the original claim. Shifting the burden of proof (a fallacy) is requiring the contrary view point to be proven in order to prove the original claim false. In our conversation, the original claim is that God killed innocent children. Any and everyone making the claim bears the burden of proof. Asking me to prove that He didn't (kill innocent children) is asking me to prove the contrary and would be shifting the burden of proof to me, and would thus be fallacious. I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary.

You've been provided that proof: it's a biological fact that babies aren't self aware until at least fifteen months of age. Given that, until that time, there is no sentient actor through which acts or thoughts could make a person guilty, then it is a simple fact that any child prior to self awareness cannot be guilty of anything, being that there's no being to be guilty. Therefore, they must be innocent.

And given that your only evidence that they were guilty (which, by the way, is itself a positive claim that must be proved) is "bible sez," then that's really the end of the conversation, until you can gin up something a little stronger than the word of a book that is demonstrably not infallible.

[RobbyPants]

[Darkstar]

The burden of proof lies with the original claim. Shifting the burden of proof (a fallacy) is requiring the contrary view point to be proven in order to prove the original claim false. In our conversation, the original claim is that God killed innocent children.

Oh, I see, so it wasn't that the flood ever actually happened in the first place. Well, I don't see how he could have killed children in the flood if there was no flood. Good thing no one is claiming that the flood actually ever happened. Wouldn't it be awful if they had to prove that claim?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

As I've written before, the Noah flood story is a metaphor for the Assyrians/Babylonians or even Persians sweeping across the Middle East and destroying everything. And like a real flood of water
they were irresistible. Noah was able to hold out because he was able to fortify his position and collaborated with another foreign power.

As for babies remember the threat in Zephaniah chapter 1, in which the god character (an Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian emperor) says that he's going to kill everything in the area, including the birds and the fish.

So was the Noah fable written after the Zephaniah threat?

[orangebox21]

The burden of proof lies with the original claim. Shifting the burden of proof (a fallacy) is requiring the contrary view point to be proven in order to prove the original claim false. In our conversation, the original claim is that God killed innocent children. Any and everyone making the claim bears the burden of proof. Asking me to prove that He didn't (kill innocent children) is asking me to prove the contrary and would be shifting the burden of proof to me, and would thus be fallacious. I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary.

You've been provided that proof: it's a biological fact that babies aren't self aware until at least fifteen months of age. Given that, until that time, there is no sentient actor through which acts or thoughts could make a person guilty, then it is a simple fact that any child prior to self awareness cannot be guilty of anything, being that there's no being to be guilty. Therefore, they must be innocent.

I've never heard or read anything about science being involved in studies of the consciousness of infants and was thus simply asking for more information on the subject. If "because the Bible says so" is a superficial response, then to be fair, "because I (or scienctists) say(s) so" is also a superficial response. No offense intended, I'm just looking for more scientific information on the subject.

And given that your only evidence that they were guilty (which, by the way, is itself a positive claim that must be proved) is "bible sez," then that's really the end of the conversation, until you can gin up something a little stronger than the word of a book that is demonstrably not infallible.

While some of my evidence is that the Bible gives a historical account confirming my claim, I can offer other evidences if needed. However, in trying to follow the agreed upon rules of logic and debate, I am under no obligation to prove the contrary in order to disprove the original claim (shifting the burden of proof). If you start a new thread asking the question 'are people morally perfect?' I'd be happy to respond and defend my position.

Your initial claim involves so called 'magic'. To initially claim 'magic' as a possibility then reject any concievable possibility is inconsistant.

You are entirely correct. It is possible that God could have "magically" prevented babies from being there. Granted, there is no mention of this, but it is possible. Now, one has to wonder how God kept the world baby-free before his judgment:
He rendered everyone sterile: It's possible, I suppose, but there's no evidence this happened. It also seems ridiculous, given

• He had Noah make a boat,
  
• Guided animals toward the boat,
  
• Magically made people sterile,
  
• Magically sustained and repopulated the planet after the flood...
  

