evil God?

[Daedelus76]

Being as I don’t really believe in God, I’m curious to know the Catholic arguments for why God, if he exists, cannot be evil. I have heard that Thomist theology has arguments about this, but I’d like someone to explain this to me.

And for what it’s worth, I’m a non-theist, I don’t believe in the monotheistic conception of God. If such a being existed, I doubt he would be omnipotent and I would doubt he would be good.

 

[Spencerian]

Being as I don’t really believe in God, I’m curious to know the Catholic arguments for why God, if he exists, cannot be evil. I have heard that Thomist theology has arguments about this, but I’d like someone to explain this to me.

And for what it’s worth, I’m a non-theist, I don’t believe in the monotheistic conception of God. If such a being existed, I doubt he would be omnipotent and I would doubt he would be good.

Catholics and other Christians believe that God is all-good. He did not create evil, which is the lack of good, just as cold is the lack of heat. God did create free will, which defines any of his creations with a rational soul to choose good or evil.

You have participated in a similar discussion before in this older thread.

 

[Texas_Gal_1234]

Jesus knot found in Cleveland, Texas.

yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/jesus-knot-found-in-cleveland/article_5dea6803-aabc-50b3-96d7-453cf0357578.html

 

[charlie4christ]

Hey there,
I’d like to share a very brief but true quote from St. Thomas Aquinas where he he says that: “God is neither obvious nor provable”. God is not something we can put our finger on because he often works in the most mysterious ways.

As catholics we believe that God created all things good and he is perfect. However opposition to or lack of God constitutes in evil because of the deprivation of the source of all goodness, which is God. For example, we believe that Satan was of the highest ranking angels in heaven, however when he opposed God he became a source of evil. Therefore it is impossible for God to be evil because he is goodness itself.

The world we live in is full of evil as the father of lies (the devil) has corrupted it ever since he tempted our fore-parents to eat the forbidden fruit. So as catholics we believe that the chosen ones do not belong to this world as Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. So it can be thought that God is evil by looking at our evil surroundings, but that is not the work of God my friend.

Hope this helps, God Bless.

 

[danserr]

Being as I don’t really believe in God, I’m curious to know the Catholic arguments for why God, if he exists, cannot be evil. I have heard that Thomist theology has arguments about this, but I’d like someone to explain this to me.

And for what it’s worth, I’m a non-theist, I don’t believe in the monotheistic conception of God. If such a being existed, I doubt he would be omnipotent and I would doubt he would be good.

I assume you really mean, “why could the creator of the universe not be evil?” God cannot be evil, since he is by definition a being worthy of worship and so an evil being would not be God.

One way would be a moral argument for theistic belief such as the brief version that WLC offers here.

Sorry, normally I would lay the argument out, but I don’t have time to get into a discussion on it, just wanted to send you a link that offers one possible explanation (though there are others) to your question.

A successful ontological argument would also prove that God is good (as well as omnipotent), and the historical veracity of the Resurrection also might.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

How does one define good and evil?

There has to be an ultimate authority which defines Good and Evil. I would state that God, as the Creator of all, is that authority… Good is that which is harmony with that creation; that which operates as God intended. Evil, like dark and cold, does not exist. It is not a thing but the lack of that thing, that is the lack of good.

Aside from God, who do you propose as that ultimate authority? Yourself? Sataqn already tried that; it didn’t turn out well.

 

[Daedelus76]

Hey there,
I’d like to share a very brief but true quote from St. Thomas Aquinas where he he says that: “God is neither obvious nor provable”. God is not something we can put our finger on because he often works in the most mysterious ways.

If God is not obvious or provable maybe you can forgive people like me for being skeptical of your religion’s claims.

The world we live in is full of evil as the father of lies (the devil) has corrupted it ever since he tempted our fore-parents to eat the forbidden fruit.

And who let this “Father of Lies” free to do as he pleased on helpless creatures? There is no distinction for an omnipotent being between allowing something to happen and willing it to happen. If I can’t accept the Genesis story, I certainly can’t accept this idea that Jesus’ death somehow remedies that. So, theists will have to persuade me on other grounds

How does one define good and evil?

There has to be an ultimate authority which defines Good and Evil. I would state that God, as the Creator of all, is that authority… Good is that which is harmony with that creation; that which operates as God intended. Evil, like dark and cold, does not exist. It is not a thing but the lack of that thing, that is the lack of good.

Aside from God, who do you propose as that ultimate authority? Yourself? Sataqn already tried that; it didn’t turn out well.

Evil doesn’t exist? What was the Holocaust then? And if evil is merely a privation of good ,why couldn’t God have created a universe without privation, if he is omnipotent? The problem still stands. I do not need an ultimate authority to say something is evil, saying it is evil just reflects my own personal viewpoint of things. I don’t pretend to be objective, and I don’t view this as Satanic (what I view as truely satanic is authoritarianism that says I have no right to my own viewpoint, that I must submit to somebody else’s). In the same way, a theist saying God is good doesn’t really mean God is objectively good, but that merely they think God does good things for them. Even a murderer or monster would seem good to a child that was given candy and new nothing about the rest of his or her life.

