Is it Rape or Not

Couldn't an argument be made that God did not create the specific reality you are discussing? A theist could seemingly show that God created Eden. That was his intention.He gave humans a choice, and they chose the consequent reality (the Fall). By the time of Deuteronomy God was constructing laws to fit the realities humans created for themselves.One could ask why he doesn't just change the reality we make, or why he allowed us choice as he had to know what we'd do anyway... but that gets into a discussion of whether a "good" God allows free will or not.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm playing Devil's... er... God's advocate so keep that in mind. I understand what you are arguing, and happen to agree that's a valid criticism (the claim to both omnipotence and omniscience generally results in that). But isn't it logically possible for an otherwise omniscient/omnipotent being to cast those powers aside for a period of time?This may raise other questions, but lets say God desires to "flip a coin" as it were. Take a chance to see what another intelligence would do. Clearly omniscience could also mean seeing all possible paths from various decisions, rather than just a seeing a single path that is reality. So he casts aside both omniscience and omnipotence before selecting a path for the future and allows humans to choose which branch they want to follow.Perhaps there are actually multiple universes and we are experiencing the singular path from where people chose to disobey. In another people chose to obey and continued in eden.In that case God is not quite so unethical. He created a sort of choose your own adventure and people chose for themselves, despite clear advice not to choose a certain path.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I have given a tentative defense to Paul on that one. Check to see what you might make of it if you want. Excellent question as well. Could it be argued that the law is not so much to guide people to measure up to him, but rather to try and minimize carnage in a practical way given our nature, while he waits to "harvest" those that manage to measure up?It does seem that Abrahamic traditions are not so much egalitarian, in the sense of God actually caring equally for all, but rather giving preference for those that choose to measure up to some criteria.Thus he could be allowing for free will to continue, thus not forcing anyone to be how he chooses, and sets out laws which will help everyone to some degree but not guaranteeing success. I think this specific example raises a point even given my answer above. My only possible response I think would be that perhaps he knows capital punishment would result in more suffering than other punishments (or non punishments) for the same result of worthy people.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Yes, this was the idea I was driving at. I would agree I don't think that would be the case, but I'm wondering if someone who does believe could advance it.I see no inherent problems with it. This part I am not so sure about. One could envisage God's building the universe like someone building a home to live in.He knows that in his "perfect" home he wants kids, and that means the fun of their unpredictability rather than buying dolls or robots. He accepts that it will mean the ability to challenge his "ideal" and so as not to destroy the perfection of the whole, he creates a space for them, which they control. Their separate bedrooms as well as a playroom.Thus this perfection involves a "mote" where freewill exists and if it is less than perfect it does not reflect on his intent or desire, nor does it truly effect the whole of his creation. And of course at any time those with free will can and eventually may return to perfection.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I realize I was the one who used the "flipping a coin" metaphor, but I'm going to conveniently forget that for a moment, especially as it doesn't exactly fit the "house" metaphor I switched to.According to the "house" version of free will, I don't believe one can claim that God is gambling with anything of anyone else's.He built the house, he gave people all the resources and he told them the rules and they certainly did have the capability to follow them. In so doing he is no longer responsible for the choices the people then make.Think of it this way. You build a house, you have kids, you instruct them in how you believe they should conduct themselves, but they ultimately will make choices. Is it reasonable to consider you the gambler with the lives of your kids?Put more generically, does that mean every parent is gambling with the lives of the children they have? That because they know everything is possible and they have the ability to prevent bad things from happening by not having kids, they are responsible for whatever their children might eventually do?I realize parents are in a position of not controlling all reality, but they certainly can control whether they have kids or not, which would be sufficient to eliminate the same problem God is facing. Good point.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Heheh.. isn't that what some mathematicians claim to be? Edited by holmes, : emphasis for clarity

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well the scenario I described was God giving up omniscience, as such he should end up in the same position as parents... he would know what is possible, but not what will happen.It was my understanding that you were saying in that situation God would be responsible. That is to say by creating a situation which enables another living being to do Bad things or having Bad things done to itself... and it is just a matter of chance for that created individual whether Good or Bad will occur... that the creator is the gambler and responsible.If that is what you meant then it seems parents are responsible, and should choose not to have children in order to be "good". They certainly know by doing so all sorts of "Bad" can result for their offspring. As long as the parents are aware they have a choice in having a kid or not then they seem to be in the same position, moralwise. They'd have just as much power as God.Let me put it this way. God gets two choices: Whether to limit his powers and so allow others to choose results which could be negative, and if he chooses that whether to go ahead and create people capable of making such free ranging choices.Parents don't have the former but they do have the latter.It does not seem that God would be more morally responsible than the parents. Ultimately it is his second decision which sets the ball rolling, and that is the same for the parents.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)