God created evil

[ShanPO]

​

Being cognitively open enforce a very hard constrain on any system meaning that the system should act one and only one way. This means that a agent/creature in principle does not have many options when it comes to decision since one and only one of those options is real. The act decision making is then solely the process to realize the only true option therefore we are not free.

The very act of decision making is about having options, and the free will to exert those options. I like chocolate milk, but sometimes I choose OJ. What you are saying is that one never has any choices, no chocolate milk, only OJ all the time, and that’s not the way it is.

I don’t exactly like your term cognitively open, and I really don’t like your definition. If a system is supposed to only act one way then yes, is has no choice, think of an assembly line. But we are not robots, humans can choose chocolate milk sometimes, just as they can choose to not follow God.

We do not live in The Matrix. We are free to live and choose our own paths as we wish. If you want to arm yourself, walk into a bank, and start blasting, you can. God has given us the ability to choose for ourselves, and even though He knows what our decisions are going to be, we still have the ability to make them, because we’re not being forced to do anything.

 

[Catolico65]

All I am asking is to answer this simple question: Based on what you say you think we are open to our decisions prior to make them? If you wish you can provide your axioms by definitions and we can start from there.

Your questions have been answered numerous times by numerous persons. If you tell me what your native language is I’ll translate so maybe you will understand.

 

[Bahman]

wish.

We all know how we construct reason based on experience. How do we construct wishes/desires? Do we have any control on them? If not why we should be responsible for them? To me the only way to control wishes is by reason hence we have two principle P1 reason and P2 wish that we act upon them. So our actions are based on these two principles hence we are not free.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

We all know how we construct reason based on experience. How do we construct wishes/desires? Do we have any control on them? If not why we should be responsible for them? To me the only way to control wishes is by reason hence we have two principle P1 reason and P2 wish that we act upon them. So our actions are based on these two principles hence we are not free.

reason (or even unreason) and wish, are yours and yours alone. You decide what they will be.

 

[Bahman]

The very act of decision making is about having options, and the free will to exert those options. I like chocolate milk, but sometimes I choose OJ. What you are saying is that one never has any choices, no chocolate milk, only OJ all the time, and that’s not the way it is.

The very act of decision making is not about having options but choosing one option at a time. Having options is necessary condition for decision making. What do you mean with exert when you define free will?

I don’t exactly like your term cognitively open, and I really don’t like your definition. If a system is supposed to only act one way then yes, is has no choice, think of an assembly line. But we are not robots, humans can choose chocolate milk sometimes, just as they can choose to not follow God.

How do you define being cognitively open when it comes to God? If God is cognitively open to our decision then it means that we have one option at a time since we are not cognitively open to our decisions until they are made but God is.

 

[Bahman]

reason (or even unreason) and wish, are yours and yours alone. You decide what they will be.

We can’t decide about reason since they are outcome thought or experience hence we have control on them. I have no control on my wishes and the way they emerge but I can suppress them using reason. The problem is either way around, whether I use reason or not to control my wishes, I am not free. I am not free for reason since they are dictated to me, and wishes just emerge and I have no control on them as well. So where is my freedom?

 

[grannymh]

The basic dilemma is about matching the ideas of omniscience, creation and free will together such that we find proper definition for these three concepts without any conflict.

Lets start from creator point of view to see what it requires. The basic requirement for act creation is that God should be cognitively open to its act or in another word its design otherwise nothing meaningful could possibly come out of creation (this statement should be discussed since meaningful requires a definition).

Thank you for responding to me.

What I am understanding is that you are attributing intellectual abilities to God. The basic dictionary definition of cognitive is that it involves conscious intellectual activity such as thinking, reasoning, or remembering. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition). It is a human mental process.

You correctly said in a previous post, that God has omniscience. This clearly states the intellectual difference between the Creator and the human creature.

From the human position, a person can think new thoughts and can produce new things starting with the invention of the wheel to today’s walks in outer space. We humans are amazing marvelous creatures. However, we cannot create in the same way that God created the universe with us as its inhabitants. We can be cognitively open to the good idea of flapping our arms so that we can fly over water; but, we do not have the power to do this on our own. Our human nature does not contain the power to fly. We do not have the bird’s nature. Nor does God have our restricted nature.

What I am trying to say is that our ability to “create”, for example, creating a home out of bricks etc., is not the same as God’s super-natural power to be the “maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible”. (Catholic Creed professed during Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

When it comes to God’s act of creation, there is more than being cognitively open to the acts of creation. God has the power to create that which is beyond human capabilities. God is not restricted to the material world.

