Evolutionism vs creationism

[grobblewobble]

What is this problem you speak of?

That people can commit sins?

I should have stated that more clearly. The problem is that a good God who creates people and next sentences some of those people to eternal suffering needs to have a very, very good reason. Being good, surely he should try very hard to avoid having to throw his own creations into hell. So the fact that people can and will sin is not the worst problem in itself; it is mainly a problem because it causes those who sin to be sentenced to an extremely cruel fate. Or at least the ones who sin too much, or those who don't feel enough regret (or insert judgement of choice).

Now with this in mind, maybe my argument makes more sense? No matter what heaven looks like, it makes the "free will" justification look like a bad excuse for throwing your own creations into hell:

- If people in Heaven do not have a free will but they're still happy, did God really have to give us a free will an earth?
- If people in Heaven do have a free will but this does not cause them to sin, how come God wasn't able to create such a situation on earth?
- If people in Heaven do have a free will and it does cause them to sin, doesn't that mean they should all end up in hell, by all fairness?

[fazisi]

This isn't strictly about heaven/hell. This is simply about coercive versus non-coercive choice. I was using very strong examples to make it clear what I mean when I say that simply having a choice about something is not the same as having a free choice about something.

If the threat of hell is so coercive, why do people continue to sin? Free will.

Christian belief (and some other belief systems as well) claim that God doesn't want us to do this or that. This is the thought I am rejecting. Because if God had not wanted us to do something, why would he create us with the ability to do it? If he likes good people, why would he create bad people and torture them?

Now the standard counterargument, which you also made, is that he needed to accept that some of us sin, because we otherwise would not have a free will. But this argument simply doesn't help. And that's what I've been trying to make clear in the posts above.

The argument implies that introducing a free will inevitably mean that some people can and will start doing things that God doesn't like. If that were true, it would still hold true in any kind of heaven as much as on earth (and this does not depend on the kind of heaven you have in mind). And if God attaches so much value to free will that he endow us with it, in spite of the fact that it will make some of us sin, then it makes no sense to claim that he would "reward" the people that he likes by sending them to a place where they no longer have it.

My mother doesn't want me to smoke cigarettes or marijuana or sit on my ass playing video games all day. Does this mean she should have aborted me because there was the risk that I might turn out to be a mass murderer some day or did she give me life because she had hope that I might be a good and loving son?

Just because some (or many) people aren't worthy of God's love, does this mean he should forsake those who are?

And no one on this forum knows what heaven is like so please do not make assumptions.

I am not making any assumption on what heaven is like. Please bear with me as I explain my argument one more time.

[God] simply could have made earth exactly like heaven. Since free will does not cause people to sin in heaven, it would then not cause them to sin on earth, either.

Done making assumptions about heaven yet?

I should have stated that more clearly. The problem is that a good God who creates people and next sentences some of those people to eternal suffering needs to have a very, very good reason. Being good, surely he should try very hard to avoid having to throw his own creations into hell. So the fact that people can and will sin is not the worst problem in itself; it is mainly a problem because it causes those who sin to be sentenced to an extremely cruel fate. Or at least the ones who sin too much, or those who don't feel enough regret (or insert judgement of choice).

God has good reason. He created humans and gave them free will. Humans then chose the have the knowledge of good and evil. This means that in human's natural state, there was no conception of what good and evil was, they just acted naturally in a way that was pleasing to God. But now they could choose to do things that were good and evil.

So humans started doing evil things and God was a little upset. We were all condemned to hell (which in my interpretation is a place without the presence of God). This is logical because even as a good person, do you want to have a bunch of assholes hanging out with you? Now, God is a good person so instead of just locking the door to his awesome pad (heaven), he sent out his son Jesus to give people a chance to get into it. I would presume letting his kid get killed by his own creation in an attempt "to avoid having to throw his own creations into hell" would be considered "trying very hard".

Is it a problem now that people still get tossed into hell?

