The Ultimate Question

[Spock]

There are a couple of threads about “why does God allow… this and that”. Those are good questions, but they do not ask the most basic question, which is: “Why did God create Satan?”. Satan is the embodiment of “evil”, Satan wants to destroy the “good” that God creates. What creator would want to create something (or someone) that is “hell-bent” on destroying the “good part” of the creation? Can there be a rational reason for it?

Don’t try the “free will” approach, because it does not work. Humans with free will have two paths: either some will go “astray” on their own, or none will. If no one goes astray, all the better, there is the “perfect” world, no sin, and everone goes to heaven, just like God would like them.

If some do go astray on their own, you have your “sin”, and Satan was not necessary for that purpose.

Of course there is a third possibility, namely that without Satan everyone would choose the “good path”, and Satan would be logically necessary to introduce “sin”. But again, what is the point of it? Why is an “imperfect” world (with sin) preferable to a “perfect” one (without sin)?

The funny thing is that the apologists painted themselves into a corner, by stipulating that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Since God knew up-front that Satan will turn against him, and since God had the freedom not to create Satan, the apologists are now left without an argument. They display God as an irrational creator, who intentionally created the agent which has one aim: “to destroy God’s good creation”. As usual, I don’t have to find arguments against Christianity; you, the apologists are the ones who supply the strongest argument against what you believe in. Pretty ironic, isn’t it?

 

[CalifCatholic]

…Don’t try the “free will” approach…

Sorry, but I have to.

God created Lucifer, who was a beautiful angel. But, as the story goes, Lucifer rebelled against God along with many angels.

So God did not create an evil Satan. He created an angel who rebelled

 

[st_felicity]

The answer is Love.

Creation is an emanating reality of the Divine Love. So is creation with absolute freedom known as free will. God Loves the being that chose to reject Him known as Satan, even having the foreknowledge that He would be rejected. Rejection of Him doesn’t change God’s Perfect and immutable Love.

 

[Pieman333272]

There are a couple of threads about “why does God allow… this and that”. Those are good questions, but they do not ask the most basic question, which is: “Why did God create Satan?”. Satan is the embodiment of “evil”, Satan wants to destroy the “good” that God creates. What creator would want to create something (or someone) that is “hell-bent” on destroying the “good part” of the creation? Can there be a rational reason for it?

God created Lucifer, who rebelled. Lucifer chose to rebel. God knew it was a possibility and knew what he would do if it happened, and also knew what he would do if it didn’t happen. God created Satan because he created Lucifer and willed him to have free will, in spite of the risks. Lucifer chose the wrong path himself.

Don’t try the “free will” approach, because it does not work. Humans with free will have two paths: either some will go “astray” on their own, or none will. If no one goes astray, all the better, there is the “perfect” world, no sin, and everone goes to heaven, just like God would like them.

Everyone does go against God. Free will lets us make choices of various types at various points with various impacts, not all of which are as simple as ‘good vs evil’. There is no psychologically plausible way for all of us to choose good all the time.

If some do go astray on their own, you have your “sin”, and Satan was not necessary for that purpose.

Right, he wasn’t/isn’t necessary. If he were necessary for sin to happen, there would be a paradox. (How can he sin if he needed to be corrupted first?). He merely… pushes… us towards evil.

Of course there is a third possibility, namely that without Satan everyone would choose the “good path”, and Satan would be logically necessary to introduce “sin”. But again, what is the point of it? Why is an “imperfect” world (with sin) preferable to a “perfect” one (without sin)?

That’s not right. More people would choose the right things to do in life and follow God, but not all of them. Satan would prefer an imperfect world because he has pride and hatred.

The funny thing is that the apologists painted themselves into a corner, by stipulating that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Since God knew up-front that Satan will turn against him, and since God had the freedom not to create Satan, the apologists are now left without an argument. They display God as an irrational creator, who intentionally created the agent which has one aim: “to destroy God’s good creation”. As usual, I don’t have to find arguments against Christianity; you, the apologists are the ones who supply the strongest argument against what you believe in. Pretty ironic, isn’t it?

God didn’t create Satan. He created a good guy and gave him free will, acknowledging the risk but preferring to give him that gift over it.

