A solution to Hitetlens first dilemma

[Anonymous_1]

Hitetlen:

Do you mean that if a human being wants to achieve something “evil”, but the laws of nature prevent him to carry it out that does not curtail his free will? Just like we can wish to fly by slapping our arms, but we cannot do it - and that does not negate our free will? If this is what you mean, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but many posters chastised me for this very argument. They say that in order to have “true” free will, it is necessary that one should be able to carry out the evil deed.

Yes, this is what I mean. I do not know why they chastised you.

This I don’t understand.

Yes you do even though you don’t know it.

1. Since God is benevolent, God only allows “necessary” evil.
2. Whatever “evil” exists must be necessary, because otherwise God would have “weeded it out” already.
3. the evil necessary, because it was allowed by God.
4. God is not benevolent.

I ended my proposition with this:

No evil is neccesary as a means to achieve somethine good(substantial benefit). Evil was never neccesary.

I will explain if neccesary.

A professor of mine sent this to me today. Very timley, I thought I would share it.

The university professor challenged his students with this question:
"Did God create everything that exists? "

A student bravely replied “Yes, he did!”

“God created everything?” the professor asked.

“Yes sir,” the student replied.

The professor answered, “If God created everything, then God created
evil since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works
define who we are, then God is evil.”

The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the
students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a
myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, “Can I ask you a question
professor?”

“Of course,” replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, “Professor , does cold exist?”

The professor replied “Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?”

The students snickered at the young man’s question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to
the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of
heat.

Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits
energy, and heat is what makes a body, or matter, have or transmit
energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat.
Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel
if we have no heat.

The student continued. “Professor, does darkness exist?”

The professor responded, “Of course it does.”

The student replied, “Once again you are wrong sir. Darkness does not
exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light, we
can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton’s prism to break
white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each
color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break
into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a
certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn’t this
correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when
there is no light present.”

Finally the young man asked the professor. “Sir, does evil exist?”

Now uncertain, the professor responded, “Of course, as I have already
said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s
inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence
everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but
evil.”

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is
just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe
the absence of God.

God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that
comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no
light."

The professor sat down.

The young man’s name — Albert Einstein

 

[Hitetlen]

Anonymous_1:

Yes, this is what I mean. I do not know why they chastised you.

Because they used a different definition of “free will”, than you and I.

Anonymous_1:

Yes you do even though you don’t know it.

Still, expand on it. please.

Anonymous_1:

A professor of mine sent this to me today. Very timley, I thought I would share it.

It is an old urban legend, and the student’s role was attributed to many different and famous people.

The point is that you and I do not use the same definition of “good” and “evil”. I will write mine here, in a compact format:

1. Beneficial: something that promotes life and/or the quality of life.
2. Harmful: something that acts as an impediment to life, or decreases the quality of life. The opposite of beneficial.
3. Neutral: something that neither promotes nor impedes life.
4. Good: a volitional act that is good (in the sense above).
5. Evil: a volitional act that is harmful (in the sense above). The opposite of good.

That is all. It has nothing to do with God, per se, though it is applicable to God’s actions.

 

[doomhammer]

Anonymous_1:

I have been scouring over this problem all day. I hope this answer suffices.

I appreciate your perseverance regarding “Hitetlen’s question”. Hitleten (the unbeliever) has initiated some blasphemous threats in order, like a pharisee of the new testament, not to believe in, but to accuse God. It is crystal clear that he does not want to be freed by God, but to blame God.
So far I have found little “Catholic apologetics” here. First of all there is an astonishing and never corrected “original mistake” regarding the very definition of God. According to the Council Vatican I “The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection”. This authoritative definition was discarded and others incomplete definitions were incredibly favored. It is difficult to do real apologetics with wrong definitions.
Furthermore, in relation to the main topic (evil, suffering, pain, God’s benevolence) I was the first in mentioning JPII’s Apostolic Letter “Salvifici Doloris”. It is hard to find a more catholic, clear and clever approach to this question. I would like to quote here only a paragraph:
“Why does evil exist? Why is there evil in the world? When we put the question in this way, we are always, at least to a certain extent, asking a question about suffering too. Both questions are difficult, when an individual puts them to another individual, when people put them to other people, as also when man puts them to God. For man does not put this question to the world, even though it is from the world that suffering often comes to him, but he puts it to God as the Creator and Lord of the world. And it is well known that concerning this question there not only arise many frustrations and conflicts in the relations of man with God, but it also happens that people reach the point of actually denying God. For, whereas the existence of the world opens as it were the eyes of the human soul to the existence of God, to his wisdom, power and greatness, evil and suffering seem to obscure this image, sometimes in a radical way, especially in the daily drama of so many cases of undeserved suffering and of so many faults without proper punishment. So this circumstance shows—perhaps more than any other—the importance of the question of the meaning of suffering; it also shows how much care must be taken both in dealing with the question itself and with all possible answers to it.”

