Does God exist?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-28-2022, 08:45 AM)hollodero Wrote: I would think the concept of what a year is is one of the earliest observations of humankind. Winter comes once a year. The Nile floods once a year. Agriculture depends on knowing when to sow, basic village logistics demand to know how long winter will be. Basically, you can't survive on any civilized level without grasping the concept of the seasons cycle.

And hence, a year seems to be a very natural form of measuring time, like the time of a lifespan. I also can not quite imagine that the concept of a year can have such vastly different interpretations throughout time.


Since this sprang from a debate whether to take the Bible literally, it just makes so much more sense to just not do that and explain 600 year lifespans this way. And many other bible stories that are on the same level of factual incredibility. They're stories, not historical depictions, they have a message, like an allegory or a lesson. That's not derogatory or offensive towards religion, it's the only logical take in a logical world.

I understand what you are saying, problem is that Adam and Eve never needed clothes.... which means they most likely lived in a tropical area close to the equator. Those areas typically only have 2 seasons, wet and dry with very little temperature fluctuation. So how do you calculate a year where there is no winter cycle? So their concept of time, was likely radically different than what we know of today.

The earliest forms of written math was done by the Sumerians in 3000 BC. Pythagoras didn't come around til 500 BC, which ultimately put us on the path to where we are today, but it still took time to evolve into an advanced state, prior to that, it was basically simple math. Until Cities came into the picture, i doubt people had a need to learn how to count in big numbers.

Yo, Mr Smith, i'd like to order 200 spears, we sick and tired of that 90 ft long snake... oh.. there's only 5 of us??? Well shoot, just make spears til we all have one. And for each one, we will bring you a bushel of bananas... You say you don't know what a bushel is, and your sick of bananas and nuts.... FINE Eve found this new shiny red edible thing growing from a tree, we'll bring you some of those instead.

[KillerGoose]

(07-28-2022, 10:13 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I understand what you are saying, problem is that Adam and Eve never needed clothes.... which means they most likely lived in a tropical area close to the equator. Those areas typically only have 2 seasons, wet and dry with very little temperature fluctuation. So how do you calculate a year where there is no winter cycle? So their concept of time, was likely radically different than what we know of today.

The earliest forms of written math was done by the Sumerians in 3000 BC. Pythagoras didn't come around til 2500 BC, which ultimately put us on the path to where we are today, but it still took time to evolve into an advanced state, prior to that, it was basically simple math. Until Cities came into the picture, i doubt people had a need to learn how to count in big numbers.

Yo, Mr Smith, i'd like to order 200 spears, we sick and tired of that 90 ft long snake... oh.. there's only 5 of us??? Well shoot, just make spears til we all have one. And for each one, we will bring you a bushel of bananas... You say you don't know what a bushel is, and your sick of bananas and nuts.... FINE Eve found this new shiny red edible thing growing from a tree, we'll bring you some of those instead.

Pythagoras came much later than 2500 B.C.. He was a pre-Socratic, of which the earliest known was Thales. Thales was born circa 624 B.C. and Pythagoras came circa mid-500 B.C..

The earliest forms of written math are also significantly older than the Sumerians. We have found tally systems that have been dated to over 20,000 years ago. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-28-2022, 10:49 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Pythagoras came much later than 2500 B.C.. He was a pre-Socratic, of which the earliest known was Thales. Thales was born circa 624 B.C. and Pythagoras came circa mid-500 B.C..

The earliest forms of written math are also significantly older than the Sumerians. We have found tally systems that have been dated to over 20,000 years ago. 

Yep, my bad on Pythagoras, that 2 snuck in there. I'll update it. 


Ofc they probably had some form of a tally system, but really if there's only a few people then they don't have much need to tally high numbers, things probably get a bit complicated once they pass 20... 

[hollodero]

(07-28-2022, 10:13 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I understand what you are saying, problem is that Adam and Eve never needed clothes.... which means they most likely lived in a tropical area close to the equator. Those areas typically only have 2 seasons, wet and dry with very little temperature fluctuation. So how do you calculate a year where there is no winter cycle? So their concept of time, was likely radically different than what we know of today.

