God, free will, and evil

[fakename]

Sorry for some reason, I cannot find a thread I devoted to this topic so I have to start a new one here.

Basically, God allows moral evil to happen but isn’t responsible for sin. I have always wondered how this happened and I can’t come up with a good answer on my own.
The reason why is because of this:

If God allows evil to happen, then hasn’t he “caused” evil to happen? (Of course the counter to this is that if I don’t stop a virgin from having sex, have I had sex? Of course not so my idea of cause has to be somewhat faulty -but what other definition of cause could there be except “that which contributes to an effect”?)

Second if God allows evil to happen but doesn’t cause it, then again, in what manner can it be said that he causes all things? Since he evidently doesn’t cause sin and yet sin is a thing?

Finally about evil; it is a privation. But then how could anything be said to be evil, since evil can’t really be a “thing”. Then people say that evil is the disordered use of good things -then how is evil still a privation?

pre-emptive thanks for any replies

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
“Why bad things happend” is one blog I wrote in MySpace,but since I am not allowed to give my adress in MySpace I can’t ask You to read it. (I wish I could.) Bad things,and evil things happens not because God make them happend but because we have a free will to choose. It is a topic that is wery hard to understand,and I belive many peoples thinks about this,and I see why. We can choose between bad and good,but there are things where we can’t do nothing moore then trust our faith. We can’t do moore. But that is not all,accidents happens,people die,houses burns to the ground,wars,sickness,all are things where we don’t have a choise,exept trust our faith. The hardest thing we can do,and I say this from the bottom of my heart,is to end a prayer whit theese words:“if it is Your will”. Every singel time I am afraid that something bad will come,in the same time I let go off all “earthly” and let my fall into the hands of God. There are things we fear moore then others,and we are so afraid,atleast I am,but to the question,what You asked wos to know why,and I think it is because God want’s us to trust Him all the way. He want’s to trust and have faith even when it seems impossible,right now I am afraid that something bad will happend becuase I write this,but I have no other choise then let me fall into Gods hands,and You can’t fall deeper,He will catch You. We don’t always get the “reward” in this life,so my ansver is: God wants us to trust Him all the way,to the end and beyond,if it is His will. God bless You all.

 

[javasumatra]

Sorry for some reason, I cannot find a thread I devoted to this topic so I have to start a new one here.

Basically, God allows moral evil to happen but isn’t responsible for sin. I have always wondered how this happened and I can’t come up with a good answer on my own.
The reason why is because of this:

If God allows evil to happen, then hasn’t he “caused” evil to happen? (Of course the counter to this is that if I don’t stop a virgin from having sex, have I had sex? Of course not so my idea of cause has to be somewhat faulty -but what other definition of cause could there be except “that which contributes to an effect”?)

Second if God allows evil to happen but doesn’t cause it, then again, in what manner can it be said that he causes all things? Since he evidently doesn’t cause sin and yet sin is a thing?

Finally about evil; it is a privation. But then how could anything be said to be evil, since evil can’t really be a “thing”. Then people say that evil is the disordered use of good things -then how is evil still a privation?

pre-emptive thanks for any replies

God could stop all evil. But what would that require? It would require he revoke our free will. If he revokes our free will, then we can not sin. but the downside of that is we also can not freely give Love to God. Love requires an act of our will. It must be freely given. To attain that, to give us the ability to choose to Love, we must live the the consequence, which is we have the ability to not love, but to hate, which expresses itself in sin.

 

[wanstronian]

Sorry for some reason, I cannot find a thread I devoted to this topic so I have to start a new one here.

Basically, God allows moral evil to happen but isn’t responsible for sin. I have always wondered how this happened and I can’t come up with a good answer on my own.
The reason why is because of this:

If God allows evil to happen, then hasn’t he “caused” evil to happen? (Of course the counter to this is that if I don’t stop a virgin from having sex, have I had sex? Of course not so my idea of cause has to be somewhat faulty -but what other definition of cause could there be except “that which contributes to an effect”?)