 

[Spock]

Sorry, guys and gals, this is not what I asked. To put it simply:

1. God created Lucifer (the Lighbringer).
2. God knew he will rebel.
3. God was not obliged to create him.
4. Satan or Lucifer or the devil (whichever name you prefer) makes no positive contribution, only negative ones, by trying to turn people away from God.

Why would God create anything that is (or will turn to be) an evil being? Such an action is irrational and nonsensical. Do you find an excuse for it? Free will, or love simply does not cut it. Let’s see the next attempts.

 

[Pipina]

You could ask the same thing about those who finally condemn themselves to Hell. Certainly God knows they will go to Hell, and perhaps be the cause for the damnation of others. Nevertheless, He creates them. Because He respects freedom and free will (yes!). He does not create anyone for damnation, but for eternal love… but that’s up to ourselves.

 

[Spock]

You could ask the same thing about those who finally condemn themselves to Hell. Certainly God knows they will go to Hell, and perhaps be the cause for the damnation of others. Nevertheless, He creates them. Because He respects freedom and free will (yes!). He does not create anyone for damnation, but for eternal love… but that’s up to ourselves.

An uncreated (not yet created) being has no “freedom” and has no “free will”.

 

[The_Exodus]

There are a couple of threads about “why does God allow… this and that”. Those are good questions, but they do not ask the most basic question, which is: “Why did God create Satan?”. Satan is the embodiment of “evil”, Satan wants to destroy the “good” that God creates. What creator would want to create something (or someone) that is “hell-bent” on destroying the “good part” of the creation? Can there be a rational reason for it?

Spock, I truly enjoy reading your posts. The phrase from Pascal comes to mind “you would not be seeking me unless you had found me.”

Now, the short and honest answer that I think all Christians ought to come to grips with is this.

God is not bound to maintain defective creatures in a state of perfect existence. They are from nothing, and, unless he sustains them in being, they tend to return to nothing. They are changible and defective. God permits some of these creatures to fail, to sin. He does this in accordance with his wisdom and justice, in order to bring about a greater good.

spock:

If some do go astray on their own, you have your “sin”, and Satan was not necessary for that purpose.

spock:

The funny thing is that the apologists painted themselves into a corner, by stipulating that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Since God knew up-front that Satan will turn against him, and since God had the freedom not to create Satan, the apologists are now left without an argument. They display God as an irrational creator, who intentionally created the agent which has one aim: “to destroy God’s good creation”.

I don’t see what’s so irrational about creating a being who tests the hearts of his creation. God could have created a world without any evil, without even the possibility of evil. Any time a creature would be about to sin, he could simply hold their thoughts at bay and turn them to something good, but it seems to me such a world would involve less good, not more.

To sum up the points briefly:

a) All creatures are from nothing, and therefore by nature defectible.
b) God could maintain each of them in a state without sin, but he is not bound to.
c) It is not clear that were he to maintain each of them in such a state, the universe would be better than it is.
d) God in his omnipotent wisdom and justice certainly knows which universe brings about the most good.
e) God, in his nature, is not unjust or unwise, so there is no possibility of him unjustly or irrationally creating a universe.
d) God therefore brings about the current creation.

 

[EricFilmer]

But again, what is the point of it? Why is an “imperfect” world (with sin) preferable to a “perfect” one (without sin)?

God has created a perfect world (without sin), which is heaven. At the end of time, God will perfect this world. In the meantime, God permits humans (and angels) to exercise freewill. God permits people and angels to make evil choices out of respect for freewill. But he also renders a greater good from every evil that is committed.

God intends that this universe be a moral universe. It is a place where he guides, nourishes and empowers people to be champions of virtue. It is through grappling with the temptation to sin, and choosing not to, that a person grows in virtue. No one can be a great saint unless there is the possibility of also being a great sinner instead.

 

[JackVk]

Sorry, Spock, but “free will” is the answer, just as 4 is the answer to 2+2. Would you object to 4 equalling 2+2? Oh its OUTRAGEOUS!

