The universe is just one enormous 'Soul Filtering machine'

[SteveII]

I was not getting into why they did not sin--only countering an argument that God could create people in a "dimension" where they would not have chosen sin.
There are several possibilities. The doctrine of Sanctification is where a Christian is perfected in love, meaning that the heart is undivided in its love for God or that it loves nothing that conflicts with its love for God. It is reasonable to assume that being in the actual presence of God (or having access to the actual presence of God) has the effect of preventing a divided heart.

It didn't stop the Morning Star from having a divided heart.  What makes you think it will for the average human.

Angels were not made in the image of God. They have not been offered salvation/grace with the arrow being from sin to redemption. Apples and oranges.

In addition, whatever additional knowledge (promised in scattered versed throughout the NT) becomes known to us in heaven would likely have the effect of illuminating the consequence of sin and therefore eliminating the desire for it. Anyway, there are no logical problems with free will existing in heaven.

Knowledge has never been a palliative for sin.  And why couldn't God create these beings already imbued with this knowledge, or for that matter already in the presence of God.  Neither explanation offers a reason why God could not create beings who do not sin without going through the test.  Both can be applied at creation, if indeed they are the reason people in heaven do not sin.

No one has ever had perfect knowledge--so you can't really say that. 

I'm sure he could have. But you have just changed the starting ingredients for humans and it is not very clear how that would work. People being born with perfect knowledge? Never having to choose to love God.  Vast amounts of human development/experiences would not be possible (bravery, sacrifice, risk, fear, childhood, innocence, attaining knowledge, struggle, love, love lost, etc.). What you are talking about is a variation on the angel theme.

[The Grand Nudger]

What on earth are you talking about?  I've never had to choose to love god or not love god...and yet I somehow managed to develop and experience everything you just listed. There's no obvious relationship between that list and god love, or perfect knowledge, and you don't seem keen to provide one, either.

[SteveII]

What on earth are you talking about?  I've never had to choose to love god or not love god...and yet I somehow managed to develop and experience everything you just listed.  There's no obvious relationship between that list and god love, or perfect knowledge, and you don't seem keen to provide one, either.

If perfect knowledge prevents sin and you ask why not create everyone with perfect knowledge, how would that work? You answer the question. What does being born with perfect knowledge entail?

[The Grand Nudger]

You realize that you shouldn't be asking me those questions......those are the ones -you- would need an answer to, to make the claim -you- made above...about what -you- thought would be an impossibility of development and experience.

....................................................don't be a lazy shit. It's your work, you can either do the work or stop making the assertion.

[Harry Nevis]

So, as long as somebody is convinced, it validates the argument?!

The arguments are successful pieces of reasoning. Jorm's comment was that we need additional reasons because inferring God into existence is not compelling.

Successful in what way?  That some people believe them?  That's hardly what I would call successful reasoning.  I can demonstrate that motion from point A to point B is impossible, but that is hardly what I would call successful reasoning.

---

That there are no successful defeaters to "it just happened" and "it just is" in no way implies that they are not possible explanations.  They could be true explanations having no successful defeater.  Regardless, the fact that you are dissatisfied with them as an explanation should tell you something about the value of your natural theology arguments, because they do indeed share the same qualitative profile as explanations.  Your criticisms of them are also criticisms of your natural theology arguments.

I read Steve's post as saying there are no successful defeaters to the natural theology arguments. Perhaps he can clarify.

I seriously doubt it.  He can't tell the difference between evidence for belief and evidence for existence.

[Crossless2.0]

Aside from the need to defend the "necessity" of the Christian salvation drama, what is the point of bringing up 'perfect knowledge'? That's your phrase, Steve. Jormungandr merely asked why God couldn't have imbued humanity with the knowledge that would have (again, your words) "illuminat[ed] the consequence of sin and therefore eliminate[ed] the desire for it." Where does 'perfect' enter into that? Was not the Law engraved on every heart? Seems like a small additional step that should be quite easy for a powerful, loving god to accomplish. Furthermore, you can't argue that it would have violated God's plan that humans have free will and then turn around and claim that such conditions exist in Heaven but are not logically incompatible with the idea of free will there.

[Harry Nevis]

If they do not sin because of "the way they are" then you are no longer arguing that they have free will but rather that their behavior is in some sense determined.  You've undermined your argument for one.  For two, your answer is so vague that it basically reduces to "they would not sin for some unspecified reason."  That's hardly adequate as an explanation for why they would not sin.  It's little more than a bare assertion of your conclusion.  Christians have said that we are "slaves to sin."  Even those who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior continue to sin.  That is "the way they are." You need to do more than just handwave at some unspecified reason to explain why they will sin no more once in heaven.

I was not getting into why they did not sin--only countering an argument that God could create people in a "dimension" where they would not have chosen sin.
There are several possibilities. The doctrine of Sanctification is where a Christian is perfected in love, meaning that the heart is undivided in its love for God or that it loves nothing that conflicts with its love for God. It is reasonable to assume that being in the actual presence of God (or having access to the actual presence of God) has the effect of preventing a divided heart. In addition, whatever additional knowledge (promised in scattered versed throughout the NT) becomes known to us in heaven would likely have the effect of illuminating the consequence of sin and therefore eliminating the desire for it. Anyway, there are no logical problems with free will existing in heaven.

"is reasonable to assume"..."would likely"...weasel words.  They only apply if you buy into the claptrap.  How many angels can dance on the head of a pin again?

---

No one has ever had perfect knowledge--so you can't really say that. 

I'm sure he could have. But you have just changed the starting ingredients for humans and it is not very clear how that would work. People being born with perfect knowledge? Never having to choose to love God.  Vast amounts of human development/experiences would not be possible (bravery, sacrifice, risk, fear, childhood, innocence, attaining knowledge, struggle, love, love lost, etc.). What you are talking about is a variation on the angel theme.

You are so full of shit.

---

What on earth are you talking about?  I've never had to choose to love god or not love god...and yet I somehow managed to develop and experience everything you just listed.  There's no obvious relationship between that list and god love, or perfect knowledge, and you don't seem keen to provide one, either.

If perfect knowledge prevents sin and you ask why not create everyone with perfect knowledge, how would that work? You answer the question. What does being born with perfect knowledge entail?

Who said anything about perfect knowledge?

---

You can smell the desperation...