The debates around God’s intentions and will during the creation of the human race remain forever inconclusive, although different theologists often attempt to provide the basis for such an act. This topic relates to such themes as omnipotence, perfect good morals, and God’s benevolence. However, there are certain limitations that are needed to be applied in order to avoid focusing on adjacent topics. First of all, it will be necessary to consider all humans to be a product of God’s actions, and not just Adam and Eve. Moreover, as the author assumes that there is a better world that could possibly exist somewhere, so shall I in this essay (Adams 317). The creation of human beings in itself is a good act, which Adams clearly outlined in his article, with which I agree entirely. In this essay, I would like to argue that the intentions of God during the world’s creation did not have to be focused on perfection.
First of all, the benevolent part of bringing a life into existence must be assessed. The article portrays a perception of this factor that I agree with. It is impossible to consider God to be anything less than benevolent when considering his role as the Creator, as he could have chosen not to do so. In fact, this decision alone depicts that God is benevolent and possesses good character traits, as there was no benefit in such an act (Adams 320). The world that was created might not be perfect in the eyes of the creatures inhabiting it, yet it is the only world they were brought into. This fact makes it clear that the lack of existence would be an evil act, which did not occur.
Second, the true nature of goodness would be impossible to comprehend for creatures that live in a perfect world. Such a state would derive this moral quality of any value. It is the existence of a choice that is a genuine act of kindness, as God gave humans the freedom to select their path. Moreover, there is no guarantee for creatures to be presented with such a choice in a perfect world. Therefore, the presence of freedom of choice is a second indicator of the Creator’s benevolence which allows the world to be less than perfect.
The author’s definition of grace gives a perspective regarding God’s choice to create less than perfect beings that is difficult to disagree with. Adams defines grace as “a disposition to love which is not dependent on the merit of the person loved” (324). This statement reveals several key factors that confirm the argument. Unconditional love towards humans represents the Creator’s grace more than anything. Another consideration is the idea that God is omnipotent exactly because he is able to love non-ideal beings (Adams 324). The crucial fact is that people were not created to be adored or to be put up for comparison.
Lastly, the comparison of situations presented by Adams showcases the validity of his argument. There is apparent wrongdoing in conceiving a child that is guaranteed to have significant disadvantages because of the parents’ actions. However, caring for a kid to the best of parents’ abilities with complete selflessness does not give a child any reason to consider being wronged (Adams 327). Similarly, God’s willingness to assist his non-ideal creations seemingly without reasons other than their benefit cannot be deemed as anything other than good moral quality. It is vital to understand that the wrongful aspect of the actions of parents is not in focus, but their attitudes are.
In conclusion, there are no signs of the requirement of the world having to be perfect in order to be considered God’s creation. I agree with Adams that God did not have an obligation to bring creatures, perfect or not, into this world. The lack of apparent benefit from such a creation for an entity that is already whole only highlights their high moral qualities. Grace indeed is a vital component of a good character, which allows God to bring beings that are not ideal into existence (Adams 325). It is the unconditional love that defines God as the being of absolute goodness and omnipotence. God’s gift to humans is love and life, which cannot be underplayed through musings about better places.
I firmly believe that God’s actions represented only good qualities, despite the fact that humans were not made to be entirely perfect. It is the flaws in humans’ nature that define them as beings of free will. This freedom itself is a trait that, when being given to one’s creation, reveals the strong positive qualities of the Creator. Therefore, I believe that the creation of less-than-perfect creatures is possible and does not contradict any descriptions of God’s benevolent nature. In fact, there is no reason for God to consider creating only perfection in comparison with any other outcomes, as the world without goals and strives is a world that will remain stagnant.
Work Cited
Adams, Robert M. “Must God Create the Best?” The Philosophical Review, vol. 81, no. 3, 1972, pp. 317-332, Web.