God created evil

[Bahman]

I understand that this is what you believe.
As Catholics, I’m sure you know that we go by what has been revealed by God, as He has made Himself known through the Word and the Holy Spirit.
If you are forming a logical argument that does not include the truths of God’s existence in eternity and His being the creator of all including time, you aren’t going to get much of a following.

So you don’t accept the logic!?

 

[Bahman]

Look at it this way. Cold does not exist on its own. Cold is the absent of heat.

Evil does not exist on its own. Evil is the absent of goodness. Evil is the lack of something.

Cold is not absence of heat. Cold is opposite of hot. Heat is the energy which flows from hot to cold.

 

[Bahman]

No, because he is admitting that it is faith. The problem with Catholics is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. The Catechism says that “God can be known with certainty through the light of reason” but then says that faith is necessary. If we can know God exists with certainty, what’s the point of faith? Faith is, by definition, to believe in something in spite of the lack of evidence. It is impossible to have faith in something that one knows to be true.

very well said. In another word, why we should need faith if we could reason?

 

[Bahman]

Getting on a plane is requires faith in the fact that it was built properly to fly. You also trust that the pilots will get you there safely. You know the plane exists but you have faith and trust that it will deliver it you safely. That is how we see God, we know he exists but we have faith and trust in him that he will lead us down the right path to his kingdom if we put that faith and trust in him.

With the difference that we as human being are responsible on riding our own plane so we cannot depend on faith.

 

[tonyrey]

With the difference that we as human being are responsible on riding our own plane so we cannot depend on faith.

We have faith that we exist!

 

[Bahman]

We have faith that we exist!

I can even argue against that. The only truth that exists and cannot be argued is that things are experienced meaning that consciousness is primary. Even the sense of “I” is manifestation of consciousness since it is experienced. What is “I”? Nothing more than a local experience which could be subject to change upon death, meditation, etc.

 

[Amandil]

You answer me that how we could have disordered attachment if we are perfect?

I never said such.

You’re question assumes another false dichotomy. There are degrees of imperfection because imperfection is a relative.
Now what part of man’s imperfect state causes him to sin?

Bahman:

Freedom is freedom and responsibility is responsibility.

Freedom and responsibility are not mutually exclusive terms.

Bahman:

Train doesn’t have any degree of freedom. Could you please find a better example?

(Sigh)

Bahman:

That is freedom that allow us to do sin.

True, but our freedom ends by succumbing to sin.

Bahman:

Yes, and that is the purpose of living the best.

So it is your contention that people have achieved “perfection” on their own?

If so how do you know?

Bahman:

To accept a set of laws as moral axiom from God and any other authorities is a blind obedience.

How so? This assumes that such moral axioms are deceptive and unreasonable. Are you saying that a being known as God is necessarily untrustworthy and his ways must “make sense” to you before they can be true?

Bahman:

We have to first accept that good and evil are both real such that without one another one doesn’t have any meaning.

Evil is “real” only in the sense that it is the absence or privation of good. Evil does not have any existence of it’s own, it is not a “thing”, it definitely was not created by God.

Bahman:

I also make a distinction between evil and sin. This I already discuss it in another thread and it is beyond the topic of this thread but is simple word, good is coherence in view and evil is incoherence in view, good is light and evil is dark, etc.

Again you’re proven wrong by your own analogy. Darkness only exists in the absence of light.Just as cold only exists in the absence of heat. Both darkness and cold are relative terms, they do not “exist” of their own accord.

So your definition of “good” is at best incomplete. Your definition of evil is surely false.

Bahman:

Free will is necessarily is ordered to perfection with any price.

So free will is bought?

How is this coherent?

Bahman:

Will is multi-tasks so your example does prove anything.

That a will is ordered to multiple goods does not negate my point.

The second a will chooses something which is not good, it is no longer being used according to its purpose.

Bahman:

Following divine assistance is blind obedience.

Wrong. Following the assistance of someone who desires and wills your good is perfectly reasonable.

Following divine assistance is perfectly reasonable obedience.

Bahman:

It is not. You need to provide a reason.

I did. You can’t posit two options as the ONLY two when there are others that you have not considered.
That is by definition a false dichotomy.

Bahman:

1. Man’s imperfection is the source of sin
2. God is perfect meaning that God can only do good
3. Man falls in trap of sin as a result of imperfection
4. God is responsible for man’s imperfection hence fall hence sin
5. God created evil given circumstances

1 is backwards. Sin is the source of man’s imperfect state, not the other way around.

4 falls apart because if 4 is true then 2 cannot possibly be true.

Therefore your conclusion (5) doesn’t follow.

Its a correlation based fallacy.

