Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense Regarding The Problem Of Evil:

Regarding Planting's Free Will Defense Relating To The Problem Of Evil:
The core of Plantinga's argument is based on secular reasoning
by which I mean he does not appeal directly to a Bible passage
to support his conclusion.

Regarding Natural Disasters there are no secular arguments that
can explain them -- instead there are only Faith based explanations.
{1} God created the world perfect.
{2} God created mankind perfect.
{3} God gave mankind a Free Will.
{4} There was no pain, no suffering, no Death.
{5} Mankind used their Free Will to choose to Sin.
{6} The result of their Sin brought pain, suffering, and Death into the world.
{7} the results of their Sin brought a Curse upon the Earth.
This Curse upon the Earth includes Natural Disasters such as:
{a} Earthquakes
{b} Hurricanes
{c} Tornados
{d} Tsunamis
{e} Mudslides

 

I could see how, for instance, the sin of murder could bring the evil of people being murdered into the world, but I don't see how it could bring earthquakes. I can see how it is impossible to allow people to murder and not get people getting murdered as an unavoidable result. However, it seems to me that any process or "curse" that allows earthquakes to follow from that would be within God's power, avoidable, and not interfere with humans' free will. I.e. it is not resolved by the argument of free will.

 

This doesn't address it, this is a different line of reasoning that you've said you don't agree with.

 

I'm not convinced you got my message. My message is to be clear and to the point. I'm all for explanations, but you're drowning out the actual points and the red thread that goes between premises and conclusions with talk about how many people have lived in the world or the Hubble Deep Field. I think one of the reasons you're failing to "connect with my mind" is how you respond with a request for clarification with more extrapolation than clarification.

 

It would seem that you say there is some good in free will, even to the point where it is the freedom to murder someone else. I imagine that many look square at that and fail to identify the good in it, so if there was truly goodness in that, there seem to be humans who do not know it.

 

We live on different planets.
To change metaphors . . . we are . .
two "ships" passing in the night each tooting a horn
that the other ship does not recognize as even
being a horn.
But this is not really a problem as long as both can
toot.
I will continue to toot.

 

"It would seem"__Swensson

Your "it would seem" seems unreasonable.

It seems to me that your "it would seem" phrase is becoming
your introductory remark introducing your own far-fetched
personal speculations --- that you are attributing to me.

It "seems" to me that you are dreaming up stuff and
attributing your own personal dreams to me.

It seems to me that you are drawing your own personal
conclusions from what YOU conclude I mean --- and NOT
from what I actually say.

I have never even so much as slightly suggested that I
thought there was some good in Free Will even to the
point where it is the freedom to murder someone else.

Yet it seems to you that I have done that?

____________

Again my view is that we are from different planets.
We are never on the same page.
We are never in the same book.
We are never in the same Library.
We are never in the same Town.

Our level of actual communication is something along these lines.

John: I went to town today, Tom, to get some supplies and I drove
my old truck and I had a flat tire and had to call for a wrecker
because I had no spare tire.

Tom: I understand that John and can empathize with you because
I had a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich a few minutes ago.



`

 

There is no other way to explain it than this below:

Regarding Natural Disasters there are no secular arguments that
can explain them -- instead there are only Faith based explanations.
{1} God created the world perfect.
{2} God created mankind perfect.
{3} God gave mankind a Free Will.
{4} There was no pain, no suffering, no Death.
{5} Mankind used their Free Will to choose to Sin.
{6} The result of their Sin brought pain, suffering, and Death into the world.
{7} the results of their Sin brought a Curse upon the Earth.
This Curse upon the Earth includes Natural Disasters such as:
{a} Earthquakes
{b} Hurricanes
{c} Tornados
{d} Tsunamis
{e} Mudslides
_______________


It order to accept that explanation up there you will have to believe in the God
of the Bible and then believe this God desired to Curse the Earth because man
used his Free Will to introduce the Sin Principle into the World --- which wrecked
and ruined EVERYTHING. The message God has sent the World is that Sin
and all its ramifications bring Destruction and Death. But "it seems" that you
are NOT going to believe that. So? So there is no other possible explanation
that I can offer you. There are no secular arguments that can explain The Curse
that accompanied the Sin Principle. I note that we all will, nonetheless, personally
experience the Destruction and Death caused by Sin. There is only one remedy
for this and that is John 3:16's "believe" and "eternal life" in order to escape
John 3:16's "perish."

So?