The earliest forms of written math was done by the Sumerians in 3000 BC. Pythagoras didn't come around til 500 BC, which ultimately put us on the path to where we are today, but it still took time to evolve into an advanced state, prior to that, it was basically simple math. Until Cities came into the picture, i doubt people had a need to learn how to count in big numbers.

Yo, Mr Smith, i'd like to order 200 spears, we sick and tired of that 90 ft long snake... oh.. there's only 5 of us??? Well shoot, just make spears til we all have one. And for each one, we will bring you a bushel of bananas... You say you don't know what a bushel is, and your sick of bananas and nuts.... FINE Eve found this new shiny red edible thing growing from a tree, we'll bring you some of those instead.

Ah well, first off I need to mention that I see the whole Genesis as a work of fiction so to say, I do not believe Adam and Eve really existed in a tropical paradise; just as I do not believe the story of Noah's arc and everything else in the book of Mose to be historically accurate depictions of events. First and foremost because I see not a single proof for any of that and quite a lot of proof for the contrary.
That being said, let's assume for the sake of your argument that Adam and Eve were actually real persons as depicted in Genesis, I'd still see a major problem. I get why Adam and Eve did not care much about seasons or what a year is, they did not have to. But I can not extent this courtesy to the actual author of book Genesis. Bible seems to indicate Moses wrote it; and Moses lived in a way later time, humans were civilized and he was in Egypt where the seasons and knowing what a year is was quite essential for agriculture and proper planning civilization's survival and blossoming. He (as well as the actual author, who I don't believe to be Moses) had to know how to accurately measure a person's lifespan in the measurement "years", which is not just an arbitrary unit with varying definitions.
Hard to imagine someone in this time would get it so wrong concerning what a year is. I'd rather guess it was a deliberate mystification of Noah, describing him as someone quite different from actual humans, hence underlining the more mythological and less real nature of the stories told.

Disclaimer, for sure that Noah was said to be 600 years old, as incredible as that is, is not amongst the major issues that make me claim with conviction that the old testament does not describe real events. Eg. this whole Flood and the millions of animals put on an arc thing is, I'd argue, quite apparently unreal. As is a "tree of knowledge" and the snake, that imho quite obviously is an allegory and not a real tree or a real snake. That does not deny the existence of a God, I can not know that for sure, I just deem it highly unlikely. When it comes to taking the Bible literally though, I am even more certain that it does not describe reality and probably it is not to be taken this way. 

[Bengalzona]

(07-28-2022, 10:11 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Fine by me, i just get a little leery when people treat belief in Jesus as some sort of preemptive blanket pardon available to anyone.  

Yeah. It is a good point. I remember the  "If Hitler on his deathbed..." scenario discussions.

I've always felt the need to draw boundary lines between sins and crimes. To me, the entire concept of sin is the purview of God. God decides what a sin is, decides what the punishment for that sin should be, and enacts that punishment or forgives based upon God's own criteria. Outside of begging for forgiveness and repenting, humans really don't have any say in that whole process. Crime is societal. The people or leadership in a society decide what a crime is, the punishment for it, and whether they should enact punishment or forgive.

[Lucidus]

(07-27-2022, 05:47 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: amen! thank you for starting this thread.

of course they know God is real. the unrighteous know God is real, but they don't want to give up there wickedness. like Paul said, "what can be known is plain to them because God has shown it to them". so no man has excuse to not believe. God's proof is everywhere but people live in denial cause they love there sin. 

Are you familiar with the problem of Divine Hiddenness? I would suggest looking into those arguments.

Your reasoning here is laden with personal affirmations of Biblical assertions. While you may consider that evidence -- it's perfectly reasonable for others to reject it as merely speculative conclusions; lacking factual support. 

(07-27-2022, 07:12 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: without an objective true standard you cant really say what is real or aint real. in a God world there is an absolute foundation for knowlege. in a no God world, there ain't no absolute standard and everything is just subjective. if you believe there is absolute facts, then you believe in a God cause they don't exist in a no God world.

I'm a bit confused. Are you speaking of ontologically necessary; a primary, non-contingent foundation? If so, God can't be ultimately primary or completely non-contingent. 

