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.

[ttruscott]

[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.

Thank your for your opinion about how GOD values things you don't.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 11 by ttruscott]

You've heard my opinion, can I hear yours: if the amount of pain and suffering by far outweights the amount of joy, is one saved soul, one happy bride, worth it?

[Inigo Montoya]

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.

PCE theology contends??

Have you ever googled "PCE theology?" Have you ever typed it into YouTube to see what videos there are on it?

I don't think it exists, Ted. I think PCE theology is synonymous with "The way Ted reads his Bible."

Every time you post under the guise of PCE doctrine I'm thinking there's no such thing. Are there churches for this view? A congregation larger than yourself? Do you find it odd no Christians agree with you here?

Most importantly, since the entire notion of making choices before we were born comes solely from your reading of the Bible, can you admit "PCE theology"is 100% pure faith based?

[ttruscott]

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

Yes, we know your position that being controlled absolutely by another so no one can never do anything on their own or they might sin is far better than giving us a free will and to find all the people that WANT to be holy by their free will and separating them from those who do not WANT to be holy.

You define the presence of GOD as impossible in the presence of sin against all logic about free will. Ok.

[bluethread]

Though this thread is a bit narrower in scope, it still retains two problems, and maybe that is god, if those are the problems that you wish to discuss.

First, you are defining these creatures as "evil" from what I presume to be a humanist perspective. That is not what the Scriptures refer to when it uses the term translated as "evil". "Evil"(ra'), in the Scriptures, refers to that which is different from Adonai's preferred way, regardless of how it effects humanity in general. That being the case, Adonai's creation can very well be malevolent from a human perspective, because it does not align perfectly with humanism.


Second, this "evil" is spoken of in absolute terms. Viewing something as pure "evil" creates conundrums. This thing is often confronted with choosing the greater of two "evils". So, even if we accept humanism embodying the nature of the good, one must establish whether one is talking about the immediate "evil" or the ultimate "evil". The Scriptures refer to the Adversary, that is the one that stands on opposition. So, not all "evil" stands in opposition to the good. Some is ambivalent or just counterproductive. It might be better ask why Adonai would create an Adversary with malevolent intent, even if it's actions appear benevolent in the short term.


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.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

You seems to be argreeing with my premise, that freewill does not necessily lead to sin

Yes absolutely.

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]
you speak of a price that must come. What price are you referring to ...?

I am refering to the the logical inevitability that having free will means one has the POTENTIAL to do bad. As you rightly pointed out it is not an inevitability, but once you are free to direct your actions you are also by definition free to do bad actions should you so wish. Thus the "price" or cost of being free is the potential to do bad. I refer to it as a cost because One cannot have One without the other... perhaps it would have been more accurate to refer to this as a part or a component of "freedom".

This is important to note because there are some that claim that God should have made beings free moral agents but made it impossible for those agents to do bad. This like claiming to create someone that can see all the colours as long as it's green. By definition he that can only see green cannot be someone that sees all the colours, he that can only do good is not a free moral agent.

If we embrasse love, and self awareness and choice we must understand that comes at "the cost" of possibly being confronted with evil. We cannot ask God to give us one and remove any chance of the existence of the other, it would be a logical impossibility.



Hope that helps,


JW

[rikuoamero]

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.

PCE theology contends??

Have you ever googled "PCE theology?" Have you ever typed it into YouTube to see what videos there are on it?

I don't think it exists, Ted. I think PCE theology is synonymous with "The way Ted reads his Bible."

Every time you post under the guise of PCE doctrine I'm thinking there's no such thing. Are there churches for this view? A congregation larger than yourself? Do you find it odd no Christians agree with you here?

Most importantly, since the entire notion of making choices before we were born comes solely from your reading of the Bible, can you admit "PCE theology"is 100% pure faith based?

This is what I found

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence

Something from Origen about how God creates souls and knows them before they are conceived in our world.
Note it doesn't have the details Ted's theology does. Nothing about God coming before all souls and giving us all a choice to marry him or to reject his claim that he is our creator, with him deliberately not providing the evidence, and then our memories being stripped/blocked/erased and Earth being a prison planet, and that every person on Earth is guilty, and so deserves to suffer whatever it is they suffer in their individual lives.

Well...thing is, that Wikipedia entry's mention of Islam sounds quite eerily similar to Ted.

[Bust Nak]

I am refering to the the logical inevitability that having free will means one has the POTENTIAL to do bad. As you rightly pointed out it is not an inevitability, but once you are free to direct your actions you are also by definition free to do bad actions should you so wish. Thus the "price" or cost of being free is the potential to do bad.

Not much of a cost, there is zero down side to this as mere potential does not imply the actuality of doing bad.

This is important to note because there are some that claim that God should have made beings free moral agents but made it impossible for those agents to do bad.

Does "I could do bad but would never do bad" counts as impossible to do bad? If it does not count as impossible then that's the solution right there.

By definition he that can only see green cannot be someone that sees all the colours.

That presumes there are colors other than green. A easy presumption to make given we do see other colors, but do bear in mind, this need not be the case. God could well have created a world where green is the only color - as such someone who can only see green is seeing all the colors.

If we embrasse love, and self awareness and choice we must understand that comes at "the cost" of possibly being confronted with evil.

Not much of a cost if evil isn't actualised.

We cannot ask God to give us one and remove any chance of the existence of the other, it would be a logical impossibility.

Same line of question as above. "I could do X but won't do X" What is the possibilty of X happening? If you answer zero, then we can indeed ask God to give us one and remove any chance of the existence of the other. Because "I could do X but won't" is far from impossible. If you answer anything other than zero, then that's fine too, we don't need to ask God to give us one and remove any chance of the existence of the other, without risking acturalised evil.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, we know your position that being controlled absolutely by another so no one can never do anything on their own or they might sin is far better than giving us a free will and to find all the people that WANT to be holy by their free will and separating them from those who do not WANT to be holy.

Close but not quite. I have told you enough times already, my position is that being controlled absolutely by another so no one can never do anything on their own or they might sin, is far better than giving us a free will that resulted in actualised sin; The distinction important because a freewill that merely allows God to find all the people that WANT to be holy by their free will does not imply actualised sin.

You define the presence of GOD as impossible in the presence of sin against all logic about free will. Ok.

You say that but you've always abandoned the conversation when I challenge you along the lines of the possibility/impossiblity of a freewill that "could choose sin but would never choose sin." The latest attempt can be found here. Which incidentially, contains the link the the attempt before last. The furtherest we've ever gotten was me asking you - Can God interfere in such a way that ensure that we would pick God without any or every method of coercion or force, or otherwise deny our free will? Well, can he?

If he cannot, you need to justify why, i.e proof that such a thing is logically impossible.

If he can, then God can ensure 100% success rate with no one going to hell. He failed to do lead to many going to hell, so when disqualify him from the label "good."

[JehovahsWitness]

Does "I could do bad but would never do bad" counts as impossible to do bad?

No. As long as you "could" then it is not impossible, it is the right and proper exercise of one's choice. I agree with you that there are and will always be those that will forever make the good choice, Jehovah and his son Jesus being two who I believe we can count on with absolute confidence will always choose to do good. But they are still making a choice.

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.

But to remain free moral agents that choice must always be there, it's a part of being a free moral agent.*

JW


* You can ignore the word "cost" if you like, it was my way of communicating that choice is an intrinsic part of free will. The rest is semantics