How to debate an athiest claiming Noah's ark never happened?

[Gorgias]

To what effect? The whole point of this thread is about those who would question a literal flood narrative.

Right, but you’re positing a figurative event in #1-4. So, you’ve already said, “not literal.” End of story, right?

The points are that what we know about things like geology and endocrinology there was not a global flood during the time humans have been on the Earth, and if a flood affected only a portion of the Earth it couldn’t be literally true that God sought to wipeout humanity (minus 8 people) with a flood.

Well, there you’re conflating the event with the lesson that Scripture is attempting to teach from the event.

If 6 were true then the Bible narrative has major faults:

1. It gives the impetus for the flood as God wanting to utterly wipe out humanity (only later allowing 8 to live). A local flood would not do such a thing.

The point is that the writer thought it was global, and therefore, that gives rise to the narrative as we have it.

1. It uses the idea that Noah had to gather up all the animals because of the complete destruction that the flood would cause. Without saving those animals on a floating zoo the species would have, according to the story, died out. This too would not be necessary in a local flood.

Agreed. Yet, if he thought it was necessary, he would have done it, right? After all, a super-regional flood would have killed off all the animals in the region, no?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Right, but you’re positing a figurative event in #1-4. So, you’ve already said, “not literal.” End of story, right?

I posted all possible options to preempt any "what about"s from anyone reading the thread.

Well, there you’re conflating the event with the lesson that Scripture is attempting to teach from the event.

Pointing out the alleged reason for the flood (to wipe out humanity) doesn’t mesh whatsoever with a local flood doesn’t mean I’m conflating the lesson with whether the event actually happened. If there were a widow testifying in court as to killing her husband in self-defense, pointing out the flaws in the story has no bearing on any moral lessons regarding abused women.

The point is that the writer thought it was global, and therefore, that gives rise to the narrative as we have it.

Either God wanted to wipe out humanity or he didn’t. Whether the author of Genesis thought it was local or not is immaterial. If God sent a local flood then he wasn’t trying to kill humanity. If he wasn’t trying to kill humanity then he didn’t send a flood.

Agreed. Yet, if he thought it was necessary, he would have done it, right? After all, a super-regional flood would have killed off all the animals in the region, no?

No. Inhabitants of the Nile experience local floods all the time and at no point did anyone have to pull a Ken Ham to try and save those species. Do you have any evidence of a cataclysmic flood that would have wiped out hundreds or thousands of species within the lifetime of homo sapiens?

 

[SpearOfMichael]

I had a good friend from Spain back when I was playing cards. He would always cite “The Ark of Noah” as his disbelief in God.

The Ark of Noah… The Ark of Noah… Why would not the lion eat the Olliphant?

I don’t even give credence to scriptural arguments like that anymore. These debates are laughable; for one, we do not believe in scripture alone to be the only source for validating God. In fact the only thing that scripture should be validating is legal precedent according to the Law of Jesus, the Law of Moses, and the Law of Abraham/Melchizedek. There is a bit of History as well that can be validated but to what extent really depends on the book. A lot of Old Testament stuff can be interpreted as allegorical.

 

[Gorgias]

Either God wanted to wipe out humanity or he didn’t.

For reference: I subscribe to the interpretation that the inspired writer created a narrative, based on a super-regional flood, which teaches a particular theological lesson.

This being the case, the proposition “God wanted to wipe out humanity” is part of the set-up of the story. (In fact, you’re not even getting that part correct: according to the story, God was so bummed and surprised that humans were sinning, that He wished to kill all the bad people on the earth.)

So, considering that this is absurd on its face (God “surprised” by events on earth? God doesn’t realize that killing sinners doesn’t wipe sin from the earth?), it’s obvious that what’s unfolding is a story that’s meant to teach us about the nature of sin and free will.

Whether the author of Genesis thought it was local or not is immaterial.

It is quite relevant, if it gave rise to his narrative, based on his perspective and understanding!

If God sent a local flood then he wasn’t trying to kill humanity.

No, but if He allowed a super-regional flood to occur, such that it appeared to be global, and therefore, created the inspiration for the Genesis narrative… then He was carrying out His will…

If he wasn’t trying to kill humanity then he didn’t send a flood.

Perhaps He was merely letting a natural event lead to theological understanding.

Do you have any evidence of a cataclysmic flood that would have wiped out hundreds or thousands of species within the lifetime of homo sapiens?

I didn’t claim “wipe out species”. I claimed “kill off all animals in the region.”

 

[mythbuster1]

Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water

The diamond contains ringwoodite, which is water-rich but only forms naturally under the extreme pressure found in Earth's mantle

www.scientificamerican.com

There are many more where that came from.

 

[Damian]

Being an atheist has nothing to do with this question.
Being an atheist is to answer, no, to the question, “Are you convinced that the supernatural actually exists?”. That’s it. There’s nothing more to it.
Now what ever world view that particular atheist uses to come to conclusions/statements about reality will be used towards any question that is reference to reality. So if they are a philosophical naturalist, which happens to have a lot of atheists in it, then they’ll use philosophical naturalism as the process to analyze that question of Noah’s ark. If they’re a skeptic, they’ll use that world view. If they’re X world view, they’ll use that. You can be any number of world views and still conclude “No” to the supernatural question and be an atheist.
There is no single world view that atheists subscribe to but there are lots of world views that tends to result in people being an atheist when they apply that to the supernatural question. I’m a philosophical naturalist for instance, so I’d say some aspects of the story may be true. Some can be physically possible, but not true, some are not possible at all from what reality demonstrates to be true so far. But if asked to conclude that the entire story is true as it is presented in the bible, no, categorically no it didn’t happen. I’m about as sure it didn’t happen as I am that there are no trolls under bridges.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Do you understand how diamonds are formed as opposed to graphite?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Is this really an important debate? We are not literalists, we know that there are many forms of literature in Scripture.

I would simply agree to disagree with this person. Do you know this person or is this a blind internet debate?

You do well to watch Trent Horn’s debates with atheists, to read articles over at StrangeNotions, etc. in order to understand the effective arguments.