Why this God supposedly allows suffering has bugged me my whole life, and is one reason I have had issues embracing theism. I know it gives people warm fuzzy feeligs, but for me its difficult to understand. Maybe because I was born with birth defects, am disabled, and never felt that a Creator really cared about me as an individual. He seems to will happiness for a few people and misery for others. He doesn’t seem to really answer prayers, either (and I have tried, and found it to be unreliable… so now I don’t pray). At best I think I accepted something like Deism, there was a first cause but it doesn’t interact with people, and that Jesus was just a wisdom teacher. The First Cause of the universe is either amoral or evil, either way I don’t think it matters to me. I’d be willing to hear evidence to the contrary.

I guess I embrace Taoism or Buddhism moreso… the world is filled with suffering, is unsatisfactory, and happiness ultimately can only be found by being detached from it. That means I really don’t care for life-affirming religions, because they essentially do not face up to the pain in the world but ultimately declare that the pain and misery is an illusion (Hindusm, Christianity).

 

[jochoa]

Being as I don’t really believe in God, I’m curious to know the Catholic arguments for why God, if he exists, cannot be evil. I have heard that Thomist theology has arguments about this, but I’d like someone to explain this to me.

And for what it’s worth, I’m a non-theist, I don’t believe in the monotheistic conception of God. If such a being existed, I doubt he would be omnipotent and I would doubt he would be good.

Excellent and Challenging Question, my friend! Please consider the following personal understandings. Also, please note that the following is my first attempt at strictly defining goodness, so it will need updating.

To recognize this concept simply: Ask yourself, if you could, How would you create many free-willed beings and guide them to choose to be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated, so they may experience and spread the means to unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy, without sacrificing their free-will?

Now I will try to offer a more detailed explanation:
In order to understand why God cannot be evil, we must have a working definition of God’s purpose for us, a strong definition of perfectly good, an understanding of evil, and the big picture.

God’s purpose for us
Because God experiences and knows the awesomeness of the blessings of unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy through the free-willed powers of perfect patience, kindness, and motivation, he wants to share that with other free-willed beings.
God wants us to experience and spread the means to unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy.
To achieve this, we have to freely choose to master the Greatest Commandments as Jesus stated and demonstrated in His Crucifixion: Always be patient and kind and motivated for God with all your body and all your spirit and all your thoughts and all your will towards God, others and yourself.

From this, we can define Perfectly Good as:
Any action which achieves and spreads the means to unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy through the powers of patience, kindness, and motivation in free-willed beings.

And from perfectly good, we can define good and evil as:
Any action which does not satisfy all the factors of a perfectly good action.
As well as perfectly evil:
Any action which negates all of the factors, simultaneously, of a perfectly good action.

Now take a look at the Big Picture:
In order to create and guide free-willed beings to always be perfectly patient and kind and motivated for the desires of peace, happiness, and energy, without sacrificing free-will, God must design an incredibly sophisticated and complex system, where He would be perfectly patient, kind, motivated, just, merciful, punishing, admonishing, present, yet invisible, wise, graceful, tangible, and intangible, and many others I have yet to learn.

Why God cannot be evil.
If for any instance He was evil, He would sacrifice some element of peace, happiness, and energy in Himself, the absolute free-will of the beings He created, and/or the ability to learn and achieve the means and the spreading of the means in His purposeful creations.

Regarding your last statement: I am sorry life experiences have lead you to believe that outlook on life. If you find my understandings to be helpful, I would gladly share other understandings regarding the necessity of the Christian God of Catholicism.

Thoughts?

 

[Daedelus76]

To recognize this concept simply: Ask yourself, if you could, How would you create many free-willed beings and guide them to choose to be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated, so they may experience and spread the means to unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy, without sacrificing their free-will?

I would choose not to create suffering or the possibility of suffering. Did God not have the choice of creation at all? If God was perfectly happy with himself, why create a world where people would suffer? I see God’s purpose behind creation as non-praiseworthy and non-virtuous. It only inspires worship in people that feel their life is good, to people that do not feel life is good, it’s just a judgement and rejection. This is not a compassionate ethic.

People that are on the bottom rung of the social and economic ladders tend to reject such stories unless they are given promises of eternal rewards or punishments based on their adherence to the narrative/religion. It is not surprising to me that in Europe and Australia/New Zealand there’s a strong current of atheism among the working class and lower class that view Chritsianity as a tool of oppression of the ruling class- it’s a very different idea from many in the US, where religion has been moderated by a consumerist ethic detached from state control.