So its not like you personally don't have a "dog in this fight."

You do.


`



`

 

I have exchanged enough posts with you to come to believe that
no matter how many clarifications I present, there will forever be
calls for more clarifications followed by more calls for more
clarifications followed by more calls for more clarifications.

My view is "our actual communication reality" boils down to this:
I speak German.
You speak French.
I don't understand French.
You don't understand German.
____________

You "seem to" be interested only in the subjects that you are interested in.
You "seem to" have no interest in expanding your knowledge.
The Hubble Deep Field is a very interesting subject. You dismiss it.
The number of humans born into the word to date, some 108 billion,
says google, is an interesting subject --- yet you dismiss it and
return to your "it seems" conclusions and to your "it seems" observations.

"It seems" that we will continue to toot our own toot as long as there
is any interest in tooting -- and if the interest dies, we shall not toot
any more toots.

Thoughts For Today.
"I toot, therefore I am."__JAG
_____

"A tutor who tooted the flute
Tried to teach two young tooters to toot.
Said the two to the tutor,
"Is it harder to toot, or
To tutor two tooters to toot?"___Off the web


`

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ll-in-heaven-earth-as-a-testing-place.574176/

 

Argument from ignorance, the normal christian tactic. I do not know, therefor god did it!

 

I just think it would be pretty arrogant of me to assert that I have the truth, when the entire point of the debate is that we have different ideas of what the truth is. In my experience, those who proclaim "truth" are often those who are concerned with the subject matter and not with the epistemology, and they often end up failing to build good reasons for believing what they proclaim as truth. Those who have a verifiable track record of being able to arrive at truths, like scientists, or experts in law or engineering, don't do that, they are very clear about exactly what they are claiming. In my case, I am certain how it appears to me, but I'm encouraging you to point out any inconsistencies you see.

Well, that's the point to which God supposedly gave us free will, in a supposedly morally good move.

All the more reason to be clear, concise and to the point then.

 

Yes, it is likely that more clarification will be required. That is how things become clear. I often ask for clarification of things where we disagree, or I suspect that we disagree and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

If you speak German and I speak French, then I am asking you for the translation guide, but you just keep talking German.

I have plenty of interest, but I'm not going to let you get away with a bad argument just by dangling a different topic in front of me. There are plenty of interesting subjects, but you don't find many people injecting it to debates that are about something completely different. That seems to me a tactic that's only useful for covering up arguments that can't stand on their own.

 

It's not really true that there are no other explanations. Explanations in which God does not exist, or God is not good or God is not omniscient/omnipotent, or suffering is not bad resolve the question trivially.

An explanation which requires you to believe it in order to make sense is unlikely to be true. If that's your path to truth, then you have no better claim to truth than does Islam, Taoism, Hinduism or Scientology. People fool themselves easily, what you call secular arguments are good reasons to believe things are true. So far, the same cannot be said for the idea of having faith.

 

"a bad argument"___Swensson

My view is what I presented is a good argument
{in light of the Opening Post and all my other posts
in this thread}

Here tis again:
_____________

If {11} is not true.
Then {12} is not true
But if {11} and {12} are true, then {14} is ALSO true

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross.

_______________

"a bad argument"___Swensson
"No, a good argument"___JAG

This cannot be settled. Why not?
* Because there is no such thing as: The International Authority That
Decides Who Is Correct, Swensson Or JAG.

* And it cannot be settled by taking a Majority Vote.

* And it cannot be settled by an appeal to any Authority.

So?
So somebody has to decide if the argument succeeds or fails.
I am NOT going to let you decide.
You are NOT going to let me decide.
I say the argument succeeds and I give my reasons.
You say the argument fails and you give your reasons.

Did you ever read my Who Won The Argument?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/who-won-the-argument.572838/

_______


Thanks for your interesting comments and points.

You're pleasant to talk to even though we don't speak the
same language.

More later . . .


`

 

You're answering a different concern again. My point was that answering a discussion about whether free will is morally valuable with talk about the Hubble deep field is a distraction (and that that doesn't suggest that the Hubble deep field isn't interesting in its own right). You didn't really meet that, you just repeated a point I was already aware of.

 

I disagree. I presented a 17 point answer explaining why I believe Free Will
was/is valuable. The Hubble Deep Field point {12} below presented a very
important aspect of why Free Will was/is valuable. I explain why near the
bottom down there.

