What type of design is this? - 2nd atttempt

[OnceConvinced]

Ok, my first thread on this topic went a little off topic. So I'm going to try again, this time with different poll options. I wish I could allow multiple boxes to be checked for this poll, but unfortunately I can't.

Hopefully though I will have the right options this time:

Note: This poll is not talking about any other act of creation except for the creation of angels who fell from grace.

So:

Presuming God is real and presuming demons and Satan is real...

Presuming God created them as angels and then the ones that rebelled became the demons, led by Satan himself. These fallen angels became so corrupt that they became completely evil, with no redeeming features at all. They are only set on doing evil and are not interested in doing anything good.

So God created these beings and for whatever reason they became pure evil. Yet God, even if he didn't know for sure, had a good idea they would become that way. Yet he created them anyway, knowing they would be come corrupted and turn against him.

Or maybe he had no idea at all? Maybe their corruption was a complete surprise to him?

Or perhaps he just didn't care about how he had created them? Perhaps he really did consider the consequences of what he was doing but then thought "It's good enough"?

So....
What sort of design would this be?

Malevolent?
Incompetent?
Foolish?
Apathetic?
Benevolent?

Please justify your answer.

[Bust Nak]

So, getting back to the central question, was God foolhardly to accord other spirit beings the same choice he and his son have? No because he knew many would always make the right choice and that he will always have the power to minimalize and eventually eradicate the effects of any that chose otherwise.

If "could but never would" count as possible then it is within God's power to ensure it happens. God need not have made it impossible for free moral agents to do bad and still ensure none of those agents do bad. As such an omnipotent God would not need to "eventually eradicate" the effects of any that chose otherwise, because he can give us the same choice he and his son have without risking any one picking otherwise. Yet some did pick otherwise, hence the contradiction known as the problem of evil.

[JehovahsWitness]

God would not need to "eventually eradicate" the effects of any that chose otherwise, because he can give us the same choice he and his son have

He has given the same choice as He has. The Choice is the same no matter who has it. God doesn't have a green choice and the angels have a orange choice, choice is choice. A free moral agent has the intelligence to conceive of what would be a wrong action and choose to refrain from doing it. That is essentially what free will is. All moral agents including God have the same model.

...without risking any one picking otherwise.

No. The only way to have zero risk is for there to be zero possibility. If I put an apple and an orange in front of you and tell you to pick up the apple or the orange but I make your arms only work if they move to the orange, you do not in reality have a choice. You are not free, I am controlling you. I may be controlling you because I do not want you to hurt yourself or others but you are still under my control: You. Are. Not. Free.

Returning to the OP, evidently God chose to create free moral agents, he chose to give them the same choice he has, to do good or evil. Nobody controls God's "arms" but himself, he chooses to always pick the "orange" fair enough, but it's still a choice. He created beings and chose to dignify them with real not cosmetic choice. There would be consequences (he isnt crazy or reckless) but he left them the freedom to choose and in doing so created beings like himself. He did the same with the first man Adam, hence the words "Let us make man in our image". Same choice "apple or orange" ? You decide!

It's no good arguing maybe he should have made us a little less morally free. That is like arguing for being "a little" pregnant, or "slightly" dead; you are free or you are not free. You decide for yourself or you do not. If God had created self aware moral beings and restricted their ability to make moral choices, he would not have created free moral beings, he would have simply created sophisticated automats. Moreover they would have eventually realized they are not masters of their own thoughts which is the worst kind of violation for an intelligent being. And even if, like some MK Ultra victims, they never knew they were under mind control, God would know and he would know he had just created clever puppets.

Why would he do that? Would that not be a testimony that he could do no better for fear that any damage would be beyond his ability to repair? Or that nobody would side with him in favour of what is right and good? The very suggestion is an insult and a degradation of His sovereignty. As a benovalent souvereign he has no need to rule by covert mind manipulation. He has no need to make beings who cannot choose the apple. When one has infinite goodness, infinite power and infinite wisdom one has the freedom to share the highest form of existence without resorting to half measures.


JW

[Bust Nak]

He has given the same choice as He has. The Choice is the same no matter who has it...

Sure, but the problem is God didn't do the other bit where he ensures none of those agents do bad.

No. The only way to have zero risk is for there to be zero possibility.

That does not gel with what you said before hand, you said the "I could" part in "I could but never would" counts as non-zero possibility, yet there never would be any evil - i.e. there is no risk. Or perhaps you are suggesting that while there would never be any evil, it still counts as a risk?

If I put an apple and an orange in front of you and tell you to pick up the apple or the orange but I make your arms only work if they move to the orange, you do not in reality have a choice.