Bahman:

Yes, sin is unavoidable knowing that human is imperfect and given the circumstances.

God anyhow is responsible for creation of imperfect beings.

Non sequitur.

Bahman:

God is responsible for creation of imperfect beings and putting them in situation knowing that they will fall hence God is responsible for evil. The idea here is however different from what is discussed in OP showing that God is directly responsible for evil.

Wrong again. Because God didn’t tempt them to sin, they in fact had every benefit and grace available for them NOT to sin. But they CHOSE to sin anyway when tempted by Satan.

So again, your argument doesn’t follow.

 

[Bahman]

I never said such.

You’re question assumes another false dichotomy. There are degrees of imperfection because imperfection is a relative.
Now what part of man’s imperfect state causes him to sin?

Many things, desire to experience unknown, ignorance toward our actions true outcome, etc.

Freedom and responsibility are not mutually exclusive terms.

They are unrelated terms.

True, but our freedom ends by succumbing to sin.

This is total nonsense. We know that we don’t lose freedom by making a sin.

So it is your contention that people have achieved “perfection” on their own?

Yes.

If so how do you know?

With the ability so called learning which eventually leads to wisdom.

How so? This assumes that such moral axioms are deceptive and unreasonable. Are you saying that a being known as God is necessarily untrustworthy and his ways must “make sense” to you before they can be true?

No, I say the perfection can only be achieve by understanding what is good and bad rather than simply accepting what is good and bad.

Evil is “real” only in the sense that it is the absence or privation of good. Evil does not have any existence of it’s own, it is not a “thing”, it definitely was not created by God.

That is wrong for a simple reason: we simply experience evil hence it is real. Moreover good and evil are opposite of each other hence if we accept good as primary and evil as what is derived from good then one can argue the opposite too. Finally, a correct definition and sensation good is not possible without evil.

Again you’re proven wrong by your own analogy. Darkness only exists in the absence of light.Just as cold only exists in the absence of heat. Both darkness and cold are relative terms, they do not “exist” of their own accord.

Again, we can experience darkness hence it is real. Light is simply the experience of photon and darkness is the absence of experience of photon. Cold also is opposite of hot and you could experience both hence they are real.

So your definition of “good” is at best incomplete. Your definition of evil is surely false.

They are not.

So free will is bought?

You misread my sentence. I meant that perfection is priceless and free will is a tools to achieve it.

How is this coherent?

My sentence should make sense now.

That a will is ordered to multiple goods does not negate my point.

It does.

The second a will chooses something which is not good, it is no longer being used according to its purpose.

What is the purpose? If we accept that perfection is the only good purpose then everything worth trying.

Wrong. Following the assistance of someone who desires and wills your good is perfectly reasonable.

It is not since it is against perfection.

Following divine assistance is perfectly reasonable obedience.

It is not. Any action which is not based on good understanding is poor.

1 is backwards. Sin is the source of man’s imperfect state, not the other way around.

No, since sin is impossible if man ever was perfect meaning that the fall of man was due to imperfection.

4 falls apart because if 4 is true then 2 cannot possibly be true.

Therefore your conclusion (5) doesn’t follow.

Its a correlation based fallacy.

No, (4) is correct meaning that (2) is incorrect hence God can create evil.

Non sequitur.

It is not. It is very simple to understand this based on these facts.

1. Man before fall was not perfect since otherwise he couldn’t perform sin.
2. Putting imperfect man in a situation which is sinful puts the responsibility of sin on God’s shoulder

Wrong again. Because God didn’t tempt them to sin, they in fact had every benefit and grace available for them NOT to sin. But they CHOSE to sin anyway when tempted by Satan.

That means that you didn’t understand OP properly. Why don’t you reread it again so we can discuss it?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We know that we don’t lose freedom by making a sin. . . .

I don’t understand why you use “we”. Who are you talking about? I suppose you meant “I”.
How would you define sin?
Most definitely, the Christian concept of sin is associated with a loss of freedom. I am sure Muslims and Jews have the same view.
Looking at the extreme, consider the difference between heaven and hell. Every act is a step in one direction or the other.

BTW:

We have faith that we exist!

I can even argue against that.

No doubt.

 

[Aloysium]

God did not create sin, but was prepared for it from the beginning.

Further to Post 569:

Rev 13:8 "The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world."

I subsequently came across:

1 Peter 1:18-20 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

In eternity, God saw as man was created, what we chose; even before creation, He knew the price He would pay to create us. The Son, the Word through which the cosmos came into being, took on all the sin that it would produce; He prepared the way for His revelation in time as the incarnation of Jesus Christ, at the centre of time. Think of Jesus in Gethsemane, as He sweated blood, what caused so much fear? It was not simply hours or days of pain and humiliation leading to death. It was the taking on of sin. He became sin itself, and in His death and resurrection, He redeemed and saved us all. God clearly has always been victorious over sin so that even where a soul is lost to sin, there will be justice.

