• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Did the flood really happen?

Did the Biblical Flood occur?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 25.0%
  • No

    Votes: 18 64.3%
  • I am not sure

    Votes: 3 10.7%

  • Total voters
    28
If hundreds of years of various belief systems say that God's existence is paradoxical, then I guess so.

Fair enough.

I have a hard time believing that God's existence is paradoxical. How can that be?.:confused:

See Walleye's post. God exists outside of such rules and parameters. Why can't God's existence be paradoxical?
 
God being illogical and nonsensical according to who? You?

Yes, and according to logic

God is not controlled by the laws of the universe that he himself set in motion or the senses that he gave you. He also does not exist in time and we are. ?
OK, thats all fine and good...

God exists outside of time, senses and logic. That's where you are making your mistake. You're looking at God from your perspective as a human.

God's existence can't be paradoxical.

You can argue about the logic that got me to that conclusion...


BUT...
a paradoxical fact is paradoxical no matter where you go, whether outside of time/space, outside of the 'realm' of human existence..it doesn't matter, a paradox is a paradox, from whatever perspective - a contradiction is a contradiction, no matter what - UNLESS as I said, you claim it isn't a paradox, in which you can argue about my logic.
 
Yes, and according to logic


OK, thats all fine and good...



God's existence can't be paradoxical.

You can argue about the logic that got me to that conclusion...


BUT...
a paradoxical fact is paradoxical no matter where you go, whether outside of time/space, outside of the 'realm' of human existence..it doesn't matter, a paradox is a paradox, from whatever perspective - a contradiction is a contradiction, no matter what - UNLESS as I said, you claim it isn't a paradox, in which you can argue about my logic.

According to who's logic? Your logic? That's funny. God can and does do whatever he wants. It's not logical that a donkey can talk but God can make him talk. It's not logical that an entire sea part and people walk through it on dry groung, but God can do that. God does not live in your logical existence.
 
According to who's logic? Your logic? That's funny. God can and does do whatever he wants. It's not logical that a donkey can talk but God can make him talk. It's not logical that an entire sea part and people walk through it on dry groung, but God can do that. God does not live in your logical existence.

GOD CAN'T DO THE IMPERFECT....he is perfect...unless you believe he is an imperfect ruler.
Anything else he can do.

I would reckon that illogicality implies imperfection

But that is a side point,
And I am not questioning Gods ability to perform an action now.
I am questioning his paradoxical existance
 

No.

Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths

Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]

* The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
* Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
* Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
* Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

Baumgarder's theory still does not work without miracles, as Baumgardner himself admitted (Baumgardner 1990a, 1990b). The thermal diffusivity of the earth would have to increase ten thousandfold to get the subduction rates proposed, and something would have to cause the advance and retreat of the magma bubble (Matsumura 1997). Miracles would also have been necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.

CH430: Runaway subduction
 
GOD CAN'T DO THE IMPERFECT....he is perfect...unless you believe he is an imperfect ruler.
Anything else he can do.

I would reckon that illogicality implies imperfection

But that is a side point,
And I am not questioning Gods ability to perform an action now.
I am questioning his paradoxical existance

I see what you're saying. Something like.....Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it.

Did Adam have a belly button?
 
I see what you're saying. Something like.....Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it.

Did Adam have a belly button?

I may be missing something here but I am not really sure of why all the debate over the omnipotent aspects of God. At least in the King James version the word is only used once in the entire bible. In its definition it is listed as.....


pantokravtwr Pantokrator (pan-tok-rat'-ore);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3841


he who holds sway over all things
the ruler of all
almighty: God

looking at the three possible biblical definitions of the word I do not see any paradox myself.

he who holds sway over all things

If God truly exists and he truly created the universe then this definition holds true because he can change/alter end add to take away from his creation as he sees fit.

the ruler of all

Pretty much a continuation of the first definition. If he created it then it his and it is his property/posession to do with as he sees fit.

almighty: God

If a being of this magnitude and power truly exist then at least as far as we as humans are concerned then all power over us truly does lie in his hands. What ever a being of this nature ever choose's to do there is no way we could stop him.