Anonymous_1:

The dilemma:
There is a possible evil that is not necessary, that God must allow in order to respect our free-will. This evil is unjustifiable because of a lack of substantial benefits. An allowance of such an evil is in conflict with His nature. A prevention of such an evil jeapordizes our free-will.

The dilemma as stated is pure nonsense. Who would ever think that “an allowance of such an evil is in conflict with (Gods) nature”?
It is true that every evil has its punishment. Where is such allowance? Rev 21,8: “But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
It is true that “he who does not believe is condemned already”.

 

[Hitetlen]

The typo-gremlin strikes again. This is what I wanted to write:

1. Good: a volitional act that is beneficial (in the sense above).

The orginal was a dumb tautology. Sorry about that.

 

[jimmy]

Hitetlen:

You are most welcome to join. This discussion has barely started, even though it is a continuation of another thread. Your remark is very pertinent. I strongly agree with your observation, but I am afraid that we are a small minority in this case.

If our freedom of will is NOT restricted by our inability to act, that has important ramification to the “problem of evil”. As I argued before (and was promptly chastised for it ) if only God would limit our ability to carry out an evil deed (for example a murder would be impossible) the world as we know it would be incomparably better. No wars, no murders, no rapes, you name it, they would all disappear. What a difference it would make!

Now I am not sure that I like your particular example. An instance of desire (either to have sex or commiting a murder) is very different from actually committing it. Especially as it pertains to “lust” or sexual desire, since that is an involuntary reflex.

Hitetlin, I third your statement on free will not being blocked when nature does not allow the act to happen. Saint Anselm said that free will is the ability to uphold the truth. Whether it is only upholding it in your mind or in action, it is still an act of free will. Take for example William Wallace in Braveheart. They took his life but not his free will.

 

[Liberian]

Hitetlen:

If our freedom of will is NOT restricted by our inability to act, that has important ramification to the “problem of evil”. As I argued before (and was promptly chastised for it ) if only God would limit our ability to carry out an evil deed (for example a murder would be impossible) the world as we know it would be incomparably better. No wars, no murders, no rapes, you name it, they would all disappear. What a difference it would make!

I think there would be more of a difference than you think, and I don’t think it would be all to the good. The devil, as usual is in the details; it would be a lot like living in a police state, I think. How do you propose that God externally prevent all evil deeds? How do you propose even to distinguish them–for example, if a banker is foreclosing on a widow’s house, is that an evil deed? I mean, she honestly owes the money, and forcing him to give it up is just as much theft as forcing her to move.

Now I am not sure that I like your particular example. An instance of desire (either to have sex or commiting a murder) is very different from actually committing it. Especially as it pertains to “lust” or sexual desire, since that is an involuntary reflex.

Certainly the act is different from the desire, but the desire (and I am not speaking of momentary impulses, I am speaking of brooding and meditating on the subject, which is a voluntary act) is still corrosive to the soul.

• Liberian

 

[Hitetlen]

Liberian:

I think there would be more of a difference than you think, and I don’t think it would be all to the good. The devil, as usual is in the details; it would be a lot like living in a police state, I think. How do you propose that God externally prevent all evil deeds? How do you propose even to distinguish them–for example, if a banker is foreclosing on a widow’s house, is that an evil deed? I mean, she honestly owes the money, and forcing him to give it up is just as much theft as forcing her to move.

We might be miscommunicating here. I did not intend to solve “all” the problems in the world, only show that the amount of pain and suffering could be decreased significantly by preventing murders, rapes and wars. Nothing else. And the world would definitely incomparably better without those.

Liberian:

Certainly the act is different from the desire, but the desire (and I am not speaking of momentary impulses, I am speaking of brooding and meditating on the subject, which is a voluntary act) is still corrosive to the soul.

Apart from dragging the “soul” into this, the quoted scripture does not talk about extended deliberation, it just says that “looking at a woman with lust” equals to “committing adultery” (in his heart). The word “looking” is not an elongated process.

 

[Anonymous_1]

i hope to get back to this tommorow. things have been crazy

 

[Jasny]

This thread may be beyond my English and I haven’t considered these things in a long time, so please forgive me if I go astray but I hope it is relivent to the topic. This is my perspective:

1 All evil is un-necessary because God created the whole world and it was good and Adam and Eve lived in a perfect paridise. So no evil was necessary.
2.Evil is a Lack of good. Shadow needs light to exist but light doesnt need shadow.
3.By Original Sin Adam chose a path for all Mandkind.
4.the Universe is ruled by Laws and when certain things happen the Laws are put in motion. Adams disobedience set in motion a separation from God.
5.The proof of the Benevolence of God is that there is ANY Good at all left in our Universe.
6. The problem of Evil is the Adam Syndrom. They could eat of ANY tree except one and that is where all there attention focused. They forgot the other trees and how Good God was to them and focused on their lack. We do the same when we focus too much on the Lack(Evil) in our Lives.

