Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Trouble With Rainbows


TexasFreethinker

Recommended Posts

Or, maybe the sky was rainbow-colored (also an undeniable feasibility - as is anything when you're dealing with miracles) and god changed it to blue so people could see the rainbows in the clouds for the first time. Pure conjecture on your part to explain away a difficulty in the bible.

 

I used the term "feasible" to mean without resorting to miracles. You gave us the choice of "Either light waves didn't refract thru water particles, or they did and god prevented everyone from seeing it." You concluded that God must have changed the laws of physics (preventing refraction) or something else at least as miraculous. You gave a ridiculous "false dichotomy" to try to prejudice the reader.

 

Conjecture is necessary when dealing with anything we cannot see or duplicate, such as the ancient past. This is why some scientists have resorted to conjecture that a meteorite wiped-out the dinosaurs. They weren't there to see what happened. I pointed out to you that no miracle is necessary to have prevented rainbows before the flood. Under current physical laws (that means no miracles) that it is possible for their not to be a rainbow. One possibility is upper-atmospheric conditions that filtered the spectrum. I believe the most popular Creationist explanation is that there was no rain before the Flood. Without rain, there would be no rainbows (rainbows not "in the clouds" don't count, like those pictures you showed us, which shows that you didn't pay much attention to what the Bible said).

 

A possibility that requires neither miracle nor appeal to exceptional environmental conditions is that the Bible does not say that there were no rainbows before, only that God is using the rainbow as a reminder that he will never use a flood to wipe-out mankind again. The rainbow does this just as well whether or not it existed before the flood. No authority on scripture has given me reason to reject this non-extraordinary possibility. The Bible says God set a rainbow in the sky. It doesn't say this was the first time there was a rainbow in the sky. The pre-existence of rainbows is not at all precluded by the Bible not telling us that they existed previously. The lack of vogueness also does not preclude it.

 

I see no problem beyond a lack of certainly of which possibility wiped-out the dinosaurs, or whatever.

I'm confused Doobie - are you arguing against all miracles, or just those that would be difficult because they would require changing the behavior of light? You're saying god caused a miracle by changing the way the earth's hydro cycles worked, but didn't bother to alter the way light worked too? It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. You add complexity on complexity to explain away part of the miracle of the rainbow and the entire Noah story (maybe the sky was pink, maybe it didn't rain before - with all the implications that has), but don't discount the entire set of miracles implied by the story. What's your purpose? Do you think if the miracles were fairly minor more intelligent people might believe?

 

I started this thread to show another example of how the (relatively) scientifically uninformed human writers of the bible tossed out miracles as explanations of things they saw in nature without realizing the problems such miracles presented once you more fully understand how nature works.

 

It's an added bonus that someone like you comes along with contrived explanations to try to fill the cracks with conjecture. It's true that with enough conjecture mixed with miracles it's possible to come up with scenarios to support any story in the bible, or in the koran or in Harry Potter for that matter. Maybe you'd like to try your hand at how the sun stood still or went backwards in the sky giving god's army time to win a war? I'm curious to hear what scientific explanation you feel should apply to that miracle, or if it's sufficient just to accept it as a miracle and say that god made sure no one was flung off the planet when it abruptly stopped spinning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know...something called common sense tells me that changing the sky from pink to blue would have been regarded as a much more noteworthy miracle than a rainbow. I mean, that's a pretty big deal that should have been picked up by at least one of the world's religions, and certainly would have woven itself into the traditional songs and folklore of various cultures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're saying god caused a miracle by changing the way the earth's hydro cycles worked, but didn't bother to alter the way light worked too?

 

If you are considering the Noachian flood, or any prehistorical event, it is normal to congecture on what the minimal (Occam's Razor) precursors and consequenses would be. The flood itself would necessarily have profound effects on the envorinment and probably the atmosphere.

 

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. You add complexity on complexity to explain away part of the miracle of the rainbow

 

Actually, just accepting that God chose the rainbow to use as a reminder adds zero complexity. If you choose an environmental change allowing rainbows, it's minor complexity given that the flood would probably have profound affect on the environment. I've never heard a Creationist do what you have done, insist upon changes in the laws of nature to explain rainbows. And, you make me sound like one of those Evolutionists who are always adding complexity to complexity to get around and endless parade of problems.