There are no definitions of the word that support any arguments that if God created a rock that he could not lift or is there a question that he can not answer that conflicts with the biblical definition of omnipotence even if there truly was a question he could not answer or truly a rock that he could not lift.

Moe
 
Last edited:
I see what you're saying. Something like.....Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it.

Did Adam have a belly button?

Bingo
...as I posted in "Jesus: Son of Satan"

Can God create a rock that he can't lift? NO....
Now you might say...but wait Joemama, oh wise sage (:cool:), doesn't that then give God a limitations? and who can give God limitations?

It precisely does limit God.

But God is "perfect" and Can a perfect creator create something imperfect?
No! part of being "perfect" means that you are limited to perfection.


So God is limited...limited to perfection.
 
I may be missing something here but I am not really sure of why all the debate over the omnipotent aspects of God. At least in the King James version the word is only used once in the entire bible.

Moe, such a question poses the question of "Can God's existence be paradoxical?" so either we change the meaning of omnipotent, or well, debate on that question of his paradoxical existence alone.

And using the bible to support, although I see your point, does not help in this argument. Even if it explicitly states in the Bible that God's existence is paradoxical (form what I know it doesn't...) we are still debating the point.
 
Moe, such a question poses the question of "Can God's existence be paradoxical?" so either we change the meaning of omnipotent, or well, debate on that question of his paradoxical existence alone.

And using the bible to support, although I see your point, does not help in this argument. Even if it explicitly states in the Bible that God's existence is paradoxical (form what I know it doesn't...) we are still debating the point.

What good does it do to debate a point that the bible does not even make?

The true teaching is found in the meaning of the actual Greek used. Not the English word that was used in the translation.

Just saying.....

Moe
 
There probably was a great flood. Did it kill of all humanity except Noah and his family? no. But I'm pretty sure there probably was a very big flood that killed a lot of people.
 
What good does it do to debate a point that the bible does not even make?
Even more of a reason not to use the point.

I don't think I understood your post till now
 
Even more of a reason not to use the point.

I don't think I understood your post till now

Well, I am just going by what I see as the NT view. maybe Tashah has a better perspective from an OT view that adds more to the biblical definition of omnipotence.

Could be an equivalent Hebrew word used in the OT that has a broader context that I am missing.

Moe
 
Don't know if this had been mentioned, but Genesis wasn't written until the jews were in captivity in Babylon (at least, not written as a book). The Chronicles of Assyria and Babylon have a universal flood, as well as other similarities with the bible.
 
Don't know if this had been mentioned, but Genesis wasn't written until the jews were in captivity in Babylon (at least, not written as a book). The Chronicles of Assyria and Babylon have a universal flood, as well as other similarities with the bible.

That's likely because the stories all came from the same place and were passed down through time. What we don't see is similar flood stories from around the world. Creationists like to fraudulently say that many cultures across the planet have such stories but none of them have the same time frame, scale, rational, origin of the water and reason for why it stopped or who survived.
 
Don't know if this had been mentioned, but Genesis wasn't written until the jews were in captivity in Babylon (at least, not written as a book). The Chronicles of Assyria and Babylon have a universal flood, as well as other similarities with the bible.

Thank you for bringing this into play. It should also be noted that the Jews did not exist as a people during the events recorded in Genesis. Abraham although not a Jew was called a Hebrew in Genesis 14:13.

There is debate over what this word actually means. Some believe that the word means immigrant, gypsy or peasant. Others believe it is a reference to Abrahams descent from Eber thus it would mean Abraham the Eberite.

