![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/03\/WaterOcean.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAtheist anti-theist and \u201cphilosopher\u201d\u00a0Jonathan M. S. Pearce<\/strong>\u00a0runs the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0He has encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques, and wrote under\u00a0a post dated 12-14-21<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI even need to thank the naysayers. Some of them have put up with a lot of robust pushback and still they come. Bravery or stupidity \u2013 it\u2019s a fine line. But they are committed, and there is something to be said for taking that commitment into the lion\u2019s den. Dave, you are welcome at my new place. Come challenge me. . . . thanks for your critiques of my pieces. Sorry I couldn\u2019t get to more of them.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0This echoes his words about me in a\u00a0post dated 7-20-17<\/a>, where he said,\u00a0\u201cwell done . . . for coming here and suffering the slings and arrows of atheists\u2019 wrath. . . . I commend him for getting involved and defending himself. Goodonya, mate.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Under\u00a0a post dated 1-27-22<\/a>, he stated:\u00a0\u201cI do welcome disagreements because I don\u2019t want [my blog] to [be] just an echo chamber. . . . [S]omeone like Armstrong does give me ammunition for some of my pieces!\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Likewise,\u00a0on 3-18-14<\/a>\u00a0he proclaimed:\u00a0\u201cDissenting views are utterly vital to being sure that you are warranted in your own beliefs and views.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And\u00a0on 7-20-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI put my ideas and theories about the world out there for people to criticise. . . . I want to make damned sure that they are warranted. I can\u2019t stand the idea that I could . . . believe something that is properly unwarranted. . . . What\u2019s the point in self-delusion? . . . I put something out there, people attack it, and if it still stands, it\u2019s pretty robust and I am happy to hold it. If not, I adapt and change my views accordingly.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m delighted to oblige his wish to receive critiques and dissenting views! The rarity of his\u00a0counter<\/em>-replies, however, is an oddity and curiosity in light of this desire. He wrote, for example,\u00a0on 11-22-19<\/a>:\u00a0\u201c[I can\u2019t be]\u00a0someone who genuinely is not interested in finding out the truth about philosophy, God and everything.\u00a0If I come up against\u00a0any\u00a0<\/em>point that is even remotely problematic to my worldview, I feel the absolute necessity to bottom it out. I need to reconcile at least something; I have work to do. I cannot simply leave it as it is. . . . I would simply\u00a0have\u00a0<\/em>to counter the arguments, or change my position.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Whatever; this hasn\u2019t been\u00a0my<\/em> experience with him; only in short and infrequent spurts. I continue to offer critiques \/ defenses of Christianity in any event, because they aren\u2019t just for\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0sake.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what he thinks, by the way, of Jesus: \u201cThe Jesus as reported in the Gospels is so far removed from the real and historical figure of Jesus, overlaid with myth, story-telling, propaganda and evangelist agenda, that the end result is synonymous with myth. . . . I\u2019d take mythicism over Christianity any day. And they call mythicists fringe as if the position is absurd? Now\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>crazy.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0(8-2-14<\/a>)<\/p>\n Jonathan\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to his article, Why Noah\u2019s Flood Is Utter Nonsense<\/a> (12-20-19).<\/p>\n I have long maintained that this is a ridiculous story at even the most superficial of analyses.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n When one doesn\u2019t properly understand<\/em> something, indeed it might seem \u201cridiculous\u201d as a result.<\/p>\n The theology behind the flight is that God was so repulsed by the sinful activity of humans on Earth that he decided to decimate humanity, bar eight, and start again.