On the Goodness of God

[ronnie_bonigli]

You still use “euphemisms” like “nature itself got corrupted”. Not according to Genesis. God became angry at the disobedience and actively cursed the creation. Nature did not get corrupted, it was cursed by God.

Most of the other stuff you just said is a retread of what you’ve said many different ways earlier in the thread, I’d rather not go over it again, it’s becoming repetitious. But as far as taking Genesis literally and objecting to theological explainations, remember you’re on a Catholic Forum, not a Protestant Fundementalist site, you can’t complain that people explain things according to theological understanding and with a biblical exegesis on genesis that is non-literal. Me personally, I’m not here to convince and convert the stray atheists that wanders in, if one of them asks me “why is there evil in the world” I"ll give them my best understanding of the problem, but they shouldn’t complain that my answers are based in Catholic theology.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Shall we get into another lingusitic discussion? I was answering this proposition: “If your final destination is eternity any trials you’ve had in this life are infinitesimal in comparison…”. Infinitesimal means neglible, insignificant, small, minute, or using more than one word: “does not matter”. That is the concept, or principle I was arguing against - precisely because pretty much everyone acts as if pain and suffering would matter. It does matter to me and you, therefore it is not “infinitesimal”. Read again the Ninth Officer’s words.

No need to… In theory, they are infinitesimal if we are to look at them in disregard to reality. The point is that we are currently existing now and perhaps an eternal life in mind could lessen the apparent suffering as well as give growth to the hope inside us. Regardless, this pessimistic view was not his point. It is not a linguistic discussion. It is just a “misunderstanding of view” discussion.

That article only seems parallel to the misunderstanding. But, in reality, it has nothing to do with the Christian view. Why can’t you just believe us on what our view really is? One would think we know more about our own faith. Apparently, I am wrong.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

And this is why I don’t think we are making progress. Please, understand that referring to “standard theology” leaves me unimpressed. I don’t care about theology as an argument. However, I do appreciate it as a clarification of your stance. If you quote theology as a clarification, all is well. But you cannot quote theology as an argument. You still use “euphemisms” like “nature itself got corrupted”. Not according to Genesis. God became angry at the disobedience and actively cursed the creation. Nature did not get corrupted, it was cursed by God.

The world I am referring to is the one where God did not place that “tree” into the Garden, where there was no “original sin”, where there was no “fall”. Where everyone would be free to worship God, or not. But where nature was “perfect”, and there are no natural disasters, and no human atrocities. This world is far superior to the existing one, and still retains that “free will” that is held in such high regard.

Why create an inferior world, when there could be a superior one? That is the point here. It simply does not make sense.

I think I understand your objection. Since the argument does not suit your desire, it is not a good argument. It is only a euphemism if it is meant to mean something else. “Nature itself got corrupted” is exactly what is mean and exactly what happened. Adam and Eve screwed it up. What is your explanation? Things just happen? We happen to do evil, but are inclined to the greater good of people? Or that good and evil are just figments of the imagination? That imagination which no other animal on Earth has… Because our explanation is a rational explanation but has the imputed notion of the existence of God, it is not a good argument. We are talking about the Goodness of God here. Apparently, we cannot use our knowledge of God (THEOLOGY) to defend something based on the knowledge of God. You have to do better than that Spock. I know you can. You have before. But placing limits on our arguments is a terrible way to argue. Even though we are talking about God, we cannot use our understanding of Him to argue. We might as well not use biology to understand evolution.

Your own arguments are based on subjectivity and a misunderstood account of our arguments. The objective argument you have ever had (that I saw anyway) was the idea I had about the creator you allowed me to have was not seen to be rational, or even sentient. That is the only objective one you have given. Other than that, subjective arguments are the only ones I have seen. If you do not like our arguments on the sole purpose that we cannot use them, then so be it.

And how do you suppose this world is not superior or IS inferior? Again, this is purely based on subjectivity, speculation and mere conjecture.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

*The atheist attitude does not preclude to aid and assist others. It just does not issue a “command” to do it. If she would ask for assitance, I would give it, but not because I sumbit to a “command”, but because I understand that I might get into the position when I need her assitance. What goes around, comes around. To spread good will and respect will come back - and there is no need for a “command” to enforce it. *

What you say above is exactly what Jesus says. But it is not what atheism says. What I have been trying to get you to acknowledge is that atheism says nothing about love. Not only does it not command love, it doesn’t even suggest love. Atheism says nothing but what an atheist wants it to say. If he wants to say that since there is no God, he has no obligation to love, nor even to show good will toward others. He might feel just the opposite instinct … to hate and engage in malicious acts. Atheism doesn’t forbid that either.

