To believe in an all-powerful God and think 'should-not-have-ness' exists is to therefore believe that God did a bad job

[Cana Clinton]

People who say the world should be different are basically saying God did a bad job. Harsh, right? But isn't that the implication? If you believe in a powerful creator, then the world is their work. Complaining about it feels disrespectful, almost like yelling at a painting because you don't like the colors.

Maybe true appreciation comes from accepting the world as it is. The good, the bad, the weird - it's all part of the experience. If there's a God out there, they must have a reason for it all. Our job? To enjoy the ride, learn from the bumps, and maybe even find some beauty in the unexpected.

[Eric DUSHIMIRIMANA]

A doctor may say: "Y% of people who drink too much coffee develop the Z condition. You should not have drunk too much coffee to reduce the risk of having Z." While the doctor is reducing the cause of having the condition to one factor, here should-not-have-ness is doing a practically important thing. In our superficial human world, should-have-not-ness may be practically useful.

Because we do not know what is absolutely good or bad for us, our should-not-have-ness tendency may not mean that God did a bad job.

[Vanessa Agu]

As a Christian, I believe that God created everything flawlessly. While some find solace in imagining a meticulously organized world, it's important to also appreciate the dynamic nature of creation.

[Chibyke Icarus]

I don't share this view, but I understand that many others had similar doubts until they read your book. As I continue reading, I hope my uncertainty will be resolved. This may simply reflect my personal perspective.

[Nessa Vee]

God did a wonderful job creating the earth and everything in it. The only bad things are the crimes people commit. I don't agree with this idea, but I know many people had doubts until they read your book. As I keep reading, I hope my doubts will go away.

[Jake Shaun]

It's easy to jump to conclusions about these matters. These are complex topics, and I think it's important to have respectful, open discussions about them, just like we're doing now. Every single thing has a reason whether bad or good. The world was created perfectly.

[Ezeakor Oliver]

If we believe in an all-powerful God, then labeling events or actions as "should" or "should not" implies a judgment on God's creation or decisions. Accepting things as they are, without assigning these judgments, seems more consistent with the belief in an all-powerful deity.

[Thomas D Flowers]

This question is so thought-provoking. I believe in the existence of God, but I never thought that God has done a bad in creating the universe. All elements—plants, animals, air, sands, water, etc all are interconnected in their roles in keeping the world's system running. With this, I'll say God is perfect if he exist. However, the imbalance among humans is what I can not understand. AS can not marry AS, there is possibility that the couple born SS which when born is only born to suffer. Why would God have allow that in the place? Some humans are born blind. Why should that ever exist?

[Phillip Noah]

I newly came across this philosophy of 'should-not-have-ness,' and I derived some meaning from it. As much as using 'should' and 'ought' denotes a certainty that doesn't rest on us, I still believe in a creator. This is because I think He is now the only one that is meant to use those words because his certainty is perfect.

[clinton olamide]

Believing in an all-powerful God while holding onto the idea that certain things "should not have happened" implies that God made mistakes. If God is truly omnipotent, then everything unfolds as intended, and labeling events as wrong or unintended contradicts that belief. This mindset questions the perfection of divine will, suggesting dissatisfaction with the nature of reality itself.

[alkmalbagus]

I believe in an all-powerful God and trust that everything works out for the best, even if it seems bad at first. I agree that saying something "shouldn't have happened" implies God made a mistake, which contradicts the idea of an omnipotent God.

[Solaaa]

As I read in a previous reply, I have to simply say that in my opinion, the term should is an indication of the many possibilities that human choices births. Acknowledging God's supremacy helps me understand that I and humanity as a whole have been given some level of power and that is by choice.

Our minds tell us that there are many possibilities and we act to achieve those that we desire. If I act sincerely to hit a target, but end up missing it, would I be wrong to say that I "should" have hit it?

However I can understand the concept that the term should is unnecessary and can rob an individual of inner peace, but I also imagine it to serve as something to tell me to look for my imagination in reality.

[Hana Hasegawa]

I was initially skeptical about this statement, but as you mentioned, many others shared similar doubts until they read your book. I'm currently reading it now, and I'm hoping that it will address my concerns and clarify my understanding, just like it did for others.

[Solaaa]

The reflections you've shared on the world's perfection, the inconsistency of believers criticizing creation, and the philosophical stance on divine perfection present a thought-provoking viewpoint. However, I find myself contemplating a slightly different perspective on these matters.

Regarding the perception of the world as a perfect creation, it's essential to consider that the concept of perfection is deeply subjective and varies widely across cultures, philosophies, and individuals. While the idea of a world where every speck is in its rightful place offers a comforting vision of divine omnipotence and benevolence, it might also be worth considering the dynamic nature of creation itself. Could not the world's constant state of flux, its capacity for change and evolution, also be seen as a form of perfection? This perspective suggests that perfection includes the potential for growth, learning, and improvement, aligning with a more process-oriented view of the divine and creation.

On the inconsistency in believers' criticisms of the world, it's conceivable that expressing desires for a different world doesn't necessarily imply a belief that God did a bad job. Instead, it could reflect a deep engagement with the divine gift of free will and the responsibility it entails. Such criticisms might arise from a place of compassion and a desire to alleviate suffering, rather than from a lack of faith or ingratitude towards creation. This view posits that humans, created in the image of a thoughtful and caring God, are naturally inclined to seek justice and goodness, which sometimes requires envisioning and striving for a world that better reflects these divine attributes.

