God created evil

[Charlemagne_III]

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…).

This is a very curious reading of what he said. For a Catholic to say being a Catholic has nothing to do with being a good or a bad person is tantamount to saying Jesus Christ also does not matter, because after all Jesus showed us the Way to be good.

Here is what Jesus teaches.

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

Religion matters.

“Fools say in their heart, ‘There is no God.’ Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is good.” Psalms 14:1

Religion matters.

This isn’t me presenting my own opinion. This is Biblical teaching, right?

 

[Oreoracle]

So I could understand your question.

But then you simply posted a statement.

It was meant to be a literal word-for-word translation of what you excerpted. It wasn’t a complete sentence in the original context. It doesn’t matter though, because you answering my last post is just as good as answering that post. They asked the same questions.

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

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

I wasn’t intending to try to slip anything past you with the “so they can’t”. It’s just that I don’t see any difference between that and this:

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?

Which is what you agreed with. Designing X so that it won’t do Y is the same as designing X so that it can’t do Y. If you see some sort of distinction here that I don’t, forgive me because I don’t know how to work around such distinctions grammatically.

I’m not saying that God would physically prevent humans from enacting a Holocaust, because all that requires is the ability to pick up a gun. I mean they will be designed in such a way that it is known with absolute certainty that they won’t do it. I’m not sure in what meaningful sense one could say that it’s “possible” for them to behave otherwise, but this is nonetheless compatible with free will as it has been described on this thread.

Anyway, you go on to say that a person has to be able to choose God or reject him to qualify as free, correct? I’m not so sure that jives with how free will has been treated in this discussion. You agreed that God designing humans who he knows won’t enact a Second Holocaust isn’t an intrusion of our free will. So just replace “enact a Second Holocaust” with “reject God”. What’s the difference?

 

[Bradski]

This is a very curious reading of what he said. For a Catholic to say being a Catholic has nothing to do with being a good or a bad person is tantamount to saying Jesus Christ also does not matter, because after all Jesus showed us the Way to be good.

For you to disagree with Gary you’d have to say that you can’t be good unless you have a belief. Is that your position? Because he is saying that you can.

But obviously, if you are a Catholic, Jesus, the resurrection and all else that Catholicism entails should be of paramount importance.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . you’d have to say that you can’t be good unless you have a belief. Is that your position? Because he is saying that you can. . .

You’ve had other people’s opinions on the matter.
It’s time for your say:
What is good?
How does one “be good”?
Does it matter whether one is good?
This isn’t a trick; I am interested in what you think.

 

[Amandil]

For you to disagree with Gary you’d have to say that you can’t be good unless you have a belief. Is that your position? Because he is saying that you can.

Without God, there is no rational explanation as to “why” one should be good. To be “good” or what constitutes “good” is wholly subjective personal preference not any real moral obligation or imperative.

But obviously, if you are a Catholic, Jesus, the resurrection and all else that Catholicism entails should be of paramount importance.

But for Mr. Sheldrake his own beliefs informed by his popular science books take precedence over what has been revealed by God through Scripture and the Church. There’s the disconnect.

 

[Bradski]

You’ve had other people’s opinions on the matter.
It’s time for your say:
What is good?
How does one “be good”?
Does it matter whether one is good?
This isn’t a trick; I am interested in what you think.

Well, I know you’re going to think that I’m trying to avoid the question, but as far as I am concerned, there is no ‘Good’ in the Platonic sense. No ideal form to which we can refer. If you say that someone is good, then I suggest that that statement is meaningless unless we have a reference point. That is, in what respect is he good? A good father, a good driver, a good politician?

Otherwise, the term becomes all-encompassing and that isn’t possible unless I was a Christian describing God. That is, someone with no negative attributes at all. The epitome of goodness. Goodness itself.

Now unless you have someone that is identical to that (I’m assuming that you don’t), then that person has to have some attributes that are not good. Let’s face it, none of us is perfect. So you quite literally have to be specific as to why that someone can be referred to as good (she gives her time for good causes, she’s kind to animals etc). Whilst at the same time, passing over her attributes that could not be described as good (she’s racist, she lies etc).

That said, there is a sense in which we can say something like: ‘I am trying to be a good father/husband/friend’. But even in that sense, we have a personal and very specific impression of what would constitute being a good father or husband. There is no ideal Good Father. Just a lot of attributes that each of us would list as a requirement to be considered such. Most of us just try to cover as many bases as possible.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For you to disagree with Gary you’d have to say that you can’t be good unless you have a belief. Is that your position?

