what if they found the ark?

[yeshaberto]

while this is clearly hypothetical, I know a number of people personally who have tried to make the treacherous trek.
something in the scientology thread reminded me of this question that I have pondered in the past.
if they were to actually find the ark on top of Ararat (and it is made of gopher wood and fits the description of the bible account, age, etc), how do you think this would affect your personal beliefs and/or the publics?

[Adami]

Well a local flood isn't implausible, so it would lend some credence to that. But since the laws of physics would have to be suspended for a world wide flood, I'll continue not to believe in that.

Also, just because part of a story is true, doesn't mean all of it is.

[yeshaberto]

Well a local flood isn't implausible, so it would lend some credence to that. But since the laws of physics would have to be suspended for a world wide flood, I'll continue not to believe in that.

Also, just because part of a story is true, doesn't mean all of it is.

would it matter, though, at what height they found the ark?  the mountain is almost 17,000 feet.  If they found it at 15,000, would that lend more credit to a worldwide flood?

[Sigz]

If there were a worldwide flood at some point there would be a much larger body of evidence for it than a single shipwreck on a mountaintop.

[Adami]

Well a local flood isn't implausible, so it would lend some credence to that. But since the laws of physics would have to be suspended for a world wide flood, I'll continue not to believe in that.

Also, just because part of a story is true, doesn't mean all of it is.

would it matter, though, at what height they found the ark?  the mountain is almost 17,000 feet.  If they found it at 15,000, would that lend more credit to a worldwide flood?

No. Because WAY more questions would need to be answered for a world wide flood. Considering it's impossible.

[El Barto]

Also, it'd have to include the skeletal remains of the animal kingdom X2 to support the parable.  Since those animals would have presumably gone off to be fruitful upon their arrival, that wouldn't happen. 

[Jaffa]

Also, it'd have to include the skeletal remains of the animal kingdom X2 to support the parable.  Since those animals would have presumably gone off to be fruitful upon their arrival, that wouldn't happen.

Wait, what?  If the animals would presumably have left the ship to be fruitful, why would there need to be skeletal remains on the ark?

[BlobVanDam]

Also, it'd have to include the skeletal remains of the animal kingdom X2 to support the parable.  Since those animals would have presumably gone off to be fruitful upon their arrival, that wouldn't happen.

Wait, what?  If the animals would presumably have left the ship to be fruitful, why would there need to be skeletal remains on the ark?

I think he means that the animal's remains would need to be there to begin to prove enough of the story's details, but as they also must have all survived and left, this obviously wouldn't be the case and thus wouldn't sufficiently prove the story to simply find an old boat.

[Jaffa]

Also, it'd have to include the skeletal remains of the animal kingdom X2 to support the parable.  Since those animals would have presumably gone off to be fruitful upon their arrival, that wouldn't happen.

Wait, what?  If the animals would presumably have left the ship to be fruitful, why would there need to be skeletal remains on the ark?

I think he means that the animal's remains would need to be there to begin to prove enough of the story's details, but as they also must have all survived and left, this obviously wouldn't be the case and thus wouldn't sufficiently prove the story to simply find an old boat.

Ah.  I suppose that makes sense.


To those people saying that finding the ark wouldn't prove anything, I'm curious: what would your theory be as to how exactly a boat that size ended up at an altitude of (to take yesh's number) 15,000 feet?

[Adami]

Also, it'd have to include the skeletal remains of the animal kingdom X2 to support the parable.  Since those animals would have presumably gone off to be fruitful upon their arrival, that wouldn't happen.

Wait, what?  If the animals would presumably have left the ship to be fruitful, why would there need to be skeletal remains on the ark?

I think he means that the animal's remains would need to be there to begin to prove enough of the story's details, but as they also must have all survived and left, this obviously wouldn't be the case and thus wouldn't sufficiently prove the story to simply find an old boat.

Ah.  I suppose that makes sense.


To those people saying that finding the ark wouldn't prove anything, I'm curious: what would your theory be as to how exactly a boat that size ended up at an altitude of (to take yesh's number) 15,000 feet?

What if we discovered a natural lake made of chocolate jello pudding? It's irellevant because it doesn't exist.

People have climbed Mt. Ararat and found no ark. So it doesn't matter what would happen IF we found one, because we didn't. And a worldwide flood raises more problems than the finding of the ark would answer.

[Jaffa]

That's fine, but I don't understand why you'd be opposed to considering the hypothetical 'if'. 

[Adami]

That's fine, but I don't understand why you'd be opposed to considering the hypothetical 'if'.

Because it has a specific agenda. How would you explain a naturally occurring lake of chocolate pudding?

I am assuming you don't have an answer.

[Sigz]

Question: does the 'two of every species' thing apply to plants? What about aquatic life?

[Adami]

Question: does the 'two of every species' thing apply to plants? What about aquatic life?

