And how would one know that there is a flaw? You would have to know the purpose of the universe; you would have to know the end goal of a design before you can give an assessment of whether or not there is a flaw in its actuality.
We seem to be reading this differently.
I don’t follow your logic.
Bradski. Nothing problematic is inherent in our existence. Even according to the logic of those who blame God for the problems randomly befalling humanity, that come about because he has stepped aside while his lawful universe continues onward – these problems come and go like the ebbing tides. They are not permanent. Not inherent in that God didn’t create them for permanency. All is well that ends well. Either one accepts the Christian faith on heaven and redemption, and the ultimate evolution of perfection – a revealed kingdom where suffering ceases – as not a reconciliation of reason and endless negation necessarily, but as a positivistic process whose basis is an experience that cannot be comprehended except by experience proper of its domain, imminent at the time of death and at times of Grace for some.
Thomas doesn’t claim that everything must be perfect. He refers to his arguments on Providence, where in I-22-2 “reply to objection 2”, he says “certain defects in particular effects” are permitted “that the perfect good of the universe may not be hindered”.
Thomas refutes your objection in I-22-2. He states your objection as:
And, that end is eternal life in joyous communion with Him in heaven. There are no flaws in that case, only those imagined by our fears and lack of faith and hope.
God is eternal. When He meets us in time to assist us in becoming more loving, He knows what the results of His efforts will be. He knows what we will choose as I Know what I am writing. Our decision in time is changeable as is our destiny as long as we are alive. All time is alive for God who is the Source of each moment. There is no death. It all happens within His eternal, all inclusive now. We have free will to become the person, He knows right here and now, who we will choose to become, adhering to or fighting against His will.
I agree. The beauty of the universe is an end goal appreciated by an immense number of people even though many never consider whether it is the result of Design. Similarly many take the value of life for granted unless they are afflicted in some way or other. Schopenhauer is one of a very small minority who claimed it would have been better if life had never existed on this planet yet he appreciated beauty and rather inconsistently wrote about it at length!
Nothing occurs outside God’s ultimate control.
Agreed. And therefore to God, your “unfortunate coincidences” are neither unfortunate nor coincidences - Thomas talks of created things, not designed, but if you must talk of design, then God designs the script as well as the props.
I don’t understand what any of this has to do with anything I said.
Indeed! The prayer Jesus gave us implies that God’s Will is not always done on earth - and certainly not in Hell! Providence is evident in many coincidences and miraculous events but more than anything else it applies to the ultimate outcome of our lives. The Beatitudes make this point beautifully, especially the last one:
Amen!
Our free will has nothing to do with Thomas’ argument on fate and providence, and that seems to elude you. Thomas says:
St Thomas certainly believed in miracles. God is not “forced” to perform them because He knows whether they are for our ultimate benefit.
People often accuse others of their own defects! It is your argument that leads to deism because you imply that God never overrides natural laws. Unfortunate coincidences are inevitable sooner or later because natural laws cannot possibly cater for every contingency. Sooner or later some one is bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - unless you go to the other extreme and believe God determines precisely where everyone is located at every moment. Which is it to be? Always or never?
Jesus told us that God will intervene for our benefit in answer to prayer regardless of natural laws. Anyone who rejects the frequency of miracles is certainly not a Christian.
I suppose it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to move from God produces “good even from evil,” to “God produces good even from unfortunate coincidences.” I am not sure why simply permitting some events to be random or coincidental turns a theistic God into a deistic one.
Again, this is unclear in terms of the logical inferences. It would seem legitimate to assume that if God is “so mighty” as to permit free will – the introduction of novel causal sequences brought about by the free wills of individual beings – then it would seem true a fortiori that he could also permit random events or unfortunate coincidences without his omnipotence taking a hit.
Neither does Thomas’ “argument” imply that God cannot use miracles nor does it presume miracles can only be used to “prove” God is good rather than, say, merely to bring about a freely God-determined good unrestricted by human policies and presumptions vIs a vIs what omnipotence can and cannot get away with relative to “proving” himself or his goodness in front of human critics.
There’s a whole lot of posts ahead of mine, but this question calls to mind an incident in the gospels, about the man born blind.