So, as far as atheism is concerned, with respect to love, it either says nothing or it leaves you to figure out, as you did above, that what Jesus said is really what you “ought” to do.

In any case, with respect to building character, atheism would seem to be useless as a guide or as an admonition … because all atheism allows is that there is no God, and it says nothing else.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Spock,

Do you believe what goes around comes around?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Respect one another… “don’t do unto others that you would not want them do unto you” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” - depending on the circumstances.

By the way the golden rule is not an invention of christianity. Pretty much every society came up with it, even millenia before christianity rolled around.

Indeed.

But its only Christ who says that “what you do to the least of your bretheren, you do unto Me.” It makes charity more meaningful, because to love neighbor is to love God.

 

[Analog]

I did not say this. I said that God is either indifferent or malevolent. I do agree that there is a lot of pleasure in our life, which would indicate that God is NOT malevolent. Though it is possible that a really malevolent being would allow some temporary joy, in order to make the following “bad stuff” even more devastating. There is nothing as cruel as giving false hope. So the conclusion is that God is probably indifferent and possibly malevolent. I would bet on indifferent.

I had this thought the other day and it sort of disturbed me. Thoughts?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

The atheist attitude does not preclude to aid and assist others. It just does not issue a “command” to do it. If she would ask for assitance, I would give it, but not because I sumbit to a “command”, but because I understand that I might get into the position when I need her assitance. What goes around, comes around. To spread good will and respect will come back - and there is no need for a “command” to enforce it.

I hadn’t even read this post until everyone else commented on it, I’m lazy and don’t always read the posts in a thread not addressed at me, but anyway let me comment now. I have to say, this is an awful “philosophy” or attitude or whatever you want to call it, and I hope you wrote while you weren’t really thinking about how you really act in life, because this quid pro quo philosophy of life is very mercenary. You only help people when you think they’ll be able to return the favor? Please Spock, tell me you weren’t thinking when you typed that. Just last night, I was backing out of my driveway at 8:00 pm to go to the gym and I saw that there was huge snowbank blocking my neighbor’s car in her driveway, we just had our most recent storm and everyone now has 5 foot high snowbanks plowed in front of their houses (global warming save us!). Anyway my neighbor really is the proverbial little old lady, about 75 and widowed. Anyway, I looked at her car blocked in and I just couldn’t leave for the gym, walked over and started on the snowbank, it was frozen solid, the snow shovel wouldn’t even cut into it I had to go in my basement for a regular shovel, took me near a half hour to get rid of the thing so she’d be able to get her car out. Why’d I do it, it sure wasn’t because I expect she’ll return the favor, and it wasn’t because I’m Catholic and feel commanded by God to do it, it was simply because it was the Right thing to do, and I believe most atheist neighbors would do it too (though I don’t know why some of the jerks on the street with snowblowers didn’t take care of her first). Anyway, quid pro quo is not the answer, according to that philosophy all the well off would have no reason to help anyone much poorer than them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

To Analog; Spock said:

*Though it is possible that a really malevolent being would allow some temporary joy, in order to make the following “bad stuff” even more devastating. There is nothing as cruel as giving false hope. So the conclusion is that God is probably indifferent and possibly malevolent. I would bet on indifferent. *

Spock is suggesting a paranoid psychological stance regarding the possibility of a malevolent god. If such a being existed, it would hardly be called a very successful god since there are simply too many people in the world who enjoy life to the hilt. Wouldn’t a cruel god make sure everybody suffered? Maybe some would suffer more than others, but hardly anybody would be left off the hook if this god was truly malevolent. Whereas a benevolent god would offer not only the joy of this life, but hope for the surpassing joy of yet another life. An indifferent God? Why bother to create the universe and then be indifferent to its fate?

 

[Spock]

Most of the other stuff you just said is a retread of what you’ve said many different ways earlier in the thread, I’d rather not go over it again, it’s becoming repetitious. But as far as taking Genesis literally and objecting to theological explainations, remember you’re on a Catholic Forum, not a Protestant Fundementalist site, you can’t complain that people explain things according to theological understanding and with a biblical exegesis on genesis that is non-literal.

I agree. The trouble is that there is no authoritative listing issued by the church, which would explain which verses are to taken literally, and which ones should be understood allegorically, and those which are allegorical - what is their real meaning. You are not in a better position than I am. We are both “speculating”.

Another problem is that the cathecism is vague. One of the dogmas is that God can be known through reason only, and no faith is necessary. That would be a great starting point, if only the authors would add the “how can it be known”. But it is not there. It is missing. As such it is just another empty claim. And I really don’t care, who is the one who issues an empty claim, be it Joe Schmoe from across the street, or the Catholic Church in all its spledor, an empty claim is an empty claim, not to be taken seriously. And the church cannot take the stance that it is infallible, because that is just another empty claim.

