God and the flood

[anonymous person]

In this thread I want to allow anyone who believes that if the Genesis account is true in what it records about a flood being caused by God, then such a God cannot possess certain attributes.

I want them to list the attributes they believe are incompatible with such an act assuming it occurred, and give an argument for why.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't quite understand your question.

Could you clarify?

 

[Davian]

Does this hypothetical assume that everyone that drowned in the biblical flood, from unborn fetus to the adult disbelievers, deserved what was coming to them?

 

[quatona]

In this thread I want to allow anyone who believes that if the Genesis account is true in what it records about a flood being caused by God, then such a God cannot possess certain attributes.

I want them to list the attributes they believe are incompatible with such an act assuming it occurred, and give an argument for why.

Out of those that - in the other thread - you claimed were compatible with this act?
Then why don´t you repeat them here, so we can continue discussing your claims?

Ok, I´ll summarize for you:
1. - Your claim: God pursued a "greater good" by drowning all those people. This "greater good" is a moral justification (in the way physician injure people for a "greater good".
- My objection: The "greater good" defense isn´t available for the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything. The "collateral damage" or "necessary byproduct" defense doesn´t make any sense whatsoever, when talking about such an entitiy. (I have given my arguments in the other thread. Just because it was too inconvenient for you to address them there, doesn´t mean I have to repeat them here).

2. - Your claim: Each individual is "inviolably and infinitely worthy" to God.
- My objection: An omnipotent, omniscient creator god needn´t intentionally inflict harm/suffering on his "inviolably and infinitely worthy" creatures. He can pursue any goal directly and ("greater good") without doing that. Particularly the fact that he drowns the vast majority of his human creatures (who will go to infinite suffering after their physical death) isn´t reconcilable with the claim that each of them is "inviolably and infinitely worthy".The detailed argument has also been given in the other thread.

 

[anonymous person]

Out of those that - in the other thread - you claimed were compatible with this act?
Then why don´t you repeat them here, so we can continue discussing your claims?

Ok, I´ll summarize for you:
1. - Your claim: God pursued a "greater good" by drowning all those people. This "greater good" is a moral justification (in the way physician injure people for a "greater good".
- My objection: The "greater good" defense isn´t available for the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything. The "collateral damage" or "necessary byproduct" defense doesn´t make any sense whatsoever, when talking about such an entitiy. (I have given my arguments in the other thread. Just because it was too inconvenient for you to address them there, doesn´t mean I have to repeat them here).

Do you have a post number or a link to the post(s) where you presented your arguments?

He can pursue any goal directly and ("greater good") without doing that.

How can He with free moral agents?

Particularly the fact that he drowns the vast majority of his human creatures (who will go to infinite suffering after their physical death) isn´t reconcilable with the claim that each of them is "inviolably and infinitely worthy".The detailed argument has also been given in the other thread.

Post number or link please?

 

[anonymous person]

Does this hypothetical assume that everyone that drowned in the biblical flood, from unborn fetus to the adult disbelievers, deserved what was coming to them?

I say yes.

 

[anonymous person]

I don't quite understand your question.

Could you clarify?

Do you see any inconsistency in me claiming that God had morally sufficient reasons for causing a flood and me claiming at the same time that He possess all of the attributes that have been traditionally attributed to Him?

 

[David Colin Gould]

How can He with free moral agents?

An omnipotent, omniscient, future-knowing being would surely be able to come up with evidence and argument to convince free moral agents to behave in a manner that would not necessitate killing pretty much everyone - including all the animals, unless inflicting suffering on animals is not immoral in the Christian outlook - on the planet.

Further, if he did need to kill everyone on the planet, why use a method that would have caused terror and pain? Why not just snap his (perhaps metaphorical) fingers so that everyone who needed to die died instantly, leaving all the animals and plants untouched? He could have still had warnings given over the months and weeks beforehand - portents in the sky and so on. Why was such destruction and suffering necessary?

 

[quatona]

Do you have a post number or a link to the post(s) where you presented your arguments?

No. The fact that you try to escape the discussion you had in the other thread by creating a new thread doesn´t mean I have to do the work for you.
You can respond over there or you can respond here.

How can He with free moral agents?

(Also accepting the hypothetical that humans are free moral agents): Irrelevant. Noone forced God to create free moral agents in the knowledge that he would have to destroy, harm and send them to eternal suffering for a "greater good". Omnimax God could have created that "greater good" right away.
On another note, God could have created only those "free agents" who would make use of their "free agency" in a way that wouldn´t make them an obstacle to the "greater good".

Post number or link please?

See above. You posted your claims; you complained that some people moved the goalposts; you didn´t respond to the posts that addressed your claims; then you escaped.

 

[Haasrecht]

Out of curiosity, why is this thread in philosophy? How does this qualify as philosophy?

 

[HitchSlap]

How can He with free moral agents?

Why would "He" create free moral agents, then exterminate them, save six, for exercising said moral agency?

 

[quatona]

Out of curiosity, why is this thread in philosophy? How does this qualify as philosophy?

It isn´t. It´s apologetics. It is a rip-off from a thread in which the OP pretended to ask philosphical questions but turned out to be intended as an apologetics thread. It´s how some Christians approach things here.

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you see any inconsistency in me claiming that God had morally sufficient reasons for causing a flood and me claiming at the same time that He possess all of the attributes that have been traditionally attributed to Him?

I need to ask you which attributes you have in mind?

