Did God Create the Best Possible Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Achilles6129
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why not?
Because it is not possible. What kind of free will is one that can only choose obedience?
The point is that God would have known that Adam/Eve would* freely *choose to obey. In other words, there is a possible world where Adam/Eve freely chose to obey instead of disobey God - why didn’t God create that world?
 
Obviously a Catholic source will paint the Catholic position in the best possible light. I supplied other sources which call into question the Encyclopedia’s interpretation (e.g. the church excommunicating priests who decried the treatment of slaves and called for their release.)

Why isn’t the church working slowly against abortion instead of calling for immediate abolition?
Better clarity of the absolute negative aspects of abortion while many aspects of indentured servitude and bond slaves gave many very poor people a second chance in turning from lives of crime to good citizens. The gray area of growing civilized treatment of people gave hope that it could be an evil institution turned to good. That was before the new world opened up new torturous and demeaning forms of slavery There is no such hope for abortion.
 
This can’t be the best possible universe, though, right, because Heaven is better still. ?] It must be spatio-temporal in some sense, else having resurrected bodies becomes a strange puzzle.
Heaven has a few bodily persons, but is largely a spiritual place. Our Resurrection comes at the End of time just as the New Heaven and Earth are also brought about. I think the two must go together.

So, the answer to the whole thread is that what is the best way to get as many free-willed people to the New Earth? If that answer is this world then truly this is the best possible world for its purpose.
 
Best according to whom? God is said to be good, what is good? God is said to be love, what is love? What I come to offer is my very own insight, no doubt shared by countless others. God created a world, you are brought into this world, obviously have no say in this. You may grow up realizing life is not for you, just like you realize team sports may not be your thing, a drama class could be a living nightmare if you are a self-conscious introvert, a dream if you like to shine and be seen. Some are cut out for life, have the necesssary tools, gifts, talents, others struggle constantly in one way or another. In short, after a tough life, battling hopelessness and despair, some people, who only want peace and serenity, will be faced with the prospect of an eternity in a mental state far worse than what they’ve experienced in their lifetime, with the added “bonus” that their state is now permanent. A ticket to eternal hell is very cheap, as determined by God, one solitary sin qualified to be called mortal is all it takes.

To the one-track minds: no one is arguing that Stalin should be in Heaven, so please don’t go there, a conditionally immortal soul would have solved the problem of evil not being allowed in Heaven. You’re good and love God, you live forever, you’re a heartless bastard, your last breath is the end of you.
 
Why not?

The point is that God would have known that Adam/Eve would* freely *choose to obey. In other words, there is a possible world where Adam/Eve freely chose to obey instead of disobey God - why didn’t God create that world?
Maybe there is no possible world where everyone choose good over evil - every time.
 
Part of the argument is that God could have created a universe where Adam/Eve freely choose to obey his commands and not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Would you agree with that? If so, why wouldn’t God create that universe?
Might as well ask the alternate question.

Why did God not choose to create a heaven where none of the angels would freely choose to rebel?
 
Might as well ask the alternate question.

Why did God not choose to create a heaven where none of the angels would freely choose to rebel?
What if the “robot” argument fails to convince us? What if, to us, the robot argument is a cop-out, a ridiculous attempt at trying to make sense of something that is crystal clear: God wants his company to be hard earned, he loves to throw a couple of hurdles here and there for his good pleasure. It’s best to not be as robots and have hell as a possibility, if only Heaven existed as an eternal destination, this life would be soooo boring, couldn’t stand it…
 
Does God love each and every one of us as he loves himself? Can God love us more than he loves himself? Here is a simplistic yet profound way to test the power of the greatest commandments, If you choose to read further then search for something greater than I have written.
We’re not talking about “the power of the greatest commandments” whatever those may be.
Did God have a complete plan for the creation of everything, did he think ahead? Were Christ’s life, death and resurrection planned before the creation of the universe began?
To search for a deeper meaning, was Christ freely given the choice to accept his sacrifice before the creation of the universe began?
What purpose can be so great, that it would compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance the suffering of mankind and that his son would die? Would it be to forgive the sins of mankind, or can there be something greater?
I don’t know, you tell me. Better yet, simply tell me how we can distinguish correct answers to those questions from incorrect answers. I suspect your current criteria for correctness is simply “does Eric Hyom like the answer?”
What greatest thing can God create?
A copy of himself.
What greatest purpose can God have to create children in his own image?
God himself has no purpose. Purpose involves unactualized potentials, and God has no potentials. Perhaps you mean reason. I claim we don’t need to know the reason, just whether or not there is one in the first place.
What greatest purpose could God set for humanity?
For them to become gods.
This is only a collection of words to challenge the mind to think, I do not pretend to understand the meaning, or to make any claims of truth from these words.
Then I will tell you that the reason you don’t understand the meaning is because they all assume the wrong models about reality and what exists. You don’t actually know what “greater” means but you’re throwing it around left and right as though it has some sort of obvious interpretation.
 
