Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 3)

[F1fan]

Yep.
If a human is born with disease its evil.
If a dog is born with disease its not.

If a human kills another its evil.
If a lion kills an antelope its not.

So humans see themselves as special just because they can think in abstractions.

I'm not up on the bible(as reading it) and if I remember didn't man have a life free of disease, sorrow, worry, would live for ever, etc until the fruit from a certain tree was eaten and then all that was voided?(something like that). So man basically brought evil upon himself.

By a Creator that made A&E without adequate resistance to temptations, and then tempted them by an agent God sent. And if the God really didn't want A&E to not eat the fruit you'd think it would create beings capable of obedience, and not tempt them. It was all a set up.

So the evil God did in deed make man in its image after all.

 

[F1fan]

I don't think that's relevant. We don't need to talk about rearing children or even the form of original sin. The generalized form of my question is:

Why would a "good" god create people who lack the capacity to understand why they should do "X," and also create them knowing in advance that they will not do "X" due to their nature he created them with, and then when they do "X," he holds them morally responsible and chooses to punish them in a way that corrupts his entire "perfect" creation?

Oh, and his punishment ultimately results in infinite suffering for nearly everyone.

This seems more like what an evil god would do, who actively intends misery for its own sake. Not only physical but also psychological suffering. Namely, he would create a corrupt world full of pain and suffering, and do it in such a way that he could gaslight all the little creatures he made, to avoid his own accountability, make them feel blameworthy instead and then punish them infinitely, with the only faint hope of escape being an eternity of servile worship of this god. I'm trying to imagine something more evil and I can't.

And one thing that just occurred to me is how God could have made everyone deal with a lottery of fatal diseases. Instead we see tears of diseases ranked in severity, with those facing certain death on one side to those with exceptional health on the other. I happen to one of those with exceptional health. And as I get older and many of my peers get diagnosed with various ailments (one of my best friends, who just won the 50+ age group in a 350 mile gravel bike race, was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma last week) I find myself with more anxiety because it seems like my turn is coming.

It's like being in WW2 bomber over Germany and seeing planes fall one by one and thinking you're next. Or you make it back while others didn't. The diversity of diseases is a level of evil that is quite clever, as it can seem benevolent in some way while evil in another. And imagine the rift between the sick and healthy. One interesting thing is war is that it's better to only wound a soldier on a battlefield because if the guy is dead he can't be saved, but if he's wounded there's a chance two other guys will leave the battlefield to help him. So imagine a world with a range of sick and healthy people and most of them are consumed with having to manage the crisis.

The more I think about the scenarios theists believe in the less likely they can be plausible as they imagine it.

 

[Rise]

Let us return again to the example given in the last couple of PoE posts: childhood leukemia. If we were to imagine a being giving or allowing a child to suffer horribly from leukemia and then die, most of our moral compasses tingle "this is bad."


But why? If we are to use the theodicy that this post series is about (that is, "God has an unknown, but benevolent, reason for causing/allowing physical suffering in the world"), why wouldn't our moral compasses register this as good even if we didn't understand why, if it was actually good?


In other words, we are between a rock and a hard place: if children with leukemia is actually congruent with God's benevolence, and God gave us functioning cognitive, moral faculties, why wouldn't this register as good to us?


If it is actually good, but registers on our moral compasses as bad, why did God give us malfunctioning moral cognitive faculties? Wouldn't that be an entirely new problem unto itself?

Your questions are based on some unchecked presumptions which, from the Christian Biblical perspective, aren't true.

Premise 1: Childhood Leukemia is bad.
Premise 2: God gave us the ability to know right from wrong.
Premise 3: God allows bad things to happen without stopping them.
Premise 4: God intended for children to get Leukemia when he created the world and mankind.
Premise 5: An unspoken premise coming out of #4 - Which would be that god wants children to get leukemia.
Argument: If God intended for children to get Leukemia then why don't we register it as "good" because it's what God wants.
Conclusion: There is something contradictory about this worldview.

Which of those premises are not correct according to the Bible? #4 and #5 we can outright say are not true according to the Bible. I trust this is an obvious conclusion for anyone based on reading the plain text of just the first few chapters of the book of Genesis - but if you want to dispute that conclusion I can provide the verses to support it.

And #3 is arguable, but much more nuanced in it's situation. But even if we don't say #3 is untrue, there are some things we can conclude based on knowing #4 and #5 are definitely not true.

