Did God Create the Best Possible Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Achilles6129
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
Any interpretation of Scriptural texts that contradicts the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father is misguided. Only Fundamentalists believe every statement in the Old Testament is literally true.
Click to expand...
The Church has never claimed that the authors of the books in the Old Testament were infallible or even consistent with one another. Hosea’s concept of God, for example, was closer to the truth:
For I desire** mercy**, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
Click to expand...
Hosea 6:6
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
The Church has never claimed that the authors of the books in the Old Testament were infallible or even consistent with one another. Hosea’s concept of God, for example, was closer to the truth:

Hosea 6:6
Click to expand...
“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old is unveiled in the New” ~ St. Augustine of Hippo, 4th century AD

If the Church were so fundamentalist, then why does she always insist that Scripture needs to be read in light of the New Testament and in light of Sacred Tradition? If the Church were fundamentalist, you wouldn’t need to read any of Sacred Scripture in light of anything else. Fundamentalism is a relatively modern invention.

Unfortunately there seems to be this unquestioned assumption that Scripture must be read with a fundamentalist viewpoint else it isn’t valid. That’s erroneous of course but getting people to realize that they may have unexamined premises that are wrong is a tricky task.
 
balto said:
“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old is unveiled in the New” ~ St. Augustine of Hippo, 4th century AD

If the Church were so fundamentalist, then why does she always insist that Scripture needs to be read in light of the New Testament and in light of Sacred Tradition? If the Church were fundamentalist, you wouldn’t need to read any of Sacred Scripture in light of anything else. Fundamentalism is a relatively modern invention.

Unfortunately there seems to be this unquestioned assumption that Scripture must be read with a fundamentalist viewpoint else it isn’t valid. That’s erroneous of course but getting people to realize that they may have unexamined premises that are wrong is a tricky task.
Click to expand...
Look, when I read the parable about the thief in the night, I know better than to think that it is saying God is a literal thief. I would object, though, if someone tried to tell me that the parable was saying that we can predict when God will show up next.

When I read the story of creation, I know better than to think that it is telling me that the world was literally created in a week and that there was a literal Garden of Eden. I would object, though, if someone told me that the story was saying that God didn’t actually make anything at all, or that there was never any sort of original sin.

In the same way, when you read violent passages in the old testament, it’s fine to say that they are not literal. I can fully accept that there may not have actually been any God-commanded massacres. But when you say that the lesson we should learn from a story about God commanding a massacre is that God could never command a massacre, I have to object.

Look at the story of Job, even. What core lesson is there in that story if not “God can do whatever he wants to us, and we have to have faith in him no matter what.” God could make us all into Jobes, and fill the world with suffering, and we would still have to believe it was the best possible world.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
. . . God could make us all into Jobes, and fill the world with suffering, and we would still have to believe it was the best possible world.
Click to expand...
Actually, I did say that in post 41. Whatever world would be best to enable us to attain eternal life in paradise.
But, this is the best of all possible worlds.
BTW: We are all Jobs, actually; and we will all have our last moments in our own Gethsemane.
 
balto said:
“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old is unveiled in the New” ~ St. Augustine of Hippo, 4th century AD

If the Church were so fundamentalist, then why does she always insist that Scripture needs to be read in light of the New Testament and in light of Sacred Tradition? If the Church were fundamentalist, you wouldn’t need to read any of Sacred Scripture in light of anything else. Fundamentalism is a relatively modern invention.

Unfortunately there seems to be this unquestioned assumption that Scripture must be read with a fundamentalist viewpoint else it isn’t valid. That’s erroneous of course but getting people to realize that they may have unexamined premises that are wrong is a tricky task.
Click to expand...
👍 Let’s hope this forum will help to enlighten them! St Augustine summed up the roles of the Old and New Testaments beautifully.
 
tonyrey said:
Variety is not only the spice of life but it takes all sorts to make a world… 🙂
Click to expand...
No. Your answer does not seriously address the question as to whether or not it is a good thing to create people with a disordered (according to Father Hardon) condition?
Yes, you have a world with variety. But variety is not always good. There is good variety. But there is the bad variety. The world would be better if there were more of the good and less of the bad. Is the world better (according to Roman Catholic thinking) by having people born with the SS disorder? Is the SS disorder a good thing to have (according to Roman Catholic teaching)? Heterosexual people have a natural outlet of marriage to relieve their tensions and attraction for someone of the opposite sex. Marriage is blessed because it leads to fulfilment of the Biblical command to increase and multiply, while at the same time it reduces lustful cravings. But according to Roman Catholic teaching, those with SSA are not able to morally enter into a same sex matrimonial state. Why it this a better world for them, if according to Roman Catholic teaching there is no way that they can morally relieve their lustful cravings.
 
