Problem of Evil Variation

[ffg]

In another forum, I’m chatting with an atheist who has posed an argument which appears to be a variation of the classic Problem of Evil, and it can be expressed like this:

1. God wants everyone to come to know him in this life.
2. God knows how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will.
3. God could create a such a world.
4. But not everyone comes to know God in this life.
5. Therefore, either God does not want everyone to know him or He does not know how to create such a world or He cannot create such a world.

I think the problem is in the second premise where he wrote, “he didn’t know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will.”

How would you respond to this argument?

Has this variation been addressed somewhere that I can read about online?

Thanks.

Was thinking about this a little more -

It seems the person wants to conflate an unloving God with creation that has attributes of being loved (freedom).

Crumble.

 

[Solmyr]

By definition it includes freedom for the beloved.

By whose “definition”? If a parent places restrictions on the child, so the child is prevented from electrocuting himself, then the parent does NOT love that child? The basic problem is twofold here. One is the definition of “love”, the other is the extent of “freedom”.

The proper definition of love would be “to act in the best interest of the loved one”. The Christian definition is “to will the best for someone”.

And freedom is never “absolute”. In the best interest of someone it can be necessary to place restrictions on the loved one. To act in the best interest of someone it MAY or MAY NOT be preferred to limit the person’s freedom. As usual, reality is always RELATIVE… bad news, huh?

 

[ffg]

By whose “definition”? If a parent places restrictions on the child, so the child is prevented from electrocuting himself, then the parent does NOT love that child? The basic problem is twofold here. One is the definition of “love”, the other is the extent of “freedom”.

The proper definition of love would be “to act in the best interest of the loved one”. The Christian definition is “to will the best for someone”.

And freedom is never “absolute”. In the best interest of someone it can be necessary to place restrictions on the loved one. To act in the best interest of someone it MAY or MAY NOT be preferred to limit the person’s freedom. As usual, reality is always RELATIVE… bad news, huh?

Love ALWAYS includes a freedom for the beloved to love back (or not).

Notice the specific in bold. Nothing to do with protection or limiting other freedom’s - like the ability to shock oneself.

The freedom to love is ABSOLUTE. There is not a creature from a loving God that does not have that freedom. It comes with the ‘first cause’ of first love from God.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself in the bold in your statement above right? (well, my guess is that you didn’t notice, but, just incase)

That’s like saying ‘there is no truth’.

Uh, so it’s true, that there is no truth?

So there is no truth to reality, it’s ALWAYS relative, eh? How true that must be.

 

[kdbueno]

Evil comes from the desire to do so. Feel free to understand it.

 

[Solmyr]

Love ALWAYS includes a freedom for the beloved to love back (or not).

That is true, but trivial. Freedom is much more that reciprocating a feeling or an action.

The freedom to love is ABSOLUTE. There is not a creature from a loving God that does not have that freedom. It comes with the ‘first cause’ of first love from God.

Would be nice to see some actual examples of God’s love. I mean, HERE and NOW…

You do realize you just contradicted yourself in the bold in your statement above right? (well, my guess is that you didn’t notice, but, just incase)

That’s like saying ‘there is no truth’.

Uh, so it’s true, that there is no truth?

So there is no truth to reality, it’s ALWAYS relative, eh? How true that must be.

Where did that come from? I said nothing about “truth”. What I said that it is relative to the person what is in his or her best interest. One size definitely does NOT fit all.

 

[ffg]

That is true, but trivial. Freedom is much more that reciprocating a feeling or an action.

Would be nice to see some actual examples of God’s love. I mean, HERE and NOW…

Where did that come from? I said nothing about “truth”. What I said that it is relative to the person what is in his or her best interest. One size definitely does NOT fit all.

Thanks for the reply. Being that it’s impossible to know if folks read a post straight through or not, and because history shows you cut up posts, I would just ask that you read this post in whole to get the full context.

This is one of the huge confusions on the topic of ‘free will’.

People who want to discuss it, need to consider a few things.

1. who owns the definition
2. what it’s definition is, per the teacher / owner.
3. how it’s definition applies to ‘directional teaching’, The Church teaches for purpose, not open ended discussion - there is a direction that we need to keep in mind.
4. applying the full context

The definition of free will is not ‘wide open freedom’, this should be easily understood considering #3 while looking at a full range of Catholic teaching, it is always directional (guiding).

