God created evil

[tonyrey]

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

There is nothing to be surprised about because God knows the events caused by those who exist. I specified non-existent persons…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

There is nothing to be surprised about because God knows the events caused by those who exist. I specified non-existent persons…

Good Evening Tonyrey: I thought that according to Jeremiah He knew us before were in the womb.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Amandil]

“Good and evil, life and death,
poverty and riches—all are from the LORD” (Sirach 11:14).

The saying usually goes “scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.”

Apparently the same holds true for deists.

More proof-texting out of context as a pretext.

 

[Amandil]

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?

No, because He understands us a perfect degree where we only understand ourselves partially.

Thus He understands perfectly why we exercised our wills as we did.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

Let’s just go directly to the definition of faith as found in the “usual sense”:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

thefreedictionary.com/faith

1. strong belief or trust in someone or something.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

1. complete* trust or confidence in someone* or something.

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=faith+definition

The number one definition on all of these dictionary sites for “faith” is trust in a person or thing! There is no exclusion of evidentiary support. Why do you continue to insist that it must have a different meaning?

 

[Aloysium]

Good Evening Aloysium: If this is the case, wouldn’t that make sin and all of its attending mishaps a choice on God’s part? Because all of the things of this world, and their attending consequences would then be an enterprise freely and willfully entered into on the part of the One who knew. Which would not be the case for the hapless ones who had no precognition of events to come, and were simply born into it (namely us). This is one of the many areas where I think Atheists have a problem with the things we say. Because it’s not well thought out, and it seems rather born of a guilt complex acquired through conditioning, teaching and cultural reinforcement, rather than any sort of logical sense. This is my opinion or course, and I welcome any counterpoint for discussion.

I am curious to what good such a victory is to God. And if, as you say, a soul is lost to sin, what solace is justice to any party concerned?

Thank you,
Gary

:twocents:

Sin is not a choice on God’s part, but rather on the part of you and me. Do you understand this? We are responsible for the suffering of Christ on the cross. Suffering which He willingly took upon Himself that we might join with Him in heaven.
As a Catholic, you must hold to this truth.

Atheists may have a problem with this; but then they have a problem with far, far simpler matters. They do not even accept the premise of sin. I am writing this for people “who have ears”, as are most Catholics here. God speaks to me not only through scripture, but also through people. I hope I am able to help someone else.

I have no idea what you are talking about: guilt complexes . . . conditioning, etc., and I know that stuff very well.
When I relied on logic, that would have been in my teens, I came to realize that this is all absurd. We cannot grasp the truth of the divine unless it is revealed. The Beloved is not analyzed, manipulated, dissected; He is known through love. I can feed back what understanding I have gleaned through my relationship with God, but it will make sense only to those who are on a similar path. To those who do not know God, the hope is that the words will stimulated an interest in opening oneself up to Him.

As to justice, if you do not know in your heart the importance of justice, I don’t think I can inform you. As this sort of knowledge comes through living it, is it really something you want to know?

A soul lost to sin fails to love. What is not love, as seen by love, is horrific. In the end the reality of creation will be revealed. If you do not repent of your sins, if you do not give back the love that God gives you, it will be hell. Only pride balks at this.

 

[Oreoracle]

The number one definition on all of these dictionary sites for “faith” is trust in a person or thing! There is no exclusion of evidentiary support. Why do you continue to insist that it must have a different meaning?

A few things: Firstly, dictionaries are meant for the average Joe. They’re a bit sloppy when it comes to the nuances in a philosophical discussion. Secondly, there is, I think, a genuine difference in how the two words are used that a naïve definition would overlook. “Trust” is a word one most often uses to describe one’s relationship with friends. In this sense, trust is evidence-based–you trust friends because of your experiences with them. Contrast that with the use of faith, such as in the phrase “blind faith”. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of “blind trust”. In fact, I rarely hear the word “faith” used to describe confidence in a friend or something well-understood.

But even if you insist on the strict definition, I can accommodate that. For example, someone earlier said that I “have faith” that a plane won’t crash while I’m on it. I preferred to call this “trust”. To accommodate you, I’m more than happy to call it “confidence” if you like. The problem is that, to my knowledge, there is no word in the English language for “believes on the basis of evidence”. We have only two kinds of words: words to express belief, and words to express certainty. We have to rely on connotations, not definitions, to distinguish the ones that describe beliefs. Regardless of whether or not there is a specific word for the belief in something that is not grounded in evidence, it is important to understand (or admit) that belief in a deity falls under that category, whatever you choose to call it.

Even the Church admits that “faith is above reason”. If faith were evidence-based, it wouldn’t be!

 

[davidv]

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

Nonsense and rubbish.

The value of the human person, the things they do, are not determined you nor me. It is determined by God, objectively.

 

[Bradski]

There is nothing to be surprised about because God knows the events caused by those who exist. I specified non-existent persons…

You are saying that God knows nothing about any event at all which is caused by the free will of anyone not alive today. So he knows nothing of the results of those decisions which will occur, let’s say 100 years from now.

So much for omniscience.

