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]

[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.

But what about the havoc created by these so-called moral agents. Did God not know what they would get up to?

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!

But it WAS "foolhardy" and "reckless"

Look what happened. Satan entered the Garden of Eden and manipulated Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. As a result of that all mankind was cast out of the garden and made to live in a world of suffering. Just think of all the lives destroyed because Satan is able to run rampant. Look at the small minority that is going to make it to JW Heaven, while all the others burn in Hell.

Did God not realise this was going to happen?

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

Oh ok, so due to Satan’s influence, many will be murdered, raped, tortured and have all manner of horrors inflicted on them. But hey, that’s ok, it can be repaired.

Sorry that’s not benevolent in the least.

Hey, is he even going to repair everything?

No, because only a few JWs are going to get repaired. Everything else is going to suffer in Hell.

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.

Many? How are the JWs as a group "many"? They are a tiny portion of all Christians who are a tiny proportion of the world’s population. Many? It’s only a handful. A handful of people throughout history who are going to make the right choice and become Jehovah’s Witnesses.

So we have a god that set up a system that he knows only a handful of people out of millions and millions of people throughout history will make the right choice. The rest go to Hell. If that’s not foolishness, then that only leaves malevolence, incompetence, or apathy.

BTW, your analogy about the two fruit is missing an important factor. That is, one of those pieces of fruit is poisonous. How is it benevolent to include poisonous fruit?

[OnceConvinced]

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.

So it’s those dodgy bible translation again is it? Professionals translators got it wrong, while you get it right?

So this verse is not really talking about evil creatures in Heaven then?

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

You can define "evil" to mean anything you desire, but the fact remains is God created angels which went on to manipulate Adam and Eve so they were cast out of Eden thus resulting in all humans now having to live a life of suffering. And these beings continue to try to ruin people's lives.
 

[OnceConvinced]

I say benevolent, because:
1. God has given freedom and I think freedom is good.

Is it good if you use that freedom to make others suffer? Satan took his freedom and manipulated Adam and Eve. Now we as human must live in a world of suffering thanks to that.

Would you say it’s ok to give a serial killer freedom to go out and do whatever he wants? That’s pretty much what God allowed Satan to do, who is way worse than any serial killer.

2. God has given this opportunity also for those who hate Him, which I think is sign of greatness.

So it’s a great thing he did, allowing Satan to run rampant?

So if I created a robot, gave it free will and it went out on a rampage and caused great suffering, would you call that a work of greatness?

3. Even if some turn against God, they can’t destroy soul, which is the meaningful thing in Biblical point of view.

So we have Satan that can’t be killed then. Continuing to do his horrors.

Do you consider Satan a work of greatness?
 

[OnceConvinced]

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.

Seems rather foolish of him.

What population of creation are going to accept him? It seems so far the numbers are very low. Even if we were to say 30% of the population, that’s an epic fail on God’s part.

But if they all have to be PCE believers, then the success rate will be even lower.

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.

If I knew 9 months before my partner gave birth, that my child would go on to become a serial killer, I would have avoided sex that night. It would be the only benevolent and caring thing to do.

I know that you personally don’t believe God created Satan, but if he did, then he knew full well when he created him what a monster he was going to turn out to be. A benevolent god would have quickly adjusted his design so the baby didn’t have that defect.

If he didn’t have any clue what a monster Satan would turn out to be, then that’s incompetence.

If he knew what Satan would become, but thought some collateral damage was no big deal, then that makes him Apathetic.

If he hoped that Satan wouldn’t cause too much damage, then that would be foolishness.

Stop signs do not inhibit free will. A man with a red lantern standing in the road and claiming you will die if you proceed is a warning but it doesn't inhibit our free will as we can choose to ignore it, a metaphor I've used over and over. Your stop sign is just the same unless if FORCES us to stop and not proceed to do evil by the PROOF of the reality of the warning (hell).

If God has designed roads that lead to destruction, then that’s malevolent. Having a man standing there with a stop sign doesn’t make it any less malevolent.

[JehovahsWitness]

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!