. . . Then I will tell you that the reason you don’t understand the meaning is because they all assume the wrong models about reality and what exists. You don’t actually know what “greater” means but you’re throwing it around left and right as though it has some sort of obvious interpretation.
I would urge you to reflect on this statement - “reflect” being the key word here.
 
What if the “robot” argument fails to convince us? What if, to us, the robot argument is a cop-out, a ridiculous attempt at trying to make sense of something that is crystal clear: God wants his company to be hard earned, he loves to throw a couple of hurdles here and there for his good pleasure. It’s best to not be as robots and have hell as a possibility, if only Heaven existed as an eternal destination, this life would be soooo boring, couldn’t stand it…
It’s as though they think every decision always has exactly one right choice and one wrong choice. Instead I claim there are a variety of good and bad choices involved, so even if we eliminated all the wrong choices, we would still have several good options to free-will-chose between.

The obvious counter-example to the robot argument is Mary, who no one claims was a robot despite her being sinless.
 
It’s as though they think every decision always has exactly one right choice and one wrong choice. Instead I claim there are a variety of good and bad choices involved, so even if we eliminated all the wrong choices, we would still have several good options to free-will-chose between.

The obvious counter-example to the robot argument is Mary, who no one claims was a robot despite her being sinless.
God putting us to the test for his own sake suddenly becomes : God so loved the world that he didn’t want us to just be happy, content and living harmoniously with everyone in a famine-free, sickness-free, hatred-free idyllic world. Any old playwright knows that happiness is boring, you need to throw in drama, heartbreak etc. The “robot argument” is simply a new spin on things. The true spirit of God is made manifest in the Job story: destroy someone to see if he really loves you.
 
God putting us to the test for his own sake suddenly becomes : God so loved the world that he didn’t want us to just be happy, content and living harmoniously with everyone in a famine-free, sickness-free, hatred-free idyllic world. Any old playwright knows that happiness is boring, you need to throw in drama, heartbreak etc. The “robot argument” is simply a new spin on things. The true spirit of God is made manifest in the Job story: destroy someone to see if he really loves you.
I agree…the spin doctors try to clean things up, but the basic story is too horrid.
 
The true spirit of God is made manifest in the Job story: destroy someone to see if he really loves you.
Or to let him find out how much he really does love you.

Some believers are a good deal more than fair weather believers.

I would repeat what I have said elsewhere. The main thrust of the non-believers in this forum is to argue that our God is a cruel God. But because they don’t understand why evil should exist, it doesn’t follow that evil has no place in the divine plan of Creation. The problem of evil in no way challenges the very existence of the Deity. The best that can be made of that argument about evil is that God is cruel. But that does not wash either, because there are way too many people happy to be alive and living virtuous lives. How does the existence of a cruel God explain so much virtue and joy in the world? Wouldn’t a truly savage God make everyone as miserable as possible?

:confused:
 
Part of the argument is that God could have created a universe where Adam/Eve freely choose to obey his commands and not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Would you agree with that? If so, why wouldn’t God create that universe?
No, I would not agree with that. God could not create a universe in which Adam and Eve had a choice and at the same time guarantee that they would choose His will. By definition, giving someone a choice means giving up control of that that decision.
 
. . . God could not create a universe in which Adam and Eve had a choice and at the same time guarantee that they would choose His will. . .
By taking on our sin and paying our price, and as He, Love, grows within us, Christ allows us to participate in eternal life with God.
While we did not choose His Path in the perfection of Eden, suffering clears our vision.
One can wallow in bitterness over the indisputable reality of temporal suffering, or transcend it. Christ offers us the Way.
 
A copy of himself.
(Answering the question, “What is the greatest thing God could create?”)

I’m not so sure I agree. First of all, God is not created, so any copy of Himself would, by definition, not be identical, because it would be a created thing. God is the source of all things. This other creature could not also be the source of all things, as it would not be the source of itself, much less God, nor would it be the source of everything else God had created.

Also, I don’t know that, assuming this other God-like creation had free will, that God could guarantee it would choose Good. God will always choose good because it is in his nature to do so; for this other creature to have free will, it must have the ability to define its own will, otherwise, again, it would not be identical to God. It would be a pretty horrible thing for the rest of creation if this God-like creature had the power of God but lacked His will and were to choose to act against it.

