Problem: God & Possible Evil Free World

[TheTrueCentrist]

Most objections I have seen against God’s benevolence have to do with the existance of suffering and death; yet this has always confused me since suffering and death are not intrinsically evil.

The argument can be made this way, so that we are completely clear:

Catholic theology claims that God is good and Catholic morality claims that we know what goodness and evil. We observe actions in this world which match the Catholic definition of evil, therefore we have arrived at the “problem of evil.”

I frequently find that people who get into the problem of evil debate often end up saying “Well, atheists believe x” or “Atheists don’t have a basis for y.” That is irrelevant and a transparent dodge. We are discussing a problem in Catholic theology, and we are basing our arguments on Catholic beliefs.

 

[sandomenico]

I think we’re missing the elephant in the room.

First off, a perfect creation is an oxymoron. If something is perfect, it lacks nothing, which no created thing can claim, because no created thing subsists by its own nature. So, God did not create a perfect world, but a world that, according to it’s “blueprint,” lacks for nothing. In other words, he didn’t leave any necessary part out of His plan for this world.

Secondly, God created one world according to this blueprint. There could not be “another world” that is exactly like this one, in which free will exists but doesn’t.

The “problem of evil” is not that God maliciously created an evil world, or didn’t create enough practice worlds so that, in one of them at least, Adam – version 1.24 – could choose Him and make the rest of humanity happy. The “problem of evil” is that man, given free choice in the one world suited specifically to his needs, chose his own desires over God’s.

Finally, evil is a lack of good – just like cold is the lack of heat and darkness, the absence of light – not some opposite, equal force, like a Newtonian reaction.

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[David_Castlen]

We are examining the argument for a perfect God’s non-existence based on evil.
Of course I readily went to saying that evil is only a result of a misuse of free will – free will being necessary to love (a point which my professor objected to). However, he says that free will merely implies the possibility of evil, not the actuality of it.

He gives an example in which Adam and Eve always choose the good and never sin. Meaning that while the choice for evil is there, they never go down the wrong alleyway. Because this world (the one in which we always choose the good – pre-fall world) is a possibility and because God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent he would have wanted to and could have created this world. However he did not.

Any thoughts of how to approach a refutation?

So far I have defining love, that love is the highest good and in order to love we need free will. This freedom cannot be anything less than authentic (meaning God cannot override our will in order to love him). Defining evil as a privation and misuse of good (because he asserts that evil is a positive thing, not merely a deprivation or twisting of some good).
Then I have either the approach: For me the only reason the atheist can make an argument is because there is evil in the world. Therefore the example of a possible perfect world doesnt hold weight. Rather we need to discuss the nature of the existence of evil in the world…bringing us back to misuse of free will.
Or: God did create this perfect world. It is heaven. (Of course, why did he not simply create us to always be in heaven.)

Thanks for any direction you could provide

kjkjkjkjkj

 

[randirhoades]

Hi friend,

He did. But then gave Adam and Eve free will like He did all the Angels. Then kapow! We are sinners and live in evil.

That’s my take on it.

Love ya’ll,
Sheila is my real name.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well, my comments on God permitting evil to bring about a greater good have been debated a good bit in my absence, but let me clarify that yes, God does not do evil to bring about good but rather permits it to occur in order to bring about an otherwise logically impossible greater good. That is a huge difference, and is indeed an application of the principle of double effect.

 

[sandomenico]

Chesterton, SJ

I would like to add, if I may, that your professor is right – free will only implies the existence of evil, it does not actualize it.

But, here’s the catch, free will absolutely means that a choice is present. If there were nothing to choose from, free will would be unnecessary. And I think it’s reasonable (and I think your professor would agree) to say that no one ever chooses evil over good. Everyone makes a choice which favors certain goods and pleasures, not evil and pain. (Even sadists and masochists choose pain because they mistakenly perceive it as a good!)

So there is a choice present by the very fact we have free will, and we only choose between known goods. God is the ultimate, infinite Good; anything and everything that is not God, is less good than He. Now, if a choice must be made, and we only choose between goods, and if one of those goods is God, any other option must be a lesser good.

N.B. To say a thing is “less good” than another is not to say it is “evil.” The lesser does not possess some good which the greater does. Evil is a lack of a due, or necessary, good on the natural or supernatural scale. But because there are greater and lesser goods, there exists a hierarchy among them.

Now let’s look at the choice again. Adam must choose between the Greatest Good and a lesser good. If he chooses God, he has done well: he has preserved in his will the hierarchy of goods and placed God properly at the top. But, should Adam choose a lesser good, say himself (because Adam is a lesser good than God), he subverts this order because God should be first in all things. This due order lacking in the second option, Adam makes an evil choice and commits an evil act, if he chooses it.

And that is exactly what happened, and continues to happen.

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[David_Castlen]

Chesterton, SJ

Now let’s look at the choice again. Adam must choose between the Greatest Good and a lesser good. If he chooses God, he has done well: he has preserved in his will the hierarchy of goods and placed God properly at the top. But, should Adam choose a lesser good, say himself (because Adam is a lesser good than God), he subverts this order because God should be first in all things. This due order lacking in the second option, Adam makes an evil choice and commits an evil act, if he chooses it.

And that is exactly what happened, and continues to happen.

I have never heard this before. Are you sure this is within Catholic teaching and can you expand on it while providing the opposite or opposed view? Thank you

 

[sandomenico]

Okay, I think I see the problem.

Choosing a lesser good is not evil, per se. Again, one has simply chosen a lesser good - which is not necessarily evil. We make choices like this every day without incurring sin.

An opposite view would be to say that every choice of a lesser good is evil, just because it is less good.

Choosing evil is taking a lesser good and putting it in place of the higher. Remember how the serpent tempted Eve: “you will be like gods.” God is God - no one else could take that place in reality, but Adam and Eve saw that differently. They tried to subvert the proper order - that God should be first.

Evil moral choices put God second to our desires. Good ones put God above ourselves.

This is based on the thought of St. Augustine, I believe, but also on just plain old common sense.

God love you,
sandomenico