God’s purpose for us
Because God experiences and knows the awesomeness of the blessings of unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy through the free-willed powers of perfect patience, kindness, and motivation, he wants to share that with other free-willed beings.

We only need patience, kidness, and motivation to deal with the suffering that God caused.

I do not believe in libertarian free will. Human behavior is due to causes and conditions beyond the self. This is why it’s ultimately wrong to be moralistic about peoples behavior, and why compassion is a better strategy to deal with things we don’t like in other people.

From this, we can define Perfectly Good as:
Any action which achieves and spreads the means to unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy through the powers of patience, kindness, and motivation in free-willed beings.

I believe ultimately we all do that, every one of us is trying our best to be happy. We are as patient, kind, and motivated as we can be given our circumstances. If some omnipotent being would judge us after He created us knowing how we would be before we were born, He would have to be evil. This is why I find the concept of God as both Creator and Judge as incoherent in monotheism. For that matter, it makes free-will absurd too. If God creates us, he also has a hand in the “free” choices of other people, like our parents decisions to mate. In effect, he causes this, because he foreknows what people will do and creates them anyways. Otherwise, God is not our Creator in the sense of being the cause of our being.

In order to create and guide free-willed beings to always be perfectly patient and kind and motivated for the desires of peace, happiness, and energy, without sacrificing free-will, God must design an incredibly sophisticated and complex system, where He would be perfectly patient, kind, motivated, just, merciful, punishing, admonishing, present, yet invisible, wise, graceful, tangible, and intangible, and many others I have yet to learn.

So many descriptions of God- if God is everything God is also nothing.

Thoughts?

Well… I’m still not convinced the Catholic description of the world or God is accurate or a better guide than any other. It’s clear Catholics think of God as good but from my perspective your willingness to let God just off the hook in the name of free-will is dangerously close to demonolatry as it opens the door to worshiping unilateral power and the veneration of the Status Quo, and the diminishment of the voice of the oppressed who do not find this world to be “life-affirming”, welcoming, or happiness inducing. Where is the voice for them in your faith? Putting God on the dock, or rather, religious ideas about God on the dock, is precisely my prerogative as a modern human being that’s heir to the humanistic traditions of the world.

I consider process theism another possibility at one time, if you are familiar with that. But the God of process theism isn’t necessarily the same as the God of Catholic theology (or classical Protestant theologies), and in the end I decided that process theism has so little interaction with the Christian tradition and piety that Christianity isn’t a viable spiritual path. There are Buddhist sentiments sometimes similar to process theism too (in Shin Buddhism).

 

[JDaniel]

Being as I don’t really believe in God, I’m curious to know the Catholic arguments for why God, if he exists, cannot be evil. I have heard that Thomist theology has arguments about this, but I’d like someone to explain this to me.

You mean, besides the obvious? That is, that a being that is at once good and evil would be completely contradictory?

Ok: if we were all under the tyranny of an evil god, one that is not only evil, but also omnipotent, do you think anyone would find existence tolerable? We can’t even comprehend “omnipotent evil.” The combination of the two notions renders them unthinkable! (Try it; really push your imagination to its limit.)

And for what it’s worth, I’m a non-theist, I don’t believe in the monotheistic conception of God. If such a being existed, I doubt he would be omnipotent and I would doubt he would be good.

More contradictions. For example, you do not believe in a “monotheistic god,” so, you believe in a plurality of gods? Also, how would the universe look without an “omnipotent” power of some sort, probably God, who presumably creates things where there was nothing before, like the universe? Either Omnipotent God did it, or it was done by an incomprehensibly improbable omnipotent, non-rational, non-purposeful chance event. Which of these two notions has the most merit?

What would be the most evil thing you could imagine? What do you think? Eternal physical torture, probably? Well, one part of what you think would be right: God would not be a “good god” in that scenario. Now, do you think that the world is really like that? For everyone?

jd

 

[Lisa44]

…

Evil doesn’t exist? What was the Holocaust then? And if evil is merely a privation of good ,why couldn’t God have created a universe without privation, if he is omnipotent?

Hi, I appreciate that you appreciate the complexity of the issue.

I do believe in ontological evil because without it nothing makes sense to me. Although it is a big debate among Catholics and many here will tell you there is no such thing as ontological evil. Still, Jesus says that Satan is the ruler of this world.

So then you ask the question why would God create evil? There is a problem with this assumption that God created evil because evil cannot come from good. The bible says that a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit. So if God is all loving and good then he cannot be the cause of evil. So therefore we have to posit an evil cause for the effects of evil.

So then we either have a separate source of evil, Satan, which God allows to function. Or we have a God who is not totally all-powerful, who cannot completely control the function and source of evil in this universe. (this is mostly a gnostic idea).

