CausalCode

  • **
  • 948 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Free will is a sign of God's "inescapable weakness"?
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2018, 01:44:51 pm »
Our tech advancements simply change our context.  They don’t change our fundamental nature.  They don’t change our hearts.  God is interested in observing our demonstration of choices.  The tech level of our context is immaterial to that observation.  A good person will be good whether he is building a fire in a cave, or living in a high-tech mansion.

Remember that though technology, we've been able to access people in need. This means that you're wrong; the level of our technological context is not "immaterial to our fundamental nature/ability to aid each other.

1

GlennRMorton

  • **
  • 5 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Free will is a sign of God's "inescapable weakness"?
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2020, 05:56:11 pm »
In conclusion, God appears to simply lack the knowledge required to make humans as we are today, with  science and technology. Thoughts?

Lacking knowledge is not the only option here.  It could be that doing things the way you want him to do, didn't fit his purpose. I won't claim to know God's purpose, but one can't say that 'knowledge' is the only reason He didn't make modern humans with lots of technology.

One possibility is that God is more concerned with moral issues that our technological lifestyle.  One reality of our modern life is that the richer we get, the smaller percentage of income is donated to help others--For instance, if generosity is a goal of God's starting with rich technological people is not a good idea.  From the Atlantic:

"As a group, the wealthy do donate more money overall, but as a proportion of earnings, many of them give less than those with far less wealth. The Philanthropy Roundtable, an organization of philanthropic groups, has found that while households with annual earnings of less than $50,000 were less likely to donate any money to charity than those earning more than that, if they did donate, they gave a greater percentage of their income than those wealthier than them. A survey by The Chronicle of Philanthropy released in 2014 reached a similar finding: Those earning $200,000 or more per year reduced their giving during the Great Recession and its aftermath by 4.6 percent, while those bringing home less than $100,000 upped their donations by very nearly as much—4.5 percent, to be specific."

I have data on the donations of atheists, and the religious donate far, far more than the non-religious. One thing that is clear is that religion is more widespread among the poor than the wealthy.  So I would ask how you know that God's ultimate purpose for humanity was a technological society? 

2

nielnielson

  • *
  • 4 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Free will is a sign of God's "inescapable weakness"?
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2020, 10:36:56 pm »
I do not understand how you are incorporating free will into your argument, but I believe the general argument you are presenting is as follows:

1. If God had sufficient knowledge to create modern humans in the beginning, then he would have.
2. God did not create modern humans in the beginning.
C. Thus God lacked/lacks sufficient knowledge. (1,2 MT)

This is a very interesting argument, and the analogy of another creator may at first glance be appropriate since God as Creator is a common title which Christians cling to. It is true that in general, there would be absolutely no reason to implement a rudimentary design into a creation if the creator had the knowledge of a better or ultimately advanced version. This analogy holds true in your argument because you seem to be assuming that God values ultimately advanced beings (in science and technology as you state), where his ultimate purpose is technological advancement.

This is where I will object to the first premise, as I disagree with these assumptions. It seems clear throughout Scripture that God’s motivation for creation was not to develop the latest and greatest prototype of humanity, rather to develop creatures for the purpose of relationships, ultimately a relationship with him. Furthermore, since your argument entertains God as the creator of humans, it seems extremely unlikely that a God with the amount of power/knowledge to create humans does not have sufficient power/knowledge in any sort of capacity.

Your comment on learning also seems to provide evidence against the first premise, as the process of learning and advancement itself seems to be considered by most people, a joy in itself. Perhaps God places more value in humans learning than creating ultimately advanced beings.

Lastly, say I assume that in order for God to be a “sufficient” creator, He would have made modern technologically advanced humans. What about a slightly more technologically advanced humanity? Say almost 3 years more advanced, as I am responding to this post from 2017. Any more learned version of humanity would be the “modern” humans as you describe, and thus this argument seems to imply that for God to be a “sufficient” creator, he would have need to create beings that could no longer advance or learn.

3

jayceeii

  • **
  • 493 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Free will is a sign of God's "inescapable weakness"?
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2020, 12:51:15 pm »
The biblical God appears to lack sufficient knowledge to create humans as we are now with science and technology.
The world has an appearance that man descended from the trees and decided all things for himself, and this is the appearance God wanted. This leaves minimal ground for a materialist perspective, without overwhelming contrary proof if God had pushed things faster (where Christians admit, even celebrate, that the Holy Spirit indwells within them).

Yet on all worlds the people must precede by steps, so a more important question is why the very basics of science took so long to appear among a contrary race, for instance the microscope and microbial theory, or the bicycle as a ready means of individual conveyance. There’s no inherent reason such key ideas could not have appeared sooner, but if history is studied we find humans fighting progress at every turn unless they can find specific selfish benefit therein, which is the strong principle still driving technology.

Using Ford as an example here is critical, because a question no one has asked is whether mass production of the automobile was a wise decision by humans. It may have been the worst decision they have ever collectively made, bar none, although it was less of a decision than a mass confession of laziness to move the human body, taking any shortcuts available. Bright, energetic people might always have wanted to walk to work.

As for God’s knowledge, the argument presumes men are in a good position and that they are rational. Instead if the individual man is studied carefully, every major woe facing the planet today is seen to spring from his greed and insouciance about the whole and future generations. So you can make a much grander argument along the same lines, that everything men are is tragically wicked, and God didn’t know how to make better people.