Assuming this gross over-simplification is not a complete misrepresentation of a certain view of the bible, my questions would be:
1. What do people think step 5 might be like and how it might work?
2. Why didn't God skip steps 1-4 and go straight to 5 in the first place?
I've been thinking about this for a while, and haven't been able to come up with a satisfactory answer myself.
Yes, I would agree that your model is over-simplified, but if we were to give the briefest synopsis available, perhaps this would suffice.
Your question is one that has been agonized and toiled over by a number of apologists and philosophers alike for some time. It is something that I have considered. Why all this inner-dialogue when there is one single purpose? Why not forgo all these steps when we could just circumvent them? Why all this passing of time that ultimately mean nothing in the grand scheme?
The only logical answer I have surmised can possibly best summarized in the adage, "
It's not the destination that matters, but the journey." I think of time as it would relate to God who by neccessity would live outside the time domain. Time is inconsequential to God, but means so very much to the material world. What is matter apart from time? If time and space are conjoined, what should happen to matter without space-time? This triune nature of time, space, and matter only make sense relationally. They don't exist without each other.
As far as good and evil, right and wrong, righteous and wicked, I have pondered this too. Why does evil even exist? What purpose could it possibly serve? And I then considered what the two diametrically opposed conditions were. I considered what evil would be without the contrast of good. Would evil even be evil without their being a contrasting view in order to understand its very nature? Would good exist by itself without the contrast of evil? I don't think they would. They would lose all meaning without their balance. They make no sense and have no meaning if they are not relationally present. What is yin without yang? Does light exist if there is no darkness? Does darkness exist if there is no light?
So my only conclusion is that contrasting views are the only way to make any kind of distinguishing patterns in all of life. We don't like bad so that it will compel us towards what is good and just. We generally recognize that light is better than darkness. We generally understand, principally, that righteousness is better than wickedness. But if the contrasting view was not present, all would be meaningless.
So why did God go through all of this dialogue? The answer may be so simplistic that we miss its intent entirely. Perhaps it all has to do with His glory. The allowance of bad helps us gauge what is good. This, I believe, is why God does what He does and allows what He allows. Perhaps my explanation is too metaphysical, perhaps it makes perfect sense. Other than the reasons I listed, I can think of no other reason why this rich tapestry in nature exists.
But why give us the option, right? Why give us the option of choosing bad or good? Doesn't that make Him a culprit and an abettor in our own condemnation? And then I thought of the purpose. What is love without the ability to reject it? Could He have made us mindless automotns that worship Him in vain? Sure, why not? But is that love? How could it be? Can we program a robot to 'love' us? We could give it mindless functions to masquerade as love, but that isn't really love, now is it? If I didn't have the ability to choose whether or not I would love my wife, then it wouldn't really be love at all.
For all of these reasons, is the only thing that I can surmise concerning God and concerning our purpose here. If anyone has anything beyond this I would love to hear about it.
™ Version 4.2