The Flood Myth - The Greatest Evil

[Danmark]

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history, it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man. It also is evidence the alleged god who perpetrated this evil makes mistakes, contradicts himself, and is capricious.
Consider that shortly after pronouncing all of his creation "good" he repents and calls the whole thing evil and decides to destroy all of it; man and all the other animals [except, presumably, marine life]. Then he changes his mind again and decides He'll just wipe out everything and everyone except a single family to represent each species.

Why he saved the death stalker scorpion, mosquitoes, the box jellyfish, the black widow spider, the poison dart frog, blue ring octopus, and Clostridium Botulinum is beyond me, except that it puts the lie to the idea he was trying to get rid of evil.

It's obvious the story of the flood is pure mythology, but even then, what is its purpose? To show man how evil and corrupt he'd become? The God of this myth certainly does not set a good example.

[tfvespasianus]

Things that are impossible by definition remain impossible even when omnipotence is the standard. Thus, omnipotence might be better defined as the ability to do anything (possible).

Hypothetically, and this is all hypothetical to me as I am not a religious man, the inability to perform the logically impossible (e.g. create square circles, etc.) doesnt do much more than introduce question-begging into the discussion. It is similar, but not the same as the conundrum of can an omnipotent god make a rock that (s)he cannot lift?

Take care,
TFV

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 910 by tfvespasianus]

[row color=black][color=gainsboro] Would making the impossible possible, or making square circles be something like say...creating mortal life when no mortal life was in existence? Or say, making light when existence knew nothing but darkness? Most humans take for granted that God creating anything is in and of itself impossible. He was never created and the only thing in existence, therefore it is safe to assume that creation itself was at one point an impossibility. Meaning it did and could not exist. And then God made it exist. He made other planes of existence like heaven and hell. We're these all possible? Because then It doesn't seem very special of a power to a deity, like bacteria worshiping a human because he can make poop, and make more bacteria in the poop. Just a thought... P.S. An omnipotent being can create a rock even he can't lift. But then he can make himself strong enough to lift it after its first attempt if it wanted to. It can make anything possible. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:11[/b] [/color]

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 911 by Buy Oz Moses]


I think you are missing my point. Perhaps, I didnt state it clearly enough. I am saying some conundrums are cannot be resolved by definition. I wasnt saying that some things are impossible given what we, as human beings, are incapable of doing them and thus they are impossible (that would be wrong). I am saying somethings are impossible given the construction of the problem. Hence, saying god can make a rock he cannot (initially) lift is not solved by making be able to lift the rock later.

The problem could better stated can god make a rock that cannot be lifted (ever)?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 906 by ttruscott]

Omnipotence cannot mean that HE can create logical impossibilities or I cannot answer. ~ttruscott

"Omnipotence generally means to be able to make 3+3=7 or to bend reality to your whim. ~Buy Oz Moses

"This is so far from the Christian norm I will call you on it. No sect of Christianity I know uses this definition because it is patently absurd. ~ttruscott


Wish I were making it up. But alas, no

Omnipotent
adjective
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
synonyms: all-powerful, almighty, supreme, preeminent, most high;

This is a secular anti-spiritual materialistic definition and worthless to Christians... You want to amaze me, find a Christian Dictionary that defines the ability to do ANYTHING as the ability to create logical impossibilities or to go against HIS holy character as loving.

The Sovereignty and Omnipotence of God absolutely must go together. He reigns and therefore He must have power. To reign sovereignly, He must have all power. Limitless power.

What "power" does it take to create logical impossibilities???? There is no POWER that can make up = down and wrong = right, only a redefinition of the words themselves. This playing and supporting sophist games is boring...I was enamoured with these in high school but left them later as I grew up.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 913 by ttruscott]

