God Didn’t Like His First Creation

10/28/2013

The Bible says that God created all things and saw that they were good.  It seems to me that God should have known, in advance, that they would have been good (or not) and he wouldn’t have had to wait to “see” the result of his creation.  To me, this implies that God could not anticipate the results and thus the Creation was an experiment!

A prime example of this in the Bible is the Flood Story.  According to the Bible, God saw that his Creation was no longer good and so decided to destroy what he had created and start over (with Noah).  It was, in effect, a complete reversal of his original Creation.  Again, why hadn’t God known that his creation was going to turn out this way and if he did why did he create it in the first place….unless it was an experiment.

The same thing is true with respect to Satan.  Why would God knowingly create an evil being…unless Satan was the result of an experiment that God couldn’t anticipate the outcome of.  Therefore, one could easily come to the conclusion that the creation of life was a process of trial and error.  As a general rule, God could not intervene without invalidating the experiment.

How else could one explain the complete lack of logic in God’s actions, at least the God as defined by theology.  Unless of course, God, as we have come to believe in Him, is not really God, the Prime Creator.  That alone might explain a God who created evil, a God who was not omniscient and a God who would willingly destroy his own Creation.  Please explain to me again why we pray to such a god?

“All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.”

     – Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

7 Responses to “God Didn’t Like His First Creation”

  1. Arkenaten said

    Excellent summation. Why indeed?

  2. This post made me think about the gnostic belief of a first cause God above a worldly creator God.
    Of course Christian apologetics have been adapted to explain how an omnipotent, omniscient God could have made a mistake that would require him to perform a do-over and still be omnipotent and omniscient.
    It requires mental gymnastics to keep the sheep herded.

  3. Tim Miller said

    I like to think of this more as a problem of language. To write about the transcendent, while using fallible language, inevitably makes God look sloppy. The other example usually cited is God’s testing of Abraham in regards to sacrificing Isaac–surely God knew beforehand that Abraham would pass. Or, for that matter, why did God bother telling Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree, when, if he’s omnipotent, he should’ve know already that they would eat from the tree?

    To fiddle with these points, I think, is to commit the same error of every fundamentalist who reads the Bible literally. This is only another way of reading it literally, only the other way around. I think there’s a good lesson to be learned from, for instance, reading the creation stories of Native Americans, or various Pacific island countries, where these kinds of disparities exist, but are beside the point–where created worlds already have huge populations and weapons and tools, with no explanation. There is no reason to expect, from a religious text, the kind of coherent narrative we expect nowadays, or a coherent logical God we also desperately want nowadays, for whatever reason.

    The other thing to consider is that, at one point, the two creation stories with which Genesis begins were perhaps not part of the same book as the Flood story, and probably had different authors anyway. The author of the Flood story believed in a different kind of God, we could say, than the author of the first chapter of Genesis, and there’s another God also in Genesis 2. To mash them up and give them the same name will inevitably produce inconsistencies–which doubters will call proof to the ridiculousness of religion, and the pious will just refer to as a mystery.

    • chicagoja said

      Thank you for your comments. That’s more or less my point. You can’t take the Bible literally. Unfortunately, many still do though. Some of my prior posts dealt with the points that you raised in your last paragraph, namely that the Bible was written by different authors who had different concepts of God. Again, many would deny that that’s the case. Instead, they claim that the Bible is the Word of God even though they can only point to the Bible to support their claim. They can’t even appreciate the circular reasoning in their “logic”. By the way, God never needed a religion or a holy book to prove his existence.

  4. Smash Boy said

    Nice analysis,I must admit,but hey,anything goes in an experiment,right?Like the scientific method,at the edge of a hypothesis;humanly enough,you don’t know how will the outcome be,but to God,everything seems too certain,hence boring,but interestingly enough,God looks for the unexpected,a disproof from one speck of a human in Its system to blow his mind,so comes the paradox of omniscience.However,this is a human interpretation of a creator only.Ad in,God is just a god,nothing else.But what if God isn’t just omniscient,omnipresent,omnibenevolent and omnipotent?What if God has omniidentity(as in,God is everything and anyone,even the nothingness).Then we have encountered a much complicated concept of God:A concept beyond transcendency and perfection.God breaks perfection due to Its complicated,logical nature(as an experimentor),and due to Its vast,overall identity(to be everything that exists and to be created).
    So,what exactly does this all mean?Simply enough,God IS everything,God IS omnipotence,God IS omnipresence,God IS omnibenevolence and IS omniscience.
    No coincidence as well how most we know about the universe and how we explain it may reveal peculiar paradoxes.Think about it,the universe itself is simple,but scientists twist it down to complexity(enough to give rise to many contradictions and perhaps,nonsensical claims about it),but like I said above,anything goes,nothing personal,God itself is energy(thermodynamically speaking,indestructible and uncreated,it only changes).So here God may be a vast,complicated shift of itself and the universe.We are human beings,we are short sighted creatures,so it is natural(even up to the emotional stress) for us to question on such a paradoxical,absurd entity such as God,but in the end,like you said,life and the universe is an experimental frame of reality.Nothing wrong about that.

    As for your final question;it is like saying why buddhists want to become one with the universe dispite their small individuality as persons,the same goes to why the Hindu want to reincarnate to experience other life forms and live in them,regardless how scientifically absurd(to some!.. may seem);it is the same case with the Catholic,Hebrew and Christian..as well as Muslim god,they pray it for enlightenment,to receive blessings and fortune,to feel loved,it is natural for us humans to strive for such values and states of psychological mood,to get better of course,disregarding almost delusional absurdities,in the end,we humans are a product of an impersonal creation,experimented by a higher being or supreme system of The Everything:God,rational or not,non of that almost even matter when our well being is at stake(surviving is important,no?),people have their beliefs in their fronts,but we aren’t to criticize which is best,because their isn’t,all goes,anything goes,and non matters as long as we have the ability to prosper,is what matters.We create more nonsense than “the nonsense” itself in some cases,because we can’t understand it,we’ll fear it and lead our minds to destroy it.

    Who knows?Maybe all religions have the same thing in common in a long outcome:they could be wrong in some points,right in another,just like scientific researches will go through,give it a thought.

    • chicagoja said

      Exactly right, especially the part about God just IS. However, the question is: Is what? That question is ultimately beyond man’s ability to comprehend and beyond his ability to even imagine. We were never meant to know, only to experience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: