Noah's Ark and the ontological argument, how they can show the biblical God isn't the greate
Noah's Ark is a flood myth in the Hebrew Bible consisting of chapters 6-9 in the book of Genesis. Which in general States that God flooded the earth for 370 days to eradicate all life on the planet due to the evil that had been created through his creations. In attempt to rebirth the earth he told Noah to create a massive vessel that is known as the Ark which is to only contain his family and a pair of each living animal.
If one were to truly reason through this story you would find that there are many inconsistencies with God's traits. Such as him being omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
When you take these traits that God possesses into consideration in attempt to reason through the flood myth you would ask your self the following questions:
If God is truly omnibenevolent (all loving) then why would he create genocide upon his creations such as animals, children, and adults.
If God is truly omniscient (all knowing) then why wouldn't he have known what his creations would have done prior to there creation?
If God is truly omnipotent (all powerful) then why would he allow evil to exist in the first place?
Now if we take these questions and use them with the reasoning of the ontological argument which is a theologian argument that argues for the existence of God, which in general States that God is the greatest conceivable being and you couldn't conceive of anything greater than God.
Well with this reasoning you CAN conceive of a being that IS greater than the God that the Bible depicts. If you take the questions as stated earlier into consideration, couldn't you conceive of a greater being than God that would be able to know what the out come of his creations would be? Couldn't you conceive of a being that wouldn't contradict his own trait of being all loving and that wouldn't create genocide upon his people. Also I'm sure you could conceive of a being that wouldn't allow for evil to exist in the first place.
So I do believe the ontological argument due to reasoning of the flood myth fails to prove God's existence as depicted in the Bible whether it be the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible. Simply because you could ultimately conceive of a greater being that would truly possess the traits of omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence.
Now the theist I presume will tell me that I'm leaving out a key factor here the notion of "free will" when God created us he gave us free will, to do so with it whatever we want to do with it! Therefore God couldn't know what we would do or how we would act, presumably he wouldn't really know anything at all. It's like we are his test subjects and he's just watching to see if his grand plan is what he predicted. Kind of like how we make a prediction to what a mouse would do in a labyrinth with a piece of cheese at the end of it, we can predict but don't really know for sure what will happen.
But the problem with that refutation is that you can still conceive of a being greater than God that would be able to comprehend full well and ultimately know what you would do regardless if he gave us free will or not. He should have known being this omnipotent, and omniscient being that evil would exist coherently with good.
With that said I don't think the free will refutation is even strong enough or moreover relevant. Saying that he just couldn't know due to free will is saying that God is limited in power which contradict traits once again. If you agree with this notion of free will and believe it does work to prove this argument falls short, then you would also have to agree with God being limited in power which is just something you can't do.
