God created evil

[tonyrey]

I can give logical/mathematical examples of when such determinations can be made (look up “completeness” of a deductive system). Gödel’s work dealt with such questions. However, I’m sure everyone’s tired of my mathematical examples at this point.

Knowledge is not confined to logical systems. Pascal, who was no mean mathematician, realised “the heart has its reasons that reason does not know”. Anyone who attempts to live according to a deductive system is being unrealistic…

 

[tonyrey]

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.”

 

[Richca]

Then let’s go back to the chainsaw example.

People make them so they can cut wood. Yes, they can be used to kill someone, but it’s hardly the responsibility of the person making them if someone else chooses, with his free will, to do so.

But what if the person making them knew, as a fact, that the particular one he was just about to make would be used to massacre a family. Not just ‘the next one’, but the particular one he was just about to start.

He has a choice to make it or not. If he does and someone else chooses to use it to kill (as he knows they will), does he bear any responsibility at all for what happens?

The last time this came up, the response was ‘well, I’d tell the police’ or something equally as fatuous. What do you say?

In your example, God would not allow the particular person in question to massacre a family with a chainsaw except in view of some good. Thus St Augustine says: “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.”

And St Thomas Aquinas says:
“Every evil that God does [evil of punishment], or permits to be done [evil of sin], is directed to some good” (ST I-II, Q.79, Art. 4).

And, of course, the evil of the passion and crucifiction of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ redounded to the salvation of the entire human race.

 

[Amandil]

Then let’s go back to the chainsaw example.

People make them so they can cut wood. Yes, they can be used to kill someone, but it’s hardly the responsibility of the person making them if someone else chooses, with his free will, to do so.

But what if the person making them knew, as a fact, that the particular one he was just about to make would be used to massacre a family. Not just ‘the next one’, but the particular one he was just about to start.

He has a choice to make it or not. If he does and someone else chooses to use it to kill (as he knows they will), does he bear any responsibility at all for what happens?

The last time this came up, the response was ‘well, I’d tell the police’ or something equally as fatuous. What do you say?

Lets flip this around.

You’ve killed someone robbing a convenience store.

God knew you were going to kill someone, so by your logic God should never have created you because He knew that you would kill someone.

Or its God’s fault because you decided to rob that store with a weapon and you chose to kill that person?

 

[Bradski]

Not being omniscient we do not know the exact scope of omniscience, i.e. we cannot know for certain the full extent of what is knowable - or unknowable. I may be mistaken, of course, but the choices of uncreated persons are unknowable…

Nice to see you not being so dogmatic, Tony. Last time I brought this up it you were so definite about it. Now I see that you admit that you’re not certain about the scope of omniscience and you’re not sure if we can know the full extent of it and…this is the bit that I appreciate most…you may be mistaken.

Was this because every man and his dog has pointed out what omniscience actually means? And pointed out the relevant verses in scripture and even snippets of the catechism? Heaven forbid that an atheist should point out an error in your thought processes, but it’s good to see that you may well listen to fellow Christians.

 

[Bradski]

Lets flip this around.

You’ve killed someone robbing a convenience store. God knew you were going to kill someone, so by your logic God should never have created you because He knew that you would kill someone.

Or its God’s fault because you decided to rob that store with a weapon and you chose to kill that person?

You must work really quite hard to ignore what I wrote and substitute what you’d like to read. Wouldn’t it be easier to reply to what I’ve written instead?

Read this:

It has been argued that God cannot simply ‘not create’ the woman because He knows she will do evil because that would deprive future generations of life and that may not be part of His plan. All good.

Now maybe you thought that ‘All good’ related to the weather down here or the chances of the Roosters beating Central Coast on Monday (because they are both good). Or maybe it’s too obscure an Australian colloquialism for you. It means that I am confirming that I think the point is a valid one and I’m good with it. I accept it. For the purpose of the point I was making, I think it should stand. That is, it should not form part of any counter argument because I have already accepted it.

Are we clear on that? All good.

Now that you understand that I’m sure you’ll agree that the point you have made above makes no sense because it is not my logic that God should have not created me if I rob a store. It wasn’t the point of the post I made, it wasn’t written as part of that post and I have never made such a point previously. It has zero bearing on the point I was making whatsoever. Zero as in absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Are we clear on that as well? All good.

Now here’s a suggestion. How about we don’t flip the argument around just yet. How about we treat it as it was written and how about you answer it?

I actually can’t see what else you could use to prevaricate any further. But I’ve got a feeling that you’ll find something, because you really do not want to answer it, do you…

 

[Amandil]

Now here’s a suggestion. How about we don’t flip the argument around just yet. How about we treat it as it was written and how about you answer it?

So in other words, you’re going to dodge the question.

Not surprised.

I actually can’t see what else you could use to prevaricate any further. But I’ve got a feeling that you’ll find something, because you really do not want to answer it, do you…

I actually can’t see what else you could use to be any more disingenuous, but I got a feeling you’ll contrive some ridiculous and extraneous hypothetical situation where you constantly commit special pleading.

The point to this little exercise is how you completely shirk and shift when your broached with your own debate tactics.