_______

Here is your original question:

"So you say God created humans with the free will to do evil instead
of humans that do no harm. Am I to understand that you also think
this was a morally good move? (The text says "valuable", it's not
clear if that is equivalent to goodness, or if it is some other value
that God pursues instead of goodness)."___Swensson


___________


Here was my answer to your question:

Yes I do believe that was a morally good move. I will explain why
I believe that, but I have to tell you up-front that there are no
secular arguments that can explain it. That leaves Faith based
reasons. If you are not interested in Faith based reasons, then
I cannot respond to your questions.

Here is what I believe the Bible traches:

I am going to give you my answer by making . . .

Miscellaneous Points:

{1} God gave man Free Will.

{2} God knew that a huge number of His creatures would use their
Free Will to do evil and end up finally rejecting His love and be lost.
But . . .

{3} God also knew that a huge-enormous-overwhelming number of
His creatures would end up doing the exact opposite of that. So?

{4} So God knew that His "net gain" so to speak would be, in
percent ratio, for greater than His losses. His net gains by far
outweigh His losses.

{5} Those finally lost will end up being just a "tiny corner of the
Universe" in percent ratio to those salvaged.

{6} The final number of Christians in human history will end being
trillions times trillions. No typo. I mean trillions times trillions. What
about sufficient time to get this done?

{7} The human race is now in its infancy, only about in the Third
Grade, historically speaking. We have untold mega-millenniums
yet to go before we will graduate up the Fourth Grade. It may
take 500,000 years to get us to the Tenth Grade.


__________________


Father Time Is The Friend Of Christianity:


{8} There are no Biblical reasons why Human History can
not continue on for say 1,000,000 years. Or much longer.

(9} The Human Race has always made progress. You have to
compare millenniums, not mere centuries. Compare the
progress made in the last 1000 years with how things were in
the world 2000 years ago. The year 10,000 A.D. is going to
be very impressive. The Bible teaches that the entire
world will end up being Christianized. Human history ends
up good . . its all good. Revelation 21:3-4

{10} The Bible teaches that the God of the Bible is far bigger
than the human mind can conceive and that His Plans for
His human project is "off the charts."

{11} The God of the Bible is the "God of the Hubble Deep Field"
by which I mean that one has to look at the stars and what
is actually "out there" in order to get some idea of just how
BIG God is --- and just how BIG is His Plan for His Human
Race Project.

_________________


The 21st century's God is way to small . . .

{12} Ever how BIG you think the God of the Bible is, you are
underestimating just how BIG He actually is. Your God will
therefore always be "to small." Merely look at the Hubble Deep
Field and you see only a tiny fraction of what is actually "out there"--
yet what you see in the Hubble Deep Field is absolutely mind
boggling and cannot be comprehended by the human mind --
it is so huge-enormous. Just think how BIG God actually is.

{13} Google will tell you that there has been about 108 billion
humans born to date. That is a mere drop in the bucket compared
to what is coming.

{14} The Bible teaches that the final number of God's people will
be in numbers like the stars in the sky and like the grains of sand
on the seashore. Trillions times trillions.

{15} The book of Revelation which tells about the end of human
history says that the final number of the people of God will be
a multitude so huge as to be uncountable by human men.
Revelation 7:9-10

{16} In other words, God knew that the vast overwhelming
majority of His creatures would end up using their Free Will
for good purposes and therefore He created the world on
those terms.

{17} All this above is why Free Will is valuable to God
and to His Human Race Project -- and was a morally
good move. His human net gains far far outweigh His
human losses. {You might say isn't His human losses
sad? Yes but that is their choice. See Rev. 3:20}

____________

Here Is Where I Explain About The Hubble Deep Field:
So how does The Hubble Deep Field {12} up there,
relate to God and Free Will being valuable? Because
The Hubble Deep Field emphasizes just how BIG
God's Free Will Plan for His human race really is,
juxtaposed with his HUGE percent ratio net gains
in the number of humans salvaged in contrast with
the number of humans that end up perishing {lost}.
The Hubble Deep Field = BIGNESS. God's Plan is BIG.
The vast majority of the Human Race will be salvaged.
The BIGNESS of the Universe tells you how BIG God is.
which gives you an indication of just how BIG God's plans
are for His Human Race Project.

Do you now understand?
If not, I will be glad to re-explain.

Also I will be glad to answer any specific questions
you may have if I can.

_______

I do believe that if you will re-read those 17 points and
make a hard mental effort to see how they harmonize
together --- that the "light can come on" and we will
make progress..

