What type of design is this?

[OnceConvinced]

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, let by Satan himself. These fallen angels became so corrupt that they became completely evil, with no redeeming features at all.

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?

The thing is for them to become corrupt, they must have been designed in such a way that would allow them to become corrupt.

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

Malevolent?
Incompetent?
Intelligent?

Please justify your answer.

[OnceConvinced]

Satan is also very intelligent but he did evil and rebelled against God. Do you actually consider it an intelligent thing to rebel against God? Or a stupid/incompetent thing?

No intelligent person would rebel against a proven GOD. The fact Satan rebelled is all the proof we need of two things: 1. he had a free will 2. he did not know yet the proof of YHWH's deity but chose to rebel from an understanding of the gospel that YHWH was our GOD and our LORD, ie, HIS morals were the standard for all goodness etc.

He chose to believe without proof except HIS claims that YHWH was a false god who had made up a pretty good gig, ie, to convince all of creation that he was god and we should all worship him. So convinced was he that he was right in rejecting HIM that he did not even avail himself of the method the sinful elect choose, that is, to make themselves safe from hell by accepting HIM as their GOD and HIS Son as their saviour if ever they so needed, and then going their own way in rebellion to HIM! NO, that way was too wussy for him and beneath the strength of his commitment against the most evil person in all creation, YHWH. He convinced some few that this was the way to go...

No one had any definitive proof of HIS Divinity and power until HE created the physical universe right before our eyes and we all bent our knee and sang HIS promise, Job 38:7 and became without excuse, Rom 1:20, after we had all chosen our eternal relationship to YHWH as our GOD or as our eternal enemy.

So what does this make the god who created Satan. Malevolent, Foolish, Incompetent?

Remember this Satan is going around trying to ruin everything God created.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 91 by OnceConvinced]

Remember this Satan is going around trying to ruin everything God created.

Meanwhile God is just sitting on his hands waiting for that special moment when he finally gets the go ahead to do the right thing and blast Satan and his minions to smithereens. Great bronze age comic book stuff.

[OnceConvinced]

What would you call that if not incompetence on Gods part? If God had not been incompetent, then he would have known that at least there would be a strong likelihood his angels would rebel and mess things up completely. But what does that then make him for not adjusting his design to prevent that from happening? Wed call it evil, just as wed call a software developer who deliberately left fatal flaws in his software that he knew would be harmful to the user.

why do you think they have messed up things completely?.

Havent you read the book of Genesis?

Then you go against bible teachings which tell us that committing evil is foolishness.

Yeah, it is foolish. But Intelligent person can make foolish things even worse than extremely stupid person.

Yes, we can agree that even an intelligent being can do foolish things. So even though God may be considered intelligent we should be able to agree that yes, he too can do foolish things. Like creating beings that are set on destroying him and his creations.

Remember we are talking about one act of creation here. The creation of angels, who would later go on to attempt to destroy Gods creations. Do you really consider that an intelligent act of creation?

Please try to remain on topic. Were not talking about human beings here. Were talking about God's creations of angels who fell and became demons. How can a god who created angels that could become so corrupted and mess with his creation in such a huge way not be considered either malevolent or incompetent?

I think that is the problem here. Your question is based on strawman argument basically. You take from the Bible idea of corrupted angels, but nothing else, so that you can show you are correct with your claim. I think that is very dishonest. But I understand it works well for you. and with atheistic point of view and by ignoring most of the Bible, you are right.

There is no straw man here. I am simply asking a basic question. Was this act of creation malevolent, incompetent or intelligent? Or foolish?

I think its dishonest of people here trying to twist the opening post and trying to turn it into a strawman. I think people are doing this because they dont want to admit that God did the wrong thing by creating angels that would rebel and attempt to destroy his creation. They are doing their best to avoid having to admit their God did an unintelligent thing. The dont want to admit that their god is less than perfect.

Tell me, what part of the bible have I ignored? You seem to have ignored the book of Genesis.

In Biblical point of view, this is not the real life, but death and only a short lesson about good and evil. We are here to experience things, but we should not fear anything of this world, because:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

In this life many bad things are possible, so that we can learn. But still, God is in control of everything and nothing of this world can destroy our soul, which is the important matter. Body is only like a vessel for soul to experience things and it can be replaced.

So, why would God allow the angels to be corrupted? It seems to me that the reason is that they can show people what evil truly means, because after all, people wanted to know evil. Nice thing is that the lesson is only short and nothing of this can destroy soul. The corrupted ones cant really mess up anything meaningful.

And millions upon millions will burn in hell because of this. And you call that an intelligent way of going about things? An intelligent way to teach?

