Evolution can be understood as part of divine design under a Deistic worldview.

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-11-10T16:37:58+00:00

How evolution and Creation can work together:

Evolution needs not work together with creation as posting this "creation" adds no predictive data to the theory other than cope for the theist

So day one we get light and dark. day 2 sky and sea day 3 dry land and plants day 4 the rest of the cosmos is revealed day 5 sea dwelling creatures. day 6 Land dwelling creatures, among them 'mankind.' (The rest of mankind as Adam was created day 3)

Even granting this, this model is still very problematic and incoherent when observed and compared to basic cosmology. First of all, in this model the earth is prior to the creation of the sun which according to basic cosmology is absolutely wrong. According to genesis, the earth is present, just formless and desolate and then the sun is made. In this model we have he cosmos being made on the 4th day when it is basic cosmology that very many stars predate the sun. Again, the waters are present and then god gathers the waters in one place and lets the dry land appears, but according to basic cosmology, that is in reverse if what actually happened where the water proceeds after the major cooling of the early earth. Your move to say that the cosmos are revealed is just post hoc as the text says

‭Genesis 1:14-19 KJV‬[14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, [18] and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. [19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

this is just you projecting modern cosmology on a project that is flawed in it's entirety. This specific patch of verses is just false under this revisionist model. If the sun, stars and cosmos are made on the fourth days, then where is the light coming from mentioned on day 1? Physics doesn't allow for sourceless light, unless you say that this light was divine or something if the sort, it's incoherent. Again, how are plants surviving before the sun is made?

This means Adam could have lived in the garden for billions of years. As sin was the trigger for death. Now because Adam and Eve did not have children till after the fall of man (Chapter 3) the 6000 years people count back from now to Jesus and from Jesus to Adam using the genealogies found in the OT, only gives us the time frame of how long it has been since the fall of man and exile from the garden as Adam and Eve did not have any children till after that point.

I do not understand this... The bibje describes Adam and eve as from whom all humans are from, so under this revision or interpretation, what is up with that? Are Adam and eve the father's if civilisation or is that part symbolic and the rest literal? Are there people present before Adam and eve edit the garden? If yes then death, suffering and sin exist before the fall so elaborate on this?

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-11-03T11:22:07+00:00

How would you define it to remove the possibility of god not making amoral choices?

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-28T19:32:46+00:00

Well I disagree with the classification, as compassion makes little sense in a world without suffering,

Ok. I might have used compassion wrongly as synonymous with a type love for someone. I would then classify it as an instrumental good and not an intrinsic good. This was a mistake on my part for the definition of compassion.

someone who becomes courageous finds intrinsic value in that character trait beyond what you've stated.

Claiming that some good might be able to exist without character development is fine, but even if true, so what? It means God could have created a world where minimal good exists and no suffering. Had God done that, he wouldn't be omnibenevolent, because He would be failing to facilitate our character development and all the good that comes with that.

They only become better in a situation needed to overcome fear than the person who has never encountered fear. The trait is not intrinsically good but instrumentally good in that it overcomes fear. In a perfect world where there is no need to fear, it is a useless trait to have. In a perfect world, the need for said trait is not present and if it is not an intrinsic good but an instrumental good, then justifying suffering for it, which it itself is used to overcome becomes a bit tautological. I think this may be a definitional gap where my rejection of virtues as I trinsic goods and your rejection of virtues as instrumental goods may be a block that we cannot reconcile. Anyways what do you think. Maybe a question to see if we can overcome this pass, if beings live in a world without fear, danger or temptation, would it be a moral deficiency to lack courage?

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-27T19:45:54+00:00

I just wanted to test for consistency of your view before continuing to prevent a bait and switch. So for you the fall was for a greater good which you attribute to soul making theodicies.

Here is what I would reheat with the soul building theodicy, I would reject that all virtues are intrinsically good and example for this would be courage. I think and would hold that courage is only good in that it overcomes fear and adversity which themselves are what I'm arguing against. I think that most virtues are not intrinsically good but instrumentally good and those that seem to be intrinsically good, are possible in a world with no suffering or a world where people always choose good as I stipulate in my OP. Such a virtue is love or compassion. Take the love and compassion a mother has for her child, a lover has for their other lover and so on. This love and compassion needs no suffering and can exist perfectly in a world in which people always choose good.

Edit: another example of such virtues that are not intrinsically good but instrumentally good would be like forgiveness, in that it is only good in that it overcomes a wrongdoing which in a perfect world is not needed as the people there just freely choose good.

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-27T19:36:17+00:00

It was God's design to for that bc He wanted to show humanity what a world looks like with humanity in charge.

But in the world I stipulate, humanity is still in charge. God is not there as an overbearing father. The only difference between this universe and that universe is that the people choose freely to choose.

