I thought I posted this yesterday. Maybe not.

TE: The simple point is that a scenario where a bad thing happens one in a billion times is better than a scenario where it happens 1 in 1 time.

MM: Better? In what way?

You really don't understand that having a bad thing happen with certainty is less desireable than having a bad thing happen once in a billion times?

TE: "Possible" is implied.

MM: I disagree. The concept may be implied elsewhere, but in this particular passage. Right?

I think it's implicit. It has to do with how the future is, and with free will. The analogy EGW gives in the Education passage is excellent. The remedy was already present, should the need arise.

TE: For example, Scripture tells us that God repented that He had made man. Why would He have repented, if it was a certainty that man would act the way he did?

MM: Why does God sometimes ask questions to which He knows the answers? The fact God said it "repented Him" in no way implies He had no idea man would choose to sin.

You're kind of switching things. I'm not saying, as you are suggesting that God had "no idea" man would choose sin. What I actually asked, which is right above your response, so that should be evident to you, is if it were a certainty that man would sin, why would Scripture say that God repented that He had made man. The implication is that God did not expect that man would act the way He did. Else why would God repent?

TE: Ellen White also speaks of the risk that God took in creating man, which is incompatible with the idea of certainty that you are suggesting.

MM: Where? What risk?

Sorry, I meant "in sending Christ", not "in creating man".

TE: In addition to this, there are philosophical problems with this position. Specifically it would make God, and not Satan or man, responsible for sin. You seem to recognize this, at least implicitly, because you have written that God is the "author of sin."

MM: Tom, what do you think I mean when I say - God is the author of sin? Please explain. Thank you.

In the past, you have explained your meaning as God setting in motion a course of events of which the inevitable result was sin.

I believe the opposite - that there are many examples in Scripture which provide evidence that the future is single-threaded. For instance, I'm reading now the book of 1 Kings. In chapter 13 God sends a prophet to Bethel with a message against the idolatrious worship established by Jeroboam:

"And the man cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, 'O altar, altar, thus says the LORD: "Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and he shall sacrifice upon you the priests of the high places who burn incense upon you, and men’s bones shall be burned upon you"'" (v. 2).

God prophesied the name of the king and what he would do. Please notice the clearness of the prophecy, its circumstantial minuteness, and the exact prediction of an event that took place 360 years later.

If God only created beings that He knew would obey Him, this would be an artificially sin-free universe, and I wouldn't classify Him as a promoter of the free will of His creatures. It's like saying, "You can have free will, as long as you choose to obey me".

TE: The implication is that God did not expect that man would act the way He did. Else why would God repent?

MM: Wasn't it one of the many possible ways (according the view you advocate) it could have played out? If so, why would it be something He didn't expect?

TE: Sorry, I meant "in sending Christ", not "in creating man".

MM: As we have discussed in the past, this insight doesn't mean God didn't know in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. All the OT prophecies portray Jesus succeeding. Jesus Himself said He would succeed.

TE: In the past, you have explained your meaning as God setting in motion a course of events of which the inevitable result was sin.

MM: It doesn't mean God caused sin to happen, right? Also, if God knew in advance there was one in a billion chances FMAs would choose to sin and He choose to create them any way, isn't He responsible for setting in motion a course of events that ultimately ended in FMAs sinning?

TE: The implication is that God did not expect that man would act the way He did. Else why would God repent?

MM: Wasn't it one of the many possible ways (according the view you advocate) it could have played out? If so, why would it be something He didn't expect?

It was something He knew could happen, but was unlikely to. None of the other of the millions of worlds God created chose to follow the evil one, although they all had trees of knowledge where the evil one could tempt them.

TE: Sorry, I meant "in sending Christ", not "in creating man".

MM: As we have discussed in the past, this insight doesn't mean God didn't know in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross.

Sure it does. If you know something will happen with 100% certainty, then there is no risk attached to the action you are contemplating. It would be like my risking some wager against the chance that a coin will come up heads when I'm holding a double-headed coin.

All the OT prophecies portray Jesus succeeding. Jesus Himself said He would succeed.

God swore by Himself that the plan would succeed. God has faith in His Son.

TE: In the past, you have explained your meaning as God setting in motion a course of events of which the inevitable result was sin.

MM: It doesn't mean God caused sin to happen, right?

It would mean that. If you set into motion a set of circumstances which can only have one outcome, and which you could control so that it wouldn't have happened had you so chosen, then you caused the thing to happen. How could that not be the case?

Also, if God knew in advance there was one in a billion chances FMAs would choose to sin and He choose to create them any way, isn't He responsible for setting in motion a course of events that ultimately ended in FMAs sinning?

God created beings with free will, because that's the only way that love can be experienced. He assumed the risk that is inherent to that.

There is a huge difference between God's assuming a risk that is inherent to the creation of beings with free will (the only way to avoid this risk would have been not to create any beings with free will) and setting into motion a course of events that could only have one outcome.

Therefore, the only way that God could be seen as a promoter of free will would be if He created beings that would sin. Thus from the moment that God decided to create beings with free will, it was inevitable that He would create beings that would sin. Thus there is inherent within the creation of beings with free will not only the possibility of sin, but the certainty of it. Thus evil is inherent in the creation of beings with free will.

Another question that comes to mind is, why would this be artificial? Why is it any more artificial to not create Lucifer than to create him? After all, until God created Lucifer, he was nothing more than a concept in God's head. God could just as easily choose to implement one concept over another. Why would one be any more artificial than another?

No, if He created beings irrespective of the fact of whether they would sin or not.


What is wrong with the scenario of future parents selecting their reproductive cells and joining them in a test tube in order to have a tall child, with blue eyes, blond hair, and a high IQ?

Tom:Therefore, the only way that God could be seen as a promoter of free will would be if He created beings that would sin.

Rosangela:No, if He created beings irrespective of the fact of whether they would sin or not.

No, this isn't right. God deliberately preferred a being who would sin over one who wouldn't.

When God was thinking about creating Lucifer, He surely must have considered other alternatives, right? Surely God was not limited in His thinking to only consider one possible alternative for the covering cherub. God, being infinite in intelligence, would consider billions of possibilities, but for the same of argument, let's limit it to two, Lucifer, and Reficul, the first of which God saw would sin and the second of which God saw wouldn't. God did not simply create Lucifer irrespective of the fact that he would sin, but *preferred* him over Reficul, who wouldn't sin.

So this leads back to the question, why would God prefer to create a being who would certainly sin over one who certainly wouldn't?

Quote:
Another question that comes to mind is, why would this be artificial? Why is it any more artificial to not create Lucifer than to create him?

Rosangela: What is wrong with the scenario of future parents selecting their reproductive cells and joining them in a test tube in order to have a tall child, with blue eyes, blond hair, and a high IQ?

I don't see how your question addresses mine.

When God chose to create Lucifer, there were a billion choices God had available. Why would the choice of Lucifer be any less artificial than any of other available choices? Why is creating a being that would sin be less artificial than creating a being who wouldn't?

Of course not - the opposite would have been true. He would have decided not to create certain beings, for the reason that they, in the future, would disagree with His government. Would it be OK for Him to explain His decision to His creatures or would He have to keep it always secret in order not to seem arbitrary?


What I said has nothing to do with the creation of Lucifer being artificial or not. What I said was that if God created only beings who would obey Him, this would be an artificially sin-free universe, in the same way that you could theoretically create an artificially birth-defects-free society by sterilizing all women and thus compelling everybody to recur to fertilization in vitro with previously screened embryos.