Why would God create a flawed creation?

[Dave Ellis]

Any creation is non-god, therefore it is inferior to him, the "perfect". But if there are objective standards, maybe a "flawed" or non perfect creation is still a better option than non at all, just as for most healthy people I'd say life is worthwhile even though we're not God. So if we can choose life and be moral, cant God create us and be moral too?

Perfect beings can not make imperfect things.

For example, pretend I'm perfect and I want to create something... if I create a flawed thing, then I did an imperfect thing, which makes me not completely perfect.

Another example, say I write 98% on a test, I made a mistake somewhere, so I can't be said to be completely perfect in that situation either.

Perfect beings can only produce perfect results.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

so if we wouldn't want to do that why do we now, we have free will, we fall out, we kill, we destroy things.

Because we weren't made so that we wouldn't. But it's easy to see it in action.

Do you have any desire to molest children?

If you're like me (and I hope you are) the very idea makes you sick to your stomach. I would never do such a thing.

So just extend this revulsion to any action that would cause suffering, and you can see how things could have been.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

Because we weren't made so that we wouldn't. But it's easy to see it in action.

Do you have any desire to molest children?

If you're like me (and I hope you are) the very idea makes you sick to your stomach. I would never do such a thing.

So just extend this revulsion to any action that would cause suffering, and you can see how things could have been.

but part of freedom of will is that you can do what is wrong to God.

your example is extreme but any sin is sin and would separate us from God.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

but part of freedom of will is that you can do what is wrong to God.

your example is extreme but any sin is sin and would separate us from God.

No, free will implies that we have the choice to do certain things. It says nothing about what we do choose.

I have the free will to molest a child, but I never will.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

No, free will implies that we have the choice to do certain things. It says nothing about what we do choose.

I have the free will to molest a child, but I never will.

but unfortunately many will, so where does their choice come from?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

but unfortunately many will, so where does their choice come from?

A brain without the same filter that I (and most people) have. The filter that would be in place in every single person, had an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god created a universe in which that was true.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Oh okay, maybe they don't even believe or they're christian and don't know how to pray. John G. Lake first saw half of his family die, because they prayed, but believed it was God's will. When he found out which authority he had and that God wanted to heal and it was a lie that it wasn't His will, thousands were healed.

So god is ok with seeing 9 million innocent kids die because someone didn't know how to say the magic word properly?

And this god is a moral agent how?

 

[Dave Ellis]

so you just wanted a perfect planet of people that just get on.
i take it you are against free will?
Imagine the tv just one channel, imagine the sports, well there couldn't be any in case we fell out, music would be the same.

You can live in a perfectly good place and still retain your free will.

We make choices between multiple morally neutral or morally good options all the time... Do I want burgers, or steak tonight? Do I want to go see a movie, or a baseball game?

You can live your life just as you do now, except we'd live in a world where nobody would decide to go shoot up the local school.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Because we weren't made so that we wouldn't. But it's easy to see it in action.

Do you have any desire to molest children?

If you're like me (and I hope you are) the very idea makes you sick to your stomach. I would never do such a thing.

So just extend this revulsion to any action that would cause suffering, and you can see how things could have been.

You never know what you should not do, until it's been done. After someone has done it, it then exists in the realm of possibilities. Then you see it clearly and know that it is not a desired outcome. Until terrible things happen, no one imagines they would occur. I still cannot imagine why anyone would be attracted to a child in that way, much less act upon such a disgusting thing.

Do you believe that we evolved from monkeys?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You never know what you should not do, until it's been done. After someone has done it, it then exists in the realm of possibilities. Then you see it clearly and know that it is not a desired outcome. Until terrible things happen, no one imagines they would occur.

I don't entirely agree with that statement, as instinct has a part to play in how we function. But regardless, you're describing how things are. I'm talking about how things could be. A revulsion could be imparted onto us for any action before we take the action. Unless you think an omnipotent god could not do this.

Do you believe that we evolved from monkeys?

I don't know anyone that believes we evolved from monkeys.

 

[Messy]

Nooooo, that's not what I mean.

I mean a universe where we have free will and do not cause suffering to each other.

If you want to use the Christian example, your god could have set up a world in which Cain would never use his free will to kill Abel. He would have the choice of course, but the idea would be so repugnant that he would never consider it.

I don't think He could, concerning Cain who the Bible says was from the wicked one, He said: an enemy has done this.
He created the angels perfect which resulted in evil beings without reconciliation possible, so I guess that's why He didn't make man perfect, but this way,so they could be reconciled and if He could foreknow Lucifer would fall and He's God He could have prevented it to happen, so that's impossible that He knew, then He wouldn't be innocent.
If I willingly create a robot which I know in advance will become evil and wants to destroy my children, God won't even let me into heaven, that's evil.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You never know what you should not do, until it's been done. After someone has done it, it then exists in the realm of possibilities.

