God created evil

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry, but it is you who suggested the language of eliminating choices, as seen here:

Yes. It was to be understood in the context of the dialogue–i.e. that God creates individuals who make these choices.

So if creating humans who won’t make a choice doesn’t count as eliminating that choice,

Would you mind posing this without the double negatives?

 

[Oreoracle]

So let me sum this up as I understand you.

Okay. I’ll stop you if you happen to misrepresent me.

A good God…

I’ll have to stop you there. The very first thing I mentioned in my last response to you is that I’m not making claims about whether or not God is good or evil. All of the attempts to moralize have been coming from you. I am simply taking the premises that have been given to me by Catholics here and taking them to their logical conclusion. If the depiction of God that results makes you uncomfortable, that is not my fault. I’m not stating anything about God’s moral status.

Would you mind posing this without the double negatives?

I can try. It’s a bit messy because there are numerous trigger words that it appears I’m not allowed to use in this thread, such as most invocations of tense or words that would suggest responsibility.

Oreoracle:

So if creating humans who won’t make a choice doesn’t count as eliminating that choice

That would be “Creating humans who will abstain from making a choice doesn’t imply that the choice has been eliminated”.

 

[PRmerger]

I can try. It’s a bit messy because there are numerous trigger words that it appears I’m not allowed to use in this thread, such as most invocations of tense or words that would suggest responsibility.

No doubt it’s a complex concept.

This admission of your inability to pose the question in a simple manner limns this fact.

So just do your best, with our limited nomenclature, to pose your question, in a way that attempts to pin a wave upon the sand.

 

[PRmerger]

That would be “Creating humans who will abstain from making a choice doesn’t imply that the choice has been eliminated”.

And???

You want me to do what with the above proposition?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

It is ironic that you claim the right to reject belief in God - which in daily life amounts to rejecting God. Without free will you wouldn’t be capable of having your own opinion, let alone expressing it with words and actions. It gives you the opportunity to commit intellectual suicide… :sad_bye:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’ll have to stop you there. The very first thing I mentioned in my last response to you is that I’m not making claims about whether or not God is good or evil. All of the attempts to moralize have been coming from you. I am simply taking the premises that have been given to me by Catholics here and taking them to their logical conclusion. If the depiction of God that results makes you uncomfortable, that is not my fault. I’m not stating anything about God’s moral status.

I also am not aware that we are talking about good or bad behavior in God. I’m not sure why you are making such an issue of this, except to change the subject?

The whole premise of your argument is to question why, if there is a God, he would choose to create people he knew were going to be imperfect. Isn’t that your position?

But then, granted this God exists, he should not have created agnostic atheists, who from God’s point of view would have chosen to oppose him, hardly a sign of perfection from God’s point of view.

So do you think you would prefer there be a God who had not created you, or are you willing to accept that God wisely gave you the freedom to oppose him and you took it?

That is, would you rather be a living Christian or an impossibly existent atheist?

Or would you rather be an existent agnostic atheist?

We know pretty much as self evident that you would prefer there be no existent God.

In your own mind it must be fairly certain some day you will be a non-existent atheist.

Now I think I’ll take my medication and a well deserved nap. :yawn:

 

[tonyrey]

Evil is very very real and has a tremendous power. Pure terror. Ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer? He wasn’t fake. He wasn’t penned (scripted). He was the real deal. Evil will make your own insides want to crawl right out of your own mouth.

Evil does as evil is. And evil sure is. But when it doesn’t exist, for you, thank and praise and be joyful and happy.

Evil is certainly real but it is not a thing or a person - or even power - because it is not created by God. Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the evil and injustice in the world. It is the **abuse **of free will and the destruction of God’s gifts: life, health, harmony and happiness.

 

[tonyrey]

… 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.

According to you then, no one should have children because it is highly probable that some of our descendants will be rapists and killers…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Christianity seems like it should be blazingly simple. Here’s a man who said some things to which we should all listen. The rest? Go figure…

I agree.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Thanks for that Gary

Thank YOU Oldcelt.

 

[Oreoracle]

And???

You want me to do what with the above proposition?

I dunno. You asked me to translate a phrase and I did. Why did you want it translated?

If you can’t remember, maybe it would be best to take stock of where we are in this discussion, because frankly I’ve lost track of what you agree or disagree with. You said that God designing humans who he knows won’t enact a Second Holocaust doesn’t amount to intruding on our free will, correct? However, you seemed to take issue with the possibility of God doing the same for every possible evil action, because that would effectively prevent all evil.