_____

Thought For Today:

“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such
times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to
decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
___J/R.R Tolkien



`

 

Yes you are correct.
There ARE other explanations.
I claim they do not satisfy the human longing for God.
God has "written His image" on the human mind, heart,
and soul and there it will forever stay. Humans have a
difficult time "shaking it off" -- its not easy to get God
off one's mind.--- in fact its impossible to fully do that.

There is another zone. The Faith Zone. It can defeat
your "other explanations" but the Faith Zone cannot be
accessed with the keys named Empiricism, and
Rationalism. But the key named Faith will unlock the
door.

What you call "circular reasonings" is the one and
only path to ever coming to faith in God. It just is.

Listen. If you were to come to faith in God based on
good secular arguments then you could come to
un-faith in God based upon what you decided were
better secular arguments against the existence of
God.
It'd be a constant back & forth between what
appeared to be good and better arguments.
You could be a believer on Monday.
And an un-believer on Thursday.
Or a believer in 2020.
And an unbeliever in 2021
Then back again as a believer in 2022.
Then back to un-belief in 2025
Etcetera
___

I don't know if you're a Bible reader or not,
but the Bible is emphatically clear that it is
impossible for any human to come to faith
apart from the supernatural power of the
Holy Spirit that regenerates [born again}
our spiritually dead souls. The Lord Jesus
explained that in John 3:1-21

Yah. You can hang on to that forever.
Its utterly impossible to refute that.
Victory will always be yours.
But your victory is a pyrrhic victory.

What you said will always provide you with a
"logical" reason to "stay where you are"
with regard to ever coming to faith in God.
What you said up there is a Fortress that
cannot be defeated with Empiricism and
Rationalism.
But it is an Unhappy Fortress.

Oh yeah, I expect you have been going down that road
for a very long time. The truth is, if you like that road and
want to keep traveling on it, then the following would not
apply to you: You can't have what you want, when what
you got ain't what you want.

And it never can be, or will be, said.
The path to faith in God is through the heart, and not through the
intellect. Old Henry got it right:

"Henry Dodwell argues that matters of religious faith lie outside
the determination of reason. God could not possibly have
intended that reason should be the faculty to lead us to faith,
for faith cannot hang indefinitely is suspense while reason
cautiously weighs and reweighs arguments.

`The Scriptures teach, on the contrary, that the way to God
is by means of the heart, not by means of the intellect . . .
{ What is the basis of faith? Dodwell answers that it
is) the faith-producing work of the Holy Spirit.}___William
Lane Craig.

____________


"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because
anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists
and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
___Hebrews 11:6

Why did God make Faith the path to belief in Him?
My view is there are several reasons. One is He wants
us all to be willing to submit our intellects to His
superior Intellect and His superior Wisdom. Anyone
not willing to do that, will never enjoy the benefits of
John 3:16. So God asking you to exercise Faith in
Him is a test.

Compare the Lord Jesus in the Garden Of Gethsemane
"not my will, but Thy will be done"__The Lord Jesus


`

 

The issue you raised was this:
_______________________________________
some good in Free Will even to the point where it
is the freedom to murder someone else.
_______________________________________

The answer is:
{1} God have humans Free Will
{2} He knew that some would choose to commit murder.
{3} Others to commit robbery, assault, rape, fraud, theft, etcetera
(4) God never wanted humans to choose to do those evil acts.
{5 God knew that the huge-enormous majority of humans would never
do such evil acts.
{6} God knew that His Human Race Project would end up a smashing
success with the huge-enormous majority salvaged.


`

 

It is impossible to arrive at the truth that really matters by
using the tools of secular Empiricism and secular Rationalism.

They are the wrong tools to use to arrive at spiritual truths -- and
spiritual truths is all that really matters in the ultimate sense of
"matters." I mean in the long term.

You might say, Well there is a lot of things that matter down here
on Earth right now, for example finding a cure for Cancer would
matter. Yes it would matter in the short term --- but it would NOT
matter in the long term. Why not?

Because if there is no life after Death that means that every living
person ultimately comes to Cease-To-Exist -- and that which
Ceases-To-Exist does no longer matter. Do you agree that
which Ceases-To-Exist no longer matters?

Remember that if humans Cease-To-Exist then at some point
every single human will Cease-To-Exist.

Let us say that your risked your life to save 300 people that
were stranded in a dangerous storm and in so doing you lost
a leg, but you were successful in rescuing them and the "powers
that be" gave you a medal for your heroic action and later a
grateful nation erected a statue of Swensson and it stood for
500 years.

