Couldn't God Create a Better World?

[Eric_Hyom]

Those are some great questions to ponder, especially interesting by the way you posed them. Thanks, Eric.

It took about three years, and countless sleepless nights of searching; to write those few words, sometimes I might be up all night just pondering on one or two sentences, and change one word.

This is only a collection of words to challenge the mind to think, I do not pretend to understand the meaning, or to make any claims of truth from these words. They are written without any qualifications, authority, or any conscious revelations from God.

I have posted this in the hope that it may inspire people in some way, you may also find it worthy to pass onto others who may also pray, meditate on and challenge these words further. My hopes are that they may help to inspire unity, interfaith relations and world peace in some way.
I do not wish to make any claims for copyright so you are free distribute in any format and do anything with these words as you may desire, you may rewrite this in any way that has greater meaning for you.

The theories of Newton, Darwin and Einstein might give us clues as to how the universe works, the greatest commandments give us purpose and answer the why?

---

Could the greatest commandments describe how Christ is one with the Father?

When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he would have lived by the greatest commandments, could these commandments be the greatest purpose of both God the Father and God the Son?

Jesus loves God the Father with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
Jesus loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

God the Father loves God the Son, with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
The Father loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

Could the spirit be the power of God’s love, working through these commandments?

Blessings

Eric

 

[Eric_Hyom]

If you alter the greatest commandments slightly, it might describe how all love comes from God.

God loves all that he is, and all that he does, with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.
God loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

If God was the greatest commandments before the creation of the world began, it might follow that we are created in this image also. Jesus said the commandments are greatest for a reason.

Although I have written these few words, they are beyond my understanding.

Every blessing

Eric

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Does the forgiveness of sins hang and depend on the greatest commandments?

Our greatest response to other people in all situations and events, is to love them, as we love ourselves. How did Jesus obey these commandments when the people condemned him, the soldiers crowned him with thorns, when he was scourged and nailed to the cross.

It seems that Jesus would need to forgive each time, in order to love those people as he loves himself.

Can Jesus love us more than he loves himself, can the forgiveness of sins and mercy hang on the greatest commandments? After his resurrection does the divine nature of Jesus, follow his human nature? When Jesus ascended into heaven, does Jesus still forgive us, in order that he should continue to love each and every one of us as he loves himself?

It seems that God loves each and every one of us as he loves himself, It seems in order to do this, God forgives and is merciful to us all, what more can we ask of a creator.

Does all creation have to be restored to the greatest commandments, is this the meaning of heaven?

Once again, I do not really understand the implications of these words.

Blessings

Eric

 

[fhansen]

Does all creation have to be restored to the greatest commandments, is this the meaning of heaven?

When man finally loves God with its whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself then man is fully just, order is restored in creation; all will know God, and His love, because He is love. To know God* is* heaven.

 

[catharina]

Does the forgiveness of sins hang and depend on the greatest commandments?

Our greatest response to other people in all situations and events, is to love them, as we love ourselves. How did Jesus obey these commandments when the people condemned him, the soldiers crowned him with thorns, when he was scourged and nailed to the cross.

It seems that Jesus would need to forgive each time, in order to love those people as he loves himself.

Can Jesus love us more than he loves himself, can the forgiveness of sins and mercy hang on the greatest commandments? After his resurrection does the divine nature of Jesus, follow his human nature? When Jesus ascended into heaven, does Jesus still forgive us, in order that he should continue to love each and every one of us as he loves himself?

It seems that God loves each and every one of us as he loves himself, It seems in order to do this, God forgives and is merciful to us all, what more can we ask of a creator.

Does all creation have to be restored to the greatest commandments, is this the meaning of heaven?

Once again, I do not really understand the implications of these words.

Blessings

Eric

Then simplify and recall this:
God IS Love.