This is as best as I can say

 

[Hitetlen]

Anonymous_1:

i hope to get back to this tommorow. things have been crazy

Take your time. I will be here.

 

[Anonymous_1]

1 All evil is un-necessary because God created the whole world and it was good and Adam and Eve lived in a perfect paridise. So no evil was necessary.

This was kind of where i wanted to go to say that no evil is neccesary as a means to any good. God did not create evil, but it was a possible(obviously not only possible but also actual) consequence of freewill, Evil exists as a result of mans choice. However, Hitetlen, it seems that you are interested in particular circumstances of evil, not the general existence of evil. I’ll be back. Time is not our friend.

 

[Liberian]

Hitetlen:

We might be miscommunicating here. I did not intend to solve “all” the problems in the world, only show that the amount of pain and suffering could be decreased significantly by preventing murders, rapes and wars. Nothing else. And the world would definitely incomparably better without those.

Okay, let’s consider murder. Would justifiable homicide be prevented? There was a case in a Midwest town a decade or two ago in which the town bully (and he had terrorized the town for some years) was murdered at noon in the town square. There were no witnesses, although pretty much the whole town was present. Is that murder or is that not murder?

Would slavery be prevented? Suppose nation A wanted to enslave nation B (consider Iraq and Kuwait in 1990) and the only way to prevent it was by war. Would such a war be prevented, even though it meant the destruction (although not murder or rape) of Kuwait by Iraqi soldiers?

Would theft be prevented? Suppose somebody came by and stole my food, leaving me to starve. It’s not his fault that I don’t have any alternative food supply, so he isn’t murdering me. Would I be prevented from shooting him?

I would submit to you also that there is a “law of conservation of misery”–that if the worst causes of pain are dealt with, then the importance of the lesser causes will be magnified until people are as miserable as they were before. As an example, compare thermostat settings in modern America with temperatures inside homes and other buildings two hundred years ago.

Apart from dragging the “soul” into this, the quoted scripture does not talk about extended deliberation, it just says that “looking at a woman with lust” equals to “committing adultery” (in his heart). The word “looking” is not an elongated process.

Well, that depends. There is “glance,” there is “examine,” and there is “investigate,” among other connotations. KJV translates the line in Matthew as “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her,” indicating that the lust is part of the purpose in looking. The Greek word translated “looketh” here is “blepo” and is also found in Luke 9:62; John 13:22; John 20:11; Acts 3:4; 2 Cor 10:7; 2 John 8; and Rev. 5:3,4. In most of these cases the meaning of “look” is more like “examine” than “glance.” Other Greek words in the New Testament are also translated as “look”; “blepo” is nowhere near the most common.

• Liberian

 

[Hitetlen]

Liberian:

Okay, let’s consider murder. Would justifiable homicide be prevented? There was a case in a Midwest town a decade or two ago in which the town bully (and he had terrorized the town for some years) was murdered at noon in the town square. There were no witnesses, although pretty much the whole town was present. Is that murder or is that not murder?

Yes, it was somewhat “justifyable”, but still murder. If the murder would have been physically impossible, the people in the town would have had to choose a different way of dealing with this person, and by their sheer number - assisted by law enforcement - they could have dealt with him, without actually killing him. (Secretly I do not judge their behavior too harshly.)

Liberian:

Would slavery be prevented? Suppose nation A wanted to enslave nation B (consider Iraq and Kuwait in 1990) and the only way to prevent it was by war. Would such a war be prevented, even though it meant the destruction (although not murder or rape) of Kuwait by Iraqi soldiers?

This is not as good an example. Just how would have this “enslavement” be done without violence? Again, the majority of the nations could have set up a non-violent way to deal with it.

Liberian:

Would theft be prevented? Suppose somebody came by and stole my food, leaving me to starve. It’s not his fault that I don’t have any alternative food supply, so he isn’t murdering me. Would I be prevented from shooting him?

That is a good problem. The possible solution is again gather other well-meaning people and deal with the thief within the law.

Liberian:

I would submit to you also that there is a “law of conservation of misery”–that if the worst causes of pain are dealt with, then the importance of the lesser causes will be magnified until people are as miserable as they were before. As an example, compare thermostat settings in modern America with temperatures inside homes and other buildings two hundred years ago.

Now this is an excellent observation. I suspect that you are correct. People always want more, and in the majority of the cases, that is understandable, though definitely not always. The reason is that “owning” things results in security, and the quality of life definitely increases with a higher level of security. The reason is the scarcity of goods. If everyone would be assured of their basic necessities, there would be much less need to accumulate more. Yes, I know: the “basic” necessities are a very fluid concept, strongly dependent on society, technology and many other things.

Liberian:

Well, that depends. There is “glance,” there is “examine,” and there is “investigate,” among other connotations.

Indeed it can have several meanings. The fundamental part is that sexual attraction is biological. No one can really explain what makes someone else “attractive”, they just find the other person “attractive”. And there is nothing wrong with that.