God created evil

[Bradski]

Yes, I understand that you are in agreement with us that if someone is in hell it is because of her choice.

But it certainly does sound like you’re suggesting that this is indeed God’s fault.

Maybe you’re not reading what I’m writing. I get it a lot. To confirm: It Is Not God’s Fault If You End Up In Heaven.

Now read what else I wrote and tell me if you agree with that.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe you’re not reading what I’m writing. I get it a lot. To confirm: It Is Not God’s Fault If You End Up In Heaven.

sigh!

Actually, it is God’s “fault” if we end up in heaven.

It’s just not God’s fault if we end up in hell.

Now read what else I wrote and tell me if you agree with that.

In what post?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Good Evening Charlemagne: I haven’t been evasive with you. To me you seem to be trying to view the grand canyon through a paper towel tube when you ask questions like that. In and of itself, I don’t think that believing in God or not believing in God is either doing good or doing bad. It is simply believing or disbelieving in accordance with your ability to reason. What you do with what you believe is another matter altogether.

Thank you,
Gary

So you disagree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church that atheism is a mortal sin?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And if that person ends up in hell, then God knew that before He ‘brings him into creation’. He creates him knowing that he will end up in hell.

I’ll assume, from what you have just written and from what Charlemagne has just written earlier that you agree with the statement I just made.

Now we can ask if you think that God had any choice about creating this person.

If He didn’t then He must be restricted in some way and he is not omnipotent. If He did, then how do you think it reflects on God’s goodness and mercy that He purposely created someone whom He knows will suffer eternal torment?

Yes, God thinks enough of our freedom to grant our wish to defy him, we knowing full well our destiny in doing so. It is not God’s choice to send us to hell. We choose.

We do not know if hell is so bad as Danted made it out to be, but we know from scripture that it is an immortal thirst to know God, a thirst that cannot be quenched because we, not God, chose eternal thirst.

No need to blame it on God. We are free to choose heaven or hell. God help us all!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Now we can ask if you think that God had any choice about creating this person.

God is free, as are you and I.

 

[Bradski]

But mostly I watch this and am filled with sorrow.

I started off angry. Perhaps because I expected to be angry and, truth be told, wanted to be angry. But I ended up feeling as you did. A little saddened by it. And feeling quite a lot of compassion for Phelp’s granddaughter.

I think that Theroux did an outstanding job. I actually thought of what the programme might have been like if someone like Chris Hitchens had done it. A lot of justifiable sound and fury but perhaps not so insightful.

Actually, it is God’s “fault” if we end up in heaven. It’s just not God’s fault if we end up in hell.

Typo. Hell. I meant hell.

In what post?

The bit that said this:

I’m also certain that you would have no problem in me saying that God is omniscient. He knows everything, and as you have pointed out, He knows it all outside of what we consider to be time. So He knows who is in hell and who is not. Whether they have yet been born or not is immaterial because time has no meaning for God. He just knows.

And again, I cannot see any argument against the statement that God created us all. Or will create, or did create. Whatever tense you like. So people that have been, will be, are being created (again, feel free with the tenses) God knows if they are or will be in hell. It’s not going to be a surprise for Him. In fact He already sees it. It can’t change, it already just ‘is’.

And how’s your Empathy List coming on?

God is free, as are you and I.

I agree. So God had a choice.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I agree. So God had a choice.

Aren’t you an atheist?

More to the point, God had a plan.

 

[Bradski]

Aren’t you an atheist?

Last time I checked, yes. I can always preface all my posts with something such as…

I don’t believe in God but for the purpose of this discussion I will accept that He exists and that He has all the attributes that are associated with Him in relation to the following comments.

…but I’m assuming everyone would appreciate that in any case.

More to the point, God had a plan.

I’m sure He does. But He is not constrained in any way so He has a choice nevertheless.

 

[Richca]

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.

Before here refers to the beings God has created. Every creature has a beginning in time and consequently, God is before every creature since He is eternal. Thus, Jesus said concerning Abraham, “Before Abraham was, I am.”

You need to explain **how **

 

[CRM_Brother]

Did God create evil?