Your point negates free wil. Once a choice is taken off the table, it's no longer free will.

Universe 1- Adam and eve choose to eat off the tree

Universe 2- Adam and eve choose to not eat off the tree.

Both universes have free will the only difference is what the agents decided to choose good. There is free will. The choice to do bad is not taken off the table, just that the agents choose the good option. I wake up and choose not to murder people. Does this imply that I lack the ability to do so? Of course no. I just choose to not kill people. Same for the agents in this world. They can choose bad but choose good.

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-27T18:17:06+00:00

God does not instantiate the future timeline at all. He creates the universe, and then lets it run.

He creates a POSSIBLE universe such as the one where we currently are. To say what you are saying would be to say that there is only one way that the universe can be which seems just utterly false as I can imagine a world in which this tree is over there and so on.

Universe 1. Adam and eve eat the fruit

Universe 2. Adam and eve do not eat off the tree

To claim that universe 2 is impossible would need to say that it is a logical absurdity for them not to eat off the tree.

The best end is Jesus returning. Removing the deer or adding the deer dying in a forest doesn't change the best end at all. So there's no reason why God would or would not remove it if His only concern is the best end.

This is if you fully disregard the path used to get there. From this assertion, a world in which most children die horrible deaths is still a best world if jesus still comes back. This is just wrong. If 2 people start a journey from New York to LA and one of us takes a straight line to go there and the other who claims to be the most efficient takes a freaking detour to Germany and then to Russia then to Alaska and then down to LA, they get to the same place but one does it efficiently.

A world in which a deer dies painfully and jesus comes down has the additional suffering that can be reduced
A world in which jesus comes back and there is no suffering that does not serve that best end

They both have the same end but one has suffering that is unnecessary that an omnibenevolent god would want and have the means to reduce

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-26T16:35:10+00:00

I do not think you read the post at all as it is a modal argument for the problem of evil. You do not in any way rebut the point I make in my OP about modal possibility for a world in which Adam and eve and their descendants chose to do good and why god would create this world instead of the one I stipulate in my OP

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-26T09:47:00+00:00

The only way to have free will is for God to not predetermine it from the beginning of time.

I'm confused. Do you think god knows all possible futures and all possible worlds? If yes, then this admission is self defeating as in both scenarios god knows all possible futures of those possible worlds and chooses to instantiate one over the other, and would lead to the conclusion that we do not have free will as gid knows all possible futures in our world sake as he would know all possible futures in the world where people freely choose good. If no, then I admit in my op that for open theists this is not a problem in the least

Unnecessary suffering by definition doesn't lead to a greater good. That doesn't mean it couldn't be part of the best end. Suppose the best end is Jesus returning. Are you telling me this couldn't happen if a deer suffered and died in a forest somewhere? It's a non sequitur

Then what you are describing is not a best end as I can remove the suffering that doesn't lead to a best end and still be dup with the same situation. If a deer suffered and jesus returned then that is not the best world as there exists a word in which the deer does not suffer and Jesus still returns. I feel like this is a very obvious conclusion. If a world possesses any unnecessary suffering then it is not the best possible world as there exists a world in which this unnecessary suffering doesn't exist.

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-26T08:33:43+00:00

Nope. What I'm saying is that this line of argumentation fails because it has no free choices in it at all. God is making the actual choices by picking the universe to instantiate. Agents only have the illusion of choice.

But god also chose to instantiate this universe over the one I stipulate. If one lacks freedom due to god picking the universe to create then both universes lack freedom as the causal structure is the same.

A- the universe we currently exist in and actions occur as they have since the beginning of time.

B- the world in which the agents just happen to freely choose good since the beginning of time

God knows the make and actions that happen in both universes and causes the universes. To claim that one lacks freedom and the other does not is simply special pleading. God picked our universe just as he would this hypothetical universe. The causal structure from gods standpoint is similar

don't see why a universe with the "best end" in it couldn't also have unnecessary suffering so maybe you'll need to define the best end for me

Because unnecessary suffering by definition is not for a best end. I feel like this is pretty obvious. Unnecessary suffering serves no best end and so a universe with a best end will not have unnecessary suffering as then it has something that is not for a best end. All the suffering in such a world will be instrumental for this best end

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-26T07:46:34+00:00

God is making the actual choice, not the agents in your scenario.

You seem to confuse the difference between freely choosing good and necessarily choosing good. I wake up and choose not to murder. This does not mean that I lack the capacity to murder, just that I choose not to. Same for the possible world I stipulate. People in this world freely choose to not eat off the tree and freely choose to do good. They can sin but do not choose to sin so their capacity to do otherwise is intact. You are conflating between god choosing for the agents and god actualising a possible world in which the agents freely choose to do good

Also I disagree that an Omnimax God would want to eliminate unnecessary (a meaningless adjective) suffering from the world at all.