It’s easy to pose these sort of hypotheticals when you’re intentionally left out of them.

 

[Bradski]

The point to this little exercise is how you completely shirk and shift when your broached with your own debate tactics.

OK, here we go. I take it that if I answer your question, there is nothing to stop you answering mine.

Is it God’s fault that I chose to kill someone? No. I’ll repeat that so you know that you have a definite answer: No

I robbed the store of my own free will. He allowed me to make the decision myself and it was my call only, using my God given free will to kill the man.

I really can’t be any clearer than that. Now…back to mine.

We have someone about to make a specific chainsaw that he knows as a fact will be used to kill a family. If he doesn’t make it they will not die. If he does, they will.

If he does make it, does he bear any responsibility at all for what happens?

Look forward to your reply…

 

[Amandil]

We have someone about to make a specific chainsaw that he knows as a fact will be used to kill a family. If he doesn’t make it they will not die. If he does, they will.

If he does make it, does he bear any responsibility at all for what happens?

Look forward to your reply…

Aside from the fact of special pleading, if he does make it, no he doesn’t bear the responsibility. The chainsaw doesn’t have a will of it’s own, the guy buying it does.

And so what if he doesn’t make it. There’s no way that you can make the statement, “If he doesn’t make it they will not die…”

If he doesn’t make it the guy could just pick out another chainsaw that someone else made.

Or he’ll could buy a nail gun in the net isle.

Or he’ll could pull a screwdriver out of his tool box.

In any case your contrived circumstance is basically a meaningless exercise.

Now I hope at this point you are finished straining the gnat while swallowing the camel.

 

[Bahman]

So there is a difference between truth and truth.

I don’t suppose that you know what the law of non-contradiction is, do you?

What I am saying is that there is a difference between truth and absolute truth. Truth by definition is a set of statements based on a set of axioms but absolute truth is a set of true statements. In latter case you need to accept the axiom meaning that the outcome, an statement, could just only believed since it is based on a set axioms which were accepted and in later case you know the absolute truth since the statement is true and complete by itself.

But according to your system there is no possible way to know, only believe.

No. Any statement which is not based on any axiom and it is complete is absolutely true.

So now you’re also trying to tell me that there is a difference between a belief and a belief?

There is a difference between to know and to believe.

 

[Bradski]

if he does make it, no he doesn’t bear the responsibility. The chainsaw doesn’t have a will of it’s own, the guy buying it does.

Ah, now you have read what you want again as opposed to what I wrote. I asked if the guy should accept any responsibility. Not the responsibility, which implies all of it. Huge difference. But anyway, this is as about as close to an answer as we’re likely to get, so let’s fly with it.

Imagine the court case. The guy who massacred the family is up for the murder. The distraught survivors of the family are there. You are the guy who made the chainsaw. You are on the stand giving some background info and the defence council checks that you were the one responsible for making it.

He starts to badger you as if it was your fault. Trying to deflect the blame. Lessening the culpability of his client.

The council for the prosecution gets his turn. To make sure the guy in the dock gets the full blame for the murder, the first thing he says is: Mr Amandil, could you please tell the court that when you made the chainsaw, you had absolutely no idea whatsoever that it would be used to massacre this poor innocent family in the most horrendous fashion

You say…well, according to what you have just told me, you say:

‘Actually, yes. I did know that the person in the dock would use it to kill those people. I knew it as a fact. There was no doubt about it at all. I was absolutely certain without any shadow of doubt that he would kill those people. And can I just say, despite the fact that they would be alive today if I hadn’t made it, I still went ahead because killing them wasn’t my fault’.

How do you think you’d go? Maybe I can start a poll and we’ll see how many years people will think you’ll get.

And so what if he doesn’t make it. There’s no way that you can make the statement, “If he doesn’t make it they will not die…”

You seem to have difficulty with he concept of hypotheticals, Amandil. We should practice.

 

[tonyrey]

Nice to see you not being so dogmatic, Tony. Last time I brought this up it you were so definite about it. Now I see that you admit that you’re not certain about the scope of omniscience and you’re not sure if we can know the full extent of it and…this is the bit that I appreciate most…you may be mistaken.

Was this because every man and his dog has pointed out what omniscience actually means? And pointed out the relevant verses in scripture and even snippets of the catechism? Heaven forbid that an atheist should point out an error in your thought processes, but it’s good to see that you may well listen to fellow Christians.

I’ve often pointed out, Brad, that all our statements about God are fallible because they are analogical. His existence, for example, is unlike any other form of existence. The same applies to His knowledge with the added difficulty that some things are unknowable because they are self-contradictory. The decisions of a non-existent God are clearly unknowable and if persons are made in the image of God it seems likely that the decisions of non-existent persons are also unknowable. As I pointed out, our free will is scientifically inexplicable anyway.

Regardless of all that, divine knowledge does not exclude human freedom or imply that evil is created by God any more than our knowledge of what people are likely to do compels them to do it and makes us directly responsible. He didn’t create evil any more than He created freedom. The difference is that divine freedom is shared whereas evil is a misuse of human freedom. We can go “wrong” in both senses of the word. In fact evil is the result of ignorance because it definitely isn’t in our interest to hate, harm and destroy others. :dts:

 

[Bahman]

Why do you get to profess your beliefs, and maintain that they are correct, while denying Catholicism this right to do the same?