So don't make my arms only work if they move to the orange, instead make the orange so obvious the correct choice that I could pick the apple but would never pick the apple. Here I am free yet the orange is choosen every time, risk free.

Returning to the OP, evidently God chose to create free moral agents, he chose to give them the same choice he has, to do good or evil. Nobody controls God's "arms" but himself, he chooses to always pick the "orange" fair enough, but it's still a choice. He created beings and chose to put zero constraints on their choices...

Right, that's exactly what I was talking about. Us free moral agents are still fully controlling our arms, we always freely chooses to pick orange, eliminating all risk of apples being selected, while having zero constrants on our choices, i.e without constrants such as stopping our arms from working as we think about reaching for the apple, no body controlling our arms but ourselves.

It's no good arguing maybe he should have made us a little less morally free...

Well, that's moot since I am not suggesting to make us any less morally free. I am arguing there are ways to ensure the orange is always choosen, and choosen freely, without having to put any constraints on our choices. It's a win-win.

[JehovahsWitness]

If I put an apple and an orange in front of you and tell you to pick up the apple or the orange but I make your arms only work if they move to the orange, you do not in reality have a choice.

So don't make my arms only work if they move to the orange, instead make the orange so obvious the correct choice that I could pick the apple but would never pick the apple. Here I am free yet the orange is choosen every time, risk free.

That is not how evil works. Do you think the Nazi didn't know it wasn't nice to cook up Mrs Greenbaum?

Evil isn't not knowing what the "correct" (ie morally right) thing to do is, its not failing to see clearly what the right choice would be, its not failing to understand the horrific conseqences for yourself and others of a given choice, evil is knowing and understanding what is correct and deliberately choosing the alternative. It is the deliberate and informed choice to do the morally wrong thing, fully understanding the price you and others will pay for your actions.

If you look back at my first post you will see that biblically God made the orange as appealing as possible, he tipped the tables in favour of doing right by creating his children in his own image with a natural aversion to evil, and an innate attraction to goodness and beauty and kindness.... in short the orange was spinning, covered in glitter with glaring big sign above that said "This one! This one! This one!!!" But he tied nobody's arms.

No matter how you look at it, in order to be truly free one must have free will, in order to exercise ones free will one must have a real choice and in order to live at the highest level of existence, an existence that permits us to love and be loved one must exercise sovereignty over our own thoughts and feelings. And as long as one has such sovereignty there is the possibility of evil.


JW

[Bust Nak]

You appear to not have a strong grasp on how evil works. Do you think the Nazi didn't know it wasn't nice to cook up Mrs Greenbaum?

Some might not, but the vast majority do know it's not nice. Most of them did such things because they felt they had no choice, or thought the good outwieghted the bad.

Evil isn't not knowing what the "correct" (ie morally right) thing to do is, its not failing to see clearly what the right choice would be, its not failing to understand the horrific conseqences for yourself and others of a given choice, evil is knowing and understanding what is correct and deliberately choosing the alternative. It is the deliberate and informed choice to do the morally wrong thing, fully understanding the price you and others will pay for your actions.

No sane person would do that though, even Hitler believe he was doing the morally right thing. Those who knowing do evil for the sake of evil are sociopaths. Presumably you don't believe God created Adam and Eve as sociopaths, presumably you believe sociopaths are the result of sin and the fall of mankind? If God did actively make socipaths then that's another thing that contradicts God's supposed goodness.

If you look back at my first post you will see that biblically God made the orange as appealing as possible...

Clearly that is not true, if it was indeed the case that the orange is as appealing as possible, then no one, not a single one would pick anything other than the orange.

[JehovahsWitness]

Evil isn't not knowing what the "correct" (ie morally right) thing to do is, its not failing to see clearly what the right choice would be, its not failing to understand the horrific conseqences for yourself and others of a given choice, evil is knowing and understanding what is correct and deliberately choosing the alternative. It is the deliberate and informed choice to do the morally wrong thing, fully understanding the price you and others will pay for your actions.

Those who knowing do evil for the sake of evil are sociopaths.

Yes pure evil can be described as a type of mental illness, it is certainly a perversion. Satan is clearly brilliant but delusional. In any case the point is that by creating free moral agents they by definition have a real choice which in order to be such they must understand.



You accuse God of not making the right choice appealing enough. You are effectively saying if good was good enough there would be no bad, which is utter rubbish. It flys in the face of all logic. For evil to exist all there has to be is self interest (or the delusion of self interest) and self gratification, even if that gratification is harmful in the long term. Suggesting that we should blame the good for not being more appealing is like blaming the wife of a man that rapes their child for not being pretty enough. Nobody can make someone good if they have fallen in love with bad. And that is a possibility no matter how good the good is.


