Doubt & Faith - Evolution, Afterlife & History

I would not say that it is absolutely necessary. It would only be so if one assumes that the present order of things is the only feasible one, but I do not share that assumption.

God could have created a system in which reproduction is compatible with the absence of death—for instance, a world characterized by the continual renewal of resources. He could also have intervened in human development so that the capacity to colonize other planets emerged much earlier in our history. Admittedly, this would entail the existence of other planets capable of sustaining human life, as well as an ever-expanding universe with an abundance of resources sufficient to sustain humanity until the Second Coming of Christ. Such a universe would differ significantly from the present one; however, I see no reason why an omnipotent God could not have created such a reality.

Moreover, this would not eliminate human free will. Human beings would still be capable of acting unjustly, of seeking to dominate one another, and of prioritizing their own will over the common good. The absence of natural evil, entropy, or even death would not, in itself, negate the possibility of free will. In fact, if we posit a universe in which human beings are naturally immortal—such that they are ordinarily judged only at the end of time, like those who will be alive at Christ’s return, when He will judge ‘the living and the dead’—and can die only through murder or accidents, rather than from old age or disease, then the moral gravity of murder would be even greater than it is now. I acknowledge that this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Nevertheless, it would not lie beyond the realm of possibility for a living and omnipotent God, nor would it contradict the existence of free will. In this hypothetical scenario, humans would still experience exploitation, poverty caused by the greed of others, isolation, and similar conditions; there would therefore remain a need for empathy and cooperation. They could even experience death by way of murder as i said.

Finally, Christian eschatology itself points to a “new heaven and a new earth” in which the current order of things will be no more , and yet this renewed creation is understood to be also material, not only spiritual.

God did not necessarily have to use evolution to create human beings. He chose to do so, but there is no logical or metaphysical necessity that required humans to arise from animal precursors. This is simply the present order of things; it is not the only possible one. Not the only one that was feasible or that could have been logically feasible. Nevertheless, I believe that this order will ultimately serve a greater good.

Non rational animals do not possess free will, which is why they are not morally culpable for their actions.”

Simply perfect.

Amen to all of this.

2 Likes

Ok…if you see a way for God to create a square circle, more power to ‘ya. (proposing an ability to colonize other planets only kicks the can down the road…eventually other planets would also become overun without death (and decay).

If you want to posit that alternate “supernatural chemistry” or “supernatural physics” exist, that’s your prerogative… but just be aware that other “better goods” theodicies and other framings of God’s purposes do not require such speculation.

It’s true that there may not be a direct connection with entropy per se and free will (I didn’t mean to assert exactly that). Rather that free will is necessarily tied to the potential for evil.

How does that speculative scenario solve your “natural evil’ problem though? Again, eliminating a couple of causes of death (disease/old age) just kicks the can down the road. If humans in such a universe would live long enough, we’d all eventually brush up against a fatal ‘accident’.

Yes, I agree. Scripture also says that humans will not reproduce in the renewed creation so overpopulation and limited resources may then not be an issue….The reproduction (and potential death) of other life forms in the renewed creation is not explicitly addressed, but there is no need to hold that reproduction on Earth will definitely be a feature in Creation 2.0

God did not need to create, period. But assuming he is a good and perfect God (we can both assume that I hope!) and given that he DID choose evolution as his method, we can logically infer that it was the best means to achieve the best possible ends. NO? Might have there been other methods? Apparently no other method that was as good. In that case, our challenge as Christian theologians is not think or to argue that “God should have created in a different way which was better” but rather to try to understand how the method God used might be the best in a way that we do not envision.

Ok. Good. You and I both see that a God who would curse the universe based on the free will decision of non-humans (angels) is morally insupportable. Would you then mind explaining to me why you believe you need a savior? Is it because you believe in original sin? Do we deserve hell because of what we do, what our ancient ancestors did, or both?

But why did God want creatures with free will? Who benefits from the existence of creatures with free will?

But why create creatures with the ability to rebel? Who benefits? Who benefits from creatures with free will and the ability to use that free will to rebel?

In this case, the only requirement would be the existence of a sufficient number of planets to sustain humanity until Judgment Day. I do not believe this event is far off—perhaps not imminent, but certainly not millions or even hundreds of thousands of years away. Like i said multiple times I believe we are in the early stage of the great apostasy so I actually think the end might be far closer than many people think. Of course, this remains highly speculative as only the Father knows the day.

Not necessarily supernatural. Just different from the current natural order.

Of course, this is entirely true. I was simply pointing out that the potential for moral evil would still exist for rational human beings, even in a universe devoid of entropy and natural evil. This is also why I believe there must be something else that explains the cruelty of nature and the existence of natural evil. It is for this reason that I arrived at arguments similar to Boyd’s even before I was aware of them.

In that scenario, if we were to wipe ourselves out with nuclear weapons, for example, this would constitute moral evil rather than natural evil. I was merely pointing out that moral human evil would still be totally possible in a non entropic universe where natural evil doesn’t exist.