I dunno about plants. But considering that the world would have been under water, I don't see why god would have commanded the preservation of aquatic life since they would have been fine.

[El Barto]

That's fine, but I don't understand why you'd be opposed to considering the hypothetical 'if'.

Hypothetically, it would be circumstantial evidence proving nothing. 

[Jaffa]

That's fine, but I don't understand why you'd be opposed to considering the hypothetical 'if'.

Because it has a specific agenda. How would you explain a naturally occurring lake of chocolate pudding?

I am assuming you don't have an answer.

Well, I wouldn't feel obligated to explain a naturally occurring lake of chocolate pudding until someone else offered and explanation I couldn't agree with.  It would just be an oddity.  I'd read the article, laugh, and move on, shaking my head at the bizarreness of nature.  But, if some religious text somewhere had long claimed the existence of a naturally occurring lake of chocolate pudding, and such a lake was discovered, I would definitely become pretty interested in how it got there.  And if I couldn't come up with anything else, I'd probably do a little bit of reading about the religion that predicted its existence. 

So, no, I don't have an answer.  And therefore my answer is that I wouldn't discount anyone else's answer.  Which is what you're doing about this hypothetical ark - discounting the religious explanation without presenting any alternative theory. 

[Sigz]

Question: does the 'two of every species' thing apply to plants? What about aquatic life?

I dunno about plants. But considering that the world would have been under water, I don't see why god would have commanded the preservation of aquatic life since they would have been fine.

How do you figure? If the entire world was flooded, you're basically condemning either every marine or every freshwater organism to death, depending on the salinity of the water. Not to mention the havoc it would wreak on the ecosystems at every depth.

[rumborak]

I would have to go with Sagan on that one: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Find a plank of wood on a mountain wouldn't exactly cut it.

IMHO, Christians would do well sweeping the flood under the rug as much as they can. Any attempt to drag it into the open is like harakiri.

rumborak

[Jaffa]

Find a plank of wood on a mountain wouldn't exactly cut it.

That's a rather lackluster way of saying 'finding a fully constructed boat exactly fitting Biblical descriptions of the Ark at an altitude of 15,000 feet.' 

For the record, I'm not saying I would instantly convert to Christianity.  But yesh's hypothetical would definitely have me taking more seriously a story I've always thought of as parable at best and nonsense at worst. 

[rumborak]

Somebody went through the trouble of summing it all up:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

[Super Dude]

If I'm not mistaken, a large wooden ship of not quite the epic size and not nearly the elevation was found around a decade ago, but it was estimated to be around the right age and located in Turkey.

Anyway, it wouldn't change anything. One of my professors had a brilliant explanation for the flood myth at least in this one location, and that was the melting of a gigantic glacier that would soon become the Black and Mediterranean Seas. There were flood myths around this time nearly everywhere in the world, so I assume it was a similar case in these places as well.

[bosk1]

Please keep the thread on topic and refrain for derailing it with ridiculous hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the OP's question.  Posts that violated this warning have been removed.  Re-posting similar things will result in warnings, etc.

[Jaffa]

Somebody went through the trouble of summing it all up:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

I don't disagree.  I have always found the story of Noah's Ark to be very difficult to swallow, even as a kid.  The thing that interests me about yesh's hypothetical isn't what it might or might not prove, it's how people would react.  So for me, that's what's interesting to me about this thread, is reading how atheists and agnostics would react to this hypothetical.  And so far, it seems to me that all anyone (with the possible exception of Super Dude) is doing is ignoring the hypothetical because it isn't possible according to their world view.  Which, to me, just isn't rational.

No one's saying they've found the ark.  But if someone found the ark, or something exactly fitting the ark's description, what would you think about it?  Nevermind that your world view doesn't allow for the possibility.  Set aside disbelief and ask yourself what you would make of the evidence if it did exist.  Would you think some people thousands of years ago had built the boat ON the mountain?  Would you theorize that someone recently carried it up there by helicopter without anyone else noticing?  How would you explain the evidence?

[rumborak]

I know a number of people personally who have tried to make the treacherous trek.

This statement is interesting. Where did those people go? I have a vague recollection of some mountain in Iran, but then I've also heard of at least 3 or more other places purported to be the site. I think it's a bit like Jesus foreskin, which I think at least 10 shrines around the world claim to have.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

I am not sure, rumby.  when I googled the altitude of ararat, it apparently referred to one particular mountain, and I assume that is the one my friends climbed.

[Adami]

For the record, I'm not saying I would instantly convert to Christianity.  But yesh's hypothetical would definitely have me taking more seriously a story I've always thought of as parable at best and nonsense at worst.

I meant to ask, but even if they did prove (somehow) the world wide flood thing, why would you convert to christianity? Why not Islam or Judaism?




Also, Jaffa I don't know why I need to come up with an explanation for something just because I disagree with someone else's explanation. And if you need me to come up with  plausible explanation for the ark (if we found it), it would be more likely that an alien spaceship picked it up and dropped it off. That's nothing against religion, it's just that of those two super unlikely scenarios, mine doesn't contradict the laws of nature.

