Is a Suboptimal World a Problem?

[Sparko]

Not the point of the argument. The question is if heaven is the perfect or optimal world, and we are re-made so to speak upon entering it, then couldn't that world have been created in the first place. The Christian answer would seem to be that yes, god could have made the perfect world from the get go, but he didn't. The question then is why not?

That isn't the Christian answer. The Christian answer is "apparently not, because then God would have made that perfect world"

My personal thinking goes a bit like this.

1. If God allows free will to sin, there is no world he could create where nobody would ever not eventually sin.
2. If he is going to have to create a world where people eventually sin, might as well make the world where we sin early, so you don't end up with a mixed bag.
3. So he created the world where mankind freely chose to sin right at the beginning (I am a molinist by the way)
4. In order to redeem this world and give people a way out, he chooses various people throughout time to carry his message of salvation. Eventually the Son comes to Earth as Jesus to be our Savior.
5. Basically those who choose Jesus are saying to God, "I want to follow you. I willingly give up my free will to sin and subject my will to yours"
6. Thus, in "heaven" those who chose this will not be able to sin, but only because of their previous free-will choice to give up that ability to God.

The result is a world now where you can have free will and sin, and you can use that free will to reject God and suffer eternal separation from him, or use that free will to choose God as your Lord and Savior and eventually you will be unable to sin and be (ironically) free.

So as far as God's plan goes, yes, this is the optimal world. He could not have created it any other way and still give us complete free will to choose or reject him.

[Jedidiah]

Philosophy speculates when it considers a range of possible worlds. To not see value in critical thought? Man, that's boring. Why are you even here?

Where is the supposed 'critical thinking' in making wild guesses about the motivation of a being we have no capacity at all to understand beyond what is revealed to us? There is certainly no where near enough information for meaningful speculation. It is just building castles in the air.

[whag]

Sure, you've made your view known. Thank you. Just know you're denigrating a common conversational tool that theologians and apologists use and for good reasons. William Lane Craig, for example, explains the teleology of this transitory world by comparing God to an artist. His reason to speculate on that is to acknowledge that the world is messy and provide, at least, a possible partial answer to it. Why is it messy? Well maybe because God's like a painter.

That's speculation. Although I find fault with that metaphor, I honor Craig's speculating as a mode of discourse with a purpose. The good thing is you've revealed how different you and I are with this latest branch of discussion.

[stfoskey15]

You seem rather desperate to shift the burden of proof. Your contention is that this world is suboptimal, but if it's possible that it perfectly fulfills God's purpose (and it is possible), then your argument fails. Whether or not we are able to apprehend that purpose is irrelevant.

Your burden is to, first of all, prove God's exact purpose, and second, prove that this world is unable to perfectly fulfill that purpose. But of course you can't shoulder that burden which is why the argument from evil fails as a logical argument.

You're right that the argument can't be used to disprove God. But it can be used to disprove a God who wants the best for people on this Earth. Sure God could have created this world just for fun, or because he was bored, or whatever, but if he wants people to be as happy as possible, he's failing.

Pretty sure that would be God, because of Adam and Eve's sin.

Okay. Why did God punish them so harshly because of their sin?

That isn't the Christian answer. The Christian answer is "apparently not, because then God would have made that perfect world"

My personal thinking goes a bit like this.

1. If God allows free will to sin, there is no world he could create where nobody would ever not eventually sin.
2. If he is going to have to create a world where people eventually sin, might as well make the world where we sin early, so you don't end up with a mixed bag.
3. So he created the world where mankind freely chose to sin right at the beginning (I am a molinist by the way)
4. In order to redeem this world and give people a way out, he chooses various people throughout time to carry his message of salvation. Eventually the Son comes to Earth as Jesus to be our Savior.
5. Basically those who choose Jesus are saying to God, "I want to follow you. I willingly give up my free will to sin and subject my will to yours"
6. Thus, in "heaven" those who chose this will not be able to sin, but only because of their previous free-will choice to give up that ability to God.

The result is a world now where you can have free will and sin, and you can use that free will to reject God and suffer eternal separation from him, or use that free will to choose God as your Lord and Savior and eventually you will be unable to sin and be (ironically) free.

So as far as God's plan goes, yes, this is the optimal world. He could not have created it any other way and still give us complete free will to choose or reject him.

Why would God allow free will to sin?

[Jedidiah]

Sure, you've made your view known. Thank you. Just know you're denigrating a common conversational tool that theologians and apologists use and for good reasons. William Lane Craig, for example, explains the teleology of this transitory world by comparing God to an artist. His reason to speculate on that is to acknowledge that the world is messy and provide, at least, a possible partial answer to it. Why is it messy? Well maybe because God's like a painter.

