Why would God create a flawed creation?

[ananda]

Ya beat me to it!

 

[Josheb]

I answered that question in my post, netz.

I don't mean to be confrontational in any way but if we're going to have this conversation then what I write must be read and it must be read until either it is understood or until some cogent question of clarification can be asked.

That questions shows a limited set of possibilities: either the post wasn't read, or it was read and not understood (in which case questions of clarification would be appropriate), or the post was read, understood, but you just don't care what it says.

Is there another option? Because none of those options is good for conversation.

Still, in the spirit of collaboration I will speak to your question. just asked. God's compassion, love, and Omni-attributes are irrelevant. It's the question that's flawed. The question assumes that the flaws are relevant to God's plan. The question assumes pain and suffering are bad things from God's pov relevant to His plan.

You start out with this premise: "If God was omniscient and omnipotent, then he wouldn't have knowingly created a flawed creation."

I just stated in my op reply that the creation God created wasn't flawed. It may have had the potential to become "flawed," but that is not the same thing as saying God created a flawed creation. If you are going to be consistent with the Christian paradigm then your first step is to correct your opening. The Genesis account informs us the creation God created was good and sinless.

Adjust thinking accordingly. And stop asking the question asked.

Then you say, "However, creation is obviously flawed, so one of the following must be true:..." Yes, creation is obviously flawed but it is not flawed because God created it that way. Humans are the cause of the flaws. God, The Causal Agent, made humans with causal capacity. Yes, he did so knowing that could lead to corruption but any consequent corruption does not interfere with His plan for creation, and it might well enhance it (depending on one's pov).

So, right out the gate this posts makes to claims I explicitly addressed in my post. I will not collaborate with a conversation where I have to repeat already-posted content. You don't have to like it but you do have to accept it if you want to converse with me. Otherwise, just ignore my posts. No worries.

Next, I see trotted out your variation of the old dilemma from Epicurus, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

So I'm going to ask you a question: why is that relevant? Why is being doomed to hell relevant? Why is it something of concern? When you can have some integrity with that question we'll talk. You need to show that you 1) accurately understand that which you protest and aren't arguing from a misrepresentation of Christianity (which makes your dissent a straw man) and 2) provide a reasonable and rational case for proving hell is relevant in a manner consistent with that correct representation. And you need to do it in a way that shows you've read and understood what I've written because I won't be unnecessarily repeating myself in a text-based medium where the posts can be revisited.

What I saith is the question is what's flawed and it either needs to be changed or proven veracious.

As a former Buddhist I encourage you to let go of this attachment so that the problem and solution can be clearly seen. The truth will set you free.

And my apologies for the placement of this post. I haven't yet gotten the hang of posting to the post in the tree. This post is in response to your inquiry about omniscience, omnipotence, and compassion and the juxtaposition thereof.

 

[Dave Ellis]

"Free Will" is what all the anti-God faction considers the 'flaw' in God's Creation, the Universe. "Free Will" is what the atheist faction desires above all.

God Created a perfect and flawlessly functioning Universe. That went south when mankind decided to ignore what God said was right and proper. Man's ability to ignore God was part of the free will God gave to man.

Of course, had God NOT given man free will, there would be no atheists and no kvetching about it.

Irony at soooo many levels.

If the universe was perfectly designed, then it would be immune from something like sin derailing it. Something that is susceptible to failure is not as good as it could be, and therefore it is not perfect.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Time and entropy mean that things are less than perfect, beacuse they 1 decay, and are 2 trending towards disorder.

 

[JGG]

I brought this question up in another thread recently. What really confuses me is that when God created Adam he was created to be the only one of his species. There was clearly no intention of creating a woman. Genesis says: "It is not good that the man should be alone. I shall make a helper suitable for him" *emphasis mine.

If Adam was created perfect, why is it not good that he should be alone? If he was created perfectly, he was created to be alone. Why would a flawless being require a helper? Isn't that in itself a flaw? There should be no need to create anything else.

Next, rather than create woman, God creates all of the animals. Each of which is "unsuitable" as a helper for man. Why wasn't the very first animal the perfect helper for Adam? Was it that pre-sin Adam was flawed or that God was unable to get it right in His first couple hundred million tries?

Finally, if God created Adam and Eve perfectly, how was it that the very first two flawlessly perfect flagship models of His creation were able to muck everything up so much? It seems calling Adam and Eve "flawless" is like continuing to credit the Titanic with being "unsinkable." Sure, the Titanic was unsinkable...up until it sank.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The inherent nature of decay supports my claim, IMO.