[rumborak]

Well, the ark has the problem that it's rather self-contradictory. So, let's even say they found anything up on a mountain. It would obviously be way too small to hold the number of animals. Then again, if it was the size it would need to be for that, it would contradict the measurements of the Bible. So, whatever they would find would get written off as "nope, not it".
That is, if people are looking for *the* ark. If people are looking for a boat that carried people on a very high tide, that's of course different.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

For the record, I'm not saying I would instantly convert to Christianity.  But yesh's hypothetical would definitely have me taking more seriously a story I've always thought of as parable at best and nonsense at worst.

I meant to ask, but even if they did prove (somehow) the world wide flood thing, why would you convert to christianity? Why not Islam or Judaism?




Also, Jaffa I don't know why I need to come up with an explanation for something just because I disagree with someone else's explanation. And if you need me to come up with  plausible explanation for the ark (if we found it), it would be more likely that an alien spaceship picked it up and dropped it off. That's nothing against religion, it's just that of those two super unlikely scenarios, mine doesn't contradict the laws of nature.

*insert Giorgio Tsoukalous here*

[eric42434224]

I would expect the majority of christians would think of it as proof of the bible.
I would personally not believe it as noah's ark (due to the overwhelming evidence against the story), but would be really interested on how that fucking thing got up there.

[Jaffa]

Also, Jaffa I don't know why I need to come up with an explanation for something just because I disagree with someone else's explanation.

Well, you don't.  I just think it's silly to completely reject a hypothetical because you don't think that hypothetical is possible.  Which you seemed to be doing but don't seem to be doing anymore, so, I don't really have an objection at this point.

I meant to ask, but even if they did prove (somehow) the world wide flood thing, why would you convert to christianity? Why not Islam or Judaism?

That was sort of a (non)verbal slip on my part.  When I think of religion, I tend to think of Christianity just because it is the one I know most about.  So I didn't mean to imply that Christianity was the only religion I would consider, I just sort of meant that I would start considering religion a bit more seriously, and mistakenly used 'Christianity' as a synonym for 'religion'.  I'd like to think I would research the various versions of the deluge myth and see which one best fits the facts - as of right now I'm not at all familiar with the Islamic version, so. 

And even then I'm not saying I'd convert.  For me, my current mindset is something like this: "The idea of a worldwide flood is pretty ridiculous, isn't it (1)?  Besides, if there had been a flood like that, there would be some shred of evidence of it (2)."  So as it is, I'm able to dismiss the story as myth for a couple of reasons.  I don't even have to worry about whether such a flood makes any logical sense in the natural world, because I can simply note the complete lack of evidence.  So if they somehow came up with proof that a great flood happened, that would get me past that second obstacle, because then there would be evidence.  Then I would try to figure out how to interpret that evidence.

So, finding Noah's Ark wouldn't exactly make me believe, but it would remove an obstacle between me and belief.   

[Super Dude]

Also who's 'they?'

[eric42434224]

I would think it would be pretty silly to convert if an ark were found.  I personally would need proof of the major concepts and claims of a religion...not just one story that has been copied from previous myths.  If I had to pick a religion to convert to if the flood story were true, it would have to be gilgameshianity.

[GuineaPig]

Perhaps a better hypothetical would be "What if it was discovered that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?" 

Now obviously it's far older than that, and there's no way it would be, yada yada yada, but if it was, it would be pretty strong proof of a creator, and due to all the theoretical troubles with faster-than-light travel etc. it would probably mean some kind of god or gods.  A boat on a mountain really wouldn't be much of anything lacking the massive amounts of other evidence a worldwide flood would need as support.

[eric42434224]

I will see your 10k Earth, and raise you an appearance by the almighty.  I would be willing to say that it would work the other way too.  I bet if there were confirmed videos of god himself and jesus riding down on a unicorn and giving a speech and performing miracles..............that there would still be many that remain atheist.
Personally, that would be enough proof for me, but nothing less 

But to answer your question, GP, the 10k earth confirmation would move me to believe in a god, but not a specific religion.

[GuineaPig]

I will see your 10k Earth, and raise you an appearance by the almighty.  I would be willing to say that it would work the other way too.  I bet if there were confirmed videos of god himself and jesus riding down on a unicorn and giving a speech and performing miracles..............that there would still be many that remain atheist.
Personally, that would be enough proof for me, but nothing less 

But to answer your question, GP, the 10k earth confirmation would move me to believe in a god, but not a specific religion.

If there were videos, I'd like to see something a bit better than that.  I'd like a series of specifications to prove that there's no camera trickery, demand to see miracles, have a series of biologists confirm that it's a unicorn, etc.

The 10K earth would move me towards a god(s), yeah, but I agree not a specific religion.  But a boat on a mountaintop really wouldn't move me to anything.