First I make a distinction between absolute truth and truth the latter is a set of true statements and the former is a set of statements and axioms. We can only know absolute truth and believe truth since the latter is complete but the later is axiomatic.

Second, considering my position related to this thread, I do know that God created evil given the definitions (axioms) of God, omniscience, creation and free will. I don’t believe that God created evil since I know it since your position is contradictory and mine is firm.

Either you get to express your beliefs, and profess, “What I am saying is absolutely true!”…

Any statement that is complete and is not axiomatic is absolutely true hence I know the statement is absolutely true it is not axiomatic and it is complete.

while saying, “Catholicism also gets to express her beliefs and profess that it is absolutely true!”

Because you are expressing your belief and I don’t. In simple word you express what you believe and I express what I know.

You say, “I am saying something, but I have no idea if it’s correct or not…”

…to which we respond, “Then you will have to forgive us if we give your words no credit whatsoever. We dismiss all you say since even you don’t believe it’s true.”

I have express myself well by now.

 

[Bahman]

Since God is perfect good and He created something other than His perfect self, it allows evil, otherwise would He have to recreate Himself?

First, your statement is self contradictory meaning that what is perfectly good can create something which is imperfect and this allows evil.

Second, I can argue that something which is perfect and omnipresent cannot create anything which is imperfect since you either have to exclude omnipresent or perfection once an imperfection no matter how small exists.

 

[Bradski]

The decisions of a non-existent God are clearly unknowable and if persons are made in the image of God it seems likely that the decisions of non-existent persons are also unknowable.

I think that you may be sliding your original point away from those who are yet to be created to those who will never be created. As in ‘gods who do not exist’ or as you put it a ‘non-existent God’.

There is no such thing, as far as you are concerned, as a ‘non-existent God’. It would be purely imaginary, and so you might want some people to believe you meant ‘imaginary people’ perhaps. Which wasn’t the case, was it…

We can try again if you like.

I’ll assume that you would believe that God knows everyone who, in our terms, has been created, is created, or will be created. He is, after all, omniscient.

Having presumably accepted that, do you then accept that He knows what choices those people have, do or will make?

 

[Bahman]

I’ve often pointed out, Brad, that all our statements about God are fallible because they are analogical. His existence, for example, is unlike any other form of existence. The same applies to His knowledge with the added difficulty that some things are unknowable because they are self-contradictory.** The decisions of a non-existent God are clearly unknowable and if persons are made in the image of God it seems likely that the decisions of non-existent persons are also unknowable. As I pointed out, our free will is scientifically inexplicable anyway.**

Regardless of all that, divine knowledge does not exclude human freedom or imply that evil is created by God any more than our knowledge of what people are likely to do compels them to do it and makes us directly responsible. He didn’t create evil any more than He created freedom. The difference is that divine freedom is shared whereas evil is a misuse of human freedom. We can go “wrong” in both senses of the word. In fact evil is the result of ignorance because it definitely isn’t in our interest to hate, harm and destroy others. :dts:

What is in bold is not correct since God has knowledge of creation as whole otherwise he is not omniscient. Supposes God create X hence fate of X is known to God. Now suppose that X will be killed by Y who does not created at the time of creation of X. This is clearly self contrary.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’ll assume that you would believe that God knows everyone who, in our terms, has been created, is created, or will be created. He is, after all, omniscient.

Having presumably accepted that, do you then accept that He knows what choices those people have, do or will make?

He knows them because they exist. Once in existence, they cannot not exist. If that is where you are going.

How about if we focus on your own existence, it might make more sense.
Are you free to choose whether to continue on this thread?
You may really want to respond, but if you have a report to complete and posting will make it impossible to complete it, you may choose not to.
God knows your choice from the beginning of time. He also knows that he will intervene to help you complete the report by whispering through your conscience.
He knows that you will post anyways, that the report is not completed, you lose your job, your wife leaves you, and your kids never talk to you again. Your dog runs away.
You were created with free choice; he tried to help you.
He creates a human life that unfolds as one chooses; you can do your will or the will of God.

How can you cease to be within eternity, given that you are here?
How would He know your dog would run away if you were never here?

You are created and become yourself through your choices.
That self was not created to make those particular choices.
You freely decide to be the person you are.
If you are a good person, it is because you want to be.
Once created, God knows who you are, which is the end result of who you wanted, want and will want to be.

 

[Bradski]

Thank you Aloysium. Maybe I should point out that, for the purpose of this thread, I agree with everything you say.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

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

Officially, the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply says that it is a sin against the First Commandment. And insofar as the First Commandment is concerned, we are told to have no God before the God who gave the first commandment to Moses. Atheists have no God before the God who spoke to Moses.

More to the point, I would like to see my fellow Catholics enjoin me in trying to keep the other 9 that we ourselves continually break.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Bradski]

More to the point, I would like to see my fellow Catholics enjoin me in trying to keep the other 9 that we ourselves continually break.

To give you all something to aim for, I’m afraid I can only manage 3.