God created evil

[LoganBice]

No, because he is admitting that it is faith. The problem with Catholics is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. The Catechism says that “God can be known with certainty through the light of reason” but then says that faith is necessary. If we can know God exists with certainty, what’s the point of faith? Faith is, by definition, to believe in something in spite of the lack of evidence. It is impossible to have faith in something that one knows to be true.

Getting on a plane is requires faith in the fact that it was built properly to fly. You also trust that the pilots will get you there safely. You know the plane exists but you have faith and trust that it will deliver it you safely. That is how we see God, we know he exists but we have faith and trust in him that he will lead us down the right path to his kingdom if we put that faith and trust in him.

 

[Amandil]

Are you describing God in a way that contradicts the Bible? His actions have a tense. Are you going to dismiss that as symbolic?

Oh how true it is that behind every atheist is a fundamentalist.

Oreoracle:

Catholics have cherry-picked things that they like from various philosophers. For example, the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato were at odds with each other at a fundamental level, but both were sufficiently respected that it was expedient to cite them as sources for one’s own philosophy.

Pot, meet kettle.

Oreoracle:

However, on this particular point, I don’t recall Aristotle proposing that there is one deity who knows everything outside of time.

Then you should take a look at Aristotle again.

Oreoracle:

His solution to determinism can be seen in the way he handled the problem of the future sea battle (“the problem of future contingents”). He proposed that statements about future events simply don’t have definite truth values. Interestingly enough, if this were so, God could not know something that hasn’t occurred yet, because future events are not true; as far as logic is concerned, their status is a mystery. If God did know them, we could argue that their truth value is definite.

Your “corollary” is not based upon Aristotle but is you assuming your own conclusions.

Nice try.

Oreoracle:

I doubt very many Catholics would agree with this view of future events, and this is evidence of my assertion that they cherry-pick.

Its only “evidence” if they buy into your linguistic confusions.

Catholics who clearly understand theology know what means what, so there are no confusions or “cherry picking”.

Oreoracle:

We don’t dismiss it because it doesn’t make sense. There are multiple reasons that we don’t allow those defenses in court, but coherence isn’t one of them. To name a few: 1) Law is concerned primarily with whether or not you did something, not why you did it.

Really? So determining motive isn’t necessary for demonstrating a case? You’re clearly not a cop.

Oreoracle:

1. There is no way to weigh the likelihood that such a claim is true against other evidence, meaning that we don’t know how much “doubt” this contributes to the case.

Thank god the judicial system in this country doesn’t rely wholly upon materialist principles.

Oreoracle:

1. Having a theology would make the courts partial rather than secular.

Yes because there was never any notion of impartial courts before the advent of secularism.

And secular courts are always the only fair and impartial courts there are?

Oreoracle:

But you have not provided an actual mechanism by which I can exercise my free will in a non-deterministic manner. Every tool I could use–that is, every aspect of my personality–falls under the realm of pre-determination. How, for example, do you explain the fact that different people use their free will differently? You can’t attribute it to their personalities, because this would be an admission that our choices are based on pre-determined things. They have the same free will, so why are they making different choices if not because of the pre-determined things?

I already did. You either ignored it or dismissed it.

Remember, you chose to ignore it or dismiss it.

And you chose to continue to post about it.

What compels you to continue posting? Is posting necessary to your being? No.

You chose to.

Your problem is that you keep purposefully leaving your free will out of the equation of your act of posting.

You’re begging the question, assuming that which you’re trying to prove.

Yet you’re using your free will to do so.

 

[Amandil]

No, because he is admitting that it is faith. The problem with Catholics is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. The Catechism says that “God can be known with certainty through the light of reason” but then says that faith is necessary. If we can know God exists with certainty, what’s the point of faith? Faith is, by definition, to believe in something in spite of the lack of evidence. It is impossible to have faith in something that one knows to be true.

It says THAT God can be known with certainty through the light of reason.

Nowhere does the Catechism say that reason alone can tell you WHO God is.

And your definition of faith is an assumed one as well.

You claim not to assume anything but all I’ve seen you do is assume things.

That says something in itself.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

So, if someone robs you at gun point, a sin, this is just a concept? An illusion?

Good Evening DavidV: If someone robs you at gunpoint, it is an event. If someone gives you a flower it is an event. Whether or not the event is good or bad is a concept, and a concept is a meaning we ascribe to something. You mention illusion, however, an illusion is something else entirely, and usually means something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. You know whether or not you’ve been robbed or have been handed a flower. These are not illusions. The value you assign to an event as good or bad is the result of applying a given framework of thought to it. You create that. This is what people do.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Look at it this way. Cold does not exist on its own. Cold is the absent of heat.

