God created evil

[PRmerger]

But we weren’t talking about evil. We were talking about if God creates people who He know will end up in hell. And I think that, at very long last, we had agreement on that. Unless, if you check some of the previous posts, we end up with contradictory statements.

Was there any disagreement upon the fact that God creates people who He knows will end up in hell?

It’s not His choice that they do this. It’s our choice.

There is no contradiction with free will.

There is no blemish upon the goodness of God. He equips us all with the means to avoid hell.

That He knows some of us will end up in hell is simply a statement of His omniscience.

 

[PRmerger]

I was going to be careful here and ask what you thought was ‘a bad thing’. But I don’t think that’s really necessary.

I stole something when I was a kid. It was a bad thing to do. I did it because I cared more about having it then I did about the the feelings of the person who was going to lose it.

But why do we care more about our own feelings than that of the other person?
What is the atheistic answer to that?

And then what is the explanation for why sometimes people supercede your explanation for selfishness and then act selflessly?

I don’t know how to write a sentence in the Eternal Now tense so you’ll have to accept the tenses that we clumsy, temporal mortals have to use.

Yep.

But whatever tense you prefer, God knows/will know/did know/was knowing/knew etc etc (as you just yourself posted, using the present tense) everything. So He knows/will know/did know/was knowing/knew etc etc that some of us will not accept a single grace, let alone an abundance of them.

Indeed.

He knows (can we stick with the present?) that some of us are created for hell. Yes, we got there by free will choices, but that second statement doesn’t negate the first.

Sure.

That is as sad for Him as it is for us to know that we have loved someone who rejected us.

NB: the “as sad for Him” is simply an expression. Clearly, there is no comparison between His nature and ours, as far as regretting the rejection of another.

 

[rinnie]

I still think the main disagreement in this thread is that we’re using different conceptions of what “free” means. For most atheists I know, and certainly myself, to say that a choice is free is a modal claim. It means the choice could have been made differently.

The Catholics here seem to be using a very unusual notion of freedom. The main purpose of their version of freedom seems to be to attach responsibility to actions rather than make modal claims about them. Thus they say we are responsible for our “free” choices even when they couldn’t have been made differently.

Bradski seems to be getting some concessions at last, but I doubt the Catholics here see the moral dilemma behind what these concessions suggest because of their version of “freedom”.

It seems to me if I am seeing this right is this. You seem to be confused with God giving us free will, and also knowing how we are going to use it.

And because he can see what we will do, before we do it, then its his fault that we did what we did, because he let us do it.

So what you seem to be saying is this, if we choose to do right, its the choice of God not ours, and if we choice to do wrong its the fault of God because he knew our choice.

So my question to you is this, because we can’t change the past, which is what you are saying, and make the wrong choice, how does God knowing the future over the past take our free will off of us.

That is where we can not agree with you, and understand your point.

What you seem to be saying is because God knows all, he is responsible for our choices because he knows what we will do with them. But the point you are missing is our choices.

And I think where you are confused is thinking, (tell me if I am right) If God knows you will make the wrong choice, why give you free will?

And the answer to that is simple. God does wants you to have the right to love him or not love him. He loves us enough to let us choose. Does that help at all?

 

[oldcelt]

Good Evening Bradski: You are correct in that we have established that the God who is a mental artifact of Abrahamic lore knows everything, however, I don’t think that we have in fact established that God in fact knows everything, or has the same value systems that we have ascribed to Him, which are simply projections of our own thinking on matters such as sin, good and evil. My opinion on this matter is that the problem we are having in his discussion is the idea of God that is trafficked in popular thought, which is not a tenable image when we start to delve into the matter.