But it WAS "foolhardy" and "reckless"

In a nutshell how would you classify a risk that was "unreasonable" "foolhardy" "reckless" as opposed to simply "a risk"? Both involve the possibility of something going wrong (and as a consequence people being hurt) so what in your opinion is the difference between a risk and a "reckless" risk?




JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 54 by OnceConvinced]

Ted's logic regarding the stop sign and the road is just...weird. According to that, it's less evil to purposely design a bad road, a road that leads to danger and death and only have a stop sign with no fencing or anything at all to actually prevent one from continuing to drive down it, versus blocking off the road or finishing it or trying to make it safe.

[Bust Nak]

You are using earthly events to argue pre-earth context...on earth all are sinners; pre-earth all started as ingenuously innocent. No one tricked anyone to become evil.

Come on. I did add in the "or precreadion version" caveat, didn't I? Whatever event that lead to the creation of Earth as a prison is the result of something going wrong. i.e. an imperfection.

People knew enough to make a moral choice but some people called the one who taught us all we needed to know to make a moral decision a liar and rejected HIM as not a god but as a false god driven by an evil impulse, sinning the unforgivable sin.

But you are missing the point that "some people called the one who taught us all we needed to know to make a moral decision a liar and rejected HIM as not a god but as a false god driven by an evil impulse, sinning the unforgivable sin" due to a lack of knowledge.

There was no lack of knowledge in the fall EXCEPT THE PROOF OF YHWH'S CLAIMS ABOUT REALITY...

Which is a lack of knowledge.

which proof had to be held in abeyance because knowledge of the proof of HIS claims would FORCE everyone to bow to accept HIM as GOD even if they did not like what HE was or had planned at all, forcing them to go against what they would have chosen by their own free, uncoerced by the proof, will.

So you kept insisting, knowledge merely informs a decision, it does not force it.

Because no proof was offered, some rebelled because they illogically deemed no proof offered to mean no proof existed and HE was a liar. We still see that argument today...

Illogical you say? That's another flaw that contradicts with the premise of a perfect creator.

Seeing The cliff that will kill you doesn't work because we are talking about sin, the effects of which cannot be seen without experiencing it and dying.

So once again, a lack of knowledge which is essenial to making the correct decision.

Seeing the proof that would coerce our choice would be seeing GOD prove HIS divinity and power before we chose and that would coerce our choices as we would then have a perfect reason as thinking logical beings to see that HIS claims that sin would be inevitably met by hell were true.

That's a good thing, it's called making the correct decision, it's called being rational. You are still talking about a god that sabotage our decision process. Where some one ends up would be a question of luck.

The nature of PROOF is that it can't be ignored but must be followed due to its obvious truth. If it can be ignored you do not accept it as proof but as an influence, ignorable or acceptable.

That still does not imply our choices made in the face of obvious truth are not free will choices.

I see this implying that the act of faith itself should be accepted by GOD no matter what is chosen...

Yep, that's the implication. Which is why it makes no sense to make acts if faith the deciding factor over heaven and hell.

Yes the Satanists put their faith in YHWH being a false god and a liar estranging themselves for HIM forever...

They cannot be accepted just because they acted on faith...because the choice they made, made it impossible for them to ever fulfill the reason for their creation, to glorify HIM forever and to be HIS Bride.

That's all the more reason to present proof from the get go so no one makes the incorrect decision.

A sinner can only become a sinner by a free will decision to be evil. IF GOD knew before we were created that the results of our free will decisions would put us in hell then HIS loving and righteous justice would force HIM to NOT CREATE US AT ALL!! HE would never create anyone just to end in hell or HE is not the loving righteous GOD I worship.

I would go further, if God does not know for certain that we would end up in a heavenly marriage with him, then he should never create anyone just to risk the possibility of someone ending up in hell or he is not loving.

[Bust Nak]

No. The present problems of humankind are things which could be fixed by mankind. That they are not being fixed, nor is there presently any serious attempt to do so.
This means that the next phase is designed to deal with the issues caused by the previous choices of humankind, and are dealt with individual to individual.

You are affrimed that there is a problem that need dealing with, that does not gel with your contention that things are perfect.

I already spoke to that in post #28... 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?