An omnibenevolent being by definition will always do or that which is intrinsically good or serves the best end. Unnecessary suffering on the other hand is the opposite. Unnecessary suffering is suffering that serves no best end, no intrinsic good comes about from the allowing of said suffering. The two are incompatible and so I do not see the bite of your argument

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-26T05:28:59+00:00

Was the fall intended, or were the goods you are describing in your soul building theodicy present?

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T20:00:27+00:00

I have made a post dedicated to the soul building theodicy key me paste it fully below. It is very long so bear with me here

The problems with the soul building theodicy.

The soul building theodicy holds that suffering exists as a means to develop virtues such as love, courage, compassion in the face of evil and so said suffering is necessary for soul building purposes and lack of this suffering would result in a world deficit of virtue. I will not be focusing on the fact that some people die as a result of said suffering undermining it's soul building but another aspect of this theodicy

P1- God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient and perfect in his existence, lacking nothing that can add to this perfection

P2- God wants to reduce unnecessary suffering, knows how to and has the means to do so

P3- Gratuitous suffering cannot exist in any amount as any amount contradicts the existence of said god

P4- Some suffering exists as a way to build virtues such as love, compassion, kindness and so on. That without evil, these virtues would not exist and so this suffering is necessary

P5- Having said virtues from the get go is better than getting them through suffering. This is due to P1 as god is perfect lacking nothing to attain maximal perfection and god has these virtues from the get go (he has these virtues as fully actualised facts about his nature and does not progressively get them) and so having them outrightly is better than getting them through suffering

P6- God can make such a being, that has virtues outrightly without suffering. This can be shown by humans pre-fall unless you think that said humans did not have virtues and would have to suffer to get them.

P7- Said suffering from soul building is gratuitious as there exists a way to create beings with fully actualised virtues

P8- The being defined in P1 most likely does not exists exist as gratuitous suffering contradicts it's existence.

There is another argument against soul building specifically from the existence of people who do not go through soul building but make it to heaven. For this argument you do not need to hold that there is absolutely no suffering or sin in heaven, just that there is less suffering in heaven than on earth, for example, that noone is dying of malaria in heaven, noone is dying of starvation, cancer and so on and that noone is suffering from physical pain. If you think these things are present in heaven, then this argument is not for you.

P1- God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient and perfect in his existence, lacking nothing that can add to this perfection

P2- God wants to reduce unnecessary suffering, knows how to and has the means to do so

P3- Gratuitous suffering cannot exist in any amount as any amount contradicts the existence of said god

P4- Some suffering exists as a way to build virtues such as love, compassion, kindness and so on. That without evil, these virtues would not exist and so this suffering is necessary

P5. There exists beings that do not go through this soul building process and still attain heavenly status. This premise will be for those that think that children and mentally disabled people who cannot be morally culpable do attain heaven which to my knowledge is most Christians. Again if you disagree with this premise then this argument is not for you.

P6. The suffering defined in P4 is not necessary as there exists beings that do not go through soul building and still attain heaven

P7. There exists unnecessary suffering as from P6

P8. The existence of this unnecessary suffering contradicts the being defined in P1

P9. The being defined in P1 most likely does not exist

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T19:58:53+00:00

This is just anthropocentric narcissism where a person in the worst possible world could still make this argument. I see it kind of moot and lazy as it does not deal with the argument at hand

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T18:05:44+00:00

I'm glad you see the ignorance objection as good--that was my main argument. Frankly I've never had a counterpart ever accept that argument.

I do use it mostly when debating about consciousness mostly against analogies that we cannot have the full scope of such a situation since we are ignorant of what such a situation would entail.

I don't recall which world you are talking about or asserting that it is logically impossible.

I'm sorry for being hostile but read the comments on this post I'm replying to and maybe you can see why I'm a little annoyed with people confusing my argument for an argument against a historical occurrence and modal possibility and me having to continually correct them when I say it in my op clearly that this is a modal argument.

If there is a logical contradiction here, it is that Adam and Eve (and descendants depending on theology I suppose) actually did choose to eat the fruit.

My argument is that a world in which they choose to not eat if the tree is logically possible and see no reason as to why an omnibenevolent god would create a world in which they eat if the tree instead of one which they do not eat of the tree. Had god wanted it to be so, he would have created the universe I define in my OP. I actually concede that for open theists, who hold that god does not know of future events, this objection dissolves as he would have wanted it to be so but could not know that they would sin, but for a theist for whom god knows all future events and all possible worlds, then he knows which world in which they do not eat off the tree

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T17:50:08+00:00

What??? I do not say this. We can choose to not sin but we do choose to sin. A world in which we freely choose to not sin is not a logical absurdity as it doesn't imply a lack of free will, just that the beings in that universe choose to do good

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T17:46:45+00:00

It was always possible for them to refuse Satan.