I too find the Jewish concept of evil to be incomplete. Evil is not merely a privation of good. A privation of good is just banality. Simply not good. If something is just not good, that doesn’t make it evil. Evil is something entirely different. The Holocaust was evil. There was definitely an evil power that was guiding and giving its energy to that massive event. And there were people that gave their will over to that power to complete those acts for it. Those people are in hell. I don’t think that can be doubted. It was a great victory for the devil.

I tend to agree with you that there must be a source for evil, otherwise, we have to say that God permits evil, and I don’t think God ever permits evil because he is all good right?

If God permits evil then he isn’t all good, but he allows evil and that makes him not ‘all good’.

It is possible that God allows Satan to rule over this world because it serves a greater good. For instance, if a rancher kills a wolf because it serves the greater good of his flock to protect them from the wolf, even if he has to murder the wolf.

But that is an incremental evil and we are talking about the Totality of evil… meaning, the whole situation of birth and death and suffering as the BASIS for our existence.

And that Evil, is difficult to understand. This is what people debate about. It is not just simply that there is evil IN this world, but that this world IS evil.

This comes down to the individuals perspective about this world. And it is taught to us by Jesus that Satan is the RULER of this world, which means that evil predominates in this world, not good. And I think most people can understand that if they look around.

Also the bible says that we cannot serve TWO masters. So that means that there is a evil master, and a good master. And we can’t serve both of them. Its one or the other, so chose carefully.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Daedelus76;8560694:

And for what it’s worth, I’m a non-theist, I don’t believe in the monotheistic conception of God. If such a being existed, I doubt he would be omnipotent and I would doubt he would be good.

More contradictions. For example, you do not believe in a “monotheistic god,” so, you believe in a plurality of gods?

Actually he said he might entertain a deistic god.

At best I think I accepted something like Deism, there was a first cause but it doesn’t interact with people, and that Jesus was just a wisdom teacher.

 

[Lisa44]

Let me summarize it this way, either God is all powerful, and he allows some evil to exist, which means he is not 100% good because he allows evil. Or, God is not all powerful, and he is 100% good, and doesn’t control evil, but evil has real power in the universe.

Given that Jesus said that Satan rules this world, and given that Jesus is love, I would have to say that Satan is not part of God (Jesus/Love) and that Satan exists just as God exists but in opposition to God.

And this makes sense to me because when God gave us free will, he relinquishes the outcome of the event to some extent.

If God is omnipotent then he knows the outcome of the event and therefore we can’t really have free will if the outcome is already known. (we might ‘think’ we have free will but its really an illusion).

So either we have free will, and God is not omnipotent (meaning he doesn’t know what we will choose). Or God is omnipotent and we do not really have free will but it is an illusion.

If God is omnipotent and all powerful then he created evil, and we don’t really have free will. Which means God made us to suffer. And he made some to do evil acts and go to hell.

Or if God is not omnipotent, and we do have free will, and God does not control the outcome of our lives nor does he control evil, then God can be all good, and we can really have the choice over which master we choose to serve…

So I would have to deduce the last position to be true. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make any sense.

 

[Perplexity]

WLC’s axiological argument was brought up, just wanted to offer some thoughts on that:

1. If God didn’t exist, then objective moral values wouldn’t exist.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. God exists.

(There are variations, but I don’t consider them that significant)

So, the first thing I want to say is if (1) is a material conditional, then many atheists will have to say it’s false, and thereby reject (3). This is because a material conditional is only false if its antecedent is true and its consequent false. Since the atheist must say the antecedent is true, that’s half the battle. If he denies the consequent (as many do), then the argument fails.

Of course, Craig can offer (1) as a counterfactual or whatever but he’s to blame for proposing a vague argument for the sake of reaching the public. Not like these other options matter anyways, since if you deny the antecedent of (1), anything follows from a necessarily false proposition, but that digresses into modal logic and a can of metaphysical worms.

Another way of rejecting (3) would be to do as Stephen Law (and really atheists in general) suggest, and reformulate the argument:

1’. Either God exists or objective moral values exist.

2’. God doesn’t exist.

3’. Therefore, objective moral values don’t exist.

That is to say, if we grant (1) of WLC’s argument, and reject God’s existence, then we must deny objective moral values. The question would be which is the worse bullet to bite: denying God’s existence, or objective moral values. That just depends on how convincing the person finds atheism.

lots to be said on this

In relation to the OP, nothing about this argument requires the God in question to be good.

 

[JDaniel]

If God is not obvious or provable maybe you can forgive people like me for being skeptical of your religion’s claims.

Deadelus:

Of course we can - and, what’s more important, we do.

