Why would God create a flawed creation?

[Messy]

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

Or when you're like Him, which is a choice to be like Him and only possible if you fully know Him. I think it wasn't possible to create humans that completely knew Him at day one of creation. That will be in the end when we know the heigth and the depth of His love.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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?

What about the free will of the children that do not want to be molested?

If your worldview is correct, then god values the free will of paedophiles over the free will of their victims.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

That's a cop out.

The point is the god that would make those decisions can not be omnibenevolent.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

what difference would it make if the judge knew he would commit the crime?

I already answered this in the comment you replied to.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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

That doesn't really address the topic at all.

I'll ask the question again. How do you reconcile the idea that your god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent yet allows suffering that is easily preventable without affecting free will?

 

[J0hnSm1th]

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).

So - the Epicurean paradox or Problem of Evil.
The answer is simple - #2. God is all powerful in that he can do anything that is possible within the framework of reality. This is not the same as omnipotent. What we have was the optimal path within those constraints.

 

[Gottservant]

That doesn't really address the topic at all.

I'll ask the question again. How do you reconcile the idea that your god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent yet allows suffering that is easily preventable without affecting free will?

Because God delegates to Man to deal with everything pertaining to free will.

You are presuming that God both creates free will, presumes to have free will Himself and imposes the fruit of His Authority over free will over others.

God is not an oppressor, even the oppressor knows that. (selah)

 

[Inkfingers]

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.

Evil has to exist in a universe of persons.

Evil is simply the result of competing priorities in a universe of finite beings who each by nature and defition have their own individual purposes.

Hence, to the grass the deer is evil, and to the the deer the lion is evil, and so on.

That each creature in a universe is finite is self-evident and could be no other way (as to be infinite a creature would have to be the infinite universe itself).

That each creatures interests thus conflict with others is thus unavoidable because they are always finite and thus with finite and personal interests at some level.

And thus that evil occurs is unavoidable; not because of a lack of goodness but because it is integral to the nature of personal finite beings to have conficting interests that cause suffering in each other.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Evil has to exist in a universe of persons.

Evil is simply the result of competing priorities in a universe of finite beings who each by nature and defition have their own individual purposes.

Hence, to the grass the deer is evil, and to the the deer the lion is evil, and so on.

That each creature in a universe is finite is self-evident and could be no other way (as to be infinite a creature would have to be the infinite universe itself).

That each creatures interests thus conflict with others is thus unavoidable because they are always finite and thus with finite and personal interests at some level.

And thus that evil occurs is unavoidable; not because of a lack of goodness but because it is integral to the nature of personal finite beings to have conficting interests that cause suffering in each other.

Except an intelligent designer could have avoided these issues.

Living things don't have to eat living things to survive if you have total control over the design of those things. For example, god could have made it possible that humans and other animals could get their energy through photosynthesis, like plants do.

For some reason, he must have decided it was better for predators to violently kill and devour their prey. I don't see how that could be the choice of an omnibenevolent being, but it does make sense if we're talking about natural evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

Evil has to exist in a universe of persons.

Evil is simply the result of competing priorities in a universe of finite beings who each by nature and defition have their own individual purposes.

Hence, to the grass the deer is evil, and to the the deer the lion is evil, and so on.

That each creature in a universe is finite is self-evident and could be no other way (as to be infinite a creature would have to be the infinite universe itself).

That each creatures interests thus conflict with others is thus unavoidable because they are always finite and thus with finite and personal interests at some level.

And thus that evil occurs is unavoidable; not because of a lack of goodness but because it is integral to the nature of personal finite beings to have conficting interests that cause suffering in each other.

Exactly, the problem is emergent (from an association of agents) not forced by an external hand (of influence).

 

[quatona]

So - the Epicurean paradox or Problem of Evil.
The answer is simple - #2. God is all powerful in that he can do anything that is possible within the framework of reality. This is not the same as omnipotent. What we have was the optimal path within those constraints.