The Bible tells us God created the world without death and many of the corrupting effects that later came in through Adam's sin.
It also tells us that God will one day eradicate sin and it's effects, removing death and the corrupting effects of sin upon the world and mankind - Which again shows you what God's true will and design is.

Therefore, we can conclude:
1. God didn't create Leukemia as a condition.
2. God never intended for Adam's children to get it.
3. God doesn't want children to get leukemia because if he wanted it to happen he would have made it that way from the start and he wouldn't remove it at the end of this age.

So why do you register children getting leukemia as a bad thing? Because it's a violation of how God designed and intended the world to be. Which is why He didn't create it that way and will one day do away with the corruption we are subject to currently.

 

[F1fan]

Your questions are based on some unchecked presumptions which, from the Christian Biblical perspective, aren't true.

Then objectively they are true.

Remember that in logic premises have to be true. It's a fact that there is a character named Jesus in some Bible stories, so that could be a premise. It's not a fact that a jesus actually existed, so that can't be a premise.

Premise 1: Childhood Leukemia is bad.
Premise 2: God gave us the ability to know right from wrong.
Premise 3: God allows bad things to happen without stopping them.
Premise 4: God intended for children to get Leukemia when he created the world and mankind.
Premise 5: An unspoken premise coming out of #4 - Which would be that god wants children to get leukemia.
Argument: If God intended for children to get Leukemia then why don't we register it as "good" because it's what God wants.
Conclusion: There is something contradictory about this worldview.

Yes, that a God is referenced in premises.

Which of those premises are not correct according to the Bible? #4 and #5 we can outright say are not true according to the Bible. I trust this is an obvious conclusion for anyone based on reading the plain text of just the first few chapters of the book of Genesis - but if you want to dispute that conclusion I can provide the verses to support it.

Well you are correct that all the children God drowned in the global flood were safe from getting Leukemia.

But children do get Leukemia. And God is the creator of all that exists, including natural processes.

And #3 is arguable, but much more nuanced in it's situation. But even if we don't say #3 is untrue, there are some things we can conclude based on knowing #4 and #5 are definitely not true.

God is the creator. Why would it create a world where a child gets leukemia, just as God designed and intended, but then change its mind? Is God confused? Maybe its having second thoughts on it own morality in what it created.

The Bible tells us God created the world without death and many of the corrupting effects that later came in through Adam's sin.
It also tells us that God will one day eradicate sin and it's effects, removing death and the corrupting effects of sin upon the world and mankind - Which again shows you what God's true will and design is.

Well God set up A&E to fail, so that means God intended them to sin. Why would God want sin removed eventually? Why not now? What's it waiting for? What the hell is wrong with this God?

I suggest it's more likely that Christians are stuck with bad theology.

Therefore, we can conclude:
1. God didn't create Leukemia as a condition.
2. God never intended for Adam's children to get it.
3. God doesn't want children to get leukemia because if he wanted it to happen he would have made it that way from the start and he wouldn't remove it at the end of this age.

And yet Leukemia still happened under God's watch, and children die. Therefore we can conclude God is incompetent.

So why do you register children getting leukemia as a bad thing? Because it's a violation of how God designed and intended the world to be. Which is why He didn't create it that way and will one day do away with the corruption we are subject to currently.

Well if an almighty God really, really didn't want Leukemia, and especially not kids, don't you think it would make sure it never happened? Well it did, and if you claim a God exists and is the creator of the world, then the blame rests on your God. If you worship that God, what does that tell us about you?

I suggest find a better God.

 

[Meow Mix]

If we accept that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, does that entail that we also ought to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? After all, if God made us as anything less than that, wouldn't you count that as a failing on the part of God?

But if we are not omniscient, not omnibenevolent, and not omnipotent, then how do you propose to know what it means to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent? To understand God, do you not have to be God?

No, God could still make us finite without it being a failure. However, it would still be God's responsibility (given the premises) to provide us with working cognitive faculties, including those responsible for detecting moral truths (again, I am not a moral realist, just staying within the premises).

We don't have to be any of the omni's to understand what they entail. It's similar to knowing how to operate a vehicle without knowing how the engine works on a technical level of expertise. We can understand that to be omnipotent is to be capable of actualizing any logically possible state of affairs even if we don't necessarily know how that works: we can know what possible outcomes are.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yeah, the edit - here in regards to science. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Now here is the actual practical limit. You can't do a "we" without a given basic principle and you can use different basic principles to get different versions of "we" and also what makes a human a human.
So the problem is that you can't establish. You can choose to believe in it and act accordingly.