Second if God allows evil to happen but doesn’t cause it, then again, in what manner can it be said that he causes all things? Since he evidently doesn’t cause sin and yet sin is a thing?

Finally about evil; it is a privation. But then how could anything be said to be evil, since evil can’t really be a “thing”. Then people say that evil is the disordered use of good things -then how is evil still a privation?

pre-emptive thanks for any replies

You’ve highlighted the inherent contradictions in the god concept, and the garbled attempts by other contributors to this thread, demonstrate the irreconcilability of these contradictions. I always smile when I see theists attempting to explain god’s inconsistencies away using confident assertions that they can’t possibly have any real knowledge of.

You can’t have it both ways - either god created all things, in which case he is ultimately responsible for all sin; or he didn’t, in which case he’s not all he’s cracked up to be. Attempting to explain away the horrors of the world by claiming it’s a side-effect of a free will necessary to worship god, exposes god as a narcissist for whom sycophantic and unquestioning worship is more important than basic justice. How can such a god be anything other than a vicious and self-serving tyrant, unworthy of worship?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Love is more important than anything else.
2. God gives us free will because without free will we are incapable of love.
3. Evil exists because we abuse the gift of free will.
4. God is justified in permitting evil because it would be a greater evil not to create anyone capable of love.

 

[asker42]

It could be that God allows for and has created possibilites. Some actions could possibly be good and some actions bad. In order for an action to truly be good then there have to alternatively be actions that are bad. God is ultimately Good but allows for evil to exist.

 

[fakename]

Unfortunately I still can’t understand the answers, so perhaps I should rewrite my question.

I guess the question can be reduced to one question: “can inaction per se be considered a cause?” If so then would divine reprobation (not acting to bring grace and glory to certain people) be the cause of people’s sins.

But again, I think I should ask this separately from the above, If God knows that free will would cause sin, but he creates free-will, wouldn’t he also be creating sin by a simple case of syllogistic reasoning?

I’ve thought of solutions to the problem but none of them seem to keep with the true spirit and meaning of the church’s solution (which I can’t even begin to understand as one can infer).

 

[beng]

1. Having Free will does not give people the ability to sin. God has Free Will ((S.Th. I, q.19, a.10.) and so is the blessed in heaven ("St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection., but they can not sin. Augustine - Libertas, Leo XIII), but they can not sin.
2. Evil is privation of good, that is a good that is supposed to be. Meaning, if a tree does not have charity then the tree is not doing anything evil, because to have charity is not it’s nature. But if a man does not have charity he would be sinning since charity is supposed to be man’s nature.
3. The answer to the question, “If God allows evil to happen, then hasn’t he ‘caused’ evil to happen,” is answered with a “no.”
4. Since “sin” is nothing (ie. privation of something [good] is a nothing), so it’s not in itself require a cause. Nothing cause nothing. God caused all thing, but nothing is not caused by God.

 

[beng]

Unfortunately I still can’t understand the answers, so perhaps I should rewrite my question.

I guess the question can be reduced to one question: “can inaction per se be considered a cause?” If so then would divine reprobation (not acting to bring grace and glory to certain people) be the cause of people’s sins.

But again, I think I should ask this separately from the above, If God knows that free will would cause sin, but he creates free-will, wouldn’t he also be creating sin by a simple case of syllogistic reasoning?

I’ve thought of solutions to the problem but none of them seem to keep with the true spirit and meaning of the church’s solution (which I can’t even begin to understand as one can infer).

1. In action can not be considered a cause.
2. Free Will does not cause sin.

 

[wanstronian]

The problem with all this pseudo-explanation is that it starts with the desired conclusion: that God is good; then has to find a way of demonstrating its truth. Apologists are forced to ask themselves: “Now, what evidence can we cherry-pick or invent to justify our desired conclusion that God is good, despite all the evidence that suggests otherwise? What knowledge of God’s nature, which we can’t possibly know, do we need to pretend we do know in order to defend him in light of all the bad things that happen?”