So when we see that ‘free will’ is the ability to choose the good, we see how that is directional and aligns with how love works, because if love is to do as you said earlier - to will the best for the other, we see the same direction.

So we can apply that ‘free will’ is the freedom to love, to choose the good.

Then we say why? Because it’s the thing that is ALWAYS free. You can take my legs, my arms, my house, anything except my freedom to ‘will’ the best for you or others.

Now to discuss with this understanding is to take the learning a step further. Keep ‘directional’ in your back pocket and you’ll catch Catholics off guard when they think ‘free will’ is defined by the church as it would be by you and I.

With regard to reality being true, we can put that behind us for a separate discussion, if we choose later (a freedom that is not ‘free will’ per Church theology directional teaching, because the discussion if chosen to do, is not necessarily a ‘good’ or act of love, just a potential ‘is’).

I hope this helps with understanding a key distinction which is all too often blurred.

Take care,

Mike

 

[tonyrey]

Love ALWAYS includes a freedom for the beloved to love back (or not).

Notice the specific in bold. Nothing to do with protection or limiting other freedom’s - like the ability to shock oneself.

The freedom to love is ABSOLUTE. There is not a creature from a loving God that does not have that freedom. It comes with the ‘first cause’ of first love from God.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself in the bold in your statement above right? (well, my guess is that you didn’t notice, but, just incase)

That’s like saying ‘there is no truth’.

Uh, so it’s true, that there is no truth?

So there is no truth to reality, it’s ALWAYS relative, eh? How true that must be.

If relativity is relative it has no rational foundation. We are all disappearing into intellectual quicksand where nothing makes sense…

 

[Solmyr]

Thanks for the reply. Being that it’s impossible to know if folks read a post straight through or not, and because history shows you cut up posts, I would just ask that you read this post in whole to get the full context.

I always read the whole answer, even if I don’t quote every sentence…

This is one of the huge confusions on the topic of ‘free will’.

People who want to discuss it, need to consider a few things.

1. who owns the definition
2. what it’s definition is, per the teacher / owner.
3. how it’s definition applies to ‘directional teaching’, The Church teaches for purpose, not open ended discussion - there is a direction that we need to keep in mind.
4. applying the full context

The definition of free will is not ‘wide open freedom’, this should be easily understood considering #3 while looking at a full range of Catholic teaching, it is always directional (guiding).

So when we see that ‘free will’ is the ability to choose the good, we see how that is directional and aligns with how love works, because if love is to do as you said earlier - to will the best for the other, we see the same direction.

So we can apply that ‘free will’ is the freedom to love, to choose the good.

That is simply not true. I would be willing to discuss it further, but it might be futile, unless we can find some common platform of which a discussion can be developed. For the time being this seems unlikely (or downright impossible).

Then we say why? Because it’s the thing that is ALWAYS free. You can take my legs, my arms, my house, anything except my freedom to ‘will’ the best for you or others.

Here is one of the major problems. Whatever you “will”, or “wish” or “desire” or “want” for others is of no consequence if you are unable to carry it out. It is about as useful as giving a kiss to a corpse.

 

[ffg]

I always read the whole answer, even if I don’t quote every sentence…

That is simply not true. I would be willing to discuss it further, but it might be futile, unless we can find some common platform of which a discussion can be developed. For the time being this seems unlikely (or downright impossible).

Here is one of the major problems. Whatever you “will”, or “wish” or “desire” or “want” for others is of no consequence if you are unable to carry it out. It is about as useful as giving a kiss to a corpse.

Thanks for the reply.

If we end here, I think we at least got some good info down to think about.

What’s not true?

I’m happy to be corrected on Catholic Church teaching, if you know something I don’t, might as well share. Better than accusing as ‘not true’ with no reason.

I understand you are running into walls, it’s expected, I don’t know anything about a lot of things, so it’s expected that I’d not get the full picture on those things, even while learning.

I can’t ‘do’ love accidentally…No will, no love.

To ‘Will’ is step one.

Sometimes it’s all there is - ‘Father, forgive them, they know not what they do’.

That’s not to say love is only inactive ‘will’, love is action, totally agree. So ‘will’ is action as it is a part of love.

