Design

[inocente]

As to my position on whether God “designs” evil:

1. His plan obviously included evil since the sacrificial lamb of God is co-eternal. “In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was God and the Word was with God.” The “Word”, here, is Christ.
2. God appears to have created man with the capability of sin, even if they had to be “tricked” into it.

A decent lay explanation would be that God placed one non-sinful “domino” in place that was capable of falling toward sin. With a little outside-encouragement from a snake, it did just that.

To say that “the domino falling toward evil of its own choice” was as explicitly designed by the God as the creation of the domino itself, I disagree. There is a critical degree of separation, even if you don’t want to recognize it.

Thanks but my point was that design fans on this thread don’t even agree on what God is supposed to have designed. You yourself seem to have shifted position - adamantly claiming before that “anything and everything is part of God’s design” while now putting the word design in air quotes. And now you’re talking about a trickster deity.

Let the rest of us know when intelligent design fans reach any kind of agreement, until then it’s like trying to grip a jelly fish.

inocente;14658412:

You both seem to agree that famine, disease and the suffering of others down the ages is just a question of taste, “things I don’t like”. Sounds like moral relativism. Another design fan told me different, the intelligent designer designs suffering for the greater good. Sounds like utilitarianism.

You seem to imply here that a Catholic must be consistently one or the other. I see no reason to believe in this false dichotomy.

Really? There are lots of articles on the web about why Catholicism is incompatible with utilitarianism. But I referred to design fans and never mentioned Catholics. Don’t conflate them. Aquinas was not a design fan. Says so right here on Catholic Answers - catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

Pope Francis isn’t a design fan either: “The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared. Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design” - independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

Moreover, your personal views display a similar type of “error”. You’ve been more than happy to submit to Divine Fiat concerning the adultery of the harlot at risk of stoning in the Gospels. However, you eschew similar Fiat when it comes to marriage between homosexuals.

Before you try to lecture me , here are a few tips. First time you raised this you jumped threads to do so, now you’re jumping threads to refer to when you jumped threads. Not cool, read the stickies. Second, try to quote the bible correctly. You keep referring to the woman as a whore and harlot, whereas the bible says adulteress. Which is central to the story of the Pharisees using her as a pawn to try to trap Jesus with one of the ten commandments. Third, a correct reading involves no fiat, and trying to connect it to laws governing civil marriage stretches coherence beyond breaking point. If you want to start a thread on your personal interpretation of the passage, fine, but it’s way off-topic here.

 

[tonyrey]

Just a reminder that no one participating in this discussion or anywhere else has ever produced a feasible blueprint of a planet devoid of accidents and misfortunes - which leads inexorably to the conclusion that it is an infantile fantasy. The only reasonable conclusion is that reached by Leibniz: this is the best of all possible worlds (with the proviso that it is what God designed it to be - a biosphere for the development of many forms of sentient life culminating in rational beings with moral discernment, the power of self-determination and the capacity for unselfish love). Whatever one’s ideology this is the only interpretation of reality which corresponds to the way every reasonable person lives…

 

[tonyrey]

You are mistaken if you think that no one will agree with Bradski. I agree with him.

The question is: “when will you teach that 6 years old that the killing of those in Tasmania is wrong? Before he commits the act, or afterwards?” Because the “upper case” father does not teach anyone. He only sits above the clouds, observes what happens below, and punishes the person after the act is committed. (Provided, of course that the person does not repent. If he repents, then all his deeds are erased.)

Yes, Bradski is right. Not just a “father” (upper or lower case), but anyone, who has both the knowledge of the impending deed, and has the power to stop it is equally culpable. Because to actively committing a deed, or passively allowing it is equally wrong. The lame attempt to whitewash God for passively allowing evil is unacceptable.

The analogy is defective because unlike a human father God has given us free will so that we can choose what to believe, how to live and who to love. Nor is there any reason to believe He never intervenes to prevent atrocities.

Moreover punishment is never inflicted by God: it is self-inflicted because it is the inexorable consequence of a person’s pride, ambition, greed, selfishness and lust for power which inevitably lead to isolation, alienation and frustration. To be loved we have to become lovable rather than detestable and shunned by others…

 

[Bradski]

Let’s say that the day before my 6 year old child planned to drive our car and massacre 35 men, women, children and babies in Tasmania a few years back, I knew he was going to do it. And I knew without any shadow of doubt that he was serious.

It was in my power to wrap the child in duck tape and throw him in the closet forever to prevent the murders. Or do I say: 'No, I need him to exercise his free will. I will teach him the error of his intention. Free will, I will teach him, is not a license to do evil but a freedom to do good."