[row color=black][color=gainsboro] I don't intend to sound insulting, but I know this could be taken the wrong way. So I apologize in advance if any offense is taken. God [b][i]IS[/i][/b] A logical impossibility. So far, in our observable universe, everything is created, or comes into existence, and everything dies or ceases to exist(will cease to exist). Except God. He always existed, and he'll always exist. That is a logical impossibility. Why should we believe something can do or has done what nothing in our observable universe cannot do? That something can break or bend the physical laws we view on a daily basis? When you say [/color][color=chartreuse] up = down [/color][color=gainsboro] I say caused/created by some action/event = Always existed I think that the thinking Christians have forgotten or have gotten so comfortable with the idea of defending God that they do not realize that it takes faith to believe BECAUSE ITS FRIGGEN IMPOSSIBLE! A man walks on water. Rises from the dead. Raises the other dead people. Cures incurable diseases with a touch. Turns water to blood. Or water to wine. Making rivers or seas part. Turns a human womans physical body into a pillar of salt. These are all illogical happenings breaking the very laws of our known world. And they're supposed to be earth shattering, to show off his omnipotence so people would believe. Please do not get so lost in your belief that you take each miracle for granted. And try to remember, your God is a walking talking logical impossibility, it is only that he revealed himself to you and the scholars of the bible that somehow makes him even realizable to anyone in the first place. Without the Holy Spirit to help us we'd just have a book spouting off logical impossibilities from cover to cover. Now I apologize if this felt emotional, I assure it is not. It's literally an edited paste and copy of a conversation I had via text not but a week ago. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:14[/b] [/color]

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 912 by tfvespasianus]

[row color=black][color=chartreuse] "The problem could better stated can god make a rock that cannot be lifted (ever)?" ~tfvespasianus [/color][color=gainsboro]The answer? Yes. Because by the same logic that invented the idea of something being created by the source(in this case God) so heavy the source could not lift it, ever...comes the birth of the logic that could the source who created the logical impossibility not also create a new logical impossibility and reverse the decree? 1) God is omnipotent and can do everything and anything 2) God makes himself able to lift anything 3) God then breaks the second law by using the first law to create something he cannot lift. So now we're just stuck with "God created something he cannot lift" since he is no longer 2) able to lift anything and 3) unable to do everything, namely lifting the un-lift-able object. But by the same logic if he is omnipotent then the logical impossibility can be reversed by the first law. 1) God is omnipotent and can do everything and anything 2) God makes himself able to lift anything 3) God then breaks the second law by using the first law to create something he cannot lift. 4) God is omnipotent and can do anything, so he undoes the 3rd law 1) God is omnipotent and can do everything and anything 2) God makes himself able to lift anything(including the previously unmovable object) [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:15[/b] [/color]

[Danmark]

God
IS
A logical impossibility.

So far, in our observable universe, everything is created, or comes into existence, and everything dies or ceases to exist(will cease to exist).

Except God. He always existed, and he'll always exist. That is a logical impossibility. Why should we believe something can do or has done what nothing in our observable universe cannot do? That something can break or bend the physical laws we view on a daily basis?

I like this argument. I believe this is in part a response to the idea represented in this blog:
God Reigns Over Everything Because He has Limitless Power
The Sovereignty and Omnipotence of God absolutely must go together. He reigns and therefore He must have power. To reign sovereignly, He must have all power. Limitless power.
Gods power is incomprehensible. In our human understanding we just cannot mentally grasp the plenitude of His power. He is self-existent and does not depend on anything or anyone else for His power.
http://theroadto31.com/2014/03/gods-lim ... power.html

If this kind of theology, this definition of God is accepted as valid, then I agree, God is a logical impossibility. The point of the question "Can God make a rock he can't lift?," is not that it is a juvenile question to be condescendingly referred to as "such questions used to interest me, but I grew out if it."
Rather, it is a legitimate question to put to those who claim their god has unlimited power and all power. It is this absurd definition of god that is exposed by the question, rather than the question itself being deficient.

People argue, in defense of this logically absurd idea of god, that god and his power are incomprehensible. They are correct. They are incomprehensible because this definition of god is absurd. As you say, given the insistence on such an unreasonable definition of god, a god so defined is a logical impossibility.

We might as well end all debate if a logically impossible 'god' is insisted upon. This is the root of the problem this thread poses. This impossible god creates a world and destroys it, yet he is good and omniscient and omnipotent. This of course is an an absurd claim, because had he been omniscient he would not have created such a flawed world in the first place.

