how can a good God create a world iwhere there is suffering

[Guest]

My main contention is that making man with a free will was NOT making them flawed. Rather it was ----- well making man with a free will. God took a risk in doing so. He knew they might choose evil, for they had the ability to do so. Sure enough, our first parents chose evil. This had dire consequences ---- the fall of mankind and his progeny, as well as the fall of nature itself ---- including the animal kingdom.

How can an all-knowing God take risks? If Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world", was it "just in case" things turned out badly? How could the "precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" be "foreordained before the foundation of the world" unless God already knew what was going to be needed? Is this "He didn't know, but catches up and reacts really well" kind of idea a Open Theism thing?

"The Genesis record indicates that God created plant growth for animal food. But after the fall, certain animals began to attack and eat other animals instead. "I'd agree with the second. He planted a wonderful garden and told them that they could eat anything there. If you were in my house though and I told you to make yourself at home in my 'fridge and eat anything you want, does that mean that you are limited to never eating anything else? Where is the Biblical support for the idea that animals didn't eat other animals before the fall? The text itself doesn't clearly say this. I've read it in the Book of Henry Morris chapter one, but never in Genesis. I think too many people read too much into a perfect utopian garden where there were no weeds, no fruit rotting, no sweaty labor, or anything like that. Not even an ant accidentally stepped on. Kinda makes you wonder what was actually necessary to "tend" the garden if everything was as perfect as lots of people believe.
D.

[Guest]

My main contention is that making man with a free will was NOT making them flawed. Rather it was ----- well making man with a free will. God took a risk in doing so. He knew they might choose evil, for they had the ability to do so. Sure enough, our first parents chose evil. This had dire consequences ---- the fall of mankind and his progeny, as well as the fall of nature itself ---- including the animal kingdom.

Risk? An omnipotent, omniscient God does not take risks. Risk implies unknown outcomes. There are no unknown outcomes for God. He knew exactly what he was doing and exactly how it would pan out.

Free will is not a flaw. Creating people who make bad choices is a flaw.

A couple of years later, I was browsing through a science book, and much to my amazement, I found that an experiment with mosquitoes supported my conjecture. Mosquitoes were isolated so that they did not have any animals or people available. It was found that they took the juices of the plants in their isolated environment, and produced their young!

Which does not necessarily imply that they were originally created to do so. Considering that plants are around all the time and mosquitos don't do so on a regular basis indicates that they are, for lack of a better word, designed to do so.

[Guest]

Non-sequitur. God would not have to eliminate human choice to eliminate suffering.

In order for there to be an actual choice that could bring suffering or bad consequences, then please explain how. Claiming that is is a non-sequitur without showing how is more than I'm willing to take your word on.

What's the problem? If they don't choose that possibility, there is no suffering, and there is choice.

You are right. But in order for a choice to exist, the option has to exist. A choice with only one option is not a choice. If you face a fork in the road, you have a choice. If there is no fork, you have no choice. Just because everyone might choose one fork over the other doesn't mean that the destination of the other fork no longer exists.

They CAN choose red, blue, or yellow, but they don't.

Correct. But you are arguing that these other colors don't exist since no one picked them. I say that if they didn't exist, you didn't really have a choice to begin with. My point is that as long as people have an actual choice of evil, that evil exists. You can choose to follow God or not follow God. The idea that I actually have a choice but "not following God" isn't one of them available to me is something that I can't get my mind wrapped around. What is there to choose if there is no other alternative?

Has there always been sin and suffering?

As an option for free-willed men, yes. Did they receive the consequences of the wrong choice before they made it? No. Suffering and evil exist whether I experience it or not though. The fact that Adam didn't experience sin until he ate the fruit doesn't mean that the choice was not available prior to then. We already know that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels had rebelled prior to that, so sin and suffering was already a very real alternative.

You're operating on a very large assumption that this could not have been done 50 years ago, or even the day after Jesus died.

What? The elimination of choice?
D.

[Guest]

Risk? An omnipotent, omniscient God does not take risks. Risk implies unknown outcomes. There are no unknown outcomes for God. He knew exactly what he was doing and exactly how it would pan out.

I disagree. God made man in His own image. That was certainly not a material image since God is spirit. Rather, the chief way in which man was created in God's image was in having a free will. There is no way that God or anyone else can know in advance what a free will agent will choose. For statements about future choices have no truth value now.
For such statements to have truth value is inconsistent with free will. Suppose S is the statement, "P will raise his hand at T" (some future time). If the statement is true, then P willl be unable to refrain from raising his hand at T. Similarly, if it is false then P will be unable to raise his hand at T. In either case, there is something that P will be unable to do at time T. Therefore, if S is either true or false, P does not have free will. Thus S is neither true nor false, but will become true or false at time T.

If S has no truth value at the present time, then no one can know whether or not P will raise his hand at time T ---- since there is nothing to know.

So I conclude that there are some unknown outcomes for God.

