I would like to set out the causes of my problems with the basic tenets of the Judaeo-Christian creator. Before setting these out I would stress that what I want or would like cannot affect what is true, or seems closest to the truth. Neither can the implications of that seeming truth allow us to flinch from accepting and adjusting our perceptions of the nature of the universe and our role in it.
The primary problem with the Judaeo-Christian theistic view is that of the contradiction between the nature of a perfect and omnipotent creator to whom evil is described as abhorrent and a creation that is described as flawed and evil. I perceive four possible resolutions to this situation. These are:
(i) The flawed creator
However an omnipotent being has to provide us with our definition of perfection; for if a being is omnipotent then it is capable of correcting any flaws in its nature and any aspects of that nature which are not corrected cannot be viewed as flawed. And if the creator is flawed and not omnipotent then that implies a definition of omnipotence outside of and above that of the creator.
(ii) The deliberately flawed creation
This is the position that I understand Christianity and Judaism (and Islam) to imply. The creator has deliberately and knowingly created a universe in which the very evil said to be abhorrent to it will arise. The argument from free will used to justify this position does not appear to stand inspection, for if the creator is omnipotent it is capable of creating creatures capable of understanding the implication of their actions. Indeed this is a prerequisite of free will, without it creatures are automatons with no reason to choose between obedience and disobedience. This combined that in our created natures that for all but the most flawed individuals prevents us from performing an action that will cause us from performing an action that will cause us lasting pain and suffering suggests that either Adam (or proto-Adam) was incapable of exercising free will and the results of the fall are not the consequence of free will, but rather that of deliberate plan on the art of the creator.
If I may use a metaphor to illustrate the problem of using free will to explain the condition of the universe: If a parent gives their child a box of matches but tells them not to play with them, whom do you condemn when the house burns down?
An implication of the deliberately flawed creation is that the creator knew that the result of his creation would, for some, be unrelieved, undeserved and constant suffering.
(iii) The malignant corruptor (Manichaeism)
This suggests that whilst creation was perfect an uncreated malignant being was responsible for its corruption. Whilst this is suggested in one or two places in scripture the church has labelled this as heresy. It implicitly denies the omnipotence of the creator, for why can’t it destroy the malignant force.
(iv) The absence of the creator (Atheism)
If the nature of the universe is a simple amoral progression then the terms flawed and evil become meaningless in this context. It does leave the problem of the origin of matter. But this is no more of a valid question than the origin of the creator. Given that we exist one or other must either have always existed or been brought into existence by some thing that had.
