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]

I don't think so. Engineered is the opposite of free in this syllogism.

Why? Someone can put a stop sign in the road, I am still the one deciding to stop or not.

A stop sign does NOT engineer everyone to stop.

Granted. What about engineering the circumstances in such a way for literally everyone to freely choose God through their own will?

If you mean did HE engineer the circumstances so everyone knew enough about HIS reality so they could choose the kind of life they wished for, then YES!

If you meant (as I assumed you did since we've been around this woozle bush many times), did HE engineer circumstances so everyone would be so impressed with those circumstances that they HAD TO choose GOD and had to refuse to do any evil, then NO!

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).

Choosing a path without knowing the nature of the end of the path but in hopes that it will take you to paradise is the life of faith and free will, not proof with a constrained free will.

[William]

[Replying to post 39 by Bust Nak]

What if this particular environment was designed specifically for that purpose [granting knowledge and wisdom], the results of which are reviewed in another environment?
After all it does appear that humans in general are confused about the issue, and perhaps it was an issue which required addressing before this universe was created. Created perhaps, as a means of at least partially addressing the problem of evil?

Same problem as before - it involve a non-zero amount of acturalised evil.

In the context of what I wrote, I am speaking to processes, this present reality being one of them, the next working on the issues that were neglected.

But maybe the survival of the species is neither here nor there as the forms are the props being used to gather the information, and biological form is not the best medium in which to determine how the spirit should act within it. Perhaps it's imperfections are what is perfect about it?

Perfect by what criteria?

How about the one you used? That everyone has the knowledge and wisdom to figure out that evil is self-destructive.
You appear to be arguing that we don't, thus are not living in a perfect environment.

As to what criteria I used, that was that the imperfect is perfect for the job. The criteria for imperfect was tabled by you. I merely offered the idea that what you see as imperfect may well be perfect for the task at hand.

If we were to agree that 'imperfect' and 'perfect' were simply subjective concepts, much like good and evil, perhaps the problem of evil would disappear from our subjective realities...

Is there something good to be said about the road to recovery? Some say it is not the destination but the journey that matters..perhaps the more truthful thing is that it is both, or that one is not distinguishable from the other...the journey is the destination.

Whatever good that can be gained by the journey can be gained in a different way without suffering.

It also can be gained alongside suffering, and indeed that is the reality of our objective position. Good arises regardless of suffering, and in that, good also works toward alleviating suffering.

Perhaps there was some prior contention as to whether that could be the case, and thus this universe was created to experience to see if it would be so or not. Recovery suggests suffering has been involved with. Perhaps the point is not to become a victim of circumstance because of the way it then shapes the individual...in its perpetual suffering, refraining from taking any opportunity to forgive and to heal?

[Bust Nak]

A stop sign does NOT engineer everyone to stop.

If you mean did HE engineer the circumstances so everyone knew enough about HIS reality so they could choose the kind of life they wished for, then YES!

Well, no, he did not do that. Had he have done it, Satan wouldn't tricked Eve and none of sin that resulted would have happened (or the precreation version of the fall.) The fall happened because people did not know enough about reality to make the correct decision. And I mean correct in the full sense of the word, as opposed to morally right decision, as anyone who rejects God is factually incorrect for doing so. No one would choose to be incorrect.

If you meant (as I assumed you did since we've been around this woozle bush many times), did HE engineer circumstances so everyone would be so impressed with those circumstances that they HAD TO choose GOD and had to refuse to do any evil, then NO!

No, I don't mean that, and I've told you that everytime you went in that direction, so I don't know why you would assume such a thing.

I mean did HE engineer circumstances so everyone would be so impressed with those circumstances that they would choose GOD and refuse to do any evil by their own unconstrained, uncoerced free will. And the answer is clearly no, hence the problem of evil.

Stop signs do not inhibit free will...

That's much is fine, the problem is the next bit, you are trying to tell me that somehow seeing the cliff by your own two eyes counts as inhibiting our free will and somehow we would no longer have the ability to choose to ignore it. Factual proof do not inhibit free will as we can choose to ignore it, the sane wouldn't but we could.

I asked you, at what point does an informed decision become a decision forced upon us by proof, you didn't give me an asnwer.

Choosing a path without knowing the nature of the end of the path but in hopes that it will take you to paradise is the life of faith and free will, not proof with a constrained free will.

But choosing to reject God is just as much a hope that the rejection will take one to paradise, it is also the life of faith and free will. Why is the same hope sometimes rewarded and sometimes punished? I keep asking you, what sense does it make to test for "the wish for what God is saying to be true?"