Mixed answer.
If you mean “evil” in the sense that it is a measurable standard, independent of the matter to which the standard is applied? No. Evil does not even exist in this sense, because it is always dependent upon the separation between the state of the matter, insofar as it is good, and the perfection (the highest possible good).

Now, if you mean “evil” as the ability for something to fall short of its perfection (as all things are, as they are matter, and all matter contains potentiality), yes, God does create evil. The potentiality contained within matter ( because anything that is, could also not be; and anything material is not necessarily material) causes anything material to fall short of its perfection. That is, when God creates matter, the matter inherently contains both the ability for evil to be present and the portion of evil that separates the material object from its immaterial perfection.

This is an EXTREMELY abridged summary of the first book of Thomas Aquinas’s opus, Summa Theologica. Many philosophers reject it out of hand, saying that it is theology rather than philosophy. This distinction was not made until hundreds of years after his death, and he should be read as such. For a modern philosopher to actually understand his argument (I’m not saying you have to believe it) one must discard modern connotations for the translated words and look at it from a purely logical standpoint. I would say that you would get ALOT more out of it if you read it in the original Latin, but fewer and fewer non-catholic philosophers have an interest in the language .

 

[Bahman]

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.

This we already discussed. Perfection can be only achieved through exercise with the fruit understanding morality based on the context.

 

[Bahman]

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.

There exist a definition for good in Platonic sense. Good is a quality of a form which produces a coherent outcome. Evil in opposite produces an incoherent outcome. Some people mistakenly misuse wrong as synonym as evil. Wrong by definition is a quality of outcome when outcome does not lead to required functioning. Right hence by definition is a quality of outcome when outcome does lead to required functioning.

 

[Bahman]

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

No, that is not correct. Belief by definition is temporary state of trust on validity of something. It is temporary since we do not have access to set of concepts which are absolutely true yet this is achievable only through the right practice together with with correct judgment of subject matter based on right understanding.

 

[Bahman]

Love is truth PR.

Truth is state of belief on something, our state of beliefs however is not absolutely true.

 

[Amandil]

Truth is state of belief on something, our state of beliefs however is not absolutely true.

And herein lies the problem: there is no way this statement can be true. If “truth” is only subjective belief and relative opinion and morality, is that absolutely “true” or just a belief?

If you say it’s absolutely true, you’ve contradicted yourself.

If you say its just a belief, then it begs the question is that belief absolutely true, or just a belief?

 

[Bahman]

And herein lies the problem: there is no way this statement can be true. If “truth” is only subjective belief and relative opinion and morality, is that absolutely “true” or just a belief?

There is no problem since there is a difference between absolute truth and truth. You believe on truth but you know the absolute truth.

If you say it’s absolutely true, you’ve contradicted yourself.

Unless what I say is absolutely correct.

If you say its just a belief, then it begs the question is that belief absolutely true, or just a belief?

No, because what I said is not a belief.

 

[PRmerger]

Aren’t you an atheist?

Dearest Brother C3…we all know that Bradski is an atheist. He knows he is an atheist.

When he is in dialogue with Believers, some concessions need to be made. He will assume that God exists,* for the purpose of discourse* only.

Otherwise, all of our dialogue with him would be thwarted with a response from him that goes something like this, “God doesn’t exist anyway, so how could he create evil?”

That would be useless, wouldn’t it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m sure He does. But He is not constrained in any way so He has a choice nevertheless.

Yes, God is free to choose His own plan. He is also free to include atheists in His plan.

For me the plan is a good deal more interesting than the choice.

But it’s as if God is saying to all of us:

“My plan is for me to know and for you to figure out. Every now and then I will release a clue.
But never suppose I am going to reveal the entire plan until the game is over.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Otherwise, all of our dialogue with him would be thwarted with a response from him that goes something like this, “God doesn’t exist anyway, so how could he create evil?”

That would be useless, wouldn’t it?

Thank you, PR.

 

[oldcelt]

Never thought that this thread would go this long. We’re almost at the 1,000 limit and I wanted to thank all of you for all your insights. Almost without exception you have have been truly kind to someone who disagrees with your positions.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I have found it to be fascinating and informative. Since I have exhausted my ability to contribute anything of potential value, I’m just going to back off and let the thread meet its approaching end.

Thanks again to all of you who have challenged me and given me many important factors to consider.

John D. Imhof