 

[anonymous person]

An omnipotent, omniscient, future-knowing being would surely be able to come up with evidence and argument to convince free moral agents to behave in a manner that would not necessitate killing pretty much everyone - including all the animals, unless inflicting suffering on animals is not immoral in the Christian outlook - on the planet.

Look at what you have said. You have not explained how He would do this. You just restated what quatona said.

Further, if he did need to kill everyone on the planet, why use a method that would have caused terror and pain?

Why use a method that caused terror and pain? What method of causing one's bodily processes to cease does not carry with it some sort of terror or pain?

Why not just snap his (perhaps metaphorical) fingers so that everyone who needed to die died instantly, leaving all the animals and plants untouched? He could have still had warnings given over the months and weeks beforehand - portents in the sky and so on. Why was such destruction and suffering necessary?

God did what He did so that they who were wicked and were judged might serve as an example and warning for all who were to live after them. The sin was so great in the earth and it had become so corrupted that God knew that we sinful human beings, prone to forget what history has taught us, would need a vivid reminder of the consequences of sin that we could look back on and He loves us so much that He caused the flood to happen for our benefit. God wants as many to repent and be saved as possible and He sometimes has to scare us and frighten us into waking up out of our deep sleep so that we might, if for no other reason than fear of judgment, seek and pursue righteousness and repentance.

 

[anonymous person]

Out of curiosity, why is this thread in philosophy? How does this qualify as philosophy?

It qualifies as a discussion of philosophy of religion because in this thread we are discussing whether or not the traditionally ascribed attributes of God by philosophers of religion are compatible with certain commands and actions recorded as having been given and undertaken by God as is recorded in the Old Testament writings.

 

[Haasrecht]

It qualifies as a discussion of philosophy of religion because in this thread we are discussing whether or not the traditionally ascribed attributes of God by philosophers of religion are compatible with certain commands and actions recorded as having been given and undertaken by God as is recorded in the Old Testament writings.

You just described a subset of theology. Not philosophy. As soon as you insert 'the Old Testament' you are now in theology and not philosophy.

 

[anonymous person]

Why would "He" create free moral agents, then exterminate them, save six, for exercising said moral agency?

Eight, not six.

The question does not pertain to our discussion.

 

[anonymous person]

You just described a subset of theology. Not philosophy. As soon as you insert 'the Old Testament' you are now in theology and not philosophy.

Why is that?

Why and since when are philosophers of religion precluded from utilizing Old Testament texts while engaging in philosophy of religion?

Nor have I been given one reason whatsoever to think that theology cannot overlap with philosophy and philosophy with theology. There is no diminution here on this site against philosophical discussions containing elements of theological significance.

 

[quatona]

Why use a method that caused terror and pain? What method of causing one's bodily processes

Which brings up the question: How exactly was there a need for God to create physical beings, in the first place?

to cease does not carry with it some sort of terror or pain?

As you said in a post in the other thread (paraphrased): You think that an almighty and omniscient God was unable to create such a method? Or to create physical existence in a way that wouldn´t tie its end to suffering and pain? God couldn´t have switched them off without causing them any pain by a snip of his fingers? He needed to create a flood to end their lives? That doesn´t seem to make much sense.

God did what He did so that they who were wicked and were judged might serve as an example and warning for all who were to live after them. The sin was so great in the earth and it had become so corrupted that God knew that we sinful human beings, prone to forget what history has taught us, would need a vivid reminder of the consequences of sin that we could look back on and He loves us so much that He caused the flood to happen for our benefit. God wants as many to repent and be saved as possible and He sometimes has to scare us and frighten us into waking up out of our deep sleep so that we might, if for no other reason than fear of judgment, seek and pursue righteousness and repentance.

So God created a problem so that there could be the "greater good" of a solution for this problem?[/QUOTE]

 

[David Colin Gould]

Look at what you have said. You have not explained how He would do this. You just restated what quatona said.

I did explain how: turn up physically, demonstrate that he is indeed God by performing a few miracles - this is what Jesus did, after all, and many came to believe in him because of this, even those who were initially opposed to him and doing evil, according to the Bible.

Why use a method that caused terror and pain? What method of causing one's bodily processes to cease does not carry with it some sort of terror or pain?

A gunshot to the back of the head with the person being completely unaware that they were in any danger - no terror, no pain. I am sure that God, supposedly being a little more intelligent than me, could come up with another method - for example, complete instant disintegration of the brain.

God did what He did so that they who were wicked and were judged might serve as an example and warning for all who were to live after them. The sin was so great in the earth and it had become so corrupted that God knew that we sinful human beings, prone to forget what history has taught us, would need a vivid reminder of the consequences of sin that we could look back on and He loves us so much that He caused the flood to happen for our benefit. God wants as many to repent and be saved as possible and He sometimes has to scare us and frighten us into waking up out of our deep sleep so that we might, if for no other reason than fear of judgment, seek and pursue righteousness and repentance.

By doing horrific things to innocent creatures - all the animals were innocent. The lesson I take out of this is that if you are innocent you may have horrible things done to you by God just to send a warning to people who are not innocent but might repent of their evil.

And we would not need a historical event to remind us - and historical events are not very good reminders of things, as you said - if God walked around with us all the time, giving us tours of Hell and Heaven, and pointing out the consequences of our actions.

And, as quatona said - and, yes, I repeat what he said because you do not really address the things that he says - God could think of no better method? This is an omniscient being. Inflicting suffering on innocent animals and children was the absolute best he could come up with?