 

[meltzerboy]

To this question, sometimes posed by atheists and theists alike, I believe Aquinas would answer that this world could be better, because an infinitely powerful God could always make something better. But by the same logic, it seems that if God could always make something better, then He could still never make anything perfect-which is the equivalent of saying that evil will always be present in creation to some degree by virtue of the fact that creation, itself, is not God, or, perhaps to put it another way: even God can’t create another God.

But this unavoidable “flaw” becomes an even greater dilemma if God deems it wise to grant freewill to creation-in, say, the form of man or angels. Because then this imperfect creation can conceivably express its imperfection, by an act of its imperfect will, with moral evil or sin a possible result. If all this is so, then the only way a created being with freewill could consistently act perfectly would be if He was somehow led by Gods’ perfect will instead of his own.

And if this is so, then perhaps it would make sense that the only way for these beings, this creation-with-freewill, to always behave perfectly would be for them to choose, not to act perfectly, which they could not consistently do, but, if possible, to always be directly united with God, who is perfection itself, and as such the only Being who always wills rightly. And I believe this is consistent in a general way with Catholic thought and teachings on the New Law/Covenant, except maybe for my first paragraph. Any thoughts of your own on this?

In Judaism, it is thought that G-d’s creation was purposely left incomplete (and hence imperfect) so that Man could complete it. It is up to Man at every moment
of every day to complete the universe by means of choosing moral behavior.

 

[fhansen]

In Judaism, it is thought that G-d’s creation was purposely left incomplete (and hence imperfect) so that Man could complete it. It is up to Man at every moment
of every day to complete the universe by means of choosing moral behavior.

That’s an interesting idea-and not inconsistent with Catholic thought, I believe, although perhaps with a somewhat different perspective where God’s not the author of evil but, knowing evil (sin) would occur, nonetheless chose to bring good out of it rather than not create at all. In any case the Catechism teaches something to the same effect:

**302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, "reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well". For "all are open and laid bare to his eyes", even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.170**

 

[MikeSar]

How can people have a Free Will that is NOT free to do wrong and evil?
Could God made us into robots to obey all his commandments? Yes, of course, but why?
Would we be like toys a child plays with?
Is God no better than a child? Totally presumptuous blasphemy, of course.
Our Will is either Free or Not free. Our will is free to sin or love God, we chose.
Remember, God also gave us our minds, we could believe that if we all had better minds, we would all be saints, right?
But, the angels had and have perfect minds, they know it all and yet, they were free to sin.
So, you want to be better than the angels and have no part of our Redeemer?
I think I best stop here before I get into more trouble with Torquemada, or you.
Anon.

 

[PJM]

=fhansen;7797143]To this question, sometimes posed by atheists and theists alike, I believe Aquinas would answer that this world could be better, because an infinitely powerful God could always make something better. But by the same logic, it seems that if God could always make something better, then He could still never make anything perfect-which is the equivalent of saying that evil will always be present in creation to some degree by virtue of the fact that creation, itself, is not God, or, perhaps to put it another way: even God can’t create another God.

But this unavoidable “flaw” becomes an even greater dilemma if God deems it wise to grant freewill to creation-in, say, the form of man or angels. Because then this imperfect creation can conceivably express its imperfection, by an act of its imperfect will, with moral evil or sin a possible result. If all this is so, then the only way a created being with freewill could consistently act perfectly would be if He was somehow led by Gods’ perfect will instead of his own.

And if this is so, then perhaps it would make sense that the only way for these beings, this creation-with-freewill, to always behave perfectly would be for them to choose, not to act perfectly, which they could not consistently do, but, if possible, to always be directly united with God, who is perfection itself, and as such the only Being who always wills rightly. And I believe this is consistent in a general way with Catholic thought and teachings on the New Law/Covenant, except maybe for my first paragraph. Any thoughts of your own on this?

NOT REALLY

God created humanity ALONE with the ability to LOVE OR HATE, Do Godd, or Do evil. Therefore God could not be God IF:

1. He over-rode humanites intellect, mind and FREEWILL
2. Did not permit humanity to PROVE their Love of and For God
3. Dod not permit humanity to FREELY choice Good or Evil
4. Many Saints reached a level of perfection sufficient not to have to pass through Purgatory. And those who are BLESSED to receive the LAST RITES before death are too perfected.

