God created evil

[Catolico65]

And a happy New Year to you.:extrahappy:

My question is – Is evil really a thing?

What is evil’s height, depth, and width? Does evil have velocity? Is it hot? Can we kill evil? Does evil celebrate birthdays? What is the real cause of evil? Too much brandy? Where is evil on the food chain? Why is it important to save a human life? Why is it important to separate violent murderers from the rest of the population?

The Bible clearly states evil is real and is propagated by the devil.

Furthermore, not all evil is the same in the eyes of God, in spite of what many people claim nowadays.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Bible clearly states evil is real and is propagated by the devil.

That is very true. Evil is very real and tangible. It is more than just the sinful actions of people.

 

[grannymh]

That is very true. Evil is very real and tangible. It is more than just the sinful actions of people.

Tangible?

Please, what are the dimensions of evil’s tangible height, depth, and width?

Does evil have velocity? Is it hot? Can we kill tangible evil? Where is evil on the tangible food chain? Why is it important to save a human life? Why is it important to separate violent murderers from the rest of the population?

 

[Catolico65]

Tangible?

Please, what are the dimensions of evil’s tangible height, depth, and width?

Evil is manifested in the tangible and physical world that you and I recognize. However, Satan is a fallen angel that doesn’t have a physical body like us, which then should be assumed to be spirit so there is no point in trying to give him physical attributes.

Can we kill tangible evil? Where is evil on the tangible food chain? Why is it important to save a human life?

The Bible teaches us the devil has a finite time to wreak havoc, after which he will be thrown into hell.

As far as human life goes, the Bible teaches us it is valuable and that people can lose their eternal life if they do evil w/o repenting.

Why is it important to separate violent murderers from the rest of the population?

Would you want to live with a violent murderer who has not repented?

 

[Brendan_64]

Tangible?

Please, what are the dimensions of evil’s tangible height, depth, and width?

When you ‘see’ it you know it is real and a presence in itself.

Does evil have velocity? Is it hot? Can we kill tangible evil? Where is evil on the tangible food chain?

Ask any priest who has witnessed an exorcism whether evil is a tangible entity in itself.

There is a lot more to this world than the actions resulting from the choices people make.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

That is very true. Evil is very real and tangible. It is more than just the sinful actions of people.

yes. there are more creatures in earth other than humans. there are spiritual creatures who have fallen before us. and who can influence even animals, - far less humans.

 

[tonyrey]

I think evil only exists in the same sense as cuddliness or a smirk or giving someone the cold shoulder - it’s a word which means something to people who know what it’s supposed to mean.

We could, but probably shouldn’t, describe these people as being adjectivally open.

Do you think lack of knowledge or lack of love are positive states or actions like cuddliness or a smirk or giving someone the cold shoulder?

 

[Bahman]

Your effort at self deception is impressive in it’s illogical anti complexity.

What an expression like “have you made your mind?” when a person is involved in a decision means?

 

[Bahman]

I am sorry that I lost tract of the post which…

However, I would like to talk about your comment – “To be honest, I don’t have a clear answer to this dilemma but I am thinking about it.”

Simply thinking about something is a great beginning, because so many people start with any kind of an idea that pops into their head without taking the time to really think about all that is involved with any type of dilemma.

In other words, I would like us to go back to square one (post 1) and tackle the dilemma of free will with a completely fresh start.

We could start by listing who and what is involved in the dilemma. First there is us who are natural human beings and then there is God Who is a super-natural being. So that we have some kind of base for talking about God, I would like to use Catholic teachings about God. An extremely brief explanation about God is that He is a super-natural Divine Spirit without material/physical limitations. Omniscience is knowledge without limits. So the first point “God has omniscience” is true because the basic meaning of omniscience is knowledge without the limits (space & time) of our material world. In addition, omniscience is knowledge about everything. If there were something that God did not know, then that would be a limitation on His knowing everything. Now we have two reasons why “God has omniscience” is true.

Does this approach to God’s knowledge make sense to you? Is there something you would like to add?

The basic dilemma is about matching the ideas of omniscience, creation and free will together such that we find proper definition for these three concepts without any conflict.

Lets start from creator point of view to see what it requires. The basic requirement for act creation is that God should be cognitively open to its act or in another word its design otherwise nothing meaningful could possibly come out of creation (this statement should be discussed since meaningful requires a definition). To be cognitively open however enforces a strong constrain to the creature hence for every possible situation when a decision is involved there is one and only one option available option available (read following) since otherwise creature has to be in state of mind which not definable for creator which contradict the point we start with. This however remove the free will from creature since the creature has to go through a mind state which is not definable in order to make a decision. In simple word, creature cannot be definable and undefinable at same time, the former from God point of view and latter from creature point of view. If we accept that creature is definable during the process of decision making from God point of view, then the process of decision making is an illusion and unawareness to final outcome is a shortcoming in our side. In another word mind state of creature has to get through a process which is not definable for only creature and the final outcome is mandatory hence free will is an illusion.