[Haven]

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. "[An omnipotent being] creating a rock so heavy [it] can't lift it" is logically impossible by definition (if a being is omnipotent, then it would be able to lift any object, and so 'a rock too big for it to lift' would necessarily not exist). The definition of omnipotent is possessing the ability to do any thing. The unliftable rock, however, is not a "thing" at all, but a mere linguistic absurdity, no different than a square circle or a married bachelor. The fact that a god would be unable to create such a rock does no more to eliminate the possibility of its existence than its inability to create square circles or married bachelors. Not even an omnipotent being could do the logically impossible.

Keep in mind that I'm a non-theist, but I just think that the "can God create a rock so big that she/he/it can't lift it?" argument is very weak.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 917 by Haven]

[row color=black][color=chartreuse] "I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. "[An omnipotent being] creating a rock so heavy [it] can't lift it" is logically impossible by definition (if a being is omnipotent, then it would be able to lift any object, and so 'a rock too big for it to lift' would necessarily not exist). The definition of omnipotent is possessing the ability to do any thing. The unliftable rock, however, is not a "thing" at all, but a mere linguistic absurdity, no different than a square circle or a married bachelor. The fact that a god would be unable to create such a rock does no more to eliminate the possibility of its existence than its inability to create square circles or married bachelors. Not even an omnipotent being could do the logically impossible. " ~Haven [/color][color=gainsboro] I believe the problem with everyone's point of view is familiarity. You see, in order to first come to a conclusion on whether or not an omnipotent being could do the logically impossible, you first have to accept a logical impossibility. Simply put, do you know any omnipotent beings that exist? Beings that by definition can do anything? We look at the "absurdity" of a logical impossibility, like an omnipotent being making the impossible possible, but easily forget how we got to the problem at hand in the first place due to our familiarity with the bible. You have to first accept the logical impossibility that one all knowing all powerful being exists first, before you can accept whether or not it can lift a rock too heavy for it. I believe we are blinded by indoctrination or constant bombardment of belief in an almighty being that we have come to accept The possibility of a God in theory. if you're a non-theist you still argue against its possibility, but in order to debate christianity you try to place logical steps as to why you don't believe, allowing yourself to take certain steps. (First step) as an example, ok granted...let's say a God does exist. (Second step) If there were a God, he/she/it would not do XY and Z as stated in the bible. It's logically impossible. But so is the first step. However, we granted that first step, to even begin debating, to begin with. So what's one more logical impossibility to take into account? Imagine like those insane hardcore atheists who tattoo the phrase [/color][color=chartreuse]"Everyone Christian is an Atheist, because they do not believe in Buddah or Vishnu or Zeus. Atheists just take it one step further and don't believe in the Christian God either." [/color][color=gainsboro]Onto their bodies or t-shirts. We state we can't conceive of God making a logical impossibility happen, it's absurd for debating purposes. But then why don't we, for debating purposes, just take it one step further and drop the whole argument as God itself is a logical impossibility? Accept one logical impossibility, and accept all. Or cherry pick your favorite logical impossibility. Food for thought. And for the theist, just because God is a logical impossibility does not mean he doesn't exist, it just makes having faith to believe important as the bible shows over and over again. As Ted had stated some time ago, we denied God His deity because we were too self centered to believe we could accept the (to our self centered brains)logical impossibility of his dominion over us. He gave us no proof of his power so that the free will choice could be genuine. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:18[/b] [/color]

[/quote]

[Danmark]

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. "[An omnipotent being] creating a rock so heavy [it] can't lift it" is logically impossible by definition (if a being is omnipotent, then it would be able to lift any object, and so 'a rock too big for it to lift' would necessarily not exist). The definition of omnipotent is possessing the ability to do any thing. The unliftable rock, however, is not a "thing" at all, but a mere linguistic absurdity, no different than a square circle or a married bachelor. The fact that a god would be unable to create such a rock does no more to eliminate the possibility of its existence than its inability to create square circles or married bachelors. Not even an omnipotent being could do the logically impossible.

Keep in mind that I'm a non-theist, but I just think that the "can God create a rock so big that she/he/it can't lift it?" argument is very weak.

"A linguistic absurdity," is an excellent description of the rock conundrum. The argument here is that "god" as defined by some is also a linguistic or logical absurdity.