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; it\u2019s called judgment<\/em>. That is God\u2019s prerogative as creator, and we mimic it every day with our laws and legal systems. People are punished and go to jail if they violate laws that society deems fit to enact and enforce. Since God gave us our lives and expects us to act in the right way with the intelligence and will that he gave us, He can decide that we have not done so, and judge.<\/p>\n Now, assuming this scenario for the sake of argument, it seems to me that there are two primary choices:<\/p>\n 1) the people judged were<\/em> wicked enough (\u201cthe earth was corrupt in God\u2019s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. . . . all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth\u201d: Gen 6:11-12, RSV) for it to be perfectly just for God to judge them: even with a penalty of death;<\/p>\n or<\/p>\n 2) the people judged were no<\/em>t as sinful and rebellious as the biblical texts prior to the Flood make out, so that God\u2019s judgment was unjust<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Most atheists, of course, will casually assume #2, but they have no objective basis on which to doubt the profound sinfulness of the people judged prior to the Flood.<\/p>\n But it was a local Flood<\/a>, in any event, and so didn\u2019t destroy all of humanity, save eight.<\/p>\n This is a story of gods supposed love, grace and creation, <\/span><\/p>\n God is also a judge, just as we have judges on earth to enforce laws. We act no differently than God does. He simply has much more power and knowledge and is transcendent, and as the Creator, He has the prerogative to both take away as well as give life, just as a painter or sculptor can create or destroy works of art as he or she pleases, or as an author does with writing.<\/p>\n after which he realised he should never destroy the world again in this manner.<\/span><\/p>\n He didn\u2019t \u201crealize\u201d anything (as if He made a mistake, as Jonathan implies) because an omniscient, immutable God doesn\u2019t change at all. Jonathan assumes this because \u2014 like so many \u2014 he merely projects human emotions and other creature attributes onto God when they aren\u2019t there at all. God simply stated: \u201cthe waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh\u201d (Gen 9:15). \u201cAll\u201d in the Bible is often used in a non-literal fashion.<\/p>\n I will now list a few reasons why this story is patent nonsense:<\/span><\/p>\n 1)\u00a0\u00a0OmniGod did it because we were a sinful world. We still are; therefore, it didn\u2019t work.<\/span><\/p>\n The first sentence is true. The second doesn\u2019t follow. God never claimed<\/em> or thought<\/em> that the Flood would wipe out sin once and for all, leading to a paradise earth (or, more correctly a paradise Mesopotamian floodplain) as it was before human beings chose to rebel against God. Again, being omniscient, He knew that it wouldn\u2019t before it happened. It wasn\u2019t a \u201cpragmatic\u201d act, but rather, a judgmental one. He simply chose to judge a certain number of human beings at this point and also chose not to do so by water again.<\/p>\n God, being God, can and does do whatever He wants. And what He does is both loving and just. We don\u2019t blame earthly judges for sending people off to jail. We don\u2019t say they are wicked and vindictive and power-hungry or lack love and mercy in doing so. No; we place the blame where it should<\/em> be: on the lawbreaking criminal.<\/p>\n 2)\u00a0\u00a0The account is a reworking of Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh, written some 1000 years before the Bible. Some verses are verbatim, or close to.<\/span><\/p>\n There could be, and are, some similarities. If so, it\u2019s no big deal. Christians don\u2019t deny that the Bible and Christianity often borrow from what existed before them. It\u2019s a non-issue. But atheists tout the similarities<\/em> with the Epic of Gilgamesh. One could just as easily highlight the glaring differences<\/em>:<\/p>\n The Babylonian ark was 262 feet wide, deep, and long (a giant cube), whereas the biblical ark has similar proportions to actual ocean liners in our time. The biblical Flood lasted over a year, and the waters subsided over seven months\u2019 time. But the Babylonian Flood lasted 14 days. The Epic gives no reason for the Flood; the Bible says it was judgment for man\u2019s sin. The Epic ark has seven levels; the biblical ark, three. The Epic ark is steered; the biblical ark is not. In any event, this is no basis for rejecting the truthfulness of the biblical account.<\/p>\n 3)\u00a0If the deluge destroyed all, why do we have the writings and journals of people before, during and after the deluge?