LP675

Ok, there aren’t enough hours in a week to completely plumb the depths of the error contained in the replies my arguments received (especially the stuff Sensei Meela sprouted), so I will simply answer the most obvious errors.

Sevn-“BTW, why did you use separate posts? It's very unpractical to answer this way!”

Yeah you are probably right, I will keep it in mind.

Sven-“Yes, you tried to explain away my points, but I think you failed totally”

Your response was interesting, but let me explain why you are wrong. Let's Look at your OP;

Sevn- “My premise is an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God, as accepted by almost all Cristians”

And it seems Sensei Meela accepted that premise: "From a Christian standpoint -- the aforementioned omnimax attributes of God -- the Flood is illogical"

As I understood it you were trying to assert the story of Noah’s flood was incompatible with a Christian’s understanding of omni benevolence. I repeat you said “omnibenevolent … as accepted by almost all Christians”.

Any 'Christian' understanding of omni-benevolence, for it to be truly ‘Christian’, is by definition compatible with other Christian doctrines such as the doctrine of Hell (also accepted by almost all Christians).

If you decide to define ‘omni benevolence’ in a way that is incompatible with other Christian doctrines such as eternal damnation, or punishment of the wicked (by whatever means God see fit), then by definition what you have is NOT “omni benevolence as accepted by almost all Christians”.

So in other words the following statement is for the purposes of this thread false unless compatible with a Christian understanding of Omni Benevolence;

Sensei Meela -'Omnibenevolence' is defined as 'maximal goodness' (according to some). As such, logic requires that one must be 'maximally good' and abstain from being NOT 'maximally good', if the coherence of language and the assertion of omnibenevolence are to be maintained. You can try and say that we have no way of knowing what 'Maximal Good' is, but you'd better have a stretcher ready...it's hard to walk with a shot foot.”

And so this statement is false:

Sensei Meela-“An eternal punishment (the likes of Hell, as Dante populaized it, for most) is at odds with 'maximal goodness,' for reasons already mentioned.”


A Christian definition of omni-benevolence is of course much more nuanced than “god doesn’t do nasty things”. A real Christian understanding of omni benevolence states on the one hand that ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:16), but also takes into account that ‘God is light; in him there is no darkness at all’ (referring to his righteousness and inability to tolerate sin), and ‘God is a consuming fire’ (Hebrews 12:29) speaking of his wrath (using wrath here in the technical sense of righteous indignation).

If you wanted to start a thread on the logical impossibility of an ‘omni benevolent’ god (by whatever definition of omni-benevolent you like) casting sinners into hell (or doing other things you think an omni benevolent God shouldn’t do), then perhaps that’s what you should have done.

So lets consider again point (2)
quote:

"Originally posted by LP675

God has tired of the wickedness of groups of people and punished them by killing them in various ways many times. The bible repeatedly tells the attentive reader that there are times when people are so wicked God says ?enough is enough? and kills them. You have to concede its God?s prerogative to strike down the wicked at his discretion, so what is illogical about doing it on a wide scale? Christians actually expect another such event to happen in the future some time


Sven-”It's illogical because of his omnibenevolence…”

No it isn’t, because I showed that this is not incompatible with ‘omni-benevolence’ as ‘accepted by almost all Christians’ (which allows for punishment of the wicked). Again I will point out this thread is about why Noah’s flood has logical / moral problems assuming a ‘Christian’ understanding of omni-benevolence etc, not your personal feelings on, or definition of, omni benevolence.




"(3) quote:

Originally posted by LP675
Again it you who are not being logical. ?Free will? is something we have when we are alive. Once these people were dead they ceased to have ?free will? in any way that matters (i.e. they can?t be encourage to repentance or whatever). Killing them isn?t a violation of ?free will? (their ability to follow God or not), it is simply killing them. While they were alive they had free will, and for God to violate free will he would have done something like force them to repentance.


Sven- ”You haven't understood the argument at all. You're right: Dead people don't have free will. Thus God has taken away free will from them by killing them. Thus there should no problem at all to take a little bit free will away to influence people to get better.
And you ignored my second point, that these people certainly had a will to live.”


No it is you who haven’t understood the argument at all. You originally asked why couldn’t God influence people so they would ‘get better’ (perhaps you mean repent, or follow God or something similar). Then you said “Perhaps someone wants to counter with the old "free will" "argument". But isn't the act to end all free will at the same time by killing these people a blatant violant of giving them "free will"?

The simple answer to your question is no. The ‘old free will argument’ is usually employed to explain why God doesn’t force people to love him / obey him / repent of sin etc. According to the free will argument it is because God has given people the choice to obey him or not, and he will not interfere with their free will (to love him etc or not), God can’t be blamed for the inevitable consequences that come when people refuse to follow him.

Now as I explained, for God to interfere with ‘their free will’ (as defined by the typical free will argument) God would have to take away their independence and force people to love or obey him. THAT is violating free will in the sense that the free will argument says God can’t do. It never says God can’t kill people, (He isn’t forcing them to love him).

If someone dies, they no longer have the capacity to choose to obey or reject God. It is not that free will has been ‘violated’ or ‘interfered with’ in the way that the free will argument says God can’t do, it is simply that people no longer have the capacity to exercise free will. Everyone dies at some time, and when I die my ‘free will’ will not been violated, or interfered with, I will just in the physical sense be dead.

Sven- “Didn't these people have the will to live?”

These people had a desire to live, but that is a totally different issue to whether they had the capacity to choose to follow God or not. Can you see that?

Sven- “I see that you haven't answered (6). Is this because of time or do you concede that this indeed a problem?”