That's speculation. Although I find fault with that metaphor, I honor Craig's speculating as a mode of discourse with a purpose. The good thing is you've revealed how different you and I are with this latest branch of discussion.

What I wrote was:

There is certainly no where near enough information for meaningful speculation. It is just building castles in the air.

I do not have any problem with theological speculation. I simply do not see any where near enough info to speculate on the motives of the creator. How have I denigrated anything? Speculate all you want but it has no meaning to me. I have seen God compared to an artist, I have seen him compared to an educator. There are things to base these on within the creation. Motive, not so much.

[Christianbookworm]

We are all enrolled in the school of hard knocks. And there will be a grade.

[Sparko]

You're right that the argument can't be used to disprove God. But it can be used to disprove a God who wants the best for people on this Earth. Sure God could have created this world just for fun, or because he was bored, or whatever, but if he wants people to be as happy as possible, he's failing.



Okay. Why did God punish them so harshly because of their sin?



Why would God allow free will to sin?

God did not punish them so harshly he gave them clothes and remained with them as their God and the world was still a great world to live in, just not perfect any more. Pretty generous.

Sin at its basic is doing what you want in rejection of what God wants. Turning away from God. So basically God was giving mankind the choice to choose him or reject him, rather than not give them any choice in the matter.

[whag]

God did not punish them so harshly he gave them clothes and remained with them as their God and the world was still a great world to live in, just not perfect any more.

The world was never perfect, hence the point of this thread. Not only does God never declare it perfect, the evidence shows it was never perfect.
As mossrose said, it was never meant to be anything other than transitory.

[JimL]

That isn't the Christian answer. The Christian answer is "apparently not, because then God would have made that perfect world"

But that is false prima facie, if god has to re-make you without the ability to sin, then "for your own good" he could have made you that way in the first place.

My personal thinking goes a bit like this.

1. If God allows free will to sin, there is no world he could create where nobody would ever not eventually sin.

That contradicts your belief in the nature of heaven where you have both human free will but no ability to sin. So for what reason would god allow the freedom to sin, if he knows that the freedom to sin would not be good for you?

2. If he is going to have to create a world where people eventually sin, might as well make the world where we sin early, so you don't end up with a mixed bag.

But he didn't have to create that world, he could have made us right from the get go in the same way that you claim he re-makes us upon our acceptence of him.

3. So he created the world where mankind freely chose to sin right at the beginning (I am a molinist by the way)

You mean he created a world in which he knew man would freely choose to sin right away, correct? Or do you think god didn't know?

4. In order to redeem this world and give people a way out, he chooses various people throughout time to carry his message of salvation. Eventually the Son comes to Earth as Jesus to be our Savior.

But he wouldn't have to redeem them if he created them properly in the first place instead of giving them the ability to make the wrong choice. Obviously people don't make the wrong choices on purpose. After all, they are only human!

5. Basically those who choose Jesus are saying to God, "I want to follow you. I willingly give up my free will to sin and subject my will to yours"

My point was, and still is, that christians have already chosen god while here on earth, yet they still sin. So by choosing god you don't give up your free will to sin. Perhaps you mean to say that god removes from you the ability to sin, but if thats what you mean, then again, if god has to remove that ability to sin from you, then what purpose does the crucible of earth serve? In other words, if god has to re-make you in that way, then he could have done that from the get go.

6. Thus, in "heaven" those who chose this will not be able to sin, but only because of their previous free-will choice to give up that ability to God.

So the sole purpose of gods creating humans with the freedom to choose was to provide them with the ability to reject the freedom to choose?

The result is a world now where you can have free will and sin, and you can use that free will to reject God and suffer eternal separation from him, or use that free will to choose God as your Lord and Savior and eventually you will be unable to sin and be (ironically) free.

What do you mean by eternal separation? Inihilation, eternal hell, death, or what? Btw, people do not decide to accept or to reject god, they decide whether or not a belief in god comports with their reason. You can't accept or reject a thing unless you have certain knowledge of the existence of that thing, thats why its called a belief. Perhaps you think you know with absolute certainty that god exists, perhaps you had some sort of personal encounter with your particular god that gives you that knowledge, but there are billions of people, some long dead, many still living, who have no such knowledge. How does your theology work for them?

So as far as God's plan goes, yes, this is the optimal world. He could not have created it any other way and still give us complete free will to choose or reject him.

If god could create you with both free will, but without the ability to sin, which is your claim, then why couldn't he do that in the first place. And again, your whole theory here rests on the notion that people are choosing to reject your god. Thats obviously false. People don't know that your god exists any more than they know Allah or any of the other thousands of believed in deities exist, so they can neither accept or reject him.