My questions for you were: 1) If Hitler could choose to cause a Holocaust, but someone else were designed so that they can’t, wouldn’t that person have less free will than Hitler? 2) How many evil actions have to be prevented in this roundabout manner for it to be problematic? If God creating in such a way that the Holocaust can’t be caused doesn’t inhibit our free will, how many evil actions have to be prevented before free will is inhibited?

I also am not aware that we are talking about good or bad behavior in God. I’m not sure why you are making such an issue of this, except to change the subject?

I’m making an issue of it because I’m applying the same logic that Catholics here are using and yet no one seems to agree. If you agree with my scenario–that is, that God could create a world in which everyone is free and good at the same time–then I will be satisfied. This would disprove the stock argument that “God eliminating evil would preclude free will”.

So do you think you would prefer there be a God who had not created you, or are you willing to accept that God wisely gave you the freedom to oppose him and you took it?

What I prefer isn’t relevant to the discussion.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Oreoracle

A good God would only have created a universe in which evil could not exist, even though everyone would be free to be evil. So that means a good God would not have created agnostic atheists, since they would choose to oppose his good will.

Good Evening Charlemagne: I see no reason to suppose that because a person doesn’t believe in God that the will of such a person is to do evil. Conversely, countless atrocities have been committed by people who believed they were doing the will of God. Beliefs about God and the nature of our existence have little to do with whether a person does good things or bad things. It makes sense to want to feel good and to make others feel good, and it makes sense for all of us to look out for one another and to do what is best for the mutual benefit of other beings. When we work together and care about one another, we advance the condition of humankind. For me this includes other animals, as they are part of us as well. All living things are connected. We are one organism embedded in a larger organism that we call Earth. It’s common sense to do what is good, and there is no belief system that is a requisite for common sense.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Amandil]

Christianity seems like it should be blazingly simple. Here’s a man who said some things to which we should all listen. The rest? Go figure…

Christianity can be and is blazingly simple for those who have faith.

OR it can be as complicated depending upon how deeply you delve into it an the realities it describes.

It’s simplicity and its complexity are not mutually exclusive nor contradictory.

 

[Bradski]

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.

Apologies…that would be people who don’t (as far as we are concerned) exist as yet. So a hundred years ago God would not know what choices I am currently making. See Tony’s post number 725 for his take on it.

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

As I said, sometimes other emotions override our empathetic feelings for others (my desire for something overrides my knowledge that someone else will feel distressed if I take it). The amount of empathy we feel for others reduces as distance from us increases (emotionally generally, but also physically). Then there’s anger, frustration, jealousy, hate and a lot of other negative emotions that can override it.

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?

Yep, it can be a miserable place. But the term: ‘We are not meant to be like this’ makes very little sense to me. We are what we are, so the world is as it is. That’s not, of course, to say that we shouldn’t make every effort to make it a better place (despite people having a very different idea of what that should be). But I’m an optimist, so I think that we’re getting better at making it a little less miserable as we go.

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

Anger. Jealousy. Hate. They all overrode his feelings of empathy.

It is the choice of the individual, not God, who eliminates the Second Holocaust.

But it is God’s choice to create that individual, knowing full well that he will instigate a second Holocaust.

The fact that you create a child that you know is going to poop in his pants in no way makes you guilty of his poor hygiene.

There was an example used earlier where I brought home a dog (who just loved digging holes). I left him in the garden with a bone and when I came back, he’d dug up all the flowers. Are you saying I had no responsibility?

According to you then, no one should have children because it is highly probable that some of our descendants will be rapists and killers…

If you knew with certainty that if you made love to your wife tonight, a child would result that would instigate a second Holocaust, would you:
A: Enjoy the romantic evening.
B: Go for a few beers with a couple of mates and have a cold shower when you got home.

It makes sense to want to feel good and to make others feel good, and it makes sense for all of us to look out for one another and to do what is best for the mutual benefit of other beings. When we work together and care about one another, we advance the condition of humankind.

OK, who is this guy? We’re all rantin’ and ravin’ and coming up with convoluted arguments and getting all hot under the collar and then Gazza pops up and says something ridiculously sensible and now I’ve lost my train of thought.

I have to say in passing, Gary, that I I can’t read your signature without smiling.

 

[PRmerger]

I dunno. You asked me to translate a phrase and I did. Why did you want it translated?

So I could understand your question.