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Richca
The Catholic Church teaches that God did not create the world out of necessity but freely chose too out of His infinite goodness and consequently He has free will.

Okay, but you didn’t address my argument. God’s actions are due to his nature, yes? His nature is necessary, correct? It would seem that God’s actions are necessary. What say you to this?

I believe I already answered your concern from a previous post and from the above statement I made. God did not create the universe of creatures out of a necessity of His own nature but voluntarily and this can be shown by many arguments. Firstly, if creation was necessary to God’s nature, then it would follow that creation should have existed from all eternity as God does. However, we believe that before God created the universe, He existed by Himself from all eternity. God has no beginning whereas creation and time have a beginning.

God’s existence is necessary and He cannot choose Himself not to be, this would be contrary to His own nature. The existence of beings outside of God such as the beings He created do not have necessary existence. God can choose these things to be or not be for He alone is the only necessary existent being.

The operations of God follow from His own intellect and will which like His existence are necessary of themselves since they are the divine nature. The natural proper object of the divine intellect is the divine essence and the natural proper object of the divine will is the divine goodness. God necessarily knows and loves Himself. Now the creation of the universe of creatures is not the divine essence nor is it the divine goodness so it was not necessary for God to create. He freely willed to create beings to communicate His goodness to them. Created beings do not add anything to God’s nature; He is sufficient unto Himself. Neither is God a robot as human beings are not robots.

 

[oldcelt]

I believe I already answered your concern from a previous post and from the above statement I made. God did not create the universe of creatures out of a necessity of His own nature but voluntarily and this can be shown by many arguments. Firstly, if creation was necessary to God’s nature, then it would follow that creation should have existed from all eternity as God does. However, we believe that before God created the universe, He existed by Himself from all eternity. God has no beginning whereas creation and time have a beginning.

God’s existence is necessary and He cannot choose Himself not to be, this would be contrary to His own nature. The existence of beings outside of God such as the beings He created do not have necessary existence. God can choose these things to be or not be for He alone is the only necessary existent being.

The operations of God follow from His own intellect and will which like His existence are necessary of themselves since they are the divine nature. The natural proper object of the divine intellect is the divine essence and the natural proper object of the divine will is the divine goodness. God necessarily knows and loves Himself. Now the creation of the universe of creatures is not the divine essence nor is it the divine goodness so it was not necessary for God to create.** He freely willed to create beings to communicate His goodness to them. Created beings do not add anything to God’s nature; He is sufficient unto Himself. Neither is God a robot as human beings are not robots.**

Then creation of the damned makes even less sense. That communicates nothing positive or good. If the Christian God was everything you said then he should either not have created us, or created without foreknowledge. With foreknowledge of the outcome, he assumes responsibility.

Or maybe we just happened over the 13 billion years from initial creation to the appearance of modern humans. That’s plenty of time.

 

[Amandil]

Many things, desire to experience unknown, ignorance toward our actions true outcome, etc.

Those are rationalizations, not causes.

What imperfection in man causes him to sin?

Bahman:

They are unrelated terms.

How do you know? You can’t argue from an assumed conclusion.

Bahman:

This is total nonsense. We know that we don’t lose freedom by making a sin.

Then you don’t know what sin is, or freedom.

Bahman:

Yes.

With the ability so called learning which eventually leads to wisdom.

And you know for a fact that these so-called “perfect” people never sin?

Bahman:

No, I say the perfection can only be achieve by understanding what is good and bad rather than simply accepting what is good and bad.

So you’re saying that one can’t understand that evil is evil by obedience to the good?

Bahman:

That is wrong for a simple reason: we simply experience evil hence it is real.

We experience evil, either moral or physical, as the privation or negation or the absence of good.

It in no way follows that evil is a “thing” which exists in itself.

Bahman:

Moreover good and evil are opposite of each other hence if we accept good as primary and evil as what is derived from good then one can argue the opposite too.

So is it your contention that “good” and “evil” are coequal? Two opposing forces in the universe?

Bahman:

Finally, a correct definition and sensation good is not possible without evil.

So a doctor needs to have cancer in order to know that cancer is evil?

Bahman:

Again, we can experience darkness hence it is real. Light is simply the experience of photon and darkness is the absence of experience of photon. Cold also is opposite of hot and you could experience both hence they are real.

You’re missing the point. Cold or or darkness have no existence of their own. That you experience them doesn’t change their essential relative nature.

Bahman:

They are not.