<\/span><\/p>\n Because the flood was local, not global, and because people were able to write after it ended.<\/p>\n 4)\u00a0There is internal contradiction from the spliced accounts \u2013 2 of each or 7?<\/span><\/p>\n Not t all, as I have written about: Seidensticker Folly #49: Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals<\/a> [9-7-20].<\/p>\n 5)\u00a0\u00a08 people looking after the world\u2019s biggest zoo is ridiculous.<\/span><\/p>\n Why would it necessarily be? Again, since it was a local Flood, it would only be the animals from that region. As long as they had proper cages and enough food and water, it wouldn\u2019t be impossible to look after them. Wild animals (by definition) are quite capable of taking care of themselves.<\/p>\n 6)\u00a0The ark is physically bigger than a wooden vessel can be made, apparently by 50%.<\/span><\/p>\n It may very well have been smaller than a literal<\/em> reading would suggest, because the numerical system in those days was different than ours. See my articles, for example: 969-Year-Old Methuselah (?) & Genesis Numbers<\/a> (7-12-21), and Pearce\u2019s Potshots #31: How Many Israelites in the Exodus?<\/a> [5-27-21].<\/p>\n The Wyoming<\/a> was the largest wooden schooner ever built. It was 329 feet between perpendiculars<\/a>. Built in 1909, it sailed until 1924, when it sank. A literal reading of the size of the ark<\/a> in the Bible (incorporating differences in the length of a cubit) is 525-624 ft x 87.5-104 ft x 52.5-62.4 ft. But since the Sexagesimal numerical system<\/a> was different in Babylonia in c. 2900 BC, these are likely larger figures than the ark actually was. Geologist Carol A. Hill explained this different system in her article, \u201cMaking Sense of the Numbers of Genesis\u201d<\/a> (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith<\/em>, Volume 55, Number 4, December 2003). She stated:<\/p>\n We find the same kind of symmetry and symbolism in other chapters of Genesis in the original Masoretic Hebrew text. Some examples that show the numerical \u201ctightness\u201d and regularity of the text are: in Gen. 2, Adam is mentioned 28 (7 x 4) times; in Gen. 4:15, . . .; the names listed in Cain\u2019s family, counting from Adam to Naamah are 14 (7 x 2); and Cain\u2019s name is mentioned 14 (7 x 2) times. In the story of Noah and the Flood in chapters 6\u20139, there is also a numerical symmetry and parallelism to the text. The number seven<\/em> is used repeatedly; seven<\/em> days (Gen. 7:4, 10; 8:10, 12), seven<\/em> pairs of clean animals and birds (Gen. 7:2\u20133); the number of times that God spoke to Noah was exactly seven<\/em>. Repetitions (such as the \u201cwaters prevailed and increased\u201d; Gen. 7:17, 18, 19, 20, 24) are included for the sake of parallelism in accordance with the customary stylistic convention of the time. Noah\u2019s age of 600 (60 x 10) was considered to be a perfect number in the sexagesimal system, and was symbolic of Noah\u2019s perfection as a person (Gen. 6:9). The size of the ark was 300 (60 x 5) cubits by 50 (10 x 5) cubits by 30 (6 x 5) cubits\u2014numbers that also probably should be taken symbolically (numerologically) rather than literally.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 7)\u00a0Clearly the gathering of all the animals is impossible \u2013 micro-organisms, polar bears, penguins, condors, glow-worms (how did they get there?).<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not likely that God was requiring such minute accuracy; rather, just a gathering of all the animals they could find<\/em>\u00a0in their local region; \u201call\u201d again not being literally understood at the time<\/a> (whereas Jonathan operates under a stunted, uninformed \u201cthe Bible must always<\/em><\/strong> be interpreted literally methodology and mentality). Since it was not a global Flood, many animals would survive in the different locations other than the Flood (which was most of the earth). With this understanding, rounding up polar bears and penguins would be unnecessary, apart from the fact that they were thousands of miles away.<\/p>\n 8) Ark\u2019s reported dimensions would have to be considerably larger to fit the animals.<\/span><\/p>\n See my reply to #7.<\/p>\n 9)\u00a0\u00a0Population of 8 could not rebound in the fashion claimed. Simply not possible.<\/span><\/p>\n What is the claim<\/em>? Since the Flood was local, it wouldn\u2019t take long to repopulate the local region. If Jonathan has in mind the whole world, that\u2019s irrelevant to the perspective of a local Flood.