No, because that’s not what I said.

What I said is that beliefs matter. They help us to be good. Without beliefs we have hardly any support system for doing good. It’s no surprise that most jails are full of people who grew up not connected with a belief system, and who even after they get into jail refuse to be connected with a belief system.

As to morals, Gary said belief systems don’t matter.

That view would certainly be consistent with atheism.

 

[Bradski]

Without God, there is no rational explanation as to “why” one should be good. To be “good” or what constitutes “good” is wholly subjective personal preference not any real moral obligation or imperative.

Then it’s lucky for us that you have something which informs you of these things.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Without God, there is no rational explanation as to “why” one should be good. To be “good” or what constitutes “good” is wholly subjective personal preference not any real moral obligation or imperative.

That’s right. Every single person gets to re-invent the moral wheel.

Many of those wheels fall off or give a mighty rocky ride.

I know this from talking to many a prisoner who manufactured his own wheel.

 

[Bradski]

What I said is that beliefs matter. They help us to be good.

For a lot of people that is true. I have no argument with that.

 

[ShelleyScribe]

God did not create evil - everything that God created was good. It was man’s rejection of God and his Plan for mankind that brought evil into being and evil continues in the world because man consistently rejects God and His Commandments and teachings. If we look at every evil in the world we can see that it was man who was and is responsible by the way he lives.

 

[tonyrey]

A gross misrepresentation of my statement.

And understand that I would not subscribe to such nonsense as “So a hundred years ago God would not know what choices I am currently making”.

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.

Capital letters indicate shouting. Bold type is to emphasize points that have been ignored.

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.

Then you don’t understand the significance of the analogy of choosing to have children.

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.

I don’t drink beer, have cold showers or fall into the trap of responding to contrived conundrums totally unrelated to everyday reality, especially after you have failed to admit that the Creator is justified in permitting evil because the immense value of life far outweighs the needless suffering caused by mankind and is implicitly recognised by every person who chooses to have children…

 

[Aloysium]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne III:

Would you place yourself outside that category?
Do you rely on yourself to know what is good?

 

[PRmerger]

Capital letters indicate shouting. Bold type is to emphasize points that have been ignored

True, true.

No one is shouting when bold is used.

 

[PRmerger]

Then it’s lucky for us that you have something which informs you of these things.

You, too, have something that informs you of this.

You just don’t acknowledge it, but it has been written in your heart.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

It appears that what tony was saying that its nonsensical to say that “the choices of non-existent persons can be known.”

Is there something about that which you find objectionable?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

But why?

Why don’t we see that it’s harmful to us to express our anger by shouting at our mates and therefore use our rational minds to stop this behavior?

Christianity has an answer.

I think atheism’s answer is: we don’t know why we continue to act out negatively. We just do.

Yep, it can be a miserable place. But the term: ‘We are not meant to be like this’ makes very little sense to me

I think that whenever you yell at your children or your wife you have a little voice in your heart that says, “I shouldn’t be like this.”

That’s what I mean.

 

[PRmerger]

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

There is no “he will” to God. There is His Knowledge in the Eternal Now.

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?

If you can tell me why you left him in the garden with a bone and told him not to touch it, then we can investigate this a little further…

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.

I wouldn’t conceive a child that I knew was going to instigate a second Holocaust.

But if I were Master of the Universe, and I knew that this event was the choice of someone who rejected me, then I would have to say, “So be it. But I will make it up to those millions of folks who suffered for a short time as a result of this evil choice and give them an eternity of bliss.”

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

Thank you Bradski - I am very touched!

 

[PRmerger]

Which is what you agreed with. Designing X so that it won’t do Y is the same as designing X so that it can’t do Y. If you see some sort of distinction here that I don’t, forgive me because I don’t know how to work around such distinctions grammatically.

But I never said that God designed X so it won’t do Y. I simply said that God knew that in creating billions of souls none of them would choose to do Y.

God doesn’t design anyone so he won’t do [fill in the blank].

All are given Free Will. And it is always a FREE choice. And there is always the choice to reject Him.

Anyway, you go on to say that a person has to be able to choose God or reject him to qualify as free, correct? I’m not so sure that jives with how free will has been treated in this discussion. You agreed that God designing humans who he knows won’t enact a Second Holocaust isn’t an intrusion of our free will. So just replace “enact a Second Holocaust” with “reject God”. What’s the difference?

He doesn’t design them to NOT choose a second holocaust. He simply knows that they won’t.

It’s not their design that makes them choose or not choose a particular action.

It’s always their choice.