God created evil

[josh987654321]

1. God has omniscience
2. God is cognitively open to free will (since otherwise couldn’t create a being with free will)
3. God knows the decision we perform in a situation as a result being cognitively open to free will and situation, in another word God is cognitively open to creation
4. Creation was performed by first cause and God was cognitively open to first cause
5. Evil exist and God was aware the source of evil in first cause since it was cognitively open to it
6. God created evil

I have been reading a fantastic book at the moment called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis in which I noticed he talked about your exact dilemma very well I believe, I would just like to paraphrase the short piece for you here -

So I guess the question is, If God is omnipotent and omniscient, is the existence of Satan in accordance with his will? If it is, he is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power? But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. You make a thing voluntary and than half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible. It’s probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot.

If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for his higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes; you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream could rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will-that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings-then we may take it it is worth paying.

I would also like to add this -
Matthew 13:

Weeds among the Wheat

24 Jesus then told them this story:

The kingdom of heaven is like what happened when a farmer scattered good seed in a field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, an enemy came and scattered weed seeds in the field and then left.

26 When the plants came up and began to ripen, the farmer’s servants could see the weeds. 27 The servants came and asked, “Sir, didn’t you scatter good seed in your field? Where did these weeds come from?”

28 “An enemy did this,” he replied.

His servants then asked, “Do you want us to go out and pull up the weeds?”

29 “No!” he answered. “You might also pull up the wheat. 30 Leave the weeds alone until harvest time. Then I’ll tell my workers to gather the weeds and tie them up and burn them. But I’ll have them store the wheat in my barn.”

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[tonyrey]

I have been reading a fantastic book at the moment called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis in which I noticed he talked about your exact dilemma very well I believe, I would just like to paraphrase the short piece for you here -

So I guess the question is, If God is omnipotent and omniscient, is the existence of Satan in accordance with his will? If it is, he is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power? But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. You make a thing voluntary and than half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible. It’s probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot.

If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for his higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes; you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream could rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will-that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings-then we may take it it is worth paying.

To disagree implies that it would be better not to exist - or perhaps as comfortable puppets!

 

[tonyrey]

To which part of this statement you have problem so we can discuss it?
Please read post #77.

1. You are - rather presumptuously - applying the categories of creatures to the Creator!
2. Is it likely that the Infinite Being is subject to rules made by finite beings?
3. Is man the measure of all things?
4. How do you know divine knowledge precludes free will?
5. What evidence is there to support your opinion?
6. Can it be verified?
7. Can it be falsified?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hi tonyrey.

One eye is repaired and the other will be by January 8. Seeing much better. Will try to participate regularly from now on. Thanks for the prayers.

God bless you all!

 

[Catolico65]

Once we accept that God is cognitively open to free will then we know that from God perspective we are not free since for any situation there is only one and only one possible action.

Your own decisions in your own life dismantle your argument because you no longer do everything the same way that you did before, nor does anyone.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Bahman

Once we accept that God is cognitively open to free will then we know that from God perspective we are not free since for any situation there is only one and only one possible action.

What does this mean? The logic escapes me.

 

[Aloysium]

Bahman

Once we accept that God is cognitively open to free will then we know that from God perspective we are not free since for any situation there is only one and only one possible action.

What does this mean? The logic escapes me.

There is an atheist site that humorously (in my warped opinion) randomly puts together sayings from the “wisdom” of Deepak Chopra. I have wondered whether we are not witnessing such a phenomenon here.

Actually, I think he is saying that
since God knows our choices, we cannot choose otherwise, and are therefore not free

 

[Aloysium]

In another thread I indicated to the poster that I could foresee that he would continue to post things that made little sense to me.
It appears that not only God but random idiots on the internet like myself can deprive him of his free will.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

**Aloysium

Actually, I think he is saying that
since God knows our choices, we cannot choose otherwise, and are therefore not free **

A father can know his son’s choices. How would knowledge of those choices take away the freedom to make them?