1. So you don´t believe in miracles?
2. Correct me if I am wrong, but I used to be under the impression that - in Christian doctrine - God was the very guy who created (the framework of) reality.

 

[Gottservant]

Except an intelligent designer could have avoided these issues.

Living things don't have to eat living things to survive if you have total control over the design of those things. For example, god could have made it possible that humans and other animals could get their energy through photosynthesis, like plants do.

For some reason, he must have decided it was better for predators to violently kill and devour their prey. I don't see how that could be the choice of an omnibenevolent being, but it does make sense if we're talking about natural evolution.

Alright, which thing would you show persistent faith in, which would solve all the problems of suffering once it was culminated? What act would you persist at to do this?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

Unless you did it deliberately for moral reasons?

 

[Inkfingers]

Except an intelligent designer could have avoided these issues.

Living things don't have to eat living things to survive if you have total control over the design of those things. For example, god could have made it possible that humans and other animals could get their energy through photosynthesis, like plants do.

For some reason, he must have decided it was better for predators to violently kill and devour their prey. I don't see how that could be the choice of an omnibenevolent being, but it does make sense if we're talking about natural evolution.

Life will always have conflicting interests; if there were no predators, you would simply complain about other 'unfairnessess' instead; because such cannot be avoided.

And humans working on photosynthesis cannot exist - it would not provide enough energy for the brain.

The universe is the way it is because this is what an internally consistent universe looks like; this is what the laws of physics and mathematics needed to make such a universe looks like. And those laws of physics etc are what are needed for a consistent universe.

Your lack of comprehension of that, and belief in a magical "could have been other" does not change this. Nor does it offer substantial counter-argument. The answer has been given to you; instead of being driven by a need to "win" or "be a skeptic", rattling off answers in an game of internet ping-pong, take time to consider what I have said to you.

 

[quatona]

Unless you did it deliberately for moral reasons?

What could such a moral reason be, for example?

 

[Messy]

Except an intelligent designer could have avoided these issues.

Living things don't have to eat living things to survive if you have total control over the design of those things. For example, god could have made it possible that humans and other animals could get their energy through photosynthesis, like plants do.

For some reason, he must have decided it was better for predators to violently kill and devour their prey. I don't see how that could be the choice of an omnibenevolent being, but it does make sense if we're talking about natural evolution.

He did, the animals ate herbs before the fall and man fruit, death came through Adam.

 

[quatona]

He did, the animals ate herbs before the fall and man fruit, death came through Adam.

What a power this man - even though unable to tell right from wrong, good from bad - was given!

 

[Inkfingers]

He did, the animals ate herbs before the fall and man fruit, death came through Adam.

So God designed lions and wolves in a way that would make them ready for the fall (having claws and big sharp canine teeth etc); taunting Adam for what he was going to do and then punishing him afterwards for what he could not have avoided doing?

Sorry, this literalist view of Eden really doesn't hold water. In fact it probably plays a big role in why so many people today turn away from Christianity - because it makes us look really quite simple-minded when we try to squeeze quart lions into pint-pot vegetarianism.

 

[Messy]

because it makes us look really quite simple-minded when we try to squeeze quart lions into pint-pot vegetarianism.

Lol so what? As if making a woman from a rib makes sense or walking on water or Nebukadnesar turning into an animal or a speaking donkey.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Evil has to exist in a universe of persons.

Evil is simply the result of competing priorities in a universe of finite beings who each by nature and defition have their own individual purposes.

Hence, to the grass the deer is evil, and to the the deer the lion is evil, and so on.

That each creature in a universe is finite is self-evident and could be no other way (as to be infinite a creature would have to be the infinite universe itself).

That each creatures interests thus conflict with others is thus unavoidable because they are always finite and thus with finite and personal interests at some level.

And thus that evil occurs is unavoidable; not because of a lack of goodness but because it is integral to the nature of personal finite beings to have conficting interests that cause suffering in each other.

Who designed it this way?