Judgement

[quatona]

Then again you are :1. presupose God's purpose for the birth of your child which only God knows truly the reason

Sure. Once you have given me a good reason to believe in the existence of a god, these questions may become relevant for me.

2. assumption that this life is the purpose of life, when in the theistic view God has a "skopos" purpose and it is not in this world. It is other wordly. I am not going to bother with Bible verses or anything here, just in general the purpose of being is not "this wordly" but rather "other wordly" the one God knows better and we do not, we only get a glimpse of it through the incarnation of His Son and His church. All kind of religious revelation has that "outwordly" flavor to it, transedance if you wish.

I am not a theist.

3 From a pure philosophical perspective then according to this logic no person whould ever have children....because of the evil existing in this world. I used to think like that too.

I don´t think like that.
Since we do not have perfect foreknowledge, transposing the results of this hypothetical on our existence is invalid.

But again would God ever liked to create little good robots and no sin or evil? Depriving man from his free will?

That are different questions.
The claim discussed was:
If you set something into motion with perfect foreknowledge of the result you can´t later say "Oops, that´s not what I wanted/planned/initiated".
If you - omniscient, omnipotent - want things to function in a particular way, then make them function this way.
If you give your product "freewill" (whatever that might be)
1. you can´t complain that it doesn´t function the way you would have liked it to function (that´s exactly what you wanted it to - not to function as you want it to function)
2. you have given up your authority, and transferred it to the product. This is where every "freewill" defense is inconsistent: God wants to have the cookie and eat it, too.

 

[elman]

If you set something into motion with perfect foreknowledge of the result you can´t later say "Oops, that´s not what I wanted/planned/initiated".
If you - omniscient, omnipotent - want things to function in a particular way, then make them function this way.
If you give your product "freewill" (whatever that might be)
1. you can´t complain that it doesn´t function the way you would have liked it to function (that´s exactly what you wanted it to - not to function as you want it to function)
2. you have given up your authority, and transferred it to the product. This is where every "freewill" defense is inconsistent: God wants to have the cookie and eat it, too.

If I posit a loving Creator that wants us to be loving, then I can say we are able to do what the Creator did not want us to do. That does not mean the Creator made a mistake. The Creator foresaw we would make mistakes, But the bottom line is some of us will become loving beings, which is what the Creator wanted to happen. The gift to us of the ability to chose to love or not love is not a giving up of authority. It is a delegation of authority to the created in the hopes the created will use it wisely and is an action that will produce the desired bottom line.

 

[quatona]

If I posit a loving Creator that wants us to be loving, then I can say we are able to do what the Creator did not want us to do. That does not mean the Creator made a mistake. The Creator foresaw we would make mistakes, But the bottom line is some of us will become loving beings, which is what the Creator wanted to happen. The gift to us of the ability to chose to love or not love is not a giving up of authority. It is a delegation of authority to the created in the hopes the created will use it wisely and is an action that will produce the desired bottom line.

If the boss passes authority to one of his employees, he will be held responsible for the result, even though he had the hope the guy would use it wisely.
If this boss knew perfectly that this guy would mess up, the idea of "hope" is unapplicable right from the start.
If the omnipotent boss has even created the guy in perfect foreknowledge of his failure, I see no way around the conclusion that the result is the plan of the boss.
"Mistake"was your idea.

If I am omnipotent and omniscient and want something to happen, I will make it happen.
"Hope" isn´t part of the equation if perfect foreknowledge is involved.

 

[elman]

If the boss passes authority to one of his employees, he will be held responsible for the result, even though he had the hope the guy would use it wisely.
If this boss knew perfectly that this guy would mess up, the idea of "hope" is unapplicable right from the start.
If the omnipotent boss has even created the guy in perfect foreknowledge of his failure, I see no way around the conclusion that the result is the plan of the boss.
"Mistake"was your idea.

If I am omnipotent and omniscient and want something to happen, I will make it happen.
"Hope" isn´t part of the equation if perfect foreknowledge is involved.

Who will hold the boss responsible if he is God? The way around the conclusion that the mistake is the plan of the boss is that the people who don't make the mistake or learn to not make the mistake is the plan of the boss. No God can know we are going to mess up and also know some of us are going to learn to do better, and hope therefore is not inapplicable right from the start.

 

[us38]

Who will hold the boss responsible if he is God?

The investors.

 

[elman]

The investors.

I suspect God is the only owner of this enterprise.

 

[quatona]

Who will hold the boss responsible if he is God?

Ah, I get it. Might makes right.
For someone to be the cause or author of something it is not necessary that someone else can hold him responsible. Else the entire creation gag would be out of the window, btw.

The way around the conclusion that the mistake is the plan of the boss is that the people who don't make the mistake or learn to not make the mistake is the plan of the boss.

What mistake? Someone sets something in motion in full knowledge of the result. There can´t be a mistake. There can only be what this guy intended there to be.

No God can know we are going to mess up and also know some of us are going to learn to do better, and hope therefore is not inapplicable right from the start.

Well, hoping for that which you know will by no means come true is about the most absurd idea I have ever heard. Don´t tell me your god is that stupid.
And hoping for that which you know will inevitably come true is makes no sense at all.
Hope requires uncertainty.

 

[elman]

=quatona;39378444]Ah, I get it. Might makes right.
For someone to be the cause or author of something it is not necessary that someone else can hold him responsible. Else the entire creation gag would be out of the window, btw.