As for determining objective facts, I believe there is only one that is undeniably absolute because of the impossibility of the contrary -- that is "I think, therefore I am". In order to make and consider that statement, I must be self-aware. In order to be self-aware, I must exist. 

(07-27-2022, 07:29 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: what a terrible take. man has free will. thats why they can do bad things. cause they can choose to. if God interferes with free will then he would be contraditing the rights he gave man. but he does do justice and punishment to each man for what hes done. you cant want free will and then complain about having it. sorry bud, what your saying is just plain wrong.

Absolutely nonsensical. If you believe the Biblical accounts; God often interfered with "free will". Did he not harden Pharaoh's heart? Did he not violate the free will of the groups of people he ordered to be slaughtered? Did he not violate free will during the exterminating of the planet in the flood? 

The excuse that God can't violate free will is nothing more than a mental escape hatch that allows the believer to exit a very difficult, uncomfortable realization about their God. 

Moreover, the mere fact that anyone on this site would most assuredly try to stop a child being abused if they saw it, means that we are all more inherently moral than any God who would just watch with arms crossed, allowing it to happen in every instance.

[Lucidus]

(07-27-2022, 06:17 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I would say there are some things in the Bible that reinforce my belief rather than persuaded me. In particular, pretty much all of the actual quotes attributed to Jesus. I think if someone were to remove everything from the New Testament except for Jesus' specific words, they would find a vision of Christian belief that is far, far different and better than the Christian faith as presented within our society. Unfortunately, to truly understand many of Jesus' sayings and parables, a person needs to have some grounding in the ancient Hebrew faith and religious customs and practices. And that, as I have learned, actually takes a lot of time and study. But it makes sense, since the Jesus we quote always considered himself to be a Jew and that was the primary audience that he was addressing at the time.

Thank you for the response.

Do you find it at all concerning that Jesus never stated that it wasn't OK to own other humans or that the treatment of rape victims needed to be changed? He made lots of very direct proclamations concerning many things, but curiously didn't address those. 

Additionally -- depending on which version you adhere to -- wasn't Jesus either God himself, the son of God or part of the triune God? If so, isn't he directly linked to all the barbarism and insanity of the OT God figure? 

It's also important to remember that Jewish people -- with minor exceptions -- don't find Jesus to be the prophesied messiah due to because he did not fulfilling the prophecies, not possessing the qualifications, contradictions and mistranslations of Jewish theology, etc. 

Quote:(Adding this on further reflection. A lot of what I have found useful from the Bible would also be useful to an agnostic or an atheist. There is wisdom there, I think, that does not require belief.)

Absolutely. You can find useful / helpful information or allegorical, metaphorical teachings / extrapolations in countless works of literature. 

Quote:I could give some critiques about the good things and bad things I find in the Hebrew Bible (Torah) and the writings attributed to the Apostles (particularly Paul). But for the sake of brevity, I won't do that now. Suffice it to say that I find them to be the writings of men that in some cases have some inspiration and in other cases have other influences.

 How would one determine that God / Jesus ever said or inspired anything as opposed to men simply asserting that it's the case? I'm curious about what methods are used to arrive at those conclusions?

Quote:As far as my belief in God, yes, I do think I would have had that belief regardless of the Bible. Personally, I have always felt like I was searching for something to believe in (i.e. I wanted to believe). So I attended many churches from many faiths. Baptist, Mormon, Lutheran, Catholic, Charismatic, Methodist, UCC, etc., and studied some philosophy. When I started looking at belief as a choice a person makes rather than a thing to be found in a certain place or faith, my searching stopped. I literally decided that I was going to believe in a higher power, even though I wasn't exactly sure what that power was or was about. I haven't regretted that choice since. 