In simple words:

1. The act decision require a undefined state of being from creature point of view (this we cannot deny it since we all get through this state when a decision is involved)
2. God is cognitively open to creature so the creature’s mind state is defined for God
3. God knows the the outcome of decision since it is cognitively open to creature
4. The process of decision making is only undefinable for creature hence the final outcome should match what God knows
5. Free will is an illusion

 

[Bahman]

Your definition is incoherent: 1) Says P is cognitively open if P has knowledge of Q, but 2) says the exact opposite - P is cognitively open if Q has knowledge of P.

You are the only person in the world, according to google, bing and yahoo, to use the expression “cognitively open”, so I think you should try to find the correct English word rather than making something up.

It does not. The phrase is just reversed in another word: “God knows how we perform our decisions in every given situations since we are cognitively open to God”.

Dude, this doesn’t make any sense at all. I can light a fire without knowing exactly what the flames will look like, and can cook a paella without knowing exactly how it will taste, so God can certainly create something without knowing exactly how it will perform in all circumstances. Who are you to tell God what He can’t do?

That is the problem I have since the fire has just one functioning namely heating. Using the same analogy, creation should go through one and only one trajectory since God knows how system functions based on its initial design hence the act of decision making is solely an undefined state of being in our side to came out with the conclusion, namely decision at the end, which should match what God knows hence the free will is an illusion since we didn’t really have any alternative option except the one which should occur.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

It does not. The phrase is just reversed in another word: “God knows how we perform our decisions in every given situations since we are cognitively open to God”.

That is the problem I have since the fire has just one functioning namely heating. Using the same analogy, creation should go through one and only one trajectory since God knows how system functions based on its initial design hence the act of decision making is solely an undefined state of being in our side to came out with the conclusion, namely decision at the end, which should match what God knows hence the free will is an illusion since we didn’t really have any alternative option except the one which should occur.

Bahman, you could go to heaven or to hell based on what you decide to do in this following example;
will you beat up this old woman and go to hell forever, or, will you give her a glass of water and go to heaven forever?

Now you are free to do either. What will you do? The final outcome of your life depends on this.
Are you free to choose one or the other? Do both lead to different outcomes?

 

[Bahman]

Just a quick question. Is omniscience a percursor to cognitive openness? It seems that it should be, but I don’t know that it’s being considered in such a way.

It also seems that NOT being cognitively open to a thing is exactly what makes free will possible. Since I do not and could not (I’m not omniscient) know every possible outcome of a system, I have to make a choice based on the knowledge I do have regarding it, then accept the outcome as dependant upon the choice I made.

Since God is omniscient, His knowledge of us as created beings is cognitively open (I’ve been reading philosophy for over 15 years now and this is the first time I’ve heard this expression used), meaning that even though God knows the choices we’re going to make, His being open to our making them allows us to make them freely.

Does that make sense or am I just reaching here?

Being cognitively open enforce a very hard constrain on any system meaning that the system should act one and only one way. This means that a agent/creature in principle does not have many options when it comes to decision since one and only one of those options is real. The act decision making is then solely the process to realize the only true option therefore we are not free.

 

[Gospel_of_Chaos]

Help me out if I have something wrong, but here is the way I see it.

It is contradictory to God’s nature to purposely create evil. It just makes no sense, and I refuse to believe in a God that purposely brings such chaos into the world. One of the hardest things to understand is why bad things happen to good people. We have free will, and sometimes people make poor decisions that have negative consequences on each other. But it’s hard to understand things like natural disasters, children being born with birth defects/genetic problems, why there are people in Africa starving and suffering from diseases long since cured by medical science, ect…

I see evil as a natural thing. Evil and sin existed even before they were introduced in the world, because there was a possibility for sin, even before the first sin. (Eve Eating the fruit)

Almost like the counterpart to good, because one cannot exist without the other.

Maybe even in comparison to what we recognize as “hot” and “cold”. Cold is just the absence of heat, and one cannot exist without the other.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, you could go to heaven or to hell based on what you decide to do in this following example;
will you beat up this old woman and go to hell forever, or, will you give her a glass of water and go to heaven forever?

Now you are free to do either. What will you do? The final outcome of your life depends on this.
Are you free to choose one or the other? Do both lead to different outcomes?

