Sven

First, I hope Richard Carrier doesn't mind of I take the title of one of his articles and modify it for my purpose

Okay, here's the reason for this thread:

in this thread. Having read this I ducked away from the exploding irony meters all around me and came here to investigate this further. Specifically, if someone wants to believe in creationism (what Jim obviously does), he has to accept the story of Noah's flood. Since scientific arguments obviously won't reach guys like him (just look in the linked thread) and Magus55 (there was also a flood thread here a short time ago), I decided to try to discuss logical/moral problems with the flood.

My premise is an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God, as accepted by almost all Cristians.

Here are my problems:

(1) First, I find it very, very difficult to swallow that there were only eight "righteous" people on Earth - out of tens or hundreds of millions (I don't know exactly what the typical creationist thinks about the number of men on Earth at this time). It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

(2) All men on earth were not just not "righteous", there were even so wicked that the only solution was to kill them all. It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

(3) Why couldn't the omnipotent God influence (some of) these people just a little bit in the right direction, such that they'll get better eventually? 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"? Didn't these people have the will to live? It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

(4) If we indeed have free will, everyone of those wicked people could have chosen to become a better person later in life - in particular all of the small kids and newborn babies. How could God know that none of these ten million minus eight would turn better at some time? That is, how did he know that really all of them deserved death? (this opens another can of worms: how God can be all knowing, but not know the future, since it is not yet determined and can be influenced by our free choices anytime) It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

(5) Drowning isn't a nice death. Why didn't the omnibenevolent God chose a fast, painless death for all those people? After all, all those have to suffer eternal pain in hell anyway; why couldn't an omnipotent God not just "zip them away" painlessly? It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

(6) Why nearly all animals had to die? Were they "wicked", too (as far as I know, there's nothing in the bible which indicates this)? Why couldn't an omnipotent God not just take them away (anything, for example put them in stasis in heaven; what's the meaning of omnipotent after all?), and put them back after he killed nearly all humans by drowning? Putting two (or seven) of them on an arc and let them spawn again afterwards doesn't look omnipotent, rather like an emergency solution. It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

I'm sure there are more problems similar to these, but the above are just the ones which crossed my mind in only 10 minutes. Really, thinking only a little about this should one lead to the realization that it's just another myth like many other which man though about to explain phenomena beyond his understanding - such as a huge, local flood. Today, it's a "nice" story for children (killing nearly everyone actually isn't very nice), but I simply can not understand why a rational adult would accept it as literal.

I anxiously await answers to these problems, from Jim, Magus55, or anyone else who thinks he can solve them.

DetectedDestiny

(7) Why was the flood necessary when God had already planned to give his only begotten Son to salvage us from our sins? Why were the people before the flood so 'special evil' that they deserved some other punishment for it?

Roland

Yes, and all the "righteous" people just happened to be in the same family.

And speaking of the family, how credible is it that Noah at 500 years old had only three sons (no daughters) and apparently not a single grandchild - or at least any worth taking into the ark with them? How did such an "unproductive" group end up repopulating the earth?

Rhaedas

Combine (4) and (7)...apparently everyone but Noah's family was so evil even Jesus couldn't have saved them by dying for them. Even the children...

Or maybe the Flood was brought on by a bad temper, hence the rainbow promise, and the Jesus sacrifice.

Bah...I don't know how creationists do it, to try and weave it all together to make even a little sense makes my head hurt. There's much better, internally consistent fiction out there...the bible is not the greatest story ever told.

Alan N

The flood plan (FP) apparently didn't work. God brought the flood to bear because of the wickedness of men. Men are still wicked, last I checked. Perhaps the whole salvation plan (SP) is shortsighted as well.

Sven

Let's make this point (8), shall we?
Let me just add: "It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical."

LP675

“It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical”

Sven, I think if you want to ridicule the flood you should stick to science. From a Christian standpoint there is nothing illogical about the flood at all.

(1) First, I find it very, very difficult to swallow that there were only eight "righteous" people on Earth - out of tens or hundreds of millions (I don't know exactly what the typical creationist thinks about the number of men on Earth at this time). It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

I think most YECs would envisage at the most hundreds of thousands (maybe more like tens of thousands), although I could be wrong.

Just because you find it hard to believe doesn’t mean its not logical. If you are willing to accept Christian teaching of the wicked state of man (i.e. Romans 1:18-3:20) what is impossible or illogical about there only being a few righteous people? In 1 kings 19:18 God claims there are only 7000 righteous in Israel. How is it in any sense illogical?

LP675

(2) All men on earth were not just not "righteous", there were even so wicked that the only solution was to kill them all. It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

God has tired of the wickedness of groups of people and punished them by killing them in various ways many times. People being stuck dead and eaten by dogs, the ground opening up and swallowing people, and homosexual cities being incinerated are all recorded in the bible, along with many other such incidents. 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

LP675

(3) Why couldn't the omnipotent God influence (some of) these people just a little bit in the right direction, such that they'll get better eventually? 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"? Didn't these people have the will to live? It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

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.

LP675

(4) If we indeed have free will, everyone of those wicked people could have chosen to become a better person later in life - in particular all of the small kids and newborn babies. How could God know that none of these ten million minus eight would turn better at some time? That is, how did he know that really all of them deserved death?

Well from a Christian perspective you have missed the point. Everyone deserves death for their wickedness. Also we are not judged by what we might do or might not do, but for what we actually do (which is why nobody I know thinks newborn babies are going to hell).

(this opens another can of worms: how God can be all knowing, but not know the future, since it is not yet determined and can be influenced by our free choices anytime) It just doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

I suspect the likes of William lane Craig would answer that better than me, but it seems to me your assertion that God does ‘not know the future’ from a Christian point of view is not true. Christians believe God knows what we will do before we do it, or what we will freely choose before we have determined ourselves what we will choose.