God created evil

[Oreoracle]

Not at all. I’m saying that His knowledge doesn’t CAUSE you to freely choose what you choose.

We have very different definitions of “free will”, then. To me, saying our will is free means that our actions cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy. For example, in the days when Newtonian physics dominated, it was believed that if one had complete knowledge of all momenta of every particle in the universe, one could predict the future in its entirety. This would obviously negate free will, because human decisions would be predictable in principle.

Now I’m sure theologians have dreamed up a sufficiently nebulous definition of “free will” and sanitized it so the “free” part is meaningless. If you’re going to concede that our actions can be predicted but still insist they are free, what is the difference between “free will” and “regular will”, then?

So, in other words, the only premises that we can begin from are yours?

It’s not a matter of premises, but of terminology. Metaphysical terminology is designed to be pedantic. But thank you for answering the question about God predicting my diet. I honestly didn’t expect a straight answer. As for his “modes” of knowing not being human, that’s irrelevant to me. I only care that he knows, not how he knows.

Unless you created him for the express purpose of slaughtering millions, no.

So let me see if I understand this. You’re saying that it’s okay to knowingly do something with *extremely negative consequences *as long as those consequences weren’t expressly your intention? I assume you’ve heard the saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”? So a doctor can knowingly prescribe you medicine with horrible side effects (side effects that greatly outweigh the benefits) and still be morally in the clear because he didn’t mean to cause those side effects.

What do you mean by “special treatment”? It seems rather that you’re still assuming your conclusion.

Frankly, you surprised me. I anticipated that you would condemn the actions of the human. But no, apparently everything is permissible as long as you don’t “intend” to harm anyone.

Your position is a false dichotomy. The third option, assuming that what you “know” about her is based on fact and not mere assumption, is to approach the wife with what you know and present her with the option of telling her husband first, or if she refuses then to inform her that you’ll tell him yourself. Her initial response will give away if she truly is committing adultery. And then once the truth is in the open the choice is hers; to save her marriage or to sin and abandon it.

Alright, so either way she has to admit what she’s done wrong. She then commits suicide because you forced her into a difficult situation. Well played. Or maybe she doesn’t commit suicide, but she and her husband spend years feuding whilst ruining their children’s lives. There are too many variables in play for you to reliably mitigate the suffering here.

BTW, the assumption that the relationship would “repair itself” after the adultery which still lies hidden with her is based on what exactly?

It’s not an assumption, it’s a possibility. If we were certain about what would happen, it probably wouldn’t be considered a moral gray area.

Not at all. You seem rather to be conflating “contradiction” with a paradox. Contradictions are by their very definition, “sense-less”: like someone walking through a wall and at the same time that same person NOT walking through that same wall at that exact same time.

In depends on whether you’re talking about paradoxes in the colloquial sense or paradoxes in the logical sense. The fact that women are more interested in men that act uninterested in them is a paradox in the colloquial sense. Russell’s paradox is a logical paradox. Paradoxes are not tolerated in logic; set theory had to be revised to eliminate Russell’s Paradox.

 

[Amandil]

We have very different definitions of “free will”, then. To me, saying our will is free means that our actions cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy. For example, in the days when Newtonian physics dominated, it was believed that if one had complete knowledge of all momenta of every particle in the universe, one could predict the future in its entirety. This would obviously negate free will, because human decisions would be predictable in principle.

How do you know that your definition of “free will” is the only possible one to work from, much less true?

And it seems to assume a materialist position.

Are you saying that to have a will that is free “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”?

Now I’m sure theologians have dreamed up a sufficiently nebulous definition of “free will” and sanitized it so the “free” part is meaningless. If you’re going to concede that our actions can be predicted but still insist they are free, what is the difference between “free will” and “regular will”, then?

“Free will” and “regular will”? Again, you seem to assert that “free” necessarily means “total self-determination”?

As to there being some distinction between “free will” and “regular will”, I’ve never heard of it.

It’s not a matter of premises, but of terminology. Metaphysical terminology is designed to be pedantic. But thank you for answering the question about God predicting my diet. I honestly didn’t expect a straight answer. As for his “modes” of knowing not being human, that’s irrelevant to me. I only care that he knows, not how he knows.

