It is good that evil exists!

[plaurent]

‘GOOD’ and ‘EVIL’ are very human by nature. They have no relevance to God. God just forgives (Luke 17: 3 & 4). Further he does only good (Luke 13:12).

He put so many options for ‘man’ and man failed to make the right choice.

 

[tonyrey]

You need to define what you mean. For instance, where an airliner is likely to be used as a terrorist weapon, the German Federal Constitutional Court held that the greater evil would be to shoot it down, as that violates the right to life and human dignity of innocent passengers, whereas your government holds it to be the lesser evil, as it sacrifices the passengers to protect a greater number of lives on the ground.

The meaning is clear enough. It is not always clear which is the lesser evil but that doesn’t invalidate the principle; it simply demonstrates our fallibility.

Even if we believed the alternatives were equally evil we would still have to make a decision. That would be a case where the majority should decide even though they too are fallible. What counts is that we have an absolute principle on which we can rely for almost all our decisions.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

1. Wouldn’t you tell a lie to save a person’s life?
2. Do you reject the principle that we should choose the lesser of two evils?
3. Do you believe God shouldn’t have created us with free will?

1. What I would do is irrelevant, it wouldn’t negate the fact that a lie is a lie and lying is bad. Strealing from the rich to feed the poor is still a sin. The Church teaches that the ends never justify the means.
2. Depends
3. I dont see how that is relevant.

 

[inocente]

The meaning is clear enough. It is not always clear which is the lesser evil but that doesn’t invalidate the principle; it simply demonstrates our fallibility.

Even if we believed the alternatives were equally evil we would still have to make a decision. That would be a case where the majority should decide even though they too are fallible. What counts is that we have an absolute principle on which we can rely for almost all our decisions.

But choosing the lesser of two evils is the easy bit, it’s deciding which is the lesser that’s hard, and my example was of conflicting absolute principles - Kant’s categorical imperative versus Bentham’s principle of utility.

 

[Coolhandlukeboy]

1. If evil events had never occurred nothing would have existed.
2. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage.
3. There is no such thing as a free lunch (life).
4. Everything has its price.
5. Cosmic justice is at the core of life.
6. Only God is perfect in every respect.

Wow, just wow.

1. Obviously you would need to define evil, since you don’t have a working model of it. If evil is the absence of good, then obviously, pure evil would be nothing. However, that would mean that no evil is pure good, therefore full existence (coincidentally, this would be God)
2. Taoism? Since man is obviously capable of making free choices, in order for free will to be used, there would need to be at least two choices. It follows that if man is made for God, and God is perfect good, that any choice less than God would be a lesser/inferior good. However your terminology puts them as opposites which really does not make sense, since evil doesn’t exist. It would merely be degrees of goodness, in what we choose, not opposites.
3. Our life is completely gratuitous. In order to keep it, we must work for it. If we do not, then we die, or the government will give us welfare (at least in America).
4. Actually, what price are you putting on human life? God places an infinite value on human life. It is man alone that places a finite value on things. This is called slavery. Think sex slaves and child abuse… or don’t think about this, even better. Such activity is in violation of Natural Law, because a human DOES place a value on human life. In fact just about every act of injustice is placing a disordered value on life, whether your own or others’ lives. True love requires a sacrifice, which is about NOT placing a value on human life. This is why we must love our enemies, for even our enemies have an infinite value.
5. Cosmic justice is a weird Carl Sagan way of saying Natural Law, and it doesn’t make sense, nor can we evidence it. Natural Law is a code written in the heart of man by the designer, God. There is no reason to hold that there is some Cosmic Justice somewhere… out there.
6. This would be true, however you might not be able to say anything about this after your previous entries. How is God perfect in every way if evil is necessary and a thing? How is God perfect if for every advantage, there is a disadvantage? I would say God is a great advantage of man, how is he a disadvantage then? If Cosmic Justice is at the core of life, this would be God, and then God would be responsible for my actions, since He would be at the core of my life. But I sin, therefore God would be responsible for my actions.

No… these are in error.

 

[tonyrey]

But choosing the lesser of two evils is the easy bit, it’s deciding which is the lesser that’s hard, and my example was of conflicting absolute principles - Kant’s categorical imperative versus Bentham’s principle of utility.