 

[davidv]

There are a couple of threads about “why does God allow… this and that”. Those are good questions, but they do not ask the most basic question, which is: “Why did God create Satan?”. Satan is the embodiment of “evil”, Satan wants to destroy the “good” that God creates. What creator would want to create something (or someone) that is “hell-bent” on destroying the “good part” of the creation? Can there be a rational reason for it?

Don’t try the “free will” approach, because it does not work. Humans with free will have two paths: either some will go “astray” on their own, or none will. If no one goes astray, all the better, there is the “perfect” world, no sin, and everone goes to heaven, just like God would like them.

If some do go astray on their own, you have your “sin”, and Satan was not necessary for that purpose.

Of course there is a third possibility, namely that without Satan everyone would choose the “good path”, and Satan would be logically necessary to introduce “sin”. But again, what is the point of it? Why is an “imperfect” world (with sin) preferable to a “perfect” one (without sin)?

The funny thing is that the apologists painted themselves into a corner, by stipulating that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Since God knew up-front that Satan will turn against him, and since God had the freedom not to create Satan, the apologists are now left without an argument. They display God as an irrational creator, who intentionally created the agent which has one aim: “to destroy God’s good creation”. As usual, I don’t have to find arguments against Christianity; you, the apologists are the ones who supply the strongest argument against what you believe in. Pretty ironic, isn’t it?

How do you know this is the “basic question”?

I would submit that a more basic question is: Is there an uncaused first cause? The question you posed assumes that the answer to this question is yes. If the answer to the first cause question is no, all answers to your basic question are equally correct and are suppositions of the attributes of a fictional character.

 

[Cat_Herder]

1. God knew he will rebel.

This is a faulty presupposition. God knows I could take a number of roads to get to work today. He knows each possibility and combination thereof. He knows what would happen to me as I travel each road. But He does NOT know which one I will actually take. He has given me a choice as to which route to take. When I make the choice then my will becomes fixed as to that choice, to a certain degree. I can turn around and take another road.

As for lucifer, his car is defective by design. God did not give the angels the ability to revise their choices. So lucifer cannot turn around once he took the bad road.

 

[JackVk]

This is a faulty presupposition. God knows I could take a number of roads to get to work today. He knows each possibility and combination thereof. He knows what would happen to me as I travel each road. But He does NOT know which one I will actually take. He has given me a choice as to which route to take. When I make the choice then my will becomes fixed as to that choice, to a certain degree. I can turn around and take another road.

As for lucifer, his car is defective by design. God did not give the angels the ability to revise their choices. So lucifer cannot turn around once he took the bad road.

But wouldn’t that mean that God is not omniscient?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Of course there is a third possibility, namely that without Satan everyone would choose the “good path”, and Satan would be logically necessary to introduce “sin”. But again, what is the point of it? Why is an “imperfect” world (with sin) preferable to a “perfect” one (without sin)?

Because an imperfect world can be redeemed and only a redeemed world is truly perfect.

A perfect world is one that contains every possible good. An event of redemption is a good thing. A world created perfect will by definition not contain this good thing. Thus a world created to be “perfect” cannot actually be perfect.

 

[Pieman333272]

Sorry, guys and gals, this is not what I asked. To put it simply:

1. God created Lucifer (the Lighbringer).
2. God knew he will rebel.
3. God was not obliged to create him.
4. Satan or Lucifer or the devil (whichever name you prefer) makes no positive contribution, only negative ones, by trying to turn people away from God.

Why would God create anything that is (or will turn to be) an evil being? Such an action is irrational and nonsensical. Do you find an excuse for it? Free will, or love simply does not cut it. Let’s see the next attempts.

Aha, #2 is where you get my position wrong. He knew it was a possibility he could rebel, not that he would rebel for certain. He knew where each potential path of his (Satan/Lucifer’s) free will would lead, but didn’t know which path(s) he would take. When he created him, he was aware of the possibility and decided to give him freedom anyway. Lucifer chose to rebel, got his a** kicked by Michael and was thrown out of heaven. The End.

Tell me, now, Spock, as I have seen you use substance before, why this explanation “simply does no cut it”. Just saying that isn’t substantiative enough for me.