I know you are not Bible-thumping Protestants. Permit me to coin a new phrase: you are Church-thumping Catholics. The protestants have a bumper sticker: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it”. Your bumper sticker should say: “The Church said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it”.

Me personally, I’m not here to convince and convert the stray atheists that wanders in, if one of them asks me “why is there evil in the world” I"ll give them my best understanding of the problem, but they shouldn’t complain that my answers are based in Catholic theology.

I appreciate it, very much. As long as you intend it to be an explanation, and you are not under the illusion that you just delivered an argument.

 

[Spock]

I think I understand your objection. Since the argument does not suit your desire, it is not a good argument.

That is not fair. It is not a good explanation, and I said why it is not. If you want to, I can clarify it.

Apparently, we cannot use our knowledge of God (THEOLOGY) to defend something based on the knowledge of God. You have to do better than that Spock. I know you can. You have before. But placing limits on our arguments is a terrible way to argue. Even though we are talking about God, we cannot use our understanding of Him to argue.

I am confused. What else is there?

And how do you suppose this world is not superior or IS inferior? Again, this is purely based on subjectivity, speculation and mere conjecture.

Sure, but this speculation is founded on actual, physical, observable reality. It is not an empty speculation.

We are both aware that not all people commit heinous evil acts all the time. There are people who do not commit even one murder or even one rape during their whole liftime (silly buggers, since it is so much fun - just kidding!). Obviously, the fewer of such acts happen, the better the world is. There is no logical necessity that such events take place. We could all “endure” a world without tortures and genocides. The existence of “free will” does not explain it. So it is possible to have a world without any of these “evil, human acts”. Why did God not to create it? God is supposed to be omnipotent, meaning that he can create anything, which is not logically contradictory. There is no logical contradiction in a world without atrocities. So…???

 

[Spock]

What I have been trying to get you to acknowledge is that atheism says nothing about love. Not only does it not command love, it doesn’t even suggest love. Atheism says nothing but what an atheist wants it to say. If he wants to say that since there is no God, he has no obligation to love, nor even to show good will toward others. He might feel just the opposite instinct … to hate and engage in malicious acts. Atheism doesn’t forbid that either.

Correct.

So, as far as atheism is concerned, with respect to love, it either says nothing or it leaves you to figure out, as you did above, that what Jesus said is really what you “ought” to do.

Correct.

In any case, with respect to building character, atheism would seem to be useless as a guide or as an admonition … because all atheism allows is that there is no God, and it says nothing else.

Correct. So what?

Atheism is value neutral, it allows you to choose your own goals. It lets you be in the driver seat. It acknowledges that you are your own boss, you are an adult to be trusted with your own life. It allows you to be good, or to be evil. It does not say that you must be honest, or that you should be deceitful. It offers no reward for good behavior, or punishment for bad behavior in some assumed and unproven after-life. I repeat: “so what?”.

 

[Spock]

I hadn’t even read this post until everyone else commented on it, I’m lazy and don’t always read the posts in a thread not addressed at me, but anyway let me comment now. I have to say, this is an awful “philosophy” or attitude or whatever you want to call it, and I hope you wrote while you weren’t really thinking about how you really act in life, because this quid pro quo philosophy of life is very mercenary. You only help people when you think they’ll be able to return the favor? Please Spock, tell me you weren’t thinking when you typed that. Just last night, I was backing out of my driveway at 8:00 pm to go to the gym and I saw that there was huge snowbank blocking my neighbor’s car in her driveway, we just had our most recent storm and everyone now has 5 foot high snowbanks plowed in front of their houses (global warming save us!). Anyway my neighbor really is the proverbial little old lady, about 75 and widowed. Anyway, I looked at her car blocked in and I just couldn’t leave for the gym, walked over and started on the snowbank, it was frozen solid, the snow shovel wouldn’t even cut into it I had to go in my basement for a regular shovel, took me near a half hour to get rid of the thing so she’d be able to get her car out. Why’d I do it, it sure wasn’t because I expect she’ll return the favor, and it wasn’t because I’m Catholic and feel commanded by God to do it, it was simply because it was the Right thing to do, and I believe most atheist neighbors would do it too (though I don’t know why some of the jerks on the street with snowblowers didn’t take care of her first). Anyway, quid pro quo is not the answer, according to that philosophy all the well off would have no reason to help anyone much poorer than them.

Maybe you took my words too literally. I most certainly agree with everything you did, and your reason why you did it. Not for reward, not because you obeyed a commandment, just because that was the “Right Thing To Do”. It was a correct application of the Golden Rule. But, implictly in the golden rule (do unto others that you would like them do unto you) there is the “quid pro quo”. And there is nothing wrong with that. You spead good deeds around and by the nature of how things work, they will get back to you. I am simply aware (and I cheerfully admit) that there is a “selfish” factor in me. There is nothing wrong with a moderate amount of selfishness.

