I am not involved in any religion, nor is this thread meant to bash Christian beliefs of the Great Flood. This thread is meant to see how would you disprove the global flood myths in general, for even in greek mythology Zeus was proclaimed to have flooded the earth. Now you know Creationist are not going to truly try to prove it, but what I have noticed is people's attempts at disproving it. In all the contradiction videos I have seen, the arguer assumes that the world is a perfect oblate sphereoid with nothing rising above the sea level. The result is a requisite that is far higher than the requisite to flood the earth to 29,029ft. How would you go about accurately getting the required water necessary to fill the earth up to Everest's peak, while taking into account the displacement that hills and mountains cause? To also answer another excuse, how much would be needed to cover the earth up to Mt Arat?
Disprove Global Flood Myth
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
oxforddictionaries.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
quora.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Some will make the claim that the humidity before the flood was significantly higher than afterword.
That literally all the water needed for the flood was simply vapor in the atmosphere prior to the flood.
The same person went on to claim that this high humidity was the reason that ante-deluvian biblical figures lived to hundreds of years old.
Sounds like bullshit to me.
Covering the tallest mountains too? Not enough water for that. Also, gods don't exist. So, problem solved.
For starters, lack of convincing evidence to support the claims of a global flood.
For enders, the diversity of land animals and the fossil record that establishes when these animals began to walk the lands they live on.
A global flood would kill millions of species and we'd see their skeletons in the rocks all around the world. Shit floats and currents move things from one continent to another.
Why are we making the assumption that it was a planetary flood?
Also, what sorts of inferences could you even make if there was a great deluge in ancient human history? Even if there was one you couldn't use it to support any one religion since a great deluge appears in so many religions.
Here's a better claim:
>A great deluge happened that devastated an ancient human settlement and it had nothing to do with any modern religious belief.
Any idea how well the Black Sea deluge hypothesis holds up?
That claim sounds like both a hilarious and a sad read.
How he could try to explain how the atmosphere was able to contain all that moisture without it condensing prior to the flood; is beyond me.
That is completely true, however you know damn well a creationist will not listen to that. Hypothetically if a global flood were even plausible, would there be enough water to even do it? Let alone even happen through the means of rain.
How else could it happen, surely not through some unnatural means?
It couldn't happen any other way, we all are mature enough to accept the fact that
there is no god.
If there is a God then he is quite spooky.
I can't without ignoring the decent number of now underwater cities.
I also don't care about approaching religious texts with a "must debunk" mindset.
Are you implying that a flood is what caused these cities to be underwater? I mean New Orleans is under sea level right now, doesn't mean anything.
I'm not implying much of anything. I'm just saying it's a big ambiguous world out there, and a lot of elements potentially correlate decently with old stories. One should not willfully create false signal in the noise, but they should also accurately evaluate the spectrum of possibilities to the greatest width they're able.
Greece is full of cities now beneath the ocean. With advanced machinery.
youtube.com
youtube.com
>in b4 woowoo
>in b4 tldw
>in b4 shills lol they're already there :^)
Again, it means nothing. To even consider it a possibility, you need to first prove it is even possible. It cannot be a possibility if it's not possible. The Great Flood never happened, we do not have enough water to do it. All you're saying is that society has made up a lot of shit and the there's a chance one may be true. That's not how it works. If there was a great flood dated 6k years ago we would find archeological remains of dead plants and animals worldwide, but we do not see a mass extinction of this dated 6k years ago. The only thing I am asking is if the world filling up to Mt. Everest in rain can happen. Saying it could be a possibility is pointless.
>3h
Yeah no thanks
IF the records of the bible hold any sort of truth, you could assume that since humanity was still pretty young they all lived within a pretty limited region, presumably at least on the same continent. It's more likely that the region was flooded as opposed to the whole planet.
Then it is fact not a miracle. If a miracle or phenomenon happened in the bible that can be explained through the means of science, or happen in our universe, it is not a miracle or act of god. It is just a normal occurrence that didn't need metaphysical assistance. All this shows is that people were ignorant and couldn't explain what was going on around them so they just called it god.
And where does he think the water went afterwords?
you're probably right, but who's to say that the events that caused the flood happened on their own without any influence...
I am a geology student. I am also a Christian.
It is very very simple. A global flood would leave evidence in the rock record. You can't flood the whole Earth with water and not have it leave evidence. There is no such evidence in the rock record.
None.
I hold to two possibilities.