Lastly, the discussion on the philosophical implications for theism and atheism opens up an essential dialogue on the nature of belief and understanding. While it's valuable to challenge inconsistencies in beliefs, it's also crucial to acknowledge the complexity of human experience and the mystery that surrounds the divine. Faith and doubt are not always opposites but can coexist as part of a deeper exploration of one's relationship with the divine and the world. This nuanced approach allows for a belief in a perfect, all-loving God while also engaging critically with the realities of suffering and injustice, seeing them as calls to action rather than signs of divine imperfection or malice.

This perspective really brings some important details to light. It is important to know that even though a believer feels like somethings like suffering should not exist, it is equally important to acknowledge that such concepts do exist in some Holy Scriptures and are usually presented for 2 or more purposes.

I believe the first would be to teach those reading that they do not have to act in certain ways as the results would inevitably lead to conditions that people will not find favourable i.e "Thou shalt not steal" and "He who steals, if caught, shall return that which was stolen 7-fold."

The second would be to teach us that despite the way most people perceive the world to be, our actions can reflect God's true nature and grace as long as they are tailored to show how God would act according to their understand of Him. i.e "And Jesus had compassion when he looked upon the multitude."

There could be other reasons but scriptural stories teach that there are two forces in the world, forces of good and evil. While one ought to believe that all things are perfect, one also has to acknowledge that humanity is but an element that can and will be used by these forces depending on their choices which are infinite. In my opinion, the term "should" can be used by a believer to acknowledge the possibilities made by the forces of good and evil.

The quoted texts are not exactly as written in the Bible but as I remember them to be.

[Sushan]

The reflections you've shared on the world's perfection, the inconsistency of believers criticizing creation, and the philosophical stance on divine perfection present a thought-provoking viewpoint. However, I find myself contemplating a slightly different perspective on these matters.

Regarding the perception of the world as a perfect creation, it's essential to consider that the concept of perfection is deeply subjective and varies widely across cultures, philosophies, and individuals. While the idea of a world where every speck is in its rightful place offers a comforting vision of divine omnipotence and benevolence, it might also be worth considering the dynamic nature of creation itself. Could not the world's constant state of flux, its capacity for change and evolution, also be seen as a form of perfection? This perspective suggests that perfection includes the potential for growth, learning, and improvement, aligning with a more process-oriented view of the divine and creation.

On the inconsistency in believers' criticisms of the world, it's conceivable that expressing desires for a different world doesn't necessarily imply a belief that God did a bad job. Instead, it could reflect a deep engagement with the divine gift of free will and the responsibility it entails. Such criticisms might arise from a place of compassion and a desire to alleviate suffering, rather than from a lack of faith or ingratitude towards creation. This view posits that humans, created in the image of a thoughtful and caring God, are naturally inclined to seek justice and goodness, which sometimes requires envisioning and striving for a world that better reflects these divine attributes.

Lastly, the discussion on the philosophical implications for theism and atheism opens up an essential dialogue on the nature of belief and understanding. While it's valuable to challenge inconsistencies in beliefs, it's also crucial to acknowledge the complexity of human experience and the mystery that surrounds the divine. Faith and doubt are not always opposites but can coexist as part of a deeper exploration of one's relationship with the divine and the world. This nuanced approach allows for a belief in a perfect, all-loving God while also engaging critically with the realities of suffering and injustice, seeing them as calls to action rather than signs of divine imperfection or malice.

This perspective really brings some important details to light. It is important to know that even though a believer feels like somethings like suffering should not exist, it is equally important to acknowledge that such concepts do exist in some Holy Scriptures and are usually presented for 2 or more purposes.

I believe the first would be to teach those reading that they do not have to act in certain ways as the results would inevitably lead to conditions that people will not find favourable i.e "Thou shalt not steal" and "He who steals, if caught, shall return that which was stolen 7-fold."

The second would be to teach us that despite the way most people perceive the world to be, our actions can reflect God's true nature and grace as long as they are tailored to show how God would act according to their understand of Him. i.e "And Jesus had compassion when he looked upon the multitude."

There could be other reasons but scriptural stories teach that there are two forces in the world, forces of good and evil. While one ought to believe that all things are perfect, one also has to acknowledge that humanity is but an element that can and will be used by these forces depending on their choices which are infinite. In my opinion, the term "should" can be used by a believer to acknowledge the possibilities made by the forces of good and evil.

The quoted texts are not exactly as written in the Bible but as I remember them to be.

Instead of framing our understanding of morality and divine actions in terms of what "should" or "should not" happen, we might benefit from focusing on how we choose to respond to life's challenges. For instance, rather than saying we "should" avoid certain behaviors because they lead to suffering, we could focus on cultivating empathy and compassion as intrinsic values that naturally guide us away from harm.

Similarly, reflecting God's nature doesn't necessarily require us to follow a prescribed set of "shoulds." Instead, it can be about embracing a mindset of kindness and understanding, which allows us to act in ways that align with a more compassionate view of the world.

By shifting the focus from prescriptive actions to fostering intrinsic values, we may find more freedom and authenticity in how we live our lives and interact with others. What are your thoughts on this approach?