...all so he could drown some people he was mad at. If he had the ability to precision-strike their testicles and ovaries, he could have just given them all heart attacks. The best case for this solution is "God is super inefficient and contrived". Pretty much like any bit of bronze-age mythology.
God removed their desire to have kids: Kills the free will defense, much like when he hardened Pharaoh's heart.

So can we agree that your initial claim led to an either-or fallacy?

On one side of the coin if you read the judgments in the OT you'll notice that God often waits until the "fullness of sin" or for "sin to be complete." In other words He waits for the crimes to be great enough to warrant the punishment. On the other side of the coin it is written, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God is patient, not wanting any to perish. Noah was a preacher of righteousness for about 100 years as he called people to righteousness and told them how to escape the coming judgment. Mankind was forewarned then as they are now. No one listened then, who will listen today?

So he lets a known and preventable problem fester until it cannot be easily fixed? Holy crap! This does support my "YHWH is inefficient and contrived, like other bronze-age mythology" stance. A stitch in time saves nine, YHWH.

I've never understood the 'blame God for my/peoples actions' argument.

Also, whatever "warning" God was doing, was clearly ineffective, an as a future-telling god, he would have known it was ineffective. This makes it appear like he drown a bunch of people because he wanted to drown a bunch of people, and not because he was trying to fix any type of problem.

It was entirely effective. It was proof that everyone rejected Him and His salvation. You're defining it "ineffective" because more people didn't come to repentence and thus salvation. Your hidden assumption is that it's God's fault that people don't repent. Why not you, why not now, repent and believe the gospel?

While I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary (burden of proof) and I wouldn't need Biblical support to show that you're using an either-or fallacy, only an example of a third option, I don't mind providing a defense. Actually there is Biblical support for there being no one younger than the age of accountability. The only families named in the account at the time of the flood were Noah and his wife, Noah's three sons and their wives. So there are four married couples, and (after Noah and his wife had the three sons) there was not one child among them their entire married lives (pre-flood about 100 years). 100% of the named families had zero children for at least 100 years. While this is not conclusive proof that no other families had children it is the Biblical support for my claim you have asked for.

No. You asserted there were no children. You're going to have to prove it.

Again, to show an argument contains the "either-or" fallacy it has to be shown that the arguer has forced the arguee to choose between only two choices when more than two choices are possible. I have shown that there are more than two possible choices. I do not have to prove any of the other choices are true, only that they are possible in order to show that your argument contains the "either-or" fallacy.

Given that in any time we have been able to observe it, there have always been children living with the adults, I think it's reasonable to assume that is the default case.

I agree with you. I also agree that this is an assumption, a reasonable one yes, but an assumption nonetheless. We have to be carefull when logically concluding that because things are like X today that proves they were like X thousands of years ago. It's not a provable nor logically inferrable statement, it's just assumed.

You're "Biblical support" is that a tiny sample size of the population (which was, per the story, not indicative of the rest of the population!) didn't have kids, therefore no one had kids. I'm calling sampling bias on your support.

That's why I didn't use the word 'proof' but rather 'support' which mind you was your original claim. I'm not claiming you can prove that the rest of the population didn't have children based upon the provided sample size. You claimed there is no Biblical support for the claim, I'm disputing this fact as the Bible does provide support for the claim in the strictest sense.

(which was, per the story, not indicative of the rest of the population!)

Where do you get your Biblical support for this statement?

The burden of proof lies with the original claim. Shifting the burden of proof (a fallacy) is requiring the contrary view point to be proven in order to prove the original claim false. In our conversation, the original claim is that God killed innocent children.

Oh, I see, so it wasn't that the flood ever actually happened in the first place. Well, I don't see how he could have killed children in the flood if there was no flood.

A logical conclusion, but not what is being discussed here.

Good thing no one is claiming that the flood actually ever happened. Wouldn't it be awful if they had to prove that claim?

Much has been written about this subject, and many threads started for it's discussion. Just not this one.

[RobbyPants]