Suffering is a result of the fall. Adam and Eve possessed preternatural gifts including bodily immortality, freedom from irregular desire, freedom from pain and sickness.
Speaking of Adam and Eve, I think I found a good theory that combines this with evolution.
Once again you are putting words into my mouth. Where have I asserted that a person who curses God will be tortured for ever in hell?
You are distorting my statements again. Where have I stated that existence is **always preferable to non-existence? If our total **existence contained more suffering than happiness it would not be preferable **unless **we chose it as the price we pay for having absolute power over ourselves.
Yes! Because even in hell we never lose our free will and we can choose to renounce our decision to reject God.
Sure, I agree.Suffering is inevitable.If you disagree explain how there can be world without suffering?
The answers to these questions are obvious.
If you deny that your children will do many things you do not want you are being unrealistic - unless you have completely brainwashed them.
We know
So you don’t love your children if the pregnancy was against your desires?
So you can find happiness without loving anyone (except yourself of course!) and not being loved by anyone? You have already agree that life is worth nothing if it is sterile, uncreative and devoid of love".
Who said we can’t?
Once again you are putting words into my mouth. Like you I am giving my own opinion.** Most **people do not know their child will be born with an incurable disease. Even if they do they know that there are drugs to control pain and that the disease may be cured. Many people also believe God works miracles. They are prepared to take the risk their child will not be cured because they know life is a wonderful gift and even a short life is better than no life at all.
How do you **know **this? Are you omniscient?
Well, at least we can agree on something. Now, allegedly God knows in advance that this will happen to some people. So why “force” upon them the unwanted existence, which will contain more suffering than good. After all God also knows that they do not want that existence. Why “force” on someone a “poisoned” gift?
Do you have any reference to support this? Preferably from the Cathecism. Because I have been told by members on this board that hell is irreversible, there is no more chance to repent once you are there. And they quoted this as the official teaching of the RCC. As a matter of fact, I started quite a few threads dealing with problem, namely: why is our freedom of choice “cut off” at the time of our death, when we can have first hand proof that God actually exists?
IIRC, you said that the Garden was without suffering, did you not? I thought it is also the official teaching of the RCC.
Yes, it is probable. Nevertheless you take the risk, and sometimes they have to pay the price. But this is not the point. We cannot know what will come. We can have a reasonable hope that their life will be worth living. The hypothetical question was: “what if you knew, that this will not be the case?”.
No omniscience is needed. A world without suffering does not contain a logical contradiction, and God’s omnipotence is supposed to be able to create everything, except logically contradictory things. Besides, the Garden was supposed to be such a world. If God would not have planted the tree, or would not have made it accessible, or would not have forbidden to eat from it, no original sin would have happened. So simple!
A world without suffering would be a world without people. People choose things that cause suffering. The contradiction is a world that has both people and not suffering, and therefore one that God could not create.
Correct.
Both of you simply say that there is a logical contradiction involved in having people with free will and a world without suffering. But simply saying it does not constitute a formal proof. Do you have one?
If you’re looking for a formal proof, look elsewhere. This forum is not a place of academic rigor to me, but a place where I enjoy discussing interesting questions.
I have pointed out that their suffering is self-inflicted.
If they didn’t want it they wouldn’t choose it!
I don’t need a reference because it is sheer logic. Free will is a sharing in God’s power because it enables us to frustrate His Will. He has chosen to restrict His omnipotence so that we are free to choose our own destiny. It would be inconsistent to withdraw the gift of free will when we die because it would defeat the purpose of creating us. It is absurd to suppose the redeeming power of Christ’s love does not extend to a person in hell who realizes and acknowledges that God’s love is worth more than being independent. The lust for power brings misery and that misery is itself an incentive to admit one’s guilt and ask for forgiveness. God’s infinite love and infinite mercy imply that He is always ready to welcome a sinner who repents and wishes to make amends for the suffering he has caused. The parable of the Prodigal Son teaches us precisely this. God is infinitely just but, as we know from the Lord’s Prayer, His justice is based on the extent to which we forgive others. If we forgive others and choose love rather than hatred it is impossible to be separated from the Source of love.
The Garden of Eden does not have to be interpreted literally. It is symbolic of man’s deliberate choice of evil.
It will always be the case that life is worth living for a person who believes in God because it offers endless opportunities for enjoyment and fulfilment. The atheist cannot understand this because he believes life is restricted to a few brief years on this planet and is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. (Thomas Hobbes). Solitary because we are supposedly alone in an indifferent universe, poor because death supposedly takes away everything, nasty because evil is supposedly more powerful than love, brutish because life is supposedly just a struggle for survival and short because death supposedly destroys everyone and everything we cherish including ourselves…
Your post was a delightful reading. Triple cheers for your clarity!If you’re looking for a formal proof, look elsewhere. This forum is not a place of academic rigor to me, but a place where I enjoy discussing interesting questions.
You p(name removed by moderator)oint your objection, which is useful. What is the logical contradiction between free will and a world without suffering? My provisional answer is contained in the definition of the world “free”, and I imagine it is precisely this which we are fundamentally debating.