 

[JDaniel]

There are a couple of threads about “why does God allow… this and that”. Those are good questions, but they do not ask the most basic question, which is: “Why did God create Satan?”. Satan is the embodiment of “evil”, Satan wants to destroy the “good” that God creates. What creator would want to create something (or someone) that is “hell-bent” on destroying the “good part” of the creation? Can there be a rational reason for it?

Don’t try the “free will” approach, because it does not work. Humans with free will have two paths: either some will go “astray” on their own, or none will. If no one goes astray, all the better, there is the “perfect” world, no sin, and everone goes to heaven, just like God would like them.

If some do go astray on their own, you have your “sin”, and Satan was not necessary for that purpose.

Of course there is a third possibility, namely that without Satan everyone would choose the “good path”, and Satan would be logically necessary to introduce “sin”. But again, what is the point of it? Why is an “imperfect” world (with sin) preferable to a “perfect” one (without sin)?

The funny thing is that the apologists painted themselves into a corner, by stipulating that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Since God knew up-front that Satan will turn against him, and since God had the freedom not to create Satan, the apologists are now left without an argument. They display God as an irrational creator, who intentionally created the agent which has one aim: “to destroy God’s good creation”. As usual, I don’t have to find arguments against Christianity; you, the apologists are the ones who supply the strongest argument against what you believe in. Pretty ironic, isn’t it?

Spock:

I believe I answered most of your question for you, in two posts, on thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7404106#post7404106

But, there is your further point of how did Satan slip by God. According to Catholic Angelology and demonology, when God created the Angels, he created them to be as perfect as is possible for finite creatures to be. And, in their realm(s), that would have never become problematic. Two things took place that God did not foresee in his Divine Providence: (1) how they would react when moved to a higher realm; and, (2) how they would react upon hearing about the forthcoming of the Incarnation. Most reacted without problem; some, reacted problematically. (See URL above.)

The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, chap. VIII, pg. 273, 1962, explains it like this:
But it is a matter of Catholic faith that the spirits have been raised to the supernatural order, that they received grace, and that they possess sanctifying grace and the gifts of the Holy Ghost just like the Christian man here on earth. There is not in them the division between flesh and spirit, between a higher and a lower nature, but there is in them the division between the natural and the supernatural. They have been raised above themselves for a destiny greater than the spirit destiny; they are meant to behold God face to face in Beatific Vision–an end so lofty that no spirit, however excellent, is capable of it without a gratuitous infusion of those higher qualities called grace. Grace with the angels, then, could not be a medicine to heal the wounds of a fall, as it is to man to so large an extent, nor could it be a help to powers weak and anaemic in themselves–spirits have no wounds, spirits are never weak–but grace with angels is essentially the lifting up of a perfect being to a still higher plane, the initiation of a created mind into the secrets of the Universal Mind; and without grace even the supreme spirit would be incapable of that communion with God which constitutes the life of charity [Love] with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So we have to assume at once that, with regard to the final and supernatural union with God, the spirits are in the same position as man. It may be said that spirits, both discarnate and incarnate, are equidistant from the final goal of Beatific Vision, and that the angels, equally with us, are in need of the grace of God to reach communion with him. There is, therefore, at once brought about, through the supernatural, a true community of condition between man and spirits. Abysmal as may be the differences of minds and wills between man and spirit, and between the spirits themselves, the differences disappear, are as nothing, in [the] presence of that true infinitude–the Vision of God."

God bless,
jd

 

[Pieman333272]

Also, I think a much better question is why God lets Satan run around rather than keeping him at bay 100% of the time. Isn’t all of Satan’s power permitted by God?

 

[Cat_Herder]

But wouldn’t that mean that God is not omniscient?

No. God knows every possible outcome, which is the definition of omniscience, but He allows for free choice.

By analogy: God desires for all men to be saved (1 Tim 5). Why then is there a hell? Because some people choose evil. Does it then follow that God is not omnipotent because some people frustrate His will? Of course not.

 

[simspt]

There are a couple of threads about “why does God allow… this and that”. Those are good questions, but they do not ask the most basic question, which is: “Why did God create Satan?”. Satan is the embodiment of “evil”, Satan wants to destroy the “good” that God creates. What creator would want to create something (or someone) that is “hell-bent” on destroying the “good part” of the creation? Can there be a rational reason for it?