This is born out in the following Bible sentence which records that God said:

Jeremiah 3:7 "I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. (NASB)

God also prophesied through Jonah that in 40 days Ninevah would be destroyed (an unconditional prophecy). But the Ninevites repented at Jonah's preaching, and God decided not to destroy the city. If He had known that the Ninevites would repent, would He have spoken the prophecy through Jonah in the first place?

I agree that God knew exactly what He was doing when He created the Universe. But He didn't know exactly how it would pan out, since He took the risk of creating free will agents who might (and did) choose other than God had intended for them.

[Guest]

God made man in His own image. That was certainly not a material image since God is spirit.

The Father, yes. But what about the Son? If physical appearances of "God" in the Old Testament were appearances of Christ, and at least one of the Godhead was down in the mud planting trees and making man, why couldn't it have been Christ?

Rather, the chief way in which man was created in God's image was in having a free will. There is no way that God or anyone else can know in advance what a free will agent will choose. For statements about future choices have no truth value now.

The statement "I will go to bed in thirty minutes" is either true or false. How can The Truth not know which it is? If it has "no truth value", then what is it? It is a true statement, a false statement, or what?

For such statements to have truth value is inconsistent with free will. Suppose S is the statement, "P will raise his hand at T" (some future time). If the statement is true, then P willl be unable to refrain from raising his hand at T. Similarly, if it is false then P will be unable to raise his hand at T. In either case, there is something that P will be unable to do at time T. Therefore, if S is either true or false, P does not have free will. Thus S is neither true nor false, but will become true or false at time T.

Just because P doesn't know the answer doesn't mean that the statement is something other than true or false. If G says "P will raise his hand" then P may or may not have a choice depending on how Calvinistic you want to get. But G knowing only the truth of past events eliminates all omniscience altogether. Even G saying "I'll come back" is not a statement of truth, but only a goal at best that may or may not actually occur. How could The Truth make a statement about a future event if the truth of that statement was unknowable?

This is born out in the following Bible sentence which records that God said:Jeremiah 3:7 "I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. (NASB)

Why is it that Open Theists rely so heavily on inferences in Old Testament stories as opposed to specific teaching on the topic? Are we saying that for however many years God believed this that He was wrong? How can a perfect and holy God, The Truth and source of all truth, be wrong? If God is unchanging, is He always wrong? How far do we take this?

He starts out asking Jeremiah "Have you seen what unfaithful Israel has done?" Did He really not know? Does God not know the past we well as the future? How far do we take this?

He goes on to prophesy that if they repent that He will "take them to Zion"? How does He know? He promised them shepherds who would shepherd them "with knowledge and skill". Wouldn't that depend on the free will of those shepherds? How can He predict this since He doesn't know? How far do we take this?

God also prophesied through Jonah that in 40 days Ninevah would be destroyed (an unconditional prophecy). But the Ninevites repented at Jonah's preaching, and God decided not to destroy the city. If He had known that the Ninevites would repent, would He have spoken the prophecy through Jonah in the first place?

We don't know all of Jonah's message to Nineveh, but why couldn't it have included prior prophesy in Jeremiah that a nation that turn back to God won't suffer judgment?

I agree that God knew exactly what He was doing when He created the Universe. But He didn't know exactly how it would pan out, since He took the risk of creating free will agents who might (and did) choose other than God had intended for them.

How could there be "elect" from the foundation of the world if God didn't know He needed to "elect" some?
D.

[Guest]

Paidion,

How is foreknowing what a free will agent will do with his freedom eliminate that freedom? Can't God determine the future by free choice since He omnisciently knows for sure how they will freely act?
Help me out here.

Bob

[Guest]

Paidion,

I should have posted this in my last response.

quote: " There is no way that God or anyone else can know in advance what a free will agent will choose. For statements about future choices have no truth value now."

Deut.31:16-18 Clearly this is about God telling Moses in advance what Israel [/i]is going to do. How do you "square" this with your premise?

[Guest]

Asimov

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:50 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Traveler wrote:
Asimov,

quote: "No, my implication is that God created something flawed".

Ps 18:30 " As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless..." Would you care to elaborate what you mean?

your response:
"Is this world not flawed, according to the Christian worldview? Is sin not a flaw of imperfection? Is the desire to sin, or even the idea to sin not a flaw that humans have?

If you say it is, then of course, I would say that humans are flawed and had to have been created imperfect in order to make imperfect choices"

Yes to point one and no to point two. The problem with your premise is that you presume to impose your own idea of what "perfection" means from a non-theistic world view. I assume you are an atheist? You also presume that what God created was "flawed" from the beginning and by default, HE must be "flawed" as well. So why come on to a Christian forum
and regergitate atheistic views? Unless you really are trying to understand our beliefs and have a desire of coming to a reasonable faith,
I see no good reason for you to waste peoples time here, IMO.

[Guest]

by default, HE must be "flawed" as well. So why come on to a Christian forum

Where did I even imply that, Traveler? It would be conducive to discussion if you didn't read into things not said, nor conclude things I never concluded.

[Guest]

Asimov

Very well. My apology.