And who let this “Father of Lies” free to do as he pleased on helpless creatures? There is no distinction for an omnipotent being between allowing something to happen and willing it to happen. If I can’t accept the Genesis story, I certainly can’t accept this idea that Jesus’ death somehow remedies that. So, theists will have to persuade me on other grounds

The various notions about heaven are that it consists of levels, minimally three (and perhaps up to twelve). The highest of these levels is the Beatific level, also called God’s level. The middle level is the angelic level. It is the level where there are angels who are not yet ready for the top level, i.e., not yet ready to see God’s face. and, the lowest level, is the earthly level. It is the level where humans and the fallen angels dwell. That is why we are, unfortunately, associated with Satan. Recall: we are ALL angels, souls, spirits, and so forth, it’s just that we (humans) are incarnate. By the way, it won’t be any of us that “persuades” you.

Evil doesn’t exist? What was the Holocaust then?

Do “shadows” exist? Does “cold” exist, or is the privation of light or heat? Is the Holocaust “evil?” Or, do we ontologically see (know) the horror of it? Is it the ‘evil,’ or are/were the perpetrators who/what were ‘evil?’

And if evil is merely a privation of good ,why couldn’t God have created a universe without privation, if he is omnipotent?

A good question; one that has been asked herein perhaps a thousand times. So, you’re in good company! God creates either that which is equal to him, or lesser than him. In creating Christ and the Holy Spirit, he created equals, which when understood properly, are the self-same. Thus, the Trinity is not three Gods, it is the “self-same” one God.

God, however, is a being in which every capacity is maximal. “Creativity” is a capacity among those. Therefore, He is always “creating” and “causing.” He creates each existing being and causes us to persist. This activity fulfills these capacities, infinitely.

The problem still stands. I do not need an ultimate authority to say something is evil, saying it is evil just reflects my own personal viewpoint of things.

You are refreshingly honest.

I don’t pretend to be objective, and I don’t view this as Satanic (what I view as truely satanic is authoritarianism that says I have no right to my own viewpoint, that I must submit to somebody else’s).

And is that the epitome of ‘evil’ for you? I assume you think that the Church is that “authoritarian” rule that says you do not have a “right to your own viewpoint?” Why so?

In the same way, a theist saying God is good doesn’t really mean God is objectively good, but that merely they think God does good things for them.

Let’s look at the big picture. When we die, we either enter a non-carnate existence, or, we are simply recycled, and all of the power (potentiality) that we as rational animals had, is shut off, forever. Like a one-time only light switch. Either way, death is not ‘evil,’ nor is it all that uninviting. Don’t we tend to over-color the unacceptability of death?

Even a murderer or monster would seem good to a child that was given candy and new nothing about the rest of his or her life.

Thus, to your point of view, all Christians are being duped? By the Church, I presume? The Church passes out candy and we are naively happy?

Why this God supposedly allows suffering has bugged me my whole life, and is one reason I have had issues embracing theism.

How many infinite gods do you think it would take before they would be overlaid with themselves to the pont that they would no longer be God? Do you really think that that would be the most efficient way to create multitude? Or, perhaps is the way we are being created now the more efficacious way? Especially, if we are only “thoughts-in-the-mind-of-God?”

I know it gives people warm fuzzy feelings, but for me its difficult to understand.

Again, you’re in good company. You’re OK!

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

Maybe because I was born with birth defects, am disabled, and never felt that a Creator really cared about me as an individual.

What do you do, i.e., for a living (you do not have to be specific)?

He seems to will happiness for a few people and misery for others.

And so, you think that your so-called “happy people” are in a better situation than you? Do you think you are not having an effect - on others - by your dialogue here and now? Do you not think that some so-called “happy people” might not be improved by reading your words? Do you think that your negativity cannot be efficacious?

He doesn’t seem to really answer prayers, either (and I have tried, and found it to be unreliable… so now I don’t pray).

Always remember: God is Infinite. As such, his view of existing phenomena is an instantaneous one, i.e., he sees all of Existence, and all of Time, in a unified Now. How else could an Infinite Being see it?

At best I think I accepted something like Deism, there was a first cause but it doesn’t interact with people, and that Jesus was just a wisdom teacher.

And Jesus did teach! Creation is a rather instantaneous thing for God. For us, on the other hand, it is perceived as a roll-out. We exist in a roll-out so why doesn’t He? Also, remember, we are only here for an infinitesimally short duration when compared against the backdrop of eternity. While here, it is our primary task to help the other(s). We exist in-a-situation. That situation puts us on the inside looking out. If it were not for the ‘other’ we would not even think. So, we must be out-, or other-, directed. We are only interior when we look at other things. They are mirrors, in a sense, for us to see ourselves. If left to our internal selves, life would be absurd. As it is now, it is nearly there. Thank God for others. What can you do - for others?

The First Cause of the universe is either amoral or evil, either way I don’t think it matters to me. I’d be willing to hear evidence to the contrary.

