The Ultimate Question

[Sonoran_Son]

I don’t think so. I put down two types of food for the dog. I know which food he will eat. I didn’t force him to choose that menu item: he chose it freely. That’s a very simplistic way of looking at it. But, when we look at the moon with our naked eye, we see a flat surface. On the moon, the landscape is totally different: it consists of hills and valleys, ravines, plains, and craters. That’s how God looks down at us, analogically, as if looking at a flat surface. He is not determining what we choose (except that he does have everything to do with what paths are available, and, thus, they are limited). But, free will is defined as choosing between two or more possible choices. We can choose either “A” or “B,” but God does not send us to “A” rather than “B” - even though he knows.

If this is the case, how can we say we have freewill instead of an illusion of freewill. If freewill is defined as having the ability to choose between a set of possible choices, and God knows of which choice we will make before we make it, how can the two be reconciled? Say God knows we will choose A over B, it is therefore impossible for us to choose B as that would violate God’s omniscience. While we know of the option to choose B, we can only choose A as choosing B would be violating God’s omniscience. In this effect we do not have a choice, only what I could call the illusion of having a choice. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding anything.

 

[The_Exodus]

If this is the case, how can we say we have freewill instead of an illusion of freewill. If freewill is defined as having the ability to choose between a set of possible choices, and God knows of which choice we will make before we make it, how can the two be reconciled? Say God knows we will choose A over B, it is therefore impossible for us to choose B as that would violate God’s omniscience. While we know of the option to choose B, we can only choose A as choosing B would be violating God’s omniscience. In this effect we do not have a choice, only what I could call the illusion of having a choice. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding anything.

You ought to see my link, post 42. Chapter 9 of that link.

God has determined all that was, is, and is to come. Our freedom is at all times conditioned by the divine motion and causality of God. Free will, if it posits an uncaused cause, or the passing of potency to act without God as cause, is an incoherent concept.

 

[Spock]

The possibilities are not hypothetical. God is outside of time and hence is aware of not only the outcomes but also the consequences and future events resulting from each.

Still not enough. To know all the possible outcomes, and all the next generations of all the possible outcomes, etc… ad infinitum… is still not the same as to know which one of those possible outcomes will be the actual outcome.

 

[Spock]

You couldn’t even say you “prefer” the state of being healthy over and against the roller coaster, if you had not experienced the roller coaster. On your supposition, you enjoy being healthy more than you would, were there never any unhealthiness. In other words, unhealthiness makes you appreciate healthiness more, and your position proves my point.

There is some truth in what you say. I cannot appreciate introspecively something that I never experienced, but I can imagine it, and be happy that I was not subject to it. I never drowned, for eaxmple, so I don’t know how it feels like, but having a vivid imagination, I can have a rudimentary understanding of it, and can decide that I don’t want it.

But that does not matter. I would gladly forego the experience of being dragged back from a heart-attack and would not say that my life is “poorer” for lacking that experience.

 

[Spock]

Spock’s mind is made up. This thread has become “pearls before swine” fodder.

That is definitely rude. First, you know nothing about my mind, and second the “pearls before swine” phrase is insulting - even if it comes from the Bible.

 

[Spock]

Actually, everyone should prefer the absolute good. That is why we should all strive to make this world a better place (even if we fall short of making goodness absolute due to human limitations). As a Christian, I also look towards heaven where goodness is actually achieved fully and absolutely.

If by “get where you want to be” means absolute goodness, from the Christian perspective, the “roller coaster” ride is simply the recognition of the realities of living in a created world where people are allowed freewill. Heaven is where we “get where we want to be.”

We agree here.

From an atheist perspective, there is no getting where one wants to be. After all, absolute goodness does not exist in our world, and there is no belief in an afterlife where it can be achieved.

We agree here, as well.

The proverb means to make the best of a difficult or unsatisfactory situation, or to do what one has to do cheerfully or willingly. I’m not sure what the connection is between this proverb and the material I have posted. I stated that the presence of evil in the universe is realistic, I never said that it was desirable.

Here we are confronted by the question again: “if evil is not desirable, and if evil came into the world by Satan’s rebellion, and if God knew about that before he created Satan, why did he do it?”. Think about it: we are not talking about a “permissive will”, we are talking about an “active, creative will” to bring forth someone who will turn into evil. Usually apologists defend the existence of evil by saying that God merely “permits” it, but does not “do” it. You don’t have that luxury here. God actively and knowingly created the being, who introduced the evil into the world.