I am interested in knowing your thoughts about adding an axiom about God’s super-natural power. Personally, I think that distinguishing the Creator’s power from the power of the created human creature is important. What say you?

Another thought – regarding your comments
“The basic requirement for act creation is that God should be cognitively open to its act or in another word its design otherwise nothing meaningful could possibly come out of creation (this statement should be discussed since meaningful requires a definition).”
I would offer that this is part of both omniscience and infinite power. Omniscience is not alone. There needs to be the “power” to create something meaningful in terms of goodness. I would like to know how you view meaningful. To me, the most meaningful part of creation is the human person, you and me.

I know that there is a lot more in your post. However, I would like to first discuss the above before continuing.

Thank you.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

We can’t decide about reason since they are outcome thought or experience hence we have control on them. I have no control on my wishes and the way they emerge but I can suppress them using reason. The problem is either way around, whether I use reason or not to control my wishes, I am not free. I am not free for reason since they are dictated to me, and wishes just emerge and I have no control on them as well. So where is my freedom?

reason (or even unreason) and wish, are yours and yours alone. You decide what they will be.

 

[fhansen]

We all know how we construct reason based on experience. How do we construct wishes/desires? Do we have any control on them? If not why we should be responsible for them? To me the only way to control wishes is by reason hence we have two principle P1 reason and P2 wish that we act upon them. So our actions are based on these two principles hence we are not free.

Of course we are-because we don’t have to act on either one.

 

[fhansen]

Can you please give me a definition of will?

Free will is the ability to do this, or that, without being constrained to doing either.

 

[Bahman]

Of course we are-because we don’t have to act on either one.

We have to act on either one since we have no other option unless we go ideal when a decision is involved.

 

[Bahman]

Thank you for responding to me.

What I am understanding is that you are attributing intellectual abilities to God. The basic dictionary definition of cognitive is that it involves conscious intellectual activity such as thinking, reasoning, or remembering. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition). It is a human mental process.

You correctly said in a previous post, that God has omniscience. This clearly states the intellectual difference between the Creator and the human creature.

From the human position, a person can think new thoughts and can produce new things starting with the invention of the wheel to today’s walks in outer space. We humans are amazing marvelous creatures. However, we cannot create in the same way that God created the universe with us as its inhabitants. We can be cognitively open to the good idea of flapping our arms so that we can fly over water; but, we do not have the power to do this on our own. Our human nature does not contain the power to fly. We do not have the bird’s nature. Nor does God have our restricted nature.

What I am trying to say is that our ability to “create”, for example, creating a home out of bricks etc., is not the same as God’s super-natural power to be the “maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible”. (Catholic Creed professed during Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

When it comes to God’s act of creation, there is more than being cognitively open to the acts of creation. God has the power to create that which is beyond human capabilities. God is not restricted to the material world.

I am interested in knowing your thoughts about adding an axiom about God’s super-natural power. Personally, I think that distinguishing the Creator’s power from the power of the created human creature is important. What say you?

Another thought – regarding your comments
“The basic requirement for act creation is that God should be cognitively open to its act or in another word its design otherwise nothing meaningful could possibly come out of creation (this statement should be discussed since meaningful requires a definition).”
I would offer that this is part of both omniscience and infinite power. Omniscience is not alone. There needs to be the “power” to create something meaningful in terms of goodness. I would like to know how you view meaningful. To me, the most meaningful part of creation is the human person, you and me.

I know that there is a lot more in your post. However, I would like to first discuss the above before continuing.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your long post. I agree with you that omniscience and omnipotence are needed for act creation. The main problem in my side is that there is a serious conflict between omniscience and free will. To me the minimal requirement for act creation which preserves omniscience and free will is that God knows that act creation leads to something surprisingly meaningful, so called free will, but it could not know what free will is and how does function. Otherwise, we fall in trap of intelligent design meaning that God knows how intelligence functions under any possible circumstances hence we lose our freedom. This is a very tricky situation since it declares that creation and existence in general are different from God and our/human perspectives. This restricts omniscience with the price of granting free will and gives the option to us for completing each other, creator and creatures which is the most beautiful relation ever.

 

[ShanPO]

The very act of decision making is not about having options but choosing one option at a time. Having options is necessary condition for decision making. What do you mean with exert when you define free will?

How do you define being cognitively open when it comes to God? If God is cognitively open to our decision then it means that we have one option at a time since we are not cognitively open to our decisions until they are made but God is.

Your first paragraph makes no sense. Making a decision is choosing one option out of many. First you say making a decision is not about having option, but then you say having options is a necessary condition for decision making. That’s contradictory.

I have no idea how to define God as being cognitively open because as far as I can tell, you made that term up and choose to define it as you please. You never did answer my question if being omniscient is a precursor to being “cognitively open.”

