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.

[JehovahsWitness]

You are effectively saying if good was good enough there would be no bad...

That is exactly what I am saying.

Then you do well to contemplate the teachings of Jesus who pointed out a universal truth which is that all actions, good or bad begin with the heart. You are under the illusion (and it is an illusion my friend) that evil acts exist because good acts are not attractive enough, but what one finds attractive essentially depends on what one values, and that is an internal barometer not an external one.

In other words a good man finds good attractive a evil man finds it repulsive; and that repulsion will not diminish by making the good better, on the contrary it will make it more repulsive to the pervert. The only way to make good appealing to an evil heart is to turn the good thing bad. Which rather defeats the purpose of having good wouldn't you say?

It is a very simplistic (and skewed) worldview to believe that evil is not a matter of the heart (meaning the inner person made up of motives and values) but rather a matter of "good" not being shiny enough.



JW

[1213]

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

Malevolent?
Incompetent?
Foolish?
Apathetic?
Benevolent?

I say benevolent, because:
1. God has given freedom and I think freedom is good.
2. God has given this opportunity also for those who hate Him, which I think is sign of greatness.
3. Even if some turn against God, they cant destroy soul, which is the meaningful thing in Biblical point of view.

[Bust Nak]

In other words a good man finds good attractive a evil man finds it repulsive;

There are no such thing as an evil man until after the fall of mankind, where sociopathic tendencies first appared. Without such tendecies, no one would find goodness repulsive. Nothing you said addresses this point, you cannot appeal to things that happens at/after the fall to explain the fall.

It is a very simplistic (and skewed) worldview to believe that evil is not a matter of the heart (meaning the inner person made up of motives and values) but rather a matter of "good" not being shiny enough.

No sane person is evil for the sake of evil, the sociopath angle has been addressed above. So we are left with those who are not evil at heart, but does evil because they think it benefits them, for these cases we can make good shiny enough to they pick good over evil.

[bluethread]

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?

This is one approach, that deities are just psychological and literary mechanisms that permit us to envision human characteristics in a more memorable fashion. If that is the direction that he OP wishes to take this discussion, that is fine. I just would like to know whether that is the case, so we can limit our discussion to that premse. If that is not the case, I would like to know that also, for similar reasons.

[William]

[Replying to post 30 by Bust Nak]

Grant everyone the knowledge and wisdom to figure out that evil is self-destructive, for example.

What if this particular environment was designed specifically for that purpose, the results of which are reviewed in another environment?
After all it does appear that humans in general are confused about the issue, and perhaps it was an issue which required addressing before this universe was created. Created perhaps, as a means of at least partially addressing the problem of evil?

Or do humans have the means to figure it out, and something else is going on which ... distracts them from fully doing so?

With or without a God, human beings have to figure out 'what is evil' by observing 'what is self destructive'. Or fail as a species. Take your pick.

But maybe the survival of the species is neither here nor there as the forms are the props being used to gather the information, and biological form is not the best medium in which to determine how the spirit should act within it. Perhaps it's imperfections are what is perfect about it? For it makes things very difficult for the spirit to understand itself through, coming as it does, from a state of pure ignorance...

Is there something good to be said about the road to recovery? Some say it is not the destination but the journey that matters..perhaps the more truthful thing is that it is both, or that one is not distinguishable from the other...the journey is the destination.

Perhaps once upon a time, death was unknown to us, and we thought we might investigate the idea by setting up the parameters in which to then explore that...

Happy Journeys.

[ttruscott]

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?

I don't think so. Engineered is the opposite of free in this syllogism.

Grant everyone the knowledge and wisdom to figure out that evil is self-destructive, for example.

Well, once you have proof of something being bad, how then are you not constrained against choosing it? All choices about the kind of life and reality and relationship with GOD we wanted had to be made by faith, that is, an unproven hope, because proof forces us to follow it if it is good or to not follow it if it is bad. The faith we had then and now in GOD is that HE is real and that HE is telling us the truth. WE want what we hear about and from HIM to be true. It is how we hope we will get the most happiness in life.

Others cannot see the value of our faith in YHWH because they see no value in such a life.

...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.

As I have said, even if it was possible all of creation turned HIM down, HE must have thought the probability of success made it worth it. Do people only have children because they know in advance they will be doctors and lawyers? Not at all, taking the chance on creation without foreknowledge is a laudable effort. AndI think it has worked out on the whole.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by ttruscott]

Well, once you have proof of something being bad, how then are you not constrained against choosing it?

Smokers around the world have proof, hard proof, that cigarettes cause lung cancer..and yet they still choose to smoke.
I have lactose intolerance, and yet sometimes I still choose to eat normal ice cream, knowing I'm going to have a happy fun time on the toilet later.

The faith we had then and now in GOD is that HE is real and that HE is telling us the truth. WE want what we hear about and from HIM to be true. It is how we hope we will get the most happiness in life.

This means that in your theology, this pre-conception choice we all supposedly made is essentially a gamble. A flip of a coin.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 36 by ttruscott]

Well, once you have proof of something being bad, how then are you not constrained against choosing it? All choices about the kind of life and reality and relationship with GOD we wanted had to be made by faith, that is, an unproven hope, because proof forces us to follow it if it is good or to not follow it if it is bad.

That is most decidedly false. Faith is necessary because there is no evidence for God and those indoctrinated into belief need something to shore it up.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 30 by Bust Nak]
What if this particular environment was designed specifically for that purpose [granting knowledge and wisdom], the results of which are reviewed in another environment?

Same problem as before - it involve a non-zero amount of acturalised evil.

But maybe the survival of the species is neither here nor there as the forms are the props being used to gather the information, and biological form is not the best medium in which to determine how the spirit should act within it. Perhaps it's imperfections are what is perfect about it?

Perfect by what criteria?

Is there something good to be said about the road to recovery? Some say it is not the destination but the journey that matters..perhaps the more truthful thing is that it is both, or that one is not distinguishable from the other...the journey is the destination.

Whatever good that can be gained by the journey can be gained in a different way without suffering.

[Bust Nak]

I don't think so. Engineered is the opposite of free in this syllogism.

Why? Someone can put a stop sign in the road, I am still the one deciding to stop or not. Someone can build a wall blocking the road, I am still the one deciding to stop or not. Perhaps more importantly, on multiple occasions you said God did in fact engineered "non-random circumstances that were carefully chosen to stimulate our self awareness about how we felt about the others." Why is that engineering okay?

Well, once you have proof of something being bad, how then are you not constrained against choosing it?

No, I am still choosing against it by my own will.

All choices about the kind of life and reality and relationship with GOD we wanted had to be made by faith, that is, an unproven hope, because proof forces us to follow it if it is good or to not follow it if it is bad.

You say that but it's unclear what the distinction is between an informed decision and a decision forced upon us by proof. You are speaking of a god that delibrately held back important information, limited our intelligence so we can't analysing things with 100% accuracy - you are talking about a god that sabotaged our chances of getting to/staying in heaven.

WE want what we hear about and from HIM to be true.

And it's not clear why gullibility is protraited as a positive character trait.

As I have said, even if it was possible all of creation turned HIM down, HE must have thought the probability of success made it worth it.

Right, and I asked you if you think it's worth it.

Do people only have children because they know in advance they will be doctors and lawyers? Not at all, taking the chance on creation without foreknowledge is a laudable effort.

No, it really isn't. We do it because that's the best we can do, being of limited power and knowledge.