A “free” act by agent A is an act that all other entities (including God) either a) cannot interfere with, or b) choose not to interfere with. If A has a choice between a red and a green apple, in other words, God does not tamper *in any way *with that choice, because He has chosen not to interfere with it.
Alright, so we have a template for a free act. Now, consider the Lord before the creation of man. In one possible universe, universe X, agent A exists, and in another, agent A does not exist. In His omniscience, the Lord knows that agent A – if he existed – would choose to kill agent B. At this point, of course, the Lord may choose to create universe Y instead, thereby averting the existence of A and the death of B.
You’re asking me to prove that, in all possible universes with free will, there will always be evil chosen – in essence, that every possible universe contains agent A or his proxy. There, I think I’ve set out the situation quite clearly.
I think that the position that all possible universes with free will would contain wrongdoing is more intuitive – but, of course, this is no proof. As I said, I haven’t time for a proof. But here’s a sketch of possibility of a blueprint of one:
It relates to the concept of a limit. If there were only one decision in a universe (to kill B or not to kill B), then there would be a 1 in 2 chance of creating a painless universe. If there were two decisions, there would be a 1 in 4 chance. But in a single person’s life, say, there are X decisions – and please realize that X here represents a number in excess of 100 billion, at least. And there are (+or-)Y alternatives in each decision. (You could choose to each Mini Wheats, Cheerios, Chex, etc.). Not all of these are moral decisions, but a good many are.
So, in a one-person universe, the chance of creating a painless universe is one in two to the XY power – and the XY power is an awfully high number. Now add 10 people. Already, the number has become (in essence) infinitely higher. As the number of people (and therefore the potential for goodness) increases, the possibility of making the universe painless becomes infinitely small. Unless I am mistaken, mathematicians have found there to be essentially no difference between the number limit-1 (.99999999999etc) and the number 1. Thus, it seems infinitely improbable that even God could find a universe of any substantial goodness that did not also include evil.
Yes, Spock, I realize that this looks somewhat like the solution you criticized. But a one-person universe has little or no potential for goodness – this is the key distinction I want to make.
That’s my best shot.
So there is nothing impossible about a world made up of only devout Catholics, who, while having free will, would never exercise the option of causing pain, or committing evil. (Of course devout Catholics are just an example. Other, genuinely good people behave the same manner.)Pointed out? Surely you jest. Show me how a 5 years old, who is born with a painful disease and dies at the age of 5, “self-inflicted” his suffering.
You can’t choose to be born into any existence. There is no option given.
What you say is totally contradicted by the Church’s teaching. I suggest you to start a new thread with a title: “There is free will in hell, and the sufferers could choose to repent, and so get to heaven”, or something along those lines. And then see the flame war which will be directed to you.
You asserted that Catholics believe hell is the fate of an afflicted child who curses God.
Existence in hell is chosen.
You are obviously unaware of the comments directed at me in the discussion on women priests. It’s worth a glance.What you say is totally contradicted by the Church’s teaching. I suggest you to start a new thread with a title: “There is free will in hell, and the sufferers could choose to repent, and so get to heaven”, or something along those lines. And then see the flame war which will be directed to you.
I’m not so sure. If the limit of .9999999 equals one, which – I have verified – is a view widely held by mathematicians and physicists, I’m not sure why this limit wouldn’t apply to God. Are you saying that He is beyond mathematical laws?
You assume something quite outrageous, in my respect – you assume that I consider myself to be a good person. But I don’t. I hope I can say that – in all conceivable situations I could be faced with – I would never rape, murder, or torture, but I am not sure even of that. I am a terrible sinner, and (as the Scripture says) my heart is deceitful above all things. There are times when I want to do things that are completely reprehensible, and I think this is true of nearly every human being on this earth. We want to do the wrong things, and only grace can bring us to want to do right.As a matter of fact, it is the fervent desire of the Catholics to propagate their system, and - peacefully - convert everyone to their way of life.
Catholics know God as almighty - He does what He sets out to do.
Yes, the limit is **exactly **one, that is true. But there are only a finite number of humans, and they make a finite number of decisions in their lifetime, so the limit does not apply. The number can be extremely close to 1, but it is not one, it is always less than one. Now, I am a mathematician, and lectured probability theory for many years.
But that world does have the same option as all the other ones do. It is just as free as the one where everyone, every times makes an evil decision, or the one where sometimes people make good decisions, sometimes they make evil ones.
Except that there is **still **no logical connection between “freedom” and “pain”.
I am not talking about “all” possible situations, only about the normal ones, when you would be surrounded by like-minded people. There is no way to predict how you (or anyone else) would behave under extreme pressure or provocation. Regardless of whether you consider yourself “good” or a sinner, I would bet dollars to cents that you would not commit an unprovoked murder, would never rape someone just for fun… etc. And don’t forget, what goes around, comes around. That is why the Church tells you to teach by example. If you spread good deeds around, others will follow suit, and the world will be better.
Come on. There are many wonderful, good people out there.
I am not going to explain it again. In this and other threads I already showed that free will does not logically lead to the actuality of evil.
Who limits the choice?
I explained that one, too. No one limits the choice, there is no need to limit the choice. Read my posts to Prodigal Son.