That would matter in the short term, but not in the long term.

There would come a time when all humans Cease-To-Exist,
true?

Its true if Humans do in fact Cease-To-Exist.

I mean they either Do or they DO NOT Cease-To-Exist.

If they DO Cease-To-Exist, then in the long term it would
NOT matter that you had acted heroically to save the
lives of other human beings.

Explain to me why it would matter in the long term when
all humans had Ceased-To-Exist?

If some humans remembered you for 5000 years it would
NOT matter to YOU because you Ceased-To-Exist and
had become this 0.0000.

So what point am I making? Answer: You need spiritual
tools to arrive at what really matters. Here on this ground
your heroic action would matter for all Eternity. It would
be forever in your mind that you had performed a heroic
action that helped other people at great cost to you. It
would be known by untold billions of human beings who
were sharing Eternal Life with you. It would matter to YOU
and to THEM . . . FOREVER.

True.
But the scientists and experts in engineering do not offer
any hope to you personally for Eternal Life --so what
long term ultimate good are they to you? Obviously none,
zero 0.000

I don't understand your intellectual problems with my very simple
this:

If {11} is not true.
Then {12} is not true
But if {11} and {12} are true, then {14} is ALSO true

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross.

I don't understand why you don't see that is air-tight?
{in light of my Opening Post and my other posts in this
thread.}

`

 

Sounds good to me.
You may smile, but I don't know exactly what we are debating.
In fact I don't have a clue.
Perhaps you know.
And can tell me.
This is the Plantinga's Free Will Defense thread, but we're
doing different subjects --- which is cool with me. Why stay
in a rut --when we can dash here and there?
The main thing is to have fun. When this stuff ceases to be fun,
then we all get sad.

_________


Scott Me Up Beamy.



`

 

Well, why should we care about what "satisfies the human longing for God"? Nigerian princes offering us money satisfy the human longing for money or whatever, but that doesn't not mean it's a good reason to believe it.

Yes, and given that it cannot be relied upon to lead us to truth, it follows that we're not actually justified in having faith in God. Epistemology doesn't owe us a way to justify things, if there aren't good verifiable reasons, then we are not justified in offering belief.

Agreed. This does not seem to be a problem to me, at least not in comparison with an approach which might as well leave you consistently wrong.

Well, then the question becomes why we should think that what's in the Bible is true. If we're considering atheists, that assumption certainly is on loose ground.

Well, why should we strive for happiness over truth? Primarily, living in blissful ignorance is certainly not something to strive after. And besides, finding the truth will not only allow us to go off and find happiness on our own, it also allows us to more effectively strive for happiness in others.

Then faith is simply opening up to be mistaken.

 

Nor is it by faith. Faith just has the added complication that it also can't bring you to any other truths.

No. I do not believe that whether something or someone matters is evaluated only in the fullness of time.

For instance, if person A gets tortured and person B does not get tortured, I believe that distinction matters, even if the torture eventually ends.
Similarly, it would matter greatly to a great many people if there was a cure for cancer, and that is not diminished by the fact that everyone who is cured of cancer will eventually die of old age.

It seems to me you have merely dismissed the fact that things can matter in their own time.

Yeah, and that sounds way more like propaganda to me than actual truth. This seems more like what we want to be true, rather than what we're actually justified in believing is true.

That seems not at all obvious to me. You seem to have focused on this "ultimate" value, which fails to take a lot of stuff that I think matters into account.

As I've mentioned many times, neither I or other atheists have a problem with that, what we do have a problem with is your insistence that you would expect to see atheists writing it, when they have actual arguments to get on with instead. (As well as to some extent your idea of getting God's foot in the door, which also seems like particularly underhanded marketing).

 

Jolly Penquin,
Thanks for your comments.
I put your quote up there in this thread because it is on the topic of this thread.
It might turn out that we can chat a little bit over here? And it might not?
If you do not chat with me, perhaps you can chat with others?
But either way, your comment will harmonize perfectly with this thread
and with this Opening Post.

