Claim. God, omniscient and omnipotent, did not intervene to prevent the fall for three reasons: (1) to maintain the absoluteness and perfection of the Principle of Creation, (2) so that God alone remains the Creator, (3) to make humans the lords of creation by completing their own portion of responsibility.
Elaboration. Per the three subsections of §6:
-
To maintain the Principle’s absoluteness and perfection. During the growing period, humans are under God’s indirect dominion — the realm of accomplishment-through-Principle. Intervention would have voided the human-portion-of-responsibility. “If the Principle were ignored, then its absoluteness and perfection would be undermined. Because God is the absolute and perfect Creator, His Principle of Creation must also be absolute and perfect.”
-
That God alone be the Creator. God governs only principled existences He has created — not hell, criminal acts, or any unprincipled phenomena. Intervening in the fall would have “in effect” created a new principle that recognizes criminal acts as lawful. And since Satan manipulated the outcome, Satan would have stood as the creator of the fall’s fruits.
-
To make humans the lords of creation. To rule creation, humans must “earn certain qualifications” by completing their growing-period responsibility and inheriting God’s creatorship. Direct rule of immature humans “would in effect grant the authority of a ruler to those who are unqualified” — a contradiction of the Principle.
The three reasons converge: each protects either the Principle’s integrity, God’s exclusive creatorship, or humans’ destined sovereignty. None of these could be preserved by intervention, even though God watched “with trepidation their tragic fall.”
This atomic extends Ch 1’s dp-human-portion-of-responsibility-inviolable-even-by-god from a structural rule into a theodicy with three named justifications.
See also. dp-realm-of-indirect-dominion-during-growing-period, dp-power-of-love-is-stronger-than-power-of-principle