So you have a problem with specific distinctions and definitions? :ehh:

And how can you insist upon your way of Him knowing things when there are necessarily other ways of HOW He obtains that knowledge?

But HOW He knows is essential to your position being successful. You’re seem to be assuming that there is only one way of God knowing when there are obviously other possibilities. Possibilities that you apparently reject for no other reason than your bias towards determinism.

So let me see if I understand this. You’re saying that it’s okay to knowingly do something with *extremely negative consequences *as long as those consequences weren’t expressly your intention? I assume you’ve heard the saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”? So a doctor can knowingly prescribe you medicine with horrible side effects (side effects that greatly outweigh the benefits) and still be morally in the clear because he didn’t mean to cause those side effects.

Apples and oranges.

God doesn’t “knowingly” CAUSE evil. He does not “prescribe you medicine with horrible side effects (side effects that greatly outweigh the benefits)”.

The “evil”(rather the effects of evil committed) permitted by God is always remedial, no matter how you may subjectively “feel” about it. The evil committed is always sourced in God’s creatures and their disordered wills, not God’s will.

Frankly, you surprised me. I anticipated that you would condemn the actions of the human. But no, apparently everything is permissible as long as you don’t “intend” to harm anyone.

Talk about a faulty generalization…

And neither did you answer my questions:

What need does a Being, who is fully sufficient in Himself, and who needs nothing, have to create anything outside of Himself?

And if such a Being exist, then you must admit that there is a real possibility of nothing having ever existed, correct?

Yet we DO exist, why? Especially when there is no real “rational” explanation?

Or is it possible that the explanation is not merely “rational”(or rather based on mere human “rationale”)?

Alright, so either way she has to admit what she’s done wrong. She then commits suicide because you forced her into a difficult situation. Well played. Or maybe she doesn’t commit suicide, but she and her husband spend years feuding whilst ruining their children’s lives. There are too many variables in play for you to reliably mitigate the suffering here.

So, because I responded to your hypothetical situation clearly and accurately, you have to contrive some absurd response?

Says wonders for your position…

It’s not an assumption, it’s a possibility. If we were certain about what would happen, it probably wouldn’t be considered a moral gray area.

Circular…

In depends on whether you’re talking about paradoxes in the colloquial sense or paradoxes in the logical sense. The fact that women are more interested in men that act uninterested in them is a paradox in the colloquial sense. Russell’s paradox is a logical paradox. Paradoxes are not tolerated in logic; set theory had to be revised to eliminate Russell’s Paradox.

The point is that what you THINK is a contradiction to you(subjectively), is NOT to God. That you can’t “see” how God solves it is a paradox, not a contradiction, just means that you are human and are spatially and temporally limited. God is neither.

 

[Oreoracle]

How do you know that your definition of “free will” is the only possible one to work from, much less true?

I readily concede that it isn’t! Definitions are arbitrary, because words are just labels; I could define a cat as a broom if I so wished. That would be a bit misleading to those with whom I wish to communicate, however. Likewise, whatever your definition of “free will” is seems as if it doesn’t remotely resemble what the average person means by the term. Most people, as I said, would agree that having free will means that your future isn’t set in stone, i.e., isn’t predictable.

Are you saying that to have a will that is free “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”?

It’s interesting how you came to that conclusion when I didn’t use the word “right”, “existence”, “meaning”, “universe”, or “mystery”.

“Free will” and “regular will”? Again, you seem to assert that “free” necessarily means “total self-determination”?

Why not just use the word “will” then, if there’s no real difference?

As to there being some distinction between “free will” and “regular will”, I’ve never heard of it.

So you would agree that if God were to hypothetically remove our free will*, we would be oblivious to this change since there is no observable difference between making decisions and making decisions “freely”?

*I know you can insist that he wouldn’t do that, but I’m not saying he would. I’m simply asking if free will is observable in human behavior or not.

So you have a problem with specific distinctions and definitions? :ehh:

I have a problem with obfuscating an issue that is simple. If I had asked you to answer the question in metaphysical terms, I would have gotten an entire philosophical treatise. But since I asked the question in concrete terms, I got a straightforward answer. And your answer was all I was interested in. It matters little to me how you worked it out.