And actually in a MANNER OF SPEAKING God DOES Create other god’s… Saints once perfected become a mirror image of God’s goodness and Love.

THANKS for a GREAT POST!

God B;ess,
Pat

 

[fhansen]

NOT REALLY

God created humanity ALONE with the ability to LOVE OR HATE, Do Godd, or Do evil. Therefore God could not be God IF:

1. He over-rode humanites intellect, mind and FREEWILL
2. Did not permit humanity to PROVE their Love of and For God
3. Dod not permit humanity to FREELY choice Good or Evil
4. Many Saints reached a level of perfection sufficient not to have to pass through Purgatory. And those who are BLESSED to receive the LAST RITES before death are too perfected.

And actually in a MANNER OF SPEAKING God DOES Create other god’s… Saints once perfected become a mirror image of God’s goodness and Love.

THANKS for a GREAT POST!

God B;ess,
Pat

Thanks, PJM. I was meaning to counter the argument which maintains that if God could’ve created a world with less evil, then it was unjust for Him to create this world. I also intended to account for the presence of evil, itself, since we know God created everything good. IOW, how/why would Adam & Eve use their free will in a wrong manner –by disobeying God, i.e. by sinning-except for some inherent flaw? And the only available flaw that I know of-and this notion is nothing new- is the “flaw” of being inferior to God and therefore inferior in regards to perfection, relatively speaking.

God *will *end up creating other “gods”, over time, but apparently not without good and evil playing their respective roles in this world first, and then Calvary-and the grace and reconciliation won there, triumphing over evil while providing the means for humankind to cooperate in the perfecting of creation.

 

[Ontologian]

Hi, fhansen!
You are doing well moving this thread.
I’d like to add something, but am brand new to this forum.
And my first reply was wiped out somehow.
If this message goes through, I’ll try to continue tomorrow.
Blessings.
Ontologian

 

[Ontologian]

To fhansen and others: God could only create the best world. God is both** infinitely** good and **infinitely **powerful. There is no possibility that God could create out of nothing anything even slightly imperfect, since God is the only cause involved.
This means that the creation ex nihilo is not being addressed, except quite remotely or obliquely in the Book of Genesis. That creation in Genesis is obviously a creation ex aliquo (out of something; something imperfect like dust, a rib, darkness, chaos, et al.) Had to have an imperfect cause or causes, besides God, the infinitely perfect cause. [Infinite Being working or making the world against the resistance of fallen creation of perfect persons, who exercised their God-gifted perfect freedom imperfectly by saying less than fully Yes to the gift of their being. That’s us. When God said BE, we said Maybe (yes-no); we ‘hesitated’…and failed freely and immediately [no duration at all] to say fully YES and be at once gloriously happy in union with God forever. No chaos, no cosmos, Just sheer blissful union with God and with the good angels and with any human persons who also might have said fully Yes.
Our whole theological tradition has missed the Perfect Creation ex nihilo and treated it as though God were some kind of Mighty Magician who creates arbitrarily worlds according to whim. Or to think that God is even ABLE to do so is absurd. Such would not be God. God is not all-good and all-powerful…God is INFINITELY, UNLIMITEDLY good and INFINITELY, UNLIMITEDLY powerful. Every good angel who said fully Yes to God and to the gift of being is all-good and all-powerful, but finitely so. Our theologians and philosophers have traditionally treated God as Pure act (a la Aristotle) and confused that with infinite act. There is no room it seems in traditional philosophy and theology for seeing that God can and does create perfect finite beings (persons–angelic and human) who are, each one, a pure finite act of be-ing.
Tragically, St. Thomas, the greatest of the great, says that created persons are only “habens esse” (they “have” their being, but are not their being.). I say that is because he is confusing pure act with infinite act. God IS God’s infinite Being; we each ARE our finite (perfect) being. There is nothing defective about being finite…unless you unconsciously think you are supposed to be God!
We have conflated the two creations throughout our tradition: creation ex aliquo, Redemptive Creation is not at all the same as creation ex nihilo, Originative Creation.
Thus we have not only inherited the original sin of Adam and Eve by virtue of our incorporation into their generation; we have also ‘inherited’ THROUGH them (not from them) our own originative sin, committed at the instantaneous moment of creation ex nihilo along with all other perfect persons, including Adam and Eve and at least billions of others. But we have repressed it almost entirely and find it ‘impossible’ to admit. No wonder theologians and pastors give up on the question of why bad things happen to good people and why apparently innocent persons ‘in and outside the womb’ can suffer the most horrible violence…and shrug with saying something like “it’s a mystery”! Of course, it’s a mystery. So is gravity, electricity, the Incarnation, the Trinity et al. Mysteries are to be engaged in and to be known more and more. They are superintelligible. The more you know, the more you know you do not know…but you still know more!
We have much to admit that our defective theological tradition has buried alive. Revelation is not defective; but our receiving of it through theological conceptualization and discourse is always in need of deepening.
Peace and blessings on us all, in being and in truth!
Ontologian

