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.

[OnceConvinced]

I don't believe for one moment that any god would be evil with evil intentions. And to say he was incompetent would suggest he had no clue what he was doing, but I wonder if any god is that clueless.

I'm presuming God didn't know everything that could possibly happen and that he was simply doing his best he could. He had good intentions and created to the best of his ability.

HOWEVER, it seems to me, he did not give serious enough consideration to the consequences. He didn't really think things through. He didn't quite realise just how evil Lucifer and his minions would become. If he did, then he would have changed his design and done things differently. Especially if he was a caring god as the bible seems to say he is.

However did he just say "To hell with it, this is how it's going to be?" Well gods are like that, but I don't think that would be the case either. If he'd seen the mess he was unwittingly going to unleash on his own creation, I'm sure he would have adjusted his design and done it differently.

That can only lead me to believe that he just didn't really think it though properly and did not consider all possible scenarios. He didn't consider the true consequences of his actions.

For me, I'm going to go with Foolish Design this time around.

[ttruscott]

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.

PCE theology contends HE did not know the free will decision of any of HIS creation, Acts 15:18, because HE did not create them, they are not HIS works. HE knew the possibilities of what might happen but even if everyone in creation turned against HIM by their free will except one, then it would have been worth it for the sake of that one.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

I'm going apathetic this time 'round. Given that we're presumably talking about Bible God, then he has the knowledge to create creatures, knows what's going to happen to them (even if in some parts of the Bible he's surprised and feels regret) and has a plan, and is going to stick to this plan, no matter how much pain, harm and destruction happen.
A very loose analogy would be someone building a large car and having a plan to drive it on the road, intending to go through with it, no matter how many other cars he might plow into, how many traffic accidents might be had.
Bible God has plans with these demons, he's going to do something bad to them later on down the line, but until then...they're presumably free to run around and do whatever it is they want to do.

If I had a child who was very destructive, I wouldn't be a good parent if I said that in ten years time, I'm going to ship him off to military school, but until then, he can just run around lighting fires for all I care.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

So you are telling me by God's criteria, one success is worth it even though the amount of harm and suffering caused by his plan far outweights the amount of joy created. I have hope that you voted "Malevolent Design," but alast, as of this post there are zero vote for malvolent.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 2 by OnceConvinced]


Benevolent


Because there can be no ability to give or receive love without free will. Only in creating free moral agents* like himself, could God endow intelligent beings with the ability to feel and be loved. Life is a great gift, life with love is the greatest gift, therefore God's act of giving both was benevolent.

[*] A computer programmed to say "I love you" once a day cannot feel or appreciate love, it is a machine. By creating beings who were more than machines or even animals (that operate purely on instinct) he was creating beings with the ability to CHOOSE to give or withhold love. Such an existence is highest level of being and it was very generous of God to share such a thing.

WAS THERE A RISK INVOLVED?

Of course, once you create a free moral agent you simultaneously create the potential for that individual to choose to do bad; that is a logical inevitability. If one can make a choice then one can chose to do good or choose to do bad, you can choose to love or you can choose to hate. In that sense, God ran a risk in creating beings and giving them a choice as to what they would do with their freedom. Was it an "unreasonable" "foolhardy" "reckless" risk? Absolutely not!

• Firstly it was not foolhardy or reckless to create other free moral agents because everything God creates is perfect (see Deut 3w:4). They would have not leaning or inclination to do bad, they would have no taste for evil. The children would resemble the Father and they would have a natural innate love of what is good. In short, just as kicking a puppy or worse, killing a baby or doesn't come naturally to a human, they would have to fight their very nature to do bad. We call this in humans a conscience, a natural revulsion for evil. All God's creatures would have this "safety valve"; they would still have a choice, they could still pervert their consciences but it would not be easy for them.
  
  Secondly, life was given on condition and (contrary to what many religions teach,) no one (no human and certainly no angel) was created immortal. Free will does not mean freedom from consequence, so anyone (human or angelic) that makes bad choices, notably choices that infinge on others right to live happy lives free from the threat of evil, forfeits their right to life. This is the ultimate safety net, when it comes to life "You misuse it, you lose it!"
  
  Finally, there would be no harm that could not be repaired. God would never renounce his position as supreme ruler of the universe, thus any harm caused by individuals that made bad choices would eventually be repaired. There is no action that is beyond God’s power to repair, intimately then, what risk is there when God can repair everything?

Conclusion, there is no greater or more beautiful gift than a life with the freedom to love and be loved. God chose to give such a life first to intelligent spirit beings that he created like himself then to his human creation on earth. It was more than benevolent and generous, it was loving. No surprise there, because "God is love"




JW





The above reflects my bible based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.



RELATED POSTS


Why didn't God destroy Satan immediately?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 975#845975

Does God know all our choices before we make them?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 314#848314

Is God ultimately responsible for the bad choices his creatures make?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 431#381431

Was God "defeated" in Eden?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 395#853395

[Bust Nak]

Because there can be no ability to give or receive love without free will. Only in creating free moral agents* like himself, could God endow intelligent beings with the ability to feel and be loved. Life is a great gift, life with love is the greatest gift, therefore God's act of giving both was benevolent.

Granted.

Of course, once you create a free moral agent you simultaneously create the potential for that individual to choose to do bad; that is a logical inevitability.

What isn't a logical inevitability, is that free moral agent chooses to actualise that potential to do bad. Given God's supposed omnipotence, there is zero risk of any sin. Yet there is sin, and you have a logical contradiction.

Firstly it was not foolhardy or reckless to create other free moral agents because everything God creates is perfect (see Deut 3w:4). They would have not leaning or inclination to do bad, they would have no taste for evil. The children would resemble the Father and they would have a natural innate love of what is good...

And yet some how this safety valve failed. So much for perfection, you have another contradiction (or ultimately a variation of the same contradiction.)

...anyone (human or angelic) that makes bad choices...

Same contradiction again, perfection making bad choices...

Finally, there would be no harm that could not be repaired.

That's moot since harm could not have happened in the first place given a perfect God and perfect creation.

Conclusion, the problem of evil and variations there of, is fatal to the omni-max style deities, which includes the one from Christianity.

[JehovahsWitness]

Because there can be no ability to give or receive love without free will. Only in creating free moral agents* like himself, could God endow intelligent beings with the ability to feel and be loved. Life is a great gift, life with love is the greatest gift, therefore God's act of giving both was benevolent.

Granted.

If this is granted then my you agree that creating life and the ability to love is a benevolent act. Which is the essential point I was making. I also said "ability to give or receive love without free will." To which you said granted, so we agree the price at which the above must come.

What isn't a logical inevitability, is that free moral agent chooses to actualise that potential to do bad.

This is happily true. God dignified his angelic creatures with the freedom to do refrain from evil and evidently the majority have chosen not " to actualise that potential to do bad." Which is precisely my point. Some claim that choosing bad is inevitable, like you I say choosing evil "isn't a logical inevitability". Thank you for pointing that out.

JW

[Willum]

By process of eliminations:

Incompetent: No it created these things.
Foolish: Weak no.
Apathetic: Then it would not create.
Benevolent: No, there are to many floods and massacres.

Malevolent: By default, anything that intelligent and cruel, must be malevolent.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

You seems to be argreeing with my premise, that freewill does not necessily lead to sin, yet you speak of a price that must come. What price are you referring to if not sin (and the wages of sin?)

If choosing evil isn't a logical inevitability, then freewill beings which would not choose evil is a logical possibility. 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. If God can create said beings and doesn't, then God isn't fully good. Hence the problem of evil - God as described is impossible.

Which part do you not accept?