And how can you insist upon your way of Him knowing things when there are necessarily other ways of HOW He obtains that knowledge?

Again, I’m not insisting on any particular way of knowing things. I don’t care how God gets his information, so long as he has it. The theologians can work out the epistemological gymnastics if they wish, but it’s all irrelevant to my point.

But HOW He knows is essential to your position being successful. You’re seem to be assuming that there is only one way of God knowing when there are obviously other possibilities. Possibilities that you apparently reject for no other reason than your bias towards determinism.

I have not once indicated that I am biased toward determinism, or materialism, or your other strawmen. My argument holds if God knows what I will do in the future. How he knows it is completely immaterial (pun intended).

And neither did you answer my questions:

What need does a Being, who is fully sufficient in Himself, and who needs nothing, have to create anything outside of Himself?

And if such a Being exist, then you must admit that there is a real possibility of nothing having ever existed, correct?

Yet we DO exist, why? Especially when there is no real “rational” explanation?

I don’t see the logical connection between the Problem of Evil and philosophizing about why we are here. The answer to your question is: Nobody knows “why” we are here, nor do we know if that’s even a meaningful way to frame the question. Anyone who pretends to know is a huckster.

I don’t expect you to sympathize, so I’ll explain it this way. It’s as if someone asked a Christian “Why does God exist?” Well there’s really no “why” to it, is there? He simply does exist in Christian philosophy. The best a Christian can do is assert that God exists because he has to. If it will pacify you, I could assert the same about the universe. Both claims are unfalsifiable.

So, because I responded to your hypothetical situation clearly and accurately, you have to contrive some absurd response?

It’s not at all absurd. These things happen. I’m sorry if the universe doesn’t accommodate your black-and-white view of morality.

 

[Sarmad]

Thank you for responding too! I wasn’t sure you would even notice it since it was on the 21st page of this thread. I’ll analyze this again.

1. God is omniscient (all-knowing). Yup
2. God is cognitively (knowingly) open to free will. Yup
   This means that God fully understands (i.e. knows everything about) free will (the ability to choose and control our own actions).
3. God knows the decision we perform in a situation. Yup
   a) God is cognitively open to free will. Yup
   b) God is cognitively open to the situation. Yup
   c) God is cognitively open to creation. Yup
4. a) Creation was performed by first cause (a supposed ultimate cause of all events, which does not itself have a cause (i.e. God)) Yup
   b) God was cognitively open to first cause (God). Obviously
5. We act and God was aware the source of each act. Yup
   So you are saying that God knows how we would react to certain things.
6. Free will is an illusion.
   The ability to choose and control our own actions is an illusion. I don’t agree with that statement because when I make a decision, I make a decision, not God. For example, if I see an apple or pear, I would choose to eat the apple. God will know I would choose the apple, but the person who chooses to eat the apple is me. I hope that makes sense lol.

Let me try to make it more clear. God knows what we will do before we do it, but it is still we that do it not God. From the example above, God is the one who allowed for this apple and pear to be in front of me, but it was me that made the decision to eat the apple.

So free will is not an illusion. We do have the ability to make our own decisions, its just that God knows what those decisions will be. These decisions can be influenced by what God places in front of us and they are there for us to truly fall in love with God. As Catholics, we believe that God gives enough graces to each person so that they have the opportunity to love Him. Whether the person rejects such graces is entirely up to that person.

I assume you didn’t know the definition of free will as defined by Catholicism, but its defined that way even by Google. I apologize if this interpretation is confusing and if I didn’t interpret what you had said correctly. If I’m missing anything, please let me know!

I am truly grateful for all the knowledge you helped me acquire about my Catholic faith! You have blessed me with this and I hope God blesses you throughout your life and on your religious journey!

 

[Amandil]

I readily concede that it isn’t! Definitions are arbitrary, because words are just labels;

Ahh, a nominalist, no wonder…

I could define a cat as a broom if I so wished. That would be a bit misleading to those with whom I wish to communicate, however.