But then you simply posted a statement.

Is that your position? Is it the position you think I am arguing?

I have no idea what to do with, “Creating humans who will abstain from making a choice doesn’t imply that the choice has been eliminated” except to read it.

You said that God designing humans who he knows won’t enact a Second Holocaust doesn’t amount to intruding on our free will, correct?

Yep.

However, you seemed to take issue with the possibility of God doing the same for every possible evil action, because that would effectively prevent all evil.

Right.

If the possibility doesn’t exist for human beings to choose Him, then there is no free will.

Or said without the double negatives: Human beings must be given a choice for Him or against Him. Otherwise, it makes us automatons.

My questions for you were: 1) If Hitler could choose to cause a Holocaust, but someone else were designed so that they can’t, wouldn’t that person have less free will than Hitler?

Yes.

1. How many evil actions have to be prevented in this roundabout manner for it to be problematic?

Just the above scenario would be problematic, because God doesn’t give a person “less free will” than Hitler.

We all have the same amount of free will–which is, qualitatively, enough for us to choose Him or reject Him.

So there is no such thing as a person being designed “so they can’t” choose a Second Holocaust.

That there are people who don’t, is a separate issue alltogether.

I can assure you, Oreoracle, that I certainly CAN choose to make a Second Holocaust, but I absolutely will never do so.

It’s your use of the phrase “so they can’t” which is problematic.

All of us “can”. Most of us don’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I see no reason to suppose that because a person doesn’t believe in God that the will of such a person is to do evil. Conversely, countless atrocities have been committed by people who believed they were doing the will of God. Beliefs about God and the nature of our existence have little to do with whether a person does good things or bad things.Gary

I wish I could say something other than that this sounds very anti-Catholic.

In other words, why do we need religion at all if beliefs about God do not matter?

 

[PRmerger]

Anger. Jealousy. Hate. They all overrode his feelings of empathy.

I’ve had anger. I’ve felt jealousy. (I will say, however, I don’t think I’ve ever hated. But that’s open to discussion)

So why did these emotions translate into horrific actions in one person, but not in another?

 

[Bradski]

In other words, why do we need religion at all if beliefs about God do not matter?

Gary isn’t saying that beliefs about God don’t matter. He is saying that beliefs are not a prerequisite for doing good (yeah, yeah, I know…if you don’t believe in God how do you know what ‘good’ is…).

I’ve had anger. I’ve felt jealousy. (I will say, however, I don’t think I’ve ever hated. But that’s open to discussion).

We all have those emotions. And we all act on them to a greater or lesser degree. It depends who is causing the emotions, the mood of the person being affected, her mental and physical state, her state of mind at the time, the opportunity to act on them. There are too many variables to list.

So why did these emotions translate into horrific actions in one person, but not in another?

See above.

 

[tonyrey]

Apologies…that would be people who don’t (as far as we are concerned) exist as yet. So a hundred years ago God would not know what choices I am currently making. See Tony’s post number 725 for his take on it.

A gross misrepresentation of my statement. You cannot desist from putting God in the box of time and space. I thought the image of simultaneity would help you to understand divine transcendence but I was obviously mistaken because you have distorted its meaning - unless you have done so deliberately, in which case there is no point in attempting to reason with you…

If you knew with certainty that if you made love to your wife tonight, a child would result that would instigate a second Holocaust, would you:
A: Enjoy the romantic evening.
B: Go for a few beers with a couple of mates and have a cold shower when you got home.

Your absurdly irrelevant question about an extremely improbable event confirms the fact that you cannot admit that the immense value of life for billions of persons and animals on this planet far outweighs the needless suffering caused by mankind. The truth is unpalatable when one has a destructive axe to grind…

 

[Bradski]

A gross misrepresentation of my statement.

All your posts are there for anyone to read, Tony. Anyone can read them and make up their own mind about your position.

Your absurdly irrelevant question about an extremely improbable event confirms the fact that you cannot admit that the immense value of life for billions of persons and animals on this planet far outweighs the needless suffering caused by mankind. The truth is unpalatable when one has a destructive axe to grind…

No need to shout, Tony. But the questions still stands. And we’re not talking about you choosing whether to conceive a child on this one occasion versus ‘Billions of persons and animals’. I’m not sure where that cam from.

It’s conceive on this one occasion or not. Do you choose to create someone who will do untold evil or not?

My guess is that you’d go the few beers and the cold shower. Let me know if that is not the case.