Furthermore I am arguing that what you are describing as 'imperfection' may well not be, in reply to your thinking that the answer to avoid the creation of this universe would have been to grant everyone the knowledge and wisdom to figure out that evil is self-destructive, in the first place. . That is why I wrote in post #35;

What if this particular environment was designed specifically for that purpose, the results of which are reviewed in another environment?

You are speaking to the prior situation as that which should have been 'perfect' in the first place which therefore would mean no further environment would be necessary to experience.

But then when I followed along with your argument and spoke to this so called state of perfection you say should have existed, your asked, "perfect by what criteria?"

The criteria you are supposing is connected to the idea that if we all were granted the knowledge and wisdom to figure out that evil is self-destructive in the first place, there would be no need for any of the interconnected realities I am speaking of which are processes which take us from ignorance into understanding.

This leaves one wondering as to what kind of environmental reality that state of being you are speaking would consist of, bearing in mind the OP subject re our particular environment reality.

If you could describe such an environment, this might help the reader to better understand your argument.

Lets have a go then: it would be a static environemnt where nothing ever happens because every aspect of every thing are by definition, the best it can logically possibly be.

Subjectivity cannot be removed altogether, which is why this thread exits in the first place.

So we speak to the thread subject, and in that we each offer our subjective opinion into the discussion, and attempt to draw as accurate conclusions as we can, through that process.

If we were to remove the idea of 'good' and 'evil' from the discussion - or at least recognize that these are purely unaligned individual subjective opinions, how would this affect your declaration regarding each of us been granted the ability to know that 'evil leads to self destruction', as the assertion claims?

Well, it seems we subjectively agrees that things are currently not perfect.

I think the idea of an omnimax style deity isn't a necessary contradiction in relation to the idea of solipsism, in that whatever environments it creates for itself to experience, It knows it will never completely lose touch with itself, wherever It goes, in relation to said immersive environments.

Creating a set of environments whereby it is able to experience NOT being omnimax might be the very thing which created the ideas of 'good' and 'evil' in the first place.

Wait, so a omniscient being have areas of ignorance that it can improve on?

So in that, what I am arguing for in relation to reintegration processes involves more than one type of reality we each have to go through in order to - not only regain a formative state of being from which we came from before the sojourn - but acquiring something additional that we did not have before this process.

Don't see how that can get you anywhere, you are affirm that things needs improving and surely that means you must accept things aren't prefect. This state of imperfect contradicts with the premise of an omnimax creator.

In that way, at least for an entity who knows everything, It can experience learning more, even if the experience itself requires creating environments which allow for ignorance to exist. Indeed, it would HAVE to be the case, otherwise if one does not KNOW ignorance, how is one to be said to KNOW everything...as in actually BE omniscient?

The same way a omnipotent being can be said to be all powerful without being able to make a rock so heavy that it cannot lift.

We are that aspect of that entity moving through the experience of ignorance into knowledge. That is my argument.

But why move from ignorance into knowledge instead of starting in knowledge? First of that that affirms that ignorance is less perfer than knowledge, then it affims that we are imperfect. It seems much of what you say is affiming that things, including us are not perfect, without addressing the ultimate point that imperfection can not be the result of prefection. And it's not clear why Solipsism is brough up.

The is no reason why such an environment does not exist to be experienced...

In essence, this would amount to being imprisoned within our own environments, doing whatever we wanted to do and being totally unaware that anything or any other beings like us existed and are all equally as omnimax as each other, yet at the same time, all equally ignorant of one another.

This is what I think has happened and is why our universe exists as it does, and why we are within it...

Wait, I am not following at all. How is there a we when you are talking about Solipsism? So you are sure you exist, are you the god that is doing the creating, am I a mean for you to learn about godhood? There is a lot to cover here, but this bit seems essential for me to understand before I can make sense of the rest.

[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.

So it’s those dodgy bible translation again is it? Professionals translators got it wrong, while you get it right?

No, it's dodgy humanist philosophy, that defines evil as that which is repulsive o humans. The KJV translators went with the best fit term, which was closer to the biblical concept of ra' at the time. Later translations just continued to use the term "evil" for the sake of continuity and readability. No translation claims to be accurate for all purposes. They general try to strike a balance between literal accuracy, contextual accuracy and readability. That is why there are footnotes and commentary.