Which is why nominalism and subjectivism as a whole are self-refuting. It’s not even really a philosophy, its a feeling. The fact that instead of asserting what you subjectively wish something to be( i.e. a cat to be a broom) that you actually have to conform your mind and behavior to what actually IS (the broom actually existing as a broom independent of your wishes), you implicitly refute that definitions are more than “just labels” and things exist in reality objectively.

That’s the things with subjectivism, its easy to posit, impossible to practice.

Likewise, whatever your definition of “free will” is seems as if it doesn’t remotely resemble what the average person means by the term. Most people, as I said, would agree that having free will means that your future isn’t set in stone, i.e., isn’t predictable.

Which would be begging the question.

It’s interesting how you came to that conclusion when I didn’t use the word “right”, “existence”, “meaning”, “universe”, or “mystery”.

I never claimed that you did. I was asking you a question. Do you have an answer?

Why not just use the word “will” then, if there’s no real difference?

The fact of the existence of a will necessarily constitutes that it is free. There is only on “will” which a human possesses.

So you would agree that if God were to hypothetically remove our free will*, we would be oblivious to this change since there is no observable difference between making decisions and making decisions “freely”?

*I know you can insist that he wouldn’t do that, but I’m not saying he would. I’m simply asking if free will is observable in human behavior or not.

The question, in its hypothetical state, is irrelevant. We’re not talking about what “might be”, we’re talking about what is.

I have a problem with obfuscating an issue that is simple. If I had asked you to answer the question in metaphysical terms, I would have gotten an entire philosophical treatise. But since I asked the question in concrete terms, I got a straightforward answer. And your answer was all I was interested in. It matters little to me how you worked it out.

Again, I’m not insisting on any particular way of knowing things. I don’t care how God gets his information, so long as he has it. The theologians can work out the epistemological gymnastics if they wish, but it’s all irrelevant to my point.

I have not once indicated that I am biased toward determinism, or materialism, or your other strawmen. My argument holds if God knows what I will do in the future. How he knows it is completely immaterial (pun intended).

Whatever you say. And you wonder why you have such a problem understanding?

I don’t see the logical connection between the Problem of Evil and philosophizing about why we are here. The answer to your question is: Nobody knows “why” we are here, nor do we know if that’s even a meaningful way to frame the question.

So you’re a nihilist?

Anyone who pretends to know is a huckster.

Whatever you say.

I don’t expect you to sympathize, so I’ll explain it this way. It’s as if someone asked a Christian “Why does God exist?” Well there’s really no “why” to it, is there? He simply does exist in Christian philosophy. The best a Christian can do is assert that God exists because he has to. If it will pacify you, I could assert the same about the universe. Both claims are unfalsifiable.

The universe doesn’t exist of its own accord; it necessarily had a beginning(according to the Kalam argument). God is not equivalent or identical to the universe, God exists beyond the universe. The universe exists in space and time and contains what is material and depends on God for its continued being. God is Being itself.

To ask “why does God exist” is as absurd as to ask “why does 2+2=4?”

To ask “why does the universe exist?” is not the same. Hypothetically, you could say “God could have designed another universe if He so willed.” But it would be absurd to say that “God could have designed another God.”

It’s not at all absurd. These things happen. I’m sorry if the universe doesn’t accommodate your black-and-white view of morality.

Whatever, you contrived the situation to make an absurd point, as with constructing any hypothetical situation. It’s was just disingenuous.

 

[Oreoracle]

Ahh, a nominalist, no wonder…

I don’t give myself that label–I prefer to just call it common sense. The definitions of words have changed over time, and that’s a demonstrable fact. That doesn’t mean that our modern definitions are “correct” or that the past definitions are “wrong”.

You cannot justify a choice of definitions within a language without using the language itself, which is circular reasoning. For example, one cannot prove the axioms of some type of mathematics without implicitly assuming the axioms.

I never claimed that you did. I was asking you a question. Do you have an answer?

I already defined it for you. “Free will” (by my definition) is the inability to predict the decisions that beings will make.

The fact of the existence of a will necessarily constitutes that it is free. There is only on “will” which a human possesses.