So Meow Mix as for logic, for a given context with 2 humans, there is not one context as such, because you could act with X is Y and I could act with X is not Y, but Z. And as longs we can both act there is no contradiction.

Regarding the link: logic and reasoning aren't the same beast as science (science is a subset, if anything).

I do not understand your last sentence, is there any way you could expound on that?

 

[Meow Mix]

Dear Meow Mix

I’ve never done this previously, but I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at below and give me your thoughts in relation to your PoE OP’s.


Humbly
Hermit

The text below goes as follows:

To legitimately answer those questions, one would need to know the purpose of worldliness, and - as far as I’m aware of - Scripture does not give us that.

My answer to the questions in your OP are therefore instead based on my own spiritual experiences:

If worldliness is the experience of a divine chosen, hypothetical code on trial, and it’s purpose is to understand what it stands for (think of my saying “God knows the symphony but cannot hear it, save through the ears of Man.”), then, suffering exists because it is embedded in the code that is being played out and tried. If God were to “remove” the effect of suffering, the code on trial would be a different one.

Should God have chosen a different code to assess? I believe it likely that God is simultaneously assessing all possible codes (combinations of data from within), but you and I are manifested in this one and in this one, suffering exists (embedded as an effect in the code itself) and cannot be removed without changing the whole experience of what the code signifies when manifested.

My response would be this: an omniscient being (which is given in the premises of the PoE) would not need to perform any kind of trial because such a being would know the outcome of any trial without having to do it. This would still render the existence of suffering unnecessary and incongruent with benevolence.

 

[Trailblazer]

But if we are not omniscient, not omnibenevolent, and not omnipotent, then how do you propose to know what it means to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent? To understand God, do you not have to be God?

We can never know what it is like or what it implies. To understand God we would have to be God.
That is why so-called logical arguments based upon omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are an exercise in futility. People think they have proven something with logic but they have proven nothing at all.

 

[Meow Mix]

Your questions are based on some unchecked presumptions which, from the Christian Biblical perspective, aren't true.

Premise 1: Childhood Leukemia is bad.
Premise 2: God gave us the ability to know right from wrong.
Premise 3: God allows bad things to happen without stopping them.
Premise 4: God intended for children to get Leukemia when he created the world and mankind.
Premise 5: An unspoken premise coming out of #4 - Which would be that god wants children to get leukemia.
Argument: If God intended for children to get Leukemia then why don't we register it as "good" because it's what God wants.
Conclusion: There is something contradictory about this worldview.

Which of those premises are not correct according to the Bible? #4 and #5 we can outright say are not true according to the Bible. I trust this is an obvious conclusion for anyone based on reading the plain text of just the first few chapters of the book of Genesis - but if you want to dispute that conclusion I can provide the verses to support it.

And #3 is arguable, but much more nuanced in it's situation. But even if we don't say #3 is untrue, there are some things we can conclude based on knowing #4 and #5 are definitely not true.

The Bible tells us God created the world without death and many of the corrupting effects that later came in through Adam's sin.
It also tells us that God will one day eradicate sin and it's effects, removing death and the corrupting effects of sin upon the world and mankind - Which again shows you what God's true will and design is.

Therefore, we can conclude:
1. God didn't create Leukemia as a condition.
2. God never intended for Adam's children to get it.
3. God doesn't want children to get leukemia because if he wanted it to happen he would have made it that way from the start and he wouldn't remove it at the end of this age.

So why do you register children getting leukemia as a bad thing? Because it's a violation of how God designed and intended the world to be. Which is why He didn't create it that way and will one day do away with the corruption we are subject to currently.

Let's start by examining the rejection of (4) and (5).

First, notice how you've worded (4): "God intended for children to get leukemia when he created the world and mankind," emphasis added. I might even be willing to cede that (4), as written, may be false specifically from a Christian perspective. However, the Problem arises regardless of when leukemia is introduced to the world: I can simply make a new premise (4'): "God intended for children to get leukemia at some point." And I think this premise is easily understood and easily defended by merely pointing out God's attributes as omnipotent and omniscient: if God does not want some state of affairs to exist in the world, God will not allow that state of affairs. Leukemia is a state of affairs that exists in the world, therefore God intended for it to exist.