Sometimes our acts are limited to our will, sometimes not. But surely I agree as Matt 25 states the ‘how’ we are to ‘love’ God, through our acts toward others, which are specified in the second half of the chapter.

So I do agree love is act, but I hope you can see how ‘will’ has to be act if love is act and will is needed to love.

It is also key if trying to understand Church teaching, that it is true that there is direction to Church teaching (Teaching in general as well, imagine tests where the instructions were to not regurgitate what was taught, but to give opinion. Sadly, I’m sure this is happening now a days.)…

If no direction, this would be called ‘Catholic Opinions’!

Take care,

Mike

 

[Solmyr]

I can’t ‘do’ love accidentally…No will, no love.

To ‘Will’ is step one.

That is fine. Step one is necessary, but not sufficient. We are in synch.

Sometimes it’s all there is - ‘Father, forgive them, they know not what they do’.

Sure… an ACT of appeal is an ACT. No problem.

That’s not to say love is only inactive ‘will’, love is action, totally agree. So ‘will’ is action as it is a part of love.

Thanks. I agree. So we can say that “love” is to ACT in the best interest of someone else.

Sometimes our acts are limited to our will, sometimes not. But surely I agree as Matt 25 states the ‘how’ we are to ‘love’ God, through our acts toward others, which are specified in the second half of the chapter.

I am not sure what you mean here. Please specify the verse, too.

So I do agree love is act, but I hope you can see how ‘will’ has to be act if love is act and will is needed to love.

Sure thing. No problem.

But I am still not sure about the “free will”.

The libertarian definition of free will rests on three “legs”.

1. The free agent wishes (wills, desires, wants…) to achieve a certain goal.
2. There are at least two possible ways to achieve that goal.
3. The agent has the locus of decision. He (or she) makes the decision which way to take.

If all that is given, the agent has “free will” in that RESPECT.

 

[fhansen]

In another forum, I’m chatting with an atheist who has posed an argument which appears to be a variation of the classic Problem of Evil, and it can be expressed like this:

1. God wants everyone to come to know him in this life.
2. God knows how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will.
3. God could create a such a world.
4. But not everyone comes to know God in this life.
5. Therefore, either God does not want everyone to know him or He does not know how to create such a world or He cannot create such a world.

I think the problem is in the second premise where he wrote, “he didn’t know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will.”

How would you respond to this argument?

Has this variation been addressed somewhere that I can read about online?

Thanks.

How can it be said that the will is free if God completely predetermines human choices in any way?

 

[ffg]

That is fine. Step one is necessary, but not sufficient. We are in synch.

Sure… an ACT of appeal is an ACT. No problem.

Thanks. I agree. So we can say that “love” is to ACT in the best interest of someone else.

I am not sure what you mean here. Please specify the verse, too.

Sure thing. No problem.

But I am still not sure about the “free will”.

The libertarian definition of free will rests on three “legs”.

1. The free agent wishes (wills, desires, wants…) to achieve a certain goal.
2. There are at least two possible ways to achieve that goal.
3. The agent has the locus of decision. He (or she) makes the decision which way to take.

If all that is given, the agent has “free will” in that RESPECT.

I’ll get the Matt 25 info in here, then we’ll work on putting all the puzzle pieces together to move from ‘will’ to ‘free will’. (All the pieces are here, just need to cobble them together and apply some examples.

So Matt 25 - One thing I can’t stand and don’t do is lay in ‘a verse’. That doesn’t tell the story that needs to be known.

Matt 25 should be read in it’s entirety and the context of the action happening in the whole really gives the instruction at the end of the ‘how’ we are to love much more flavor.

Link for Matt 25 - usccb.org/bible/matthew/25

As quick an analysis as possible - (various emphasis in this post added due to my excitement about this stuff, not to portray a contra to a point of yours)

Scene - Reading Matt 24 sets up Matt 25 in even more context - In Matt 24 Jesus and Apostles are strolling while Jesus is detailing what we might consider doom and gloom.

Then at the end of Matt 24 verses 45-51 it is asked (and answered) - “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent **servant, whom the master has put in charge **of **his household **to **distribute to them their food **at the proper time? "

(Sidenote, this question alone is so deep and full of understandings from the Apostles of which were not there in earlier parts of the gospel’s (time), I bolded a couple related to Pope, 1 Church, and the Eucharist, just wanted to point out, obviously for a different discussion)

Enter Matt 25, which immediately starts with a parable, which if you consider the end of Matt 24 - You have this question hanging - “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant?"

