God created evil

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Amandil: I’m not missing the point at all.

If you design a boat that won’t float, then it’s the fault of the designer, agreed.

If you design a boat that does float and the boat decides floating is not what it wants and throws itself upon a bunch of rocks and sinks itself. Then it’s not the fault of the designer.

Good Evening Amandil: It may be only my opinion, but my sense is that you are in fact missing the point. A boat neither decides to float or decides to sink. It does what conditions make it most likely to do, and if the designer fails to anticipate conditions in the design, it is the failure of the designer and not the boat. It does what it is designed to do. That said, I do not think you are getting my point for a wide range of reasons, including some inbuilt need to defend a God that I am not attacking. I simply believe that such an iteration of God doesn’t exist, because I do not believe that you and I are created. To be created, we would have to be objects, and I am suggesting that rather than being objects, we are actually events, or an unfolding that has no permanent form, as is the case with all things in the temporal world. Therefore, rather than being a person, I am asserting that you are a “personing,” like a flower is really a blossoming. You are never a thing. You are part of an unfolding, which is an event that in this universe started with a singularity that is reaching out and growing in complexity, and comes to know itself as it goes. You are the outermost reach of a splash that started billions of years ago and is still in the process of happening. You are part of a series of fractals that are embedded in one another like nested hierarchies, and our perceptions of ourselves and the world around us are simply a matter of what your rate of metabolism allows you to experience. Otherwise, it is simply a sea of endless possibilities, and the realities you are extracting from it are relational to a given set of sensory abilities and limitations, coupled with a given metabolic rate. You are making it happen. And it’s not God or anyone else’s fault. It simply is.

Marcionism has been emphatically rejected the Church.

You are simply viewing what I have said through the lens of yet another iron age Near Eastern mythology. I do not believe in the miscreant offspring of God that you are suggesting. In order to understand what I am saying, you will have to be a bit more imaginative.

“Sky Daddy lore” says just about everything that needs to be known in regards to your faith in God.

I don’t think you are in a position to assess my faith in God, unless you have come to some understanding of what I am suggesting. And I don’t think that you have arrived at an understanding.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Amandil]

Good Evening Amandil: It may be only my opinion, but my sense is that you are in fact missing the point. A boat neither decides to float or decides to sink. It does what conditions make it most likely to do, and if the designer fails to anticipate conditions in the design, it is the failure of the designer and not the boat. It does what it is designed to do. That said, I do not think you are getting my point for a wide range of reasons, including some inbuilt need to defend a God that I am not attacking. I simply believe that such an iteration of God doesn’t exist, because I do not believe that you and I are created. To be created, we would have to be objects, and I am suggesting that rather than being objects, we are actually events, or an unfolding that has no permanent form, as is the case with all things in the temporal world. Therefore, rather than being a person, I am asserting that you are a “personing,” like a flower is really a blossoming. You are never a thing. You are part of an unfolding, which is an event that in this universe started with a singularity that is reaching out and growing in complexity, and comes to know itself as it goes. You are the outermost reach of a splash that started billions of years ago and is still in the process of happening. You are part of a series of fractals that are embedded in one another like nested hierarchies, and our perceptions of ourselves and the world around us are simply a matter of what your rate of metabolism allows you to experience. Otherwise, it is simply a sea of endless possibilities, and the realities you are extracting from it are relational to a given set of sensory abilities and limitations, coupled with a given metabolic rate. You are making it happen. And it’s not God or anyone else’s fault. It simply is.

You are simply viewing what I have said through the lens of yet another iron age Near Eastern mythology. I do not believe in the miscreant offspring of God that you are suggesting. In order to understand what I am saying, you will have to be a bit more imaginative.

I don’t think you are in a position to assess my faith in God, unless you have come to some understanding of what I am suggesting. And I don’t think that you have arrived at an understanding.

Thank you,
Gary

I have a sufficient understanding that your position is not anywhere near identical to anything taught by the Church.

That said, I neither have any inclination to discuss anything with you on the subject since it would be profitable to neither you or I or anyone else reading this in that it would most assuredly lead to further errors being introduced by you.

God bless.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I have a sufficient understanding that your position is not anywhere near identical to anything taught by the Church.

That said, I neither have any inclination to discuss anything with you on the subject since it would be profitable to neither you or I or anyone else reading this in that it would most assuredly lead to further errors being introduced by you.

God bless.