JW



RELATED POSTS


Why would someone rebel against the Almighty?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 45#p338945

[Bust Nak]

Yes pure evil can be described as a type of mental illness, it is certainly a perversion...

Right, and mental illness and perversion happened after the fall of mankind, you cannot appeal to mental illness and perversion as the cause of the fall.

You accuse God of not making the right choice appealing enough. You are effectively saying if good was good enough there would be no bad...

That is exactly what I am saying. If something is appealing enough, then it will be selected without fail.

For evil to exist all there has to be is self interest (or the delusion of self interest) and self gratification, even if that gratification is harmful in the long term.

First of all these are character flaws, are you suggesting that God build character flaws into creation, as opposed to them being the result of the fall? If so then that's another thing that contradicts with the supposed goodness of God. If not then what you said is moot since these flaws would not have enter the picture without the fall, along the same line of reasoning above re: mental illness.

Secondly, all that's require to side step these is to make the orange more appealing than whatever gratification that the subject have in mind. Again, God simply had to turn the appeal dial up to eleven.

Suggesting that we should blame the good for not being more appealing is like blaming the wife of a man that rapes their child for not being pretty enough.

If you can grant me that a) the wife can simply dial up her appeal to completely fixate the attention of the husband at will, and b) the options was binary: either focus on the wife or rape the child, then sure, we should indeed blame the wife given these two caveat. Perhaps more to the point pedophilia is a flaw, and wouldn't have enter the picture until after the fall, so it fails as an analogy for the problem of evil by the same reasoning as above.

Nobody can make someone good if they have fallen in love with bad. And that is a possibility no matter how good the good is.

Is it? The only reason someone would fall in love with something, is because that something is more attractive than the alternatives - you say it's a possibility no matter how good good is, when all that is required is to make good just that little bit more attractive than bad, then one would not fall in love with bad. What that in mind, what you speak of is an impossiblity, you are suggesting that someone would perfer the less perferable option.

[William]

[Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

Now, I am not arguing here. I am just trying to establish the field of play so I don't go out of bounds or fail to recognize a possible end run along the sidelines. So, if you could clarify whether these are indeed the issues under consideration, or we are limiting the scope to avoid discussing some of these factors, that would be helpful.

The thread appears to be specific to the focus of certain types of popular beliefs people preach about GOD, Jesus, hell, demons, Satan etc.

This is why the field is narrow. It is specific to a certain type of creation which is not really all that relevant to the one we are actually experiencing. I suppose in that, it is a misdirection of sorts - possibly sourced in misdirection for that - but serves well enough to show me at least, that the subject matter is the thing at fault, and this because;

The existence of this universe, and our collective experience within it cannot be shown in any conclusive manner to be created by a malevolent or incompetent or foolish or apathetic or benevolent creator GOD.

Focusing on any specific aspect of said creation might give observer a strong impression of any of the above, but taken overall one is left with an image beyond the scope of description of human expression through language. Struck dumb through lack of words, as it were.

Perhaps the way we see our world is the way we see our self is the way we see any GOD we might be attracted to or repelled by?

Perhaps how one sees things, is akin to dealing with demons, even as they appear to be gods?

*shrugs*

All I know for certain is that I have unconditional love for any creator GOD whom created this masterpiece of a world, and if that is me embracing my 'demons' then so be it.

[ttruscott]

If these freewill beings which would not choose evil is a logical possibility then God can create said beings given God is omnipotent and can do all things possible.

GOD cannot create logical impossibilities.
HE cannot create 2+2=9.
HE cannot create dry wetness, or married bachelors.
GOD cannot create those constrained to not choose evil with a free will.


...and as for ONLY creating those who will not choose evil, that is the greatest proof I have that HE doesn't know what the free will decisions of HIS creation will be because If HE knew who would choose eternal evil and end in HELL before HE created them, HE would not create them!!! The 'accepted fact' of Satan proves HE didn't know what Satan would choose before HE created HIM...so that just might be a characteristic of our free will.

[Bust Nak]

GOD cannot create logical impossibilities...
GOD cannot create those constrained to not choose evil with a free will.

Granted. What about engineering the circumstances in such a way for literally everyone to freely choose God through their own will? Is that a possibility? Grant everyone the knowledge and wisdom to figure out that evil is self-destructive, for example.

...and as for ONLY creating those who will not choose evil, that is the greatest proof I have that HE doesn't know what the free will decisions of HIS creation will be...

If he doesn't know at all, or knows enough to conclude that there is a risk of evil and went ahead and create anyway, then he is reckless.