Thread:AtheistDragon/@comment-1777104-20151206205509

You offered "Exibit #1" to defend your statement "God is an illogical concept";

" There's the flood, or one thing: The animals would need ALOT of food. The flood waters rose higher than Mount Everest, so the animals would freeze to death, and the ones that didn't freeze to death would suffocate. Then after the flood, all the vegetation would've died off, then the herbivores would've starved, then the carnivores would've starved."

First, provision was made for the food (Gen. 6:21). Studies by biologists on interbreeding animals that produce fertile offspring has reduced the number of air-breathing land animals down to less than 20,000 "kinds" (Gen. 6:20). All these animals had been designed to eat plants (Gen. 1:30). Dried vegetable foodstuffs store very well, so there would be as much food as needed for the animals. By the way, animals in "survival mode" do not eat near as much.

Even if Mount Everest was as high as it is today, the temperture and air pressure at the new "sea level" would not change. The atmosphere and latitude upon the earth detemines the temperature. Even if the ark was floating above present day Himilayas it would be in the temperate zone where it does not get to be freezing very often.

After the flood, there was plenty of vegetation. The plants would have been torn up by their roots, seeds would have been distributed in the winds and floated in the waters, and huge mats of debri would have spread various plants worldwide. The raven finally found carion and did not return (plenty of food for the carnivores when they get desperate), but the dove came back with an olive leaf in its beak, proving that olive seedlings had already sprouted after ground suitable for them had been drained (Gen. 8:6-12).

So, no, the flood is not an argument against the "concept of God." It might be made to be so against the God as recorded, as you have done, but it does not work to defend your statement that "the concept of God is illogical."

You further posited alternative methods that God could have used:

" Then there's the matter of God's method: He could've just stopped everybody's hearts or sent a plague or turned them good, or even better, revealed himself. He didn't even need Noah to restart the human race, because he could just create new humans out of thin air, or dust, or something."

This does not address the "illogical concept" objection you have. Just because the most efficient and extensive method is not the only way near extinction could have been accomplished, does not mean it is the illogical method. The ones to whom God had revealed himselves were Adam, Eve, Cain, the people in the days of Enos, Enoch and Noah (Gen. 1:28-29; 4:6-14; 4:26; 6:13). The lives of Adam, Enos and Enoch overlap. Enos lived until Noah was 84 years old. There was an unbroken revelation. Enoch and Noah warned the people of coming judgment, but to no avail.

Of course God did not need to have Noah, or anyone else, to "restart" the human race. The record in Genesis 6 makes this clear.


 * 7  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
 * 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

The key here is grace: God chose to do it this way because he saw good in Noah. Noah would be used to preach while building a way of escape. It shows that God works in a logical way.. If something works, why recreate it! In using Noah and his sons, along with their wives, mankind could get a second chance.

Bottom line: The flood does not demonstrate that the concept of God is illogical. Your objections are subjective, based on a misconception of the facts at hand, and your own prejudice against the Bible.

The rest of your post is just your diatribe against God not doing things the way you would do them. You show no comprehension of the scope of the story of Redemption -- which so much more than saying "I forgive them." The Flood narrative prefigured Jesus' work. So did the sacrificial system revealed to the tribes of Israel.

I will consider responding to your other objections, depending upon the response I get to this post. I do have answers to each of them, though you have thus far not given me any evidence to the "illogical" nature of the "concept of God." 