Literal belief in the flood story

[orangebox21]

Well if it's not going to fix the problem then what the fuck is with the genocide?

The flood did resolve an issue, just not the one some here are claiming it was meant to. God chose to fix the problem (rid the world of wickedness) at another time and in another way.

Even fucking Hitler thought his pogrom was going to resolve an issue, and you're telling me that god just did it for shits and fucking giggles?

God's reasons are stated within the text, it was because of the wickedness of mankind.

God proposed to bring the flood to wipe out humanity because it had become so wicked.

Valid.

That would have certainly rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence, and corruption. And if god hadn't second-guessed himself, his solution would have worked.

Invalid conclusion. You're reading something into the text that isn't there. Here are the propositional statements of the text:

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of humankind on earth.
God saw that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
God's heart was deeply troubled.
God regrets having made them (mankind).
So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created.
So the Lord said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the animals."
So the Lord said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the birds."
So the Lord said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the creatures that move along the ground."

From these given propositions, you cannot logically infer that God wiped from the face of the earth all mankind to rid the world of wickedness.

An omnipotent and omniscient being having "regrets?"

I'm not entirely sure those words belong in the same sentence.

Why not?

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.

Not baseless. It is consistent with the account in question. Again, refer to burden of proof discussion and to previous discussion on evidence.

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.

My mistake. I think I understand you now. Let me rephrase so as to not appear to me making an argument from ignorance. People are accountable for their own actions. God is justified in holding people accountable for their actions. Therefore God is justified in punishing people for their actions. This is in opposition to the argument that God is wrong to judge/punish people.

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.

Sorry for the confusion, the point is that we recognize that people are responsible for their own actions.

---

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.
This is a statement that shifts the burden of proof.
If you can't prove that it didn't happen, do you then have to take that claim seriously?

---