If you would have believed in God without the existence of the Bible -- what attributes would that God have? How would you know what those attributes were? How would you know anything about that God other than what you infer and ascribe? 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-28-2022, 11:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Ah well, first off I need to mention that I see the whole Genesis as a work of fiction so to say, I do not believe Adam and Eve really existed in a tropical paradise; just as I do not believe the story of Noah's arc and everything else in the book of Mose to be historically accurate depictions of events. First and foremost because I see not a single proof for any of that and quite a lot of proof for the contrary.
That being said, let's assume for the sake of your argument that Adam and Eve were actually real persons as depicted in Genesis, I'd still see a major problem. I get why Adam and Eve did not care much about seasons or what a year is, they did not have to. But I can not extent this courtesy to the actual author of book Genesis. Bible seems to indicate Moses wrote it; and Moses lived in a way later time, humans were civilized and he was in Egypt where the seasons and knowing what a year is was quite essential for agriculture and proper planning civilization's survival and blossoming. He (as well as the actual author, who I don't believe to be Moses) had to know how to accurately measure a person's lifespan in the measurement "years", which is not just an arbitrary unit with varying definitions.
Hard to imagine someone in this time would get it so wrong concerning what a year is. I'd rather guess it was a deliberate mystification of Noah, describing him as someone quite different from actual humans, hence underlining the more mythological and less real nature of the stories told.

Disclaimer, for sure that Noah was said to be 600 years old, as incredible as that is, is not amongst the major issues that make me claim with conviction that the old testament does not describe real events. Eg. this whole Flood and the millions of animals put on an arc thing is, I'd argue, quite apparently unreal. As is a "tree of knowledge" and the snake, that imho quite obviously is an allegory and not a real tree or a real snake. That does not deny the existence of a God, I can not know that for sure, I just deem it highly unlikely. When it comes to taking the Bible literally though, I am even more certain that it does not describe reality and probably it is not to be taken this way. 

Kinda odd that you would say Genesis is fictious. When the Big Bang Theory and Genesis resonate with each other quite well. The difference is that the Big Bang theory doesn't address Who or What caused it.

[Lucidus]

(07-27-2022, 10:29 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I would be glad to surround myself with reformed Christians. They sometimes know God better than those without extreme sins.

If God is real and omniscient, then he is the creator of sin. 

(07-27-2022, 10:48 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Why does God allowing suffering make him evil?

I feel like there are specific instances that lend validity to that notion. For example, in the instance of children being raped or tortured, God possessing an intentionally evil nature is certainly a reasonable candidate explanation.

[Bengalzona]

(07-28-2022, 03:52 PM)Lucidus Wrote:

Quote:Thank you for the response.

Do you find it at all concerning that Jesus never stated that it wasn't OK to own other humans or that the treatment of rape victims needed to be changed? He made lots of very direct proclamations concerning many things, but curiously didn't address those. 

I don't really find the lack of mention of those concerning. I've always assumed that treatment of others fell under the "love your neighbor" part of the quote, and servants/slaves as well as rape victims would fall under that heading of "neighbors". But then again, I have also always assumed that all of humanity falls under the heading as well as that aligns with the "Golden Rule" notes in many faiths. I also think Jesus felt there was only one master spiritually (that being God) and everyone should "serve" God ( at least spiritually, as they had "render unto Caesar" in the physical world, eh).

Quote:Additionally -- depending on which version you adhere to -- wasn't Jesus either God himself, the son of God or part of the triune God? If so, isn't he directly linked to all the barbarism and insanity of the OT God figure? 

Personally, I believe in the Holy Trinity. Hence Jesus would be part of the Holy Triune and part of God. As for reconciling the violence of the OT (not sure I would label it insanity), I don't. I have some issues with certain things about some of the stories in the OT and I have doubts it is the unadulterated truth. I take it al with a grain of salt.

Quote:It's also important to remember that Jewish people -- with minor exceptions -- don't find Jesus to be the prophesied messiah due to because he did not fulfilling the prophecies, not possessing the qualifications, contradictions and mistranslations of Jewish theology, etc. 

Well, he didn't "kick Roman ass" the way they wanted him to. I don't fault him for that. Heck, even in our society today, people still reject a message of "love God and love your neighbor". Am I right?

Quote: How would one determine that God / Jesus ever said or inspired anything as opposed to men simply asserting that it's the case? I'm curious about what methods are used to arrive at those conclusions?

It's a fair point. And all I can say is that it is what was ascribed to Jesus. Other than that, I don't know. But, as I said before, it only reinforces my belief... which is also basically what I want to believe. Some people may find that scary (like a dude who wants to believe he won a presidential election he didn't win, right). But then again, I'm not really asking or expecting anyone else to ascribe to my particular belief.

