Did God set up men to fail?

[Autumnleaf]

Assuming we are all created by God in every way, doesn't it make sense that God created us to fail in areas that we fail in? Is a rapist or murderer really responsible for her actions if God was intimately involved in the process of her creation? Blaming her for her actions would be like blaming a DVD for playing a rated R movie.

 

[ReverendDG]

Assuming we are all created by God in every way, doesn't it make sense that God created us to fail in areas that we fail in?

he didn't create us perfect, theres nothing in the bible that says man was perfect, then again i don't accept the bible.
but i don't believe in perfection

Is a rapist or murderer really responsible for her actions if God was intimately involved in the process of her creation? Blaming her for her actions would be like blaming a DVD for playing a rated R movie.

considering theres no real proof for a god that is involved in creation anyway so its a moot point.

 

[quatona]

Assuming we are all created by God in every way, doesn't it make sense that God created us to fail in areas that we fail in?

It wouldn´t make sense to call something "failing", in the first place.

 

[TooCurious]

I'll do you one better: if we assume for the moment that the creation story in Genesis is true, then God knowingly and intentionally created humanity to Fall. Observe...

• In order for the matter of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to be anything remotely resembling a legitimate test of obedience, it must have been hypothetically possible for a human to choose (freely) not to eat its fruit. If it was impossible for Adam and Eve to choose to abstain from the fruit, then they did not choose to disobey, and therefore the entire test is invalid.
• If it was hypothetically possible for a human to choose (freely) not to eat from the Tree, then it is logically possible for a human to exist who would, given the circumstances of Eden, freely choose not to eat from the Tree.
• God is omnipotent, and therefore can do all things that are logically possible.
• If God can create anything whose existence is logically possible, God could have chosen to create humans who would have freely chosen not to eat from the Tree, instead of humans who would freely choose to eat from the Tree (Adam and Eve).
• God is omniscient, and therefore knew and understood the nature of his human creations, and what their choices would be.
• God knowingly chose to create humans he knew would disobey him and eat from the Tree, when he could have instead created humans who would (of their own free will) choose not to do so.
• God knowingly and intentionally set the events that would lead to the Fall into motion, when he could have done otherwise while preserving human free will.
• God chose for the Fall to occur.

If we assume the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent god, then yes, at least part of the responsibility for all human wrongdoing can be placed on his doorstep, because he could have chosen to do otherwise -- most likely while still preserving human existence and free will.

However, in the absence of such a deity, we are all responsible for our own actions.

 

[quatona]

Personally, I find the term "responsibility" confusing rather than helping with anything. I can´t seem to attach a meaningful concept to this term.

 

[morningstar2651]

Assuming we are all created by God in every way, doesn't it make sense that God created us to fail in areas that we fail in? Is a rapist or murderer really responsible for her actions if God was intimately involved in the process of her creation? Blaming her for her actions would be like blaming a DVD for playing a rated R movie.

I was expecting a deeper question, such as "Why would God damn everyone to Hell before the crucifixion?" or "Does a god that predestines rape deserve your respect or worship?"

I think that the latter question applies well in this thread.

 

[TooCurious]

Personally, I find the term "responsibility" confusing rather than helping with anything. I can´t seem to attach a meaningful concept to this term.

Given that "responsibility" generally involves some concept of accountability, credit, or blame, and (assuming an omnipotent deity such as the Christian god-concept) there is no higher power than God who might hold God accountable for his actions, then I could see how the notion of "responsibility" could become problematic. (Is that your issue with the term in this context, or is it something else?)

I suppose, in that case, the best we could do would be to replace "is responsible for" with "has a deliberate causal relationship toward."

 

[NPH]

Assuming the typical christian definition of the omnimax deity then every action taken in existence is the product of that deity's will. If the deity supplied the materials for the creation, the blueprint for the operating parameters of living beings and natural processes within that creation, and was responsible for the act of creating all existence then any 'flaw' would be directly attributable to that deity. Being that it is an omnimax though, there can be no flaw e.g. it's creation is simply acting out exactly what the deity intended it to do.

If the deity is not omnimax though, then that allows for the presence of 'flaws' that were unintended by the deity. But even then, a competent craftsman would not fault their finished product for the flaws that they introduced into the product themselves.

Summary: If existence is 'flawed' then it is either the express will of an omnimax deity, the result of an incompetent deity, or just simply a natural thing that is not 'flawed' but merely what it is.

Just IMO.

 

[Big Empty Circle]

But how can a being be both omnipotent and omniscient?

If he's omniscient, he knows everything -- including everything that's going to happen before it ever happens. Therefore he can't change it, which makes him not omnipotent. If he were omnipotent, he'd have the power to do anything, including changing the things that he already "knew" were going to happen, which means that what he "knew" was going to happen doesn't actually happen, and therefore he isn't omniscient. It seems to me that, logically, not only can there NOT be a being who is both omnipotent and omniscient, but if a being exists who is omnipotent, it rules out the existence of any OTHER entity who is omniscient, and vice versa.

