I would assume that if an old boat were found that it had nothing to do with the Ark of Christian mythos. There would be no way to "verify" it because the entire story rests on a foundation of faith, not fact. Where faith and fact do coincide faith likes to use that overlap as evidence of truth whereas fact cannot do that because faith does not require evidence (and there are so many competing faiths but facts are a bit more consistent).
Kind of like how if all religions and all scientific and mathematical knowledge were somehow irrevocably lost, all of the science and math would eventually come back just as it was but none of the religions would (in spite of the protestations of fervent believers).
The flood story is present in so very many mythologies that there likely was some historical event in that region but people back then could be forgiven from thinking that such a flood covered the entire world as it covered what little they new of it.
> For those who don't believe in the Bible or Christianity: If the Ark was found (and verified somehow), would it change your mind?
What does that even mean? I don't follow an organized religion or church but I do believe in the existence of the bible and Christianity. The bible is part history book, part fiction, there are definitely some parts in there that are true and lots of things that have not been verified to be true and probably never will (because they are not). There might have been a flood of some kind in Mesopotamia and someone might have put a bunch of animals on a boat. Were those the only animals that survived, most likely not.
If they found a 50k year old giant wooden ship, what would that prove about god or genesis? Or rather, to better answer your questions: what would be verified by the finding and how?
Potentially, though the flood tale isn't unique to Christianity. Many tales in the Bible can be correlated with history, especially the parts that take place in the Roman Empire (even the existence of Yeshua ben Yosef), but correlation doesn't prove the spiritual elements.
How verified are we talking about? Verified that it's a boat with similar measurements from the time period, verified that there was a global flood and the only survivors were on board?
The geographic distribution of animals that we see on Earth today makes it effectively impossible for all surviving land animals to have been on a single boat near Mesopotamia 6k years ago.
Not to mention a million other reasons why it can’t have been.
The weight of evidence against the idea of a “global multi-month flood several thousand years ago” is so overwhelming that one struggles to imagine a coherent depiction of the world where such a thing could be true.
That’s kinda like asking “If the sky was green tomorrow what would you do?” Well: I guess it depends on why the sky was green, what other effects there were, and so on. So too with your question: there’s so many possibilities that could be “found and verified somehow” that there really isn’t a good way to answer your question. It’s too open to be meaningful.
I ask that because I believe it's possible to interpret the new testament, the old testament, Egyptian writings about Hyksos, various other historical sources from Greece and Rome and other older cultures all in differing ways, yet find overlapping "lossy" recountings of what was even then ancient history.
It would depend on what was verified, and how good the verification was.
Here is why the "what is verified" matters. Suppose we verified a large boat in about the right time and place with a flood that would have looked like the end of the world to those involved. This would suffice to change my mind from "Noah's Ark is the Judeo-Christian version of a flood myth found around the world" to, "Noah's Ark is an oral history of events witnessed." This wouldn't convince me that there was a world-wide flood.
An example of a verification of this type is that https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/destruction-of-cit... was sufficient to convince me that the Biblical record of the destruction of Sodom is likely an eyewitness account. While not convincing me that God did it to punish the gays.
As for how good the verification is, before reading on please sit down and think what it would take you convince you that your understanding is wrong.
Convincing me of the literal truth of the Biblical narrative would require evidence sufficient to override the following lines of evidence:
1. Either the date is earlier than Biblical analysis like https://creation.com/the-date-of-noahs-flood describes, or there needs to be an explanation of how the Methuselah tree could predate the Flood.
3. We have even longer cores from undisturbed ice in Antarctica and Greenland.
4. There has to be an explanation for the lack of signs of water damage to geology around the world. This problem was first convincingly demonstrated by Louis Agassiz roughly 200 years ago.
5. You have to explain things like the Wallace Line (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line for what that is) which are conventionally explained by evolution and continental drift. The distribution of weird species on islands (see Darwin's finches for an example) also poses a problem.
I could go on, but it would take rather overwhelming evidence for me to discount this physical evidence of the history of our world. Which makes me wonder what evidence you think you have that is more compelling than all of this.
You mean besides Wikipedia and the University of Oxford?
If you want to engage in an intellectually honest exploration, I highly recommend picking up a standard textbook, or becoming familiar with Google.
If you want to hear about the distribution of species as described by the discoverer of the Wallace Line, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32021 is public domain.