 

[fhansen]

To fhansen and others: God could only create the best world. God is both** infinitely** good and **infinitely **powerful. There is no possibility that God could create out of nothing anything even slightly imperfect, since God is the only cause involved.
This means that the creation ex nihilo is not being addressed, except quite remotely or obliquely in the Book of Genesis. That creation in Genesis is obviously a creation ex aliquo (out of something; something imperfect like dust, a rib, darkness, chaos, et al.) Had to have an imperfect cause or causes, besides God, the infinitely perfect cause. [Infinite Being working or making the world against the resistance of fallen creation of perfect persons, who exercised their God-gifted perfect freedom imperfectly by saying less than fully Yes to the gift of their being. That’s us. When God said BE, we said Maybe (yes-no); we ‘hesitated’…and failed freely and immediately [no duration at all] to say fully YES and be at once gloriously happy in union with God forever. No chaos, no cosmos, Just sheer blissful union with God and with the good angels and with any human persons who also might have said fully Yes.
Our whole theological tradition has missed the Perfect Creation ex nihilo and treated it as though God were some kind of Mighty Magician who creates arbitrarily worlds according to whim. Or to think that God is even ABLE to do so is absurd. Such would not be God. God is not all-good and all-powerful…God is INFINITELY, UNLIMITEDLY good and INFINITELY, UNLIMITEDLY powerful. [Every good angel who said fully Yes to God and to the gift of being is all-good and all-powerful, but finitely so. Our theologians and philosophers have traditionally treated God as Pure act (a la Aristotle) and confused that with infinite act. There is no room it seems in traditional philosophy and theology for seeing that God can and does create perfect finite beings (persons–angelic and human) who are, each one, a pure finite act of be-ing.
Tragically, St. Thomas, the greatest of the great, says that created persons are only “habens esse” (they “have” their being, but are not their being.). I say that is because he is confusing pure act with infinite act. God IS God’s infinite Being; we each ARE our finite (perfect) being. There is nothing defective about being finite…unless you unconsciously think you are supposed to be God!
We have conflated the two creations throughout our tradition: creation ex aliquo, Redemptive Creation is not at all the same as creation ex nihilo, Originative Creation.
Thus we have not only inherited the original sin of Adam and Eve by virtue of our incorporation into their generation; we have also ‘inherited’ THROUGH them (not from them) our own originative sin, committed at the instantaneous moment of creation ex nihilo along with all other perfect persons, including Adam and Eve and at least billions of others. But we have repressed it almost entirely and find it ‘impossible’ to admit. No wonder theologians and pastors give up on the question of why bad things happen to good people and why apparently innocent persons ‘in and outside the womb’ can suffer the most horrible violence…and shrug with saying something like “it’s a mystery”! Of course, it’s a mystery. So is gravity, electricity, the Incarnation, the Trinity et al. Mysteries are to be engaged in and to be known more and more. They are superintelligible. The more you know, the more you know you do not know…but you still know more!
We have much to admit that our defective theological tradition has buried alive. Revelation is not defective; but our receiving of it through theological conceptualization and discourse is always in need of deepening.
Peace and blessings on us all, in being and in truth!
Ontologian