 

[LoganBice]

You are saying that God knows nothing about any event at all which is caused by the free will of anyone not alive today. So he knows nothing of the results of those decisions which will occur, let’s say 100 years from now.

So much for omniscience.

Say you have superior knowledge about the stock market and you predict that a certain stock will raise by 10 points. Say down the road that stock does raise by 10 points. You had supirior knowledge that the stock would raise but outside factors caused it to raise. That is how our free will works. God, being outside of time, knows what choices we will make but he dosnt make use pick those paths we freely choose them. It’s like if you look out a 40 story building any you see a man crossing the street and a car about to hit him. You know that car will hit him but his choice to cross the steet is what caused it not your foreknowledge of the situation

 

[Aloysium]

You are saying that God knows nothing about any event at all which is caused by the free will of anyone not alive today. So he knows nothing of the results of those decisions which will occur, let’s say 100 years from now.

So much for omniscience.

Did you actually read what he said? If you are not arguing just for arguments sake, there is a massive failure here to communicate.

 

[Bradski]

Did you actually read what he said? If you are not arguing just for arguments sake, there is a massive failure here to communicate.

Let’s look at exactly what Tony said:

The reality is that God knows everything that is knowable but the free choices of non-existent persons are intrinsically unknowable. They are not like the actions of physical objects determined by the laws of nature. They are determined by us and presuppose our existence. Unless we exist nothing can be known about our destiny. That is why it is unreasonable to condemn God for creating those who go to hell. It is like predicting the fates of fictional characters: in other words, begging the question.

I’ll repeat part of it so we’re sure of what was said: the free choices of non-existent persons are intrinsically unknowable.

Tony goes on to say that unless we exist, nothing can be known about our identity. He also says to be able to predict the choices of non-existent people is like predicting the choices of fictional characters. So he is not describing fictional people, but people who currently do not exist.

So let’s look at an event. Say 9/11. Fifty years ago, the people making the free choices to conduct the attack did not exist. They were non existent persons.

Going by exactly what Tony has said above, then God, fifty years ago, would have no idea that 9/11 would take place.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From David:

Nonsense and rubbish.

Good Evening David: Characterizing my ideas as nonsense and rubbish is not a point or an argument. I would hope that you will join me in keeping the discussion polite and to the point if you would please.

The value of the human person, the things they do, are not determined you nor me. It is determined by God, objectively.

I had never envisioned a set value on the human person, rather, I have always held that our value is infinite. If there is a limitation to our value, I would have to suggest that it would be set by the limitations of our own thinking. It follows that these limitations vary by person, and our value is attenuated foremost by those who imagine that we in fact have a set value.

You mention the things we do as having a value as well. The things we do are the things that create experience. I think experience is our purpose. What is the measure by which the value of such things is set? How is that done, and why is it even necessary?

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Oreoracle]

Also, to follow up on Bradski’s observation, there appears to be some dissonance amongst the Catholics on this matter. Amandil fervently insists that God’s perspective is timeless, so whether or not something has occurred, is occurring, or will occur has no impact on whether or not God knows about it. Tonyrey suggests that at least some future events are unknown, provided that they will occur due to the intervention of an as of yet non-existent person acting freely.

So which is it? Does God’s knowledge change over time or not?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Aloysium:

Sin is not a choice on God’s part, but rather on the part of you and me.

Thank you for the reply Aloysium: If sin is a choice, it would have to be chosen from among the potential choices inbuilt within the possibilities and parameters set by that which created all things. Otherwise, sin would be a creation of humankind, making humankind a creator rather than a creation, and of course I am sure you are not suggesting that God is not the creator of all things.

Do you understand this? We are responsible for the suffering of Christ on the cross. Suffering which He willingly took upon Himself that we might join with Him in heaven. As a Catholic, you must hold to this truth.

On this point we agree. The point on which we will likely disagree would be the nature of the sin being remitted. I think the purpose of the life of Jesus was the remission of the sin of ignorance as to the nature of our relationship with God, which He revealed at the Last Supper. And of course we missed the point. Again. And many (but not all) people are still missing the point today. And the point is not about being bad or good or worthy or unworthy. The point of the Last Supper was the culminating moment of three years of trying to tell us something we refused to hear, and by and large still refuse to hear. But what He had to say is plainly written, yet I never hear it from any pulpit. It gets glossed over in the hunt for something we already have.

Atheists may have a problem with this; but then they have a problem with far, far simpler matters. They do not even accept the premise of sin. I am writing this for people “who have ears”, as are most Catholics here. God speaks to me not only through scripture, but also through people. I hope I am able to help someone else.

That is very profound Aloysium. God does in fact speak to us through people.

I have no idea what you are talking about: guilt complexes . . . conditioning, etc., and I know that stuff very well.

Of course you do. I know it very well too. Like many denominations, we are trained from an early age to be guilty. That is what I mean by conditioning.

When I relied on logic, that would have been in my teens, I came to realize that this is all absurd. We cannot grasp the truth of the divine unless it is revealed. The Beloved is not analyzed, manipulated, dissected; He is known through love. I can feed back what understanding I have gleaned through my relationship with God, but it will make sense only to those who are on a similar path. To those who do not know God, the hope is that the words will stimulated an interest in opening oneself up to Him.

