Does God permit evil to draw a greater good from it?

[fhansen]

What can you say to someone who flatly states there is no God or the terrible things that happen in this world would not happen?

To me the existence of moral evil-the worst kind -is only possible because certain beings in this world possess free will. Thus, lions and tigers and other such beings don’t commit evil while humans do. But why would such a free will exist at all and why would it necessarily result in evil? If other beings-whom we generally perceive to be inferior to us in many ways -are incapable of acts of malice, then why would a being such as ourselves who’re also capable of great acts of love, kindness, heroism, etc. ever do so? It is the unreasonableness of evil -the fact that it is avoidable but exists anyway-that makes it point, IMO, to transcendence- “something bigger than us”-going on in this universe. Evil cannot exist unless goodness does as well. In this sense, then, the existence of love-the ultimate good-and evil-the opposition to love- both serve to testify to Gods’ existence.

 

[yablabo]

Thomistic philosophy says so, however if God permits/allows evil it implies he could stop evil from happening and doing evil is a part of our free will. Therefore, he would be preventing an aspect of our free will which is our capacity for evil and thus, is erroneous. This is my best friend’s (a self described “liberal Christian”) argument. What is a solid philisophical answer to this that is in accord with the Church?

Evil is not a thing. Since evil is not a thing, it cannot be defined. It’s like trying to define a hole in a paper without including any information about the paper; it can’t be done. One can only “see” evil by seeing what is good. That which substantially matches in existence its essence is called “good.” A thing which is good, then serves the purpose for which it was made. When a thing is “lacking” in serving its purpose it is said to be evil. The evil is the lacking in the thing.

God cannot do anything which is lacking since that would deny Himself and we know by the First Vatican Council (with divine and Catholic faith) that he cannot deny Himself (Ch. 4 On Faith and Reason #6). Implying that by choosing to allow evil in order for greater good to come about God is in fact choosing a lesser good is contradictory and would cause God to deny Himself. Could God…as the Perfect Being…choose anything which is not perfect? So, then…how could He be God and put a stop on our free will to do evil acts?

Your friend’s argument denies that God is God…so, that is where it fails.

– Nicole

 

[Detales]

Interesting. I wonder how people arrive at the notion that the God is capable of an act called “permitting.” God IS, and has not attributes other than Being, synonymous with Love. I might suggest that the attribution of good and evil to acts of men and women or even nature is a mistaken one ste,ing from a limited perspective. It seems to me that God, being Love, makes no distinction of “good” and “evil” as such.

 

[fhansen]

Thomistic philosophy says so, however if God permits/allows evil it implies he could stop evil from happening and doing evil is a part of our free will. Therefore, he would be preventing an aspect of our free will which is our capacity for evil and thus, is erroneous. This is my best friend’s (a self described “liberal Christian”) argument. What is a solid philisophical answer to this that is in accord with the Church?

There’s no such thing as “an aspect of our free will which is our capacity for evil”. Free will either gives one the freedom to do as he will or it’s not free at all. So Gods “choice” was whether or not to grant it in the first place- which would’ve prevented evil-but in that case I doubt we’d be here discussing the issue-or any other one for that matter.

 

[StrawberryJam]

God let the rebeller loose to do as he wished, and he knows his only punishment is going to be destruction.
A person going to hell would have a worse punishment. At least Satan knows he will be destroyed at some point.
I can not wrap my brain around that one.

 

[StrawberryJam]

There’s no such thing as “an aspect of our free will which is our capacity for evil”. Free will either gives one the freedom to do as he will or it’s not free at all. So Gods “choice” was whether or not to grant it in the first place- which would’ve prevented evil-but in that case I doubt we’d be here discussing the issue-or any other one for that matter.

You claim Satan had free will also as a catholic. Yet he has no fear of eternal torment.
Eternity is a very long time with no end.

Why does Satan get such a nice send off as a rebel?

It makes no sense at all. None!

 

[fhansen]

You claim Satan had free will also as a catholic. Yet he has no fear of eternal torment.
Eternity is a very long time with no end.

Why does Satan get such a nice send off as a rebel?

It makes no sense at all. None!

Well, maybe because that’s not Catholic theology. Satan probably does what most of us do-live in a sort of quasi-denial of death and/or future punishment and think mainly of present gratification. One way or the other his destiny is said to be the same as anyone else who continuously chooses to hate -eternal punishment- i.e. separation from God/Love.