The same problem applied to heaven and hell as being places we are sent to or end up in. Because in truth, they are sates of being, not places. They are levels of attainment, not rewards or punishments that are conferred on us because of our goodness and our badness. This too is an untenable position, because goodness and badness are not absolutes, and occur in degrees. They are relative, like most everything. No evil person is evil every minute of their lives, and no saint is good every minute of theirs. The level of inner goodness, kindness and peace we attain within us is the level of heaven we achieve. the level of badness, anger and malcontent we develop within ourselves is the level of hell we attain. Accordingly ,Christ said that the Kingdom is heaven is inside of us. And our expectations about rewards in a place called heaven or our sufferings in a place called hell are a simple matter of obfuscation born of wishing for something more than the simple truths spoken by a man with a profound grasp of simple truths.

Thank you,
Gary

Thanks for that Gary

 

[Bradski]

Was there any disagreement upon the fact that God creates people who He knows will end up in hell?

It’s not His choice that they do this. It’s our choice.

There is no contradiction with free will.

There is no blemish upon the goodness of God. He equips us all with the means to avoid hell.

That He knows some of us will end up in hell is simply a statement of His omniscience.

Yes, there have been a few posts that said that God didn’t know the choices of people who ‘didn’t exist’, therefore He couldn’t know if they were going to hell. And yes, everyone agrees that ending up there is a result of free will choices.

It seems that as God knows some of us are going to hell, he knows what ‘free will’ choices we will make. The result of that is that He creates people who He knows will spend eternity in hell.

 

[Bradski]

But why do we care more about our own feelings than that of the other person? What is the atheistic answer to that?

And then what is the explanation for why sometimes people supercede your explanation.

All down to empathy. I consider it to be a natural emotion. If you want to say it’s God given then we shall agree to disagree.

 

[Oreoracle]

You problem is you don’t understand that there is no time with God. God knew years ago that I would be speaking to you at this moment. I didn’t, and God knows what I am going to say, although at this time I am trying to put my thoughts into words.

I addressed this a few pages ago, actually. The problem runs deeper than time; it’s a problem of modality. This is a modal argument that makes no reference to time yet highlights a similar problem:

As I’ve stated multiple times in this thread, my points, as well as Bradski’s and oldcelt’s, apply equally well even if time is disregarded. Consider the following modal argument:

1. God acts according to his nature. That is, if it is God’s nature to do something, he does it.
2. God’s nature is necessary. That is, God cannot have been anything other than what he is.

It is a basic axiom of modal logic that necessity distributes over conditionals. In laymen terms, to say that it is necessarily the case that A implies B is to say that the necessity of A implies the necessity of B. Another axiom of modal logic is that theorems are necessary truths. (1) is a theorem since it is true merely because of the way in which God is defined. Even if God didn’t exist, it would still be true. So the conditional in (1) is a necessary truth. This means that, by the first axiom I mention, we have:

1. If God’s nature is necessary, his actions are necessary.

By modus ponens, (2) and (3) lead to the conclusion:

1. God’s actions are necessary.

So there you have it. God can’t help but do what he does. He lacks free will in any meaningful sense. Now I know that some of modal logic is considered controversial, but the two axioms I mentioned are never questioned. It’s not like I’m using S5 or something. They are the most basic axioms you can use to even call your logic a modal logic.

It seems to me if I am seeing this right is this. You seem to be confused with God giving us free will, and also knowing how we are going to use it.

And because he can see what we will do, before we do it, then its his fault that we did what we did, because he let us do it.

No. The problem isn’t that he let us do it, but rather that our existence is contingent upon and determined by his nature. We are his responsibility.

So my question to you is this, because we can’t change the past, which is what you are saying, and make the wrong choice, how does God knowing the future over the past take our free will off of us.

Again, the problem isn’t with knowledge per se. God isn’t the innocent bystander who is observing a disaster that’s about to happen. God created the circumstances of the disaster with full knowledge of what those circumstances entailed. He chose to produce what he knew would be a sinful world. If you prefer for the references to time to be cut, we could say God willed beings to exist that he knew to be sinful. If he truly despises evil, he could have simply created beings that he knew would exercise their free will flawlessly.