But regardless of this the Genesis account was given to the Jews long after the events it reports thus the bible does not claim that the Genesis accounts given the Jews are the oldest written or verbal accounts. What is does claim is that these are the most accurate accounts because they are received from God himself. Considering that Genesis chapters 1 through 9 cover an unknown but still a long period of time in very few pages shows that God was not interested in giving any kind of a detailed history as to what happened from Adam to post flood Noah.

As has been stated in this thread almost all of us agree that there is solid evidence of a major catastrophic flood event in the ancient past. But even with that there is no way to historically or scientifically prove that a man named Noah existed at that time and received specific instructions from God. This is simply an issue of faith.

Moe
 
Well, I am just going by what I see as the NT view. maybe Tashah has a better perspective from an OT view that adds more to the biblical definition of omnipotence.

Could be an equivalent Hebrew word used in the OT that has a broader context that I am missing.

Moe

Wait...
Are you saying that omnipotence doesn't mean that he can do everything?...

If so, we got no argument then...:unsure13:
 
God being illogical and nonsensical according to who? You? That's funny. God is not controlled by the laws of the universe that he himself set in motion or the senses that he gave you. He also does not exist in time and we are. God exists outside of time, senses and logic. That's where you are making your mistake. You're looking at God from your perspective as a human. The universe if very big. If God created the universe then how big do you think God is?

Here, let me show you something:

Pink Unicorn Zombie Man being illogical and nonsensical according to who? You? That's funny. Pink Unicorn Zombie Man is not controlled by the laws of the universe that he himself set in motion or the senses that he gave you. He also does not exist in time and we are. Pink Unicorn Zombie Man exists outside of time, senses and logic. That's where you are making your mistake. You're looking at Pink Unicorn Zombie Man from your perspective as a human. The universe if very big. If Pink Unicorn Zombie Man created the universe then how big do you think Pink Unicorn Zombie Man is?

I hope you can see why, to others who do not share your views, your opinion stated as a truth seems ridiculous.
 
Wait...
Are you saying that omnipotence doesn't mean that he can do everything?...

If so, we got no argument then...:unsure13:

I am simply defining the word omnipotence using the actual Greek word used. In its proper biblical context the nature of God perfectly fits the use of the original Greek. It needs to be remembered that when a translator is translating a passage to a different language that many times they have to use the word that best represents the original meaning but it may not be the exact meaning of the original word. I have run into this problem at home on occasions. I will be reading from an English Bible and every body else will be using a local dialect translation. Some times there will be confusion because what the English says does not exactly fit the native dialect translation.
This is not by intent but by simple limitations in various languages to truly represent the original meanings as they were originally intended.

Also it should be noted that the native translations are not from the original manuscripts but rather from English translations. So what you have is a translation from another translation.

Also one always has to be aware of traditions. Many Christian traditions and beliefs have arisen that really have no scriptural support. These traditions have taken on a meaning and life of their own. Some based on cherry picking certain verses to give an appearance of validity while ignoring other verses that would give balance or even abolish the tradition and some that have no basis in the scripture at all.

NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Christian tradition

But even using your definition of everything then if there is even one thing that God can not do then the definition can not be used to describe God.

God can not lie. God can not do evil simply for the sake of doing evil. God can not bear false witness. God can not defile what is holy. God can not punish the innocent. So you see there are actually many things that by your definition that God can not do.

Moe
 
Last edited:
Here, let me show you something:



I hope you can see why, to others who do not share your views, your opinion stated as a truth seems ridiculous.

Of course my views seem ridiculous to those who deny there is a God. Do you think you've just discovered something or telling me something I didn't find out before you were born? You're funny.
 
Traditional belief is that Moses wrote the original Genesis. And there is no real reason to doubt that.


Moe

I hope you didn't think I was implying he wrote a copy from someone else. When I stated that Moses wrote Genesis, I was hoping everyone would know that I meant the original.
 
Of course my views seem ridiculous to those who deny there is a God. Do you think you've just discovered something or telling me something I didn't find out before you were born? You're funny.

Then refrain from wording your opinion like a fact next time.
 
Back
Top Bottom