Good Evening Amandil: Actually, it is not at all in conflict with the teachings of the Church, and very much in keeping with the teachings of Christ. It is simply in conflict with a certain shrink wrapped version that has been heavily trafficked for wider consumption for a rather thick and ordinary populace in a world that at the time for the most part couldn’t read and spent most of its time in bestial toil. Until now. And the Church is well aware of that. And therefore the Church does not maintain a strictly literal interpretation of events regarding creation from the Old Testament, and wisely so, I think. Further, the Church does not posit or recommend any ideas regarding our creation and our relationship to the world around us that doesn’t resonate with science and common 21st century knowledge. It wisely avoids any such enterprise at this juncture in the history of the development of the human intellect. Further, my ideas on the creation of our world were first postulated by a Roman Catholic priest, and are in fact the understanding that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences founded by Pope Pius XI currently accepts. You came from a singularity, not a cosmic tinkerer.

That said, I would ask for you to explain if you would be so kind, how what I have said is in conflict with the teachings of Christ or the Church. In turn, I will happily explain how I think it is not.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Amandil]

Good Evening Amandil: Actually, it is not at all in conflict with the teachings of the Church, and very much in keeping with the teachings of Christ. It is simply in conflict with a certain shrink wrapped version that has been heavily trafficked for wider consumption for a rather thick and ordinary populace in a world that at the time for the most part couldn’t read and spent most of its time in bestial toil. Until now. And the Church is well aware of that. And therefore the Church does not maintain a strictly literal interpretation of events regarding creation from the Old Testament, and wisely so, I think. Further, the Church does not posit or recommend any ideas regarding our creation and our relationship to the world around us that doesn’t resonate with science and common 21st century knowledge. It wisely avoids any such enterprise at this juncture in the history of the development of the human intellect. Further, my ideas on the creation of our world were first postulated by a Roman Catholic priest, and are in fact the understanding that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences founded by Pope Pius XI currently accepts. You came from a singularity, not a cosmic tinkerer.

That said, I would ask for you to explain if you would be so kind, how what I have said is in conflict with the teachings of Christ or the Church. In turn, I will happily explain how I think it is not.

Thank you,
Gary

Your pontifications are simply a verbose comparison to Nancy Pelosi claiming that the Church never said anything about abortion until Humane Vitae.

Its a convenient system to have, just make up whatever you want to believe and claim that whatever you believe is identical to what the Church teaches.

No thank you.

 

[oldcelt]

Your pontifications are simply a verbose comparison to Nancy Pelosi claiming that the Church never said anything about abortion until Humane Vitae.

Its a convenient system to have, just make up whatever you want to believe and claim that whatever you believe is identical to what the Church teaches.

No thank you.

I guess that’s a no Gary…you tried…so have others.

 

[Richca]

Same as previous…we are not omniscient…the Christian God is.

I’ll tell you what would stand in a court of law: You knowingly create something dangerous (think evil) and it kills someone. You will be convicted every time.

Again, according to your logic, our parents should be held responsible and are the cause of any crimes that we may commit throughout our lives including murder even if our parents were perfect parents in our upbringing since they are the cause, albeit a secondary cause, of our existence in the world. No court of law, if it has any common sense at all, is going to accuse non-negligible parents of the crimes their children commit. Now, God is infinitely perfect and exercises perfect providence over the universe and especially of human beings as He is our Father. In no way, shape, or form can He be accused of being negligent in providing what is necessary on His part for the good and eternal welfare of human beings. It appears to me that either you or your God or both have no sense of justice. The Christian God is justice itself and He loves justice as it is written:
“For I, the LORD, love justice” (Isaiah 61:8)

And:
The Rock—how faultless are his deeds,
how right all his ways!
A faithful God, without deceit,
just and upright is he! (Deuteronomy 32:4).

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Your pontifications are simply a verbose comparison to Nancy Pelosi claiming that the Church never said anything about abortion until Humane Vitae.

Its a convenient system to have, just make up whatever you want to believe and claim that whatever you believe is identical to what the Church teaches.

No thank you.

Good Evening Amandil: We are engaged in a discussion. Characterization of my remarks as verbose and my ideas as convenient are not a cogent reply to any points I have offered. I have invited you to engage in polite discussion, and it is my hope that we can conduct this dialog based on point/counterpoint rather than to continually simply reassert that the ideas of others are wrong. This is defensive behavior, and I can assure you that I am open to rational, well reasoned and clearly presented opposition to anything I have said.

