The problem of Evil

[JDaniel]

Ultimately, “God” and “Satan” are terms whose referents defy definition,

Whadyamean:

Now if you had said that they (the referents) defy perfect definition, I would be forced to agree with you. But, their definitions are as sufficient as any definitions we know. Most of God’s definition is directly from those determinants (attributes) that mankind has learned from His Revelation. Furthermore, we have a tendency to position things into categories and to recognize that each of the things that we do so with, we do not necessarily regard to be on equal levels. E.g., we know that their are degrees of coldness, and darkness. That’s how we know that their are first principles for each category.

similar to the breakdown of physics as it attempts to approach the moment of singularity.

But, that is a physicality, of which we do not have much in the way of category. If one looks, one will see that the definitions we do have for the interior-most wall of the singularity are more than likely analogues.

And again, there is always Mark:4 31-34. You might find it fascinating to trace the history of “Satan” though history, as well as some other concepts.

I have. Plus, I have studied Satan’s history as the Catholic Church suggests it to be. I have seen no compelling reasons to disregard them.

Though I am an alternative type “theist,” neither God as purported by any religion nor Satan are required for deep ethics that serve as well as any “Christian” ethic. Remember, Christopher (what a cruel joke of a name in this case) Columbus reported to Queen Isabella that the aborigines he encountered were exemplary beyond Christians. Then he killed them because they weren’t Catholic. Such is the way of all jihad, yes?

There was, historically, a lot more going on there than merely death because of non-Catholicity. If you studied Columbus, you would know that.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Wrong. God is omniscient. He knows everything. The answer to the question “does God know x?” where x is anything you like, is yes.

I mean “before” in the same way Genesis says “In the beginning.” To remove time, I will simply say: At the point where God existed and the world did not, God still knew everything about the world.

TTC:

That would have been impossible. The universe is an instantaneous projection from God’s Thought and Will. Within that shorter-than-Planck-epoch-moment that He thought the universe, it began. Time began at that same instant - that instant where the first mobile being came to be. Infinite being can only know finite (mobile) being from a framework of a Now, which, for God, we conceive to be an “Eternal Now.” Thus He knew the moment He thought, and not a moment prior to it.

God bless, and Merry Christmas,
jd

 

[belorg]

Many Christian theists do not believe that there is such a thing as “objective evil.” I will explain the reasons for their denial in a series of clarifying notes:

OK, So evil is not a being. However, that does not change the fact that, in the opinion of most Christians, some things are objectively evil, or, if you wish, objectively , not’the way they should be’. Whether an atheist believes there actually are things that are not the way they should be or not, is irrelevant to the problem of evil. There is still a possible inconsistency between two Christian beliefs, which, if proven, means at least one of those two is wrong.

 

[JDaniel]

This discussion of atheist reasoning is a transparent attempt to distract from the fact that you have no answer for the problem of evil. Atheism is irrelevant to the problem of evil. Christianity asserts the properties of God as well as the existence of evil, and critics claim that these assertions are not logically consistent.

TTC:

We “assert the properties of God” from His Revelation(s) to Man. Now, you must admit, that those guys, in our early days, were pretty dumb. How could anyone that dumb have conspired - into existence - our God, including all of His determinants just as we have them in our present sophisticated arena of thought, unchanged?

Other Catholics have assailed me for my limited perception of what evil is, but, I will stick to my theory. ‘Physical evil,’ as well as any other so-called ‘evils,’ are merely the incarnations of the principle of evil. The principle of evil, is, in my opinion, the utter (final and known) rejection of God. It is only at that point when Satan can exercise his dominion over men, without that powerful constraint that flows from our cooperation with the Holy Spirit through grace. All other things that we call ‘evil’ are nothing more than serendipitous events that we do not rightly understand and thus call ‘evil,’ in the same way that we do not understand events of “chance.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Again you are saying that free will (human freedom) inevitably results in moral evil. You are saying that it would have been impossible for God to create a world with free will and without any moral evil.

By Providence, God orders all men to the attainment of the Beatific Vision. By Pre-destination, He permits some to fail.

Catholic reasoning says that you can not achieve a good end by evil means.

Actually, we admit that good consequents should not be achieved by sinful precedents. Quite different from your explanation.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Plantinga takes exactly the approach I have described: he says that free will inevitably leads to evil.
His logic being (according to the wiki)

1. There are possible worlds that even an omnipotent being can not actualize.
2. A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world.

TTC:

If that is his take, then he is wrong, in my opinion. Omnipotent Being can instantiate any world that is not completely contradictory. IOW, God could have instantiated a “world with morally free creatures producing only moral good…” He selected against that. He selected for creatures who could/would provide Him with true, filial love in return for His Love. That is only a “restriction” if taken in an extremely wide sense.

I say that if God (as an omnipotent being) cannot actualize the world described in (2), then there must be some contradiction inherent in that world (i.e. it is a sort of “can God create a rock so big he can’t lift it” proposition.) That must be that God cannot contradict the fact that free will inevitably leads to evil.

