The paradox of Pain and Evil

[liamconnor]

The notion of a good God is incompatible with the world as we experience it: i.e., disease, violence, famine, etc. In other words, if God were as good as the Christians tell us, the world would be infinitely better.

Thus we conclude that there either there is no God or, if there is, it is something indifferent to good and evil.

So then, under this worldview (no God, or an indifferent power), where derives our idea that this world is not as good as it can be? Where in fact derives our standard of goodness by which we reject the notion of a good God?

[ttruscott]

QUESTION: If Adam and Eve were perfect, how could they sin? CAN a perfect being, sin?

Obvious to me is that no one was created perfect but innocent and able to choose by their free will to become perfectly righteous and holy OR perfectly evil.

[Bust Nak]

QUESTION: If Adam and Eve were perfect, how could they sin? CAN a perfect being, sin?

Obvious to me is that no one was created perfect but innocent and able to choose by their free will to become perfectly righteous and holy OR perfectly evil.

Would "perfect" be a valid adjective for a creator whose creation are not perfect?

[ttruscott]

QUESTION: If Adam and Eve were perfect, how could they sin? CAN a perfect being, sin?

Obvious to me is that no one was created perfect but innocent and able to choose by their free will to become perfectly righteous and holy OR perfectly evil.

Would "perfect" be a valid adjective for a creator whose creation are not perfect?

Not perfect in this context doesn't mean broken or wrong in some manner, just unfinished, able to change for better or worse. I think they were created innocent which could be improved by their free will decision to become perfectly righteous (finished in their righteousness, no room for improvement) by their free will. They were morally innocent in that there was no evil impulse in them but they were not yet perfect in that they had yet to choose to be morally in accord with YHWH or morally against HIM, choosing by their free will their perfection in righteousness or in evil.

Perfection as referring to YHWH is the perfect word, that is, the word cannot be improved upon to describe HIS work in the creation of all those in HIS Image. That HE created us with the ability to change by choosing our moral perfection doesn't impinge upon HIS being perfect.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 23 by ttruscott]

Sounds to me you are saying the creator is perfect full stop, regardless of what he creates. Which of the following creators is better?

a) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is unfinished, able to change for better or worse, and while the majority does become perfect, a small number do become worse later on; or

b) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is unfinished, able to change for better or worse, but only become perfect with time; or

c) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is finished and perfect, unable to change for better or worse?

I would say c) is the best, followed by b).

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 12 by McCulloch]

QUESTION: If Adam and Eve were perfect, how could they sin? Can a perfect being, sin?

[…]

Thank you ever so much for that answer. It is too bad that it is not an answer to the question that was actually asked.

In biology, we have discovered that in general acquired traits are not inheritable. If you do something that changes you, for good or ill, it will not be inherited by your offspring. If you are injured or get sick, your children will not be affected, at least not genetically.

You claim that God created this genetic makeup. He created all life, animals, plants, fungi and microbes with this same characteristic. But when it comes to sin, God decided to change how he does things. For Adam and Eve and their sin, God decided that their actions will have consequences for all of their offspring. Why would God want to do it this way? It makes no sense. He apparently gave our first parents the ability to choose. Why not the rest of us?

The God you present to us is not too smart.

Please read and reflect on the question before answering. Why would God make imperfection inheritable? Particularly when God made other acquired conditions not inheritable. Why shouldn't humans enter the world in the same way as Adam and Eve?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 25 by McCulloch]

Why shouldn't humans enter the world in the same way as Adam and Eve?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 913#873913

CAUSE & EFFECT:

Why a universe of correstponding consequences?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 418#381418

Why did God create a universe governed by principles of cause and effect?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 335#381335

MORE on "cause and effect"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 640#381640

Genetic damage: self replicating but not self-repairing
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 765#873765

[Willum]

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

Thank you JW, so I think the problem is we must not understand how the answers you provide answer the question.

Could you explain it to us, as if we were skeptics?

Because, the most logical conclusion right now seems to be that it was adapted from the nearly identical Sumerian Fable about teen-agers growing up and leaving the nest.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why would God make imperfection inheritable?