 

[grannymh]

Thank you very much for your long post. I agree with you that omniscience and omnipotence are needed for act creation. The main problem in my side is that there is a serious conflict between omniscience and free will. To me the minimal requirement for act creation which preserves omniscience and free will is that God knows that act creation leads to something surprisingly meaningful, so called free will, but it could not know what free will is and how does function. Otherwise, we fall in trap of intelligent design meaning that God knows how intelligence functions under any possible circumstances hence we lose our freedom. This is a very tricky situation since it declares that creation and existence in general are different from God and our/human perspectives. This restricts omniscience with the price of granting free will and gives the option to us for completing each other, creator and creatures which is the most beautiful relation ever.

I hope I am correct in that you consider “free will” as something surprisingly meaningful. Since I consider the human person, you and me, as the most meaningful part of creation, we basically have the same thing to focus on – a human person with free will. What is on the table for discussion is a conflict between God’s omniscience and human free will.

The more I enter into this discussion, the more I am glad that God knows me as part of His omniscience. When I seek out God, I do not have to pretend that I am some great intellectual. God knows all my short-comings and He still loves me. I would think that God’s love and omnipotence would take care of any tricky situation involving free will conflicts.

Here are some basic thoughts to discuss. Catholicism constantly points out that the ultimate goal of a person is to live forever with God in joy eternal. At first glance, this goal seems impossible; however, as Scripture says so clearly, we are in the image of God. This “image” is the fact that we have a spiritual rational soul which gives us the intellect and will to seek the goodness of God. The term “free will” is a short way of saying that we have the freedom to seek our Creator, Who is the Greatest Good, and we have the freedom to accept or reject His calling us to share in His divine life. It may be possible to say that human nature is programed to seek and love God.

Could the “conflicts” be resolved by looking at God in one manner, omniscient and omnipotent and ourselves with limited knowledge and power?

I have always preferred the idea that God knows and loves each one of us on a personal basis. Is this similar to your reference to “the option to us for completing each other, creator and creatures which is the most beautiful relation ever.”

That is why I believe that we can find God’s method for solving what we see as conflicts. Could free will help us to bridge the distance between us and Him?

 

[Bahman]

Your first paragraph makes no sense. Making a decision is choosing one option out of many. First you say making a decision is not about having option, but then you say having options is a necessary condition for decision making. That’s contradictory.

You are correct on the fact that my phrasing sounds something false. Please read it this way: “Having options is necessary condition for decision making. The very act of decision making is not about having many options but choosing one option between two at a time.”

I have no idea how to define God as being cognitively open because as far as I can tell, you made that term up and choose to define it as you please. You never did answer my question if being omniscient is a precursor to being “cognitively open.”

That is the question? Apparently being cognitively open to creation leads to pure fatalism meaning that free will is an illusion. This however requires a clear definition of omniscience so the conflict between omniscience and free will is resolved.

 

[Bahman]

I hope I am correct in that you consider “free will” as something surprisingly meaningful. Since I consider the human person, you and me, as the most meaningful part of creation, we basically have the same thing to focus on – a human person with free will. What is on the table for discussion is a conflict between God’s omniscience and human free will.

That is the correct. Free will is necessary for a meaningful relation but it is not enough. We are in fact completing each other in other dimension as well such a knowledge and emotions. The main question as it was claimed is whether God sees/knows creation as creation sees/knows itself. That something which is the subject of discussion and I am working on a argument about it (basic idea behind OP). To me that is a important part of a meaningful relation and it is necessary since knowing everything, micro design, about a system leave no room for development of the system itself. In another hand micro design and freedom to evolve has serious conflict with each other. In another word micro design is necessary for having the knowledge about how system functions with the price that system cannot evolve on its own. So the main question are what God knows?, what we know?, what is knowable from our perspective and God perspective?

The more I enter into this discussion, the more I am glad that God knows me as part of His omniscience. When I seek out God, I do not have to pretend that I am some great intellectual. God knows all my short-comings and He still loves me. I would think that God’s love and omnipotence would take care of any tricky situation involving free will conflicts.

That is the subject of discussion as it was highlighted in previous paragraph. In other word, does God knows us as we know ourselves?

Here are some basic thoughts to discuss. Catholicism constantly points out that the ultimate goal of a person is to live forever with God in joy eternal. At first glance, this goal seems impossible; however, as Scripture says so clearly, we are in the image of God. This “image” is the fact that we have a spiritual rational soul which gives us the intellect and will to seek the goodness of God. The term “free will” is a short way of saying that we have the freedom to seek our Creator, Who is the Greatest Good, and we have the freedom to accept or reject His calling us to share in His divine life. It may be possible to say that human nature is programed to seek and love God.