[whag]

You seem rather desperate to shift the burden of proof. Your contention is that this world is suboptimal, but if it's possible that it perfectly fulfills God's purpose (and it is possible), then your argument fails. Whether or not we are able to apprehend that purpose is irrelevant.

You didn't read or didn't understand the OP. I can re-explain it to you if reading it again doesn't help.

Your burden is to, first of all, prove God's exact purpose, and second, prove that this world is unable to perfectly fulfill that purpose.

My goal isn't to prove anything to you but to discuss the transitory and eschaton worlds. The controversy is that sin appears to be a necessary phase baked into the teleology of the universe. Theologians discuss such issues all the time.

[whag]

a problem a lot of people have is that if the world isn't the way they think it should be, then it is "suboptimal" and God messed up.

It actually is suboptimal, but because WE messed up. But I think it is all part of God's plan. So overall, considering the beginning, where we are now, and the result, everything is "optimal" and exactly where God wants it to be at any given moment.

That's my point. Sin would inevitably be expressed, so there was never an option to "not mess up." All is according to plan.

[JimL]

God did not punish them so harshly he gave them clothes and remained with them as their God and the world was still a great world to live in, just not perfect any more. Pretty generous.

Was it all part of gods plan, in his omniscience did he know the script ere it played itself out? Sorry, but that would contradict the notion of free will.

Sin at its basic is doing what you want in rejection of what the bible claims that God wants. Turning away from the bible. So basically the bible was giving mankind the choice to choose it or reject it, rather than not give them any choice in the matter.

Fixed it for you.

Those who reject the bible as truth are not rejecting god, they are rejecting the bible as being the word of god. Thats a big problem for the christian argument. In other words non-believers are not rejecting what you claim to know, i.e they are not rejecting your god, they don't know your god any more than you do, they are rejecting what you believe to know, i.e. they are rejecting what you believe to be god.

[Cow Poke]

That's my point. Sin would inevitably be expressed, so there was never an option to "not mess up." All is according to plan.

Whag, question for you.

Does Jim sound like he's on the same page with you?

[Sparko]

But that is false prima facie, if god has to re-make you without the ability to sin, then "for your own good" he could have made you that way in the first place.

That contradicts your belief in the nature of heaven where you have both human free will but no ability to sin. So for what reason would god allow the freedom to sin, if he knows that the freedom to sin would not be good for you?

But he didn't have to create that world, he could have made us right from the get go in the same way that you claim he re-makes us upon our acceptence of him.


You mean he created a world in which he knew man would freely choose to sin right away, correct? Or do you think god didn't know?


But he wouldn't have to redeem them if he created them properly in the first place instead of giving them the ability to make the wrong choice. Obviously people don't make the wrong choices on purpose. After all, they are only human!

My point was, and still is, that christians have already chosen god while here on earth, yet they still sin. So by choosing god you don't give up your free will to sin. Perhaps you mean to say that god removes from you the ability to sin, but if thats what you mean, then again, if god has to remove that ability to sin from you, then what purpose does the crucible of earth serve? In other words, if god has to re-make you in that way, then he could have done that from the get go.

So the sole purpose of gods creating humans with the freedom to choose was to provide them with the ability to reject the freedom to choose?

What do you mean by eternal separation? Inihilation, eternal hell, death, or what? Btw, people do not decide to accept or to reject god, they decide whether or not a belief in god comports with their reason. You can't accept or reject a thing unless you have certain knowledge of the existence of that thing, thats why its called a belief. Perhaps you think you know with absolute certainty that god exists, perhaps you had some sort of personal encounter with your particular god that gives you that knowledge, but there are billions of people, some long dead, many still living, who have no such knowledge. How does your theology work for them?

If god could create you with both free will, but without the ability to sin, which is your claim, then why couldn't he do that in the first place. And again, your whole theory here rests on the notion that people are choosing to reject your god. Thats obviously false. People don't know that your god exists any more than they know Allah or any of the other thousands of believed in deities exist, so they can neither accept or reject him.

wow. You completely misunderstood every single thing I said. That is quite a feat.

[whag]

Whag, question for you.

Does Jim sound like he's on the same page with you?

From what little I've read, no. My OP is about sin being baked into the teleology of the world to get to the ultimate world. This means that sin was inevitable and needed and there was never another fork in the road for Adam and Eve to choose. Even if such a fork could have been taken, it would have put off the inevitable. The world would constantly be threatened by the potential expression of sin, which is suboptimal.

When I responded to mossrose's key point, she ignored my response:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post342953

This is more sophisticated than Jim's argument, which, no offense to Jim, is just the problem of natural evil argument warmed over.