He didn't. He made PERFECTION inheritable. Imperfection is the lack of perfection. Just as cold is the lack of heat or darkeness is the lack of light, neither exist in the absolute, they are only concepts which cover that which is not there. God didn't create imperfection (any more than he created darkeness) so he cannot be said to "make" imperfection do anything, it is only an abstract concept which explains the lack of perfection; your question is like asking: Why did God create nothing to be so empty? Why didn't he put something in his nothing to spruce it up a little?

God created perfection and gave living organisms the ability to self replicate (reproduce what they are). When an organism becomes damaged (on the genetic not the acquired level - a broken leg or arm does not damage your genes), it can only self-replicate that which it is, not that which it no longer is. It will continue to do what it was designed to do, self-replicate, regardless of whether it is perfect or not.

Why are organisms not genetically self-repairing, reverting to the original norm when altered?

In a closed system this cannot be, it would require an outside force to assess the damage and excercise its will on the subject. This amounts to an ability to act, not on what is but what was or what one would like to be . Undirected forces cannot do this; the natural world can only react to any given set of circumstances according to natural laws, it cannot have a vision and work towards that vision, doing so is called "design" and (regardless of what evolotionists may claim) that requires intelligence (Of course God could have given each individual cell its own will and intelligence but then we would run the risk of all our cells getting together at night and plotting to reorganize themselves without our consent. I personally would not like to go to bed a human and wake up an starfish because my cells fancied a day on the beach... but I digress...). The point is its a closed system.

To illustrate: A photocopier can only copy the pages as they are. If the secetary spills her coffee on a page she cannot hope that the photocopier machine will recognize what the dark blotch should read, remove the coffee stain and rewrite the orginal paragraph as it was conceived in the mind of the author. Why not? Because its a photocopying machine, not a writer! The only one that can reproduce the original is the author or someone in the author's position; the copier was neither conceived nor designed with that capacity.

God is our "author" our Creator, our designer. The gift of procreation is like the photocopier. Any damaged to humans would have to be repaired not by the system itself which was neither conceived or designed for such damage, but by the originator in whose mind "perfection" began. In short the damage is not irreparable, but could only be repaired by the author of the original (not by the damaged copies - imperfect humans or the means by which they reproduce).


OBJECTION: So why create a system were the original was "photocopied" in the first place, why not the author write individual (perfect) copies himself?

This is essentially asking: Why did God not just create all humans directly (as he did with Adam and Eve)? Wouldn't it be "better" /shouldn't he have chosen to simply by passed the whole procreation design?

This question has been addressed, I will link to the post.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 913#873913


OBJECTION: So why didn't God "clean up the mess" immediately, why allow Adam and Eve to reproduce?

This is essentially asking: Why does God allow suffering? I will link to the answer to this question.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 740#873740


The Return to Perfection

God can and WILL revert back to his original standard repairing the damage incurred by Adam and Eve and guiding mankind back to his original standard but for specific reasons (see link above) He has chosen to allow the human race to continue short of this standard for a limited period of time.


JW

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 23 by ttruscott]

Sounds to me you are saying the creator is perfect full stop, regardless of what he creates. Which of the following creators is better?

a) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is unfinished, able to change for better or worse, and while the majority does become perfect, a small number do become worse later on; or

b) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is unfinished, able to change for better or worse, but only become perfect with time; or

c) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is finished and perfect, unable to change for better or worse?

I would say c) is the best, followed by b).

a) of course if my opinion means anything on a debate forum...

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 23 by ttruscott]

Sounds to me you are saying the creator is perfect full stop, regardless of what he creates. Which of the following creators is better?

a) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is unfinished, able to change for better or worse, and while the majority does become perfect, a small number do become worse later on; or

b) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is unfinished, able to change for better or worse, but only become perfect with time; or

c) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is finished and perfect, unable to change for better or worse?

I would say c) is the best, followed by b).

a) of course with b) as the process of achieving a)...if my opinion means anything on a debate forum..