I'm in agreement about the need for intellectual honesty. But that honesty requires all prior assumptions pertaining to statements of fact, brought to an argument to be revealed, and those assumptions' assumptions to be acknowledged, as well as honestly assessing the degree of confidence one can place on these assumptions' veracity, must to be discussed. In other words, objectivity is required. Just appealing to authority is dishonest, if you're after truth. Further, one must have a discussion of all potential conflicts of interest of those who are used as authoritative in the discussion. Such as, how strong is their interest in maintaining employment, getting tenure, and meeting requirements (holding to tradition) for obtaining funding for research, etc. Stating rather arrogantly/condescendingly "you mean University of Oxford?" without acknowledging what is really required for honesty, beyond what Institution they belong to; implying that belonging to said institution implies integrity, is bordering on dishonest manipulation of the discussion and mere sophistry. Are you willing to reveal your view regarding the existence of objective truth? If you don't hold to the need for objectivity, I could care less what your opinions are; they only amount to opinion. What metaphysics do you base your world view on? I would guess that it is that God does not exist, or, if He does exist He has not spoken clearly in history. An honest discussion will take some time, and can't exist in a cancel culture, or censorship. I believe that in the final analysis, with our limitations of rationality and experience, an appeal to authority is required; but what authority has the most historical proof and universal reach to back it up and earn our confidence and trust? It can't just apply to the intellectual or elite class, they have proven themselves unjust, corrupt, bankrupt and without clothes.
The most basic requirement of honesty, is having some.
You criticized me for only referring to Wikipedia, when I had also linked to the University of Oxford. The honest response on your part would be, "Oh, I see that you had references." It would have ALSO been to thank me for telling you how to find more references, including a link to a book written by the discoverer of the Wallace Line.
You did not do that. You launched into an argument about the analysis needed to decide whether to accept a particular piece of evidence. Ending with a criticism against any information given to you by elites.
In short, you behaved dishonestly.
If you behaved honestly, you'd have acknowledged your mistake. You could have also read the book that I offered. And proceeded to verify Wallace's claims about where you find placental mammals like tigers and monkeys versus marsupials like kangaroos and wombats. Which, depending on your energy, you could do with anything from National Geographic, to travel guides, to actually taking a vacation. A trip that I assure you is far easier to do today than it was 170 years ago back when Wallace was doing it.
Given that you didn't do that, I'll let other people make their own minds up about which of us has been more reasonable. If they doubt me, I've just told them how to question my references, and how to validate them with no need to believe intellectual elites.
If they doubt you, well, you've yet to provide anything that looks like a reference. Or show any sign that you're capable of even the basic integrity of being able to say, "I was wrong. You did provide references. And thank you for providing me with more."
Which means that if they doubt you, you've given them absolutely no reason to stop doubting you.
"what would it take to change your mind"?
I launched into a misdirected diatribe that really was an attack on the concept that any historical evidence is sufficient in itself to change anyone's mind. That is, I thought to argue that one's view of these kinds of evidences amount to personal interpretations of the historical artifacts emerging from one's world-view, after we place them into an incomplete model of some sort, itself a product of one's world-view. I unfortunately (or fortunately as I appreciate your response), hijacked your contribution to vent on.
Attempting to salvage some of what I clumsily said initially, I might better state as a question; Is merely engaging in "my references are better than your references" argumentation an entirely honest approach, in that it (imho intentionally) ignores the bigger, weightier, more personal foundation, rarely transparently discussed; Which is, what is our view/belief of the nature of reality? These views/beliefs, in my opinion, are the filter we all use in choosing our "references". Are any of us truly objective? Do we even believe we should be?
Arguments that satisfy one person fail to satisfy another just as intelligent person. And what about persons not so intelligent, and whose minds are convinced by other considerations? Should they/we really be at the mercy of the prevailing pronouncements of the intelligentsia in vogue today? That's why I don't place my faith in the "science" or some worldly authority figure, who I know, put their pants on the same as I, and reside somewhere on a spectrum of non-objectivity, just as I. But then, why am I even butting in again (I drank too much coffee!)?? The original question wasn't directed at me, a believer, but to an unbeliever.
The book you referenced (Gutenberg) appears fascinating and engagingly written. I think it would be very interesting to read and discuss his theories, and also discuss how the Noah's Ark account in the Bible, and other scriptural "truth claims" would relate to these topics. Thanks for providing this reference.
You are right. I was insincere in asking for references, not really intending to read any. My response was a rant, and misdirected. I should have read what you graciously provided, and then responded thankfully, honestly and sincerely. Thanks for not letting that slide and calling me out on that (really). I'm truly sorry for being disingenuous and making false accusations about your honesty, when my own was lacking. (I guess I'm my own bad example). I (now) intend (thanks to your rebuke) to read the references you kindly provided, and I hope to respond more sincerely in this thread after doing so.
Kind of like how if all religions and all scientific and mathematical knowledge were somehow irrevocably lost, all of the science and math would eventually come back just as it was but none of the religions would (in spite of the protestations of fervent believers).
The flood story is present in so very many mythologies that there likely was some historical event in that region but people back then could be forgiven from thinking that such a flood covered the entire world as it covered what little they new of it.