Quote:If you would have believed in God without the existence of the Bible -- what attributes would that God have? How would you know what those attributes were? How would you know anything about that God other than what you infer and ascribe? 

I believe in a superior being who loves humans and wants them to love it, but also wants them to have free will (one of the big issues I have with the OT description of God). I believe it would have to love us because as screwed up as we are, it probably would have destroyed us if it didn't. Probably a creator God, loving it's creation. A duality between a motherly love (wanting to nurture) and a fatherly love (wanting the creation to develop into the best full grown self it can be). I have know way of knowing anything about God outside of what I infer or ascribe.

[guyofthetiger]

(07-28-2022, 04:14 PM)Lucidus Wrote: If God is real and omniscient, then he is the creator of sin. 


I feel like there are specific instances that lend validity to that notion. For example, in the instance of children being raped or tortured, God possessing an intentionally evil nature is certainly a reasonable candidate explanation.

For a guy so smart, you don't even know what sin is. It is separation from God. So how does He create it? Also, calling God having an evil nature is wrong. Satan has the evil nature. God loves mankind so much that He allows weeds within the harvest because his other option would be to end the world.

[Arturo Bandini]

(07-28-2022, 10:20 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: For a guy so smart, you don't even know what sin is. It is separation from God. So how does He create it? Also, calling God having an evil nature is wrong. Satan has the evil nature. God loves mankind so much that He allows weeds within the harvest because his other option would be to end the world.

Who made Satan ? Who had the evil idea to make Satan ?

[BigPapaKain]

(07-29-2022, 02:24 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Who made Satan ? Who had the evil idea to make Satan ?

We covered Satan earlier in the topic. God created Lucifer to love God above all others and then expected Lucifer to love Man above God. Lucifer said 'nah, that's not why I was made' and got cast down because of it.

Because God loves all he made. Except Lucifer. **** that guy. I guess?

Hail Satan.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-27-2022, 11:21 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: If you knew that your neighbor allowed people into his home to rape and kill innocent people, would you think of him as a good guy? Like full on had the power to stop it, but instead watched it play out because he was in the middle of some odd experiment. I think you’d probably call the cops and hope this dude went to jail for life. At least I hope you would…

(07-28-2022, 04:14 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I feel like there are specific instances that lend validity to that notion. For example, in the instance of children being raped or tortured, God possessing an intentionally evil nature is certainly a reasonable candidate explanation.

So you both responded to me and seem to be agreeing with one another so I'll lump you up in one post as there dont seem to be separate points to address at the moment.

First I'd like to address Johnny's neighbor example by saying that I don't feel that this is an accurate way to frame things.

I wouldn't say God is allowing people into his home to rape and kill. That makes it sound like God put us on this earth with the intent for people to rape and kill each other. I believe God gave us free will, but of course a side effect of that is suffering even if that wasn't the intent.

I don't believe God's inaction on suffering makes him evil. Being evil would mean God's inaction is coming from a position of ill intent. If God was evil he would be allowing suffering just because he wants to watch us suffer. I dont believe that's the case at all.

I find it interesting that we as human beings consider suffering to be the by product of evil when talking about God being all powerful and having the ability to stop it.

I must ask, if God is all powerful, why does it really matter that he allows suffering? If God is all powerful, then he can remove not only current suffering but past suffering and future suffering. He could simply wipe it from the minds of every individual like hitting delete on a keyboard and any suffering anyone has ever experienced would be gone. But I assume you wouldn't be happy with that. To that I would ask, why?

I have to ask in all honesty, what difference does it make if you get tortured to death through the allowance of free will but ultimately can have that suffering you experienced wiped away by God? Is it really all that evil to give man free will and cause suffering but then take all that pain/misery/anguish away in an instant? If that's evil, then in what way do you consider that evil?

[Belsnickel]

(07-29-2022, 06:37 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: We covered Satan earlier in the topic. God created Lucifer to love God above all others and then expected Lucifer to love Man above God. Lucifer said 'nah, that's not why I was made' and got cast down because of it.

Because God loves all he made. Except Lucifer. **** that guy. I guess?

Hail Satan.