Hi, Ontologian! -and thanks for an interesting and thoughtful post. I could probably agree that no better world could be created but I’m still not sure how perfect beings could choose imperfectly. God would certainly never do such a thing. Even if we were to say that our imperfection lies in doubting our own God-given perfection, perhaps wanting “more” than we’ve been given, why would we do so, being perfect and all?
[/quote]

 

[Ontologian]

The originatively original world (the one ex nihilo) must not be confused with this one, the Redemptive world and its creation (notably dealt with in Genesis). In the perfect finite world that God originatively created, each person [angelic or human…and the distinction between angels and humans ontologically was somewhat discerned by Aquinas] had to be perfect in being and in freedom. Perfect freedom is not the same as perfect goodness, perfect power, or even perfect beauty. It is a distinctive attribute, whether said of God (infinitely perfect freedom) or of creatures (finitely perfect freedom. The exercise of our perfect freedom at the moment of creation ex nihilo, then, was ours to do. God does God’s infinitely perfect free acts; we must do our finitely perfect free act–at that juncture we were finitely perfectly free as gifted by God.But as received by us–in our very first act of being and doing: our receiving of our own unique gifted being–we imperfected ourselves and became the ultimate, uncaused cause of all our pain, misery, and suffering. (Not the only cause, but the ultimate cause.) Our act was imperfect. We acted imperfectly with our perfect, God-gifted freedom. The perfect freedom-power did not act; nor did the act act. WE did. WE imperfected ourselves by responding to the gift of being by ‘saying’ less than fully yes. Thank God…er, rather thank ourselves…for not saying fully no! [It was all our finite perfect freedom; not at all God’s. God gives us OUR OWN BEING AND FREEDOM, not a particle of His–we are not mini-pantheists, I hope.
So we can say that we originatively, ex nihilo, in receiving our being [[by the way, creation ex nihilo is a necessarily interpersonal act on God’s part, necessarily intending the person being created as a person and requiring a fully responsible personal response from that person…Can you conceive of an act of more potential intimacy than that of gifting another (albeit finite) person with his or her be-ing at all and be-ing this unique one?!]]
…in receiving our being, we damaged our functional freedom–not our natural freedom, God gifted such forever–such that we crashed our whole being and were ontologically comatose until God’s Redemptive Creation called for our conception in a particular space and time on the way to recovery via redemption by Christ and potential salvation.
Even our “creation out of nothing” notions seem to treat God as a grand “Aritisan” of the world without any necessarily personal response on the part of the ones being created!! How impersonal can we get regarding origins!!
As for our motivation for saying maybe (less than fully yes) to the gift of our perfect being, we were perfectly free to know and will our being as gifted by God or to will to be
an infinitely perfect being, like God, with whom we were face to face in truth (though not in glory…God’s glory would come immediately if we had said fully yes; as it is we will have to wait for knowing and loving God in His glory if and when we repent fully through the purgatory of this world and probably of the Purgatory in the next world. Hey, perhaps we could say that, being in the presence of the Triune God at that supremely intimate moment of creation ex nihilo, we let ourselves tempt ourselves to want to be a fourth person of the Blessed Trinity! And some actually willed such (“I want to be one of You, God!”)
The question that fhansen raises about how we could be perfectly free and yet choose less than perfectly is an ancient one raised by Maximus the Confessor et al. But I would reply: how could we be PERFECTLY free, yet finite, were we not able to “choose” less than perfectly AT THAT POINT. Once our perfect “choice” or willing act is effected, then we are that way forever, confirmed in beatitude.
Will stop here, but have much more to say, if anyone wishes to ‘hear’ and discuss.

