Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Inspiring Philosophy Academy

67 members • $25/month

2 contributions to Inspiring Philosophy Academy
The story of Noah's Ark might need a better theodicy
Lately I’ve been thinking about the moral problems that the Bible often presents. When this topic comes up, the first thing that comes to mind is God’s command to kill the Canaanite children, and although many apologists like William Lane Craig have tried to argue that such an act was morally correct, the most adequate response is to affirm that the text is a hyperbole that does not imply that children actually died in the conquest. However, that problem can be transferred to the flood that occurred in the time of Noah, and although it can also be applied to other cases (such as the death of David’s newborn son or Sodom and Gomorrah), this is simply the clearest example that comes to mind. I want to carry out a process that I like to call “evaluation of theodicies under restricted conditions.” I’ve been thinking about this and I cannot find any that are truly satisfactory, and many of them simply seem like attempts to avoid facing the real problem and to downplay it. I would be especially interested in hearing new responses or stronger versions of existing ones, because so far none seem successful to me. First, I want to clarify the framework I am assuming in order to avoid answers that change the playing field. 1. The flood in the Book of Genesis corresponds to a real historical event (although possibly regional rather than global). 2. The event was caused or intentionally brought about by God. 3. God is morally perfect and omnipotent. 4. The flood was carried out as a punishment for human beings. 5. Children below a certain age do not have full moral responsibility, and therefore are not guilty of wrongdoing. 6. No one who is morally upright would want to kill innocent children when there is a way to avoid it. Under these conditions, I am evaluating theodicies with a very specific criterion: is the flood morally justifiable? The focus of this post is on children because it is easier to empathize with children than with animals or plants, since although they share innocence, there is debate about whether they have souls, suffer, or even consent to death, but the argument could also be extended to them.
@Liam Moore Thank you very much for your response, Liam. I apologize for the delay; I’ll be looking forward to your reply (or that of whoever it may be) so we can continue this back and forth. Your response is quite similar to the theodicy I mentioned as number 8: “the children would grow up to be like their parents.” I believe I already addressed that point, noting that God could have taken various measures to prevent that outcome, such as raising them under the care of Noah or other righteous individuals, thereby preventing them from reproducing the corruption of their parents. Appealing to divine foreknowledge to justify the death of children before they commit any wrongdoing introduces a serious philosophical problem: it would imply legitimizing punishment for actions that have not yet occurred. This does not correspond to retributive justice, but rather to preventive punishment inflicted on innocent beings, which directly contradicts passages such as Ezekiel 18:20. God’s foreknowledge does not turn a future action into a present guilt. In other words, that argument implicitly assumes that God knows saving the children would result in that greater evil. But it overlooks that if God has perfect knowledge of counterfactuals, then He also knows exactly what conditions could allow Him to raise them so that they would not become corrupt, which completely undermines the premise. Omniscience collapses the argument from within. It also seems that you are treating future sin as inevitable, which creates tension with the standard doctrine of free will. If God uses His foreknowledge to eliminate those who would “inevitably” sin, a serious theological difficulty arises: in what sense did those individuals possess genuine free will? Even within theological frameworks that restrict human freedom, punishing someone for actions not yet performed remains problematic, especially when dealing with newborns who are incapable of even understanding the concept of guilt.
@Joshua Meraz Hello Joshua, I appreciate you taking the time to write this. In response, I’d like to clarify that the issue is more subtle. What I pointed out in point 9 is not a direct comparison between God and a human, but rather an analogy about the description of the act itself. That is: in point 9, I criticize the idea that “shortening a life” is a morally neutral description. The example of a human who kills and says “I only shortened their life” is a rhetorical device meant to show that this description does not work as a justification, regardless of who uses it. So I admit that when you say “but God is not the same as a human,” you’re right, since we can point to a series of radically different attributes (for example, that we are ignorant and He is not). But I think you’re responding to a claim I did not make. I was not asserting that God and a human are equivalent in all respects, but rather that the logic of the argument is equally flawed in both cases. My critique of theodicy number 9 was that the description “shortening a life” is morally equivalent to “causing death.” In other words, I was attacking the label, not the agent. I’m not sure if you were implying this or not, but I’ll say it just in case: appealing to the unlimited mind of God is basically theodicy number 4, which I already considered. It amounts to saying that God is justified because He is God, which is disguised moral voluntarism. In other words, the act of killing innocent children does not automatically become moral simply because the one who does it is an unlimited mind; there still has to be a reason for it, a theodicy.
⚠️NEW MEMBERS START HERE!
STEP 1: Download the Skool App and turn on notifications. STEP 2: Comment below on this post with the following: - Who are you, and where are you from? - What is your current role or interest in apologetics? - What do you hope to achieve as a member of this community? STEP 3: Attend the weekly live mentorship calls hosted by me or a scholar/specialist! Check the calendar for the call schedule. During these calls, you can ask questions to support your journey in building a strong and confident worldview. Missed a live session? No worries—recordings will be available within 48 hours! Please remember to follow the community rules and guidelines to keep this space positive and productive. Violators will be removed. If you have any questions, feel free to DM me.
Hello my dear people, I am Jorge Ruiz, a student. I am from Nicaragua (but currently living in Texas, United States). Currently I don't have a role in apologetics, but I am working to make a website fully dedicated to Philosophy of Religion. I want to learn as much as I can from this community, and apply that knowledge to make it reach other people's minds and heart for the glory of God.
1-2 of 2
Jorge Enrique Ruiz Castro
2
10points to level up
@jorge-enrique-ruiz-castro-8305
Sunshine makes me wake up

Active 10h ago
Joined Apr 22, 2026
Powered by