Rebuttal of supposed evidence for carnivores before the Fall

[A Cup of No]

Unless that being's deceit has a purpose. At any rate, I doubt Satan is going to stay this way forever. He will either figure out a way to be forgiven or God will destroy him.

I don't see the forgiveness part happening, unfortunately. I never understood why God would extend grace to humans but not fallen angels.

No, Satan was not created as he is. I was under the impression that he rebelled against God which is why he fell.

I like to think that too. You should read JP's thing on it here , though.

If we're not perfect then we're flawed. I think you answered your own question.

I have trouble accepting the fact that God created Adam flawed. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but you think that because Adam sinned, it shows that God created Adam flawed? How does that follow?

[Darth Executor]

I don't see the forgiveness part happening, unfortunately. I never understood why God would extend grace to humans but not fallen angels.

I'm guessing His beef with Satan is different, not to mention none of our business so don't expect God to send us another book on the subject.

I like to think that too. You should read JP's thing on it here , though.

Will do.

I have trouble accepting the fact that God created Adam flawed. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but you think that because Adam sinned, it shows that God created Adam flawed? How does that follow?

If Adam was flawless he wouldn't have sinned now would he? Free will without God's infinite power is flawed inherently.

[A Cup of No]

If Adam was flawless he wouldn't have sinned now would he? Free will without God's infinite power is flawed inherently.

I don't agree with that. God created Adam with a choice and Adam failed. His flaw was his wrong choice. Are you saying he couldn't help but make the choice? 'Cause that would truly mean being created with a flaw, but I don't see being created with the ability to make choices as flawed.

[Darth Executor]

I don't agree with that. God created Adam with a choice and Adam failed. His flaw was his wrong choice. Are you saying he couldn't help but make the choice? 'Cause that would truly mean being created with a flaw, but I don't see being created with the ability to make choices as flawed.

The ability to make choices is inherently flawed unless you are God. Law of chance my friend: given enough time and lacking infinite willpower and intelligence, the devil's gonna get you eventually. As it stands, I do not believe God "set Adam up" but rather suspect that the gift of the tree of knowledge would have been given to him eventually, when he was ready. All Adam and Eve had to do was wait. They didn't. Now it's your turn. Are you telling me that a creation that can be corrupted is perfect?

[A Cup of No]

The ability to make choices is inherently flawed unless you are God. Law of chance my friend: given enough time and lacking infinite willpower and intelligence, the devil's gonna get you eventually. As it stands, I do not believe God "set Adam up" but rather suspect that the gift of the tree of knowledge would have been given to him eventually, when he was ready. All Adam and Eve had to do was wait. They didn't. Now it's your turn. Are you telling me that a creation that can be corrupted is perfect?

I don't believe that the ability to make choices is flawed. Rather, I believe it brings about a certain value to the creation that is not there if the choice isn't there. I don't believe God wanted to create a species of drones who obeyed because He exerted power over their will to make them obey. Because of the ability to make choices, man could sustain creation's pristine status, or destroy it. In this way, God truly gave us dominion over Creation because it's perfection relied on us after he gave us the choice. Through the choices, there is value in the relationship between God and man. A creation that can be corrupted is perfect until it is corrupted. The fact that the creation could be corrupted showed that it was perfect. If it was just 'good' then wasn't it inherently corrupt because it wasn't perfect?

Btw, I'm enjoying this discussion.

[shunyadragon]

As best I recall, the whole post consisted of that one comment with an attached picture. This was probably in the Natural Sciences forum.



Prescinding from the question of whether these fossil formations are fossils of pre-Fall or post-Fall animals and the fact that you don't specify how the remains indicate such, you presuppose here that evolution is true by saying that the fish represented in these fossils are "relatives of Great White Sharks." When part of what is at issue is whether evolution is true, it does no good to pressupose it to argue for your side of the issue.



Are you speaking here of land mammals or water mammals?

