News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Problem of Design

Started by Whitney, June 22, 2006, 10:05:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Whitney

This is a quick summary of what could be called the problem of design:

Since the current Christian view of God is one outside of 'time,' makes more sense to say that God is outside of the dimension but whatever, I'm going to use that idea of God. Being outside of time, he can essentially fast forward and see the consiquences of whatever universe he decides to make. At the moment just before creation (pick your favorite version of creation because it doesn't matter) God knew how each possible universe he would create would turn out. He knew at that moment that mankind would be inherently sinful and that most of the world would not accept Christianity, yet nontheless this universe was the best he could do out of the many possible universes so he created it anyway.

The problem with this isn't so much a classic problem of evil, even though I could use that here, but a problem of the design of human nature and the existance of punishment. God, knowing how everything would be, knowing that Bill, and many other Bills, would not become christian, made people and made hell. He knew that he would be sending the majority of his creation to hell. So, it is a problem of evil, but not the problem as normally stated. Why would a loving God create a world in which he knows that by creating such a world that he would be sending most of the creation he claims to love to an eternal burning hell?

(credit for the problem of design goes to Jake at the AN and another member of the AN but can't remember who it was right now....This is just my version of how to state the problem)

HoratioHB

#1
There would appear to be two answers to this problem.

1. This is not a problem that requires an answer, but rather requires faith that God knows what he is doing and belief that if you have faith then you can avoid hell. This is commonly referred to as the flock-of-sheep system of problem solving.
2. God doesn't exist as a single cognisant being, and therefore there is no problem persa.

However, I do admire how the problem has been couched and would love to throw this one at the next JWs to grace my doorstep.

Thanks for the ammo.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" Albert Einstein

Whitney

#2
If you ever get a theist to give a good answer (or any answer) to the problem, let me know.  I've tried a couple times and they ignore it as if I had said nothing.

iplaw

#3
Hello,

I am new to the forum...obviously.  Laetusatheos, I also see that you are from Okieland.  Well...interesting question.  I have some thoughts on the subject but need some time to compose a coherent answer.  Just wanted to say hey to the fellow statesmen...woman...person...oh well, you know what I mean.

iplaw

#4
QuoteWhy would a loving God create a world in which he knows that by creating such a world that he would be sending most of the creation he claims to love to an eternal burning hell?

STEP ONE

Maybe we should start with some foundational assumptions that encompass my answer to the question.  We can step through this and iterate so it doesn't become confusing in the process.

Simply speaking to the question, I see that there are only four possible types of worlds:

1.  The first is that there would be nothing at all. Would it not have been better to have not created a world than to have created this one—where good and evil are viable possibilities?  I think this may be the category your question belongs inside, but I may be incorrect.

2.  Second is a world where only good would be permitted, a robotically beneficent universe.

3.  Third option is a universe where there is no such thing as good or evil, basically an amoral world, right and wrong would not even be legitimate categories for our consideration.

4.  The fourth is the world that we currently live in, where good and evil exist with the possibility of choosing either.

Is this an acceptable assessment of the possibilities or can you think of something I'm missing?

Court

#5
I'm not sure I agree completely with the word "robotically" in the second one. If people were purely good (as it is assumed god is), they would make all good choices. Therefore, evil would effectively not exist because it would never manifest itself in choices and actions. But, does that mean free will is gone? No. Simply that "good" is always chosen over "evil", which would become an extreme abstract.

You forgot also a universe in which there are only evil acts (or evil acts are the only ones chosen)....