 

[Bahman]

I have been reading a fantastic book at the moment called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis in which I noticed he talked about your exact dilemma very well I believe, I would just like to paraphrase the short piece for you here -

So I guess the question is, If God is omnipotent and omniscient, is the existence of Satan in accordance with his will? If it is, he is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power? But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. You make a thing voluntary and than half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible. It’s probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot.

If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for his higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes; you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream could rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will-that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings-then we may take it it is worth paying.

I would also like to add this -

Thank you for reading
Josh

Thank you very much for your long post. My main aim from this post is however to understand what free will is, what omniscience is and how possibly one can have a consistent theory which could accommodate both. To elaborate one could provide a simpler argument as following:

1. An agent is cognitively open to a system only and only if it knows functioning of the system under each possible circumstances
2. This means that system can functions only and only in one specific way in a given situation, otherwise system has malfunction or is not well defined for the agent
3. In regard to God and creation, God is cognitively open to creation otherwise it could not perform creation
4. This means one can not accommodate free will within creation

To be honest, I don’t have a clear answer to this dilemma but I am thinking about it. The problem is one step farther from what you explain in your long post.

 

[Bahman]

1. You are - rather presumptuously - applying the categories of creatures to the Creator!

Are you agnostic? I am not, so I use all tools in my disposal to understand God.

1. Is it likely that the Infinite Being is subject to rules made by finite beings?

That is the rules of logic my friend. Do we have any other options? If no, then the efforts of all theologians are waste of time.

1. Is man the measure of all things?

Man is measure/responsible for everything that is cognitively open to it. The main question, is whether man cognitively open to God, creation and itself? Why God granted intelligence to man?

1. How do you know divine knowledge precludes free will?

There is a simpler argument I provided in post 90 which claims that there is a problem with free will and omniscience. I am thinking of the problem myself.

1. What evidence is there to support your opinion?

Logic.

1. Can it be verified?

It can be discussed. Discussion and mental activity is the only door to become cognitively open to any problem, math, science, etc as far as our potentials allow us.

1. Can it be falsified?

Yes, to falsify a dilemma/question is possible by finding a more elaborate way thinking which could accommodate both side of the problem in a cohecive manner.

 

[Bahman]

Your own decisions in your own life dismantle your argument because you no longer do everything the same way that you did before, nor does anyone.

I understand what you are trying to say, but could you please elaborate how understanding such a simple argument could grant us such a great gift which could change our functionality.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman

Once we accept that God is cognitively open to free will then we know that from God perspective we are not free since for any situation there is only one and only one possible action.

What does this mean? The logic escapes me.

To be cognitively open to a system is necessary condition to have omniscience. Unfortunately this put a hard constraint on free will, please read following. One can argue that being cognitively open is not a necessary condition for omniscience and creation. Omniscience in this framework rather looks very strange, since God knows our actions but does not know how does have such a knowledge since God is cognitively closed to creation.

1. An agent is cognitively open to a system only and only if it knows functioning of the system under each possible circumstances
2. This means that system can functions only and only in one specific way in a given situation, otherwise system has malfunction or is not well defined for the agent
3. In regard to God and creation, God is cognitively open to creation otherwise it could not perform creation
4. This means one can not accommodate free will within creation

 

[Bahman]

There is an atheist site that humorously (in my warped opinion) randomly puts together sayings from the “wisdom” of Deepak Chopra. I have wondered whether we are not witnessing such a phenomenon here.

Actually, I think he is saying that
since God knows our choices, we cannot choose otherwise, and are therefore not free

The argument says more. To know something is different from being cognitively open to it. Please read post #93 for more explanation.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you agnostic? I am not, so I use all tools in my disposal to understand.

That is the rules of logic my friend. Do we have any other options? If no, then the efforts of all theologians are waste of time.

Man is measure/responsible for everything that is cognitively open to it. The main question, is whether man cognitively open to God, creation and itself? Why God granted intelligence to man?