A common argument I hear on these forums is that God allows free will because only free will can lead to genuine love. Fine, then if God knows how free will will be exercised, why not simply create beings that he knows will only use their free will for love? You can have free will and perfection at the same time; there is no contradiction.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, there have been a few posts that said that God didn’t know the choices of people who ‘didn’t exist’, therefore He couldn’t know if they were going to hell.

I disagree with those posts, although I don’t recall seeing any of them.

God knows the choices of people. He knows with foreknowledge, eternal knowledge, consequential knowledge. He is, after all, omniscient.

As far as knowing the choices of people who “didn’t exist”, that’s nonsensical.

It seems that as God knows some of us are going to hell, he knows what ‘free will’ choices we will make. The result of that is that He creates people who He knows will spend eternity in hell.

Sure.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, your statement in bold is not accurate. God knows all our choices before He created us just as He knew what He was going to create before He actually created it. In God’s intellect and knowledge, we have existed from all eternity but, of course, we have not existed from all eternity in our own being. God’s knowledge is eternal like His being, it does not change. Created things, on the other hand, are not eternal.

Your statement “God knows all our choices **before **He created us just as He knew what He was going to create before He actually created it” is obviously inaccurate because God transcends time and space. For Him both knowledge and creation occur in the eternal present.

You need to explain **how **the choices of **non-existent persons can be known. Omniscience does not entail absurdity. Our free will distinguishes us from everything else that has been created. Unlike physical objects which are created in time and space our minds come into existence timelessly and immaterially. Our thoughts and decisions are not limited by time and space. That fact alone is sufficient evidence that we transcend our environment.

We alone **decide whether to be reasonable or unreasonable, good or evil, just or unjust, selfish or unselfish. In that sense we are prime movers who are responsible for what we believe and how we live. The diabolical amount of evil in the world is convincing evidence that we are made in God’s image and **share in His divine power **which enables us to defy Him, reject His love, set ourselves as rivals and frustrate His Will for all eternity. So it is reasonable to believe that our choices are unknowable if there is no one to make them. We are confronted with overwhelming evidence for the uniqueness of human decisions which are not in the same category as any other event. Whether we agree or not the element of mystery is enough to undermine the assumption that we are predestined by God for heaven or hell and that He is directly responsible for our fate.

 

[PRmerger]

All down to empathy. I consider it to be a natural emotion.

So what is the atheistic answer to acting selfishly, without empathy?

I think when we look at the world today it’s obvious to me that something is wrong with us! This is NOT how we were meant to be!

The atheistic answer to this is…what?

Can you give me that atheistic answer to why this guy did this:

nydailynews.com/news/crime/alleged-shooter-killed-2-adults-4-kids-texas-collapses-court-article-1.1863291

 

[PRmerger]

A common argument I hear on these forums is that God allows free will because only free will can lead to genuine love.Fine, then if God knows how free will will be exercised, why not simply create beings that he knows will only use their free will for love? You can have free will and perfection at the same time; there is no contradiction.

He did.

But our first parents ruined it for all of us.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

… we could say God willed beings to exist that he knew to be sinful. If he truly despises evil, he could have simply created beings that he knew would exercise their free will flawlessly.

A common argument I hear on these forums is that God allows free will because only free will can lead to genuine love. Fine, then if God knows how free will will be exercised, why not simply create beings that he knows will only use their free will for love? You can have free will and perfection at the same time; there is no contradiction.

So what you are looking for, once again, is a Utilitarian utopia … the greatest good not just for greatest number … but this time, for all souls.

How can we say there is even the possibility of evil in the world if everyone is going to be perfect?

There would not even be evil men around you to offer temptation.

 

[Oreoracle]

He did.

But our first parents ruined it for all of us.

But if they could ruin it, he didn’t do so. What I said was:
"Oreoracle:

Fine, then if God knows how free will will be exercised, why not simply create beings that he knows will only use their free will for love?

If Adam and Eve didn’t act out of love, then clearly God didn’t “create beings that he knew would only use their free will for love”.

So what you are looking for, once again, is a Utilitarian utopia … the greatest good not just for greatest number … but this time, for all souls.

