Why did God create anything if he knew in advance what would happen?

[McBell]

What a silly question.

Why is it silly?

 

[Skwim]

Really?
And what exactly is your basis for comparison?

What a silly question.

Not at all. Horiturk made a value comparison between living and not being at all, so it's quite valid to ask what the basis for it is. If I said red is better than green, you'd be quite justified to ask, "On what basis do you make such a comparison?"

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Not at all. Horiturk made a value comparison between living and not being at all, so it's quite valid to ask what the basis for it is. If I said red is better than green, you'd be quite justified to ask, "On what basis do you make such a comparison?"

Even value is subject to existence. All things have value, except of course, non-existence. Getting the drift?

 

[Skwim]

Even value is subject to existence. All things have value, except of course, non-existence. Getting the drift?

Immaterial to horituk's remark and Mestemia's question.

Horiturk said, "i'd say the positive of living far outweighs the negative of not being at all." In order for one thing to outweigh another, which is what is asserted here, both must have some common measurable quality by which they are compared. Mestemia merely asked what this quality was. A very illegitimate question, and hardly silly. If horituk has none, or is mistaken in thinking he has, then so be it; however this in no way makes Mestemia's question silly. If you said that three aliens lived in your nose, It would, IMHO, be a stupid assertion, but asking why you thought so would not be a silly question. Of course I would be humoring you, as Mestemia may have been doing with horituk, but my question would not be silly.

Moreover, I think there's great value in the nonexistence of Iranian nuclear weapons. Don't you?

 

[McBell]

Even value is subject to existence. All things have value, except of course, non-existence. Getting the drift?

Sure don't.

Of course I understand that you are making assumptions about a state of non-being that you have absolutely no experience with.

So I shall ask you:

what is YOUR basis for comparison?
​

Seems to me that you are attempting to present an opinion as a fact.
Now if you cannot provide anything to support your opinion other than avoidance of the question and diversion tactics....

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Sure don't.

Of course I understand that you are making assumptions about a state of non-being that you have absolutely no experience with.

So I shall ask you:

what is YOUR basis for comparison?
​

Seems to me that you are attempting to present an opinion as a fact.
Now if you cannot provide anything to support your opinion other than avoidance of the question and diversion tactics....

Truth be told, I find it rather silly to argue about such a thing as "existence" at all. Am I not allowed to make my point in my own way? Having said that, asking someone to provide causal information regarding being and non-being is a bit pointless, don't you?

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Moreover, I think there's great value in the nonexistence of Iranian nuclear weapons. Don't you?

We're talking about nonexistence itself, not just nonexistence of what the self perceives. There is a big difference.

 

[Skwim]

We're talking about nonexistence itself, not just nonexistence of what the self perceives. There is a big difference.

Believe me or not, but things don't acquire existence or nonexistence because I, you, or anyone else happens to perceive them. But it really doesn't matter because my remark was tongue in cheek anyway.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Believe me or not, but things don't acquire existence or nonexistence because I, you, or anyone else happens to perceive them.

Well, I can certainly agree with you there.

But it really doesn't matter because my remark was tongue in cheek anyway.

Missed that. Thank god, lol.

 

[McBell]

Truth be told, I find it rather silly to argue about such a thing as "existence" at all.

As do I.
But then, I am most curious as to the basis for comparison.
One wonders why the two people who make the claim refuse to actually support said claim..?

Am I not allowed to make my point in my own way?

Perhaps I am slow today.
What point were you trying to make?

I mean all you really said is that it was a silly question...

Having said that, asking someone to provide causal information regarding being and non-being is a bit pointless, don't you?

not when that someone is making a claim in that regard.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

As do I.
But then, I am most curious as to the basis for comparison.
One wonders why the two people who make the claim refuse to actually support said claim..?


Perhaps I am slow today.
What point were you trying to make?


I mean all you really said is that it was a silly question...


not when that someone is making a claim in that regard.

You must be referring to horiturk here. I can only further assume you mean the second person is me.

To be perfectly honest, I can't give you any basis of comparison. In my view, existence is not an idea you can run with for very long. You can only make a simple, instantaneous observation about it based on your immediate experience. Also, in my view, no observation about being or non-being is ever wrong, or conflicting with another view, because one's own experience dictates it as inherently applicable. This is why I said your question was silly. I was a bit boggled as to what kind of answer you'd expect to be valid, but I suppose that could just as easily be a limitation of my thinking as it could yours.

I'd love to pull from my relatively generous experience from meditation, but I can't see anyone but myself seeing it as valid. Nor would I expect anyone to understand, unless of course, they themselves were familiar with the experience, so I generally don't mention it. But that's fine.

So, I guess your question wasn't silly.

Though, in the context of what I knew at that moment... it really was a silly question, lol.

 

[jtartar]

Well?........................................

ecman51,
It is true that God is Omniscient, that He knows everything, but does that mean that He knows everything that has not happened??? The Holy Scriptures show that God has the ability to look ahead and see the future, but they also show that God does not always use this ability.
There is NO contengency that God is not aware of, but that does not mean that He KNEW that things would go bad for mankind. Consider Gen 6:6,7, which says that God was hurt at His heart with the way men had ruined the earth, that He felt regrets at the way things turned out. This could not be so, if God knew from before He created man that he WOULD go bad.
God knows everyhting that can happen, if God had foreknew that man would go bad before man did go bad, it would mean that some of mankind would say that, because God foreknew wickedness, He actually caused the wickedness, that the wickedness was actually within God before He made man.
There was no such thing as wickedness before Satan introduced wickedness. God made everything perfect, when they decided to sin against God, they became SELFBORN sinners, the defect was their own, not God's, Deut 32:4,5.
An error is the thinking that God causes a thing to happen just because He knows that it will happen. God can know something without causing it to happen, the same as a weather forcaster can know a storm is coming but has NOT caused it.
The Bible does tell us that God is PERFECT in Knowledge, but that does not mean that He knows everything, when there is really nothing to know, because the thing has not happened, Job 36:4, 37:16.

 

[Christian Gnosis]

Well?........................................

See I take the view of CS Lewis. God having a will doesn't mean God's will is a destiny dictator for humanity. Lewis put it this way: God's will can be compared to a mother who tells her children to clean their room, and goes upstairs to find everything previously on the floor in the fireplace grate. The mother's will was that they clean their room, but she didn't necessarily like how they went about it. Humans have choices too.

 

[McBell]

See I take the view of CS Lewis. God having a will doesn't mean God's will is a destiny dictator for humanity. Lewis put it this way: God's will can be compared to a mother who tells her children to clean their room, and goes upstairs to find everything previously on the floor in the fireplace grate. The mother's will was that they clean their room, but she didn't necessarily like how they went about it. Humans have choices too.

But that is not cleaning the room.
It is merely a relocation of the mess.