How so?

 

[KWCrazy]

By what standard and by what authority can you say the creation is flawed? Having never created anything, you cannot have any basis beyond your own opinion. What you think is a design flaw is, in fact, part of the design. You cannot know the mind of God so you have no idea of his intentions. Not knowing this, you can't ascertain how the creation fit that intent. The answer lies throughout the Word.

Adam and Eve had one commandment; don't eat the fruit. That action carried a consequence; sure death. Why have a consequence to an action that won't happen? Obviously, God knew what would happen and He planted the tree of knowledge there anyway. So the creation could become corrupted? No, so His creation could fulfill its reason for existence.

God created man in His image; apart from the angels; superior to them in that the angels serve both God and man. Man is the creation, not the world. The world will pass away. Our soul is eternal. The world is merely a testing ground where we are to choose who we will follow. The death in the world shows man there is a consequence to sin. The sacrifice of Christ shows man God's love and compassion. We exist in this world for a short time to determine our worthiness to be with the Father. The world is inconsequential. It's only temporary. It was designed to be temporary. It fits its purpose perfectly; providing a home for man while he affirms or rejects his place in eternity with his Creator. The fall of man showed us that evil has a consequence. Had it not happened, Adam and Eve may yet be living and we; if we existed at all; would have no understanding about the consequence of choosing evil over goodness.

 

[ananda]

Time and entropy mean that things are less than perfect, beacuse they 1 decay, and are 2 trending towards disorder.

... then why create an inherent trend towards decay and disorder?

 

[ananda]

If the universe was perfectly designed, then it would be immune from something like sin derailing it. Something that is susceptible to failure is not as good as it could be, and therefore it is not perfect.

I brought this question up in another thread recently. What really confuses me is that when God created Adam he was created to be the only one of his species. There was clearly no intention of creating a woman. Genesis says: "It is not good that the man should be alone. I shall make a helper suitable for him" *emphasis mine.

If Adam was created perfect, why is it not good that he should be alone? If he was created perfectly, he was created to be alone. Why would a flawless being require a helper? Isn't that in itself a flaw? There should be no need to create anything else.

Next, rather than create woman, God creates all of the animals. Each of which is "unsuitable" as a helper for man. Why wasn't the very first animal the perfect helper for Adam? Was it that pre-sin Adam was flawed or that God was unable to get it right in His first couple hundred million tries?

Finally, if God created Adam and Eve perfectly, how was it that the very first two flawlessly perfect flagship models of His creation were able to muck everything up so much? It seems calling Adam and Eve "flawless" is like continuing to credit the Titanic with being "unsinkable." Sure, the Titanic was unsinkable...up until it sank.

Good points!

 

[ananda]

How so?

Decay is not perfection. If it was perfect, then there would be no need for a savior.

 

[ananda]

By what standard and by what authority can you say the creation is flawed? Having never created anything, you cannot have any basis beyond your own opinion. What you think is a design flaw is, in fact, part of the design. You cannot know the mind of God so you have no idea of his intentions. Not knowing this, you can't ascertain how the creation fit that intent. The answer lies throughout the Word.

Adam and Eve had one commandment; don't eat the fruit. That action carried a consequence; sure death. Why have a consequence to an action that won't happen? Obviously, God knew what would happen and He planted the tree of knowledge there anyway. So the creation could become corrupted? No, so His creation could fulfill its reason for existence.

God created man in His image; apart from the angels; superior to them in that the angels serve both God and man. Man is the creation, not the world. The world will pass away. Our soul is eternal. The world is merely a testing ground where we are to choose who we will follow. The death in the world shows man there is a consequence to sin. The sacrifice of Christ shows man God's love and compassion. We exist in this world for a short time to determine our worthiness to be with the Father. The world is inconsequential. It's only temporary. It was designed to be temporary. It fits its purpose perfectly; providing a home for man while he affirms or rejects his place in eternity with his Creator. The fall of man showed us that evil has a consequence. Had it not happened, Adam and Eve may yet be living and we; if we existed at all; would have no understanding about the consequence of choosing evil over goodness.

Why create anyone at all if, in his omniscient foreknowledge, he knew that many of his creation would end up in torment and separation from him?

If I knew beforehand that the majority of my children would end up in hell, I would likely decide, out of the love and compassion in my heart, to not have children in the first place.