Evil does not exist on its own. Evil is the absent of goodness. Evil is the lack of something.

Good evening LoganBice: If this is true, then conversely it must hold that heat is the absence of cold and goodness is the absence of evil, and if evil is the lack of something because of the absence of good, then good is the lack of something due to the absence of evil.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Oreoracle]

Getting on a plane is requires faith in the fact that it was built properly to fly. You also trust that the pilots will get you there safely. You know the plane exists but you have faith and trust that it will deliver it you safely.

The problem is that you’re equating trust and faith. Trust can be earned, e.g., I trust my friends because they have always been there for me, I trust that planes can fly because of our knowledge of aerodynamics. Faith cannot be earned, at least not by an appeal to evidence.

If I had never heard of planes beforehand, I certainly would not have faith that they can fly, and neither would you. That would be quite a gamble.

Oh how true it is that behind every atheist is a fundamentalist.

No, I just think the “it’s symbolic” argument is a cop out. Why do you think fortune tellers and horoscope writers are so successful? People want positive predictions to be true, so they interpret them as loosely as possible so that they will conform to observations. Your average gullible person could look at a horoscope that says “you will be greeted with new opportunities today”, get fired from their job, and see this as evidence for the horoscope because they will have new opportunities; opportunities for new employment, that is.

And I think this raises an interesting question: What would you not be willing to believe if the Bible had been written differently? How patently absurd would a claim have to be before you agreed that something isn’t symbolic, it’s just wrong?

Your “corollary” is not based upon Aristotle but is you assuming your own conclusions.

How is it an assumption? If future events have no truth value, how can they be known? In what meaningful sense can we say that they are known? Are you going to use another classic cop out, “God is above logic”?

Really? So determining motive isn’t necessary for demonstrating a case? You’re clearly not a cop.

A possible motive isn’t enough to convict anyone. If it were, any family member could be convicted for the murder of a rich man, because there would always be a possible motive.

On the other hand, people are convicted without any known motive all the time when the other evidence is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt. Our usual explanation for odd behavior is that they committed the crimes out of psychopathy or insanity, but that isn’t really an explanation since these disorders are poorly understood as of yet.

I already did. You either ignored it or dismissed it.

Remember, you chose to ignore it or dismiss it.

And you chose to continue to post about it.

What compels you to continue posting? Is posting necessary to your being? No.

Thanks for asking. I am indeed consciously aware of why I post. Part of me enjoys learning about new perspectives. That happens only occasionally, because I know most of the stock religious arguments by this point. A much larger part of me enjoys arguing.

So, unlike you, I have a very clear understanding of my choices; I make them because of my personality, which is pre-determined. You seem to not know why you behave as you do, and you just call the mysterious variable that would account for it “free will”. Unfortunately giving something a name doesn’t amount to explaining it. If you elaborated on how it is you actually go about making choices, you would see that your personality is what clinches it.

It says THAT God can be known with certainty through the light of reason.

Nowhere does the Catechism say that reason alone can tell you WHO God is.

You can’t know that something exists without knowing what it is. If you could, I could claim to know what a galuddagripin is, and that’s something I made up off the top of my head. I still don’t know what it is since I haven’t defined it, but I’m just claiming to know that it exists, not what it is, you know?

And your definition of faith is an assumed one as well.

You claim not to assume anything but all I’ve seen you do is assume things.

That says something in itself.

I am guilty of assuming that people use standard definitions of words, yes.

 

[Aloysium]

Revelation is only reliable for those who believe in that reality. So you have created your reality by accepting a particular set of revelations. We are all functioning on some sort of faith when it comes to the unsolved portions of the universe, but none has any claim to being more real than the other.

Faith may be understood as the means by which we grasp and connect to reality. We need faith and trust for pretty much everything we do, perceive and understand.

That reality is relational, is self-evident - we relate to each other, the world and the Ground of our being.
Faith describes the nature of this relationship. There are different belief systems reflecting the variety in human relationships.

Thus, faith is not merely an intellectual belief or way to understand the world. It involves the totality of the person, an opening up to a relationship with God.
(Atheists may wish to skip this paragraph. One can’t be too careful about what one reads.)
It is not a matter of accepting a set of ideas by the mind. We are transformed through the revelation.
Catholicism is the truest and surest way to God. This is because it is centered on Jesus Christ, who is God.
The Word has come into history to reveal Himself and to prepare us for His coming as Jesus at the centre of time.
He has lifted the veil so that we may know and love God.