We can have the fullness of all that is good. Once again, we can strive for goodness in this life (and possess it at least in some measure) but ultimate fulfillment is only achieved in heaven. It is just a question of where and when.

That brings up the next question: why this intermediary “place”? Why not create everyone immediately into heaven?

 

[Spock]

What I’m puzzled about is that he asks questions, and dismisses them if he doesn’t like them. “Sounds like sour grapes to me” etc. The answers are either sound or not. It has nothing to do with how “palatable” they are.

A “sound” answer (by which you probably mean that the answer is in synch with Catholic beliefs, as generally understood) is not enough. I am looking for rational answers, with rational underpinnings, I am looking for answers which are reasonable.

Let’s look at some: “if there would be no evil, there would be no heroism”. “If there were no land mines, soldiers could not throw themselves on those mines to save their comrades”. Is that what you guys deem “desirable”, or “greater good”? Is that an example of the “sound” answers you were referring to? From my perspective heroism is nonsense. No one jumps into a freezing river, just so that someone else may practice “heroism” by rescuing him. It would be imcomparably better, if there would be no need for heroism.

Another: “if there would be no hunger, people would not have the opportunity to become virtuous and bring food to the needy”. So what? Even if all these attempts were successful, and all the hungry would be fed at the end of day, it is just a charade. But some people will not get the aid in time, and they will starve. Is their suffering “compensated” by the “virtue” of an unsuccessful attempt to help them?

Come on, buddy. This process is called “rationalization”. We are confronted by harsh reality, which could be otherwise (!) which is not a logical necessity, and instead of pointing the finger to the cause (the negligient and uncaring God) they start to rationalize and come up with “where would virtue be?” and “where would heroism be?”. To hell with virtue, to hell with heroism at such a price. Have you heard of Pyrrhic victory?

 

[Spock]

How would you know what good is without knowledge of evil? You wouldn’t. How would you know what love was if you did not understand hate? You wouldn’t.

I don’t need to freeze halfway to death to enjoy a nice spring breeze for its own sake. Maybe I would not know how much worse it could be, but guess what? I would not even care. You could pound your own thumb with a hammer, and then be happy when you stop and the pain stops. Do you do something like that? I would not think so.

For many years there was a column in “Dear Abby” at thanksgiving time. It went approximately like this: “Are you poor? Be thankful that you are healthy. Are you sick? Be thankful, you could be also crippled. Are you crippled? Be thankful, at least you are alive…”. It was much longer, but the message is clear: “no matter how miserable you are, it could be worse, so be thankful that God did not expose you to even more misery”. What a twisted and sick rationalization!

 

[Spock]

Sorry, Spock.

Don’t be. You stood up for what you felt right and that needs courage. I actually like you for it.

 

[Spock]

subject. They can’t all be right. Nor, can they all be wrong.

I beg to differ. Yes, they all can be wrong.

 

[Spock]

God is goodness itself. We do not define whether or not what he does is good or not, his actions are aboslutely good, even if mysterious. GOd chose what he chose about Lucifer, and it was good, because he is good. THe world is what it is and it is good, because he is good, does not make mistakes, and always does the HIGHEST good.

THat means, in some inexplicable way, that a world other than this one, even though seemingly “better” or “perfect” for lack of the devil is simply not the best of all the options GOd foresaw, because he did not will it, and he only wills and acts in accordance with the highest good.

Every Mother experiences labor pains, and she knows these pains are coming from the instant she knows that she conceives a child. Nevetheless, she suffers willfully and gladly and accepts the pain of an hour for the joy of a lifetime with her children.

So it is with God: This life he has planned and involved himself in for us is hard and often seems intolerable, but as St. Paul says :

“eye has not seen, ear heard, nor has it entered into the hearts of men, what God has in store for those who love him.”

What is coming is the highest and best good That God had in mind for us, even if the path is painful and the destiny a long way off: Still, it will end. THis will all one day end, all will be set right, and we will know peace and we will be with the One Incarnate Christ for all eternity, in the glory of the ressurection in the light of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

His Sovreign Will and good pleasure is the deciding factor of what is GOOD.

Will the clay say to the potter :“Why have you made me?!”

