Epicurean Paradox

[Aelred_Minor]

** You write: “it cannot explain why God does not prevent physical evils”. Surely you must have at some time read the opening chapters of the Genesis. Adam and Eve sinned because they wanted to be God. They deserved punishment. This was the beginning of the original sin. Man suffers physically and spiritually. A Greek philosopher could never explain this since the bible is not part of his studies. But any Christian can explain this and know that Jesus died for us for our spiritual salvation. Our original sin is forgiven in baptism, but we still retain its effects. The problem of good and evil and of suffering cannot be explained away by philosophy but by faith. In the end we must have faith, hope and charity. That is the way to salvation.

God bless

Victor**

It is true that there is a historical connection between physical evil and moral evil, and sometimes a very direct connection such as an individual physical evil (e.g. the death of a murdered person) to an individual moral evil (e.g. the decision of the murderer to commit the murder).

However, the relationship between physical and moral evil is complex, and cannot be broken down to simply sin and punishment except perhaps on a macro, species level. On a more individualistic level, the innocent often suffer because of the evil decisions of others. The prime example of this of course would be Jesus himself, who never sinned yet suffered terribly.

God could have prevented the suffering of Jesus, or of the murdered man from my first example, or of a sick baby, or of a family whose house burns down, or any other given physical evil without taking away anyone’s free will. If someone wants to destroy New York with a nuclear missile, for example, but they are prevented from doing this through lack of access to a nuclear missile, their free will has in no way been impeded. Likewise if the person is living in the 13th century they have no way of willing that New York be destroyed by a nuclear missile (since neither has been made or even imagined yet), but again the person’s free will is not impeded by this fact.

While ultimately all physical evils do have their source in the free decisions of creatures to sin, the preservation of free will alone cannot account for God’s permitting them. Nor can punishment of individual sinners explain it, since often it is the innocent who suffer the most. Finally, to whatever degree that punishment does account for physical evils, this does not change the truth of my statement, since moral evil could go unpunished by any physical evils without taking away anything from free will itself.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Faulty premise #3.

Evil does not exist.

Evil does not have positive existence, but it can still be said to exist in two senses. One is the sense in which darkness and silence can be said to exist. These things also do not have positive existence, but they are very much present in this world, as negative realities so to speak. The second is that there are people and things which do have physical existence and yet are lacking some due good. Satan is an example of this. Inasmuch as Satan has positive existence and positive qualities like intelligence and power, he can be said to be good, but he is also evil inasmuch as he lacks the charity which is proper to an angelic creature and uses his intelligence and power for evil works (these deeds are also evil in the sense of what they lack in nature or context rather than in their positive attributes). For this reason Satan can be said both to be evil and to exist.

There are things which we call evil. But they are transient, temporary things. That God allows things that we think are bad to happen does not cause a logical contradiction.

This is simply false, since some evils will endure for all eternity, such as the evil of demons and damned souls. Also even in the case of evils that are truely transient, such as the suffering of the innocent, their transient nature does not change the fact that while they happen they are evil.

The problem of evil is only a problem for those stuck at the sophomoric level.

Now if evil actually did exist you would have an argument.

If anything is sophomoric, it is to take an enormous mystery which has troubled the Church’s greatest minds for all of Her history and dismiss it on the basis a single misapplied philosophical truth. I’ve probably been guilty of such errors at times too though, so please don’t see me as jumping down your throat about this. I just want to clarify the truth of the matter.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Personally, I don’t care whether God is omnipotent. I am happy to use that language as an expression of praise. I follow Him because He is good.

If there were two Gods, one omnipotent but bad, and one without power but good, which one would you choose to follow?

If God were not omnipotent, He would not be God.