Now I don’t want to quibble about words, but would like to point out that faith cannot be said to be real or not.
It is an attitude within a relationship. So, I have faith in Jesus, knowing Him to be love. This impacts on every action and thought.

In Deism (Sorry, but you came here; I haven’t gone into your house.) there is an impossibility of a relationship with the creator. Here, god is a detached entity (perhaps force) having no interest in humanity. It is thus impossible to thank it, be angry with it or plead with it. There are laws that govern society but they do not reflect the nature of what is most real and true. They do not reflect how it wants us to be because it does not care. Thus we are not obliged to care about each other, to sacrifice or to give to one another. We can do so if we wish. Since love makes a mess of things, leaves one vulnerable and easily taken advantage of, in this world, it reveals itself as neurosis - an attempt to please, appease people who do not care. If our lives are a disaster, it does not care and there is no need to apologize. It does not matter; nothing matters other than what one chooses. In the end it is all about what one wills - power.

This is a description of a world ruled by Satan. He has been vanquished but his influence remains until the end of time, as each person must choose between God and evil and ultimately find Love.

 

[Richca]

I don’t feel that you addressed my question. I presented a chain of necessities that all follow from commonly accepted premises of Christian philosophy. What part of that chain do you not accept? To reiterate: God’s existence is necessary–> his nature is necessary–> his nature is to create, thus we are necessary–> our characteristics, including our personality flaws, are necessary, otherwise we wouldn’t be who we are–> our actions are therefore necessary, since they follow from our personality traits–> since sins are a subset of our actions, they are necessary. What part of this chain is contentious? If you accept that sins are necessary (from a modal point of view) in Christian philosophy, then we are in agreement. I refuse to call a choice that is necessary “free”, so our only disagreement would be as to how we should define “free”.

That God’s existence and nature are necessary are the only two accepted premises accepted in catholic christian philosophy you present here in. The rest are not necessary at all. God did not have to create us, He freely chose too. Our actions follow from our intellect and free will, they are not necessary at all except that it is necessary that they follow from the intellect and will. Sins are actions and since they follow from our intellect and free will they are not necessary. Trust me, that sins are necessary is not catholic christian philosophy in the slightest degree.

 

[Oreoracle]

That God’s existence and nature are necessary are the only two accepted premises accepted in catholic christian philosophy you present here in. The rest are not necessary at all. God did not have to create us, He freely chose too.

I’ve actually had Christians insist that God doesn’t have free will. Indeed, if God acts according to his nature, and his nature is necessary, it would seem to follow that his actions are necessary, right? And if his actions are necessary, they can’t have been otherwise; he wouldn’t be free in any meaningful sense.

 

[LoganBice]

Good evening LoganBice: If this is true, then conversely it must hold that heat is the absence of cold and goodness is the absence of evil, and if evil is the lack of something because of the absence of good, then good is the lack of something due to the absence of evil.

Thank you,
Gary

That is untrue. At least scientifically fromy understanding. Heat exists in itself. When you remove hest it becomes cold. Coldness is not something on it’s own it is just the lack of heat. You can’t create cold you can only remove heat. At least this is how I was taught in school. From my understanding also God is love and goodness. When you remove God you are left with evil. Evil can’t exist on it’s own it is the absence of goodness. Another example would be darkness. You can’t create darkness, only remove light. Darkness can never overcome light, it is just the lack of light.

 

[Richca]

The only thing that is necessary to the human person is to have a certain genetic sequence. That is the only thing “essential” to being a human. Your usage of the word “necessary” is just to state things you like. Mine is in the usual, modal sense of the word, to indicate that things couldn’t be otherwise.

In catholic christian philosophy, material substances are composed of two substantial principles, i.e., matter and form. Accordingly, human beings are composed of matter and form and the matter pertains to their body and the form to their soul. The soul of human beings is different from all other animals in that their soul is made to the image and likeness of God, i.e., it possesses spiritual powers of intellect and will.
Now what determines the nature or essence of a material substance is not its matter, but its form. Genetics and DNA belong to the material aspect of the matter or the body of a human being and though the matter or body are a part of the essence or nature of a human being, it is the form or soul that determines the nature or essence of a human being. Consequently, human beings are traditionally defined as rational animals.