I would give water to old lady instead of beating her not as a result of desire to go to heaven but as result of two main principles I accepted namely, “treat people as you like to be treated” and “judge people as you like to be judged”. This is however a question related to ethic and its relation with free will which is beyond the scope of this thread. In this regards I am already determined to perform one action, namely giving water to old lady, since I accepted the main principles which is reduced to a given action solely given water. In another word there is no decision involved in this situation. The problem of free will arises when you have two available options which does not interfere with any principle you have accepted hence you are not determined hence non of the options has specific preference over other therefore one is in the undetermined mind state to conclude a decision. The question which is important is whether we have any freedom at all when it comes to a decision. In another word, are the options that we are dealing with in a given situation real? or one and only one is real? In later case the process of decision making is a process to realize the sole option we had hence we have no freedom. In former case we are free but absolutely undefinable which gives rise to a problem namely how God could be cognitively open to us.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I would give water to old lady instead of beating her not as a result of desire to go to heaven but as result of two main principles I accepted namely, “treat people as you like to be treated” and “judge people as you like to be judged”. This is however a question related to ethic and its relation with free will which is beyond the scope of this thread. In this regards I am already determined to perform one action, namely giving water to old lady, since I accepted the main principles which is reduced to a given action solely given water. In another word there is no decision involved in this situation. The problem of free will arises when you have two available options which does not interfere with any principle you have accepted hence you are not determined hence non of the options has specific preference over other therefore one is in the undetermined mind state to conclude a decision. The question which is important is whether we have any freedom at all when it comes to a decision. In another word, are the options that we are dealing with in a given situation real? or one and only one is real? In later case the process of decision making is a process to realize the sole option we had hence we have no freedom. In former case we are free but absolutely undefinable which gives rise to a problem namely how God could be cognitively open to us.

Are you not avoiding the point that while you may be naturally inclined to one or the other of those two choices you are still also free to choose the other if only as an experiment. And this different choice results in a drastically different outcome for you.

 

[Bahman]

Are you not avoiding the point that while you may be naturally inclined to one or the other of those two choices you are still also free to choose the other if only as an experiment. And this different choice results in a drastically different outcome for you.

The main question is whether the principles you have accepted are sufficient for a decision in a given situation with known options? If the answer to this question is yes then the process of decision making is solely reviewing these principles hence we are not free. The problem starts when the number of principles are not sufficient or two or more principle come to conflict with each other. There are two questions here, first how we eventually get out of this mind trap and perform a decision?, second accept that we manage to get out of this mind trap and perform a decision, what we could learn from this decision after realizing the outcome and knowing the situation that we were involved with was unique? In another word suppose the outcome of decision leads to a catastrophe meaning that we wrongly gave a good weight to one principle over others, how this lesson could help us in another given situation?

 

[inocente]

Do you think lack of knowledge or lack of love are positive states or actions like cuddliness or a smirk or giving someone the cold shoulder?

I don’t see how cuddliness, etc., can be described as states.

If good and evil exist as anything other than notions inside our heads, there must be a way of weighing them, an objective measure. But the drone which kills a suspected terrorist and also kills some children is either good or evil according to whether you work for the CIA or are the mother of one of the dead children.

 

[inocente]

That is the problem I have since the fire has just one functioning namely heating. Using the same analogy, creation should go through one and only one trajectory since God knows how system functions based on its initial design hence the act of decision making is solely an undefined state of being in our side to came out with the conclusion, namely decision at the end, which should match what God knows hence the free will is an illusion since we didn’t really have any alternative option except the one which should occur.

No, fire doesn’t just have one function, it has whatever function you want from it, and some you don’t as well.

There’s no reason why anyone should ever have to know everything about something to design it, there are zillions of counter examples which disprove that. You haven’t even shown that God is the intelligent designer you claim Him to be. Your argument seems to be pure fatalism.

 

[Bahman]

No, fire doesn’t just have one function, it has whatever function you want from it, and some you don’t as well.

Fire has one intrinsic functioning namely heating up but it could be used for different purposes. The outcome is known when the subject matter behaviour is known under heating. For example if you heat dried leaves with fire, it results to burning but water boils etc.

There’s no reason why anyone should ever have to know everything about something to design it, there are zillions of counter examples which disprove that.

Can you give me a contrary example? We might design X for purpose Y and then realize that it has purpose Z as well. That is a possibility for us, but does that apply to God as well? God should know that designing X grants Y and Z otherwise God has not omniscience.

You haven’t even shown that God is the intelligent designer you claim Him to be. Your argument seems to be pure fatalism.

What it is shown is that accepting intelligent design leads to pure fatalism. I have never claimed that I proved that God is intelligent designer.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

The main question is whether the principles you have accepted are sufficient for a decision in a given situation with known options? If the answer to this question is yes then the process of decision making is solely reviewing these principles hence we are not free. The problem starts when the number of principles are not sufficient or two or more principle come to conflict with each other. There are two questions here, first how we eventually get out of this mind trap and perform a decision?, second accept that we manage to get out of this mind trap and perform a decision, what we could learn from this decision after realizing the outcome and knowing the situation that we were involved with was unique? In another word suppose the outcome of decision leads to a catastrophe meaning that we wrongly gave a good weight to one principle over others, how this lesson could help us in another given situation?

But you are always free. You are always free to choose one or other of those two things. If even only for an experiment. And the results of both choices are totally different. You cannot claim that you can only ever choose the same thing. Because you know that is not true. You could change your mind for any reason or no reason, or just randomly. And the end result will be different.
In your scenario it does not matter which you choose the result will always be the same. You will go to hell no matter what you do. And as I said you know already that this is not true.