So when Christians assert that we have free will, you would agree that that doesn’t constitute new information? Obviously everyone knows we have our own wills, so this assertion isn’t very informative if having a will implies having a free will. Why is there any debate on the matter at all?

The question, in its hypothetical state, is irrelevant. We’re not talking about what “might be”, we’re talking about what is.

It is the most relevant thing that has come about from this conversation. If you concede that the removal of free will wouldn’t cause any observable difference in human affairs, it would mean that the religious bleating of “free will!” is just cold comfort. When someone assures you that you have free will, the most appropriate response is “What difference does it make? If I didn’t have it, everything would be the same.”

I’m reminded of an episode of Futurama, wherein Bender (a robot) is distraught because he suspects that he lacks free will. After a long quest, he finally “gains” free will, and continues about his life exactly as he did before the quest. Free will is pointless.

So you’re a nihilist?

Whenever you ask a question, you implicitly assume the question can be answered. Thus, “Why are we here?” assumes a “why”–that is, it assumes that we were made for a purpose. This has never been demonstrated. Until it is, the legitimacy of the question itself is suspect. A better question would be “Is there a reason we are here?”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’m reminded of an episode of Futurama, wherein Bender (a robot) is distraught because he suspects that he lacks free will. After a long quest, he finally “gains” free will, and continues about his life exactly as he did before the quest. Free will is pointless. . . .

He’s a cartoon character; I am sure he did and it would be for him.
You are a human being, and shouldn’t you be studying?
Tricky thing free will; who are your folks going to blame for poor marks?

 

[ventura2323]

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

Yes God created evil to test us and it is very much an evil spirit. And is in everyone.
Believe it or not, are we resentful, that is the evil one in all.

 

[ventura2323]

Evil is just sin; and sin is just “missing the mark”; and the mark is the proper purpose for things.
He created the things; the proper purpose for those things; and the freedom to search for him.

Have you ever experienced an exorcism? Ask a priest.

 

[SoldierOfGod]

*Note: I reference one or two concepts discussed in the Screwtape Letters in certain points of my explanation. I wouldn’t have been able to come up with half of what I write on my own. lol

God creates only what is good. Before Satan was The Devil, he was Lucifer the Archangel. With the gift of free will into the eternal lives of the angels, they were given a choice: to serve God or serve themselves. Lucifer, in his arrogance, as well as believing he ought never bow to the Incarnation, turned from God.

Evil is merely that which turns us away from the Triune God and His laws. Evil came into existence through Lucifer’s will, not God. Could God have destroyed Lucifer in an instant, and thus spare all of Creation untold pain and sorrow? Unquestionably yes! However, God’s love for His creations goes so far that it respects the free choices made by those who have been given free will. Lucifer made his choice, and God let him and his followers reap the consequences of that choice: eternal exile from Heaven and the Light of God.

Man freely chose to allow evil into our world, and God has let us reap the consequences of that choice. However, the difference between whether Man or the Devil could be redeemed to God is as simple as the presence of flesh itself.

Angels, when making a decision, stick to it for all eternity, so Satan and his fallen angels do not wish to be redeemed because they will not turn back on their decision. How can you save a spirit which does not wish to be spiritually forgiven? Man, being the beneficiary of being both spirit and flesh, is subject to changes of heart and mind, and thus able to understand and love God willingly, even if sins against Him are committed. Thus explains the success of the mission of the Incarnation.

And even after all those centuries of Man who, from the beginning, make offenses against God and one another, God could still wipe Evil from existence, because He is All-Powerful.

However, doing so would nullify:

1. the reason for the Son of God’s Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection
2. our ability to willingly love Him (which He desires of all his intelligent creations),
3. the merits and graces found in overcoming our individual trials and temptations

So you see, we cannot change that evil exists. We can, however, change ourselves by following God.

“I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.”
“So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you. There are many forces in this world besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case, you, also, were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.” - Gandalf’s advice to Frodo (and I think, to us all)

 

[Skeptic92]

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’ll bite: the problem here lies in premise 5 in stating that ‘evil exists’. You are assuming the metaphysical reality of evil which is an unwarranted assumption, for evil does not exist in itself as the notion of ‘pure evil’ is nonsensical (there is never pure chaos for instance) and therefore does not have objective existence. As Aquinas put forward in De Malo, evil is simply a privation of Goodness meaning that it is a lack of what it means to be good or acting against what it means to be good. This does not entail objective existence and therefore does not require God to be the cause of evil: as this would be inherently contradictory to the nature of God and therefore make the concept of God self-refuting.