How can we say there is even the possibility of evil in the world if everyone is going to be perfect?

There would not even be evil men around you to offer temptation.

The greatest good for all souls…not even the possibility of evil…no temptations. I’m sorry, do you intend to get to the bad part of this plan anytime soon?

But fear not my friend. By Christian theology, evil would still be possible in the sense that beings could freely choose to do it. God would just know that they won’t.

See? This backward notion of freedom you guys are peddling cuts both ways.

 

[PRmerger]

But if they could ruin it, he didn’t do so.

If they COULDN’T, then how is that free?

 

[PRmerger]

The greatest good for all souls…not even the possibility of evil…no temptations. I’m sorry, do you intend to get to the bad part of this plan anytime soon?

The bad part is this: automatons who do not choose God out of their own choice, but only because they were programmed to do so.

Would you want a spouse who had no choice but to be with you?

Or would you rather she looked at the myriad possibilities, could have chosen someone else, but then chose you?

 

[Oreoracle]

Or would you rather she looked at the myriad possibilities, could have chosen someone else, but then chose you?

She could have chosen someone else. As I said, these beings would have free will. God just knows they will use it for good.

The position of Catholics thus far in this thread has been that God’s decisions regarding whom he creates combined with his knowledge of their actions doesn’t preclude free will. So I’m turning the tables: If that were so, God could have chosen to create only those beings that he knew will use their free will for good. These beings still have freedom in the sense that they have free will because, as you’ll recall, God’s foreknowledge and decisions regarding whom he will create do not preclude free will.

So this notion of free will that other posters have championed on this thread seems to be a double-edged sword.

 

[Oreoracle]

If they COULDN’T, then how is that free?

I’ve made the case earlier in this thread that if God knows our actions before creating us, they can’t have been otherwise, therefore they aren’t free. That is, I argued as you are now. Other posters have complained that this is not what is meant by freedom. My last post shows that, even if we use “freedom” in their sense of the word (in the sense of “having free will”), we still run into problems.

 

[PRmerger]

She could have chosen someone else. As I said, these beings would have free will. God just knows they will use it for good.

Sure.

But if there is no other choice, save for ONE CHOICE, it’s not really a choice, is it?

If you were the only man in the world and your wife “chose” you to love, it really wouldn’t be a choice, would it?

The position of Catholics thus far in this thread has been that God’s decisions regarding whom he creates combined with his knowledge of their actions doesn’t preclude free will.

Right.

So I’m turning the tables: If that were so, God could have chosen to create only those beings that he knew will use their free will for good. These beings still have freedom in the sense that they have free will because, as you’ll recall, God’s foreknowledge and decisions regarding whom he will create do not preclude free will

If He created them so that they could ONLY have chosen Him, then it’s not free will.

His foreknowledge has nothing to do with it.

So this notion of free will that other posters have championed on this thread seems to be a double-edged sword.

I don’t see the double-edged sword part of your question.

God created us with free will.

We can choose Him. Or we can reject Him.

What is the double-edged sword here?

That He knows our choice is a factor, how?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve made the case earlier in this thread that if God knows our actions before creating us, they can’t have been otherwise, therefore they aren’t free. That is, I argued as you are now. Other posters have complained that this is not what is meant by freedom. My last post shows that, even if we use “freedom” in their sense of the word (in the sense of “having free will”), we still run into problems.

sigh.

This has been addressed, ad nauseum, already.

His foreknowledge is in the Eternal Now. That He knew, at the moment of the creation of the world, that I would be typing this response to you, in no way predestines me to be typing this to you.*** It’s all occurring at the very same moment–the creation of the world, and my typing this–to God. ***

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t know what you’re complaining about, PRmerger. I granted you everything. I granted you that God can create whomever he wants, know what they will do, and that none of this precludes free will. Now I’m using those premises to point out that God could have eliminated all evil without eliminating freedom by your very own logic. You have only yourself to blame.