The fact that there will be a new heaven and a new earth leads me to think that there may also be new human beings on the new earth. If I recall correctly, even Mitchell suggested something along these lines. It stuck with me, since we rarely agree on anything :joy:.

I maintain that God will employ the present order of reality to bring about the greatest possible good, and that the world to come will surpass any conceivable form of the present world. Nevertheless, I also hold that alternative means and conditions could have been employed to achieve this end. In the final analysis, as Isaiah affirms, ‘His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts.

The only point on which I am personally adamant is that laws such as entropy are intrinsically opposed to the loving will of God and are more closely aligned with the chaotic and destructive nature of satanic power. At the same time, I believe that God has permitted the universe to exist in its present form in order to bring about the greatest possible good in the world to come.

The capacity for rebellion is intrinsic to free will, which in turn is a necessary condition for the possibility of a genuinely loving relationship. Love, to be authentic, must be freely given.

2 Likes

Excellent, well-thought out response, Terry. Thank you.

  1. Who benefits from the creation of creatures with free will? The creator, the created creature, or both?
  2. Even if you believe it was necessary for God to give his human creatures free will, why punish everyone and everything for the “sin” of two humans? Why not just punish those two humans? Do you believe it is just/fair to punish children for the sins of their parents? Imagine a justice system in which the minor children of a convicted murderer are executed along with their father: Imagine the scene: a man and his five children hanging dead from the gallows, the children ranging in age from 17 to a two month old. Is that just? Is that good? Is that moral? Yet that is exactly what the Christian God does if you believe in original sin.

But why did Jesus need to suffer and die for the sins of Adam and Eve? Please explain the rationale for that?

So you believe that the suffering and death of 8,000 children under the age of five, each and every day, MAY be something a 100% good and all-powerful God would allow?

“leads me to think”. Ok…but without scriptural backing (despite what Michell might think :wink:

But these statements do not logically follow from each other, in fact they contradict. Because, yes, certainly we cannot fully understand God’s ways, but that does not mean that his chosen way of acting was not the best way.

We may not be so far apart here. I think reproduction and evolution (and hence the physical laws we have including entropy) were necessary to bring about physical, moral, loving creatures capable of relationship. However, in Creation 2.0, once our characters and personhood are fully formed and chosen, reproduction (and hence competition and natural selection and hence evolution) would presumably cease to be a feature for us, and maybe for the universe. (although I don’t presume to know what God has in mind for life on other planets, if it exists).

Why does a perfect, all powerful God need a loving relationship? Why does He need a loving relationship with one of his created creatures? He already had creatures with free will (angels) with whom he could form loving relationships, if that was something he desired. So why create two more creatures with free will?

so there could be more love?

1 Like

Yeah of course.

In fact, I believe it was the best possible way. However, this best path entailed the toleration of things I consider objectively evil, such as natural suffering, predation, and entropy (which, the more I reflect on it, the more it appears to me as something almost satanic in character, certainly not something a loving God would have intended under normal circumstances).

1 Like

First, most Christians do not frame Jesus’ death as “paying for the sins of Adam and Eve.” The claim is broader: humanity exists in a fractured condition that began with primordial rebellion, and Christ enters that condition to heal and reconcile it.

Second, the rationale is not that God needed blood to calm himself. In many mainstream accounts, the cross is God absorbing the consequences of human rebellion — violence, injustice, death — rather than retaliating. It is restorative rather than retributive.

In other words, the Christian claim is not “two people ate fruit, so someone must be executed.” It is that humanity’s alienation and mortality required divine self-giving to overcome. You may find that unconvincing, but it is not accurately described as punishing Jesus for Adam and Eve.

Make a note of this: The cross is not about settling Adam and Eve’s bill. It is about God entering into and defeating the condition of alienation and death that humanity shares. That’s a metaphysical and relational claim, not a courtroom execution of a substitute.

1 Like

Yes indeed. And for all our failures to fully understand, we see a God who weeps, and who is willing to suffer alongside side us.

1 Like

God is love in His very nature; the Trinity itself is a communion of love.

The Father eternally gives Himself to the Son.
The Son eternally receives and returns that love.
The Holy Spirit is the living bond of that love.

This means:

  • God is not an isolated individual

  • God is an eternal exchange of self-giving

It is therefore fitting for love to give rise to new beings to love and to be loved by. It’s not a question of need. Love is inherently generous and self-diffusive—it overflows rather than withholds, and stands in direct opposition to selfishness.

This is why Christians say:

  • Love is not something God has sometimes

  • Love is what God is, eternally

And love is:

  • Self-giving

  • Fruitful

  • Overflowing and generous

It is not a question of need. As I said, love is generous; and creating new beings with whom to share happiness and love is entirely in accordance with God’s nature.

Other things that exist are not, hence our speculations on the subject.

  • Christianity does not claim God creates from need; it claims God creates from fullness.
1 Like

Exactly. His act of creation reflects His desire to share His love, glory, and goodness, with all things existing through Him and for Him. It doesn’t certainly arise out of “need”.

  • For a guy in his 60s, G_M is poorly informed.
1 Like