God created evil

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Examples?

The U.S. Code, Title 18, section 2 holds that whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Bradski]

Accordingly, If I have an IQ of 150 and give a weapon to a person with an IQ of 50 and known to me to also be predisposed to erratic behavior, it does make me rather more culpable than the perpetrator because of my better ability to reason, and his diminished capacity in comparison to.

And the weapon is free will.

Everyone should have it. It a basic right. Even though having it gives you the opportunity to choose to do something wrong. Just like anyone from the NRA would argue that it is a basic right to have a gun.

Yes, they will say, we accept that some people might do bad things if they have one, but that’s not our fault.

But if you give a gun to someone who is likely to misuse it, then I would suggest that you could be held responsible if they do. If you give a gun to someone that you know will misuse it, then how do you proportion the responsibility then?

 

[Amandil]

And the weapon is free will.

Absurd.

As I have told you in no uncertain terms, free will is directly ordered to the good.

Killing someone with a chainsaw, or even a gun, is not in accordance with the good.

Thus they are the abuse of free will caused by the will’s enslavement to some passion or desire.

Just as killing a family with a chainsaw is an abuse of the proper use and purpose of a chainsaw.

Apparently this much common sense is too much for your grey matter to grasp since it has been repeated ad-nauseum yet you continue in your ignorance.

 

[Bahman]

Which at best begs the question.

It is not since I am defining truth and absolute truth in my vocabulary.

“Axioms” are nothing more than self-evident premises.

That is not always true. For example concepts of God, omniscience, etc could be axioms within a metaphysical framework yet they are not self-evident.

If those axioms are self-evidently true, they are, necessarily, absolutely true.

Yes if they have a proper and complete definition.

Which is a distinction without a difference. Truth is truth, absolutely.

I make a difference for my purpose.

You’re writing in such circles here it begs the question if you even know what you’re talking about.

Care to put it in a syllogistic form? Or should I take a shot at it?

What I said is pretty clear. All I am saying is that the truth derived from a set of axioms which are not self-evidently true are not absolute truth.

So, let’s try and sort out this intellectual whirlwind you’re in:

1. There are axioms, which are self-evident premises
2. “Truth by definition is a set of statements based on a set of axioms”
3. “…but absolute truth is a set of true statements.”

Therefore:
“Any statement which is not based on any axiom and it is complete is absolutely true.”

:ehh:

See the problem?

The problem lies if an axiom is not self-evident.

No there’s not.

“To know” and “to believe” are acts of the mind and the will, as distinct from the objects of knowledge and belief(i.e. truth).

There is since there are things that they are not self-evident yet we can postulate them for sake of logic hence we can only believe them.

 

[Bahman]

What’s the difference?

Let me give you some statement. You tell me if you “know” them or “believe” them.

And then let me know how you “know” it vs how you “believe” it.

1. Manila is the capital of the Philippines
2. The pilot of your flight on American Airlines will get you to your destination safely.
3. Probioitics help stop diarrhea.
4. The Westboro Baptist Church’s views on God and homosexuality are wrong.

I know (1), (2) and (4) and I believe on (3).

 

[Bahman]

The above is nonsensical and I challenge any atheist with integrity to join me in saying the above is ludicrous.

Of course a perfect being could make an imperfect creature.

No, since an imperfect action, creating a imperfect thing which leads to evil, is not allowed.

 

[ready]

God has said by the mouth of the prophet Isaias: "I am the Lord and there is no other; I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. (Isaias xiv. 7)

“Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hath not done?” says Amos. (Amos iii. 6)

“Good things and evil,” adds Sirach, “life and death, poverty and riches, are from God.” (Ecclus. xi. 14)

The only real evil is moral evil or sin. But God did not create moral evil or sin, just the other “evils” that are not real evils (loss, injury, etc.) Because these “evils” permitted by God are sent to purify and sanctify us and to help us gain merit for heaven they are not real evils, though they are referred to as evil in the above Bible quotes.

God bless you.

 

[Bradski]

As I have told you in no uncertain terms, free will is directly ordered to the good.

