The Problem of Evil, Messiah, and Wrath.

[muhammad_isa]

If we're perfect by the creator's standards, then God's wrath is necessarily unjust. Do you agree?

What do you mean by "perfect" ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you mean by "perfect" ?

"Without fault" probably works for this context.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"Without fault" probably works for this context.

..still too vague.
A new born baby can be "perfect" .. it is born without sin.
It is only as we get older that we might start to stray away from righteousness.

This idea that a baptism ritual cleanses "original sin" is a peculiar notion.
The church used to refuse to bury a non-baptised baby .. they changed it.

 

[dybmh]

If we're perfect by the creator's standards, then God's wrath is necessarily unjust. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree. There's a few ways to diminish the impact of this, but, that's not the point. Maybe if I said it this way it would be clearer?

If the creator values improvement and the creation is improving, then wrath would be unjust. If the creation remains static or becomes less perfect, then the creation is not improving and might incur wrath and that would be just as long as the wrath is temporary and as long as the creation has the means to improve.

 

[Koldo]

..still too vague.
A new born baby can be "perfect" .. it is born without sin.
It is only as we get older that we might start to stray away from righteousness.

Then we are not perfect by the creator's standards. And therefore created imperfect.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I agree. There's a few ways to diminish the impact of this, but, that's not the point. Maybe if I said it this way it would be clearer?

If the creator values improvement and the creation is improving, then wrath would be unjust. If the creation remains static or becomes less perfect, then the creation is not improving and might incur wrath and that would be just as long as the wrath is temporary and as long as the creation has the means to improve.

Why would a perfect creator get upset if it's creation is not improving when the creation was designed to be able to not improve? It is doing what it was designed to do. Is it not? I mean, if the intention really was that it would always improve and never get static, it would have been designed to never get static (or become less perfect) and always improve.

If I am a perfect creator, I get exactly what I want when I create stuff. If I want them to never fail, they never will. If I design them to able to fail, and they do, why would I be upset exactly?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If I am a perfect creator, I get exactly what I want when I create stuff.

Yes.

If I want them to never fail, they never will.

True.
..but then they would have no responsibility .. the capacity to make mistakes.

 

[Koldo]

Yes.


True.
..but then they would have no responsibility .. the capacity to make mistakes.

Responsibility =/= the capacity to make mistakes.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Responsibility =/= the capacity to make mistakes.

I never said that it was..
..but how do you invisage a soul/mind that is a perfect copy of its Creator?
It is not feasible.

God is God .. He cannot be reproduced.
He is neither male or female.
All souls on earth belong to Him.
He is of an infinite nature.

This world is finite, and all souls return from whence they came.
We journey on from plane to plane.
God is not equivalent to "a perfect soul".
He is not comparable to anything in this universe.

..so, again, God does not want us to fail, but knows that some of us will.
We are all sinners, as we are not compelled to listen. We make our own choices.
This is what God wanted. For us to take responsibility.

 

[Koldo]

I never said that it was..
..but how do you invisage a soul/mind that is a perfect copy of its Creator?
It is not feasible.

God is God .. He cannot be reproduced.
He is neither male or female.
All souls on earth belong to Him.
He is of an infinite nature.

This world is finite, and all souls return from whence they came.
We journey on from plane to plane.
God is not equivalent to "a perfect soul".
He is not comparable to anything in this universe.

..so, again, God does not want us to fail, but knows that some of us will.
We are all sinners, as we are not compelled to listen. We make our own choices.
This is what God wanted. For us to take responsibility.

Do you mean never failing would require us to be a perfect copy of God?
If not, why did you ask 'how do you invisage a soul/mind that is a perfect copy of its Creator?' ?

 

[dybmh]

Why would a perfect creator get upset if it's creation is not improving when the creation was designed to be able to not improve? It is doing what it was designed to do. Is it not? I mean, if the intention really was that it would always improve and never get static, it would have been designed to never get static (or become less perfect) and always improve.

If I am a perfect creator, I get exactly what I want when I create stuff. If I want them to never fail, they never will. If I design them to able to fail, and they do, why would I be upset exactly?

Hi Koldo,

We've discussed this in the past, it's nice to have you join the conversation.

"the creation was designed to be able to not improve" - this wasn't what I described. I said explicitly "if creation has the means to improve".

"If I design them to able to fail, and they do, why would I be upset exactly?" - they are able to fail but given the means to improve. If those means are ignored or wasted that would be a reason to be upset.