 

[Bradski]

The reality is that God knows everything that is knowable but the free choices of non-existent persons are intrinsically unknowable.

So if an event takes place, which would have been based on people’s free choice, then God is as surprised about it as we are?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From LoganBice:

That is untrue. At least scientifically fromy understanding. Heat exists in itself. When you remove hest it becomes cold. Coldness is not something on it’s own it is just the lack of heat. You can’t create cold you can only remove heat. At least this is how I was taught in school.

Good Evening Logan: Heat is caused by gravity and fusion. Gravity and fusion come from stars. The further you get from a star, the colder it is. Spatially, you can find more cold in the universe than heat. Therefore, heat need not be removed to find cold.

From my understanding also God is love and goodness. When you remove God you are left with evil. Evil can’t exist on it’s own it is the absence of goodness. Another example would be darkness. You can’t create darkness, only remove light. Darkness can never overcome light, it is just the lack of light.

I would offer that love and goodness are qualities we give to the world. They do not exist without an agent of experience, which is you. You make them happen. The same is true of light. Without you, there are only photons. You turn photons into a quality called light by looking at them or by looking at their reflection off of objects. Among all of these things, you alone make them happen.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[LoganBice]

From LoganBice:

Good Evening Logan: Heat is caused by gravity and fusion. Gravity and fusion come from stars. The further you get from a star, the colder it is. Spatially, you can find more cold in the universe than heat. Therefore, heat need not be removed to find cold.

I would offer that love and goodness are qualities we give to the world. They do not exist without an agent of experience, which is you. You make them happen. The same is true of light. Without you, there are only photons. You turn photons into a quality called light by looking at them or by looking at their reflection off of objects. Among all of these things, you alone make them happen.

Thank you,
Gary

Yeah I ended up googling it and just confusing myself further so I’ll just go with what you said. You seem to understand science better then me. Thanks for the insight!

 

[Richca]

I’ve actually had Christians insist that God doesn’t have free will. Indeed, if God acts according to his nature, and his nature is necessary, it would seem to follow that his actions are necessary, right? And if his actions are necessary, they can’t have been otherwise; he wouldn’t be free in any meaningful sense.

Human beings who are creatures are not greater than their creator which is God. We hold that human beings have free will which is manifest from our experience of life. If God acted from necessity He would be more like a brute animal and less than human beings which is obviously absurd.
The Catholic Church teaches that God did not create the world out of necessity but freely chose too out of His infinite goodness and consequently He has free will. God’s existence is necessary and whatever perfections pertain to His existence such as His knowledge and goodness which proceed from his intellect and will respectively. God wills His own goodness necessarily but He does not will anything outside Himself such as anything He created necessarily.

 

[tdgesq]

The problem is that you’re equating trust and faith. Trust can be earned, e.g., I trust my friends because they have always been there for me, I trust that planes can fly because of our knowledge of aerodynamics. Faith cannot be earned, at least not by an appeal to evidence.

…

I am guilty of assuming that people use standard definitions of words, yes.

I’m afraid that it is you who doesn’t understand the definition of “faith.” You learned about aerodynamics from somebody else. Even if that were not the case, that perhaps you are an aeronautical engineer and have built your own planes and have flown them yourself, you still rely upon evidence when you “trust” someone else. Your trust is based upon your own empirical observations that what that person tells you conforms to reality.

Let’s just dispense for a moment with how Catholic philosophers, who generally rely on Aquinas, define faith. It doesn’t matter. Even the colloquial definition doesn’t limit faith to non-evidential claims. You are simply incorrect on this.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Yeah I ended up googling it and just confusing myself further so I’ll just go with what you said. You seem to understand science better then me. Thanks for the insight!

It was a pleasure speaking with you Logan.

PS: I’m not all that great at science either.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Human beings who are creatures are not greater than their creator which is God. We hold that human beings have free will which is manifest from our experience of life. If God acted from necessity He would be more like a brute animal and less than human beings which is obviously absurd.
The Catholic Church teaches that God did not create the world out of necessity but freely chose too out of His infinite goodness and consequently He has free will. God’s existence is necessary and whatever perfections pertain to His existence such as His knowledge and goodness which proceed from his intellect and will respectively. God wills His own goodness necessarily but He does not will anything outside Himself such as anything He created necessarily.

 

[Oreoracle]

The Catholic Church teaches that God did not create the world out of necessity but freely chose too out of His infinite goodness and consequently He has free will.