There is a simpler argument I provided in post 90 which claims that there is a problem with free will and omniscience. I am thinking of the problem myself.

Logic.

It can be discussed. Discussion and mental activity is the only door to become cognitively open to any problem, math, science, etc as far as our potentials allow us.

Yes, to falsify a dilemma/question is possible by finding a more elaborate way thinking which could accommodate both side of the problem in a cohecive manner.

What exactly do you mean by “cognitively open”?

 

[Bahman]

What exactly do you mean by “cognitively open”?

An agent is cognitively open to a system only and only if it knows functioning of the system under each possible circumstances.

 

[Catolico65]

I understand what you are trying to say, but could you please elaborate how understanding such a simple argument could grant us such a great gift which could change our functionality.

The problem is my friend is you are apparently going to atheist forums that come up with all types of discombobulated logic wrapped in obscure terms that no one understands because they can’t be understood, which was the very point in the first place.

It should be very clear to anyone here on this forum why you believe there is no free will based on your statements. Here is an example - see bold.

Once we accept that God is cognitively open to free will then we know that from God perspective we are not free since for any situation there is only one and only one possible action.

Your claim that “there can be only one possible action” for any situation is a direct contrast to decisions that you make everyday, whether you want to publicly acknowledge it or not. As much as some people would propose we are nothing more than very intelligent animals the difference is we do fret over our decisions and feel regret for poor decisions, something no animal is capable of because they are not capable of free will.

My advice to you regarding understanding ourselves and this particular topic is to first accept that any philosopher has to be willing to be introspective and honest about themselves.

 

[Bahman]

The problem is my friend is you are apparently going to atheist forums that come up with all types of discombobulated logic wrapped in obscure terms that no one understands because they can’t be understood, which was the very point in the first place.

It should be very clear to anyone here on this forum why you believe there is no free will based on your statements. Here is an example - see bold.

Your claim that “there can be only one possible action” for any situation is a direct contrast to decisions that you make everyday, whether you want to publicly acknowledge it or not. As much as some people would propose we are nothing more than very intelligent animals the difference is we do fret over our decisions and feel regret for poor decisions, something no animal is capable of because they are not capable of free will.

My advice to you regarding understanding ourselves and this particular topic is to first accept that any philosopher has to be willing to be introspective and honest about themselves.

That is the general problem with a dilemma, in this case omniscience (with the necessity that God is cognitively open to creation) and free will. You can accept omniscience and then see its conflict with free will or you could accept free will and take the reverse path to again find a conflict with omniscience. Nevertheless what you highlighted with bold is the the consequence of omniscience or the fact that God is collectivity open to creation and there is nothing we can do about it. It is deduced from one side. Lets accept free will and see what we could conclude:

1. Free will is real
2. Free will is the ability to choose between feasible options
3. This means that state of being with free will is not definable during the process of decision making
4. This means that God could not be cognitively open to the process of decision making

The question which remains is that how God could create a being when it is cognitively close to it? You could argue that this is a possibility then you have to accept that God is able to create a being without knowing how it functions.

 

[Catolico65]

1. Free will is real
2. Free will is the ability to choose between feasible options
3. This means that state of being with free will is not definable during the process of decision making
4. This means that God could not be cognitively open to the process of decision making

#3 is false because one is certainly aware of their ability to choose outcomes at all times.

Who in their life hasn’t fretted over an important decision in their life at many times to the point that they wish it was not their responsibility to make? This makes your hypothetical logical point impossible.

I think it is aware you are determined to fashion a logical argument that there can be no free will but the problem is your own actions will never permit you to believe it. In other words you make a conscious decision to believe in something you do not believe in. Yet another free choice on your part, as illogical as it is.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

**Bahman

The question which remains is that how God could create a being when it is cognitively close to it? You could argue that this is a possibility then you have to accept that God is able to create a being without knowing how it functions. **

By this logic you perhaps hope to refute the idea of intelligent design. Not convincing by a mile.