JAG

 

@Swensson

@Jolly Penguin

"This theme of morality defined as obedience to God comes up again and
again in the bible, and gets put in direct conflict to what I consider good
and bad, ranging from a genocidal flood" ___Jolly Penquin

Jolly Penquin, here is the takeaway points from my post below: If you
take any part of Genesis to be true, you must take it all to be true.
You will learn 4 things below:
{1} God drowned adults and children in the Genesis Flood.
{2} God had moral justification for doing that.
{3} If {2} is not true, then {1} is not true.
{4} Either way, you will have no "genocidal moral problem" with God

_____________

Jollu Penquin,

Your post up there contains a lot of subjects. I will take just one subject,
the Genesis Flood, and post a few comments on it.

You say the Genesis Flood was genocidal. True there were a large number
of adults and children killed, but there was good moral justification for doing
this.

Many atheists focus on the innocent children drowned and not on the adults
drowned.

Many atheists unjustly accuse the God of the Bible of drowning children in the
Genesis Flood as well as genocide --the massive drowning of adults.

They are wrong.

The Flood was not God's fault, it was the fault of fallen evil human beings.

The likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher
Hitchens, and Matt Dillahunty all accuse the God of the Bible of drowning children
during the Genesis Flood.

God was right and just in drowning every living being during The Great Flood.
Why?

Because a vital part of the narrative of The Great Flood was the total wickedness
and murderous violence of the people living at the time of The Great Flood.

If we take any part of the Genesis narrative seriously, we have to take all of it
seriously. Otherwise the Genesis Flood never even happened and you no longer
have a "genocidal moral problem" with God. The only way you know there even
was a Genesis Flood is because Genesis says there was one.

So the Genesis narrative says that God did drown all living beings at the time of The
Great Flood. The Genesis narrative ALSO explains WHY God made the decision
to drown them.

Here is why:

"The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become and
that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the
time." Genesis 6:5

"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence . . .for all
the people of earth had corrupted their ways" Genesis 6:11-12

Note the following from Genesis 6:5 and Genesis 6:11-12
a} man's wickedness had become great in the Earth
b} every inclination of the thoughts of man's heart was ONLY evil
c} and evil ALL the time
d} the Earth had become corrupt in God's sight
e} the Earth was full of violence {we're talking murderous violence here}
f} for ALL the people had corrupted their ways

We take the narrative that God drowned them seriously and as being historically true.
We then ALSO have to take Genesis 6:5 and Genesis 6:11-12 seriously and as being
historically true. If we do not take the Genesis narrative that God drowned them as
historically true, then you have no "genocidal moral problem" with God. If we also take
Genesis 6:5 and Genesis 6:11-12 as historically true then you have no "moral genocidal
problem" with God --- because these verses present moral justification for the Genesis Flood.

Repeat , , ,
So either way, you will have no "genocidal moral problem" with God.

"The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become and that every
inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." Genesis 6:5

"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence . . .for all the people
of earth had corrupted their ways" Genesis 6:11-12

These people were not salvageable.

Total wickedness. Murderous violence.

And both of those all the time, not just some of the time.

_______________

Free Will.

The Institution Of Free Will And Parent's Moral Responsibility For Their Children.

Parents are morally responsible for what happens to their children when it is the parents
that make Free Will decisions to choose to do evil.

It was wholly the moral fault of the parents living at the time of The Great Flood because it
was THEY that made the decision to plunge into total wickedness and murderous violence.

And to do that all the time . . . ALL the time.

Here is the principle:

The reality and presence of innocent children cannot void and nullify the institution of Free Will.
Therefore what parents choose to do, will determine what happens to their children.
For example, mothers who use their Free Will to choose to take harmful illegal drugs during
their pregnancies can expect their innocent babies to be born with serious health problems.

These mothers cannot say to God, "Please void out and nullify my Free Will because I am
carrying an innocent helpless human baby."

No, the mother is the one morally responsible for her Free Will decision to consume harmful
illegal drugs during her pregnancy.

Humans cannot point to their innocent children and say to God, "Do not punish me for my
total plunge into wickedness and murderous violence because if you punish me, you will
also harm my innocent children.

____________

Classic Historical Example Of This Free Will Principle:

Germany During World War 2

When Germany's parents made the social and political decision to follow Adolph Hitler and
embrace Nazism, they also made the decision to put their innocent children at risk of serious
harm. The parents of Germany could not say to The Allies (or to God) do not try to put a stop
to our Nazism because if you do that, you will harm our innocent children.

So?

So the drowning of adults and the children at the time of The Great Flood was wholly the immoral
fault of the parents who lived at that time, and made the Free Will decision to plunge into total
wickedness and murderous violence.

And to do that ALL the time . . not just occasionally, but ALL the time.

JAG


``