Now, we can pre-empt at least one objection to my defense of (4') right away: consider for instance that somebody argues that God doesn't want broken friendships to exist in the world, but God wants free agency to exist in the world more. It would be reasonable to say then that despite God's omnipotence and omniscience that God could not prevent broken friendships because God cares about preserving free agency. And I would agree.

However, this argument doesn't work for leukemia. Leukemia is not a result of human free agency, and there is nothing stopping God from using God's omnipotence and omniscience from preventing leukemia's existence.

If leukemia exists at any point, it is by God's intention.

So, I am happy to throw away (4) to accommodate Christianity; but my argument still gets off the ground with (4').

Given (4'), and the arguments for (4'), (5) is no longer under threat and needs no further defense as it's really just a corollary of (4'). The only objection to (5) I can imagine is if someone is somehow able to elucidate how an omnipotent, omniscient being wills leukemia into existence (as must be the case, humans certainly didn't do it) but didn't want to do it: I don't think that's very congruent with being omnipotent and omniscient.

We can argue, "well, sometimes a parent punishes a child because that's their responsibility. The parent didn't want to do it, it had nothing to do with whether it was beyond their power not to do it." However, I don't think that we would get very far: we would just be entering a microcosm of the PoE in terms of justice and proportionality: is it just to give young children, who have committed no crimes or at least have only committed trivial crimes (much less heinous than, say, genocide), something like leukemia where they suffer immensely and then die before they can even learn anything from the "punishment?" Doesn't our moral compass register that state of affairs as unjust, too?

Our moral compasses usually tell us that punishments are proportional to crimes, and that it is not just to punish descendants for the crimes of ancestors (just to pre-empt Original Sin-type arguments here).

Lastly, as for the premise that God will eventually clean up the suffering, that's nice; but it doesn't save omnibenevolence. If I slap a child in the face and then say, "whoops, I know that stung for a minute, but here's a candy bar," that's nice of me (by the end), but I still can't claim to be omnibenevolent.

 

[Meow Mix]

Is it evil that a young sick antelopes is attacked by a lion which bites its throat, suffering until it suffocates, then dies?

Is it evil when any other species has a sick, diseased member suffering?

Or is evil just a human thing?

I don't use the term "evil" philosophically (I might colloquially), so I have to answer this more carefully.

Regarding whether it's evil that predation exists: given an omnipotent and omniscient being exists, it is not congruent with benevolence to create a world in which things like predation and parasitism exist. Such a being is capable of creating a world in which organisms are able to feed themselves without causing suffering in other organisms.

If an omnipotent and omniscient being doesn't exist (so, in my worldview), predation is neither evil nor good, it is just a fact of existence. It's an unfortunate fact, one that I don't value because I value animals not being in pain or suffering, but it is a necessary consequence of limited resources in ecosystems and evolution filling available niches.

Regarding your second question: given an omnipotent/omniscient being existing, suffering caused by sickness and disease does not have to exist; it is evidence of non-benevolence.

Regarding your third question: I am not sure what you're asking. Is it perhaps asking whether humans are the only things in the universe with moral properties and moral value? Then I answer no: other animals, organisms, any hypothetical other intelligence or life, has moral value and properties as well.

 

[Meow Mix]

Your post is good. No doubt. With this you seem to contend the so called qualities of God, like Omnipotence, and omnibenevolence (if there is such a word). Not the existence. Is that right?

Yes, the argument is a reductio ad absurdum showing that all of these attributes in the premises can't be instantiated by the same being. So in a roundabout way, it is about existence; but it is only meant to show a thing with particular properties doesn't exist (all that it takes to defeat it -- or, perhaps it would better be said to avoid it -- is not to posit all of the premises are true that trigger the argument).

 

[Meow Mix]

I think it does register as good in some circumstances. Not that the illness is good, but, the reaction of the child, family, and friends to the tragedy an be good and inpiring in a positive way. When the child is strong, finds meaning in their life, recognizes the beauty of life in spite of the illness, I think people acknoweldge there is some good in it. This suggests that the process of ovecoming suffering has value to God ( assuming God exists per the OP ).

This is also a theodicy (that the existence of suffering enables certain good things to exist, such that in a utilitarian sense, the suffering existing in the first place is good).

My response would be this: while I agree that we make the best of suffering by trying to do things that register as good around it (a disease is hurting people, so we put aside our differences and come together to create a vaccine for instance), this doesn't excuse the existence of the suffering in the first place.