I think this lesson is good, all though it can be painful. And it is good also because it gives us freedom. And freedom is good, even if it means some will chose evil.

I would rather be Gods robot and puppet than burn in hell for all eternity.

Incompetent Design?
Malevolent Design?
Benevolent Design?

Benevolent, if you understand the world as explained in the Bible. Malevolent, if you cherry pick suitable parts from the Bible to atheistic world view, where this life is only thing.

The only way you can say Benevolent is by cherry picking.

[OnceConvinced]

The freewill defence is quite irrelevant in this scenario. If God created his angels with freewill, knowing full well they would go on and corrupt the entire world and try to destroy all human life, then that is a malevolent act. If he had no clue what would happen, then that is incompetence.

GOD can only know what GOD does know. How is it incompetence to be otherwise than what you are? Incompetence reflects an attitude ABOUT what HE knows, not what HE knows at all.

It sounds like the god you are talking about did not really put a lot of thought into what he was doing. It didn't occur to him that if he created the angels with freewill, that they might exercise that freewill, rebel and attempt to destroy all of his creation.

That shows either incompetence or foolishness.

When a developer creates a peice of software they look at every thing they can think of that can possibly go wrong and attempt to put something in place to prevent it from going wrong. Yet, they are still trying to create a piece of software that serves an intended purpose.

I would sooner trust Microsoft to design and build a system rather than the god of the bible.

Pagan Greek wisdom literature claims GOD knows as all that can be known from eternity past to eternity future. The Church Fathers bought this drivel hook, line and sinker because of their idolatry of all things Greek. They totally refused to resolve the blasphemy this definition caused by the implication that HE therefore knew, before their creation, who would end in hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY, causing all the suffering and evil in the universe. This definition about HIS omniscience is so very wrong...

Great, so he's not malevolent, just inept at creating. Doesn't put a lot of thought in before creating. Too bad about the consequences. That sounds like another type of design I should have added to the poll: Apathetic Design or Uncaring Design.

He wouldn't be employed as a developer for the company I work for.

[1213]

What would you call that if not incompetence on Gods part? If God had not been incompetent, then he would have known that at least there would be a strong likelihood his angels would rebel and mess things up completely. But what does that then make him for not adjusting his design to prevent that from happening? Wed call it evil, just as wed call a software developer who deliberately left fatal flaws in his software that he knew would be harmful to the user.

why do you think they have messed up things completely?.

Havent you read the book of Genesis?

Yes, I have and there is nothing that tells all is messed up.

Yes, we can agree that even an intelligent being can do foolish things. So even though God may be considered intelligent we should be able to agree that yes, he too can do foolish things. Like creating beings that are set on destroying him and his creations.
Remember we are talking about one act of creation here. The creation of angels, who would later go on to attempt to destroy Gods creations. Do you really consider that an intelligent act of creation?

I think no one is set to do bad things. Some choose to do bad things and because they have freedom, they can do some bad things.

I think you should remember, those who rebelled against God, were expelled from heaven. Heaven has nothing evil in it. And by what I see, those who were expelled, exists because they are part of the lesson that we are taking on this first death. I believe it all was allowed so that we could really experience what evil truly means so that perhaps we would freely choose good.

And millions upon millions will burn in hell because of this. And you call that an intelligent way of going about things? An intelligent way to teach?

According to the Bible, people are destroyed in hell. If something that is destroyed, burns eternally in hell, I dont see anything bad in that. I dont see any reason to believe that one that is destroyed feels anything.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

Sad thing is, if millions of people are not righteous and has to settle to only this short experience. However, is life really worthless, if it doesnt last forever? I dont think so. That is why I dont see any problem if God choses to give eternal life only for righteous. I think it is good. If God would give eternal life also for unrighteous, they would turn it to eternal suffering for all.

I would rather be Gods robot and puppet than burn in hell for all eternity.

Even if you would not feel anything and hell means that you dont live anymore?

[bluethread]

Again, from the perspective of those angels (and people). So, one must ask, for what purpose was it designed?

That would be another topic for another thread.

No, it is integral to this thread. If one is questioning the design of something, one must know for what purpose was it designed. Guns are not poorly designed, because they kill people. They are designed to kill things, including people and they do so quite well by design.

Ok, lets use the robot analogy. A creator creates a robot that has a freewill. He includes in it features to kill and destroy. The robot chooses to take advantage of those features and goes out and runs amok, attempting to destroy anything the creator created.

What type of design is that?

A design that includes both creation a destruction. Age of Empires is just such a games and I find it quite enjoyable.