The proper approach (assuming that God has even been shown to exist, which certainly isn’t the case), would be to look at all the evidence. The intentional evil, the natural disasters, all the ways in which entirely innocent people are hurt, killed, terrorised or otherwise unjustly treated. Then to ask, “What can this tell us about God, if we ascribe the necessary properties of omniscience and omnipotence to him?”

The only answer is that God, if he does exist, is at best disinterested; at worst, simply heartlessly capricious.

 

[beng]

The problem with all this pseudo-explanation is that it starts with the desired conclusion: that God is good; then has to find a way of demonstrating its truth.

Would you mind not condescending others by saying that our (those who’ve tried to help the thread starter by answering his questions) effort are simply “pseudo-explanation?” Could you do that please?

Secondly, the premise “God is good” is only remotely related to the discussion at hand.

I’m guessing that since moderator put a moratorium on atheism topic you are too itching and unconsciously (to put it charitably) try to turn a thread that has nothing to do with atheism into a thread that would discuss atheism.

 

[wanstronian]

Would you mind not condescending others by saying that our (those who’ve tried to help the thread starter by answering his questions) effort are simply “pseudo-explanation?” Could you do that please?

Well, they’re not real explanations because they have no explanatory power - they’re just theology, which amounts to ‘opinion.’

Secondly, the premise “God is good” is only remotely related to the discussion at hand.

The original poster said:

If God allows evil to happen, then hasn’t he “caused” evil to happen?

This makes my comment entirely appropriate to the thread subject.

I’m guessing that since moderator put a moratorium on atheism topic you are too itching and unconsciously (to put it charitably) try to turn a thread that has nothing to do with atheism into a thread that would discuss atheism.

I’m not trying to start a discussion about atheism - I only mentioned the lack of proof for God’s existence in passing, to remove amibugity from my position. My post was about the bald assertions and excuses conjured up by theists to explain away the contradictory and capricious actions of the God they claim is such a just, loving, caring being. Your suspicious nature is your problem, note mine.

Incidentally, the word ‘moratorium’ implies a temporary situation - it should be obvious by now that the ban was never intended to be temporary, nor was it to do with civility - or if it was, it is no longer. There have been many civil, productive and interesting discussions about evolution and atheism in the ten months since the ban was announced, but they get shut down anyway. The ban is not about civility, it’s about censoring rational analysis of religious claims. The two banned subjects - Evolution and Atheism - are, respectively, scientific fact and intellectually robust. Unfortunately that also both conflict with RC doctrine, hence the ban.

I’m not trying to start a discussion of either subject here, and won’t respond on these two subjects any further in this thread. If you’d like to discuss further how a ‘good’ God can be reconciled with the horrible and evil things that happen in the world he created and controls, then by all means lets carry on.

 

[beng]

Well, they’re not real explanations because they have no explanatory power - they’re just theology, which amounts to ‘opinion.’

First of all, that is your opinion.

Second of all, even if it is as what you said, would mind not condescending them? Is it so hard for you to do?

I’m not trying to start a discussion about atheism

Then I will report your post. Let the moderator be the judge of that.

 

[wanstronian]

First of all, that is your opinion.

Second of all, even if it is as what you said, would mind not condescending them? Is it so hard for you to do?

Then I will report your post. Let the moderator be the judge of that.

I’m not surprised at your threat. There are some theists on this forum that are happy to defend their own beliefs; you’re clearly not one of them. If I’m banned, so be it.

 

[beng]

I’m not surprised at your threat. There are some theists on this forum that are happy to defend their own beliefs; you’re clearly not one of them. If I’m banned, so be it.

