Literal belief in the flood story

[orangebox21]

Yes it is. your magical third option is that God magically made it/waited so that there were no babies so no babies were killed, thus absolving your god from having killed babies.

To clarify, my third option is simply for the expressed purpose of showing the either-or fallacy. It is in no way addressing whether or not God would require absolution from killing babies.

I admitted that it is a possible third option. I'll agree it was an either or fallacy if you admit your third option is one you're making up with no evidence to paint a prettier picture.

I would hope you would admit the either-or fallacy for the sake of your own logical integrity rather than to get something from me.

The point is, you accept your apologetics based on not understanding another's point of view. You don't question the morality of your god and choose to blame "the wicked".

1. How do you know I've never questioned the morality of my God?
2. What is the other point of view and how am I not understanding it?
3. Out of curiosity, if you catch your child doing something wrong do you punish yourself and absolve your child?

No. There's no evidence he's real. It's also a non sequitur. Jesus wasn't mentioned in the flood story.

On the contrary the flood story was written about Him. 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

The difference here is I don't believe the hypothetical analogy I set up. You either do believe that demographics were different (so God wouldn't kill babies), or you don't believe that, and you're just submitting it as a hypothetical to be pedantic.

You've created a false dichotomy and a complex question. Perhaps I believe that either are possibilities, neither are conclusive. But if I don't believe the demographics were different but propose it anyway, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm submitting it as a hypothetical to be pedantic. I could also believe that while I cannot know for sure, I do believe it is possible because the account does not contradict my conclusion. Perhaps I'm proposing it to be intellectually honest.

The point is, that's how you sound when you posit a "maybe it was really this way even though I don't have any reason to believe it" argument.

Just one more time, I do have reason to believe it, but that is completely irrelevant to the topic of conversation. The statement was made to address the either-or fallacy.

I never said the Bible said there were children.

So we can agree there's no Biblical evidence that contradicts my conclusion.

The point is: you are making the assertion there were no children to absolve your god.

Previously addressed.

It is reasonable to assume there were children because that's the normal state of being for human populations.

But not a requirement. So while possible, not proof. Humanity could stop having children for 30 years, start again, and humanity would continue. In that instance there would be no one under the age of 10 for 20 years.

The flood story didn't mention gravity, the sun rising in the east, or that people needed to breath oxygen and couldn't breath under water. Why aren't you arguing against those things?

Because those topics are not relevant to the premises of the argument, namely why didn't God use 'magic' to save the children.


Back to the original post, just rephrase your argument in such a way as to eliminate the either-or fallacy and lets move on.

Secondly I do not accept some of the presuppositions to your argument. Prove the following:

1. There were children at the time of the flood.
2. God didn't use "magic" to save them.

Food for thought for those that cling to belief in the Noah's Ark myth:

The stated reason for the flood was to rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence and corruption (Gen 6). This is the Almighty creator of the Universe's plan for ridding his creation of wickedness.

While it is true that God destroyed the world because man was these things (Genesis 6:6-7), that doesn't necessarily mean that it was done as a 'solution' for them. For Cthulhu Dreaming, Crossless1, Faith No More, Minimalist, and Tonus, what is the Biblical support for your statement that the 'reason for the flood was to rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence, and corruption?'