The user did not come along. The user is an avatar in the program. The avatar changed the program

An avatar cannot change a program unless the system is designed in such a way that the avatar can change the program. That ability is either deliberately put there by the software developer or unwittingly put there. If deliberately put there, that would be an act of sabotage by the designer. Malevolence. Like putting in a self-destruct button.

No, that would be a program that can undergo change. Change is not necessarily sabotage. If one creates a program in which the avatar can not "die" unless the avatar engages in a particular activity and then the nature of the games changes to accommodate that "dying", that is not poor design. Whether it is malevolent or not depends on one's perspective. I often think that Age of Empires is malevolent, especially when my three trebuchet get taken out by one cannoneer. It's just not fair. However, it is not poor design.

Since when are demons infiltrating the system and destroying it ever benevolent for anyone?

Ah, now we have a truly insightful question. Malevolent avatars can be benevolent in that they provide challenge to the game. This dilemma was explained by Mr. Smith in The Matrix. Humans are "programmed" to overcome adversity and creat order out of chaos. If there is no adversity of chaos, that would run counter to our "programming". Therefore, a certain amount of malevolence is indeed beneficial.

Negatively effected in relation to what? Negative is a comparative. If not in relation to humans, how are we to judge what is positive or negative?

I think youre dodging now.

When can any of Satan's (or demons) acts be considered positive to anyone?

No, I am facing the issues head on. You just do not seem to appreciate how profound the nature of our existance is. In addition to providing adversity for aspirational life forms, a negative influence can also serve as an illumiating contrast to the positive nature of that aspiration. How often to we here of people overcoming great adversity to obtain success and how many times do we here of those who are just handed success without adversity. The former is generally considered to be more valuable than the latter. Such is the brillience of the design of the human experience.

[ttruscott]

It didn't occur to him that if he created the angels with freewill, that they might exercise that freewill, rebel and attempt to destroy all of his creation.

That shows either incompetence or foolishness.

What is your proof that it [the fall] never occurred to HIM? As I said, HE knew all the possibilities of HIS actions and our actions...

MY PROOF that HE prepared for the FAll MIGHT happen (your words) is that HE set up HIS Christ to be the saviour of the sinful elect by HIS death BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, that is, before the fall - not incompetent or foolish at all when all HE wanted was for people to choose HIM as their GOD OR to not to.

Everything HE wanted done got perfectly done:
- Everyone created in HIS image chose by their free will to accept HIM as their GOD OR to reject HIM as their GOD.
- Those who accepted HIM were elected, chosen, to enter the heavenly marriage with HIM by means of HIS promise to save them from the natural and legal effects of sin if they should ever choose to be sinful.
- Those who rejected HIS deity HE condemned on the spot to be banished to the outer darkness.

- And when some elect sinned by rejecting the judgement against the eternally evil ones, HE first postponed the judgement day so these sinful elect would not be damned also and then HE created this earth as a place to sequester all evil from the holy ones and to help in the redemption and the sanctification of the sinul elect which is what we perceive as on-going life.

Your badly told story of the creation misses the mark for being anything other than a strawdog, all bark, no bite.

[ttruscott]

Yeah, it is foolish. But Intelligent person can make foolish things even worse than extremely stupid person.

Yes, we can agree that even an intelligent being can do foolish things. So even though God may be considered intelligent we should be able to agree that yes, he too can do foolish things. Like creating beings that are set on destroying him and his creations.

Remember we are talking about one act of creation here. The creation of angels, who would later go on to attempt to destroy Gods creations. Do you really consider that an intelligent act of creation?

Of course it was.
HE wanted marriage partners so the Trinity could share the love they have with others. No forced love is true love and no forced marriage is a true marriage. Therefore to be able to enjoy a real marriage based upon a loving relationship, HE had to create everyone with a free will and the ability and opportunity to choose to accept HIS offer or to reject it.

You find this plan to be lacking in intelligence? Part of the plan even dealt with the contingency that everyone might not choose to accept HIS offer, the plan including election, salvation and damnation.

Thinking about this plan and not the made up plans of failure and incompetence HE is often painted with, the end is much different.

So, why would God allow the angels to be corrupted? It seems to me that the reason is that they can show people what evil truly means, because after all, people wanted to know evil. Nice thing is that the lesson is only short and nothing of this can destroy soul. The corrupted ones cant really mess up anything meaningful.

And millions upon millions will burn in hell because of this. And you call that an intelligent way of going about things? An intelligent way to teach?

Well, OnceConvinced, I must agree with you there. Really, if proving the nature of evil was the only reason for allowing the fall, then one person becoming Satanic and demonic and going to hell would teach the same lesson.