More specifically related to the OP, if God was omniscient, he knew exactly what Adam and Eve were going to do before he ever created them. And if he was omnipotent, he could have done anything to change this (never mind for a moment the paradox as described above that this would render him non-omniscient.) But either way, he went on and created them and then when they do exactly what he created them knowing they WOULD do, he was furious about it? Saying they were "set up" is a rather polite way of putting it. I'd say more like "f___ed over." Ditto every "sinner" who has lived since; if God knows what we're going to do before he ever creates us and still deliberately and willfully creates us that way, how can we be said to have any agency or responsibility? And what does it say about this deity, if he'd cast his "children" into eternal torment because they did what he created them to do?

Personally I do believe in personal responsibility and all; the part I don't believe in is God. I'm just speaking hypothetically here.

 

[Verv]

Yeah, God set us up to fail in the sense that we were set up to sin. We were made imperfectly and we were meant to live in a world of our own self-induced suffering because it is in this context we learn more about ourselves and about God, about truth, about loving one another.

It is an educational experience and I like it.

 

[Paulos23]

Honestly, if you look at the human body it looks like we where build by the lowest bidder, who then cut corners and 'borrowed' material from the construction site across the street.

Are we set up to fail? I think so, since the goals set in the Bible are unrealistic to expect a human to achieve without repressing their human nature.

Good thing I don't except the Bible as an authority on human behavior.

 

[Exhausted]

But how can a being be both omnipotent and omniscient?

If he's omniscient, he knows everything -- including everything that's going to happen before it ever happens. Therefore he can't change it, which makes him not omnipotent. If he were omnipotent, he'd have the power to do anything, including changing the things that he already "knew" were going to happen, which means that what he "knew" was going to happen doesn't actually happen, and therefore he isn't omniscient. It seems to me that, logically, not only can there NOT be a being who is both omnipotent and omniscient, but if a being exists who is omnipotent, it rules out the existence of any OTHER entity who is omniscient, and vice versa.

More specifically related to the OP, if God was omniscient, he knew exactly what Adam and Eve were going to do before he ever created them. And if he was omnipotent, he could have done anything to change this (never mind for a moment the paradox as described above that this would render him non-omniscient.) But either way, he went on and created them and then when they do exactly what he created them knowing they WOULD do, he was furious about it? Saying they were "set up" is a rather polite way of putting it. I'd say more like "f___ed over." Ditto every "sinner" who has lived since; if God knows what we're going to do before he ever creates us and still deliberately and willfully creates us that way, how can we be said to have any agency or responsibility? And what does it say about this deity, if he'd cast his "children" into eternal torment because they did what he created them to do?

Personally I do believe in personal responsibility and all; the part I don't believe in is God. I'm just speaking hypothetically here.

But that is just one way of defining omnipotence. It just means "all powerful" right? Besides, we also redefine omniscience- as knowing all possible futures and all- and combining that with a definition of omnipotence- the ability to do whatever he wants- there isn't really a contradiction.

 

[quatona]

Yeah, God set us up to fail in the sense that we were set up to sin. We were made imperfectly and we were meant to live in a world of our own self-induced suffering because it is in this context we learn more about ourselves and about God, about truth, about loving one another.

It is an educational experience and I like it.

This reasoning will never cease to amaze me. God set up the world so that we learn stuff that there would have been no need to learn if god hadn´t set up the world in a way that necessitates us to learn it, in the first place.
I mean, after all god doesn´t seem to have undergone this learning curve himself, and he is claimed to do quite fine without it.

 

[quatona]

Given that "responsibility" generally involves some concept of accountability, credit, or blame, and (assuming an omnipotent deity such as the Christian god-concept) there is no higher power than God who might hold God accountable for his actions, then I could see how the notion of "responsibility" could become problematic. (Is that your issue with the term in this context, or is it something else?)

Close.
I guess my problem is that the benefit of blaming and crediting escapes me, and that I don´t see a need to utilize a doubtful philosophical concept concerning the human condition for the purpose of enabling these useless activities.
People react to what I do, and I react to other persons´ actions. That´s all I need to know. Whether "responsibility" is the human condition or not appears to be an academic question involving a term that without a given frame of reference is pretty much meaningless.

Sure, biblegod is said to "hold me responsible" (i.e. blame me, punish me, reward me). "Responsibility" has "response" in it. Originally, it seems to describe the fact that you have to justify yourself to a judging instance. "You are responsible" seems to mean "you will be held responsible" (you will have to justify yourself, will be judged and the judging instances will inflict sanctions upon you).

I suppose, in that case, the best we could do would be to replace "is responsible for" with "has a deliberate causal relationship toward."

Yes, that is a more useful wording, in my book. I would like it even better without the "deliberate" in it.