Okay, but you didn’t address my argument. God’s actions are due to his nature, yes? His nature is necessary, correct? It would seem that God’s actions are necessary. What say you to this?

I’m afraid that it is you who doesn’t understand the definition of “faith.” You learned about aerodynamics from somebody else. Even if that were not the case, that perhaps you are an aeronautical engineer and have built your own planes and have flown them yourself, you still rely upon evidence when you “trust” someone else. Your trust is based upon your own empirical observations that what that person tells you conforms to reality.

I’m not sure what you’re actually disagreeing with here. I agree that this highlights the difference between trust and faith nicely. I trust people because their claims concur with reality. Many Christians I know do not assert that God has ever personally contacted them. They claim to have no experience with God. In spite of this, they have faith in him.

Do you see how the use of “trust” versus “faith” isn’t symmetrical? Trust is based on observations, as you noted. Faith is based on, well, nothing. That’s the point of faith. You can apparently have faith in someone whose existence you aren’t entirely sure of. You can’t trust such a being in the usual sense, however.

 

[Bahman]

You’re using the term “imperfection” ambiguously at best.

What part of that “imperfection” causes the disordered attachment?

You answer me that how we could have disordered attachment if we are perfect?

Freedom is not defined the same as license. Freedom is properly defined as the responsibility to do the good that we ought, not the ability to do what we like.

Freedom is freedom and responsibility is responsibility.

E.g. A train is designed to travel from one point to another on a track, that is its purpose and end. Then someone came along and told that train that those tracks which take it to its destinations were hampering and restricting its freedom, and that to be truly free it must jump the track and choose its own way. If that train then jumps the track to be free of it and crashes, it would by definition be stuck and not be free to travel any longer.

Train doesn’t have any degree of freedom. Could you please find a better example?

There is no freedom in a will enslaved to sin, just as there is no freedom in a train which is derailed.

That is freedom that allow us to do sin.

So are you saying that “perfection” is achievable by our own powers and abilities?

Yes, and that is the purpose of living the best.

Where did I say anything about “blind obedience”?

To accept a set of laws as moral axiom from God and any other authorities is a blind obedience.

And so it is your contention that in order to know good we have to know evil? That in order to understand “thou shalt not kill” that we have to know what it is to kill someone?

We have to first accept that good and evil are both real such that without one another one doesn’t have any meaning. I also make a distinction between evil and sin. This I already discuss it in another thread and it is beyond the topic of this thread but is simple word, good is coherence in view and evil is incoherence in view, good is light and evil is dark, etc.

And tools can and often are used badly. Tools, like that train, are ordered to an end or purpose. Thus free will is necessarily ordered to the good and is only “free” when it chooses the good.

Free will is necessarily is ordered to perfection with any price.

If I use a hammer to fasten a nail into wood, then I am using that hammer correctly as a tool. If I use that same hammer instead to try and screw in a wood screw, I’m am definitely not using that tool according to its purpose, even though I am exercising the “freedom”(as you are using it) to do so. I am not using the tool according to its purpose but abusing it, as well as looking like a fool in the attempt.

Will is multi-tasks so your example does prove anything.

Theologically speaking the Christian faith teaches that even free will alone falls short of achieving perfection, that morality alone, as good as morality is, falls drastically short of the real purpose man was made. And that even morality alone is nearly impossible without divine assistance.

Following divine assistance is blind obedience.

False dichotomy.

It is not. You need to provide a reason.

Man’s imperfection is the source of sin, not any imperfection on the part of God(just to be clear by what is being said).

1. Man’s imperfection is the source of sin
2. God is perfect meaning that God can only do good
3. Man falls in trap of sin as a result of imperfection
4. God is responsible for man’s imperfection hence fall hence sin
5. God created evil given circumstances

Sin is thus possible in any act on the part of man.

Yes, sin is unavoidable knowing that human is imperfect and given the circumstances.

How people commit sin is based upon the perceived good in the sin itself. They want the false good sought. People steal in order to obtain the good they desire, yet it is obtained sinfully by following greed or covetousness. They believe that what they desire is absolutely their due. God never created that desire to steal, nor the act of stealing, those are entirely on the part of the person committing the act.

God anyhow is responsible for creation of imperfect beings.

Not directly, no. No more than you are responsible because you see someone else steal something. Your seeing it did not cause them to choose to steal.

God is responsible for creation of imperfect beings and putting them in situation knowing that they will fall hence God is responsible for evil. The idea here is however different from what is discussed in OP showing that God is directly responsible for evil.