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]

[Replying to post 917 by Haven]


Thank you for this post. That was the sentiment I was trying to convey. Logical impossibilities are just that " formally impossible. It is not a strike against the concept of omnipotence that logical impossibilities cannot be made possible else words lose meaning.

Nonetheless, it seems there has been a sort of defense of the ability for an omnipotent being to do just that which fascinates me because it strikes me as a form of belief persistence. Moreover, the phenomena itself (e.g. something absurd/impossible/highly counter-intuitive is to be preferred to other options) always fascinates me as I do feel that people usually dont run their lives this way in the day-to-day. That is, when you hear of a story or are given a proposition that seems faulty we dont embrace with the rationale that its very unlikelihood is a point in its favor.

Or at least I dont think many do.

Take care,
TFV

[Danmark]

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.

Exactamundo. BTW, this definition of God that the medieval scholastics, Paul, and most fundamentalists adhere to, is that it drives them to further absurdities and contradictions like "Christ is all and in all." They paint themselves into one logical corner after another, like "the trinity," then when you object and destroy this silliness with logic and facts, they explain, "you just don't understand."
Or they say "It's a mystery beyond the mind of man."

Once that tactic is employed, debate is suspended. There is no point in even discussing these subjects because 'they' have essentially taken the discussion out of the realm of human understanding, by definition.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 913 by ttruscott]

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
IS
A logical impossibility.

This misses the mark because it is built on the faulty premise of a wrong definition of omnipotent as different from and inimical to the Christian definition. All arguments resting on the false premies are ignored as moot.

[ttruscott]

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.

Agreed but it must also be noted that it is an atheistic materialistic definition of "able to do anything" that is causing the contentions whereas no Christian doctrine accepts "able to do anything" as a strict definition (though people in their enthusiasm without thinking may express themselves this way).

[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.

Agreed but it must also be noted that it is an atheistic materialistic definition of "able to do anything" that is causing the contentions whereas no Christian doctrine accepts "able to do anything" as a strict definition (though people in their enthusiasm without thinking may express themselves this way).

Apparently many Christian doctrines accept omnipotence as the defining characteristic of God, as well as many passages of the Bible:

Matthew 19:26

But Jesus looked at them and said, With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

Luke 1:37 ESV

For nothing will be impossible with God.

Jeremiah 32:27 ESV

Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?

Isaiah 40:28 ESV

Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

Psalm 147:5 ESV

Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

Job 42:2 ESV

I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Mark 10:27 ESV

Jesus looked at them and said, With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.

Because God is spirit, this helps explain why God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Notice a couple of comments from two books:

Both God and the Word (who became Christ) have existed eternally and before all else. From them emanates the Spirit of God, by which God is omnipresent and omniscient. God the Father is the divine Father of the God family, into which truly converted Christians shall be born. (Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead & Company, New York. 1985 ,p. 57)

"In the Beginning-GOD" God had to be there first because He made everything that ever was. (Genesis 1: 1.) Probably one of the first things you wonder about God is where He came from. He didn't come from anywhere. He has always existed.' It is hard for us to understand. We must remember that "the secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever" (Deuteronomy 29:29). God always was and He always will be. (Revelation 1:8.) (Wolverton B. RadioCG, 1961, pp. 2-3)

God has always existed. Notice also what God's name is:

13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" 14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:13-15)

Before there was a universe, there was God. An article of related interest may be Where Did God Come From?

God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent

In 2007, Wallace Smith had an article published titled God and the "Three 'O's. It begins with:

Is God omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient? In answering such questions, we should always begin with another question: What does the Bible teach on these matters? If our beliefs are not rooted in Gods inspired word, they are not beliefs worth having!...

Is God Omnipotent?

This is, perhaps, the easiest of the three to answer: Yes, God is omnipotent! There is even a verse that, in the King James Version and New King James Version, uses this very word: Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! (Revelation 19:6).

The Greek word translated as Omnipotent here is pantokrator, meaning All-ruling or (as it is more frequently translated) Almighty. When we say God is Almighty, we are stating our belief in His authority and rulership over all creation, and the Bible is firm in declaring this fact. Even though Satan is now the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4), it belongs to him only because Almighty God has granted it to Him: And the devil said to Him, All this authority [over all the kingdoms of this world] I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish (Luke 4:6).

It is God who ultimately reigns in the universe, and all legitimate authority must derive from Him. If we let Scripture tell us of Gods authority, we must agree that He has all authority to do all His pleasure (Isaiah 46:10"11), and to see to the fulfillment of His plans without fail. If we accept the Scriptural definition of almighty"and we must accept no other!"we can rightly call God omnipotent. Indeed, Christ says clearly that with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).

However, if we were to insist that omnipotent meant God could do anything and everything at all, we would need to reject that description, because His word says He cannot! For example, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Bible clearly shows that God cannot act contrary to His nature. But do these cannots mean He is not omnipotent"not almighty? Not if we let Scripture define its own terms!

