If you were a loving God; how would you have created this world?

[ProdigalAnglicn]

Asking a human being how they would create the universe is like asking my dog how she would do math.

 

[Kismetji]

There are people who cannot conceive of the idea that a loving God created this world. Do you agree or disagree and why or why not? If you were a loving God; how would you have created this world? What would you eliminate or add?

Excellent question.

Personally, I cannot conceive of what a ‘perfect world’ would amount to. Well, that is not completely honest. I CAN. But, it would be nothing like this material world, with dog-eat-dog and so forth. Problem is, our universe cannot be separated from suffering. So, in that sense it is like conceptualizing what a “perfect leaf” or a “perfect baby” would look like. It can’t be done because the archetypes you are dealing with are not applicable in the naively idealistic way you wish to apply them.

Overall, I think this world was “allowed” out of love. That is, God tolerates it. God sustains it. But he does not directly create or sanction it. IMO.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Wouldn’t you be then limiting her free will and independence? You wouldn’t want to create robots, right?

If he chose a world in which she did eat the apple, would she be any more free?

 

[Bobber90]

I would have created beings equal to myself and lived in brother/sisterhood with them. With or without a universe…

Anything else seems unnecessary or mean.

Here is a brief but interesting quote from Bertrand Russel on the matter. It is from his history of western philosophy, and he was just discussing Plato’s Republic and the cave allegory. The God is Plato’s God, obviously not the Christian one, but the point raised is highly agreeable to me:

The philosopher who is to be a guardian must, according to Plato, return into the cave, and live among those who have never seen the sun of truth. It would seem that God Himself, if He wishes to amend His creation, must do likewise; a Christian Platonist might so interpret the Incarnation. But it remains completely impossible to explain why God was not content with the world of ideas. The philosopher finds the cave in existence, and is actuated by benevolence in returning to it; but the Creator, if He created everything, might, one would think, have avoided the cave altogether.

The world of ideas or Forms is not a Christian belief, but it compares with heaven or the timeless exteriority to the universe of God Himself. God is the necessary being, the universe is the contingent being. The ideas/Forms are ontologically superior to the world of appearances Plato thought we live in.

If I was God and responsible for everything, I would not make inferior beings who lacked true comprehension of me, in a contingent reality. Why not create equals and live in infinite knowledge and harmony, without even needing to erect barriers between us like universes?

 

[tonyrey]

Definitely get rid of natural disasters. No birth defects. In fact kids would be invulnerable up to the age of 15 or so. Don’t see a need for this whole death thing so that goes for sure. Built in wifi for all people. And plenty of robots.

How?

 

[tonyrey]

Overall, I think this world was “allowed” out of love. That is, God tolerates it. God sustains it. But he does not directly create or sanction it. IMO.

directly is the key word. It was a sceptic, David Hume, who pointed out that if He exists He works through natural laws.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would anybody choose Hell? If they really wanted to be there, I guess it would be their right, but if they didn’t like it I would let them come to Heaven anytime they wanted.

Suppose they’re not willing to give up the advantages of being totally independent and putting themselves first?

 

[tonyrey]

I’m god, I can infringe logic and it doesn’t matter

 

[Flyingg]

No pain and misery, just pleasure and happiness.
One of the arguments that disprove the presence of a loving god:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

?Epicurus

 

[BellsMom]

I would have erased Satan from existence first and foremost. Despite all this talk of free will, God has demonstrated in the bible many times that he has no problem “punishing” those who use their free will to make the wrong choice. Or going by the theory that God knew a bizillion years before Satan betrayed him what he was going to do, I would never have created him in the first place.

When it comes to my humans, I would still allow them free will I think. However, I would be much more open and up front about myself and my role in their lives and creation. I wouldn’t communicate with them through ancient texts translated a hundred times over in so many languages. I wouldn’t have “inspired” writers, I would have appeared to my people as myself (or some sort of representation) and told them exactly what I wanted them to learn.

I would never order them to kill people in my name or because I wanted them to live in one special place. If I choose to set down rules that I demand they live by, I would follow those rules myself as well (at least the really important ones )

I can’t remember the term that describes the way God reveals himself in the old testament but I would not do it that way. It’s either wrong to kill the people living in the next town because you want to live in their neighborhood or it isn’t. It makes no difference what point in history you are talking about. At least that would be the message I would want my people to know.

Additionally, I would maintain a relationship with humanity. I wouldn’t communicate with them for a little while and then disappear for the thousands of years.

I wouldn’t allow diseases like cancer and Alzheimers. No hurricanes or tsunamis.

I wouldn’t make the entire point of humans existence to love and honor me. I wouldn’t require them to praise or love me if they didn’t want to. I certainly wouldn’t make it a demand for them to go to heaven.

When it comes to the afterlife I would be very upfront about it and what it requires to make it there. For those who don’t wish to be there, there is always oblivion as a choice. I would not make it a choice between everlasting torment in hell or paradise. That seems very limited and since I have the power to make other options available, I think I would. I also would not require that people “love” me in order to get to heaven. I think living a good life should go a long way to deciding if someone goes to heaven.

I’m sure there’s more but that’s where I’d start. Oh and I’d make fatty food good for you and let house pets be able to talk. That would be sweet.

Good topic, it sure made me think.

Bell(name removed by moderator)