You have said that I have made up whatever I want to believe and then claim that it is identical to what the Church teaches. That statement is only fair if you can offer reasoning as to why you think that is so. In turn, I am happy to provide reasoning to whatever level of detail you wish to delve as to why I think it is so.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[oldcelt]

Again, according to your logic, our parents should be held responsible and are the cause of any crimes that we may commit throughout our lives including murder even if our parents were perfect parents in our upbringing since they are the cause, albeit a secondary cause, of our existence in the world. No court of law is going to accuse non-negligible parents of the crimes their children commit. Now, God is infinitely perfect and exercises perfect providence over the universe and especially of human beings as He is our Father. In no way, shape, or form can He be accused of being negligent in providing what is necessary on His part for the good and eternal welfare of human beings. It appears to me that either you or your God or both have no sense of justice. The Christian God is justice itself and He loves justice as it is written:
“For I, the LORD, love justice” (Isaiah 61:8)

And:
The Rock—how faultless are his deeds,
how right all his ways!
A faithful God, without deceit,
just and upright is he! (Deuteronomy 32:4).

I’ve never known omniscient parents…have you? The rest is simply what you believe and it is curious how both quotes are from the OT.

As a writer, I don’t put any faith in the written word without thorough examination. Take a real look at the god of the OT.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Richca;

Again, according to your logic, our parents should be held responsible and are the cause of any crimes that we may commit throughout our lives including murder even if our parents were perfect parents in our upbringing since they are the cause, albeit a secondary cause, of our existence in the world. No court of law is going to accuse non-negligible parents of the crimes their children commit. Now, God is infinitely perfect and exercises perfect providence over the universe and especially of human beings as He is our Father. In no way, shape, or form can He be accused of being negligent in providing what is necessary on His part for the good and eternal welfare of human beings. It appears to me that either you or your God or both have no sense of justice.

Good evening Richca: The problem with this counterpoint (in my opinion and to the best of my ability to reason) is that no religious system has ever claimed that parents are all knowing, all good, all perfect and created their children out of clay in their own image. Once you say that, the Atheist side of this argument stands, because you cannot be all knowing, all powerful, relinquish control and then stand unaccountable. Once you offer up an idea of God such as this (which was clearly a machination of the ancient Hebrew mind) we have created a logically untenable position, which as a Catholic, I find rather curious.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Oreoracle]

Amandil,

I have decided to save us both a lot of time by asking what I think is the most fundamental question here. It’s sort of the “deal-breaker” if you will, and if we can’t agree on its resolution, we’re simply wasting each other’s time. But first, a disclaimer: When it comes to philosophy, I’m pragmatic. I don’t accept distinctions if I see no practical difference between the objects being distinguished.

If a solipsist tells me everything may be an illusion, my first question is how that would affect their life. Are they going to stop going to work, paying taxes, calling friends, and feeding themselves? Of course not. They’re going to live as if everything that is tangible is real, just like everyone else. So the distinction between “real” and “illusory” makes no practical difference in that case. In another thread I am debating the certainty of scientific conclusions. Another poster insists that methodological naturalism doesn’t guarantee that scientific theories are true, and I point out that there is no practical difference between something that is “true” and a sufficiently good approximation of the truth. Regardless of whether you think science yields the “absolute truth”, you are still going to partake in all the conveniences science has given us.

In the same vein, I don’t see the practical distinction between “will” and “free will” in your philosophy. We differ in that you don’t see a conflict between determinism and free will whereas I do. To me, free will is a modal claim. To say that I chose something freely is to say that I possibly could have chosen something else. But in your philosophy everything is necessary. God is necessary. His nature is necessary. His nature is to create us, so we are necessary. Our natures are necessary. Everything that follows from our natures, such as our actions, are also necessary. There is no room for mere possibility in your position; everything is necessary.

So here’s my question: Can you provide an example, or possibly multiple examples, in which there is an observable or otherwise falsifiable distinction between choosing something and choosing it “freely”? I will grant you that I choose to sin (if there is a God). I disagree that choosing something amounts to choosing it freely, however.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Can you provide an example, or possibly multiple examples, in which there is an observable or otherwise falsifiable distinction between choosing something and choosing it “freely”? . . .

:twocents:

I am choosing to write this,

• I don’t have to write this out of necessity.
• I am thinking about what I am writing unaffected by substances or mental disorder.
• I am not being forced to write this.
  Because of these and other conditions, what I write - truth or a lie - is being done freely.
  It is happening as a result of my free will.
  If this act were in opposition to the will of God I would be committing a grievous sin.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Take a real look at the god of the OT.

You do not believe Jesus; you most certainly cannot possibly do so.