Also remember that we are created “in the image of God.” If we ponder each one of our determinants (attributes), then maximize each one to the limits of our imaginations, we are imagining God, however imperfectly. Nevertheless, when we imagine ourselves in our roles as efficient causes, we can suddenly see how we simulate God. We place a piece of stainless steel on a folding and cutting machine, then guide the metal through the aspects of the machine to make a front panel for an oven door, all the while simulating God in his role of keeping everything in being and moving.

You are in front of your keyboard typing your posts, all the while simulating God in His role of maintaining Reality. What we do here and now seems to us trivial. In the larger scheme of things, it is far, far from trivial.

I guess I embrace Taoism or Buddhism moreso… the world is filled with suffering,

Do you think He might have created us so that there would be help for the suffering?

is unsatisfactory, and happiness ultimately can only be found by being detached from it.

That’s the impetus of charitable works.

That means I really don’t care for life-affirming religions, because they essentially do not face up to the pain in the world but ultimately declare that the pain and misery is an illusion (Hindusm, Christianity).

Rather, they may face it in a much, much graver way. They know it is their’s to help, like a Mother Theresa. But, can only do what they are capable of doing. Extraordinarily frustrating and painful. Yet, without the Churches - all of them - suffering would be several fold greater. Take the government in America; it can only provide a portion of the needs of those suffering. Churches take up the slack. Churches consist of people; people with a singular will to love one another as you love yourself. If Charity is done for any other reason, it is not done the way God expects.

God bless,
jd

 

[danserr]

WLC’s axiological argument was brought up, just wanted to offer some thoughts on that:

1. If God didn’t exist, then objective moral values wouldn’t exist.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. God exists.

(There are variations, but I don’t consider them that significant)

So, the first thing I want to say is if (1) is a material conditional, then many atheists will have to say it’s false, and thereby reject (3). This is because a material conditional is only false if its antecedent is true and its consequent false. Since the atheist must say the antecedent is true, that’s half the battle. If he denies the consequent (as many do), then the argument fails.

Of course, Craig can offer (1) as a counterfactual or whatever but he’s to blame for proposing a vague argument for the sake of reaching the public. Not like these other options matter anyways, since if you deny the antecedent of (1), anything follows from a necessarily false proposition, but that digresses into modal logic and a can of metaphysical worms.

Another way of rejecting (3) would be to do as Stephen Law (and really atheists in general) suggest, and reformulate the argument:

1’. Either God exists or objective moral values exist.

2’. God doesn’t exist.

3’. Therefore, objective moral values don’t exist.

That is to say, if we grant (1) of WLC’s argument, and reject God’s existence, then we must deny objective moral values. The question would be which is the worse bullet to bite: denying God’s existence, or objective moral values. That just depends on how convincing the person finds atheism.

lots to be said on this

In relation to the OP, nothing about this argument requires the God in question to be good.

On the contrary, the argument, if successful certainly requires God to be good.

As to your questions about formulation of the argument, I find what you are saying unclear (Craig says in the link that he does think the argument is a conterfactual); Craig has a post on some of those issues here: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9017

Now the argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist,
3. Therefore God exists

This is a valid argument. The conclusion inevitably follows from the premises. If the premises are more plausible than their denials (as seems probable), then the argument is a good one that shows God to be good.

If Law is really saying what you claim (and I am not sure he is) then his argument is obviously fallacious. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If God did not exist (at least according to your argument), it would follow that objective moral values do exist. However, both his premises 1 and 2 are can be attacked, not only 2 as you seem to think. The only possible defense of his premise one would be the euthyphro dilemma, but he admits that Craig’s argument is not vulnerable to it. Hence he did not bring it up in their recent debate.

So, as the moral argument shows:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. therefore God exists.

The question is which premise will the atheist deny? 1 is certainly more plausible than not, being supported by atheists (like Michael Ruse, Dawkins, Nietsche) and theists alike. As Michael Ruse says “morality is just a biological adaptation like hands or feet.” And without God, he is right.

Similarly, premise 2, that objective moral values and duties do exist, also seems plausible. Some things really are wrong independent of what people think. It really is wrong to rape and kill a little child. It would still be wrong even if all society thought it right. Even the atheist Louise Anthony admits that any argument for moral nihilism will contain premises less plausible than their denials.

But if both premise one and two are more plausible than not, it follows that God exists on the basis of objective moral values and duties. Anyone who would deny this, must ask themselves which of the two premises they will deny and why.

 

[Perplexity]

On the contrary, the argument, if successful certainly requires God to be good.

You make this claim twice but don’t support it once.

As to your questions about formulation of the argument, I find what you are saying unclear (Craig says in the link that he does think the argument is a conterfactual); Craig has a post on some of those issues here: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9017

Sure, he has to run it as a counterfactual because otherwise it can’t get off the ground. Counterfactuals are very messy business though, there is no generally accepted account of counterfactuals. (Even though Lewis’ semantics are broadly accepted, it’s a very, very shaky ground to base an argument for God on)

I don’t find the first premise plausible at all, especially when you try and define ‘objective’, it usually ends up backfiring against the theist here. e.g., ‘Objective means independent of persons’, God is a person, therefore moral values and duties are independent of God.

