Literal belief in the flood story

[RobbyPants]

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.

Well, I did admit it. Do you admit that there is no evidence for your alternate claim?

In order to posit a third way to show my false dichotomy, you had to make a baseless claim and say that it's possible because I can't prove it wrong. It's getting dangerously close to an argument from ignorance.

2. What is the other point of view and how am I not understanding it?

You said "I've never understood the 'blame God for my/peoples actions' argument.".

I responded "I've never understood this "God kills children for their parent's mistakes" argument.".

You're choosing to look at this as a notion of me (or others?) thinking that we blame God for people being bad and that you don't understand that. I'm saying that I don't understand the aspect of apologists condoning God punishing children for their parent's mistakes. That doesn't appear moral to me. If you can dismiss the basis of what I'm saying based on "not understanding it", I'm illustrating how I can similarly dismiss your counters.

The point is you do something, and when I flip it to show you why it's not valid, you say "no fair" when I do it.

3. Out of curiosity, if you catch your child doing something wrong do you punish yourself and absolve your child?

No. I also lack some of the traits that Almighty God allegedly has, so I'm not sure the point of the question.

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.

Well, neither case are in the story, nor is there any evidence that the story is even real, so to assert that it is the case is an argument from ignorance. If you're just going to backpeddle a bit and say "I'm not saying it's true, I'm just throwing it out there", then I'll throw out my unicorn theory:

A unicorn impaled all the children on its own volition before the flood, so there were no living children at the time of the flood, and God was not responsible for drowning them. Go ahead: prove it didn't happen. If you can't prove that it didn't happen, do you then have to take that claim seriously?