God didn’t give you free will so that you would choose goodness (or God). He did so that you could choose Him. As the catechism says: ‘it attains its perfection when directed toward God’.

However, it goes on to say that ‘there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil’. So He allows that you may choose either (it’s not much use having it if you couldn’t). So you can use it for evil if you so choose. He would rather you didn’t but you must have to make this choice yourself.

Killing someone with a chainsaw, or even a gun, is not in accordance with the good…Just as killing a family with a chainsaw is an abuse of the proper use and purpose of a chainsaw.

Quite right. I don’t think anyone would argue with this. But someone can choose to use a chainsaw for good purposes or evil. God allows this. He wants you to make the right choice so He’s not going to force you not to make the wrong one.

 

[Bahman]

Absurd.

As I have told you in no uncertain terms, free will is directly ordered to the good.

Killing someone with a chainsaw, or even a gun, is not in accordance with the good.

Thus they are the abuse of free will caused by the will’s enslavement to some passion or desire.

Just as killing a family with a chainsaw is an abuse of the proper use and purpose of a chainsaw.

Apparently this much common sense is too much for your grey matter to grasp since it has been repeated ad-nauseum yet you continue in your ignorance.

It is not absurd. Your definition of free will although is nonsense but it cannot help you since you eventually have to put the blame of sin on another property, lets say X, hence God is responsible for given us X knowing that it leads to sin.

 

[Amandil]

It is not since I am defining truth and absolute truth in my vocabulary.

You don’t get to redefine terms to suit your vocabulary. Words already have objective meanings.

That is not always true. For example concepts of God, omniscience, etc could be axioms within a metaphysical framework yet they are not self-evident.

If an axiom is not self-evident it is not an axiom. Rather it is a premise or proposition.

I make a difference for my purpose.

It’s a purpose without a point. It’s meaningless.

What I said is pretty clear. All I am saying is that the truth derived from a set of axioms which are not self-evidently true are not absolute truth.

Then they’re not “axioms”. It seems rather that you like using the term “axiom” because it sounds more academic when really you’re using the term incorrectly.

The problem lies if an axiom is not self-evident.

The problem lies in your incorrect use of the term.

There is since there are things that they are not self-evident yet we can postulate them for sake of logic hence we can only believe them.

This sentence makes hardly any sense.

 

[Amandil]

God didn’t give you free will so that you would choose goodness (or God). He did so that you could choose Him. As the catechism says: ‘it attains its perfection when directed toward God’.

False dichotomy. “Would” necessarily follows from “could” in regards to the use, or abuse, of our freedom.

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).

1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."8

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

1707 "Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history.

If you’re going to cite the Catechism, its best not to take it out of context, but I’m sure that was never your intention, right?

However, it goes on to say that ‘there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil’. So He allows that you may choose either (it’s not much use having it if you couldn’t). So you can use it for evil if you so choose. He would rather you didn’t but you must have to make this choice yourself.

You’re confusing the state of the will with the act. A good will is necessarily ordered toward good acts and is thus free.

A disordered will is necessarily attached to evil objects, passions, and desires and thus is not free.

While the will is free to choose evil, the act of choosing the evil robs it of its freedom.

Quite right. I don’t think anyone would argue with this. But someone can choose to use a chainsaw for good purposes or evil. God allows this. He wants you to make the right choice so He’s not going to force you not to make the wrong one.

Which makes your whole argument specious.

 

[Amandil]

It is not absurd. Your definition of free will although is nonsense…

Here’s an axiom for you Bahman:

What is asserted without reason may be rejected without reason.

…but it cannot help you since you eventually have to put the blame of sin on another property, lets say X, hence God is responsible for given us X knowing that it leads to sin.

As if I need help for dubious claims such as yours.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Creation occurs timelessly. Our spiritual nature is created in God’s image in the eternal realm of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and truth. Our decisions are known regardless of when we are born. The time factor is totally irrelevant where God is concerned.

 

[Bahman]

Here’s an axiom for you Bahman:

What is asserted without reason may be rejected without reason.