While we are here, you didn't address anything I said about knowing what a free will agent would do in advance, why not? Jesus seemed to know what Peter and judas would do in advance, God seemed to know what Job would do in advance.

[Bust Nak]

In the context of what I wrote, I am speaking to processes, this present reality being one of them, the next working on the issues that were neglected.

Not sure exactly what you mean here, you are speaking of a process that is perfectly designed to fix the present reality of fallen mankind? If so that's moot.

How about the one you used? That everyone has the knowledge and wisdom to figure out that evil is self-destructive.
You appear to be arguing that we don't, thus are not living in a perfect environment.

As to what criteria I used, that was that the imperfect is perfect for the job. The criteria for imperfect was tabled by you. I merely offered the idea that what you see as imperfect may well be perfect for the task at hand.

But said imperfection was lead to needing a fix in the first place. No imperfection in the first place, no need to have this perfect enviroment to teach us the knowledge and wisdom to figure out that evil is self-destructive.

If we were to agree that 'imperfect' and 'perfect' were simply subjective concepts, much like good and evil, perhaps the problem of evil would disappear from our subjective realities...

That's the point of switching from plain of evil from imperfection, to remove the subjectivity.

It also can be gained alongside suffering, and indeed that is the reality of our objective position. Good arises regardless of suffering, and in that, good also works toward alleviating suffering...

Well it's no good appealing to our current objective reality, the whole point was our current objective reality contradicts with the premise of an omnimax style deity. The contention is entirely about whether a painless alternative could be the case, and if it could be the case, then it must be the case given an omnipotence and good god, because it is objectively more perfect.

[ttruscott]

Well, no, he did not do that. Had he have done it, Satan wouldn't tricked Eve and none of sin that resulted would have happened (or the precreation version of the fall.)

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.

[ttruscott]

The fall happened because people did not know enough about reality to make the correct decision.

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.

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

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...

[ttruscott]

That's much is fine, the problem is the next bit, you are trying to tell me that somehow seeing the cliff by your own two eyes counts as inhibiting our free will and somehow we would no longer have the ability to choose to ignore it. Factual proof do not inhibit free will as we can choose to ignore it, the sane wouldn't but we could.

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.

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.

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.

[ttruscott]

But choosing to reject God is just as much a hope that the rejection will take one to paradise, it is also the life of faith and free will. Why is the same hope sometimes rewarded and sometimes punished? I keep asking you, what sense does it make to test for "the wish for what God is saying to be true?"

I see this implying that the act of faith itself should be accepted by GOD no matter what is chosen... Yes the Satanists put their faith in YHWH being a false god and a liar estranging themselves for HIM forever, trusting their fate to the unproven hope this belief was true. So strong was their faith in this hope that they rejected the scheme of the sinful elect to first make sure they were free from the fate of hell by accepting HIM as their GOD, but then to go their own way in total defiance of HIM. The Satanic defiance as a free will decison had to be sacrosanct to YHWH or our vaunted free will was a lie if he could force a change upon us just because HE thought it was wrong. Thus they put themselves outside of HIS loving grace forever by this act of faith in their own decision to go against HIM. Since their cannot save themselves and repent, they are eternally evil. This was the effect of their decison to go with their unproven hope that HE was a liar and not a true GOD.

So strong was their faith that they accepted that if HE ever did prove HIS Deity that they knew they were damned but went ahead anyway, trusting their judgement that they could not be wrong. How could such as these be allowed to be in the heavenly telepathic link of loving communion and communication? It would instantly spread their evil directly into the minds and emotions of everyone in the link.

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.

[ttruscott]

While we are here, you didn't address anything I said about knowing what a free will agent would do in advance, why not? Jesus seemed to know what Peter and judas would do in advance, God seemed to know what Job would do in advance.

Again you are trying to define our pre-earth existence with a free will by our earthly experience as sinners without a free will living lives predetermined by GOD to bring HIS sinful elect to redemption as smoothly and as quickly as possible.

GOD knows everything that will happen on earth because HE has decreed it to be so, Acts 15:18, but that also implies that if HE did NOT decree the results of our free will decisions, then HE did not know them before we chose them to be real.

Why do I think this?
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.

Therefore HE cannot know the results of our free will decisions before we make them.

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by Bust Nak]

...you are speaking of a process that is perfectly designed to fix the present reality of fallen mankind?

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.

