- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Here's a copypaste from the last time I had this debate.
Well, let us just say for arguments sake that he got the boat built, and that he got all the animals on there (simply because these parts have been argued a million times over), this is where the fun begins.
Noah's flood myth states that the Earth was filled to the top of the highest mountain with water. This is an extra 8.8 Kilometers (give or take) above sea level around the entire surface of the Earth, (where this water came from or where it went is another matter we'll have to ignore).
Now, Noah and his rag tag crew are in this Gopher wood boat on top of this unimaginably large body of water, and what do we know about the movement of water?
That's right, it's controlled by the moon's gravitational interplay with the Earth.
If you are in that boat and are near the moon you will find your boat rising up on the sort of wave that would make the Burj al arab look like a canary's tampon and then find yourself being fuck around like only an angry God can manage, probably (because this is magic wood) surfing along towards the bright side of the Earth at a speed reserved for interstellar travel (not that the animals will mind, they love this shit).
But maybe God canceled that, and it didn't happen you say.
OK, so this boat is sitting on top of this body of water, that has basically pushed all of the non water-soluble molecules into this now massively volumetrically reduced and highly pressurised atmosphere, volcanoes will still piss out all manner of nasty shit into this space and it'll go straight into their lungs/on to their skin/ into their food source (whatever that was and what exactly did they drink?)
So, they must have been encased in a bubble of some sort to protect them.
We all know the arguments about the animals on the boat and food sources and yadayadayada. What about the living things that were not on the boat?
Every single aquatic life form would have been completely displaced, this body of water would massively change their habitat and push them so far away from their food source that they would all probably starve, or die in the desalinated or highly salted environment they now found themselves in; add to this the billions of tons of pressure that would be added means that most living things below a certain depth would be crushed to death (including microbes).
Say that all of the above were avoided by our merry sailors, once the water subsided they'd find that there was no plant life at all, and that there was very little oxygen, given that plants don't function very well under miles of brackish water without sunlight or carbon sources, add the algae to this as well.
So, with out plants for them or the herbivores and other omnivores to eat there'd be very little food add to this no potable water and fuck all breathable air and you are in trouble son.
But hey, this is God right? surely he made it so they could survive anything.
That leads to the question; What is the point?
God is omnipotent, surely simply erasing all of the wrong doers would have been easier, or maybe, just maybe, not making the cunts in the first place.
He's also omni-benevolent, but that must mean that benevolence is actually slaughtering every living thing on a planet in a very horrible way, that includes children, the mentally retarded and all of the other living things that were not lucky enough to be selected for the fun boat.
Not at all.
Simply because it is not liked, it does not mean that is is incorrect.
It is an unacceptable model because it requires too much assumption without any grounding.
If you wish to propose a model that explains something, then you you need to have at least some logical grounding.
I already accepted the premise that God exists in a vain attempt to engage you in a debate which I thought you'd not result to the same "it is because I say it is" method of persuasion.
I realise now that that was wrong.
Occam's Razor defeats itself.