As if I need help for dubious claims such as yours.

Which part of my argument is dubious? I am in fact very clear.There should exist X that causes sin given the circumstances since by your definition free will end is toward doing good meaning that without X we wouldn’t be able to do sin.

 

[Bradski]

You’re confusing the state of the will with the act. A good will is necessarily ordered toward good acts and is thus free.

A disordered will is necessarily attached to evil objects, passions, and desires and thus is not free.

While the will is free to choose evil, the act of choosing the evil robs it of its freedom.

I’m not sure why you need to quote parts of the catechism that tell us that we are supposed to use our free will for good. That’s already been agreed and I have no problem with it.

But free will we have and we use it, as God intends, to choose between good and evil.

It seems, for whatever reason, that you want to turn around the obvious relationship between free will and choices. If you have free will, you can make choices as your will dictates. But it appears you are saying that if someone is not good and makes a bad choice, then it’s not free will any more.

It seems a strange definition of free will if it can only be used to choose good. Can you tell me where this is meant to lead?

 

[Bradski]

Creation occurs timelessly. Our spiritual nature is created in God’s image in the eternal realm of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and truth. Our decisions are known regardless of when we are born. The time factor is totally irrelevant where God is concerned.

But what if someone were to suggest that…

‘…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 I believe the choices of uncreated persons are unknowable because of the divine origin of free will.’

 

[Bahman]

Creation occurs timelessly. Our spiritual nature is created in God’s image in the eternal realm of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and truth. Our decisions are known regardless of when we are born. The time factor is totally irrelevant where God is concerned.

This is opposite to your former position that the decision of a non-existing being cannot be known!

 

[tonyrey]

This is opposite to your former position that the decision of a non-existing being cannot be known!

On the contrary I’ve stated that a person exists or doesn’t exist regardless of time or space. From God’s point of view it doesn’t make any difference when or where we are born or die. That doesn’t affect the issue at all:

“In Him we live,move and have our being”. Acts 17:28

We are created timelessly and immaterially because we are made in God’s image but we are not divine and therefore contingent. We do not exist necessarily. We come into existence supernaturally. As we are living in time and space it is difficult to understand this. The best way to approach the problem is to think of the existence and non-existence of our minds, ignoring our bodies which exist in time and space. The confusion arises because we belong to two different dimensions which are linked but independent except for our deliberate control of our bodies.** Our minds transcend time and space. We are not subject to the laws of nature.

**

 

[Amandil]

But free will we have and we use it, as God intends, to choose between good and evil.

It seems, for whatever reason, that you want to turn around the obvious relationship between free will and choices.

The obvious relationship is that acts must be freely chosen to be free.

Acts resulting from disordered attachment to “things” or passions or desires is by definition not an act of a free will but an enslaved will.

“Those who commit sin are slaves to sin.”

If you have free will, you can make choices as your will dictates. But it appears you are saying that if someone is not good and makes a bad choice, then it’s not free will any more.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. Don’t confuse the dignity(ontological goodness) of a person with whatever disordered appetites they may have within their will.

It seems a strange definition of free will if it can only be used to choose good. Can you tell me where this is meant to lead?

A will is only free so long as it chooses the good.

Such free acts lead invariably to universal good.

 

[Bahman]

On the contrary I’ve stated that a person exists or doesn’t exist regardless of time or space. From God’s point of view it doesn’t make any difference when or where we are born or die. That doesn’t affect the issue at all:

“In Him we live,move and have our being”. Acts 17:28

We are created timelessly and immaterially because we are made in God’s image but we are not divine and therefore contingent. We do not exist necessarily and come into existence supernaturally. As we are living in time and space it is difficult to understand this. The best way to approach the problem is to think of the existence and non-existence of our minds, ignoring our bodies which exist in time and space. The confusion arises because we belong to two different dimensions which are linked but independent except for our deliberate control of our bodies.** Our minds transcend time and space because we are not subject to the laws of nature.**

I think there is a tension between timeless and omnipresent God, and time.