 

[fhansen]

Our act was imperfect. We acted imperfectly with our perfect, God-gifted freedom. The perfect freedom-power did not act; nor did the act act. WE did.

But I think this still doesn’t answer the question of why we acted imperfectly.

The question that fhansen raises about how we could be perfectly free and yet choose less than perfectly is an ancient one raised by Maximus the Confessor et al. But I would reply: how could we be PERFECTLY free, yet finite, were we not able to “choose” less than perfectly AT THAT POINT. Once our perfect “choice” or willing act is effected, then we are that way forever, confirmed in beatitude.
Will stop here, but have much more to say, if anyone wishes to ‘hear’ and discuss.

Maybe we can’t be perfectly anything, including perfectly free-to the extent God is perfect, meaning infinitely perfect. But either way we’re radically free enough to oppose even His will, because He allows just this kind and degree of freedom. So I would think our wills, rather than our freedom is the “problem”. It seems that our desire to align our wills with His, by coming to agree with Him over time, in this world, is His goal for us, as this would produce a being who knows why he believes as he does, and why he’s come to love God as he does. IOW, he’s gained the wisdom to choose rightly, something only a perfect God possesses by His nature.

I agree that God is more intimately connected with us-with all of His creation for that matter-than we realize, actually participating in it at every moment. But, of course, man committed the initial act of “disconnecting” with Him to begin with, so that even within the context of the Christian faith we’re still about the business of reconnecting-of progressively reawakening to and restoring this lost relationship.

 

[Ontologian]

The question about why we acted imperfectly at the pristine moment of being created ex nihilo cannot be answered from the frame of reference of choices as experienced in this spatiotemporal world. This first act done BY US THROUGH our perfect freedom-power (God-gifted) had no element of temptation; it was direct ‘confrontation’ with God. [Temptation only happens to persons who are already flawed by their own originative act of imperfect response to being. Jesus, by the way, was not tempted, but tortured perhaps, by Satan in the desert. It was temptation on the part of the tempter; but not on the part of the one tempted since he could not sin or succumb: He is God.] We knew perfectly well the being of God and our own being that was gifted and by which we were responding. There was no call for deliberation and considering alternatives. There was only one “alternative”: give all to God and one’s being or give something less, either partial or total No-saying. No need to second guess this pristine willing and wonder how we could ever do such a thing. The very question shows a self-centeredness that is indicative of our already soiled FUNCTIONAL freedom. (Our natural freedom gifted ex nihilo remains perfect.) Hell occurs when our functional freedom is exercised against our natural–pristinely perfect–freedom. In hell, persons are tortured not only by the loss of God forever, but by going determinedly against the gift of creation and its perfect finite freedom that is OURS (not God’s, but sheerly of gift TO US by God). We are not called to act according to the “standards of freedom” for God, but for US: perfect love union of finite perfect freedom with infinitely perfect freedom, God’s originative intention within His perfect creation ex nihilo.
Asking the question of why we acted imperfectly also begs the question of whether there was any genuine WHY to it. Was it not an ‘irrational’ act, having no good reason, rather than a rational or proportional act that would have been perfect according to its God-gifted finite essence?
fhansen, I’d like to respond further to your questions, but do not know how to post quotes that are excerpts.
In any event, as you say, it is more about our wills than our freedom. And we, not God at all, are in charge of the acts of will that we effect. Our immediate free response to God could just as well have been fully YES and we would have been in heavenly bliss forever. We now waggle around in this rehabilitative world of redemption totally reliant on the infinite mercy of God.