 

[Detales]

Strawberry, this is another example of how the church takes mythology meant to be instructive in an esoteric sense and makes it into history. It is no surprise whatsoever that you can’t wrap your head around it. It is a sign of your sanity, if nothing else. The story of the “fall” of Lucifer has a very specific and important dynamic incorporated in it that is explanatory, not damning, as portrayed by the church. The destruction of Satan has nothing to do with the demise of an entity by that name. It has to do with a very special and sacred event in one’s own life. I say again, the church has taken a very useful teaching story and re-framed it as history.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Strawberry, this is another example of how the church takes mythology meant to be instructive in an esoteric sense and makes it into history. It is no surprise whatsoever that you can’t wrap your head around it. It is a sign of your sanity, if nothing else. The story of the “fall” of Lucifer has a very specific and important dynamic incorporated in it that is explanatory, not damning, as portrayed by the church. The destruction of Satan has nothing to do with the demise of an entity by that name. It has to do with a very special and sacred event in one’s own life. I say again, the church has taken a very useful teaching story and re-framed it as history.

I can understand it in the sense you describe, but not the way I have read about it.
Thank you very much!

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting. I wonder how people arrive at the notion that the God is capable of an act called “permitting.” God IS, and has not attributes other than Being, synonymous with Love. I might suggest that the attribution of good and evil to acts of men and women or even nature is a mistaken one ste,ing from a limited perspective. It seems to me that God, being Love, makes no distinction of “good” and “evil” as such.

If the sole attribute of God is Being (=Love) you need to explain what “good” and “evil” are and also whether human beings are in any way responsible for their thoughts and actions.
As Kant remarked “ought” implies “can”. So there is also the problem of free will. If we have free will and the Creator does not we are superior to God in at least one respect!

 

[Detales]

Tonyrey, I will reply to this later in greater length, as I’m off to work now. But I will say that your concerns are of apples and oranges. No, apples and angels. Well, not even that. I Kant do this right now, so “later.”

 

[JOHNONEVI]

When we judge others we draw that judgement upon ourselves. The Sermon On The Mount states that Love is the Law. To Love God.Jesus states first you mst love God and that all will be given unto you.Bearing false witness and hating your enemy will hold you in bondage. Forgiveness will bless the one who forgives. It is no accident The Our Father is the prayer said during Mass. When Pharoah cursed the Israelites by damning their firstborn and when David,approached by Nathan judged the wealthy rancher to be condemned to death those judgements were brought down upon their own heads. Jesus, saved the life of Mary Magdalen by challenging anyone who has not sinned let him be the one to cast the first stone. God does not permit evil. Evil occurs where there is an absence of light.When there is an absence of love what can exist but evil? That is a human action not a devine one Johnonevi

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Sorry to break the thread with a sidetopic return! Anyway:

There were a few “conformity experiments”: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

I don’t think that anybody was delusional. I think that this whole incident is attributable to mass hysteria.

It probably is, but then is pretty much anything involving lots of people seeing something. One of the great excuses of science in the face of something outside the limits of it’s knowledge.

Just because it’s conceivably possible, doesn’t make it true.

Subliminal messaging/control doesn’t really work, and I’m not proposing that any group of people actively tried to deceive others.

Does it really matter whether any deception was attempted or not, for subliminal influence to occur? As to whether it works or not, I’d say something very much like it is certainly conceivable – and I doubt it’s been wholly disproved. Although that’s going a bit too far outside the remit of this thread……

I don’t know why you’re speculating as to what I could argue.

Sorry about the ambiguity! I meant “you could argue” as in “one could argue”

 

[JOHNONEVI]

Tonyrey, I will reply to this later in greater length, as I’m off to work now. But I will say that your concerns are of apples and oranges. No, apples and angels. Well, not even that. I Kant do this right now, so “later.”

Greetings, Alduous Huxley sheds blinding light into this very theme.He states that faith is the confidence that there is an order to creation and that religion is the need within humans to objectify the devine. So the God we believe in is the God we envision.Jesus’ aim was true when He delivered the Sermon On The Mount. He charged us with one action and that was to love. First God. Then all things would be given unto us. We would have to drop all judgement. From hence manifests good and evil. Good and evil are both drawn from judgement.To state God permits evil to draw good is to imbue God with human attributes. That is a very human way of viewing the world. I don’t believe God draws such comparisons. Humans have the need to define the world around them as Adam did when he named all the animals in the Garden. Yet it is said when you define something you limit it. So to classify an action as good or evil is a very jandiced way to view the world.Without judging or classifying our world we perceive a more holistic view dissolving the conflicting responses to good and evil. Johnonevi