Would that be the statement of a sane father? Would you consider the father at fault in any way? Quite frankly, I don’t think that you would be able to find anyone at all who would think he was criminally culpable. And equally deserving punishment.

Now just change the ‘f’ in ‘father’ to upper case.

I don’t know why you think the age of the person matters in the slightest. If your 6 year old was mentally unstable and capable of killing people and you knew with certainty that he was going to attempt it, then you have a responsibility to yourself, to him and to the potential victims to prevent it happening.

If you could do that by means of education, then do so. But if it required incarceration, then do you baulk at that at allow him to do what he pleases?

 

[Bradski]

Nor is there any reason to believe He never intervenes to prevent atrocities.

I hope that gunshot wound in your foot isn’t too serious.

 

[tonyrey]

I hope that gunshot wound in your foot isn’t too serious.

A hopeless comment which does precisely nothing to further the discussion.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I don’t understand how anyone can complain that God is responsible for sins that would happen anyway. I think the second (atheistic) scenario below is totally unjust.

WITH GOD

A person has the potential to commit sin/evil.
God says sin will be punished.
A person sins.
God punishes them.

WITHOUT GOD

A person has the potential to commit whatever act they subjectively feel like. What is a “sin”?
A person commits whatever act they subjectively feel like.
They die and the universe just moves on.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Bradski;14661827:

I hope that gunshot wound in your foot isn’t too serious.

A hopeless comment which does precisely nothing to further the discussion.

Agreed.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know why you think the age of the person matters in the slightest. If your 6 year old was mentally unstable and capable of killing people and you knew with certainty that he was going to attempt it, then you have a responsibility to yourself, to him and to the potential victims to prevent it happening.

If you could do that by means of education, then do so. But if it required incarceration, then do you baulk at that at allow him to do what he pleases?

The analogy is defective because unlike a human father God has given us free will so that we can choose what to believe, how to live and who to love.

 

[Bradski]

The analogy is defective because unlike a human father God has given us free will so that we can choose what to believe, how to live and who to love.

And decides when to intervene in the exercise of our free will. You just admitted this in the post where you shot yourself in the foot.

It is plainly obvious to everyone that if God does intervene in some cases, He is making a conscious decision to do so. So there is, obviously, a conscious decision NOT to do so in other cases. That is, He makes a conscious decision NOT to prevent an atrocity.

Now this is not a problem for me as I don’t believe that there is anyone making these calls. But it is certainly a problem for you. Especially if you are the parent of a murdered child for example. Because you know, and have admitted to all that God could have intervened (because He does so in some cases) but did not in your case.

How one can reconcile any of this with the concept of free will and a loving God is totally beyond me. I guess all one can do is shrug the shoulders and accept it as part of life’s etenal mystery. In which case, welcome to my world.

 

[rossum]

WITH GOD

A person has the potential to commit sin/evil.
God says sin will be punished.
A person sins.
God punishes them.

Not quite. It is more like:

A person has the potential to commit sin/evil.
God says sin will be punished.
A person sins.
God either punishes them or forgives them and does not punish them.

Christians emphasise God’s forgiveness, hence there can be no certainty of punishment. If you are a Calvinist then it is possible you will be punished even if you do not sin – if you are not among the elect then you are punished, even if you die at one week old.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t know why you think the age of the person matters in the slightest. If your 6 year old was mentally unstable and capable of killing people and you knew with certainty that he was going to attempt it, then you have a responsibility to yourself, to him and to the potential victims to prevent it happening.

If you could do that by means of education, then do so. But if it required incarceration, then do you baulk at that at allow him to do what he pleases?

The post was only a parody of your scenario.

The essential difference is the promise given. Both Father and father make a sacred promise to the son, “I will never coerce your will to act or not act.”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The post was only a parody of your scenario.

The essential difference is the promise given. Both Father and father make a sacred promise to the son, “I will never coerce your will to act or not act.”

I have no idea who that “lower case father” might be, but I am sure that there are very few human fathers who allow their 6 years old to have free access to a loaded gun, and they are considered highly irresponsible and even criminally culpable for any act their child might commit.

You guys (in general) have this sick obsession with “free will”. Of course you probably would change your tune, if you own child would be kidnapped an tortured. In that case (which I hope will NEVER happen) you would all be gang-ho to take away the free will of the kidnapper, before he does even more harm to your child.

 

[Bradski]

The post was only a parody of your scenario.

The essential difference is the promise given. Both Father and father make a sacred promise to the son, “I will never coerce your will to act or not act.”

What would you think of a parent who allowed their child to do anything he or she wanted?

 

[tonyrey]

The analogy is defective because unlike a human father God has given us free will so that we can choose what to believe, how to live and who to love.