Eh, all of that is complete hogwash, anyway. Satan is a title for an angel whose job it is to tempt mankind, Lucifer referred to the King of Babylon, and modern conceptions of Hell and how all of that works really come from non-Biblical sources.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-29-2022, 08:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, all of that is complete hogwash, anyway. Satan is a title for an angel whose job it is to tempt mankind, Lucifer referred to the King of Babylon, and modern conceptions of Hell and how all of that works really come from non-Biblical sources.

I'm keeping in with American Christianity here. Theologically and Biblically you're correct.

[NATI BENGALS]

Your chances of winning the mega millions tonight are better than your chances of your religion being real.

Fellow humans and this planet is all we have for now. Take care of them.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-29-2022, 11:51 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Your chances of winning the mega millions tonight are better than your chances of your religion being real.

Fellow humans and this planet is all we have for now. Take care of them.

For what its worth - my religion calls for enlightenment through noble deeds and bodily autonomy. We also don't worship anything except the idea of self. It's grounded by basic scientific principles.

I'd say my religion is doing quite fine in being real.

But I'm also just poking here to poke.

Hail Satan!

[Lucidus]

(07-29-2022, 07:28 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So you both responded to me and seem to be agreeing with one another so I'll lump you up in one post as there dont seem to be separate points to address at the moment.

First I'd like to address Johnny's neighbor example by saying that I don't feel that this is an accurate way to frame things.

I wouldn't say God is allowing people into his home to rape and kill. That makes it sound like God put us on this earth with the intent for people to rape and kill each other. I believe God gave us free will, but of course a side effect of that is suffering even if that wasn't the intent.

I don't believe God's inaction on suffering makes him evil. Being evil would mean God's inaction is coming from a position of ill intent. If God was evil he would be allowing suffering just because he wants to watch us suffer. I dont believe that's the case at all.

I find it interesting that we as human beings consider suffering to be the by product of evil when talking about God being all powerful and having the ability to stop it.

Suffering isn't a byproduct of evil; evil is the label we give to certain types of suffering -- that which is profoundly wicked / immoral. If someone is dealing with chronic pain, we could simply call that suffering. If that same person is in chronic pain because a psychopath is holding them hostage and beating them everyday, we could rightfully deem that evil. 

If you believe that God is omniscient, then the intent is unquestionable. He knew that his creation would commit endless acts of evil upon each other, and he decided to create them anyway; permitting them the freedom to do exactly what he knew they would. By definition, that is intent. 

If you and I go into the lab and create a new humanesque species that we knew in advance will continuously rape, torture and kill it's youngest and weakest; would we not be as equally responsible for those actions as the species itself? Even worse, is the idea that we possessed the ability to fix the issue and refused to do so. That would most certainly seem to suggest that we were indeed evil.

Quote:I must ask, if God is all powerful, why does it really matter that he allows suffering? If God is all powerful, then he can remove not only current suffering but past suffering and future suffering. He could simply wipe it from the minds of every individual like hitting delete on a keyboard and any suffering anyone has ever experienced would be gone. But I assume you wouldn't be happy with that. To that I would ask, why?

I have to ask in all honesty, what difference does it make if you get tortured to death through the allowance of free will but ultimately can have that suffering you experienced wiped away by God? Is it really all that evil to give man free will and cause suffering but then take all that pain/misery/anguish away in an instant? If that's evil, then in what way do you consider that evil?

Then why have suffering at all, if it can simply be erased? Once erased, it means it never happened in the person's mind. So, why have it happen in the first place? It would be like a hypnotist reasoning with his wife that it's OK if he abuses her everyday because someday he'll wipe it from her memory. It's OK that she suffers now, because she won't know about it later. This seems rather insidious.

[Lucidus]

(07-28-2022, 10:20 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: For a guy so smart, you don't even know what sin is. It is separation from God. So how does He create it? Also, calling God having an evil nature is wrong. Satan has the evil nature. God loves mankind so much that He allows weeds within the harvest because his other option would be to end the world.

Sin is a transgression against God. Separation from God is one of the possible results of sin. 

God created sin because he knowingly created the beings that he knew would sin. If God is omniscient, then sin only exist because of his intentional decision to proceed with the creation.