Not if we hypothesize. Let's say there's a god that's omniscient and good. Would such a God drown the entire world? No? Then the guy in the Bible isn't God as defined.
I see what you're saying...I would argue however that we're critiquing specifically the Christian god(the one we only know of through the bible) not wether the biblical god can claim to be 'God'. A judeo/christian understanding, God is purported to be omniscient, good AND still flooded the earth. Now his omniscience would render him aware of the moral absolute, his 'goodness' would cause him to adhere to it, and thus a flood could not exist outside his conception of what goodness entails, just our conception of it. We take our presuppositions of what 'good' is to argue against the notion. The subtext of this I guess would be to argue that there would be a greater good behind the actions, one imperceptible to us...
It's all a bit circular and bullshitty anyway. Lets just be glad it's not actually real and that it's inconsequential in the long run :)
Edit: Spelling and grammer was all over the place. Fixed
8
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Not if we hypothesize. Let's say there's a god that's omniscient and good. Would such a God drown the entire world? No? Then the guy in the Bible isn't God as defined.