Others can come to know God directly through you, but most people learn by seeing a sermon rather than hearing one. Do you understand what I mean?

As to justice, if you do not know in your heart the importance of justice, I don’t think I can inform you. As this sort of knowledge comes through living it, is it really something you want to know?

You had mentioned that we all can come to know God. I think we all know God directly. That said, in my relationship with God there is no need for justice, because I seek nothing from God that I do not already have, nor does God seek anything from me that God does not already have. What use is there of justice where there is no want?

A soul lost to sin fails to love. What is not love, as seen by love, is horrific. In the end the reality of creation will be revealed. If you do not repent of your sins, if you do not give back the love that God gives you, it will be hell. Only pride balks at this.

Love falls equally on all things without regard to their nature in the same way that the rain falls on the good as well as the bad. You needn’t be this thing or that to give and receive love. But the only love that is genuine is love that is freely given, and love given out of fear of hell or hope of heaven is not genuine. Only when you take away the want and the fear can we honestly say that we love God. Otherwise you can never be sure that you aren’t simply pandering to a tyrant. For instance, if there was no heaven and no hell, how many people would be in church on Sunday simply for the love of God? If we can’t be honest about this, then we never really loved at all, did we?

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Bradski]

Tonyrey suggests that at least some future events are unknown, provided that they will occur due to the intervention of an as of yet non-existent person acting freely.

Apart from naturally occurring events, that means literally everything. And at what point in a person’s existence does God ‘know’ what her free choices will be? Is it all laid out from the moment of birth?

And what happens if someone now makes a free will choice that will be affected by someone not yet in existence? I may decide that in 20 years I will dedicate my life to helping the poor. So God knows that will happen. Except that someone not yet born may decide to kill me in twenty years.

Everything in out future becomes unknowable. There is no omniscience in this scenario.

 

[Aloysium]

Let’s look at exactly what Tony said:

Originally Posted by tonyrey:

I’m sorry if this is long, but you have to know the context:

What God did know is that in creating a being who could love, he was allowing for the possibility that these beings with free choice, could choose not to love.
Before the world was created, the innocent Lamb, the Word, His Son, was slain. In eternity, He took on all the sin that the cosmos would produce from these beings that participate in creation. This sacrifice was revealed in time as Jesus Christ.

God exists in eternity.
This moment exists as do all moments.
This place exists as do all parts of reality.
God is everywhere and in every time as its Creator.
God is one, indivisible.
He knows us at this time as he knows us at conception and at our death.
Everyone, in the present past and future relative to when we are now, exists in God’s eternal Now.
Unless someone is created, there is nothing to be known of them, they are fictional unless they are real at some point in time.
Having been created, their actions/choices are known.
Once created they cannot be uncreated, since they do exist in God’s one view.

God could create beings who behave in a manner that we would classify as good, but they would be unable to love because love has to do with giving of oneself freely.

I’m still not sure if this is clear. I will try again at a later time, if it is not.

 

[oldcelt]

The saying usually goes “scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.”

Apparently the same holds true for deists.

More proof-texting out of context as a pretext.

Since I am not an atheist, the comparison is null. Read the context and tell me how this not what was meant by the word ra in the original translation.

 

[Bradski]

Unless someone is created, there is nothing to be known of them, they are fictional unless they are real at some point in time.

I’m still not sure if this is clear. I will try again at a later time, if it is not.

Thank you, Aloysium. It is very clear. And it appears just as clear now, when you say it, as it did when Tony said it.

You are saying that before someone is born, God knows nothing of the choices that they will make. Do you not agree that all future events are dependant on the free choices of the people involved in those events?

It therefore follows that, according to your view as expressed above, God has no knowledge of events that take place a short time into the future.

You are stating that God, who it might seem lives outside time, is restricted to knowing what is happening within present time and what has happened in past time but not will happen in future time. So everything that does happen will be as much of a surprise to Him as it is to us.

 

[oldcelt]

I’m sorry if this is long, but you have to know the context:

What God did know is that in creating a being who could love, he was allowing for the possibility that these beings with free choice, could choose not to love.
Before the world was created, the innocent Lamb, the Word, His Son, was slain. In eternity, He took on all the sin that the cosmos would produce from these beings that participate in creation. This sacrifice was revealed in time as Jesus Christ.

God exists in eternity.
This moment exists as do all moments.
This place exists as do all parts of reality.
God is everywhere and in every time as its Creator.
God is one, indivisible.
He knows us at this time as he knows us at conception and at our death.
Everyone, in the present past and future relative to when we are now, exists in God’s eternal Now.
Unless someone is created, there is nothing to be known of them, they are fictional unless they are real at some point in time.
Having been created, their actions/choices are known.
Once created they cannot be uncreated, since they do exist in God’s one view.

God could create beings who behave in a manner that we would classify as good, but they would be unable to love because love has to do with giving of oneself freely.

I’m still not sure if this is clear. I will try again at a later time, if it is not.

To shorten your explanation…he knew, he knows, he will know. As the creator…he created or someone else did. Are you assigning humanity the power of spiritual creation?