No, such a world would not contain human beings who are capable of doing evil because there is no option to do evil. That's not to say that there aren't other options available for those beings to freely choose from.
They would still be 'free' because they would have options to choose from, but none of those options would include evil.
When I think of a human being, I think of a creature that says things like:
You ought not to cut in front of me, I was here first!
or
You should not abuse little children, it is wrong didn't ya know?
So when I think of a human being, I am thinking of a creature that has an awareness of, or an apprehension of this "realm" of moral value and obligation. I think of a creature that orders its life around "convictions" and beliefs that certain things are evil or good.
I believe that God could indeed have made a creature that had a will and ability to choose between this thing or that thing. He could have made them look exactly like we do physically.
But if this creature had no concept of good and evil, then how could you say that they are like us i.e. a human being?
It seems that morality is that one thing that separates us from every other creature, does it not? Is that not what makes us so very unique? Take that away and I do not see how you can say that what is left is a human being.
That is my point.
You have something that looks human. Like an android perhaps. If you have ever seen the movie "Alien", you will recall that there was an android on the ship named "Ashe". He looked like a man, talked like a man, etc. etc. But he was not a man. He did not have the ability to choose to do good or evil. To heal or to harm. He acted in accordance with the commands he received as any computer does. But what if God made creatures like that, only with the ability to choose to say, oh....build a house, or reproduce, or to make music or to paint. Well, I would say that is all well and good. But those creatures would never know what it meant to love someone. They would never know what it meant to be in love.
So it seems to me that such a world is conceivable no doubt. But if God is love, as Christians claim, then how is a world void of love, more preferable over the one He has made wherein we can know and experience and give and receive love?
Why would he prefer to create a world in which his moral code is entirely ambiguous and conveyed to the masses through unreliable prophets?
You are stepping into the deep waters now. Shouldering an enormous burden. Why is God's moral code
entirely ambiguous? Why are the prophets unreliable?
Two truth claims here that I am eager to see you substantiate.
If he cares about people doing good then shouldn't he punish evil in a straightforward manner?
He does care, but not to the exclusion of everything else (here I am thinking of His plan
in toto for humanity). You also forget that God is longsuffering and merciful. He gives us chances, even after we screw up. He is not like so many men out here that are willing to cast us off as no good after one slip up or mistake.
This is an argument you are making, i.e. that if God cares about people doing good then he would punish evil in a straightforward manner. How does that follow? The propositions: God cares about people doing good and evil is not always punished in a straightforward manner are not logically incompatible, so what assumptions are you making?
Why would spontaneous combustion, stroke, and a hail of stones be the punishment you think he would use? That kind of punishment would render people paralysed or incapacitated, but it would also prevent evil, would it not?
What the punishment is is immaterial. It is moot. The point is that the punishment be immediate and recognizable as stemming from God's displeasure. And who is to say that it would prevent people from doing evil? I know of several people (I used to be one of them) who have done and do things knowing that harm/evil will result but do them anyway! Why? Because they/I wanted to do them! Because it
felt so
gooooood!
So you admit that you're just speculating: "God might have a reason for allowing genocides to occur." He also might not. I hope you can see how grotesque such a statement is. You are, in effect, saying that it is good that God did not intervene to prevent genocide because he may have a morally sufficient reason for doing so.* Therefore, it is good that the genocide happened because God allowed it.
* Which is problematic in itself if God is the source of morality and thus his own sufficient reason.
I do not believe that God has not intervened in the genocides that have happened. That is your argument. It is a burden I do not think you can bear. How can you prove that God did not intervene in let's say, the Holocaust? How could you prove He did not intervene?
It could have been vanquished finally and totally from the very beginning. That's the problem.
It is a problem for you because you think God would vanquish it from the beginning. You have given no argument that shows why an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God who wanted to create free moral agents in His image and likeness would have to vanquish evil from the very beginning. You are just rehashing the same argument based on doubly invalid assumptions.
I've already addressed this: "Presumably you would not appreciate others having an unfair advantage over you." Presumably you wouldn't want to be harmed by others either.
Bingo my man..
You keep reinforcing my point!
You presume that you and I share the same
opinion about the matter. If we did, then we would be all good.
But what if I did not share your opinion and view. What if I could care less about what people did to me as long as I got what I wanted?