JUst shut up and be happy being a pot.

I want to point to this answer as being highly irrational, yet in synch with Catholic beliefs, also supported by the Bible. It is a prime example of rationalizing.

As a summary: “evil is good, because God created it (Isiah 45:7)”
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Is this what I can take as a “sound” answer?

 

[slywakka250]

Consider the function G(e).

G is goodness, and e is evil.

When God creates the universe, he must maximize goodness. For it seems a perfect God, must create the perfect universe. The perfect universe contains the perfect maximal amount of goodness “P”

So God nessarily causes a universe which will contain a very specific amount of evil “e”, such that G(e) = P.

God on account of his forknowledge, knows every freely willed action that will occur, and the ultimate greater good which will come of every freely willed action.

The concept of evil bringing about a “greater good,” and the fact that evil exists combined with the premise that God neccesarily creates the perfect universe, leads us to conclude

G(0) < P. (that is, a universe with no evil does not have enough goodness to be a perfect universe)

Now, evil comes about ONLY by way of rational creatures exercising free will. God cannot directly bring evil about, as he is the source of all being, God IS goodness itself.

According to what some have argued here and what I layout above, the universe cannot be perfected without the existence of freely willed evil actions.

So when I do an evil action, I contribute my part to value “e”, which influences function G(x), to generate maximum goodness P. As I said above, G(0) < P, so it is even neccessary that someone does something evil, in order that e > 0 so that P can be actualized.

I feel I can conclude from this, that when I do something evil, I actually contribute to the perfection of the universe! why? because God knew in advance that I would do this evil action, and God set up the universe so that my evil action would eventually lead to a greater good. SO,what reason do I have to not do evil, if I know that all the evil I do, will bring about the perfect universe. God even NEEDS somebody somewhere to do something evil, in order to bring about the perfect universe?. So when I do evil, I do God a favour. This sounds absurd.

any thoughts?

 

[Gregory_I]

God did not create evil: Evil is a spiritual parasite with no substance. It only exists in things deficiency, not as positive presence, and it is basically the risk God took to ensure free agents, because he is love, and wants to be freely loved: THerefore, the possibility may always exist that God will not be chosen, but that is the price of love. Evil is a vacuum that came into existence when Lucifer chose his own light as opposed to the light of the holy trinity; for that reason, entroipy death and decay entered the world, for he enacted its principle by being the first to choose a source that could not fully replace the expenditure of spiritual energy: Himself, being finite.

When this cosmic vacuum was brought to the world, Satan then brought it to humanity, who chose it for themselves instead of GOd, and as a result, sin, death and destruction have become widespread, universal.

But death ONLY exists where there is life, it does not exist on its own abstractly: GOd on the other hand is all good, and evil is not required for there to be goodness: THerefore, GOd still dwarfs the devil, because he is a pathetic disease ridden troublemaker.

Since God is the highest good, all things he chooses are good: That’s irrational? Who gave it to you to sit in judgement of God? YOu should be silent and learn when not ask certain questions. Accept the mystery.

 

[st_felicity]

That is definitely rude. First, you know nothing about my mind, and second the “pearls before swine” phrase is insulting - even if it comes from the Bible.

Sometimes the truth hurts. Either you are here to actually discuss something that you find intellectually challenging or interesting, or your trolling for arguments. Since the evidence suggests the latter, I called it as I saw it. You dismissed reasonable answers based on your own personal incredulity–that is unreasonable. Jesus Himself called the scribes and pharisees who played the same sort of game you are playing “vipers.” Would you prefer that term?

 

[Spock]

Consider the function G(e).

G is goodness, and e is evil.

When God creates the universe, he must maximize goodness. For it seems a perfect God, must create the perfect universe. The perfect universe contains the perfect maximal amount of goodness “P”

So God nessarily causes a universe which will contain a very specific amount of evil “e”, such that G(e) = P.

God on account of his forknowledge, knows every freely willed action that will occur, and the ultimate greater good which will come of every freely willed action.

The concept of evil bringing about a “greater good,” and the fact that evil exists combined with the premise that God neccesarily creates the perfect universe, leads us to conclude

G(0) < P. (that is, a universe with no evil does not have enough goodness to be a perfect universe)

Now, evil comes about ONLY by way of rational creatures exercising free will. God cannot directly bring evil about, as he is the source of all being, God IS goodness itself.