This I had a long discussion about it on other thread. The fruit of that discussion as it is known in philosophy literature is that the substance dualism has serious issue namely interaction problem. This we can discuss it in more detail but unfortunately it forks the current state of discussion.

Whether we are a part of image of God is subject of discussion since it requires micro-managing and leads to identity problem.

Could the “conflicts” be resolved by looking at God in one manner, omniscient and omnipotent and ourselves with limited knowledge and power?

We are responsible on our part as far as our intelligence allows us. The important point as it was raised is that we can become cognitively open to many things through discussion and thought process but whether our view and God view at the end matches is subject of discussion.

I have always preferred the idea that God knows and loves each one of us on a personal basis. Is this similar to your reference to “the option to us for completing each other, creator and creatures which is the most beautiful relation ever.”

That I agree and should apply to knowledge as well.

That is why I believe that we can find God’s method for solving what we see as conflicts. Could free will help us to bridge the distance between us and Him?

Free will together with intelligence is the only door we have in our side to shorthen this distance. To use these tools properly, we have to constantly question our knowledge until our knowledge becomes anomaly free.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I hope I am correct in that you consider “free will” as something surprisingly meaningful. Since I consider the human person, you and me, as the most meaningful part of creation, we basically have the same thing to focus on – a human person with free will. What is on the table for discussion is a conflict between God’s omniscience and human free will.

That is the correct. Free will is necessary for a meaningful relation but it is not enough. We are in fact completing each other in other dimension as well such a knowledge and emotions. The main question as it was claimed is whether God sees/knows creation as creation sees/knows itself. That something which is the subject of discussion and I am working on a argument about it (basic idea behind OP). To me that is a important part of a meaningful relation and it is necessary since knowing everything, micro design, about a system leave no room for development of the system itself.

I do not mean to be arguing against what you are saying. However, I am going to present my personal clarification of what you are writing as another option of learning. I want to lay these options on the table so that they can be further examined. I hope that makes sense.

My thoughts regarding your comment “Free will is necessary for a meaningful relation but it is not enough.” – I would like to continue the idea that free will is not enough…and add that it is necessary to understand what our spiritual “will” is directed to. Because we are in the image of our Creator, our free will longs to be in “friendship” with our Creator God.

When we look at all the advertising, especially this time of the year, it looks like the goal of the human person is to live in material joy on earth. Being in a material environment, we seek material things to make us happy on planet earth. What is missing is that in order to really live in joy eternally, we need to be with our eternal, infinite Creator in heaven.

God has given us free will so that we can be master of our actions as we seek happiness. (CCC, 1730-1733) Because our own nature is an unique unification of both the material world (our decomposing anatomy) and the spiritual world (our immortal soul), it is possible to seek happiness in both worlds. What I like about the Catholic Church is that it teaches that God calls us to be with Him in the spiritual world of heavenly joy eternally. (CCC, 356) The spiritual world is the winner.

“By free will, one shapes one’s own life.” (CCC, 1731) Free will means that we are responsible for our choices.

Regarding the comment “The main question as it was claimed is whether God sees/knows creation as creation sees/knows itself.” This is true, because God is omniscient. However, we need to recognize that God sees creation as it truly is because He is the Creator. We are not the Creator, therefore, we see creation according to our human limitations. Can you agree with this point?

What I want to lay on the table is the observation that God’s view trumps our view. And because God is omnipotent, he has given humans the power to freely choose their own actions. At this point, we should consider God’s justice in that He is constantly calling us to Himself.

My personal view is that we need to really explore human life on earth before we can reasonably discuss “contradictions” with our human knowledge of God.

I know that this is a long way to get to the thread’s topic of “God created evil.”

But, my understanding is that you looking at creation as a whole – a system which one needs to be intellectually open to. Once we remove the conflict between God’s omniscience and human free will, we can recognize that “evil” is the result of human choices. It is not created by God.

Please note that this being Christmas Week, I will not have a lot of time for CAF.

May all of you have a Merry Christmas as we celebrate the joy of Christ’s birth.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you think lack of knowledge or lack of love are positive states or actions like cuddliness or a smirk or giving someone the cold shoulder?

The key word is “positive”. A smirk or giving someone the cold shoulder is clearly unfriendly and antagonistic behaviour.

If good and evil exist as anything other than notions inside our heads, there must be a way of weighing them, an objective measure. But the drone which kills a suspected terrorist and also kills some children is either good or evil according to whether you work for the CIA or are the mother of one of the dead children.

