Why Didn't God Create the World Differently?

Does God's nature, specifically omnisapience, entail there is only one possible world He would have created and this is the best of all possible worlds? Some of Paul Helm's thoughts [1] that indirectly touches on the question would help here; and then I will make a few comments.

  Helm makes it clear God chooses to create the world consistently with His nature and plan.

Helm states the world is contingent. God could have eternally chose not to create. But, God, given His nature and plans, chose freely to create the world.

   Helm is direct in saying this is the only possible world God would create given His nature and plans. But if the question is "could God have created the world differently?" the answer is yes he had the power to do so, but it did not please Him to do so given His nature and plans. Hence God would not create the world differently than He did since it is according to His nature and plan. But the question arises following Leibniz, "Is the actual world the best of all possible worlds God could have created?"
The answer seems to be yes and no! Yes it is the best according to God's nature and plan. No because value and worth comes from God. Something can only rightly be called the best ( e.g. any given possible world) because God makes it the best. There is no "best making properties" in possible worlds in which God chooses the one that has the most of such properties. Rather, God creates the world by His nature and plan. We must keep in mind, it is He who states if something is the best (if it exemplifies His nature and what He thinks is best). God has not revealed the actual world is the best. Therefore, we must not conclude it is or is not. However, we do know God is not obligated to always and only create the best. In fact, it is quite possible He may create something that is not the best (a world with deficiencies) to all the more demonstrate Himself as the best.  John Frame commenting on evil says,

"People sometimes say that God must make the best possible world because he himself is perfect. So they think that although evil exists now, this is nevertheless the best world God could have made. That is one traditional attempt to solve the problem of evil.

I disagree, however. Genesis 1:31 says that God made everything good, but not perfect. “Perfect” would mean not only good, but also incapable of becoming evil. Clearly God did not choose to make that kind of world. In that sense, the new Heavens and the new Earth (Rev. 21:1) will be a better world than this one, for that world will be confirmed in goodness, incapable of becoming evil. So the world in which we presently live is not the best possible world. God is free to make a world that is imperfect in some respects.

 Could God have made a better world than this one? Certainly. He could have made what we call the “new Heavens and new Earth” right back at the beginning. Why, then, did he choose not to do so? I don’t know. That is essentially the problem of evil. I think there are some biblical ways of addressing the problem, but I don’t think we will have a completely satisfying resolution of the problem during our present life."[2]   

William Lane Craig discussing the Ontological argument writes,

"Now concerning your theological misgiving: I don’t see that this has anything to do with God’s being metaphysically necessary. Even if God exists contingently, so long as He is essentially morally perfect you can run your argument that He is morally obligated to do the best and therefore must create the best possible world. So this is a problem that faces any theist who thinks that God is morally perfect.

The misgiving is to be met, I think, by questioning the assumption that there is a best of all possible worlds. Worlds may just get better and better without limit. For any world God chooses to create there will always be a better one that He could have created. God must at most create a good world, not the best world (since there is no such thing). Moreover, there’s no reason to think that God must create anything at all. In a possible world in which God creates nothing, there is only He Himself, the paradigm and locus of goodness—the summum bonum. That’s a pretty good world, to say the least!"[3]

[1] Helm, Paul. The Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford P, 2010) p.p.186-188.
[2] John Frame Interview on the Problem of Evil Here
[3] William Lane Craig. Question 51. Here

           

Why I Will Raise My Children With God Part 1

TXBlue08, an atheist, has written a blog post entitled “Why I Raise My Children Without God,” in which she argues why parents “ought” not to teach their children things about God. Link here: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282?hpt=hp_c2

I will quote her essay and then respond using the essay as a sample of how presuppositionalism is the most effective method of Christian apologetics. 

She says, “God is a bad parent and role model.” Since “Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others. Nor do “Good people… stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children.” She goes on to attack the free will defense on the grounds that good parents still intervene, guide, and protect their children regardless if they have free will.

How to respond? First, one must understand that as Christians we respond fully committed to Christ, so our answers will flow from our allegiance to God and His Word.  Scripture teaches God is not someone we should think of as our equal. He is God and we are his creatures. He made mankind in his image thus giving us intellects, wills, emotions, and dominion over creation. God gave mankind the sole responsibility to take care of his creation. This entails man is responsible over their children to be representatives of God to them. Teaching them the truth of God and protecting them from evil. God created Adam who was the first man and representative of the human race.   God gave mankind commandments/duties that reflect God’s character for the benefit of the creature and the ultimate good.  The first man Adam violated God’s commandment and brought forth punishment for both him and the whole human race. The punishment stemmed from Adam to all mankind. Man inherited guilt, and an inclination to sin. This defaced the image of God in man. Man is not born innocent, but guilty. He is born a rebel against God. We are all born as enemies of God. We love sin and hate God. Hence the blogger is quite mistaken to talk of “good parents and innocent children,” since there are no parents or children that are truly good. The blogger quite frequently appeals to moral absolutes. She uses moral terms such as “good” and “should” but given her atheism how can she make sense of morality. She cannot have moral absolutes (even in principle) given her commitment to atheism. But as Christians we can account for moral absolutes since God has given us his moral law both in Scripture (Ex. 20) and innately (Rom. 2:14-15). However, the blogger knows these truths and this is why she cannot help but make moral judgments. A man or woman made in God’s image and who lives in God’s world, but wishes to be an atheist cannot help but be inconsistent. The atheist will have to make absolute moral judgments but not be able to provide the worldview that can justify those judgments. Furthermore, notice the blogger took up the right to put God on trial. But who gave her the moral right to judge God? She attempts to reason independently from God’s truth only to find her self caught in a vicious circle. She judges God; she does so by the right she has given her self. She is utterly arbitrary, and question begging. And yet she has the nerve to say she’s logical.

I think even Christians with the free will defense can get out of the bloggers charges. However, I would revise the free will defense if utilized. But here is a typical example I think that is immune to the bloggers charges:    

More comments on this essay to follow.