Conflict between principles doesn’t alter the absolute principle that we should choose what we believe to be lesser of two evils. What is the alternative, in your opinion?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Obviously you would need to define evil, since you don’t have a working model of it. If evil is the absence of good, then obviously, pure evil would be nothing. However, that would mean that no evil is pure good, therefore full existence (coincidentally, this would be God).

Precisely! I’m glad you agree.

1. Taoism? Since man is obviously capable of making free choices, in order for free will to be used, there would need to be at least two choices. It follows that if man is made for God, and God is perfect good, that any choice less than God would be a lesser/inferior good. However your terminology puts them as opposites which really does not make sense, since evil doesn’t exist. It would merely be degrees of goodness, in what we choose, not opposites.

You need to give concrete examples of your abstractions if they are to make sense.

1. Our life is completely gratuitous. In order to keep it, we must work for it. If we do not, then we die, or the government will give us welfare (at least in America).

What do you mean by “gratuitous” in this context?

1. Actually, what price are you putting on human life? God places an infinite value on human life. It is man alone that places a finite value on things. This is called slavery. Think sex slaves and child abuse… or don’t think about this, even better. Such activity is in violation of Natural Law, because a human DOES place a value on human life. In fact just about every act of injustice is placing a disordered value on life, whether your own or others’ lives. True love requires a sacrifice, which is about NOT placing a value on human life. This is why we must love our enemies, for even our enemies have an infinite value.

I’m not putting a price on life. You obviously don’t understand the expression “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

1. Cosmic justice is a weird Carl Sagan way of saying Natural Law, and it doesn’t make sense, nor can we evidence it. Natural Law is a code written in the heart of man by the designer, God. There is no reason to hold that there is some Cosmic Justice somewhere… out there.

The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian doctrine of Karma are based on all the evidence of cosmic justice: our virtues reward us and our vices punish us by their effect on our personality. Unselfish love makes us lovable and selfishness makes us detestable.

1. This would be true, however you might not be able to say anything about this after your previous entries. How is God perfect in every way if evil is necessary and a thing? How is God perfect if for every advantage, there is a disadvantage? I would say God is a great advantage of man, how is he a disadvantage then? If Cosmic Justice is at the core of life, this would be God, and then God would be responsible for my actions, since He would be at the core of my life. But I sin, therefore God would be responsible for my actions.

You fail to distinguish ultimate from direct responsibility. Would you prefer not to exist as a person incapable of unselfish love?

 

[Coolhandlukeboy]

Precisely! I’m glad you agree.

Lol, no! No but seriously, your statement was that without evil events, nothing would exist. This is not true. Your statement says that existence is the direct consequence of an evil action. By saying that there would be no existence without evil, it is necessarily implied that all existence is dependent upon evil. But if evil is a privation of good, it cannot exist prior to anything.

You need to give concrete examples of your abstractions if they are to make sense.

By stating that every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage, you are making the statement of opposites. The term “correspond” means that they are related to each other. Every good has a corresponding evil, this is also a Taoist belief. However, the only concrete example I need to give - in addition to the philosophic reasoning - is God. If God is pure good (purely advantageous) then there must be a corresponding evil (purely disadvantageous). This is dualism and contradictory.

What do you mean by “gratuitous” in this context?
I’m not putting a price on life. You obviously don’t understand the expression “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

Perhaps I did misunderstand the expression. I am a philosopher, idioms are things that I find less appropriate when speaking about important things. This is probably my fault.

The creation of life, creation of the universe for that matter, is completely gratuitous. It is freely given by God. Our final cause or purpose must be worked toward, yes. So God Himself is not a free lunch, but our life is.

The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian doctrine of Karma are based on all the evidence of cosmic justice: our virtues reward us and our vices punish us by their effect on our personality. Unselfish love makes us lovable and selfishness makes us detestable.

This is not what the term “justice” means. Quoting religious concepts of justice does not mean that they are true. There are plenty of people who are not given what “they deserve”. There are plenty of people who lived good lives but got the shaft.