 

[Amandil]

So here’s my question: Can you provide an example, or possibly multiple examples, in which there is an observable or otherwise falsifiable distinction between choosing something and choosing it “freely”? I will grant you that I choose to sin (if there is a God). I disagree that choosing something amounts to choosing it freely, however.

To add to what Aloysium said…

That’s the problem with determinism, it leaves free will out of the equation and only accepts heredity and environment as the cause for the human act:

H + E =A

They think that the alternative philosophy for free will is this:
H + E < A

That heredity plus environment together are less than the human act.

The Christian argument is this:
H + E + FW = A

Heredity plus environment plus free will equals the human act. Heredity and environment condition human acts, they do not determine them. They are necessary causes but not sufficient causes of freely chosen acts.

Look at how we use words. We praise, blame, command, counsel, exhort, and moralize to each other. We do not hold machines morally responsible for what they do, no matter how complicated the machines are. If there is no free will, all moral meaning disappears from language-and from life.

 

[Polita612]

I’ve never known omniscient parents…have you? The rest is simply what you believe and it is curious how both quotes are from the OT.

As a writer, I don’t put any faith in the written word without thorough examination. Take a real look at the god of the OT.

**Proverbs 18:2

A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.**

**Proverbs 15:32

He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, But he who heeds rebuke gets understanding.**

**Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;**

**James 3:16

For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.**

** 2 Timothy 3

3 Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times.

2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked,

3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness,

4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God:

5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.

6 For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires:

7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.**

 

[Oreoracle]

I am choosing to write this,

• I don’t have to write this out of necessity.

But are you choosing it freely? Has God not already ordained that you would write it? And, after his mind is made up, is there any alternative course of action?

Look at how we use words. We praise, blame, command, counsel, exhort, and moralize to each other. We do not hold machines morally responsible for what they do, no matter how complicated the machines are. If there is no free will, all moral meaning disappears from language-and from life.

I don’t feel that you addressed my question. I presented a chain of necessities that all follow from commonly accepted premises of Christian philosophy. What part of that chain do you not accept? To reiterate: God’s existence is necessary–> his nature is necessary–> his nature is to create, thus we are necessary–> our characteristics, including our personality flaws, are necessary, otherwise we wouldn’t be who we are–> our actions are therefore necessary, since they follow from our personality traits–> since sins are a subset of our actions, they are necessary. What part of this chain is contentious? If you accept that sins are necessary (from a modal point of view) in Christian philosophy, then we are in agreement. I refuse to call a choice that is necessary “free”, so our only disagreement would be as to how we should define “free”.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Has God not already ordained that you would write it? . . .

What do you mean “ordained”?

God speaks to us in time, so that we may know His will and act accordingly.
This is done today in many ways, particularly through His Church.

He does so in Genesis where He warns Cain.
This is done to ensure that Cain will choose freely and not merely act out his anger.
Cain made a free choice, because he was warned that sin was growing within him.
Doing God’s will he would have curbed the impulse.
He acted against God in killing his brother.

How would a God who gives us free will, make us in any way do something?
There is a contradiction in your understanding of God’s omnipotence and our free will.
You need to reflect and pray over this.

It is God’s will that I not put a bushel over the light He has given me. He wills that I share this with others. I could be watching funny youtube videos, but I believe He prefers that I do this. So I write. He doesn’t ordain that I do it.

As He sees me writing this, He also sees me at my conception and on my death bed. He is one, while existing in every time and in every place as Creator and as intercessor through the Word.

 

[Amandil]

I don’t feel that you addressed my question. I presented a chain of necessities that all follow from commonly accepted premises of Christian philosophy. What part of that chain do you not accept? To reiterate: God’s existence is necessary–> his nature is necessary–> his nature is to create, thus we are necessary–> our characteristics, including our personality flaws, are necessary, otherwise we wouldn’t be who we are–>

You’re fine right up to this point.

…our actions are therefore necessary, since they follow from our personality traits–> since sins are a subset of our actions, they are necessary.

This is where your “chain” fails to account for other factors in the human act.

Actions do not necessarily follow from “personality traits”.

And sins are not a “subset” of our actions. Sins are by definition not necessary because sins are directly contrary to our good.

E.g. masturbation is not necessary to the human person. It is instead the abuse of the sexual organ to simulate a natural act(conjugal sex). It is unnatural because it is only “like” to actual (conjugal) sex in a superficial way, it is unnatural because there is no woman involved, and it is unnatural because the end to actual sex-procreation-is purposefully avoided.