<\/p>\n 10)\u00a0\u00a0Rainfall would have to be 6 inches per minute. Again, not possible. A category 5 hurricane gives 6 inches per hour which is impossible to sustain over 40 days.<\/span><\/p>\n He is making many debatable assumptions, including a global Flood. There was more than enough \u201cnatural water\u201d to create the conditions of a local Mesopotamian Flood. See Alan E. Hill\u2019s article,\u00a0\u201cQuantitative Hydrology of\u00a0Noah\u2019s Flood\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith<\/em>, Volume 58, Number 2, June 2006). Dr. Hill is the Distinguished Scientist of the Quantum Physics Institute at Texas A&M\u00a0University. He has spent some forty years inventing and developing\u00a0evermore-powerful lasers of the\u00a0Star Wars<\/em>\u00a0variety. In the early 1960s, while at\u00a0the University of Michigan, Alan was the first person to discover nonlinear optics<\/a>.<\/p>\n 11)\u00a0\u00a0The weight of the water would have disastrous consequences on the earth\u2019s crust, emitting noxious gases and eruptions, leading to potentially, a boiling sea! In all probability, it would have imploded in some way.<\/span><\/p>\n This is again assuming a global Flood<\/em>: a position that has not<\/em> been held by mainstream Christianity for at least 110 years. See the\u00a0Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> article, \u201cDeluge\u201d<\/a>, from 1908, and the\u00a0International Standard Bible Encyclopedia <\/em>from 1915 (\u201cDeluge of Noah\u201d<\/a>).<\/p>\n 12)\u00a0\u00a0There is no geological evidence for any of this.<\/span><\/p>\n Not for a global<\/em> Flood, because it never happened<\/em>.<\/p>\n 13)\u00a0\u00a0There are reefs that have been undisturbed in the world for 100,000 years. These would have been crushed and destroyed. They were not.<\/span><\/p>\n Irrelevant in the local Flood model . . .<\/p>\n 14)\u00a0Lots more evidence of fossil, radiometrics and isotopes etc. mean that the flood clearly never happened.<\/span><\/p>\n Irrelevant in the local Flood model . . .<\/p>\n 15)\u00a0\u00a0How the hell did Noah actually get all the animals on the ark without them trying to eat each other \/ the family etc?<\/span><\/p>\n I imagine in the same or similar way that zookeepers since time immemorial have managed to gather up disparate animals. Zoos go back to at least 3500 BC (600 years before my proposed date of the Flood). One in Egypt at that time<\/a> \u201cincluded hippopotami, hartebeest, elephants, baboons and wildcats.\u201d<\/p>\n 16)\u00a0 Asexual animals and hermaphrodites not accounted for.<\/span><\/p>\n See my reply to #7.<\/p>\n 17)\u00a0\u00a0Ventilation\/food\/faeces problems on the ark.<\/span><\/p>\n Lots of windows. Lots of stored food. Lots of shoveling poop out of the windows. I don\u2019t see that this would make it absolutely impossible.<\/p>\n 18)\u00a0\u00a0Carnivores?<\/span><\/p>\n Yeah, I wrote about that: Do Carnivores on the Ark Disprove Christianity?<\/a> [9-10-15].<\/p>\n 19)\u00a0\u00a0DNA pool? no trace of this through DNA analysis (ie we know we came from\u00a0Africa).<\/span><\/p>\n A local Mesopotamian Flood would have nothing to do with Africa and whatever happened there in this regard.<\/p>\n 20)\u00a0\u00a0All sea fish would have died from the influx of fresh water.<\/span><\/p>\n Locally, yes. Globally, no; so it\u2019s a non-issue.<\/p>\n 21)\u00a0All plants that do not rely on the seeds of Noah to survive would die. There are many plants that reproduce in many ways other than seeds.<\/span><\/p>\n They would save whatever they could in the local area. It\u2019s not a matter of rescuing absolutely every plant in the entire world.<\/p>\n 22)\u00a0\u00a0Explaining it away as a local flood is contradictory to Genesis, <\/span><\/p>\n So he claims. But he is not prepared to enter into the reasoning<\/a> by which it\u2019s completely compatible with Genesis<\/a>.<\/p>\n and would also not kill all the humans who were so evil. <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAll\u201d here is not literal.<\/p>\n Liquids find their own level, and so a local flood of that magnitude and description is physically impossible.<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all, as the Dr. Hill article I cited above illustrates. See also my article, Pearce\u2019s Potshots #47: Mockery of a Local Flood (+ Striking Analogies Between the Biblical Flood and the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927)<\/a> [9-30-21].