 

[durangodawood]

Why would God create a flawed creation?
What saith ye?

Why should we expect God's motivations to make any sense at all to us?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If God was omniscient and omnipotent, then he wouldn't have knowingly created a flawed creation. However, creation is obviously flawed, so one of the following must be true:

1. While God is compassionate and loving, he is not omniscient (he could not see the results of his action), or
2. While God is compassionate and loving, he is not omnipotent (he could not create a perfect creation, or he did not have the power to sustain perfection in his creation), or
3. God is omniscient and omnipotent but uncompassionate and unloving (towards his creation he originated, dooming many to hell which he foreknew).

What saith ye?

I saith that the attempt to abstract two supposed divine qualities, apart and in isolation from all other qualities a god may have, is a work in futility. If you're going to bastardize the concept of the divine, then you might as well hook two paper clips together and compare that 'artistic' effort to the Sistine Chapel.

 

[Dave Ellis]

By what standard and by what authority can you say the creation is flawed? Having never created anything, you cannot have any basis beyond your own opinion.

I've created things before, however even if I hadn't that still doesn't preclude me from understanding the difference between a flaw and perfection.

What you think is a design flaw is, in fact, part of the design. You cannot know the mind of God so you have no idea of his intentions. Not knowing this, you can't ascertain how the creation fit that intent. The answer lies throughout the Word.

How can we have no idea of his intentions, yet we have the answer to his intentions in the word? Is that not a contradictory statement?

I'll grant you that it's possible if this story is true that god intended for the world to fall, however if that's the case, I'd argue he's not a moral being. That's because purposefully designing the world to fall would result in disease, torture, rape, murder and (depending on your theology) hell for billions of people amongst other things. No moral being could allow that to happen on purpose.

Adam and Eve had one commandment; don't eat the fruit. That action carried a consequence; sure death.

It's kinda strange they didn't die for reportedly hundreds of years after the fact then...

Why have a consequence to an action that won't happen? Obviously, God knew what would happen and He planted the tree of knowledge there anyway. So the creation could become corrupted? No, so His creation could fulfill its reason for existence.

And what was that reason? And if we can't understand the mind of god, how did you become privy to this information?

God created man in His image; apart from the angels; superior to them in that the angels serve both God and man. Man is the creation, not the world. The world will pass away. Our soul is eternal. The world is merely a testing ground where we are to choose who we will follow.

If god is omniscient, as you appear to be claiming, then why does he require a testing ground? Wouldn't he already know how things are going to turn out, making any test redundant?

The death in the world shows man there is a consequence to sin.

Then how would you have explained Adam and Eve's eventual death had they not sinned? They would have died at some point even if they hadn't eaten the fruit.

The sacrifice of Christ shows man God's love and compassion.

I don't find that act loving or compassionate in the least. In fact I find it brutal and immoral.

We exist in this world for a short time to determine our worthiness to be with the Father. The world is inconsequential. It's only temporary. It was designed to be temporary. It fits its purpose perfectly; providing a home for man while he affirms or rejects his place in eternity with his Creator. The fall of man showed us that evil has a consequence.

Again, if your god is omniscient he doesn't require a testing ground. Furthermore, why would he create souls that he knows aren't worthy of him, and therefore creating them to be damned to hell?

Had it not happened, Adam and Eve may yet be living

That's simply not correct, even according to your own scriptures.

and we; if we existed at all; would have no understanding about the consequence of choosing evil over goodness.

Why would god create people with that condition, then punish them for choosing something they couldn't have known the consequences to? That's cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[KWCrazy]

Why create anyone at all if, in his omniscient foreknowledge, he knew that many of his creation would end up in torment and separation from him?...

It's nice to know that you are much more loving than God, and that you would do things so much better than He. One of his angels thought the same way one time. His name was Lucifer. Why would a man offer gifts to every child who came to his shop knowing that many couldn't come to his shop and wouldn't get the free gifts? Perhaps he simply wants to share his love with the ones who come to him. Perhaps God is the same way.

It is not within the limits of our finite minds to understand the true nature of the Creator. It is enough to know that those who come to Him are welcomed and those who reject Him will be apart from Him. God created us with free will to choose, knowing the consequence. If we choose to murder, kill and steal, then we reap the consequence of our own actions. God is not to blame for our actions.

 

[juvenissun]

That's interesting.

So, are people free to do as they please in heaven?

I'm sure there will be rules in heaven (you know... Keep off the grass, don't kill or rape angels... that sorta thing) Could someone possibly break the rules in heaven?