This would also raise a conundrum along the lines of “can God create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it,” because, if He is all powerful, there can’t be a rock so heavy He can’t lift it. If God is all-powerful, there cannot be a being that is so powerful He cannot overcome it, otherwise He would not be all-powerful. Similarly, if this other creature were all-powerful, it would be able to overcome God, but since God is all-powerful, that is impossible. You simply cannot have two all-powerful Gods.

But putting these issues aside, I don’t even know that being equal to God would necessarily be good for anyone but God. The Bible tells us that Jesus, “though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.” (Philippians 2:6) As created beings, having the capacity to love that which created us and know that we are loved by Him is itself a great gift, especially when that which created us is the greatest Good, the source of all goodness. If we perceived ourselves as equal to that Creator and did not see ourselves as dependent upon it, we might not be capable of loving Him in the same way.

While I understand that there is perfect love between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all three of which are God, none of these three are creations of God, and the question is about the greatest thing God could create. It seems to me that, as creations, the ability to love our Creator may be contingent upon our recognizing ourselves as creations, as something less than that which created us.

Full disclosure – I’m not a theologian and welcome correction if I have erred in expressing how this “might” work.
 
By taking on our sin and paying our price, and as He, Love, grows within us, Christ allows us to participate in eternal life with God.
While we did not choose His Path in the perfection of Eden, suffering clears our vision.
One can wallow in bitterness over the indisputable reality of temporal suffering, or transcend it. Christ offers us the Way.
I thought about touching upon this in my response above but chose instead to focus on the specific question I was asked. However, you raise a good point – while God created a universe in which we had the freedom not to choose His path, He also created pathways for redemption once we realized our mistake. The pain of this universe plays a direct role in that redemption, both in terms of the pain Christ bore for our sake and, I think, in helping to remind us of our need for God. Could we dread the loss of Heaven and the fires of Hell if we knew neither loss nor fire?
 
. . .

Well, actually four people at first created sinless. Adam, Eve, Mary, Jesus.

So two of the four sinned and brought all the rest of us down with them. The other two strove to bring us up again to righteousness.

I think that is the best of all possible worlds, where you have offensive and defensive teams against the devil and his works. The defensive team (Adam and Eve) failed to hold the line and the devil scored; the offensive team (The Catholic Church) is struggling to score and win, but the game is never over until it’s over. 👍
Actually, this is inaccurate.

In Jesus, the offensive team scored and won the victory. Now the Church is busy “mopping up”–that is, if we have the sense to follow Christ, we will make it through; if not, we won’t.
 
Or to let him find out how much he really does love you.

Some believers are a good deal more than fair weather believers.

I would repeat what I have said elsewhere. The main thrust of the non-believers in this forum is to argue that our God is a cruel God. But because they don’t understand why evil should exist, it doesn’t follow that evil has no place in the divine plan of Creation. The problem of evil in no way challenges the very existence of the Deity. The best that can be made of that argument about evil is that God is cruel. But that does not wash either, because there are way too many people happy to be alive and living virtuous lives. How does the existence of a cruel God explain so much virtue and joy in the world? Wouldn’t a truly savage God make everyone as miserable as possible?

:confused:
“Cruel” may not be an accurate description of God, partial and indifferent would probably be better terms. I could never understand why David, after having been given so much in the way of talents, glory, women, and messing up the way he did, why God let him live with the woman with whom this whole fiasco started. I also remember the talent parable where the poor fellow with but one talent is scolded and is sent to God’s friendly eternal torture chamber.

As for the joy in the world, it’ simple. Just like Cinderella’s step mother treated her like dirt, she acted quite the opposite with her own daughters. Likewise, God is all lovey dovey, lenient with David, not so with everyone else. God is not shabby with everyone all the time. His shabbiness also varies in degrees.

No matter how anyone parrots the Christian propaganda, if they stop to actually think, hell will point to an imperfect God, an unjust, almost absolutely harsh God. That God chose to take Adam and Eve’s sin and apply it to everyone not yet born is also unjust.

If you die with just one mortal sin on your soul, God wil treat you worse than Uday Hussein would have. I don’t know if Hussein sometimes relented, but I know for a fact God won’t relent. While we may agree that particularly vicious and mean people do deserve to pay in some fashion, an eternity in hell for an otherwise decent man who doesn’t reciprocate God’s love is crazy. God really does trap us: you can’t escape life, you can’t abort your own life, and there is no sane alternative to not loving God. “Free” and “freedom” simply do not belong next to “God”. A loving God, a God who is love would have chosen another way, perhaps a conditionally immortal soul, perhaps hell and then some sort of Limbo after billions of years of agony, to satisfy God’s quasi insatiable justice. But a Catholic with feigned sincerity will say, “See, God is so good that if you don’t love him, he won’t force you to be around him”. Hell is such a friendly and reasonable alternative to being in God’s presence. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top