 

[JP2Admirer]

This, indeed, is the very question that has made Christianity so convincing to me. I apologize that I’m late to the party and so I didn’t get a chance to read through the whole thread, but…

Augustine and Aquinas both answer this question satisfactorily for me, and it is their answer to the question of evil and suffering that has convinced me of Christianity’s truth. If we are honest, I think all of us have asked, why would a good God create such a tragic universe? And the answer is: Our radical contingency and dependence on the Necessary Being.

What separates the metaphysics of the ancients and that of the Christians is exactly the idea of ex nihilo, and this explains why God would create such a world. Only God is pure Act, we all have our being from Him, but we are mutable. The very nature of our existence is such that we are *dependent *in our very existence. Thus, for God to create a universe, it necessarily tends to non-existence because those things that are given their being cannot sustain themselves without the aid of the pure act.

Thus, the very nature of a created dependent being is that it tends to non-being. Now, simply put, human beings and angels, because of the intelligence, are given a special mode of being in that they are gifted with being fellow watchmen in maintaining their existence.

As for the Fall, to be capable of beatitude we must be intelligent and hence have a free will. Animals and the like are incapable of happiness precisely because they cannot rest in a good beyond sense experience. Simply put, to be able to allow us to share in His divine life, God has to give us free will, which means we can turn away.

Now, of course, God could’ve given us the beatific vision the moment He created us, but that would amount to, in some sense making us unfree.

Also, the Fall made the possibility of making the greatest material thing, the most perfect material being, in Christ. Creation wouldn’t be complete without the God-man. So in a sense, the way it was made was the most perfect even though on the surface it seems like a crazy notion. Of course, it can and will be made better, but we’re not there yet.

 

[Ontologian]

T

Augustine and Aquinas both answer this question satisfactorily for me, and it is their answer to the question of evil and suffering that has convinced me of Christianity’s truth. If we are honest, I think all of us have asked, why would a good God create such a tragic universe? And the answer is: Our radical contingency and dependence on the Necessary Being.

What separates the metaphysics of the ancients and that of the Christians is exactly the idea of ex nihilo, and this explains why God would create such a world. Only God is pure Act, we all have our being from Him, but we are mutable. The very nature of our existence is such that we are *dependent *in our very existence. Thus, for God to create a universe, it necessarily tends to non-existence because those things that are given their being cannot sustain themselves without the aid of the pure act.

Thus, the very nature of a created dependent being is that it tends to non-being. Now, simply put, human beings and angels, because of the intelligence, are given a special mode of being in that they are gifted with being fellow watchmen in maintaining their existence.

Now, of course, God could’ve given us the beatific vision the moment He created us, but that would amount to, in some sense making us unfree.

A and A do not answer the question satisfactorily to me.

Why would God create a tragic universe? God alone did not do it. It took “two” to make the tragedy and alienation: God, infinitely good and powerful to gift us with being-at-all and with perfect being and freedom PLUS WE with our free and immediate response at that same moment: a response that could have been fully YES to God and our gifted being, but was obviously less than fully yes. We crashed ourselves, and had to undergo creation ex aliquo (out of something)(the imperfect willfulness and botched perfect freedom at the moment of creation ex nihilo).

We were not dependent on God as we were gifted to be ex nihilo. God gave us a perfect, finite being, able to be independent-WITH God, not independent from or of God! We were unfaithful to that gift from infinitely perfect Being that meant we were perfect images and likenesses to God. Perfect FINITE beings: the only kind of beings that God COULD create out of nothing and ‘still be God.’ Our infidelity, saying maybe, to the Creation Word of God, BE made us dependent and ex-istent.

God is NOT the only pure act–as Aristotle and even Aquinas confusedly thought. God is the only INFINITELY PURE ACT. And God’s originative creatures were FINITELY PURE ACTS…or they were “not of God.” Aquinas got caught in some areas by the cosmogenic origin of his otherwise brilliant metaphysics.