 

I started this thread to show another example of how the (relatively) scientifically uninformed human writers of the bible tossed out miracles as explanations of things they saw in nature without realizing the problems such miracles presented once you more fully understand how nature works.

 

I understand that. You've done the same as Creationists who mock Evolution by suggesting that Evolution requires chimeras of proportion found in Greek mythology.

 

It's an added bonus that someone like you comes along with contrived explanations to try to fill the cracks with conjecture.

 

Try to tell me anything about Evolution (origin of new kinds of species) that isn't conjecture.

 

It's true that with enough conjecture mixed with miracles it's possible to come up with scenarios to support any story in the bible,

 

I provided several explanations for rainbows without appealing to miracles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to tell me anything about Evolution (origin of new kinds of species) that isn't conjecture.

Mutation is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, just accepting that God chose the rainbow to use as a reminder adds zero complexity. If you choose an environmental change allowing rainbows, it's minor complexity given that the flood would probably have profound affect on the environment. I've never heard a Creationist do what you have done, insist upon changes in the laws of nature to explain rainbows.

 

Just a note here, the existence of rainbows is completely independent of the state of our environment. If you're suggesting that the god you believe in chose a pre-existing natural phenomenon to use as a "Reminder," this demonstrates that your god is impotent and incapable of creating anything, and the true creator in this story is the person who wrote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. You add complexity on complexity to explain away part of the miracle of the rainbow and the entire Noah story

 

Actually, just accepting that God chose the rainbow to use as a reminder adds zero complexity. If you choose an environmental change allowing rainbows, it's minor complexity given that the flood would probably have profound affect on the environment.

 

So, minor complexities are the goal for miracles? And, accepting that god chose an existing feature of nature as the sign goes against what all fundamentalists I've discussed this with believe happened. How is it that christians can't agree on the basics of such a popular story in the bible? What's god telling you that he's not telling them?

 

 

 

It's true that with enough conjecture mixed with miracles it's possible to come up with scenarios to support any story in the bible,

 

I provided several explanations for rainbows without appealing to miracles.

I'm not sure that's the case - I believe every explanation you gave (other than that rainbows already existed) hinged on changes related to the miracle of a worldwide flood and/or changes in the atmosphere that miraculously co-incided with the end of the flood miracle. But you didn't answer my question - are you arguing against all miracles or just the difficult ones?

 

The point is that with an appeal to miracles supplemented with unsubstantiated conjecture there is not a story in any "holy" book that can't be "proven". And, once the miracle is there conjecture over the attending natural changes doesn't really matter since the miracle claim can cover it all anyway. That leaves us with competing holy books that are easily disproved if you don't accept miracles and that are equally provable if you do.

 

You'll need to ask your evolution-related questions to someone trained in biology. That's not my field, nor the subject of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, minor complexities are the goal for miracles?

 

I'm afraid you're not following what I'm saying very well. I am not appealing to miracles, so your comment is irrational. It is a principle of good science to choose simple explanations over more complex explanations. All other things being equal, a simpler natural explaination should be prefered over a more complex natural explanation.

 

And, accepting that god chose an existing feature of nature as the sign goes against what all fundamentalists I've discussed this with believe happened. How is it that christians can't agree on the basics of such a popular story in the bible? What's god telling you that he's not telling them?

 

I've never heard a Christian claim God changed physical laws to create the first rainbow after the flood, yet that is the only choice you offered when you brought up the issue of rainbows. Since you've talked to so many fundamentalists, what do they say is the mechanism behind the post-flood rainbow?

 

The point is that with an appeal to miracles supplemented with unsubstantiated conjecture there is not a story in any "holy" book that can't be "proven". And, once the miracle is there conjecture over the attending natural changes doesn't really matter since the miracle claim can cover it all anyway. That leaves us with competing holy books that are easily disproved if you don't accept miracles and that are equally provable if you do.

 

You have forgotten what you asked. You stipulated that the flood is a fact, "take the Noah flood account as an historical event." So, all that's left is the attending natural change regarding rainbows.

 

You'll need to ask your evolution-related questions to someone trained in biology. That's not my field, nor the subject of this thread.