You have to do better than this.

Bahman:

You misread my sentence. I meant that perfection is priceless and free will is a tools to achieve it.

I don’t know what you believe, but this is certainly not what is taught by Christianity.

Bahman:

My sentence should make sense now.

It makes sense that you believe that we are saved by our own works.

Which begs the question what precisely is your philosophy or religious tradition?

Bahman:

It does.

Again, you have to do better than this.

Bahman:

What is the purpose? If we accept that perfection is the only good purpose then everything worth trying.

So is murder is a path to perfection?

Bahman:

It is not since it is against perfection.

Then it follows that following your beliefs or ideas, if I want to achieve “perfection”, is precisely what I ought to avoid.

So I have no reason to agree with anything you say because I won’t achieve "perfection"if I do.
Bahmanz:

It is not. Any action which is not based on good understanding is poor.

Begging the question.

Bahman:

No, since sin is impossible if man ever was perfect meaning that the fall of man was due to imperfection.

Again, you’re begging the question. Clearly sin is possible even if man is naturally “perfect”.

Christianity holds that sin is possible even for the saints in heaven endowed with the beatific vision.

Bahman:

No, (4) is correct meaning that (2) is incorrect hence God can create evil.

You’re simply arguing in a circle.

Bahman:

It is not. It is very simple to understand this based on these facts.

1. Man before fall was not perfect since otherwise he couldn’t perform sin.
2. Putting imperfect man in a situation which is sinful puts the responsibility of sin on God’s shoulder

That means that you didn’t understand OP properly. Why don’t you reread it again so we can discuss it?

Your premises are simply false. If you’re going to argue from a position of the Fall you have to consider the actual information about it, not just simply make up your own scenario which has nothing to do with what the Bible or Christianity teaches and argue from that.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

In eternity, God saw as man was created, what we chose; even before creation, He knew the price He would pay to create us…

Good Evening Aloysium: If this is the case, wouldn’t that make sin and all of its attending mishaps a choice on God’s part? Because all of the things of this world, and their attending consequences would then be an enterprise freely and willfully entered into on the part of the One who knew. Which would not be the case for the hapless ones who had no precognition of events to come, and were simply born into it (namely us). This is one of the many areas where I think Atheists have a problem with the things we say. Because it’s not well thought out, and it seems rather born of a guilt complex acquired through conditioning, teaching and cultural reinforcement, rather than any sort of logical sense. This is my opinion or course, and I welcome any counterpoint for discussion.

God clearly has always been victorious over sin so that even where a soul is lost to sin, there will be justice.

I am curious to what good such a victory is to God. And if, as you say, a soul is lost to sin, what solace is justice to any party concerned?

Thank you,
Gary

 

[tonyrey]

I can even argue against that. The only truth that exists and cannot be argued is that things are experienced meaning that consciousness is primary. Even the sense of “I” is manifestation of consciousness since it is experienced. What is “I”? Nothing more than a local experience which could be subject to change upon death, meditation, etc.

How do you** know **what consciousness is? You must have faith in your power of reason to reach any conclusions at all. You **believe **the “I” is nothing more than a local experience.

 

[Polita612]

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

Yes, “cut and paste” is a splendid tool!

And…you are the point.

 

[tonyrey]

No, because he is admitting that it is faith. The problem with Catholics is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. The Catechism says that “God can be known with certainty through the light of reason” but then says that faith is necessary. If we can know God exists with certainty, what’s the point of faith? Faith is, by definition, to believe in something in spite of the lack of evidence. It is impossible to have faith in something that one knows to be true.

On the contrary, faith entails far more than intellectual assent:

CCC 156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30

CCC 159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

Catholicism should not be confused with Protestantism:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

Martin Luther

 

[oldcelt]

Yes, “cut and paste” is a splendid tool!

And…you are the point.

I am deeply wounded.

 

[Richca]

Then creation of the damned makes even less sense. That communicates nothing positive or good. If the Christian God was everything you said then he should either not have created us, or created without foreknowledge. With foreknowledge of the outcome, he assumes responsibility.

Or maybe we just happened over the 13 billion years from initial creation to the appearance of modern humans. That’s plenty of time.

That the evil are punished is good for this is according to justice just as the state punishes criminals by imprisonment.

Your idea of God’s foreknowledge which is incoherent is simply not the catholic doctrine of God’s foreknowledge. As St Thomas Aquinas says “The knowledge of God is not the cause of evil; but is the cause of the good whereby evil is known.” And I have already quoted from the Bible in a previous post that God is not the cause of the evil of sin.

 

[oldcelt]

“Good and evil, life and death,
poverty and riches—all are from the LORD” (Sirach 11:14).