You say we are dependent in our very existence. Right. But that is not at all the same as our very being. Aquinas and the whole tradition are suffering from failure to distinguish being from existence. Esse means to be; but we should realize that existere means to “stand outside”…existence is a mode of being…for fallen creatures who are persons and who are outside themselves within themselves and, as the existentialists are fond of thinking, must be conscious of their consciousness of themselves in order to be free and make choices, etc. And the word existence is a pitiful equivalent for being when you also consider that sub-personal beings all ex-sist: stand outside themselves via extension, having “parts outside of parts,” as the scholastics termed it. This failure to distinguish existence from being is another effect of the cosmolock that classical philosophers and theologians have been weighted down with for centuries and do not seem to know it YET.

When you say that the “very nature of created dependent being is that it tends to non-being” you are saying something quite true. But that dependency in being–that existence mode of being–comes from us, not God originatively. In the rehabilitative creation of which the Book of Genesis is speaking, we are totally dependent on God, “thanks” to our originative sin at the moment of originative, ex nihilo creation.

By the way, let’s all wake up and realize that God does not EXIST. God IS! And so each of us IS, thanks to God’s gift of our being [our own be-ing, not some “part” of God’s being]. But we also exist, because of botching our immediately free response to the gift of being in our creation ex nihilo!
Let's take up the commission given by JP2 in Fides et Ratio: to develop a philosophy of being that is not tied to lame formulae, but rings with the dynamism of the act of being itself. [Jesus both IS and exists as incarnate God, identifying with us in all things except sin and the ability to sin.] Praise God from whom all goodness flows!

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Everything God creates is perfection and has no need for change or alteration. Nothing exists without a purpose and everything God creates fulfills this purpose perfectly.

 

[JP2Admirer]

A and A do not answer the question satisfactorily to me.

Why would God create a tragic universe? God alone did not do it. It took “two” to make the tragedy and alienation: God, infinitely good and powerful to gift us with being-at-all and with perfect being and freedom PLUS WE with our free and immediate response at that same moment: a response that could have been fully YES to God and our gifted being, but was obviously less than fully yes. We crashed ourselves, and had to undergo creation ex aliquo (out of something)(the imperfect willfulness and botched perfect freedom at the moment of creation ex nihilo).

I think we are getting confused here regarding “God creating a tragic universe.” We have our being and act from Him. Yes, I agree with Aquinas in that we are endowed with our own free causality – that it is placed within our natures (the greatness of the workman is best noted by the greatness of His work). So, in one sense God did not create a tragic universe; in that He did not directly cause its tragedy. In another sense, however, He did, in that He made us with our own self-directed causality. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by creation ex aliquo?

We were not dependent on God as we were gifted to be ex nihilo. God gave us a perfect, finite being, able to be independent-WITH God, not independent from or of God! We were unfaithful to that gift from infinitely perfect Being that meant we were perfect images and likenesses to God. Perfect FINITE beings: the only kind of beings that God COULD create out of nothing and ‘still be God.’ Our infidelity, saying maybe, to the Creation Word of God, BE made us dependent and ex-istent.

I fail to see what you mean by “independent”. He we are quasi habens esse, as Aquinas puts it, then we only possess being in virtue of God giving it to us. How exactly can an existent dependent in being exist separately from Being itself?

I think it is absurd to claim that sin is what made our existence depend upon God. What form of creation do you subscribe to? Sin made us dependent and existent? This doesn’t make any sense to me.

God is NOT the only pure act–as Aristotle and even Aquinas confusedly thought. God is the only INFINITELY PURE ACT. And God’s originative creatures were FINITELY PURE ACTS…or they were “not of God.” Aquinas got caught in some areas by the cosmogenic origin of his otherwise brilliant metaphysics.

I’m an not quite sure how you understand the term “act”? When you put “pure” with “act” it has always called to my mind a being that lacks nothing. Now we could be called perfect in that, if we fully realized our finite potential, we would be perfect, but we would not be “pure act”, as we would definitely be lacking in many things – say omnipotence and omniscience. By virtue of our very finitude we are not pure act. We are not the full realization of all that is. We can be the full realization of what we are, yes, but not of all that is.