It would be wrong and not correct to hold the Creator responsible for what the creation did against the will of the Creator. It is wrong to hold parents responsible for the crimes of their children just because they are the parents of the children.

What mistake? Someone sets something in motion in full knowledge of the result. There can´t be a mistake.

It is not a mistake by God. It is a mistake we make.

There can only be what this guy intended there to be.

And He intended that we should be able to make mistakes to enable us to grow into a mature loving being.

Well, hoping for that which you know will by no means come true is about the most absurd idea I have ever heard.

But it does come true. There are mature loving beings.

Don´t tell me your god is that stupid.
And hoping for that which you know will inevitably come true is makes no sense at all.
Hope requires uncertainty.

It is not God that hopes. It is us and we don't have certainty. And I never told you God was stupid.

 

[quatona]

It would be wrong and not correct to hold the Creator responsible for what the creation did against the will of the Creator.

Well, since I didn´t talk about holding god responsible, this is a straw man.

It is wrong to hold parents responsible for the crimes of their children just because they are the parents of the children.

Apart from the fact that responsibility is not part of my argument, this comparison lacks in very crucial points: Parents are not omniscient, parents are not omnipotent, parents don´t create children from nothing, parents don´t create the conditions of existence.

It is not a mistake by God. It is a mistake we make.

Whatever. I am not talking about mistakes. I am saying that what happens in the creation of an omniscient omnipotent creatorgod is exactly what he planned and wanted to be there. If you think the result is a mistake, that´s an issue between you and your god.

And He intended that we should be able to make mistakes to enable us to grow into a mature loving being.

He intended everything that happens.

But it does come true. There are mature loving beings.

They and their actions are the product of gods plan, and those who don´t and their actions are, either.

It is not God that hopes. It is us and we don't have certainty. And I never told you God was stupid.

Well, previously you spoke about god´s hope, and that was the basis for my response:

It is a delegation of authority to the created in the hopes the created will use it wisely and is an action that will produce the desired bottom line.

(post #22)
I don´t like it when you shift the goalpost midgame.

 

[elman]

=quatona;39407435]Well, since I didn´t talk about holding god responsible, this is a straw man.

Well since you said this:

=quatona;39378444]Ah, I get it. Might makes right.
For someone to be the cause or author of something it is not necessary that someone else can hold him responsible. Else the entire creation gag would be out of the window, btw."

you therefore did talk about holding God responsible and it is not a staw man.

Apart from the fact that responsibility is not part of my argument, this comparison lacks in very crucial points: Parents are not omniscient, parents are not omnipotent, parents don´t create children from nothing, parents don´t create the conditions of existence.

The analoygy is valid and your response is not. Parents are involved in the creation of their children and the conditions of their children's existance to some extent.

Whatever. I am not talking about mistakes. I am saying that what happens in the creation of an omniscient omnipotent creatorgod is exactly what he planned and wanted to be there.

This would be incorrect if He created a being that was capable of not doing what He wanted done.

If you think the result is a mistake, that´s an issue between you and your god.

I don't think the overall result is a mistake.

He intended everything that happens.

He intended for us to be loving. He did not intend for us to be unloving so He did not intend everything that happens.

They and their actions are the product of gods plan, and those who don´t and their actions are, either.

His plan did account for those who would not do what He wanted done. Again your children are your products, but that does not make everything they do your responsiblity.

Well, previously you spoke about god´s hope, and that was the basis for my response:

I should have said God's wish or will rather than hope. God would not need to hope. He already knows.

 

[jamiel]

If the boss passes authority to one of his employees, he will be held responsible for the result, even though he had the hope the guy would use it wisely.

So much of this kind of thinking is directed at the "Boss" being responsible or to blame for the work of His employees. While of course the Boss has responsibilities I'm not reading here enough about the employees themselves having to take responsiblity for their own mess ups.

And even if the Boss is to blame (and I disagree with this) the employees deserve it even moreso for the direct, free will actions they took upon themselves (which went AGAINST what the Boss instructed), I'm not seeing that being expressed here.

This is also like depicting the "employee" as a politician either caught in a crime or somehow disappointing the electorate saying, "Well, it's your fault voters [God] for voting for me. Don't you know already how politicians are? And yet, you still voted for me. What did you expect?"

Yeah, but maybe they were counting on you not to do the wrong thing when they voted for you although they were aware. They were giving you a chance, even despite the outcome (disappointment). It's the politician who ends up being charged and serving time, not the voters who voted for him.

But also, He truly is "The Boss" too! Bosses do the hiring and firing.

I'm also thinking (albeit in a roundabout way related to this) of Matthew 20: 1-16, Jesus' parable about The Workers in the Vineyard. The especially great line to me from here is Mat. 20: 15 "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?" His vineyard, His workers, His money. He can do whatever he wants.

His plan did account for those who would not do what He wanted done. Again your children are your products, but that does not make everything they do your responsiblity.

God gives us free will, and people make mistakes He already knows will happen -- but then all of this fits into His plan, so it works out as intended. He really doesn't want His employee to make a mistake on their own but . . . that's up to them. Therefore He doesn't make the mistakes, we do. He judged you certainly good enough to hire for working in His vineyard in the first place. By grace, you've already been given your denarius. How well you do your job (and whether you'll be hired again, promoted even!) is up to you. This whole thing isn't over either. We don't know the totally complete, full, end result of the plan and how exactly it will manifest itself, only God does. A "mistake" may be one to us, but in the most broadest of vision, not necessarily to God, who makes no mistakes.



God Bless.