So at the end of Matt 24, the question was specific, now the parable at the start of Matt 25answers the question from a more general perspective, but in a very specific way.

Essentially the summary is that there is a difference between knowing who God is and being in relationship with God, which is our preparation in ‘time’. It’s a parable that shoots an arrow through the heart of minimalists.

THEN comes the big question - again, consider the context - Apostles essentially being scared straight for a chapter and a half, then the answer to ‘how’ to love God (Build that relationship), which aligns our hearts with God (That preparation).

Key verses - 34 - 40 : the How -

34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,

36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

37 Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?

39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’

40 **And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ **

I hope that helps with The Matt 25 part.

In that end of Matt 24, while answering the question at verse 45 in 46-51, He shows the freedom folks have concerning love in service in the answer, then in Matt 25 gives the ‘how’ which implies a freedom of ‘will’ as well.

I’ll do an answer to your last there later. Need to get some other stuff done.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Aloysium]

. . . And freedom is never “absolute”. In the best interest of someone it can be necessary to place restrictions on the loved one. To act in the best interest of someone it MAY or MAY NOT be preferred to limit the person’s freedom. As usual, reality is always RELATIVE… bad news, huh?

Reality is relational. No individual being can exist except in relation to everything else that is. The primary relationship is with God, who is the Ground of being, but extends outwards towards the rest of creation. We each have a relationship with one another whereby we connect through our capacity to understand and act. This constitutes the capacity to love, expressed differently in a manner that we ultimately choose and for which are responsible.

I’m not sure what you mean by “bad news”; the bad news that I see is that we can choose badly. I wouldn’t presume to speak about where you stand in your relationship with God. I think that you have more to grow. If this was the best it was going to get, you might just stroke out and where you are is where you are. There are choices coming up which will offer you the possibility of eternal happiness. You may have over-intellectualized this; this is clearly no game. It is very serious and the stakes could not be higher. I can understand why people would gripe about it - very dangerous indeed. Given that you are here and there is no going back, what do we choose? Hint: Go for the truth that is goodness.

 

[ffg]

That is fine. Step one is necessary, but not sufficient. We are in synch.

Sure… an ACT of appeal is an ACT. No problem.

Thanks. I agree. So we can say that “love” is to ACT in the best interest of someone else.

I am not sure what you mean here. Please specify the verse, too.

Sure thing. No problem.

But I am still not sure about the “free will”.

The libertarian definition of free will rests on three “legs”.

1. The free agent wishes (wills, desires, wants…) to achieve a certain goal.
2. There are at least two possible ways to achieve that goal.
3. The agent has the locus of decision. He (or she) makes the decision which way to take.

If all that is given, the agent has “free will” in that RESPECT.

Sorry it’s been a while. We had an odd week.

Back to that Free Will thing.

The fact that other ‘Mikes’ can’t be used to define me shows that it is possible to find the same term defined differently (at least in the English language).

Another example - field goal - this means one thing in American Football, vs. Basketball, vs. farming.

So I don’t have a problem that other folks use the term ‘Free Will’ for their purposes.

Folks just need to be careful. Applying their definition where it is not proper will assist in confusion rather than clarity.

So as a definition for it’s intended purposes, I have no problem with the definition above.

To analyze it, I’m curious why there is no mention of the freedom to ‘will’ it seems to define how ‘free’ works after the ‘will’ is used for a goal.

But as I’m not familiar with all the context - in that respect - I respect their use.

If we are looking for how Catholics (should?) view the matter, it’s different.

Some key puzzle pieces to build understanding of ‘Free Will’ from a Catholic perspective -

~We want to include love (Which includes a freedom for the beloved to love back)
-This is an absolute key, as a Christian believes in a Loving God first and foremost and the source of all. To set love aside to try and understand a Christian teaching is of no help.

~We want to consider the Church is ‘teaching’ and thus there will be a direction.

~We want to apply love and direction to come to understand a definition of ‘to choose the good’.

~We want to apply the instruction in Matt 25 to understand ‘how’ to apply our lives when we freely ‘will’ the choice of ‘the good’.

have a great weekend!

Take care,

Mike