 

[ventura2323]

This was addressed to me???

 

[ventura2323]

I’ll bite: the problem here lies in premise 5 in stating that ‘evil exists’. You are assuming the metaphysical reality of evil which is an unwarranted assumption, for evil does not exist in itself as the notion of ‘pure evil’ is nonsensical (there is never pure chaos for instance) and therefore does not have objective existence. As Aquinas put forward in De Malo, evil is simply a privation of Goodness meaning that it is a lack of what it means to be good or acting against what it means to be good. This does not entail objective existence and therefore does not require God to be the cause of evil: as this would be inherently contradictory to the nature of God and therefore make the concept of God self-refuting.

Perhaps you need to be convinced by a priest,that exorcism is really dealing with evil.
God is not the cause evil, he allows evil to test us.
W hy do you fear that realization?
Our thoughts are not all our own, evil speaks to man and man thinks it is their thoughts…

 

[Skeptic92]

Perhaps you need to be convinced by a priest,that exorcism is really dealing with evil.
God is not the cause evil, he allows evil to test us.
W hy do you fear that realization?
Our thoughts are not all our own, evil speaks to man and man thinks it is their thoughts…

Ever heard of the problem of evil?

An all good God and the existence of evil are self-contradictory, and therefore impossible
Evil exists
Therefore an all good God can not exist, as it would be self contradictory

Don’t allow premise 2, there is a reason Aquinas termed evil to be a privation of what is good…to avoid the above argument.

 

[ventura2323]

Ever heard of the problem of evil?

An all good God and the existence of evil are self-contradictory, and therefore impossible
Evil exists
Therefore an all good God can not exist, as it would be self contradictory

Don’t allow premise 2, there is a reason Aquinas termed evil to be a privation of what is good…to avoid the above argument.

If evil doesn’t exist, who tempted Jesus in the desert?

 

[davidv]

If evil doesn’t exist, who tempted Jesus in the desert?

A being, named satan, who has chosen completely evil ways. Not evil as an entity.

 

[ventura2323]

A being, named satan, who has chosen completely evil ways. Not evil as an entity.

that makes no sense. If satan is chosen completely evil, how is it not an evil entity???

Have you been put to sleep or what?

 

[davidv]

that makes no sense. If satan is chosen completely evil, how is it not an evil entity???

His very existance is a good. Independent of any of his actions.

Have you been put to sleep or what?

Or what.

P.S. Personal attacks such as this last remark are uncalled for.

 

[ventura2323]

His very existance is a good. Independent of any of his actions.

Or what.

P.S. Personal attacks such as this last remark are uncalled for.

What personal attack?
I think our conversation has come to an end.

 

[Skeptic92]

What personal attack?
I think our conversation has come to an end.

Your last comment was ‘have you been put to sleep or what?’ which is what we term an ‘ad-hominem’ which means ‘to the person’. That is by definition a personal attack and violates all the principles of a rational debate, it makes your argument logically fallacious (flawed) and demonstrates a lack of decorum. When you are evaluating a Philosophical argument; attack its premises and content and not the person making it.

First of all: Satan by nature is good, this is by virtue of the fact that he exists. Anything that exists has the source of its existence in God, that means everything by the sheer fact of its existence is Good. Notice I am not using ‘Good’ in the ethical sense, but in the ontological sense- as in the nature of Being or existence. Therefore Satan is not a pure evil by the sheer fact of his existence- his most inherent nature is still Good. He has just freely chosen to act contrary to the Will of God therefore making his actions a total ‘privation of Good’ but this doesn’t mean evil has a metaphysical existence.

If Evil had a metaphysical existence, that would mean that the nature of existence itself is not Good, and therefore our conception of God is conceptually false as it is inherently contradictory. I am not the source of this argument, I am paraphrasing Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica & De Malo for most of it.