Well, your consideration is irrelevant, given my explanation above. But, in a sense, you are correct that, given that God chose to create a world wherein only creatures that were capable of providing Him with true, filial love existed, then, in a broad sense, (some) creatures will choose not to offer that love. Such will end entwined with evil.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Many Christian theists do not believe that there is such a thing as “objective evil.” I will explain the reasons for their denial in a series of clarifying notes:

1. Evil is the absence of good. But it is not a mere *negation, * such as the absence of sight in a stone. Rather, it is the absence of a good that should be there, such as the absence of sight in a man. Therefore, evil is not a mere negation, but is the privation of a due good, the lack or absence of a good that should be there, but isn’t there. Thus, blindness in a man is an evil, because a normal man should be able to see.
2. Because evil is the absence of a due good, it is therefore, strictly speaking, a non-being, a non-entity. For example, blindness is, strictly speaking, not a “thing” in the same way that a man is a thing or a being. However, this does not mean that evil is not real. It is real, but only to the extent that the thing of which it is the privation is real. Blindness, exists in the world, but only because there are blind people.
3. We usually cannot think of anything unless we think of it as a being. In so doing, we make a mental construct (or a “being of reason”), a mental “quasi-being” of what is objectively a non-being. For example, there is no such thing as a square-circle. It is a non-entity. It is a non-entity because it is a square that is not a square because it is a circle; and it is a circle that is not a circle because it is a square. So it is really nothing. But we can’t talk about it unless we thing of it as if it were a something. So we construct in our minds a concept of it as a quasi-being or a being of reason (ens rationis). The same is true of evil. Because evil is not an objective thing, or because it is strictly a non-being, so we can only talk about it by thinking of it as a quasi-being or a being of reason.

Many Christian theists do not believe that there is such a thing as objective evil. This, indeed, is the error of the Manichaeans, who thought that there were two gods: a Good God, who is the source of all good, and an objectively Evil God, who is the source of all evil in the world. Christian theists, however, maintain that an Evil God is unnecessary, because evil is not a “thing” that requires a cause of being. A Good God is the first cause of all beings, and the things we call evil are nothing but the privation of a due good in the objective things that God created.

Just sharing my thoughts and opinions on this subject. I don’t wish to knock anyone on the head.

Good explanation, Rom!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Evil is not a “thing” but it is a negative aspect of reality which causes an immense amount of suffering and death.

Tony:

(Isn’t that the problem that we did not complete in some other thread recently?) Physical evil is not “evil,” per se. It is caused and controlled by God, but we cannot fathom why, so we prefer to call it “evil.” You know, people conceive of physical suffering, but, have never seen real physical suffering. People have seen (in their imaginations) imaginary physical suffering. But, I guess, unless one really has an opportunity to go through such an event, one really can’t know. I have. I survived it. My uncle has, and he survived. I fully believe that God never gives us more than we can bear.

What I (and what my uncle) went through happened a long time ago. Guess what? I can hardly remember it. He and I are way past it. In any event, it is fun to imagine, i.e., postulate, unbearable physical suffering. These are what we like to call ‘evils.’ Again, I say, they are not.

Furthermore, we both survived. But, who’s to say that death is per se evil? Why should it be? Surely the untimely meeting of one’s Maker is not an evil. The untimely meeting of one’s Maker may be problematic in the event that one dies in a state of mortal sin. So, I have a slightly different take on physical suffering. (BTW, my uncle was left for dead! He was so stupid!)

No one (probably) goes through their life completely free from some pain and suffering. What might God use pain and suffering for? In the gym, we would say, “No pain, no gain.” Of course, that is not what we tend to think is “suffering.” But, it is an interesting corollary to the realities of pain and suffering. The more pain, the stronger I got. That I chose. Some, God chooses.

“Evil,” per se, can only be the rejection of the Holy Spirit and the tacit acceptance of Satan’s control over our life. Satan is not evil. Satan is a fallen angel, nothing more, nothing less. He was unable to stand in the presence of the Vision, and thus chose to raise himself to an undeserving glory, of sorts. That’s not evility. That’s, I don’t know, something else. But, the final rejection of God’s invitation to the Vision, makes Satan’s act evil only in a broad sense.

God bless,
jd

 

[rom422]

OK, So evil is not a being. However, that does not change the fact that, in the opinion of most Christians, some things are objectively evil, or, if you wish, objectively , not’the way they should be’. Whether an atheist believes there actually are things that are not the way they should be or not, is irrelevant to the problem of evil. There is still a possible inconsistency between two Christian beliefs, which, if proven, means at least one of those two is wrong.

I can accept the term “objectively evil,” if “objectively” simply means being in the real world. For evil exists in real objects that are deprived of a due good, such as blindness in a man. Therefore, blindness in a man is objectively evil, without itself being an evil “object.”

The existence of a good God and the existence of evil in the world are not inconsistent, but they define the problem of evil for us. However, I think that it is possible to reconcile the existence of a good God with the existence of evil in the world.

As I said in an earlier Post, there are two kinds of evil: physical evil and moral evil (or sin). Often, what we call physical evil is not really evil if you knew what God’s design in nature is. You might think, for instance, that pain is an evil. But not really. A toothache, for example, is a symptom that you might have a cavity. Once you realize that pain is a warning signal to the body that something is wrong, once you realize that it is a part of the body’s defense mechanism, then you notice that it wasn’t altogether a purposeless thing after all. In this case, we might say that God wills physical evil indirectly, that means, as a necessary part of His design in nature.

It is much more difficult to reconcile the existence of a good God with the existence of sin or moral evil in the world. The classic solution offered by many Christian theists is that God permits moral evil for the sake of a greater good. God certainly does not will moral evil (that would be incompatible with His goodness). But He can allow it. In Post #26 above I explained how the permission of evil is by no means identical with the willing of evil.