1. The global flood is a misunderstanding of God's work and was never global in scale.
2. Working off the idea that the Earth needs to be baptized (primarily an idea from the middle ages) the covering of the whole earth was at beats a thin sheen of water.
I'm fine with either.
God is not a magical wish granting genie, nor has he ever pretended to be. My belief, shared with many many other philosophers much greater than me, is that God has never worked outside the realm of science and physics to accomplish his goals. Your definition of 'miracle' has never and will never exist.
>bronze age savages come up with a myth
>somehow we are obligated to 'disprove' it
You need to work on your epistemology before doing science.
The fact that it followed rules in the sciences associated for the explanation.
You forgot the most likely possibility:
0. God doesn't exist and the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm fine with either as well, providing that either means 0.
>God has never worked outside the realm of science and physics to accomplish his goals
Then he doesn't exist.
Let's embark on a journey to find an inductive logical premise for the existence of God(s).
Oh wait, there aren’t any.
Let's embark on a journey to find an inductive logical premise for the existence of the material world.
Oh wait, there aren't any.
>brain in vat argument
That's not how the burden of proof works. There is in fact ways we can prove that we can feel our material physical existence. Neurons and magnetism with atoms are enough. We have proved we are in fact existing, has nothing to do with the fact that there is no evidence for any deity that has ever existed.
>0. God doesn't exist and the Bible is a work of fiction.
Repeating that doesn't make it true
The bible being fiction is undoubtedly true though, we can't disprove something that does not exist, it's up to the one that claims their deity to prove it. But in fact that the bible is wrong most of the time, and has been proven to be greatly exaggerated, it is in fact following the myth archetypes. The stories in the bible are just works of fiction, and the miracles that can be explained by science do not offer proof that their specific deity is the result of these miracles. More specifically, in the attempts to disprove any deity, there is always an excuse that they exist outside outside the universe's laws, metaphysical. If in fact something does not exist with the partcicles that make up everything in the universe, it dies not exist. If we have yet to find the particles that compose deities, there is not reason to believe in these deities, for you lack of proof does not disprove god, but it does not offer enough reason to believe in them. Especially if the miracles that gave ignorant folk reason enough to believe in their deity can be explained by science.
>The bible being fiction is undoubtedly true though
[citation needed]
>we can't disprove something that does not exist
Just because you parrot that doesn't make it true.
>it's up to the one that claims their deity to prove it
And yet you refuse to listen to any of them make their arguments.
>But in fact that the bible is wrong most of the time, and has been proven to be greatly exaggerated, it is in fact following the myth archetypes
There's more to the bible than the book of genesis.
>The stories in the bible are just works of fiction
Repeating a mantra doesn't make it true.
>and the miracles that can be explained by science do not offer proof that their specific deity is the result of these miracles
Timing matters.
>More specifically, in the attempts to disprove any deity, there is always an excuse that they exist outside outside the universe's laws, metaphysical. If in fact something does not exist with the partcicles that make up everything in the universe, it dies not exist
If in fact something does not exist with the data that make up everything in the operating system, it does not exist. Checkmate programmer believing AIs!
I'm not refusing to listen, theist have failed to prove their deities to me. What do you mean timing? If thats the case better start becoming a Hindu because that religion is older than Judaism. I don't need to disprove any deity, it's the believer that needs to prove theirs. Burden of proof. Are you trying to tell me that stories in the bible are true? If that's the case you're just a delusional fucktard. They are the result of exaggeration from being revised multiple times. Do you think the bible is an eyewitness account? A primary source? The only reason people are saying the bible is a methaphor is because science has contradicted it. No one would say it is meant as an allegory if it was not disproven. Noah never used magic to move water, stop being a child believing in fairytales. Better yet, take these myths and discuss your wizard in the sky somewhere else, because I made this thread to discuss how would you go about accurately measuring the amount of water it would take to raise the sea level to Mt. Everest.
>just because I continue to say it does not make it true
You're right, me saying that; isn't what is making that statement true, what are getting at?
If you don't want to go to church then don't. No need to be autistic about it.
>autistic
Default insult, the problem is religion just doesn't stay in church. It exist all round you, and people think of it as infallible facts. It exist in culture, it exist in people's imagination. Imagination doesn't limit itself to just church or that person, for example this fucking thread. I didn't ask to discuss fairytales here. This wasn't even targeted at Christian beliefs, people just read global flood and came right in.
>No one would say it is meant as an allegory if it was not disproven
And clearly you have done 0 research into Christianity and treat your ass as an authoritative primary source.
...