No sin, be it murder or theft, or even overeating or gossip, is necessary to the human person.

What part of this chain is contentious? If you accept that sins are necessary (from a modal point of view) in Christian philosophy, then we are in agreement. I refuse to call a choice that is necessary “free”, so our only disagreement would be as to how we should define “free”.

Sins are not necessary to human nature in Christian “philosophy”. What is necessary in Christian “philosophy” is the fact of sin’s existence in man, both Original and personal.

(See the distinction?)

I’ve defined what “free” means half-a-dozen times. Freedom is the responsibility to do what we ought according to our purposes and ends as humans.

Sins are not “free” because they necessarily entail an enslavement to some thing contrary to man’s nature or good.

Theft is an enslavement to a desire for things which the man assumes are his by rights.

Murder is an enslavement to a desire to revenge himself against some wrong, real or imagined, perpetrated by the victim.

Rape is an enslavement to a desire for power and lust over someone else.

You cannot ignore the problem with determinism that by it you undercut any real sense of anything ever being evil, period. If sin is “necessary”, then the entire idea of a system of justice, where there are laws and courts and judges and attorneys who advocate cases to determine a just outcome, is a farce.

If someone robs you or rapes you or your significant other, they are necessarily inclined to do so. And if you were consistent in your belief, and those crimes were committed upon you, you have no grounds for which to demand justice, because those “crimes” were necessarily determined, and you have to accept them as such.

Now you can argue that their crimes determined that you take a gun and murder them, but you haven’t solved the problem of determinism or free will, you’ve only demonstrated that sin creates more sin, and ultimately chaos.

 

[oldcelt]

**Proverbs 18:2

A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.**

**Proverbs 15:32

He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, But he who heeds rebuke gets understanding.**

**Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;**

**James 3:16

For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.**

** 2 Timothy 3

3 Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times.

2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked,

3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness,

4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God:

5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.

6 For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires:

7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.**

Isn’t cut and paste great? It’s even better when you make a salient point.

 

[Oreoracle]

You’re fine right up to this point.

This is where your “chain” fails to account for other factors in the human act.

Actions do not necessarily follow from “personality traits”.

I think my conception of personality is likely more general than what you had in mind. “Personality” includes any rationale you use to decide how you will behave and the factors that influence it; your beliefs, your temperament, your logic, your biases, your motivation, etc.

And sins are not a “subset” of our actions.

All I meant by that is that sins are things you do. They are not things that you don’t do, obviously, else we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

E.g. masturbation is not necessary to the human person. It is instead the abuse of the sexual organ to simulate a natural act(conjugal sex).

Then again, reproduction isn’t necessary to the human person. A person can be perfectly human without reproducing. (This is true even in Christian philosophy. Think celibacy.)

Would it be morally wrong if every human chose to become celibate and we didn’t have a next generation?

No sin, be it murder or theft, or even overeating or gossip, is necessary to the human person.

The only thing that is necessary to the human person is to have a certain genetic sequence. That is the only thing “essential” to being a human. Your usage of the word “necessary” is just to state things you like. Mine is in the usual, modal sense of the word, to indicate that things couldn’t be otherwise.

What is necessary in Christian “philosophy” is the fact of sin’s existence in man, both Original and personal.

So you admit that it is impossible for humanity to be sin-free even in principle?

I’ve defined what “free” means half-a-dozen times. Freedom is the responsibility to do what we ought according to our purposes and ends as humans.

And this is the fundamental disagreement we have. For me, “free” means things could have been different. To you, “free” is just a label that justifies placing blame on people.

 

[Amandil]

Then again, reproduction isn’t necessary to the human person. A person can be perfectly human without reproducing. (This is true even in Christian philosophy. Think celibacy.)

I never said that reproduction is necessary to the human person, I said that procreation is necessary to actual sex.

The only thing that is necessary to the human person is to have a certain genetic sequence. That is the only thing “essential” to being a human. Your usage of the word “necessary” is just to state things you like. Mine is in the usual, modal sense of the word, to indicate that things couldn’t be otherwise.

Now you’re begging the question. You can’t assume materialism as a premise without proving that materialism is true.

So you admit that it is impossible for humanity to be sin-free even in principle?

Not at all. Only that it is impossible to be “sin-free” according to any subjective view and/or according to their own power, ability, or merits.

And this is the fundamental disagreement we have. For me, “free” means things could have been different. To you, “free” is just a label that justifies placing blame on people.

Strawman.