Now with this in mind, maybe my argument makes more sense? No matter what heaven looks like, it makes the "free will" justification look like a bad excuse for throwing your own creations into hell:

- If people in Heaven do not have a free will but they're still happy, did God really have to give us a free will an earth?
- If people in Heaven do have a free will but this does not cause them to sin, how come God wasn't able to create such a situation on earth?
- If people in Heaven do have a free will and it does cause them to sin, doesn't that mean they should all end up in hell, by all fairness?

Q- Did God really have to give us a free will on earth?
A- Yes.

Q- How come God wasn't able to create a situation on earth where humans have free will but the inability to sin?
A- Because this would not be free will.

Q- Humans should all end up in hell, by all fairness.
A- While I didn't word it as a question, this is true. However, God is merciful.

[JellySlayer]

If the threat of hell is so coercive, why do people continue to sin? Free will.

Because they have reasoned that God, heaven, and hell, do not exist. If you don't accept the existence of God, it hardly matters what He thinks.

If you accept the existence of the Christian God, it's hard to reasonably believe that anyone wouldn't also be forced to accept Christianity as a whole.

Q- How come God wasn't able to create a situation on earth where humans have free will but the inability to sin?
A- Because this would not be free will.

So you don't believe that you have free will in heaven.

[grobblewobble]

Done making assumptions about heaven yet?

The part you quoted should be seen in the context of a longer thread of thought that starts as follows:

Heaven could be like A, B or like C. IF heaven would be like A, ..

I explained this best in my last post.

[gut]

love how you all refer to god as a boy. wouldn't
an omnipotent being be above gender?

[JellySlayer]

love how you all refer to god as a boy. wouldn't
an omnipotent being be above gender?

Christian God is considered male according to the Bible. Even Jesus calls Him Father.

[grobblewobble]

I feel a bit awkward about that, too. It's just that saying "he, she or it" every time isn't any better.

[fazisi]

Q- How come God wasn't able to create a situation on earth where humans have free will but the inability to sin?
A- Because this would not be free will.

So you don't believe that you have free will in heaven.

I do believe that a person in heaven will have free will. That person will also have the ability to sin but will not because the natural action would be to do good.

The part you quoted should be seen in the context of a longer thread of thought that starts as follows:

Heaven could be like A, B or like C. IF heaven would be like A, ..

I explained this best in my last post.

I choose D.

love how you all refer to god as a boy. wouldn't
an omnipotent being be above gender?

It is because God has been refered to in the Bible in the terms of male because of the patriarchal culture of the writers. Therefore, this has associated all who learn of God from the Bible with the notion that he has a cock. In my personal beliefs, God has no gender. But since it is easier to communicate clearly by using masculine pronouns when refering to God, that's what I use.

[gut]

> "he, she or it" every time isn't any better.

I have tried to conciously just use 'god' everytime.
Who needs pronouns?

You are all even using 'He'

[grobblewobble]

My mother doesn't want me to smoke cigarettes or marijuana or sit on my ass playing video games all day.

No, but your parents didn't design you. They had very limited control over the type of person you would become. God designed us and is therefore responsible for our actions in a way that your parents are not.

I do believe that a person in heaven will have free will. That person will also have the ability to sin but will not because the natural action would be to do good.

I am tempted to say: stop making assumptions about heaven.

Ok, so you believe that it's possible for people in heaven to have a free will but for all eternity consistently choose not to sin. If such people exist, then why didn't God create only such people and put them in heaven?

Also, I find it hard to accept that the decision on whether you end up spending an infinitely long period in heaven or hell hinges on the choices you make in a short timespan, with some people dying before they even mature. If earth is supposed to be a testing ground, it isn't a very good one.

So humans started doing evil things and God was a little upset.

I guess this is where we differ. I find it hard to swallow that an omnipotent being designs creatures with a free will and then is surprised when it turns out they make the "wrong" choices.

edit:

You are all even using 'He'

Uhm.. Well you got to show Him a little respect, don't you?