So this verse is not really talking about evil creatures in Heaven then?

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

It is talking about those who oppose our struggle, to live in accordance with Adonai's ways(tov), not to live in a way that is defined by humanist philosophy(ra'). Spiritual forces opposed to Adonai's ways have no problem using nice sounding humanist tenets to advance their agenda.

You can define "evil" to mean anything you desire, but the fact remains is God created angels which went on to manipulate Adam and Eve so they were cast out of Eden thus resulting in all humans now having to live a life of suffering. And these beings continue to try to ruin people's lives.

I can, but I am not. I am defining what is translated as "evil" in accordance with how it is represented in the first chapters of Genesis and and refined throughout the Tanakh. It is true that Adonai created messengers who deceived Adam and Havah into aquiring the ability to envision alternate realities. As result, we have had to deal with those alternate realities ever since. Those beings do encourage suffering by continuing to tempt us to engage in alternate realities that are not in accordance with Adonai's ways. Not all alternative realities are ra'(evil) nor do all alternative realities contain ra'(evil). They are only ra'(evil) to the extent that they are in opposition to Adonai's ways.

[William]

[Replying to post 58 by Bust Nak]

You are affrimed that there is a problem that need dealing with, that does not gel with your contention that things are perfect.

My contention is that perfection is reserved for whatever role one chooses to place upon it, not that perfection is somehow an absolute, even in philosophical/metaphysical terms.

As such, I speak to this universe - specifically this planet - as perfect for the task at hand in relation to interacting processes I have already mentioned in this thread.

If you could describe such an environment, this might help the reader to better understand your argument.

Lets have a go then: it would be a static environemnt where nothing ever happens because every aspect of every thing are by definition, the best it can logically possibly be.

What you speak of here is what I refer to as First Source Reality [FSR] - the abode of the undivided First Source.

To make things happen, FS creates them and experiences them by divesting aspects of Its consciousness into the creations.

Well, it seems we subjectively agrees that things are currently not perfect.

If you are NOT in a static environment where nothing ever happens because every aspect of every thing are by definition, the best it can logically possibly be and this is your understanding of perfection and thus you can say 'things are currently not perfect.'

I do not define perfection in the same way, so no, we do not agree.

Wait, so a omniscient being have areas of ignorance that it can improve on?

Can an omniscient being be ignorant of ignorance and still be referred to as an omniscient being?

Don't see how that can get you anywhere, you are affirm that things needs improving and surely that means you must accept things aren't prefect. This state of imperfect contradicts with the premise of an omnimax creator.

Is an omniscient being which is ignorant of ignorance 'perfectly omniscient'?

The same way a omnipotent being can be said to be all powerful without being able to make a rock so heavy that it cannot lift.

And should that not be considered 'perfect'?

But why move from ignorance into knowledge instead of starting in knowledge?

Exactly why I promote the idea that it is the other way around. Only of course, there was no 'starting' involved. There was always knowledge, even the knowledge of ignorance.

We are that aspect of ignorance moving into knowledge, as we experience this within that sector of the overall mind of GOD/First Source.

It seems much of what you say is affiming that things, including us are not perfect, without addressing the ultimate point that imperfection can not be the result of prefection.

Ignorance is perfect as a means of gathering knowledge. Call it a game FS plays creating areas within Its mind in which it can escape knowing everything, experience knowing nothing and thus experience gaining knowledge...

And it's not clear why Solipsism is brough up...

...Wait, I am not following at all. How is there a we when you are talking about Solipsism?

Solipsism is only relevant to FSR the one being in all its wholeness. We understand it as conceptually possible because we are aspects of Source Consciousness (whether consciously aware of this or not).

So you are sure you exist, are you the god that is doing the creating, am I a mean for you to learn about godhood?

I am an aspect of FS Consciousness as is every one. At this level of environment, an aspect of FSC engaged with the planet and wears it like a body. We derive from the Earth Entity Consciousness as the most direct source of our experience as human beings.
It is a potential means for us to learn about godhood, although there is no thing which prevails upon us to do so if we choose not to.

There is a lot to cover here, but this bit seems essential for me to understand before I can make sense of the rest.

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

♦ The Earth Entity