The Flood Myth - The Greatest Evil

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:42 am

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.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:08 pm

ttruscott wrote: 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).

No, it is not an 'atheistic materialist definition.' It is a Christian definition. Several debaters have pointed out specific verses, passages and published doctrines that say so. Bust Nak has added his personal experience of having Christians make this claim.

The 'atheist materialist' definition of god is that he is not there. He is a made up concept that exists only as a concept, an imaginary being, a primitive explanation of the unknown. Once we looked thru a glass darkly and failed to see natural causes. Now we see face to face and understand nature better and have no need for imagined explanations involving beings from beyond the sky. Now that we are aware of a universe beyond imagined dome of sky covering a flat Earth the symbol of a God in heaven has died.

Buy Oz Moses · Post by **Buy Oz Moses** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:18 pm

[Replying to post 927 by tfvespasianus]

[row color=black] [color=chartreuse] 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.. ~tfvespasianus [/color] [color=gainsboro] So what you're concluding is that[b] 3 entities [/b]equaling [b]1 entity [/b]is not an internal contradiction, but instead is just highly improbable until what we know about the universe has this phenomenon proven to conform to its every day workings? What you're implying is that a [b]mortal man[/b] can also simultaneously be an [b]eternal deity[/b], and this is not a contradiction but just a highly improbably phenomenon not yet proven by our limited knowledge of the universes workings. It would seem, by your dismissal of these contradictions as simply highly improbable, that a square circle is also just a highly improbable phenomenon. If you think we can someday resolve these contradictions, of 3 = 1 then why couldn't a square circle also be resolved by the same or similar logic? Example. A mortal man is a square. It is opposite of an eternal deity. Mortal man was born, created, brought into existence and will eventually die, like every mortal man before him. An eternal deity is a circle. An eternal deity always was and always will be in existence. Mortal man = square Eternal deity = circle Jesus is a mortal man as well as an eternal deity. Jesus = a squared circle [/color][color=chartreuse] [b]09:31[/b] [/color]

tfvespasianus · Post by **tfvespasianus** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:35 pm

[Replying to post 931 by Buy Oz Moses]

Once again, let me reiterate: there is a difference between logically impossible and highly improbable.

For example, picture a figurine made of sugar and dyed red placed in a pint glass of water. We can stir the water and the figurine will dissolve. If we stir the glass again, it is possible that the figurine will reappear; all of the molecules that it consisted of are still in the solution. However, it is highly improbable (on the order I would guess of trillions to one against) that it will reappear. However, it is not impossible.

As for logically impossible, I am not going to reiterate as I think Ive made my case as to what that means to me. As for the Trinity, that is an interesting counterpoint in that my understanding is that it is beyond rational examination (i.e. a mystery) and thus cannot be apprehended by rational discourse. I am unsure if that fall into the logically impossible category I am attempting to explain. I will have to think on it.

Take care,
TFV

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:23 pm

Buy Oz Moses wrote:
="Replying to post 922 by ttruscott"]

"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
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.

...

I've already agreed with this!...??? What's up? Why the repetition? Christians know that HE is all powerful. What we reject is your contention that HIS power must allow HIM to create or do logical impossibilities...which is the essence of the wrong, false definition of omnipotence I objected to in my quote. The proper definition is that HE can do anything power can do which does not allow HIM to do logical impossibilities which are a matter of definition, not power. He can do anything is just a short form and means the same as "HE can do anything power can do which do". Other believers here and even a non-believer have spoken to the error of your position, so I rest my case.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:33 pm

Danmark wrote:
...

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.

...

But there is no proof any Christian doctrine accepts that HIS omnipotence proves HE must be able to do that which is logically impossible...

With man this is impossible, but with God all things possible are indeed possible.

For nothing that is possible will be impossible with God. The challenge I gave both you and BOM was to find a sect that accepted that HIS omnipotence allowed HIM to do LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES. So far you have both failed.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:10 pm

Buy Oz Moses wrote:
...

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 your definition of a logical impossibility, and why do these not seem to fit the bill?

...

What - given up on finding a sect that accepts omnipotence to mean the ability to to the logically impossible?

It is logically impossible to be and to not be at the same time:
A logical impossibility is a condition or statement involving contradiction or absurdity; as, that a thing can be and not be at the same time. A thing cannot at the same time be A and not A.

Wine to water is the change of A to B, not a logical impossibility at all and nor, as it seems, a physical impossibility either. Wine cannot be water at the same time it is wine.
2 cannot be any other number while it is 2 and neither can 3 be anything but 3 as long as it is 3. And 5 is only 5 while it is 5 and never anything else while it is indeed 5. These immutable 2s + the immutable 3s will and must always = the 5 that is indeed 5 unless someone is playing sophist word games which is at the level of high school mind games.

Miracles are not physically impossible or they cannot happen. But if some thing is A, it cannot be 'not A' or 'B which is not A'. Changing A to B might happen (miracle) but A cannot have the attributes of 'not A' and stay A.

It is logically impossible for a contradiction to exist in the same thing at the same time:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/logicalpossibility.html wrote:The traditional answer is that what is a "contradiction in terms" and, therefore is "inconceivable" is logically impossible. So it is logically impossible that there be a round square or a married bachelor.
...
Necessary truths are true at all possible worlds hence there are no possible worlds in which propositions that contradict them are true.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:13 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
ttruscott wrote: 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.

Obviously the person who said that is not bound by logic...Most older an thoughtful Christians reject such things.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:18 pm

[Replying to post 931 by Buy Oz Moses]

I do not accept that the highly improbable is a logical impossibility. Neither do I accept that my ignorance of the exact or deep meaning of a highly improbable proposition is proof it is not true.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:30 pm

[Replying to post 931 by Buy Oz Moses]

There is no logical impossibility in the Trinity at all. All things are defined by their dna, their essence. Find cat dna and you have a cat not an apple tree.

The essence of YHWH the Father is the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and love.

The essence of YHWH the Son is the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and love.

The essence of YHWH the Holy Spirit is the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and love.

These things are divine dna, what GOD is, not what HE does. And the interesting thing about these attributes is that the effect of more than one person having these attributes is that they form a UNITY of the divine attributes and purpose such that three divine beings (each having divine attributes) are ONE GOD, a perfect UNITY so perfect that it is rightly said that GOD is ONE, echad, a unity.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:28 pm

ttruscott wrote:
Danmark wrote:
...

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.

...

But there is no proof any Christian doctrine accepts that HIS omnipotence proves HE must be able to do that which is logically impossible...

With man this is impossible, but with God all things possible are indeed possible.

For nothing that is possible will be impossible with God. The challenge I gave both you and BOM was to find a sect that accepted that HIS omnipotence allowed HIM to do LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES. So far you have both failed.

Wrong. 'with God all things are possible.'

Nothing will be impossible with God.

Your own oft presented argument is another example. You've claimed many times that God is both good and omnipotent, and also claimed man has free will to do evil. This is a contradiction that has spawned almost infinite and certainly convoluted discussion to get around the contradictions inherent in the claims. The more forthright approach is to accept the claims as baloney and move on.