But said imperfection was lead to needing a fix in the first place. No imperfection in the first place, no need to have this perfect environment to teach us the knowledge and wisdom to figure out that evil is self-destructive.

I already spoke to that in post #28 where I wrote;

The existence of this universe, and our collective experience within it cannot be shown in any conclusive manner to be created by a malevolent or incompetent or foolish or apathetic or benevolent creator GOD.
Focusing on any specific aspect of said creation might give observer a strong impression of any of the above, but taken overall one is left with an image beyond the scope of description of human expression through language. Struck dumb through lack of words, as it were.

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.

If we were to agree that 'imperfect' and 'perfect' were simply subjective concepts, much like good and evil, perhaps the problem of evil would disappear from our subjective realities...

That's the point of switching from plain of evil from imperfection, to remove the subjectivity.

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's no good appealing to our current objective reality, the whole point was our current objective reality contradicts with the premise of an omnimax style deity.

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.

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.

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?

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

The contention is entirely about whether a painless alternative could be the case, and if it could be the case, then it must be the case given an omnipotence and good god, because it is objectively more perfect.

The is no reason why such an environment does not exist to be experienced. Obviously we presently are not within such an environment and questions are raised according to that being the case, coupled with our ability to imagine a pain free experience.

I myself see these as clues.

For example, I do not disagree with ttruscott in relation to this being a 'prison planet' because it is patently obvious, given we can also imagine what it might be like to have total freedom to do whatever we individually wished to do.

But I certainly disagree with ttruscott on the details.

Getting back to Solipsism, such an environment whereby each of us having total freedom to do we individually wished to do, could only be achieved if we were permanently separate from one another through those environments also acting as barriers against intrusion from every other environment.
Then there would be the problem arising where one of us might want to interfere with all the others, and if the barriers were there to prevent that from happening, then this could not be regarded as being in a state where we have the TOTAL freedom to do whatever we wished to do.

The only way around that problem is if we were ignorant of each other - unaware that any others existed apart from ourselves, and therefore would have no reason to want to encroach on other environments because we would not know they existed.

In that, we would individually be GODs, in charge of our own creations, but ONLY omniscient in relation to our own creation/environment and doing 'whatever we wanted' within that experience - but totally unaware of there existing other GODs in other environments.

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.

The universe itself is neither 'good' nor 'evil' and from an overall solipsistic perceptive, the entity who created it does not see it in terms of 'good' or 'evil' as this only occurs as that entity consciously experiences its creation through the perspective of certain types of individuate biological forms. It is THEN that the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' emerges, and from that experience, translates into mythology.

Therein, is our position. We are aspects of that entities consciousness experiencing the pains etc which give us the impressions of 'good and evil', and this necessitates the inclusion of 'alternate' realities which are created in order to deal with that, through processes - in order to bring us back into the knowledge of our true self in relation to that one entity.

The whole expression is the one entity experiencing for itself what it is like to be able to 'do what it wants' as all powerful, all knowing etc - within an environment which enables this to happen.

In doing so, the realization occurs whereby one only has that omnimax ability within the one environment, and no such influence over all other environments outside of that.

Escape from said prison requires understanding that we don't have to chose to be victims of it.
The next phase of the overall environment allows for us as individuals to make those choices based upon the retained knowledge of this present environment and - of course - how we also chose to interpret this present environment.

All in all, a competent design when seen through such lens.

In relation to ttruscott's position in relating GOD to the reader, we veer away = part company - as my position understands that even as there are those brave and foolish enough to question any religions entity which is claimed to being GOD while expecting us all to believe that claim through faith without any evidence, is that we are marooned in this universe in order to find out the answer to that question, and we ask the question because that is exactly what the GOD would most anticipate from us, being that the GOD is brave and foolish for wanting to be omnimax, as related to my above explanation of the metaphysics as understood by me.

Pain comes from such a question, in relation to the answer. Seeing through the pain to the reflected image broadcast upon the mirror of our individual interpretation of the objective experience allows for us to possibly understand an ultimately benevolent creator entity is involved at the helm, and we understand our self to be an aspect of That One.

We understand that we are either the creation of a malevolent being sometimes pretending to be all good and such, OR we understand ourselves as being non created aspects of the benevolent being attempting and therefore making it possible to succeed in working that out...in other words...We have no GOD, we ARE that GOD.

"Being perfect as GOD is perfect."

We designed this and we are wise not to become the victims of our own design. Brave and Wise.

A transformation.

Presently a work in progress...