If Law is really saying what you claim (and I am not sure he is) then his argument is obviously fallacious. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If God did not exist (at least according to your argument), it would follow that objective moral values do exist. However, both his premises 1 and 2 are can be attacked, not only 2 as you seem to think. The only possible defense of his premise one would be the euthyphro dilemma, but he admits that Craig’s argument is not vulnerable to it. Hence he did not bring it up in their recent debate.

Law claimed to argue as I said, several times in his debate and also on his blog in reflections on the debate. It’s nothing peculiar to Law though. The argument that I presented certainly is not fallacious. (3’) follows deductively from (1’) and (2’) via disjunction. (1’) is simply a rephrasing of WLC’s (1); so if it is controversial (as you seem to suggest) so much the worse for WLC’s argument. Of course (2’) can be objected to, however because the atheist accepts (2’), if she accepts WLC’s (1), she must deduce (3’).

The question is which premise will the atheist deny? 1 is certainly more plausible than not, being supported by atheists (like Michael Ruse, Dawkins, Nietsche) and theists alike. As Michael Ruse says “morality is just a biological adaptation like hands or feet.” And without God, he is right.

This sounds like WLC now It’s certainly more plausible than not? Why? Oh, you know because atheist philosophers think so. Also, evolution doesn’t account for it.

lol. That’s not motivation for (1). Far as I can tell you’ve offered no substantive reason for accepting (1). You don’t want to get into quoting philosophers either because the vast majority of moral philosophers reject this argument, theists included.

Similarly, premise 2, that objective moral values and duties do exist, also seems plausible. Some things really are wrong independent of what people think. It really is wrong to rape and kill a little child. It would still be wrong even if all society thought it right. Even the atheist Louise Anthony admits that any argument for moral nihilism will contain premises less plausible than their denials.

Sure, I agree (2) is plausible. But, if God’s existence is less plausible than (2), it’s more reasonable to accept (3’) than (3). You might say God’s existence is more plausible, but that’s really a personal thing: what you consider more plausible and why. Scales need to be weighed here.

 

[danserr]

You make this claim twice but don’t support it once.

The claim I made is that if the following argument is sound, then the existence of objective moral values and duties gives us reason to think that a good God exists.

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. objective moral values and duties do exist,
3. therefore God exists.

• You may deny the argument, but you cannot deny that I am correct when I say that “*if *this argument is successful, it shows that God is good.”

The fact that you are trying to be skeptical even on this obvious point suggests, forgive my directness, that you are less concerned to find out truth here, and more concerned to find some way to deny the argument and its conclusion.

You suggest, for example that a counter-factual should not be used in an argument for God, because it is supposedly shaky, but you give me no reason for thinking why; neither have I ever heard one of Craig’s opponents claim that his argument is weak because it uses a counterfactual in the first premise.

As for “objective,” by calling moral values and duties objective, I simply mean they they are independent of what human persons think. If you try to push beyond this and claim they are still subjective if based in God, then you are trying to bring up the Euthyprho dilemma, which Law himself admitted does not work against the moral argument above. so much for any problems with the meaning of “objective.”

You mention Law’s argument:
1’. Either God exists or objective moral values exist.
2’. God doesn’t exist.
3’. Therefore, objective moral values don’t exist.

The problem is that 3 does not follow. On the contrary If God did not exist, then it would follow that objective moral values did (from premise 1). If as premise one says, only either A or B exists, and A does not, it follows that B does, not, as you say that B does not.

Furthermore, both premise 1 and 2 are highly dubitable. I focus on 1 here.

1. Premise 1 as stated holds that the existence of God and the existence of objective moral values are mutually exclusive. How could one support this? The main way is the euthyphro dilemma, but as I said above, Law himself admits that the euthyphro dilemma does not work against Craig’s moral argument! So premise one of your reformulated argument seems wholly without support, nor have you attempted to support it.

I think that you are really trying to find a way to say is that one could decide that God’s existence is so incredibly improbable that one who thought that the existence of objective moral values and duties depended on his existence , would simply have to deny the existence of those moral values and duties. I grant this and have no problem doing so. But note this this requires you to deny the existence of objective moral values and duties and, as Anthony says, any argument for moral nihilism will contain premises less plausible than their denials.

So to return to the moral argument:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. objective moral values and duties do exist,
3. therefore God exists.

In defense of premise 1, I pointed out that evolutionary naturalism, as the main competing worldview to Christianity, provides a poor basis for the existence of objective moral values and duties. If God does not exist, then morality is simply the result of socio-biological conditioning, which hardly provides an objective basis for it.
You mock this idea and my post, but offer no reason to doubt it. Furthermore, I have not simply appealed to authority, but also pointed to one of the reasons that Ruse gives for so thinking. You have not done the same.