 

They would just use bigger words in their cop-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were a TV show like Lost or Star Trek, some of you might be spinning your wheels trying to figure how how to make impossible things feasible. But, when it comes to the Bible, you spin your wheels trying to make feasible things impossible.

Actually, Star Trek is presented as fiction, nobody pretends it has a basis in fact, and pondering the Star Trek universe is merely an absorbing, and fun diversion.

 

The bible is presented as the Ultimate TruthTM. Let's say that rainbows did exist before the flood and humans just did not see them. We must resort to supernatural magic to suppose this. Not simple, not particularly plausible and I daresay that whatever magic that turned on mankind's "rainbow switch" sounds like a miracle to me.

 

I spent years trying to explain the absurdities of the bible in light of what we know about the world, and it was not an absorbing mental diversion, it was a motivated defense of my entire core belief system. I'd place making all the claims of the bible feasible just about on a par of making all the claims of the Star Trek universe feasible, and declaring the Star Trek universe as representing the Ultimate Truth. The nice thing about Star Trek is that nobody tries to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Star Trek is presented as fiction, nobody pretends it has a basis in fact, and pondering the Star Trek universe is merely an absorbing, and fun diversion.

 

There is also the well-known fact that the creators of Star Trek fully admit that transporters, warp engines and universal translators were simply plot devices to help move the story along in what was a low-budget TV series. The fact that we explore these various Trek plot devices and develop methods to make them a reality demonstrates that it's mankind, and not some mythical god, who is the greatest creator this planet has ever seen.

 

When we look around with an honest eye, we see that cell phones (in particular flip phones) came from the Trek communicator, that the medical Tricorder evolved into the modern-day MRI and CAT scan, Google now incorporates a universal translator which can translate web pages from one language to another, our modern-day GPS system has perfected the location technology used in the Trek transporters, and even the modern blue tooth earpiece turns everyone into a Lieutenant Uhura. As I write this on my modern notebook computer, I can't help but see parallels between it and the computers used on Star Trek:The Next Generation. My Palm Pilot, and modern-day devices such as the iPod touch, clearly came from the touch tablets handled by many crew members of The Next Generation's Enterprise.

 

I'd say that makes Star Trek more prophetic and closer to reality than the bible ever was. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always hated the ending to the story of Noah's Ark. God sends a rainbow to promise "I won't drown the whole fucking planet again, I swear!" But then He sends rainbows after showers and thunderstorms, which come again. It was actually something that made me realize that maybe the Bible wasn't always true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Davka

I was taught that there was no rain before the Flood, hence no rainbows. God completely re-arranged the laws of physics twice in Genesis: once after that pesky fruit ("do whatever you want, kiddies, just so long as you don't eat that one really yummy-looking cookie!"), and again when he created rain in order to drown humans like rats.

 

Before the flood, plants were watered by dew, at night, and by springs from the deep.

 

Really. That's what they told me. It's what they're teaching little kids in the church down the street (no, not that church where the nice gay lady teaches, the one on the corner where they stone witches).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Before the flood, plants were watered by dew, at night, and by springs from the deep.

...

Yeah. That's what I was told too. And that the water that rained was hovering in the sky, like a huge separated blanket. Trillions and trillions, miles thick, layer of water. Defying gravity for hundreds, if not thousands of years, before Noah was commissioned. Very strange things indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know i'm late on this, but people, you all are arguing with a guy who actually believes in the Flood of the Bible. :scratch:

 

Doobie, if you're still around, do you believe in the Biblical flood story or the older Babylonian flood story that the Biblical one was copied from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Older I get, Noah's Flood gets more absurd. Now you tellin' me that at its most basic scientific core, it's scientifically incorrect. A true gas, indeed! Haaah! Not even Ed Wood had continuities this glaring.

 

Now I can quote that silly pun riddled quote from Finnegans Wake here cos it's as confusing as the myth you're all talking about.

 

"Rot a peck of pa's malt had Shen or Jhem brewed under the arclight... regginbow which was to be seen on the aquaface."

 

With that, I declare Noah's Flood completely absurd and illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but all this talk of rainbows reminds me of one my all-time favourite things I've ever seen on the internet:

 

Ouch, my stomach hurts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch, my stomach hurts...

 

My head hurts!

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.