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.

Shout out to all of you who participated in Dr. Joshua Sijuwade’s call today 🔥 We’ll be having our regular call tonight so I hope to see all of you again. Much to go over. See you then!

Oh ya 🔥🔥 We’re back on per usual. Excited to continue our conversation about religious epistemology and specifically address how we go about justifying a belief and how that applies to independent study, debate, and evangelism contexts. See you then!

I whenever anyone has said, they are an “agnostic atheist“ it always has struck me as oxymoronic, because atheism inherently has a positive worldview claim that God either definitely does not exist, or probably does not exist, and agnosticism as a worldview claim posits that we can’t know enough to make a positive or negative claim to the proposition of God’s existence. I understand people saying they are “agnostic on certain things”, but when they claim to be an “agnostic atheist” it seems as if it is just a cop out in order to take the burden of proof off of their worldview, so they can just say “I don’t know.” Maybe I’m just misunderstanding or not well read within this area. Any good recommendations on books or papers on this subject?

Go ahead and subscribe and turn on notifs yall 🔥 https://youtube.com/@inspiringphilosophyacademy?si=Bv_lOVi6UWErK-hE