<\/p>\n 23)\u00a0This is like using napalm to clear some weeds in your back garden. Is this the best way God could think of for exercising some sin in the world? Could there not be a more precise mess method of locating and ridding the world of these individual sinners? Innocent children, unborn foetuses, all animals, old ladies, pregnant mothers \u2013 these were all wiped out in the most slapdash of manners.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s his merely subjective and arbitrary opinion of what God did. See my general comments at the top about God\u2019s judgment. Fancy Jonathan suddenly being compassionate about \u201cunborn foetuses\u201d while he is a passionate supporter of childkilling in abortion. God can give or take away lives, being the Creator. Human beings do not have that prerogative.<\/p>\n 24) There are literally not enough water molecules on Earth to account for the flood waters.<\/span><\/p>\n See my reply to #11.<\/p>\n 25) Theologically speaking, it is nonsensical. if OmniGod had full divine foreknowledge and creative power and responsibility, then creating people in the full knowledge of what they would do, and punishing them for features and behaviour you had designed into them, is totally incoherent.\u00a0<\/span>God is actually morally culpable for that which he is punishing them for<\/a>.<\/p>\n Not at all. They had a free will to obey moral strictures and God or to rebel against both. If they rebelled, God was perfectly just in judging them for doing so. Jonathan, of course, thinks everything is deterministic and that free will doesn\u2019t exist, so of course in that<\/em> ridiculous hypothetical state of affairs, then even God would only be doing what He \u201cmust\u201d do, so how could He be blamed?<\/p>\n And so on.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; all fallacies or non sequiturs<\/em>, as I have shown, and I\u2019m sure any others<\/em> that Jonathan came up with would be the same. It\u2019s a massive straw man pseudo-\u201cargument\u201d that counts on his readers own ignorance of the many factors I outlined.<\/p>\n Seriously, who believes this nonsense? <\/span><\/p>\n Well, only the relatively tiny umber of biblical fundamentalists believe in a global Flood, not the vast majority of Christians, and virtually all theologically educated, \u201cthinking\u201d Christians. So why waste any time on it at all? Jonathan keeps misrepresenting what the Bible actually teaches.<\/p>\n It is not only historically and scientifically indefensible, <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s right: a global Flood is those things.<\/p>\n but it is also theologically naive\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n What\u2019s naive is, rather, Jonathan\u2019s ignorance of the Bible and general history of Christian thought and relation to science. Until he figures this out, he\u2019ll keep caricaturing and exposing his own intellectual deficiencies.<\/p>\n and horribly retributive in the most barbaric way.<\/span><\/p>\n See my comments on judgment at the top.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>DevizK<\/a> (11-6-20): ocean water at New York City<\/span> [Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International<\/a> license \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce comes up with 25 criticisms of the biblical Flood: either the actual one or (mostly) his falsely imagined global flood. I systematically reply.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist anti-theist and \u201cphilosopher\u201d\u00a0Jonathan M. S. Pearce\u00a0runs the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher.\u00a0He has encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques, and wrote under\u00a0a post dated 12-14-21:\u00a0\u201cI even need to thank the naysayers. Some of them have put up with a lot of robust pushback and still they come. Bravery or stupidity \u2013 it\u2019s a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":63185,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,448],"tags":[14090,14087,4121,4129,1043,258,522,1472,1473,525,524,15837,1633,1878,11874,15840,535,140,4107,1362,165,166,167],"class_list":["post-63183","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-jews-judaism-old-testament","tag-150-days","tag-40-days-and-40-nights","tag-a-tippling-philosopher","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-anti-theism","tag-atheism","tag-atheist-biblical-exegesis","tag-atheists-the-bible","tag-atheists-theology","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-biblical-flood","tag-biblical-skeptics","tag-biblical-theology","tag-deluge","tag-flood","tag-holy-bible","tag-infallibility","tag-jonathan-ms-pearce","tag-noah","tag-noahs-ark","tag-noahs-flood","tag-the-flood"],"yoast_head":"\n