This of all things is the most ludicrous. What about children who are killed? Where is their justice? What about those who suffer tremendous pain? Our reward for a virtuous life would be God, but that could mean no just reward here on earth. But this is precisely what Nemesis and Karma say, that we get justice on earth.

Unselfish love make us lovable to God, but how many people suffered through unselfish love? As a parent, I love my children and hope to continue to do so unselfishly, but they may never understand, appreciate nor return that love. It is only the concept of God, outside of this physical world that can remedy all the injustice found within the world. With this, I echo the cry of many an atheist: if there is a God, why is there injustice in this world. What you are saying is that there is some cosmic justice that doles out to people what they deserve… you don’t find that on earth.

You fail to distinguish ultimate from direct responsibility. Would you prefer not to exist as a person incapable of unselfish love?

No, I actually do not. I am just adding up your own words. You said Cosmic Justice is at the core of life. God is alive, it is at the core of God. It is at the core of all living things. If this is true, then how is it not God, since God must be his own attributes? Goodness, intellect power and every other attribute are one thing in God? And if it is God, then we would all be God. For if, as you said, it is the core of all life, it is the fundamental principle of our intellect and free will. Thus God would be the principle of our intellect and free will. And thus God would be responsible for our actions.

This is the problem of monism, which is what Hinduism says. Given that you have mentioned Karma and your idea of Cosmic Justice is nearly their own, I have no choice but to conclude that you are sympathetic to monism or you just don’t understand what you mean by Karma. In monism, we are all “god”. If we are all “god” then on what level, if not intellect and will? How are there multiple intellects and free wills that choose evil? If we are “god” and we choose evil, then “god” is limited. Enough said.

 

[inocente]

Conflict between principles doesn’t alter the absolute principle that we should choose what we believe to be lesser of two evils. What is the alternative, in your opinion?

Seems to me you’re saying evil is in the eye of the beholder:- as long as I stick to the absolute principle that I choose in accordance with my belief, it doesn’t matter whether I believe that the ends justify the means or the exact opposite.

 

[mgoforth]

Evil is never good. God can and does bring good out of evil, but that doesn’t make evil less evil. The ultimate good in this world is Jesus’ act of sacrificial love for us. It’s true that without sin (on many levels) the ultimate good of His sacrifice wouldn’t have happened. But look what Christ himself says:

“The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” Luke 22:22

If evil was necessary, Jesus would have thanked Judas. We also see this concept applied in a broader way earlier in Matthew:

“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!” Matthew 18:7

So instead of saying it’s good that evil exists, I would say it’s good that God exists to correct our evil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why put the tree in the Garden?

You could say the tree stands for man’s inherent potential to freely turn away from God.

So your question becomes, why did God create Man with free will?

And the answer is because it is more God-like than being a dumb animal.
Unless of course one prefer’s to be a dumb animal.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1. Wouldn’t you tell a lie to save a person’s life?
2. Do you reject the principle that we should choose the lesser of two evils?
3. Do you believe God shouldn’t have created us with free will?

Being a Catholic I choose 2, why don’t you

 

[tonyrey]

Lol, no! No but seriously, your statement was that without evil events, nothing would exist. This is not true.

In a physical universe natural evil is inevitable.

Your statement says that existence is the direct consequence of an evil action. By saying that there would be no existence without evil, it is necessarily implied that all existence is dependent upon evil. But if evil is a privation of good, it cannot exist prior to anything.

In a physical universe natural evil is inevitable.

By stating that every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage, you are making the statement of opposites. The term “correspond” means that they are related to each other. Every good has a corresponding evil, this is also a Taoist belief. However, the only concrete example I need to give - in addition to the philosophic reasoning - is God. If God is pure good (purely advantageous) then there must be a corresponding evil (purely disadvantageous). This is dualism and contradictory.

The Creator is not in the same category as His creatures.

Perhaps I did misunderstand the expression. I am a philosopher, idioms are things that I find less appropriate when speaking about important things. This is probably my fault.

The creation of life, creation of the universe for that matter, is completely gratuitous. It is freely given by God. Our final cause or purpose must be worked toward, yes. So God Himself is not a free lunch, but our life is.

This is not what the term “justice” means. Quoting religious concepts of justice does not mean that they are true. There are plenty of people who are not given what “they deserve”. There are plenty of people who lived good lives but got the shaft.