>meanwhile Gallileo gets house arrest for life
>one person is the consensus if the entire population.
Not even a regular person, a philosopher.
>This thread is meant to see how would you disprove the global flood myths in general,
Firstly, you don't bother proving or disproving myths. They're fucking myths.
Secondly, floods are a big thing in ancient mythology because for most of humanity's existence, we've lived near shit like rivers, ponds, and lakes -- you know, shit that floods? And over time, there's likely been either a big, rare flood event that was enshrined in oral tradition or someone exaggerated a normal flood.
This applies to the people coming here to defend their religion more. I don't hate or resent religion, I just don't need to see it every time I want to have a scientific discussion.
>>meanwhile Gallileo gets house arrest for life
Meanwhile /reddit/atheism continues to be uneducated
I can do whatever the fuck I want, I wanted an accurate way of seeing how to calculate the amount of water that would be needed to raise the sea level up to Everest's peak. I didn't ask to discuss religion.
>he thinks this is an argument
Would also like to add: How is that any different than the stories found in religious texts?
>you don't bother disproving myths, they are myth
????????
Then don't bring up subjects that aren't related to what you're trying to find out.
For the most part, it's not. I'd argue if you're getting hung up on whether or not events are factual, you're ignoring the actually important elements.
It is related. If you read my opening post you would see that the problem was people's attempts at accurately disproving it are assuming too much, that being that mountains and rises do not contribute to displacement that would reduce the amount of water necessary to fill up the Earth. I know very well the purpose myths have, in ancient greeks many myths were not for explanation for their creation and to answer questions that would be unanswerable for them at the time, but for entertainment and lessons. One I can recall off the top of my head is "the allegory of the cave." However many theists claim that the myths in the bible happened the way it is written. We know that Zeus does not exist, and the stories for his adultery were the result of his myth being spread to multiple cities.
I don't even know what you're going on about, a myth is not fact, but it can be disproven. Anons have already disproved it at the beginning of the thread, but adressed other issues that I was not questioning.
True, Brahe and Bruno are much better examples of people who were persecuted for their non-orthodox beliefs, especially regarding cosmology. Brahe had to flee to avoid being burned at a stake, and Bruno actually was burned at the stake for his unorthodox beliefs.
PS: It's not much of an improvement if they're burning people at the stake and/or threatening house arrest for writing satire that happens to demean a church official. That's still really bad.
You're talking about "brain in a vat", right? You fail philosophy 101.
I could be in The Matrix right now, and it doesn't change a damn thing. I will still need to behave in a certain way in order to obtain food, keep internet access, etc. It does not matter if it's "real" or simulated, because my pain and satisfaction of my desires is just as real in either case. The Matrix hypothesis is irrelevant, until and less someone can make a novel observable falsifiable prediction, such as a way to escape. Until then, it literally does not matter.
It was mesopotamia or an even older civilization that was flooded in prehistoric history. The small amount of people around at that time thought it was the whole world that flooded. Or at least that's what they told their children for generations to come. I'm sure there was a terrible flood when civilization was just beginning to take form and we just never really heard that end of the old tale.
There were a lot of floods but the biblical flood is in reference to finding sea shells up on mountains, they were all like, wtf, God flooded the world! Then like 1800 or so geologists were like, geological time is sooooo long, then later like, plate tectonics. Humans are really stupid considering we've been wondering around this shithole for so long and only recently figured that out.
>Bruno are much better examples of people who were persecuted for their non-orthodox beliefs, especially regarding cosmology
No, he was "persecuted" for denying the divinity of Christ and the like. As far as his cosmological views go, he was told to present evidence for them or stop spouting his crackpot theories as fact.
Stop watching Cosmos.
And what about Brahe?
Even if true, how is that any better? Suppression of knowledge and dissent is the primary complaint. The exact topic of suppression is not relevant.
>Suppression of knowledge
There was no suppression of knowledge.
>dissent
Bruno was a monk, of course he would get heat. A doctor would be "suppressed" if he started telling everyone smoking is good for you.
>And what about Brahe
What about him?