Not really.... For example, nobody has ever completely exterminated the population of a major continent (well, unless you believe the Noah story to be true, in which case god did it), however I know that's something that should never be done as it's morally reprehensible.

I don't think anyone has ever made a food processing plant where all they serve is burgers made from human meat. However, I also know that is something that should not be done.

Then you see it clearly and know that it is not a desired outcome. Until terrible things happen, no one imagines they would occur. I still cannot imagine why anyone would be attracted to a child in that way, much less act upon such a disgusting thing.

I don't get how anyone would be attracted to kids either, however it's clear that some people's brains are unfortunately wired that way. All we can do is stop them once they are discovered.

Do you believe that we evolved from monkeys?

No, we evolved from species like Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Erectus, Monkeys and Humans share a common ancestor from long before the species I mentioned earlier. In essence humans and monkeys are "cousins", we are not descendants from them.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Nooooo, that's not what I mean.

I mean a universe where we have free will and do not cause suffering to each other.

If you want to use the Christian example, your god could have set up a world in which Cain would never use his free will to kill Abel. He would have the choice of course, but the idea would be so repugnant that he would never consider it.

In red above, how would Cain have had free will if the thought of doing anything 'bad' would be repugnant?

Isn't the entire idea behind free will that one would have a choice? Making a choice so repugnant that it is not a choice, does not sound like free will to me.

Sounds like your talking about some kind of 'controlled, free will' which doesn't sound like free will at all.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In red above, how would Cain have had free will if the thought of doing anything 'bad' would be repugnant?

Isn't the entire idea behind free will that one would have a choice? Making a choice so repugnant that it is not a choice, does not sound like free will to me.

Sounds like your talking about some kind of 'controlled, free will' which doesn't sound like free will at all.

I will never, ever molest a child. Even though it is a choice I could make, I will never make it.

Do I have free will?

 

[ToBeBlessed]

I will never, ever molest a child. Even though it is a choice I could make, I will never make it.

Do I have free will?

And that proves nothing because there are others who do make the choice to do it. And they have free will.

What is your point?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And that proves nothing because there are others who do make the choice to do it. And they have free will.

What is your point?

You said:

In red above, how would Cain have had free will if the thought of doing anything 'bad' would be repugnant?

Isn't the entire idea behind free will that one would have a choice? Making a choice so repugnant that it is not a choice, does not sound like free will to me.

Sounds like your talking about some kind of 'controlled, free will' which doesn't sound like free will at all.

I'm now telling you that I find child molestation so repugnant that I would never, ever do it (even though the choice still exists), similarly to how Cain might never have killed Abel if he found it as repugnant.

Since you said that you didn't think Cain would have had free will in that case, you must also admit that I don't have free will in the case of child molestation. And if I don't have free will, then the typical response to the problem of suffering falls apart.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

You said:



I'm now telling you that I find child molestation so repugnant that I would never, ever do it (even though the choice still exists), similarly to how Cain might never have killed Abel if he found it as repugnant.

Since you said that you didn't think Cain would have had free will in that case, you must also admit that I don't have free will in the case of child molestation. And if I don't have free will, then the typical response to the problem of suffering falls apart.

In response to this

"If you want to use the Christian example, your god could have set up a world in which Cain would never use his free will to kill Abel. He would have the choice of course, but the idea would be so repugnant that he would never consider it."

that you wrote.

I still do not understand your point?

You said (in above)

"your god could have set up a world in which Cain would never use his free will to kill Abel."

I'm not understanding how this is God's fault at all.

 

[FireDragon76]

A logical answer would have helped. Your answer is completely nonsensical. It's like saying that Kim Jong Un keeps the citizens of North Korea living in hellish conditions to create the best possible society.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, it's not. Can you honestly say that life is hellish for most people? Then how can we objective say life is "bad" for most people, and therefore implicate God in that?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In response to this

"If you want to use the Christian example, your god could have set up a world in which Cain would never use his free will to kill Abel. He would have the choice of course, but the idea would be so repugnant that he would never consider it."

that you wrote.

I still do not understand your point?

You said (in above)

"your god could have set up a world in which Cain would never use his free will to kill Abel."

I'm not understanding how this is God's fault at all.

We're not discussing "fault". We're discussing the contradiction between having a god concept that includes both omnipotence and omnibenevolence, and the existence of suffering.

The typical Christian answer is "free will", but as I've shown, that falls flat. I've shown that you can have free will and yet never choose particular options that would cause suffering.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

We're not discussing "fault". We're discussing the contradiction between having a god concept that includes both omnipotence and omnibenevolence, and the existence of suffering.

The typical Christian answer is "free will", but as I've shown, that falls flat. I've shown that you can have free will and yet never choose particular options that would cause suffering.

I guess you can make those decisions when you are God. And God did.