"If I am a perfect creator, I get exactly what I want when I create stuff. If I want them to never fail, they never will." - That's a good point. I hadn't considered that. What you're saying is, "If the creator values improvement, the perfect creator would force creation to constantly improve and avoid dissappointment, punishment, and wrath"? I guess, after pondering, my response is, maybe my original premise is too simple.

If a perfect creator god exists, it would need to have more than 1 value other than improvement in order for punishment to be just. For example, maybe it values both improvement and freedom such that a perfect creation would choose to improve, not be forced to improve. Thus when the creation uses its freedom to stagnate or deteriorate, it would need a correction in order to begin to improve and maintain its freedom.

However, it's possible that I'm still over simplifying and missing somethings. I appreciate the feedback if you choose to give it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you mean never failing would require us to be a perfect copy of God?

No .. it's this insistence that a creator can't be "perfect", if it creates human beings cap0able of evil.

If not, why did you ask 'how do you invisage a soul/mind that is a perfect copy of its Creator?' ?

..simply because of what you imply.
You speak as if God is a perfect "soul" or such like, and because we are not, means it's illogical
[hypothetically of course, because it's all a game to atheists]
I won't repeat my last post here.

 

[Koldo]

Hi Koldo,

We've discussed this in the past, it's nice to have you join the conversation.

"the creation was designed to be able to not improve" - this wasn't what I described. I said explicitly "if creation has the means to improve".

"If I design them to able to fail, and they do, why would I be upset exactly?" - they are able to fail but given the means to improve. If those means are ignored or wasted that would be a reason to be upset.

If I am the creator, I can choose what are the possible outcomes of everything my creation does. If I have chosen that one of the possible outcomes is them ignoring and wasting the means to improve, I can't be upset about that because I chose that as a possible outcome. If I wanted them to never ignore and waste the means to improve, I would have created them that way.

"If I am a perfect creator, I get exactly what I want when I create stuff. If I want them to never fail, they never will." - That's a good point. I hadn't considered that. What you're saying is, "If the creator values improvement, the perfect creator would force creation to constantly improve and avoid dissappointment, punishment, and wrath"? I guess, after pondering, my response is, maybe my original premise is too simple.

If a perfect creator god exists, it would need to have more than 1 value other than improvement in order for punishment to be just. For example, maybe it values both improvement and freedom such that a perfect creation would choose to improve, not be forced to improve. Thus when the creation uses its freedom to stagnate or deteriorate, it would need a correction in order to begin to improve and maintain its freedom.

However, it's possible that I'm still over simplifying and missing somethings. I appreciate the feedback if you choose to give it.

Actually, you would only need positive reinforcement to get people to do most things your way.
Let me put it like this: The way we feel about the things we do makes us either stay away from them or do them again. For example, if Joe feels good when he eats any given thing, he is likely to eat it again if he has the means to do so. It works for pretty much any thing we do or can do, including killing people, for example. The sheer lack of feeling good about doing something would be sufficient to compel people to refrain from doing something. If that's somehow not enough, feeling bad over what you want to do would seal the deal, and be sufficient. No actual punishment necessary from a third party.

The weird part about God punishing people is that he made it so that people experience joy from doing things they are not supposed to do. That's just how God chose to wire people though... He could have wired us differently.

 

[Koldo]

No .. it's this insistence that a creator can't be "perfect", if it creates human beings cap0able of evil.


..simply because of what you imply.
You speak as if God is a perfect "soul" or such like, and because we are not, means it's illogical
[hypothetically of course, because it's all a game to atheists]
I won't repeat my last post here.

Ok. I see no problem with saying that God is perfect even though he created creatures capable of doing evil. As long as we don't presume that perfection requires not creating things able to do evil.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The weird part about God punishing people is that he made it so that people experience joy from doing things they are not supposed to do..

I presume you are talking about the sexual urge.
Almighty God has created us "in pairs".
He has ordained marriage for us.

If one satisfies their urges within marriage, there is a reward.
If one satisfies their urges outside marriage, there is a punishment.

That is just how it is.
You might not see the wisdom behind it, but that does not mean that there is none.
Almighty God is not a person who tortures, or who gives you an ice-cream .. it is a lot more subtle. It is to do with our psychology and social nature.
G-d is aware of what He has created.

 

[dybmh]

If I am the creator, I can choose what are the possible outcomes of everything my creation does. If I have chosen that one of the possible outcomes is them ignoring and wasting the means to improve, I can't be upset about that because I chose that as a possible outcome. If I wanted them to never ignore and waste the means to improve, I would have created them that way.