>Tycho's body has been exhumed twice, in 1901 and 2010, to examine the circumstances of his death and to identify the material from which his artificial nose was made. The conclusion was that his death was likely caused by a burst bladder, and not by poisoning as had been suggested,
>When Frederick died in 1588 his son and heir Christian IV, was only 11 years old. A regency council was appointed to rule for the young prince-elect until his coronation in 1596. The head of the council was Christoffer Valkendorff who disliked Tycho Brahe after a conflict between them, and hence Tycho's influence at the Danish court steadily declined. Feeling that his legacy on Hven was in peril he approached the widow queen Sophie and asked her to affirm in writing her late husband's promise of endowing Hven to Tycho's heirs.[24] Nonetheless, he realized that the young king was more interested in war than in science, and was of no mind to keep good on his fathers promise. The King Christian IV followed a policy of curbing the power of the nobility by taking back liens to minimize their income bases, by accusing nobles of misusing their offices and by accusing them of heresies against the Lutheran church. Tycho, who was known to sympathize with the Philippists (followers of Philip Melanchthon), was among the nobles who fell out of grace with the new king. The king's unfavorable disposition towards Tycho was likely also a result of efforts to turn the king against him by several of his enemies at court.
>The straw that broke the camel's back for Tycho, was when a mob of commoners, possibly stirred by his enemies at court, rioted in front of his house in Copnhagen. Tycho Brahe left Hven in 1597
Sounds like internal politics.
> Bruno was a monk, of course he would get heat. A doctor would be "suppressed" if he started telling everyone smoking is good for you.
Currently, it's not illegal to deny that smoking causes cancer. And yet, you're saying it's ok to burn such people at the stake? WTF is wrong with you.
>Bruno was a monk, of course he would get heat.
> burned at the stake
Kek. Seems a tad of an overreaction if you ask me
>people ITT not knowing about the meltdown of icecaps and sea level rise of 120m during the last 20k years
>christians taking their romanticized cultural memory of the effect is something unique
en.wikipedia.org
Just gonna put this here.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Also, this may help.
quora.com
Was the flood a salt water or fresh water flood? If it was fresh water, would that make the oceans brackish? If it was salt water, how did fresh water organisms survive? If it was fresh water, how did salt water organisms survive?
That's pretty good! Thread over but the religion card can always be played. God simply fixed it after the flood, I mean he built the joint in 7 days, a little post contamination of salt water is nothing.
Since they believe that "micro"evolution is an inherently degenerative process, they would say that all fish could survive in salt, brackish, and freshwater. They'd then say that after the flood, they most likely "micro"evolved and specialized like crazy to the point where they could only survive in certain types of water.
Remember, they don't use uniformitarianism. They use catastrophism.
Yeah, there's the inherent problem with all of this. Religion and specifically the idea of an omnipotent all-powerful god is an unbeatable psychological game that alot of people get trapped in
In the back of everyone's mind, there's that "what-if". What if religion is actually real and everything else was just deceit to try to test your faith. Religious people just sub-consciously tricking themselves into taking, what they perceive as, the less risky choice
Okay to be honest, I know damn well how to solve for the problem in finding the amount of water it would take to raise the sea level up 29,029ft. Assume the earth is a perfect oblate spheriod, and get the dimensions for it. Extend the radius by 29,029ft. Find the volume for both the altered earth and original. Subtract the volume of the orginal from the altered, but wait we are not done. Somehow calculate the volume of earth that is above the sea level, and subtract that from the difference of the former. That is how much cubic kilometers of water that is needed to flood the Earth. Now look at the total cubic kilometers of all water in any form on Earth, and see how different the two are. I was really hoping one of you would do that for me to be honest.
Well that is some of the attraction but it's mostly the childhood indoctrination IMO. Fear is deciding factor and children with zero critical thinking skills are defenseless, so yes, a "safe" option just in case. Whether you believe or not you can see the attraction, if you don't believe there are all those people who do and are so easy to manipulate. It will never die.
Bump with Homo Diluvii Testis.
You forget the fact that god can prove his own existence, and will, to people willing to prove themselves.
I know this might not be the best place to discuss this, but has anyone studied the history of ancient stories like this to any great extent? I'm curious to know if these ''global floods'' weren't in the original narrative simply large floods or catastrophic storms.
I don't believe in fairy tales, and I'm sure if you believe hard enough Santa Claus will ask you to ride in his sleigh.
Maybe the fact that some salt water species of fish cannot survive in fresh water and vice versa might help with your argument
I passed philosophy 321.
>talking about "brain in a vat"
Lmfao, no. Spiritual monism denies there even is a brain. haha, fucking idiot.
You're right to believe there is a material world. But your reasons for doing so are so fucking wrong. HAHA! fucking fell the bait. You argue to justify your beliefs, not to enhance the meaning of them. Kill yourself retard.
fell for the bait.