The precepts of Jesus are based on an objective difference between good and evil.

 

[Bahman]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I hope I am correct in that you consider “free will” as something surprisingly meaningful. Since I consider the human person, you and me, as the most meaningful part of creation, we basically have the same thing to focus on – a human person with free will. What is on the table for discussion is a conflict between God’s omniscience and human free will.

I do not mean to be arguing against what you are saying. However, I am going to present my personal clarification of what you are writing as another option of learning. I want to lay these options on the table so that they can be further examined. I hope that makes sense.

My thoughts regarding your comment “Free will is necessary for a meaningful relation but it is not enough.” – I would like to continue the idea that free will is not enough…and add that it is necessary to understand what our spiritual “will” is directed to. Because we are in the image of our Creator, our free will longs to be in “friendship” with our Creator God.

When we look at all the advertising, especially this time of the year, it looks like the goal of the human person is to live in material joy on earth. Being in a material environment, we seek material things to make us happy on planet earth. What is missing is that in order to really live in joy eternally, we need to be with our eternal, infinite Creator in heaven.

God has given us free will so that we can be master of our actions as we seek happiness. (CCC, 1730-1733) Because our own nature is an unique unification of both the material world (our decomposing anatomy) and the spiritual world (our immortal soul), it is possible to seek happiness in both worlds. What I like about the Catholic Church is that it teaches that God calls us to be with Him in the spiritual world of heavenly joy eternally. (CCC, 356) The spiritual world is the winner.

“By free will, one shapes one’s own life.” (CCC, 1731) Free will means that we are responsible for our choices.

Regarding the comment “The main question as it was claimed is whether God sees/knows creation as creation sees/knows itself.” This is true, because God is omniscient. However, we need to recognize that God sees creation as it truly is because He is the Creator. We are not the Creator, therefore, we see creation according to our human limitations. Can you agree with this point?

This is the part I have slight problem with it. Knowing the action of an agent requires full micro-design which turns free will is an illusion. In another word we have to restrict/redefine the definition of omniscience and design in order to leave some room for agent. This require a clear definition of creation as well since the creation is the focal point of design. The problem which opens up in this side is about quality of design such that allows the creation to function properly at the same time be free. This means that God knows something about creation and its design, knowing that full micro-design is a failure at the same time to some extend necessary. It is like making something which exactly need a correct amount of micro-design so some room is left for system itself therefore system can evolve around the concept of free will and find itself. This I call it omniscience which is different from traditional concept of omniscience. By now we have a definition of omniscience at the same time creation is free to act upon itself with the price that God could not know the details of creation action but have overall understanding which is necessary for a meaningful relation as well.

My personal view is that we need to really explore human life on earth before we can reasonably discuss “contradictions” with our human knowledge of God.

I know that this is a long way to get to the thread’s topic of “God created evil.”

But, my understanding is that you looking at creation as a whole – a system which one needs to be intellectually open to. Once we remove the conflict between God’s omniscience and human free will, we can recognize that “evil” is the result of human choices. It is not created by God.

I agree with you on your points but I would like to add two points, first how we could be sure that we are not open enough to analyze our understanding to get closer to what absolute truth is step by step, second what is necessary acts to reach to final point if we are still far from it? We need to examine/question our thoughts constantly and be open to discussion so we gradually become more and more open to subject matter.

 

[oldcelt]

This is the part I have slight problem with it. Knowing the action of an agent requires full micro-design which turns free will is an illusion. In another word we have to restrict/redefine the definition of omniscience and design in order to leave some room for agent. This require a clear definition of creation as well since the creation is the focal point of design. The problem which opens up in this side is about quality of design such that allows the creation to function properly at the same time be free. This means that God knows something about creation and its design, knowing that full micro-design is a failure at the same time to some extend necessary. It is like making something which exactly need a correct amount of micro-design so some room is left for system itself therefore system can evolve around the concept of free will and find itself. This I call it omniscience which is different from traditional concept of omniscience. By now we have a definition of omniscience at the same time creation is free to act upon itself with the price that God could not know the details of creation action but have overall understanding which is necessary for a meaningful relation as well.

I agree with you on your points but I would like to add two points, first how we could be sure that we are not open enough to analyze our understanding to get closer to what absolute truth is step by step, second what is necessary acts to reach to final point if we are still far from it? We need to examine/question our thoughts constantly and be open to discussion so we gradually become more and more open to subject matter.

There has been quite of bit of redefinition going on to place all the blame on humanity and absolve the creator of any responsibility for his creation.

For me, I’m doing the analyzing now. 56 years of hearing the standard tale should be enough for a person to see the cracks if they are looking.