There is absolutely no problem. As I said I don’t really have time to respond to this and every other bizarre assertion made in this thread.

Sensei Meela -[BTW, welcome to the forums. Please ring for the medic]

Thank you, but I think you might need help more than me.

Alan G

*absolutely confused*

trying to decipher the wording should this be read:

The fact that so far we have found many large mammals with the dinosaurs fossils is problematic.

or

The fact that so far we have found no large mammals with the dinosaurs fossils is problematic.

or was it supposed to be

The fact that so far we have found hardly any large mammals with the dinosaurs fossils is problematic.

which was the intended statement of fact?

*woah its more cryptic that interpreting the bible*

Kosh

Everyone knows that wood grows soft after 500 years....

Jim Larmore

Theres no reason to have everything you believe to be logical. Look at OOL right now, they are trying to make us believe life started from inanimate chemical and somehow developed the complexity we see over millions of years. Is this logical? This is not only not logical from a direct common sense approach its not logical from the statistical mathematical approach either. This has been shown many times by great minds like Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Dr. Demski. Another illogical issue is macro-evolution and its explanation of the diversity in the biota. I don't care how many people say this is the way it happened, its not logical for it too have happened this way. Mutation won't make it happen and natural selection only prooves diversity among the various "kinds".

It may not be logical that Noah spent 120 years preaching to those who lived before the flood and only 8 came aboard and survived the deluge. It may not be logical that an omnipotent God spoke things into existence ( including life itself when it comes to the animals and plants ) . It may not be logical that Jesus raised the dead, healed the lepers, fed the multitude with a basket full of bread and a few fish, but I "BELIEVE" it happened. Belief doesn't have to include logic, as many of us scientist have proven with our beliefs in some of the things mentioned above. Oh, yes we can say its all logical by showing steps or sequences but there are so many gaps or holes that you can not explain away that cause you to have to exhibit "FAITH" or belief in to make it work.

I.E. in OOL work no one has really explained how the original cells encapsulated a cell membrane or a cell wall in plants to start with. The replicating RNA's they are working with start out with nature made organic molecules ( Ribozymes ) . The DNA in every cell requires a protein made by the work of DNA to be made to start with. Theres too many irreducible aspects of living material for it too have came about from fortuitous modalities.Very complex interdependence is very obvious. Talk about logic,,,,,,, get real man. Your side of the arguement reeks with a lack of logic!!!!

I believe God created life, is it logical maybe not. However science has not made a good case of logic to explain its version of how life got started either. So to parade logic as a issue against me yoiu need to look at your side more objectively yourself. Its kinda like the kettle calling the pot black.

LP675

lol! :notworthy

Plognark

Um....what?
No offense, but you need to read a LOT more about science or go re-read it. You apparently got nothing out of it with rampant thoughts of god clouding your mind :banghead:

dado

why are you guys arguing with christians about a jewish text? asking the typical christian about written torah is like asking a rastafarian to explain catholicism: it doesn't make sense and you're only going to replies that pile ludicriousness on top of ridiculousness.

Amaleq13

As rlogan was trying to point out to you, Jesus confirms no such thing. He is comparing the sudden nature of the flood in the OT story with the sudden nature of the coming judgment. That comparison clearly does not require that the flood story be taken literally. It only requires familiarity with the story on the part of Jesus' audience. You don't have to believe the story is literally true to understand the point of the comparison.

You later suggested that logic is equivalent with common sense but anyone familiar with science should know better. What "seems" true based on common sense often turns out to be false when the evidence is considered scientifically.

Jim Larmore

Maybe you should go read some research papers on the work being done with Ribozymes or replicative ligases. Like I said earlier they have no idea how the original living molecules if you want to call then that encapsulated themselves to produce a cell membrane. Go check out a cell biology book from the library tomorrow if you don't already own one and read up on the cell membrane's functions. Keep on reading all about the interdependence of the organelles with the nucleus and the nucleus with the organelles. Read up on how the DNA replicates precisely to make copies of itself over and over again during mitosis. Read up on how you have to have DNA to make protein and protein to make DNA. Go read about the reproductive aspects of meiosis in egg and sperm cells. Get a little deeper and read up on how proteins are made and how many different proteins there are to radically effect everything that happens in your body. The krebs cycle and how ATP works as our energy source in almost all biological functions.

After you do all this you haven't even scratched the surface of the complexity of life . It just keeps getting more and more complex and then you want to tell me its logical to say all this came about from fortuitous indirected unintelligent accidental occurrence? Yeah , right!!!! Logical give me a break!!!

Jim Larmore

You know for the exception of quatum physics most of science does make sense to me on most all levels, but your right about some hypothesis not being verified by the observable evidence.

The part in the Bible speaks for itself. I don't know how in the world you could say Jesus was not saying in this passage that the flood account was a myth and didn't happen. Its kinda like a guy one time who tried to say in the Genesis account where God said Let there be Light and there was light, that it really didn't mean God created light from just speaking it into existence. Semantics can be abstract and confusing but maybe I'm missing something here. You tell me how I'm supposed to take the statement made by Jesus in Matt 24 to mean any thing other than a confirmation of an actual flood event.

Hes obviously comparing the end time conditions with the antidelluvian conditions. He said as it was in the days of Noe so shall it be when the son of man comes. Later on in a later verse His statement was the flood came and took them "ALL" away meaning all living things. Its going to be the same when He comes back too. Everyone not translated or raptured to meet Him in the clouds will be destroyed by the brightness of His comming, in 11 Peter it says the elements will melt with fervent heat when He comes back.