But thanks for admitting you're the guy that says "I only believe what I see" when what you're really saying is "I only believe what my senses appear to tell me".
Bump with tentacles.
what is it with all the christfags on Veeky Forums lately? is it the latest cool edgy thing to be a christian? hurr deus vult
Was proably me who started it. But, like anything else, it got out of hand and has spread.
Jesus spoke nothing about creation and flood and He is considered God in human flesh.
Good point - that destroys the global flood theory entirely.
I've seen enough hentai to know where this is going .jpeg
There always have been a lot of (sleeper) Christians on Veeky Forums. If anything there has been a rise in "new" atheists fleeing reddit that are easily baited by creationism trolls.
No one seriously brings up religion in scientific discussing. Stop taking the bait kid.
>shifting of tetonic plates during flood caused land masses to accelerate away from each other
>land masses eventually collide into each other, causing land upheaval (mountains, hills, etc.)
mountains of that calibur probably didn't exist during the time period of said flood.
For anyone interested
here's creationists stance ( organized ):
youtube.com
here's one guy on you-tube stance that uses knowledge from high school and data which internet made available.
youtube.com
Both are actually well made and worth watching.
>cover the earth up to Mt Arat
There was no Mt Ararat back then. Genesis says one of the "Mountains of Ararat" which were anciently understood as including not just those of Armenia where the Ararat range is, but all the taller mountain ranges. A better translation would be "the tallest points of the land".
There's a mountain chain in Armenia of today which matches the description - south of Caucasus.
Actually if you think about it - the fact that Noah was in that arch for over a year - and his geographical position was still around from where the arch was built - makes you consider the hypothesis of regional flood.
Also I'm wrong by saying Ark - it's not a traditional ship in any sense - in Greek LXX tradition ( 2nd century BC ) which traduces an older tradition that today MT text the ark is described with kivotós = which means: wooden box, chest, coffer.
Dimensions of this box are 300 x 50 x 30
in cubits - from Wikipedia the estimated biblical cubit 457.2 mm or 525 mm as the cubit found by archeologists - from egypt.
137.16 x 22.86 x 13.7 meters
So a little smaller than in the image.
>Yeah, there's the inherent problem with all of this. Science and specifically the idea of an world can be explained mathematically is an unbeatable psychological game that a lot of people get trapped in
>In the back of everyone's mind, there's that "what-if". What if science is actually real and everything else was just deceit to try to test your reason. Scientific people just sub-consciously tricking themselves into taking, what they perceive as, the less risky choice
Yeah, people who have an open mind to opinions that are different than by own is so awful. People shouldn't consider it at all.
Anti-theism is mostly the result childhood indoctrination IMO. Boredom is deciding factor and children with zero attention span are defenseless, so yes, a "lazy" option to dismiss it. Whether you believe or not you can see the annoyance of being dragged to church when you rather play games, and if you hate it then it's so easy to manipulate that hate into believing any disparaging one liners about religion and justify your anti-theism with it. It will never die.
bs. atheism used to be the default on Veeky Forums, especially Veeky Forums, until maybe 2013, and ever since 2014 and the rise of /pol/, all the cool kids think it's more intellectual and patrician to be catholic.
>I can't without ignoring the decent number of now underwater cities.
Sealevel rose several hundred feet after the end of the last iceage as most of the glaciers melted.
Atheism became uncool, since it was easily associated with fedora-wearing losers. Since 4channers are low-quality people who can't separate appearance from fact, it became common to assume that since atheists tended to be lesser edgelords, supernatural things must exist.
>tips fedora: the post
i second this, while at the same time feeling weird about how long i've been here
No, there were a bunch of new atheist kids flooding in around 2010 but they all left for reddit soon after. They seem to have come back after the new PC crazy of late 2014-2015 possessed reddit.
>everyone had my opinion until they started talking about their opinions
2 of every fish was on board :^)
>they seem to be back
they're pretty quiet then, as new atheist tendencies are consistently mocked, even on Veeky Forums, although not as much.
really just goes to show that much of Veeky Forums is just contrarian. now that the social engineers want everyone to be atheists, they are switching. same thing with how before obama Veeky Forums was left wing. i don't really care, just making an observation. i am indifferent to religion btw, but have OCD (scrupulosity) so i don't like to think about it very much.
>ignorant of explanation
>posits magic
What? You don't see magnetism retard. You don't need to see things physically in your own eyes, you need controlled repeatable results that can be observed.
>HAHA! fell for the bait
What is this? 9gag? Here's your (You) 0/10 bait made me reply.