And if you accept my first assertion, there can be universes of no free will, both good and evil, as well as those with free will with only good or evil, respectively...
[size=92]
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas
[/size]
[size=92]
try having a little faith = stop using your brain for a while -- ziffel[/size]

iplaw

#6
QuoteI'm not sure I agree completely with the word "robotically" in the second one. If people were purely good (as it is assumed god is), they would make all good choices. Therefore, evil would effectively not exist because it would never manifest itself in choices and actions. But, does that mean free will is gone? No. Simply that "good" is always chosen over "evil", which would become an extreme abstract.
I agree that it is an extreme abstraction, but nevertheless falls within the latter category of whether one choses good or evil.  If people were purely good then evil would not be an acceptable alternative, ever, and would render the choice moot.  I think your assertion that the inability to chose evil based upon an inherent characteristic creates robotic behavior because it still implies a lack of choice whether the limitation is ontologically or existentially imposed.  If I am purely good, I have no choice but to behave accordingly or I am by definition not purely good.  Your assertion allows people to be purely good unless they choose not to be... I.E. alternative 4.

QuoteYou forgot also a universe in which there are only evil acts (or evil acts are the only ones chosen)....
The same argument applies here as well.

Court

#7
Okay, I accept that argument, but where are you going with this?
[size=92]
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas
[/size]
[size=92]
try having a little faith = stop using your brain for a while -- ziffel[/size]

Court

#8
Oh, that was Part I. Sorry, I don't want to rush you....
[size=92]
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas
[/size]
[size=92]
try having a little faith = stop using your brain for a while -- ziffel[/size]

iplaw

#9
No problem.  I will continue shortly....lunch time is callin'

iplaw

#10
PART TWO

The second part of my answer is a simple question followed by a thought.  Which of the above potential universes contain the possibility of authentic, interpersonal love? And I say authentic love as opposed to a love predicated upon the lack of ability to choose anything else.  

Purely good individuals would only choose love, somewhat like a computer which tells you it loves you whenever you turn on the power button, and discussion of love in a universe without life is meaningless.  That is the "why" behind why this universe must operate with these inital conditions concerning good and evil.  I find it was best said in this quote:

"In the final analysis, our world is the only one where love is genuinely possible because freedom is a precondition for authentic love. We intuitively recognize that love is the supreme ethic and where love is possible, freedom is necessary. Where freedom is real, so is the possibility of evil and suffering." – Ravi Zacharias

A "loving god," if it does exist, must create a universe to behave in this manner else the term "loving" would have no meaning. But, if "loving" is to be defined by automaton like responses from purely good beings I would consider that definition to be ultimately worthless, not to mention an abject waste of time.

At the risk of including too much information in my post I will include a last quotation:

"...things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can
imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating." -- C.S. Lewis

Court

#11
Okay, I'm following you...
[size=92]
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas
[/size]
[size=92]
try having a little faith = stop using your brain for a while -- ziffel[/size]

iplaw

#12
Simply stated, to create a humanity which would automatically choose to follow this god with no ability to deny its existence would have been a waste of time.  The fact that humanity can reject god allows us to respond in the inverse as well.  The transcendent temporal aspect of a god has no effect on the vaibility of the free will of humanity.  Why he chose to create humanity in the first place as opposed to nothing is not to be asked by a person who denies the existence of such a being. It's like asking whether or not bigfoot likes to knit.  If you don't believe in bigfoot, why ask the question?

A "loving god" can't be loved in return except by a humanity which can chose to reject that god.


"...If God is to both preserve freedom and defeat evil, then this world is the best way to do it. Freedom is preserved in that each person makes his or her own free choice to determine their destiny. Evil is overcome in that once those who reject God are separated from the others, the decisions of all are honored and made permanent." -- Norman Geisler


My apologies if I use too many quotes.  Others say things more succinctly and coherently than I do sometimes.

iplaw

#13
The better question to ask is how would I have created our universe...

Court

#14
It's a relevant question in the hypothetical because it proves the inconsistencies and contradictions of our idea of god. So, hypothetically, god makes us sinners, capable of evil, or "flawed." We are a flawed product because he needs someone to worship him, and he wants "true" love instead of an automatic, programmed response. That doesn't really sound loving because he is sacrificing humans he created (to whom he has not made himself obvious) because HE wants followers. That's absurd.
[size=92]
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas
[/size]
[size=92]
try having a little faith = stop using your brain for a while -- ziffel[/size]