The reason why is because a lot of the "good" things that are enabled by suffering obtain their worth by helping to alleviate or prevent more suffering: but what would be the point of that if there weren't suffering in the first place?

For instance, it is good that my fingertips feel pain such that if I touch the hot stove top, I know not to do that again in the future. There are some people that can't feel pain, and it causes them great suffering because they don't get warning and teaching mechanisms like this. However, imagine a Toy World (using PoE nomenclature here for a world in which physical suffering is impossible) where stove tops can never hurt me: what then would be the purpose of ever feeling my fingertips get singed?

Consider the example of a vaccine: we would probably register the creation of a vaccine to be a good thing, but if the disease never existed in the first place, what's the point? I don't think many of us would agree that it's ultimately better to have smallpox (so that we can make a vaccine for it, and thus have a new good enter the world) than it is to simply never have had smallpox in the first place.

I also chose the example of childhook leukemia specifically because a child that dies can never even learn or benefit from the suffering: what about them?

 

[Meow Mix]

As I've mentioned in various previous threads, our morality has two sources ─ the evolved part and the acquired part.

We've evolved to have these moral tendencies ─ why? Because they're good for promoting tribal solidarity and cooperation, which have brought humans enormous benefits:

child nurture and protection
dislike of the one who harms
like of fairness and reciprocity
respect for authority
loyalty to the group
a sense of self-worth through self-denial

To which we can add our evolved conscience and our evolved capacity for empathy.

The rest of our morality is acquired from our upbringing, culture, education and experience. It deals very largely with how we should interact with others ─ older or younger, same or opposite sex, family or stranger, socially inferior or superior, and such things as dining together, observances like birth, coming of age, marriage and death, the rules of excretion and so on.

My point is that this system isn't the product of reason but of the evolutionary imperatives of surviving and breeding.

Reason only comes into it when we explore, describe and seek to explain our moral equipment, or how the rules should be applied in certain cases.

This is the background to the observation that "good" is what benefits or pleases me and mine and the causes I support; and "bad" is what is detrimental or displeasing to them ─ the 'me' here comes with the moral set-up above.

Of course our morality is only part of us. In the other corner are appetite, necessity, desire, ambition, competitiveness, obligation, social pressure, and other factors that demand our attention and need to be kept in balance.

Sure, I agree with all of this (though with the caveat that we do some moral introspection and belief revision once we start reasoning).

However, this doesn't rescue the theist contending with the PoE unless they're willing to grant evolution (so, bye anti-evolutionists, Biblical literalists, probably other religion literalists, etc.)

Also, given evolution's inefficiency and the necessity of a great deal of suffering for it to work, I think if the theist grants this that they have already lost to the PoE by abandoning some of its premises.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, the argument is a reductio ad absurdum showing that all of these attributes in the premises can't be instantiated by the same being. So in a roundabout way, it is about existence; but it is only meant to show a thing with particular properties doesn't exist (all that it takes to defeat it -- or, perhaps it would better be said to avoid it -- is not to posit all of the premises are true that trigger the argument).

I am no one to advice you, but I would like to. You can take it or leave it, but you should take it because I am older than you. People should learn to obey their elders. (Im just joking so dont send me a jinx okay).

You are a logical person. Lol. Okay that sounded bad. You are taking arguments into the logical realm. The philosophical realm. Thus, its better to take the two arguments separately.

Lets say logically you prove God is an evil being, then God could still exist. This will not prove the nonexistence of a so called God.

 

[Meow Mix]

I find in the Bible 'our moral compass' is our: inborn conscience.
Because of conscience we can all act responsibly toward God.
So, unless it's damaged a well-trained conscience can be a good moral guide.
Because of conscience is why even the nations think of murder, stealing as wrong, etc.
Sure God is powerful, but that does Not mean He uses His power for bad.
For example: The God of the Bible can Not lie according to Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18.
So, yes God is responsible for our conscience (compass) but we are responsible if we ignore it.
One's conscience can become so calloused to the point of being so hard it No longer has feelings.

I'm not sure how this explains the problem in the OP though. I do not think that my compass is being ignored when I see child leukemia and I think "That's horrible. That's so much suffering, it makes me weep."

 

[Meow Mix]

I am no one to advice you, but I would like to. You can take it or leave it, but you should take it because I am older than you. People should learn to obey their elders. (Im just joking so dont send me a jinx okay).