Therefore I believe that letting people choose what kind of reality they wanted, ie hoped to live in, what they hoped to be really true: a reality under an Almighty GOD or one in which we ourselves are the epitome of existence, beneath no God, is a better separator between HIS elect who are not condemned and the non-elect who are condemned already.

[OnceConvinced]

Yes, we can agree that even an intelligent being can do foolish things. So even though God may be considered intelligent we should be able to agree that yes, he too can do foolish things. Like creating beings that are set on destroying him and his creations.
Remember we are talking about one act of creation here. The creation of angels, who would later go on to attempt to destroy Gods creations. Do you really consider that an intelligent act of creation?

I think no one is set to do bad things. Some choose to do bad things and because they have freedom, they can do some bad things.

Thats all very well, but God created them that way. They then went on to attempt to destroy everything he created. God has to take some responsibility for that, dont you think? After all he created them in a way that allowed them to go out and do the things they did.

Imagine if you created a robot and gave it a free will. It went out and attempted to destroy everything else you created. Do you think thats wise to create something that would do that?

Now we get into the whole idea of foolish design there I think, which would be better discussed on thread 2.

[OnceConvinced]

Again, from the perspective of those angels (and people). So, one must ask, for what purpose was it designed?

That would be another topic for another thread.

No, it is integral to this thread. If one is questioning the design of something, one must know for what purpose was it designed. Guns are not poorly designed, because they kill people. They are designed to kill things, including people and they do so quite well by design.

Wed have to get into a big debate on this one. How about we just skip that and go with what you think their purpose is?

Ok, lets use the robot analogy. A creator creates a robot that has a freewill. He includes in it features to kill and destroy. The robot chooses to take advantage of those features and goes out and runs amok, attempting to destroy anything the creator created.

What type of design is that?

A design that includes both creation a destruction. Age of Empires is just such a games and I find it quite enjoyable.

Oh so, you would find it enjoyable if your robot went out on a rampage trying to destroy everything? All the people it kills in the process. That would be enjoyable to you?

What you seem to be suggesting is that this is all a game to God. We're all expendable. We are all there for him to order about, to send off into battles that can't possibly be won. We're here to be tortured all for God's entertainment.

That sounds like malevolent design to me.

The user did not come along. The user is an avatar in the program. The avatar changed the program

An avatar cannot change a program unless the system is designed in such a way that the avatar can change the program. That ability is either deliberately put there by the software developer or unwittingly put there. If deliberately put there, that would be an act of sabotage by the designer. Malevolence. Like putting in a self-destruct button.

No, that would be a program that can undergo change. Change is not necessarily sabotage.

Are you suggesting that God designed the system so that the angels could made changes to it?

If one creates a program in which the avatar can not "die" unless the avatar engages in a particular activity and then the nature of the games changes to accommodate that "dying", that is not poor design. Whether it is malevolent or not depends on one's perspective. I often think that Age of Empires is malevolent, especially when my three trebuchet get taken out by one cannoneer. It's just not fair. However, it is not poor design.

If this world is just a big game to God, then that sounds very malevolent to me. Putting in it creatures that can suffer as a result is malevolent. At least nobody gets hurt when playing Age of Empires, because those pixels running around on the screen dont suffer.

Since when are demons infiltrating the system and destroying it ever benevolent for anyone?

Ah, now we have a truly insightful question. Malevolent avatars can be benevolent in that they provide challenge to the game. This dilemma was explained by Mr. Smith in The Matrix. Humans are "programmed" to overcome adversity and creat order out of chaos. If there is no adversity of chaos, that would run counter to our "programming". Therefore, a certain amount of malevolence is indeed beneficial.

Im thinking more along the lines of creating a game with real humans and then putting in real villains that can make them suffer. Lets take the movie Saw for instance. Now Im sure you will agree that Jigsaw is a way less evil enemy than Satan, but yet look at the horrors he is able to unleash on people in those movies. Imagine youre a god who sets up a system like that?

Malevolence?

Of course yes. Putting REAL people into a REAL game where suffering takes place.

Thats what were talking about with Gods creations. Something way way worse than the Saw movies.

No, I am facing the issues head on. You just do not seem to appreciate how profound the nature of our existance is. In addition to providing adversity for aspirational life forms, a negative influence can also serve as an illumiating contrast to the positive nature of that aspiration. How often to we here of people overcoming great adversity to obtain success and how many times do we here of those who are just handed success without adversity. The former is generally considered to be more valuable than the latter. Such is the brillience of the design of the human experience.

And how about all those that suffer and nothing good ever comes of it?

But ok, this is all a game for God. That's what you're saying here. He's having fun watching all this suffering. He's being entertained. Got it. You can call it teaching lessons. I call it cruelty.