Even assuming that there are fossils of fish inside fish, that does not mean that these are fish that were alive pre-fall. Also, even further assuming that these fish were alive pre-fall, that does not contradict the proposition that there was no violent. viscious predation pre-fall of the kind that would violate the peaceful harmony with which God endowed creation.



I never said that an animal eating another animal was brutal and violent. In fact I stated that I was open to the possibility that some eating of other animals occurred pre-fall. What I am not so open to is the proposition that there was eating of other animals of the kind that is viscious and violent. Also what is natural and what happens among animals or plants today is not the same thing. What is natural is a theological or philosophical concept as it relates to natural law which is about the ends which various created natures and created persons have and as it relates to the natural versus supernatural. What is natural as it relates to classifying some sciences as natural sciences is a meta-natural scientific endeavor and is as such a question of the philosophy of natural science rather than a question of natural science itself. IOW, the determination of what is natural and what is not falls wholly outside of the domain of natural science in terms of what is natural in the moral sense, what is natural in the metaphysical sense of natural versus supernatural, and what is natural in the sense of what the nature of natural science is. If you want to say that something is "natural" in the sense of it having a propensity to occur among animals and plants, that's fine. But to conflate this with natural in the moral sense is fallacious. It would be like arguing that something is straight in the sense of physical alignment based on the fact that it is straight in the sense of being heterosexual. One does not follow from the other.

All the fossil formations show predation on a rather large and violent scale from the earliest known with diverse complex life forms.

How can you tell pre-flood or post flood?

[A Cup of No]

All the fossil formations show predation on a rather large and violent scale from the earliest known with diverse complex life forms.

How can you tell pre-flood or post flood?

You can't tell. Fossils don't come with tags that say "I am pre-fall" or "I am 234908234 years old." You'll decide based on your idea of whether or not there was animal death before the fall.

[Darth Executor]

I don't believe that the ability to make choices is flawed. Rather, I believe it brings about a certain value to the creation that is not there if the choice isn't there. I don't believe God wanted to create a species of drones who obeyed because He exerted power over their will to make them obey. Because of the ability to make choices, man could sustain creation's pristine status, or destroy it. In this way, God truly gave us dominion over Creation because it's perfection relied on us after he gave us the choice. Through the choices, there is value in the relationship between God and man.

I agree with everything so far.

A creation that can be corrupted is perfect until it is corrupted. The fact that the creation could be corrupted showed that it was perfect. If it was just 'good' then wasn't it inherently corrupt because it wasn't perfect?
Btw, I'm enjoying this discussion.

No, it wasn't inherently corrupt. It was, however, flawed, as it was open to attack. Not to mention the fact that the bible itself did not call the creation perfect before the fall. If a creation can be corrupted, then it is not perfect since there is a weakness in its design that allows for corruption.

[A Cup of No]

No, it wasn't inherently corrupt. It was, however, flawed, as it was open to attack. Not to mention the fact that the bible itself did not call the creation perfect before the fall. If a creation can be corrupted, then it is not perfect since there is a weakness in its design that allows for corruption.

So would you say that Heaven was flawed, since Satan and the angels were allowed to rebel?

[Darth Executor]

So would you say that Heaven was flawed, since Satan and the angels were allowed to rebel?

Everything other than God is flawed.

[A Cup of No]

I still don't understand how the ability to be corrupted makes something less than perfect. God's creation was perfect and was corrupted through sin. God gave man dominion over the earth, and the first way that we failed was to introduce death into the world through sin. It's not God's fault or a lack of his ability to create something perfect, but rather a result of the free will He gave us so there would be value in the relationship and in the dominion of the earth.

You say everything other than God is flawed, and sure, that's true, because nothing else is God, but that's because of the very nature of God. But concerning His creation, why does vulnerability equal unperfection?

[Darth Executor]

I still don't understand how the ability to be corrupted makes something less than perfect.

Weakness is a flaw.