There is no limit to the power of God. A search I did in the NKJV revealed that God was referred to as "Almighty" 48 times in the Hebrew scriptures and 9 times in the Greek scriptures, a total of 57 mentions in the Holy Bible. This is a point that God wants humankind to clearly understand.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 922 by ttruscott]

[row color=black][color=chartreuse]"This misses the mark because it is built on the faulty premise of a wrong definition of omnipotent as different from and inimical to the Christian definition. All arguments resting on the false premies are ignored as moot." ~ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro]Understood. I have provided 4 sites where Christian theists believe omnipotence to mean "all powerful" and that God is able to do things beyond our imaginations. Please provide the correct Christian definition of God's omnipotence. I'd also like to know why the definition of omnipotence, that you consider atheistic and materialist, which refers to a deity and is synonymous with the Christian God's titles (almighty, all powerful etc.) is not the actual Christian's definition of the word? Where is the Christian definition of the word found so that I may examine it? I agree with you. We cannot come to the truth if a false premise is involved. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:25[/b] [/color]

[/quote]

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 920 by tfvespasianus]

[row color=black] [color=chartreuse] Logical impossibilities are just that " formally impossible. ~tfvespasianus [/color][color=gainsboro] [b]Logical impossibility[/b] a condition or statement involving contradiction or absurdity; as, that a thing can be and not be at the same time. See Principle of Contradiction, under [b]Contradiction[/b]. [i]Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.[/i] [b]Contradiction [/b] [i]noun[/i] 1. a. The act or an instance of contradicting: the witness's contradiction of other testimony. b. The state of being contradicted: a supervisor who cannot tolerate contradiction from any subordinate. 2. a. [b]An inconsistency or discrepancy[/b]: "Surprisingly few people saw a contradiction between freedom for whites and bondage for slaves" (Adam Hochschild). b. [b]Inconsistency; discrepancy[/b]: practices that are in contradiction to human rights. 3. [b]One that contains elements that oppose or conflict with one another[/b]: The phrase "an unmarried husband" is a contradiction in terms. Humans are born through procreation and then live until they die. At death one ceases to exist. Brain activity shuts down, organ functions halt indefinitely up until decay and rot. No sign or factual proof has been provided that a soul or spirit escapes the human body at the point of death. And yet God can make the soul exist, when we do not witness this, and at the point of death, when a humans consciousness ceases to be witnessed at death, (and the human has died)it is simultaneously alive and can live eternally. Monotheism is the religious practice of following one true deity. God is the father of Christianity, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a third mentioned entity amongst the trinity that make up one entity. 3 = 1. Water is a liquid compound consisting of the chemical Hydrogen and Oxygen. Wine is a liquid compound consisting of ethanol and carbon dioxide. Jesus has the servants pour water for the headmaster to drink and the headmaster drinks the water which is perfectly aged wine. Let me know when I've come upon a logical impossibility. Then tell me that God is not the omnipotent deity that can make logical impossibilities a reality. Water is a liquid that can only support hollow masses with large amounts of volume inside of it. Masses such as human bodies require oxygenated lung capacities which make it impossible to breathe or talk while one is floating on a body of water. Jesus stands upright, speaks and simultaneously walks over a body of water. Are any of these examples of something that is contradictory to logic? Jesus is a mortal, that was born, eats, sleeps, bleeds and dies. And yet he is a God that is and always was eternal which was not born, does not eat, sleep or bleed nor can it die. None of this seems contradictory to you? I pose a question to you. What is your definition of a logical impossibility? Because it seems that you draw the line at impossible to lift rocks, but not anything before it, like say a mortal Deity/immortal man, wine-water, a one God-trinity or even solid/liquid water floor. Again, I pose the question to you. What is [b][i]your[/i][/b] definition of a logical impossibility, and why do these not seem to fit the bill? [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:26[/b] [/color]

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 920 by tfvespasianus]

[row color=black] [color=chartreuse] Logical impossibilities are just that " formally impossible. ~tfvespasianus Again, I pose the question to you. What is [b][i]your[/i][/b] definition of a logical impossibility, and why do these not seem to fit the bill? [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:26[/b] [/color]

Perhaps we are not understanding each other. When I use logically impossible I separate this class of things from things that are highly improbable or that cannot be said to conform with the everyday working of our universe given what we know. Logically impossible entails an internal contradiction that cannot be resolved. Other posters have brought up the idea of a married bachelor or a square circle and those are illustrative enough I think. I dont know how it is that it cant be conceded that the resolving logical impossibilities is impossible.

For the purpose of discussion, changing the molecular composition of matter is not logically impossible. It would involve changing a few sub-atomic particles and though we dont know how this would work mechanically, its not something that by its very definition cant be done.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 920 by tfvespasianus]

[row color=black] [color=chartreuse] Logical impossibilities are just that " formally impossible. ~tfvespasianus Again, I pose the question to you. What is [b][i]your[/i][/b] definition of a logical impossibility, and why do these not seem to fit the bill? [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:26[/b] [/color]

Perhaps we are not understanding each other. When I use logically impossible I separate this class of things from things that are highly improbable or that cannot be said to conform with the everyday working of our universe given what we know. Logically impossible entails an internal contradiction that cannot be resolved. Other posters have brought up the idea of a married bachelor or a square circle and those are illustrative enough I think. I dont know how it is that it cant be conceded that the resolving logical impossibilities is impossible.

For the purpose of discussion, changing the molecular composition of matter is not logically impossible. It would involve changing a few sub-atomic particles and though we dont know how this would work mechanically, its not something that by its very definition cant be done.

I agree with this distinction; however, an omnipotent / omniscient 'god' is in the 'married bachelor' category. This 'god' is also is in contradiction with free will.
That he is a loving god is also incompatible with a god who destroys all living flesh.

[Bust Nak]

Agreed but it must also be noted that it is an atheistic materialistic definition of "able to do anything" that is causing the contentions whereas no Christian doctrine accepts "able to do anything" as a strict definition (though people in their enthusiasm without thinking may express themselves this way).

You say that but I've had at least one Christian tell me that, yes, God can make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, and yes, God can lift that rock; God is the author of the laws of logic and is not bounded by the laws of logic.