Don’t try the “free will” approach, because it does not work. Humans with free will have two paths: either some will go “astray” on their own, or none will. If no one goes astray, all the better, there is the “perfect” world, no sin, and everone goes to heaven, just like God would like them.

If some do go astray on their own, you have your “sin”, and Satan was not necessary for that purpose.

Of course there is a third possibility, namely that without Satan everyone would choose the “good path”, and Satan would be logically necessary to introduce “sin”. But again, what is the point of it? **Why is an “imperfect” world (with sin) preferable to a “perfect” one (without sin)? **

The funny thing is that the apologists painted themselves into a corner, by stipulating that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Since God knew up-front that Satan will turn against him, and since God had the freedom not to create Satan, the apologists are now left without an argument. They display God as an irrational creator, who intentionally created the agent which has one aim: “to destroy God’s good creation”. As usual, I don’t have to find arguments against Christianity; you, the apologists are the ones who supply the strongest argument against what you believe in. Pretty ironic, isn’t it?

Why do you assume God can cause or determine free creatures to do only what is right?

How could God give creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so?

How do you know that it is impossible that an omnipotent God **did not **have the power to create a world containing moral good without moral evil when free creatures chose to do evil?

Plantiga’s propositions that

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.

shows in my opinion that the problem of evil and the existence of an omnipotent God is not illogical. I completely appreciate the difficulty people have believing in God based on the evidential problem of evil (eg natural distasters etc).

 

[JDaniel]

There are a couple of threads about “why does God allow… this and that”. Those are good questions, but they do not ask the most basic question, which is: “Why did God create Satan?”. Satan is the embodiment of “evil”, Satan wants to destroy the “good” that God creates. What creator would want to create something (or someone) that is “hell-bent” on destroying the “good part” of the creation? Can there be a rational reason for it?

Spocker:

There are a couple of misconceptions in the above, despite the apparent good logic. Satan is not understood, in Catholic angelology and demonology, as "the embodiment of evil.’ He retains the relative goodness attributed to the angels even now; but, he loves his own lofty nature too much and wishes to have more of it. Now, since we are spirited creatures, i.e., creatures whose natures are flesh and spirit, we just happen to co-exist with Satan, in this lowest sphere. Because we are spirited creatures, Satan wants us to swell the ranks of his following. What we see as horrible “evil” is, again, as trivial to the spirits, as it is to God. They don’t care if we are “discarnate or incarnate,” as St. Thomas mentions. Some of us humans tend to overthink what we believe to be “evils,”

Don’t try the “free will” approach, because it does not work. Humans with free will have two paths: either some will go “astray” on their own, or none will. If no one goes astray, all the better, there is the “perfect” world, no sin, and everone goes to heaven, just like God would like them.

Nevertheless, the free will that is an attribute of the angels, is more important to answering your question than our own free will.

If some do go astray on their own, you have your “sin”, and Satan was not necessary for that purpose.

No doubt. There is no sense where we aren’t potential spiritual rejectors of the Vision, too. While the bad man may embody more evility than another, he does so through his greater rejection and an added willingness to affront God and the rest of us (good spirits).

Of course there is a third possibility, namely that without Satan everyone would choose the “good path”, and Satan would be logically necessary to introduce “sin”. But again, what is the point of it? Why is an “imperfect” world (with sin) preferable to a “perfect” one (without sin)?

Answered. If you don’t think so, please amplify.

The funny thing is that the apologists painted themselves into a corner, by stipulating that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Since God knew up-front that Satan will turn against him, and since God had the freedom not to create Satan, the apologists are now left without an argument.

As I have shown, apologists from at least the time of Aquinas, have wrestled with this question to not paint themselves into that proverbial corner. Please read the other posts: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7404106#post7404106

They display God as an irrational creator, who intentionally created the agent which has one aim: “to destroy God’s good creation”. As usual, I don’t have to find arguments against Christianity; you, the apologists are the ones who supply the strongest argument against what you believe in. Pretty ironic, isn’t it?

Excellent question, Mr. Spock; you’re making us think!

God bless,
jd