Whether or not this is the best possible world, does not invalidate any proofs for the existence of God. Nor any Catholic doctrine that I can think of…

So what is the point of all of this? Is it just a rehash of the problem of suffering and evil? Or just an opportunity at lousy scripture exegesis?
 
Shike said:
Whether or not this is the best possible world, does not invalidate any proofs for the existence of God. Nor any Catholic doctrine that I can think of…
Click to expand...
I agree. However, someone else said:
Aloysium said:
But, this is the best of all possible worlds.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if this is true, because we can think of a world which might have been better than this.
 
Tomdstone said:
No. Your answer does not seriously address the question as to whether or not it is a good thing to create people with a disordered (according to Father Hardon) condition?
Click to expand...
With respect the question is not whether it is a good thing to create people with an allegedly disordered condition but whether a world without them is feasible in an immensely complex system developing according to the laws of nature. If there is no limit to divine intervention it would be evident to everyone that a benevolent power is controlling events.
Yes, you have a world with variety. But variety is not always good. There is good variety. But there is the bad variety. The world would be better if there were more of the good and less of the bad. Is the world better (according to Roman Catholic thinking) by having people born with the SS disorder? Is the SS disorder a good thing to have (according to Roman Catholic teaching)? Heterosexual people have a natural outlet of marriage to relieve their tensions and attraction for someone of the opposite sex. Marriage is blessed because it leads to fulfilment of the Biblical command to increase and multiply, while at the same time it reduces lustful cravings. But according to Roman Catholic teaching, those with SSA are not able to morally enter into a same sex matrimonial state. Why it this a better world for them, if according to Roman Catholic teaching there is no way that they can morally relieve their lustful cravings.
Click to expand...
It is unrealistic to expect every individual in this world to have the same advantages and disadvantages. Inequality is an inevitable consequence of being born in a physical world where we are subject to “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. There is a considerable element of chance within the framework of order and Design.
 
Shike said:
Whether or not this is the best possible world, does not invalidate any proofs for the existence of God. Nor any Catholic doctrine that I can think of…

So what is the point of all of this? Is it just a rehash of the problem of suffering and evil? Or just an opportunity at lousy scripture exegesis?
Click to expand...
One troubling implication was ridiculed by Voltaire:
all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds
Click to expand...
In other words, if this world is in fact the best possible, then any action, even ones we perceive as evil, are actually an integral part of why the world is the best.

In other words, a world in which you never sinned couldn’t be better than the best of all possible worlds. This is the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, your never sinning would make the world worse. Therefore, your sin was actually good for the world.

Now, you might suppose that this is the ONLY possible world and therefore tautologically the best. However, that would make the world a necessary entity, which would have implications for some proofs of God.
 
God’s intent is to bring all creation to Him in loving relation. As spirit and body, we have had that capacity from the beginning.

However, given that choice in the Garden, in our perfection, we declined His offer.
Now, in our brokenness, we understand clearly our need for Him, our need for love.

Then, filled with the capacity to see and understand Him, we still did not trust God.
Now, in our ignorance, we must trust Him.

We did not by our own free will, choose to exist in the same loving filial relationship that the Son has with the Father.
The word became flesh so that humanity might grow in Him.
He takes on our sins and forgives that we might be pure of heart. Mankind is redeemed and saved.
Through and in Christ our destiny is to live eternally with God.

What could be better?
 
Who says there were other options? There is one universe, and to assert that it could have been better is meaningless because it implies that there are various models that it could have been based upon. There is one universe, and it is unique. There are no templates.
 
jimmy said:
Who says there were other options? There is one universe, and to assert that it could have been better is meaningless because it implies that there are various models that it could have been based upon. There is one universe, and it is unique. There are no templates.
Click to expand...
JapaneseKappa said:
Now, you might suppose that this is the ONLY possible world and therefore tautologically the best. However, that would make the world a necessary entity, which would have implications for some proofs of God.
Click to expand...
 
Tomdstone said:
Some natural events or diseases which cause suffering are not within our control.
Click to expand...
Never said they were, but they are accounted for and part of the plan of God. He takes the injustice of it into account and awards the correct heavenly treasure in compensation. Therefore, the individual is justly and mercifully make right and the path of world history/future is maintained on it’s perfect course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top