part 3
As stated before, this would have had to happen after the fall. How precisely this could happen, we do not specifically know.
but see I think the disagreement we are having is that I disagree with the idea that the fall is the cause of these events. Rather God created the universe in a way that would necessitate the existence of man come about because of this existence. For what ever reason that we cannot begin to fathom disasters on both earth and in the Solar System are necessary and therefore not evil in order that man come into existence. Let’s assume that a solar system nearby the solar system we exist in today in its infancy stage had life on it, somewhat intelligent but not ensouled. In our modern understanding of natural disaster a supernova (assuming this sparked the formation of our solar system) destroyed all life on this planet. This would be a natural disaster, but because it is leading to the creation of the solar system which therefore creates the earth and eventually us it was a good in creation.
I think a much better explanation about natural disasters and evil is that in fact natural disasters are NOT evil. They are in fact good because they are a natural part of God’s creation, but after the fall our intellect was distorted by sin and because of this we no longer see the good in these natural phenomenons that seem to be disastrous. It is even possible that these events could have happened but because to a man who didn’t fall and who would have had an intellect perfectly illumined by God we would have see the goodness of this and it is possible that because of seeing the goodness the bodily pains that may have come about and the death that came was no bad. Man would know that once you had a death of your natural body god would give you supernatural body. Now this is all speculation and I’m not to sure how this would line up with the Churches understanding of what original sin did to us and our relationship to the world.
We do not know that. There is no definitive ruling on how this would have played out. I’m simply offering a possible solution.
I agree I just disagree with your explanation.
The point I’m making is that because man would not have had to suffer or die. This means that “pre-fall” natural disasters could not have caused bodily harm. Not that they would not have existed prior to the fall.
As some others have said how can this be possible, would God somehow make sure no human was harmed in natural disasters? I get what your saying but how this would work in light of what we know of the natural process of the cosmos makes it difficult to hold this.
Agreed, Genesis has no scientific value and it is not meant to be taken literally. But the message is still the inspired Word of God and is the truth. For instance, there probably never was a literal Garden of Eden, but there still was a Fall and effects from that Fall. So how do we reconcile today’s existence of natural evils with the fact that man had bodily immortality prior to the Fall? That’s the crux of this whole debate.
yes and what I’m arguing is that the immoraltilty of the man has more to do with eternal life with God in heaven and not actual bodily immortality on earth, because if man never did sin it is impossible that he could in fact live for all eternity on earth, plus there is the issue how would that work with what we understand about the natural processes the earth goes through. There is no evidence that natural disasters changed after the fall.
I do believe adam and eve sinned, I do believe they existed, but I’m not convinced of the effects of the fall on the whole of creation.
Because it’s the only source of information we have to go on for the fall of man. Genesis is not an authority on science, but it is on the Fall. Even if you completely ignore Genesis entirely, the Church has definitely ruled that man did not have to suffer and die if he had not fallen in the Garden.
I don’t think they have definitively ruled it not everything in the catchecism falls into the category of definitive there are things in the Catechism that can be disputed by faithful Catholics.
Well, God does bring the rain in the sense that He created the universe. Not trying to state that Genesis is a scientific source, just a religious one.
but what these old religions are claiming is that God is in fact the secondary cause (I don’t think they understood it in this way but this is what they claimed) of these events. That when there was thunder it was thor hitting his hammer or something. As Augustine tried to explain God created the cosmos in order that it would produce us, the rain, natural disasters and the like are part of God’s divine providence in his creation. God saw it as necessary that things like rain storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, would be a part of his creation, so in the original moment of creation (what ever that is) God planted so to speak seeds in his creation that would eventually create the earth, the sun, the stars, plants, animals, etc. From this understanding we can claim that God causes and doesn’t cause the typhoon to strike the phillipines. God is the primary cause of the cosmos all of its features properties laws and principles, but all of the consequences of those proprieties of the cosmos are not his creation and he isn’t the cause of those events.
This is why I say that God is partially responsible for everything that happens in the cosmos because God in fact is the only reason we exist and the only reason anything has existence. But God is at the same time not the cause of these things because god allowing the freedom of the cosmos built in secondary causality meaning that the freedom of the cosmos brought about natural disasters and God didn’t directly cause them.