Premise 2, that objective moral values and duties do exist, you admit to be plausible, as Anthony says (above). But if both premise 1 and 2 are more plausible than their denials, then it follows that we have a good argument for God’s existence on the basis of objective moral values and duties.

 

[jochoa]

To my friend, Daedelus: First, I am sorry you have been presented a more difficult path than others. My hope is to help you empower yourself for you are helping me by taking the time to consider my thoughts and share your perspective. Regarding your thoughts:

I would choose not to create suffering or the possibility of suffering.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to create free-willed beings without the possibility of suffering. In order to ensure there is no suffering and the lack of the possibility of suffering in the beginning, one would have to limit the will.

Did God not have the choice of creation at all?

God has free-will, therefore He has the option to not create. However, if He knows how to have and spread perfect peace and happiness and energy, but chooses not to, He would be fully selfish which is a factor of evil. The concept of not sharing successful means, unless at a monetary value, is what the big money-making humans of the world do, and it this lack of sharing attitudes which is one of the foundations of horrible evil in the world. God, on the other hand, had to fully sacrifice Himself to share the means to others.

If God was perfectly happy with himself, why create a world where people would suffer?

Please note that there is a difference between perfectly happy and limitlessly happy. Perfectly happy is limited to interactions of the self. Whereas limitlessly happy is two or more free-willed beings adding perfect kindness to each others’ lives.
Further notes:
He created a world where people would suffer because He has to allow free-willed people the opportunity to show that they will freely choose to achieve and spread the means to unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy for the sake of greater peace, happiness, and energy as a society. Once we show whether or not we will be unconditional or conditional, He will then judge accordingly. In other words, if I will only be patient and kind towards people because they are patient and kind to me, then I will not freely choose to love (it is conditional). Whereas if I will choose to love people even though they are impatient and mean towards me, then I have freely and unconditionally chosen to love.

I see God’s purpose behind creation as non-praiseworthy and non-virtuous…

Unfortunately, in response to this, I can only encourage you to focus greater on Jesus Christ and His Crucifixion. If you are trying to understand God, the Father, without understanding Jesus Christ, the Son, you will always end up confused and frustrated.

We only need patience, kidness, and motivation to deal with the suffering that God caused.

Please consider the following points:

1. So you are willing to credit God for pain and suffering, but you are not willing to credit God for creation? Either…
   recognize that God created us, and credit ignorant, selfish, and conditional humans for pain and suffering,
   OR
   recognize that we are purposeless animals, and credit ignorant and selfish humans for pain and suffering, then recognize that the only way to achieve and spread the means to unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy as a society and individuals is through the words of Jesus Christ in the Greatest Commandments, as demonstrated by Jesus Christ in His Crucifixion, as Catholicism teaches.

I do not believe in libertarian free will. Human behavior is due to causes and conditions beyond the self…

Your point is definitely valid, however I think it is incomplete. If one is not aware of a means to be unconditional, then they are limited to conditional behavior. However, if one knows of a means to be unconditional, then s/he has complete free will.

…If God creates us, he also has a hand in the “free” choices of other people, like our parents decisions to mate. In effect, he causes this, because he foreknows what people will do and creates them anyways…

In order to understand a working concept as to how God knows exactly what we will do, while not interfering with our free will, I encourage you to first gain an optimistic attitude to understanding the Christian God of Catholicism. For if you do not, pondering such concepts will only lead you to greater confusion, doubt, heartache, and frustration.

So many descriptions of God- if God is everything God is also nothing.

How do you define everything and nothing? One of the challenges of learning God is the consideration of perspective. If one considers God’s thoughts(what He Knows) and creations, then yes, He Knows and created Everything. Therefore, one could gracefully state this as God is Everything. And if one recognizes that God’s Spirit is immaterial, then one could validly state that God is invisible. Therefore, from consideration of only the perspective of the human eye, then yes, God is nothing. Both of these examples are incomplete, but justifiably valid.

Well… I’m still not convinced the Catholic description of the world or God is accurate or a better guide than any other…

Please do not judge Catholicism by my interpretations. I only share them in hopes of helping you grow closer to Catholicism because they have helped me grow greater in faith. Please directly learn from Jesus Christ. He is the Best Teacher!

I consider process theism another possibility at one time, if you are familiar with that…

I am not familiar with process theism. Please note that I know Jesus Christ of Catholicism is God because of the simplicity and incredibly deep wisdom found in the Scripture surrounding the Greatest Commandments, the Beatitudes, and the Content Wisdom regarding the Absolutes of Coming into Existence found in Two Lines of Scripture (John 1:1-2). I would gladly read any information you have to share regarding process theism.

Thoughts?