You are a logical person. Lol. Okay that sounded bad. You are taking arguments into the logical realm. The philosophical realm. Thus, its better to take the two arguments separately.

Lets say logically you prove God is an evil being, then God could still exist. This will not prove the nonexistence of a so called God.

Haha ^.^ Definitely going to jinx you!

So, what I'm saying is that the PoE as I'm presenting it argues for the nonexistence of a being with particular attributes.

We can drop one or more of the premises (as you say) and still get a being that exists, yes. I know this. For instance, I can argue that there are no married bachelors. If someone says Tom is a married bachelor, I can say "well that version of Tom doesn't exist then." Now of course they can drop one of the two premises, and say Tom is either married or a bachelor; in which case yes, Tom can still exist. But the point of the argument in the first place was to show the original version with all the premises intact doesn't exist. It's OK if some other version with other premises exists as that's beyond the scope of the argument.

But the argument still has value because many people aren't willing to drop any of the premises.

 

[Trailblazer]

As another example we have seen one member continue to insist that God is not accountable for what it's created because it created processes to function independently of intervention. But this is not reasonable given the God knew exactly the outcomes of what it created, thus is aware and responsible for its decision. The resistance to this simple cause/effect principle illustrates how belief requires the rejection of reason in order to protect the ideas the self is depending on for identity.

There is no connection between knowing what is going to happen and causing it to happen. I do not need a religious belief in order to know that, all I need is logical abilities. The fact that the Baha'i Writings concur with what I have logically deduced is a moot point.

Just because God knew the outcomes of what He created that does not mean God caused the outcomes. Humans cause the outcomes by doing what God knows they will do. God knows everything that humans will ever do because God is omniscient.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

“the knowledge of God in the realm of contingency does not produce the forms of the things. On the contrary, it is purified from the past, present and future. It is identical with the reality of the things; it is not the cause of their occurrence........

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

If anyone would like to jump in and comment on this I would appreciate it. How does foreknowledge of what is going to happen in the future cause it to happen?

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no problem of evil.
If there be gods, they decide what reality & morality are.
They do as they please. They determine what is right.
Even if they did do evil, it would all be part of their plan,
& therefore good.
Beliefs & values of us miserable humans are irrelevant.

I am ever so grateful that I finally found an atheist with such excellent logical abilities.
The only thing I regret is not being able to give you two Winner ratings.

You figured it all out and you needed no scriptures, just a logical mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

The generalized form of my question is:

Why would a "good" god create people who lack the capacity to understand why they should do "X," and also create them knowing in advance that they will do "X" due to their nature he created them with, and then when they do "X," he holds them morally responsible and chooses to punish them in a way that corrupts his entire "perfect" creation?

My answer is that God did not create people that way. God created people who have the capacity to understand why they should do "Y," and also created them knowing in advance that they will do either "X" or "Y" (because God is all-knowing so God has foreknowledge), and then when they do "X," he holds them morally responsible because they have a choice between (X) and (Y).

Allow me to further explain. Man has two natures, a material nature (X) and a spiritual nature (Y) We all have free will to make moral choices so we can choose to act according to (X) or (Y), our material or lower nature or our spiritual or higher nature. If we act according to our material nature (X) we show forth untruth, cruelty and injustice. If we act according to our spiritual nature (Y) we show forth love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice.

All human behavior exists along a continuum, with the material nature (X) at one end and the spiritual nature (Y) at the other end. No human is purely material or purely spiritual, but rather we can gravitate towards one or the other according to the moral choices that we make.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

To continue: THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

 

[Trailblazer]

The Bible tells us God created the world without death and many of the corrupting effects that later came in through Adam's sin.
It also tells us that God will one day eradicate sin and it's effects, removing death and the corrupting effects of sin upon the world and mankind - Which again shows you what God's true will and design is.

No, the Bible does not tell us any of that. Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible came up with the false doctrines like original sin tell us that.

If anyone wants to step up to bat and show me where the Bible 'tells us that' I will be more than happy to explain what I believe the Bible really tells us, i.e. what the Bible verses really mean. I consider this a very serious matter because of the all-pervasive effect these false beliefs have had upon millions and millions of people. This is the worst crime that Christianity has ever perpetrated upon an unsuspecting humanity. And now Jesus is supposed to save everyone from that original sin, the sin that Jesus never even knew about, but the only people who will be saved are those who are willing to believe in the Church doctrines. The rest of the people in the world, 67% of the world population, will be going to hell.