You can’t have your cake and eat it, Brad! If God never intervenes you claim He is heartless. If He does intervene you accuse Him of favouritism! Why don’t you go the full hog and proclaim He shouldn’t have created this world at all!

How one can reconcile any of this with the concept of free will and a loving God is totally beyond me. I guess all one can do is shrug the shoulders and accept it as part of life’s etenal mystery. In which case, welcome to my world.

Your world is created by the blind Goddess who has produced a pointless flash in the pan in the darkness of eternity where we are all doomed to live for a few brief years for no reason or purpose whatsoever after having emerged as the result of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations before we vanish forever as if we had never existed…

 

[tonyrey]

I have no idea who that “lower case father” might be, but I am sure that there are very few human fathers who allow their 6 years old to have free access to a loaded gun, and they are considered highly irresponsible and even criminally culpable for any act their child might commit.

False analogy! Adults are not children…

You guys (in general) have this sick obsession with “free will”. Of course you probably would change your tune, if you own child would be kidnapped an tortured. In that case (which I hope will NEVER happen) you would all be gang-ho to take away the free will of the kidnapper, before he does even more harm to your child.

If you were deprived of free will you would be incapable of reaching your own conclusions or making your own decisions!

 

[Bradski]

You can’t have your cake and eat it, Brad! If God never intervenes you claim He is heartless. If He does intervene you accuse Him of favouritism! Why don’t you go the full hog and proclaim He shouldn’t have created this world at all!

Don’t lose sight of the fact that you are discussing this with an atheist. It’s hardly worthwhile to suggest that I should proclaim that God shouldn’t have created this world at all. It’s my position that He didn’t. For the rather prosaic reason that I don’t believe that He even exists.

So these problems that you are insisting are mine are not. They are yours. I am pointing out the fact that YOU have to reconcile these contradictory positions. And you are not. You’ve made no attempt at all.

You have said that God does play favourites. That He does choose when and where to intercede. If He allows atrocities to occur when it is obviously within His power to prevent them, then how do you explain this?

 

[o_mlly]

What would you think of a parent who allowed their child to do anything he or she wanted?

What would you think of a parent who broke their solemn promise to their child? You say, “Well he could break his word to prevent worse things happening!” But nothing is worse then God not being God, that is, God being a liar. If Truth is not true then faith (in what?) and hope (for what?) become meaningless.

The atheist’s “sandbox” attitude believes suffering and death are the greatest evils to be avoided at any cost. Catholics think outside the “sandbox” and believe the greatest evil is to lose one’s soul. It is better to suffer injustice than to ever commit one.

“In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth, a life full of the most atrocious tortures on earth, will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel” (St. Teresa of Calcutta).

 

[Bradski]

What would you think of a parent who broke their solemn promise to their child? You say, “Well he could break his word to prevent worse things happening!” But nothing is worse then God not being God, that is, God being a liar. If Truth is not true then faith (in what?) and hope (for what?) become meaningless.

The atheist’s “sandbox” attitude believes suffering and death are the greatest evils to be avoided at any cost. Catholics think outside the “sandbox” and believe the greatest evil is to lose one’s soul. It is better to suffer injustice than to ever commit one.

“In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth, a life full of the most atrocious tortures on earth, will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel” (St. Teresa of Calcutta).

What word? What promise? The promise to allow evil to (on some ocassions) ensure free will?

And the Holocaust nothing more than a night in an inconvenient hotel? Chilling…

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t lose sight of the fact that you are discussing this with an atheist. It’s hardly worthwhile to suggest that I should proclaim that God shouldn’t have created this world at all. It’s my position that He didn’t. For the rather prosaic reason that I don’t believe that He even exists.

Your admonition is illogical considering I have just stated::

Your world is created by the blind Goddess who has produced a pointless flash in the pan in the darkness of eternity where we are all doomed to live for a few brief years for no reason or purpose whatsoever after having emerged as the result of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations before we vanish forever as if we had never existed…

So these problems that you are insisting are mine are not. They are yours. I am pointing out the fact that YOU have to reconcile these contradictory positions. And you are not. You’ve made no attempt at all.

You have said that God does play favourites. That He does choose when and where to intercede. If He allows atrocities to occur when it is obviously within His power to prevent them, then how do you explain this?

You have failed to answer my question:

]You can’t have your cake and eat it, Brad! If God never intervenes you claim He is heartless. If He does intervene you accuse Him of favouritism! Why don’t you go the full hog and proclaim He shouldn’t have created this world at all!?

In other words you hanker after the infantile fantasy of an earthly Utopia for which no one has ever presented a feasible blueprint…There have been plenty of suggestions for piecemeal improvements (such as yours) but no explanation of how they could be incorporated into the process of biological development…