Actually, this is the real answer to the OP.
Yes, free-will prevails in the Heaven.
No, no rule is needed and no punishment of any kind is needed, forever.

Do not understand, right? Why do you think the Christian God takes all the troubles from human He created?

In fact, if you are a knowledgeable humanist, some humans said similar thing in the human history. Human is His best creation, after all.

 

[juvenissun]

Why create anyone at all if, in his omniscient foreknowledge, he knew that many of his creation would end up in torment and separation from him?

If I knew beforehand that the majority of my children would end up in hell, I would likely decide, out of the love and compassion in my heart, to not have children in the first place.

Good questions. It took me more than a decade to figure an answer out.

However, I guess you are not interested in knowing that. You just want to thrown out the question, laugh, then go away.

That is fine with me.

 

[ananda]

Why should we expect God's motivations to make any sense at all to us?

I thought that God wants us to know his motivations (take, for example, the Bible which is said to be a record of his intent and, thus, motivations)

 

[ananda]

It's nice to know that you are much more loving than God, and that you would do things so much better than He. One of his angels thought the same way one time. His name was Lucifer. Why would a man offer gifts to every child who came to his shop knowing that many couldn't come to his shop and wouldn't get the free gifts? Perhaps he simply wants to share his love with the ones who come to him. Perhaps God is the same way.

Nothing is wrong with the man who offers gifts to every child who comes to his shop freely. It becomes questionable if that man threatens punishment to other children who do not come to his shop.

It is not within the limits of our finite minds to understand the true nature of the Creator. It is enough to know that those who come to Him are welcomed and those who reject Him will be apart from Him. God created us with free will to choose, knowing the consequence. If we choose to murder, kill and steal, then we reap the consequence of our own actions. God is not to blame for our actions.

So, assuming you believe in free will in heaven, will people have the capacity to rebel (again) against God?

 

[KWCrazy]

I've created things before, however even if I hadn't that still doesn't preclude me from understanding the difference between a flaw and perfection.

Really? What have you created? I don't mean "assembled from existing materials," I mean created? To be able to see a flaw you have to know what is intended for perfection. If the intent was to offer free will with consequence, then removing what you claim to be a flaw destroys the entire reason for the creation.

How can we have no idea of his intentions, yet we have the answer to his intentions in the word? Is that not a contradictory statement?

We don't have His intentions, we have His commandments, the history of His interaction with Mankind, examples of his omnipotence, and a detailed account of how He created the Heavens and the Earth. There is no mention of why. We know that, being omniscient, He would know that many would sin against Him. Perhaps He considers the ones who come to Him so precious that the loss of those who reject Him is acceptable. After all, they chosse their own fate.

I'll grant you that it's possible if this story is true that god intended for the world to fall.... No moral being could allow that to happen on purpose.

Are you familiar with the questions Ray Comfort asks?
If you've ever taken anything, you're an unforgiven thief.
If you've ever told a lie, you're an unforgiven liar.
If you've ever committed adultery.... and so on.
Being an immoral being, you are no judge of what a moral being does. You claim that a moral God would not allow people to sin, but that takes away their humanity. God had angels before. He didn't need to create the universe to get more angels. He offers we who are undeserving an eternal home in Heaven. If we reject it, that's on us.

It's kinda strange they didn't die for reportedly hundreds of years after the fact then...

Death became sure. It didn't say when. Moreover, human nature being what it is, that likely wasn't the only sin they ever committed, either.

And if we can't understand the mind of god, how did you become privy to this information?

It's in the book. God said, "Let us make man in our image." He didn't say, "Let's throw another batch of angels in the oven. Man was given wisdom above all other creatures, and beyond that he was given free will. The Bible doesn't say why, only that the creation was good. Knowing on the day He created it how it would all end, God still chose to make it happen. Since He doesn't make mistakes, then He did it by design.

If god is omniscient, as you appear to be claiming, then why does he require a testing ground?

The testing ground is for us; to decide whether we will serve or reject the Lord. Knowing the end result doesn't affect free will. The consequence is to our own actions, not what we would have done had we been born. Before He formed us our our mother's womb He knew us, but we still have the choice and consequence of action.

Then how would you have explained Adam and Eve's eventual death had they not sinned? They would have died at some point even if they hadn't eaten the fruit.

No, they could have eaten from the Tree of Life and lived forever. They made a decision, and that decision had consequences