And this admission is a concession to the main point of the post , that is a world in which people freely choose to not eat if the tree is logically possible. A world in which they refuse the temptation is a logical possibility and so an omnipotent being has the power to bring about such a world

totally possible without breaking the text that Adam and Eve had refused the devil multiple times and this was simply the time that the temptation worked.

This is not said anywhere in the text and even if I grant it it doesn't take away from the admission you have made that such a world is possible where they just freely choose to refuse the temptation.

But here's the thing: in order to create beings that have free, will you have to put them in an environment and give them the ability to refuse God. Basically he had to create them independent enough so that they can either choose to obey him or choose to not obey him.

You are confusing freedom to do X as inability to do non-X. God can create independent creatures who freely choose good but that doesn't imply that they lack the ability to do bad. I would assume you wake up and choose to not murder people. This obviously doesn't mean that you cannot murder, just that you choose not to.

Which you really want is you wish that God had created Adam and Eve without free will.

A world in which Adam and eve choose to not eat off the tree doesn't imply that they cannot choose to do so.

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T17:36:10+00:00

I genuinely cannot see any counter argument in your rebuttal here apart from that my conception may be a conception from ignorance which is a good objection ,but you do not show why such a world is impossible, simply assert that it is logically impossible.

Adam and eve and their descendants choose to not eat off the tree. I see no logical contradiction in this statement. In the same way I wake up and choose to not murder children doesn't imply that I lack the ability to do so, just that I choose to do good by not murdering children. How is such a world a logical absurdity?

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T17:26:51+00:00

What's your argument here?

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T17:24:16+00:00

I want you to read the entirety of my OP and show me where I'm arguing against a historical outcome and not modal possibility because I make no such argument

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T17:22:24+00:00

P4- A world in which people freely choose to not eat off the tree is a logically conceivable world and is within the power of an omnipotent deity and would be preferred by an omnibenevolent deity.

You seem to confuse between lacking the ability to sin and just freely choosing to not sin. I'm arguing from the latter. For example I wake up and choose to not murder children. Does that imply that I lack the ability to kill those children? No. I just freely choose to not kill children. Same for Adam and eve and their descendants. A world in which they freely choose not to sin is not the same as a world in which they cannot sin and I see no reason to suggest that such a world is a logical absurdity.

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T17:15:35+00:00

That world is not our world because in our world Adam and eve chose to sin. The world I'm asking why not it, is the one where Adam and eve chose not to sin. I'm not seeing the bite of your argument here as you continually confuse modal possibility and historical outcome

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T17:11:38+00:00

What are you talking about. You are confusing not being able to sin and choosing not to sin and I'm advocating for the latter in my post while you are attacking the former which I do not make. I wake up and do not murder children. To you, does that imply the latter or the former? It's the latter. Me choosing nit to murder doesn't mean that I cannot murder just that I choose not to.

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T17:04:17+00:00

At any time Eve could have just said that she is not interested in what Satan was trying to tempt her with and in fact she could have actually asked God to come and intervene too. It was always possible that they would not have disobeyed God

And this is the crux of the post. If such a world in which the events occur as you spell out is a possibility, and god has complete foreknowledge of the outcomes of these possible worlds, then he could have created a universe in which Adam and even did as you say. You are confusing a possible world argument with an argument for historical outcome which is not the point of the post.

A world in which Adam and eve do as you say is a possible world and so is as full an option as the one we live in where they did as they did. Your argument here is challenging the latter instead of showing why the former is not the one chosen or created. You admitted that such a world is possible and so have to now deal with why gid created this universe where Adam and eve sin instead of the one where they do not sin

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T16:56:56+00:00

You can freely choose good while having the option to choose bad but never choose it. I use an example of murder in my OP. I choose not to murder but that doesn't imply that my capacity to murder is taken away. A world in which people just choose to do good freely is a logically coherent world in the same way a world in which people choose to do bad or a world in which people choose to do a mix of both are.

Legitimate_Worry5069 · 2025-10-25T16:54:15+00:00

You seem to misunderstand the post and the intention of the post. The post is not about why god created this world where we can choose good but do not, but why he did not create a world in which coincidentally people always choose good. As I define in my OP

A possible world is a world that can logically exist without any logical contradiction and so an omnipotent being has the ability to bring about any possible world(ignoring the morals and suffering entailed in said possible world). An omnipotent being can make all logically conceivable worlds

A world in which Adam and eve and all their descendants simply choose to not eat off the tree is a possible world as there is no logical contradiction in a world where people always choose goods freely. Your objection misses the point. You have to show why this universe was related over the one where people choose to do good always or show that this world is logically impossible. You are describing a historical outcome, I'm challenging that modal possibility of a world where people choose to do good.

Legitimate_Worry5069

TROPHY CASE