God's creation was perfect

No, it wasn't. Genesis calls it "good", not perfect.

and was corrupted through sin. God gave man dominion over the earth, and the first way that we failed was to introduce death into the world through sin. It's not God's fault or a lack of his ability to create something perfect, but rather a result of the free will He gave us so there would be value in the relationship and in the dominion of the earth.

It doesn't matter. Why does everything God makes HAVE to be perfect if imperfection serves a purpose? If God is perfect and the creation is perfect then is God the creation? Is the creation equal to God?

You say everything other than God is flawed, and sure, that's true, because nothing else is God, but that's because of the very nature of God. But concerning His creation, why does vulnerability equal unperfection?

By definition if there is something wrong with something then it is not perfect. There is something wrong with the creation: it is corruptable. Thus, it is not perfect.

[A Cup of No]

It doesn't matter. Why does everything God makes HAVE to be perfect if imperfection serves a purpose? If God is perfect and the creation is perfect then is God the creation? Is the creation equal to God?

It just seems God's nature to create things which are perfect because He is perfect. The creation is not equal to God because the creation is not God, but it does have one of His attributes: perfection.

By definition if there is something wrong with something then it is not perfect. There is something wrong with the creation: it is corruptable. Thus, it is not perfect.

Why is vulnerability wrong? God placed the creation under man's control, therefore it's perfection hinged on man's obedience. You still haven't shown why vulnerability is a flaw. You even agreed that for there to be value in the relationship between God and man, the ability to do wrong had to exist. If it is corruptible, then what's the standard it is being corrupted from? If it is just good, isn't it already corrupt from the start and not good, because it's not perfect?

Edit: I still want to check out the Hebrew for the "very good stuff", so give me time.

[Paul]

It seems to me that there are three kinds of perfection that can be discussed here:

1. Absolute perfection simpliciter.

This would be something that only God possesses as He alone is not only absolutely perfect in this or that way but in every single way.

2. Absolute perfection when it comes to this or that thing.

So for example those seeing God face to face, as He is, in heaven are absolutely perfect when it comes to their freedom as not only are they not slaves to sin but their wills are so perfected that this is not even a possibility for them. Once a man or angel is told, "Come and share in the joy of the master" there's not any possibility that he will leave it.

3. Perfection in the sense of not including anything bad even if it could be even better than it is now.

This strikes me as the state that God created the angels in. God didn't create them with anything bad but there were goods (such as seeing Him face to face) that He still had in store for the angels that were able to meet His test of justice and which would have been given to the angels that failed His test of justice had they not so failed.

This strikes me also as the state that God created the material creation in. When God spoke of it as good, He did not mean "It's good but it includes some bad things." Interpreting scripture that way strikes me as monstrous. Parts of the material creation could become even better (ex. men could one day see God face to face as He is rather tham mediated through a creature like a thundering voice or wind or what have you) and the material creation was destined as a whole to an even greater good (it's being transfigured as an even better new heaven and new earth), but none of it included anything bad.

[Darth Executor]

It just seems God's nature to create things which are perfect because He is perfect. The creation is not equal to God because the creation is not God, but it does have one of His attributes: perfection.

It seems God's nature? i don't think so. Got any scriptural reference that everything God makes is perfect?

Why is vulnerability wrong? God placed the creation under man's control, therefore it's perfection hinged on man's obedience. You still haven't shown why vulnerability is a flaw. You even agreed that for there to be value in the relationship between God and man, the ability to do wrong had to exist. If it is corruptible, then what's the standard it is being corrupted from? If it is just good, isn't it already corrupt from the start and not good, because it's not perfect?

UGH! Show why vulnerability is a flaw? That's common sense man! It's pretty much the exact same word! It's like asking me why an automobile is a car.

Edit: I still want to check out the Hebrew for the "very good stuff", so give me time.

I'll save you the trouble.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very3966 good.2896

3996:

me'ôd
meh-ode'
From the same as H181; properly vehemence, that is, (with or without preposition) vehemently; by implication wholly, speedily, etc. (often with other words as an intensive or superlative;

2896:

ṭôb
tobe
From H2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well): - beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ([-favoured]).