Another condescending remark. It seems it’s pretty hard for you not to be condescending. Maybe you want to, but unable to? Well, as the saying goes, practice makes perfect. So, do practice, a lot.

In any case, it’s not about defending belief but about following the board rules. If you have your own board you would expect that people follow by your rules [and not condescending you], wouldn’t you?

 

[wanstronian]

Another condescending remark. It seems it’s pretty hard for you not to be condescending. Maybe you want to, but unable to? Well, as the saying goes, practice makes perfect. So, do practice, a lot.

I can’t see how my comment was condescending, it was a truthful observation, that’s all. Are you sure you’re not just being over-sensitive?

In any case, it’s not about defending belief but about following the board rules. If you have your own board you would expect that people follow by your rules [and not condescending you], wouldn’t you?

Well if it were me, I like to think I’d ban the person acting unacceptably, rather than an entire subject matter. But this isn’t my forum, so it’s not my decision. As it happens, I still don’t think I’ve broken the rules in this thread.

But to be honest, I don’t want to argue about something so petty. I don’t think the thread is going in a direction that interests me (certainly this sub-argument doesn’t!), so I’ll just leave the rest of you to it.

 

[tonyrey]

I guess the question can be reduced to one question: “can inaction per se be considered a cause?” If so then would divine reprobation (not acting to bring grace and glory to certain people) be the cause of people’s sins.

If inaction is deliberate then it is certainly a cause. Much of the misery in the world is due to the negligence of those who can prevent it but do nothing.

Divine reprobation is not failure to act on the part of God but the result of the choice of evil. God did not create us for reprobation but for heaven! We do not reach heaven automatically: we have to obey His command to love others and not keep putting ourselves first. If we live **primarily **for our own pleasure and satisfaction we alienate others and become incapable of living with them - or with God.

Hell is simply a state of self-imposed isolation for which we alone are responsible. We are not condemned by God but by ourselves. As the Greeks realised, our vices incur their own punishment - just as our virtues bring their own reward. All is not fair in love and war but all is fair in the afterlife! Cosmic justice is at the heart of existence because nothing occurs by chance in the spiritual life. Every effort and sacrifice we make ennobles and sanctifies us whereas every weakness and failure to act degrades and corrupts us.

None of this can be attributed to God, except in the sense that He has shared His power of choice with us. He is ultimately responsible for everything that happens because He created everything but that is quite different from being directly responsible. He permits evil because if we are compelled to do only what is good we never have the opportunity to exercise our willpower, resist temptation, forgive those who sin against us, overcome evil and show what we are worth. “To err is human, to forgive divine”.

If God knows that free will would cause sin, but he creates free-will, wouldn’t he also be creating sin by a simple case of syllogistic reasoning?

God does not create free will! It is one of His attributes. So He does not create sin. What he does is share His free will with us. In other words He shares His power of self-determination. We can even choose to reject Him and live entirely for ourselves.

God knows we may do this but if we do He does not cause our decision. The buck stops with us. We alone are responsible for what we choose and we cannot blame God or anyone else or say we were compelled to make that choice. There may be mitigating circumstances for some choices we make but if our choice is premeditated and deliberate we have no excuse for doing wrong. That is the legal presumption according to which every law court in the world functions. The onus is on the person who denies we are responsible for our choices to explain why we are not…

 

[JDaniel]

[SNIP]

I’m not trying to start a discussion about atheism - I only mentioned the lack of proof for God’s existence in passing, to remove amibugity from my position.

A naked and unfounded assertion. No different than you say ours is. Except, we have Revelation. You really have opinion only.

God bless,
jd

 

[Anselm33]

Sorry for some reason, I cannot find a thread I devoted to this topic so I have to start a new one here.

Basically, God allows moral evil to happen but isn’t responsible for sin. I have always wondered how this happened and I can’t come up with a good answer on my own.
The reason why is because of this:

If God allows evil to happen, then hasn’t he “caused” evil to happen? (Of course the counter to this is that if I don’t stop a virgin from having sex, have I had sex? Of course not so my idea of cause has to be somewhat faulty -but what other definition of cause could there be except “that which contributes to an effect”?)