 

[Spock]

Spock,

Do you believe what goes around comes around?

Yes, I certainly do.

 

[Spock]

An indifferent God? Why bother to create the universe and then be indifferent to its fate?

Possibilities:

1. he created this world by accident
2. he created something else, and this world is the “trash” left over from the creation
3. he is interested in some other beings, and does not care about us, because we are just a freak accident
4. he created the world out of curiosity, to see if it can be done

etc… etc… etc… the possibilities are endless.

 

[You]

Does the existence of human and animal suffering prove that either there is no God, or that if there is a God, God is malevolent rather than benevolent?

I thought God suffered too.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Maybe you took my words too literally. I most certainly agree with everything you did, and your reason why you did it. Not for reward, not because you obeyed a commandment, just because that was the “Right Thing To Do”. It was a correct application of the Golden Rule. But, implictly in the golden rule (do unto others that you would like them do unto you) there is the “quid pro quo”. And there is nothing wrong with that. You spead good deeds around and by the nature of how things work, they will get back to you. I am simply aware (and I cheerfully admit) that there is a “selfish” factor in me. There is nothing wrong with a moderate amount of selfishness.

Well I sure don’t agree with your understanding of the Golden Rule as a quid pro quo.

Btw, do you believe some acts are objectively evil, independent of what human’s have declared them? Is there a objective Right and Wrong, in the Platonic sense i.e. Plato’s abstract realm of idealized forms?

For instance, under your Golden Rule as a quid pro quo, we would likely say that the reason we consider murder to be wrong is because we don’t want anyone murdering US. So let’s have an agreement as a society that murder is “wrong”, that way through quid pro quo I won’t murder you and you won’t murder me. We could have a society where murder wasn’t considered “wrong”, sure there’d be a lot less people, but it would be possible. Is this a correct summation of your position?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

*Possibilities:

1. he created this world by accident
2. he created something else, and this world is the “trash” left over from the creation
3. he is interested in some other beings, and does not care about us, because we are just a freak accident
4. he created the world out of curiosity, to see if it can be done

etc… etc… etc… the possibilities are endless. *

Sounds like you are describing a dysfunctional human, rather than a god.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

That is not fair. It is not a good explanation, and I said why it is not. If you want to, I can clarify it.

I understand your objection, but I disagree with it not being a good explanation. It is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

I am confused. What else is there?

I meant to put a question mark. I meant to ask, “Even if we are talk about an attribute of God, we cannot use our understanding of God?” More or less… I forgot the actual statement but the question mark was supposed to follow. It was the restrictions you imposed that I was talking about. You are saying that we cannot use theology to explain the nature of God. Hence, the question. I hope that helps. I need to start proof-reading.

Sure, but this speculation is founded on actual, physical, observable reality. It is not an empty speculation.

Perhaps

We are both aware that not all people commit heinous evil acts all the time. There are people who do not commit even one murder or even one rape during their whole liftime (silly buggers, since it is so much fun - just kidding!). Obviously, the fewer of such acts happen, the better the world is. There is no logical necessity that such events take place. We could all “endure” a world without tortures and genocides. The existence of “free will” does not explain it. So it is possible to have a world without any of these “evil, human acts”. Why did God not to create it? God is supposed to be omnipotent, meaning that he can create anything, which is not logically contradictory. There is no logical contradiction in a world without atrocities. So…???

Agreed… Unfortunately, it even happens within the Church. I also completely agree that there is no logical contradiction in a world without atrocities. And God did create that world. Adam and Eve just screwed it up for us. All Adam needed to do was admit that what he did was wrong and it was his fault and perhaps there would be no need for this conversation. Again, I agree that it is possible for the world to be free of evil acts. But, it is not possible in this world unless the world realizes this. And by realize, I mean do something about it.

Free will does explain the problem of evil quite well. Excuse the corniness… But, God created us for love, both ways. One cannot force one to love someone. THAT would be a logical contradiction considering the nature of what love is. Would you agree? In any case, love is all He asks. Nothing more. Nothing less.

To wipe out even the possibility of evil in this world, He would have to do one of two things:

1. Take away our evil acts which reduces to taking away free will.
2. Force us to love Him which also reduces to taking away free will.

Either way, it is a logical contradiction. Perhaps, there are more ways that I am missing, but it will reduce to taking away free will.

 

[PAboy57]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART 1, SECTION 2, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 7

Paragraph 7. The Fall

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine, 257 and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”. 258 The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace. 259 We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror. 260