And if freedom is also valued along with improvement? Wouldn't that discourage forcing the outcome to the desired result?

Actually, you would only need positive reinforcement to get people to do most things your way.
Let me put it like this: The way we feel about the things we do makes us either stay away from them or do them again. For example, if Joe feels good when he eats any given thing, he is likely to eat it again if he has the means to do so. It works for pretty much any thing we do or can do, including killing people, for example. The sheer lack of feeling good about doing something would be sufficient to compel people to refrain from doing something. If that's somehow not enough, feeling bad over what you want to do would seal the deal, and be sufficient. No actual punishment necessary from a third party.

Yes, a negative reinforcement may not be needed, but I'm not sure that eliminating it from most rules would be a better more perfect creation. I'm thinking specifically about things that we shouldn't do. Those things are maybe better prevented using negative reinforcement.

Example: Touching a hot stove is harmful. Without the negative reinforcement, to accomplish the same result with positive reinforcement how would that work? As long as you're not touching the hot stove there's a reward/positive reinforcement? That's a lot of rewards. Eventually the person becomes fat, lazy, spoiled, and demanding. The person needs to be rewarded all the time. Is that better, more perfect, than one person getting hurt, then spreading the word, "don't touch the hot stove" and a lot of people heed the advice because of the negative consequences?

The weird part about God punishing people is that he made it so that people experience joy from doing things they are not supposed to do. That's just how God chose to wire people though... They could have wired us differently.

If the creator values improvement, then giving the experience of joy when doing wrong ( and not getting caught ) gives each person plenty of room for improvement. If there was less pleasure involved, there would be less opportunity/means for improvement.

 

[Koldo]

I presume you are talking about the sexual urge.
Almighty God has created us "in pairs".
He has ordained marriage for us.

If one satisfies their urges within marriage, there is a reward.
If one satisfies their urges outside marriage, there is a punishment.

That is just how it is.
You might not see the wisdom behind it, but that does not mean that there is none.
Almighty God is not a person who tortures, or who gives you an ice-cream .. it is a lot more subtle. It is to do with our psychology and social nature.
G-d is aware of what He has created.

Let's work within that scope then. Let's presume it works exactly as you have said.
Then why does it feel good to have sex outside of marriage, rather than only within marriage?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This doesn't speak to the core issue in the problem of evil: a creator whose creation doesn't meet his own standard is an imperfect creator.

Would you rather have been a robot, with no choices, or are you glad to be able to make choices, even those that might displease Jehovah?

Also, what does God want? Mindless robot creatures, programmed to always do what’s right, or those who, by choice, fight against their inclinations, because they want to please Him?
That makes Him happy!

Proverbs 27:11

The other way — being an automaton — good behavior programmed, it would just be expected.

 

[Koldo]

And if freedom is also valued along with improvement? Wouldn't that discourage forcing the outcome to the desired result?

What do you understand by 'freedom'?

Yes, a negative reinforcement may not be needed, but I'm not sure that eliminating it from most rules would be a better more perfect creation. I'm thinking specifically about things that we shouldn't do. Those things are maybe better prevented using negative reinforcement.

Example: Touching a hot stove is harmful. Without the negative reinforcement, to accomplish the same result with positive reinforcement how would that work? As long as you're not touching the hot stove there's a reward/positive reinforcement? That's a lot of rewards. Eventually the person becomes fat, lazy, spoiled, and demanding. The person needs to be rewarded all the time. Is that better, more perfect, than one person getting hurt, then spreading the word, "don't touch the hot stove" and a lot of people heed the advice because of the negative consequences?

But touching a hot stove is not a moral act, is it? Couldn't we be just... immune to hot stoves? Or know inherently not to touch them because it is going to destroy their bodies?
Also, I don't think making people feel good about not doing something would be necessary.

If the creator values improvement, then giving the experience of joy when doing wrong ( and not getting caught ) gives each person plenty of room for improvement. If there was less pleasure involved, there would be less opportunity/means for improvement.

I am not sure I follow. Do you mean the best way to improve would be to refrain from doing something despite feeling good doing the very thing you are not supposed to do (or thinking it is gonna feel good to do it)?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then why does it feel good to have sex outside of marriage, rather than only within marriage?

..because like hunger and the pleasure of eating, it is part of survival of the species.
Pleasure is something we all like, but in the case of illicit relations, it can produce illegitimate offspring and cause complex social problems etc.

G-d has made us with a higher order than other creatures.
We are accountable for our deeds.
We make weapons and power stations and what-not
We create stable civilisations, with God's help.