Second if God allows evil to happen but doesn’t cause it, then again, in what manner can it be said that he causes all things? Since he evidently doesn’t cause sin and yet sin is a thing?

Finally about evil; it is a privation. But then how could anything be said to be evil, since evil can’t really be a “thing”. Then people say that evil is the disordered use of good things -then how is evil still a privation?

pre-emptive thanks for any replies

Free will (and theodicy–the problem of evil) are hard problems that philosophers/theologians have chewed on even before the birth of Jesus, so it isn’t necessarily a question peculiar to Christian faith, or theology, despite what Wanstronian says (those who are ignorant of philosophy are condemned to lives of misunderstanding). The best, clearest and most concise recent explanations I’ve read are those by the philosopher Robert Koons–see the following web site:
leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec21.html
and
leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec6.html
There are also some interesting speculations about quantum mechanics and frre will; there is even a so-called “Free Will Theorem” dealing with free will for fundamental particles:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
If you do a Google search you can get a lot of other interesting sites on this. I think the best, outside of Koons’ is that from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

My own take, after having given all that stuff above, is that given by one of the other posters (I forget whom): Free Will is necessary for the act of love; God didn’t want to create robots with love and good behavior automatically instilled in them; He wanted love given out of free choice. Eating of the Tree of Knowledge removed that instinctual love of God, and was the first bad choice since it showed us what evil was and how we could choose that instead of good. (And, Wanstronian, I’m not proposing a literalist interpretation of Genesis.)

 

[JDaniel]

Sorry for some reason, I cannot find a thread I devoted to this topic so I have to start a new one here.

Basically, God allows moral evil to happen but isn’t responsible for sin. I have always wondered how this happened and I can’t come up with a good answer on my own.
The reason why is because of this:

If God allows evil to happen, then hasn’t he “caused” evil to happen? (Of course the counter to this is that if I don’t stop a virgin from having sex, have I had sex? Of course not so my idea of cause has to be somewhat faulty -but what other definition of cause could there be except “that which contributes to an effect”?)

Second if God allows evil to happen but doesn’t cause it, then again, in what manner can it be said that he causes all things? Since he evidently doesn’t cause sin and yet sin is a thing?

Finally about evil; it is a privation. But then how could anything be said to be evil, since evil can’t really be a “thing”. Then people say that evil is the disordered use of good things -then how is evil still a privation?

pre-emptive thanks for any replies

Well, there are many different ways to modify what cause means. Primarily, there are four main causes, Primary Matter, Form, Efficacious, and Final. Then, the concept of cause is further divided. These divisions generally have to do with determining such things as intent, necessity, the relationship of the cause to the effect, and to the type of effect itself.

For example, there are proximate causes, and remote causes; there are necessary and there are contingent causes; there are direct and there are accidental causes; there are intrinsic and there are extrinsic causes, etc. But, as you see, they do not replace the four main, or primary, causes. They simply add further clarification for us, at appropriate, and inappropriate, times,

To say that God causes sin is the same as saying that the maker of a rat maze causes the rodent to eat. Obviously, he/she does not cause the rat to eat. He/she facilitates whether the rat will eat, and whether or not it will be sooner as opposed to later, but, there are other factors at work that cause the rat to eat.

The nature of Free Will is that it is choice-intensive. Free Will means choice. Making the choice itself is not what is good or evil, rather, it is the object of the choice, or, perhaps, the particular situation.

Then, one could say that the maker of the food is the cause of the rat eating. But, that wouldn’t be accurate either - except in the remotest of ways. In fact, it is so remote that the sane man does not consider it causal at all.

That is the manner in which God could be said to cause evil. It is so remote that the sane man does not consider it causal.

God bless,
jd