This life is not the only life.

This of all things is the most ludicrous. What about children who are killed? Where is their justice? What about those who suffer tremendous pain? Our reward for a virtuous life would be God, but that could mean no just reward here on earth. But this is precisely what Nemesis and Karma say, that we get justice on earth.

Justice is linked with an afterlife or reincarnation.

Unselfish love make us lovable to God, but how many people suffered through unselfish love? As a parent, I love my children and hope to continue to do so unselfishly, but they may never understand, appreciate nor return that love. It is only the concept of God, outside of this physical world that can remedy all the injustice found within the world. With this, I echo the cry of many an atheist: if there is a God, why is there injustice in this world. What you are saying is that there is some cosmic justice that doles out to people what they deserve… you don’t find that on earth.

This life is not the only life.

No, I actually do not. I am just adding up your own words. You said Cosmic Justice is at the core of life. God is alive, it is at the core of God. It is at the core of all living things. If this is true, then how is it not God, since God must be his own attributes? Goodness, intellect power and every other attribute are one thing in God? And if it is God, then we would all be God. For if, as you said, it is the core of all life, it is the fundamental principle of our intellect and free will. Thus God would be the principle of our intellect and free will. And thus God would be responsible for our actions.

This is the problem of monism, which is what Hinduism says. Given that you have mentioned Karma and your idea of Cosmic Justice is nearly their own, I have no choice but to conclude that you are sympathetic to monism or you just don’t understand what you mean by Karma. In monism, we are all “god”. If we are all “god” then on what level, if not intellect and will? How are there multiple intellects and free wills that choose evil? If we are “god” and we choose evil, then “god” is limited. Enough said.

The Creator is not in the same category as His creatures.

 

[inocente]

In a physical universe natural evil is inevitable.

So for the first nine billion years, before life on earth, what do you imagine was naturally evil, and why was it inevitably naturally evil rather than naturally good?

 

[tonyrey]

So for the first nine billion years, before life on earth, what do you imagine was naturally evil, and why was it inevitably naturally evil rather than naturally good?

“natural” usually implies life. “Natural evil” refers to events which harm or destroy living organisms.

 

[wmw]

This all boils down to the fact that God is powerful enough to turn man’s evil to good. The rest of the story is how he chose to do so.

This “natural evil” stuff is non-sense. Evil requires choice. Nature is not some sentient being. A natural disaster can be tragic, but it is not evil.

 

[tonyrey]

Tragic consequences are the result of natural events and moral decisions. So it is necessary to distinguish them; otherwise it is easy to fall into the trap of Manichaeism.

 

[tonyrey]

*1. Wouldn’t you tell a lie to save a person’s life?

Why not indeed? Choosing the lesser of two evils is surely the only reasonable solution to a moral dilemma.

 

[PendingTheist]

I agree that in order for us to freely chose love, we must also be capable of freely choosing against love (sinning), but I do not think it follows that sin is good because of this. If we hadn’t sinned to begin with, we would be in the Garden of Eden, in a state of perfection, and wouldn’t have -needed- Christ to die for us, and suffer as He did. I’d lay odds we would have a significantly better relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit if we had never sinned to begin with.

Then it begs the question why not create us with freewill without the sinful nature like Christ then we can say we were created in His image? Isn’t it God, not Jesus, showing His love by having himself tortured and killed as a bloody sacrifice to Himself? Read Jesus’ last words in Matthew, My God why have you forsaken me, which He quoted from Psalm 22 to make it appear prophecy was full filled. Sounds like the man Jesus had the Christ leave his body and the man felt betrayed. Some early christians had this philosophy like Ebionites vs Marcionites vs Gnostics vs Proto orthodox. Of course Luke and John make it see, Jesus knew what was going on all along.
Also, where is the sacrifice? If I had Absolute knowledge killing my son would save the world and he and ended up next to me on my throne ruling the universe for all eternity then sign me up.

 

[tonyrey]

Then it begs the question why not create us with freewill without the sinful nature like Christ then we can say we were created in His image?

Your question implies that we should all be divine and not be limited by ignorance or weakness!