According to what some have argued here and what I layout above, the universe cannot be perfected without the existence of freely willed evil actions.

So when I do an evil action, I contribute my part to value “e”, which influences function G(x), to generate maximum goodness P. As I said above, G(0) < P, so it is even neccessary that someone does something evil, in order that e > 0 so that P can be actualized.

I feel I can conclude from this, that when I do something evil, I actually contribute to the perfection of the universe! why? because God knew in advance that I would do this evil action, and God set up the universe so that my evil action would eventually lead to a greater good. SO,what reason do I have to not do evil, if I know that all the evil I do, will bring about the perfect universe. God even NEEDS somebody somewhere to do something evil, in order to bring about the perfect universe?. So when I do evil, I do God a favour. This sounds absurd.

any thoughts?

The concept of “evil brings about greater good” is vague and unsubstantiated. We can concoct some simple examples, where it is possible that some pain and suffering is necessary for some greater good - that is all (and it is not really logically necessary, rather technologically necessary!). But that is far cry from accepting it a generic principle, that “every piece of pain and suffering will bring forth some greater good, where the good more than compensates for the pain and suffering”. By the way, causing pain and suffering is NOT evil in such a case. I have never seen an example where “true evil” was necessary for some good. As far as know, there is even a Catholic doctrine which says: “No good can come out of evil”.

Therefore your G(0)<P is just an unsubstantiated assertion.

And you were right, when you said it is absurd.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The concept of “evil brings about greater good” is vague and unsubstantiated. We can concoct some simple examples, where it is possible that some pain and suffering is necessary for some greater good - that is all (and it is not really logically necessary, rather technologically necessary!). But that is far cry from accepting it a generic principle, that “every piece of pain and suffering will bring forth some greater good, where the good more than compensates for the pain and suffering”. By the way, causing pain and suffering is NOT evil in such a case. I have never seen an example where “true evil” was necessary for some good. As far as know, there is even a Catholic doctrine which says: “No good can come out of evil”.

Therefore your G(0)<P is just an unsubstantiated assertion.

And you were right, when you said it is absurd.

I already explained that redemption is a good event. Since a perfect universe must be capable of every good event, and only a fallen universe can be redeemed, a universe which is not capable of falling is not perfect.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Spock]

Sometimes the truth hurts.

No, the truth does not hurt. What you said was simply your own personal opinion, and it does not hurt either - it is simply discouraged (or maybe forbidden) by the rules of conduct. You can call me anything you like to. It only reflects on you and your character. No skin off my nose. Fortunately for me I meet many nice people here, which whom I can conduct a civilized conversation, even if we do not agree.

 

[Spock]

I already explained that redemption is a good event. Since a perfect universe must be capable of every good event, and only a fallen universe can be redeemed, a universe which is not capable of falling is not perfect.

Your concept of perfection is different from mine. My concept of a “perfect” universe is “without any fault”. Would you say that a “perfect refridgerator” must have a some scratches in the paint, so it can be fixed and repaired?

But even if I would accept your concept, your analysis is lacking. You do not consider the “price”. If you wish to conduct a cost/benefit analysis, your should consider the price and not just the gain. The price is paid by those who do not “hit the mark”, and thus they will pay for their fault with eternal suffering. But, of course this is not a “numbers game”. To say that “perfection” must be marred (so that redemption could take place) is an oxymoron. The idea of “oh felix culpa” is just another rationalization.

Live long and prosper.

And you, too!

\//

 

[Sonoran_Son]

You ought to see my link, post 42. Chapter 9 of that link.

God has determined all that was, is, and is to come. Our freedom is at all times conditioned by the divine motion and causality of God. Free will, if it posits an uncaused cause, or the passing of potency to act without God as cause, is an incoherent concept.

I may have to read that chapter once more when I have time as it was rather difficult for me to comprehend (I am not a student of philosophy). But if you could elaborate on your second sentence and provide the logic behind the idea you express in your third sentence, I would have a better understanding. I do believe the chapter you linked to also explains what you have stated, but like I said, I need to reread it in hope of gaining a better understanding of St. Thomas’ arguments as presented by the author of the book.

 

[st_felicity]

No, the truth does not hurt. What you said was simply your own personal opinion, and it does not hurt either - it is simply discouraged (or maybe forbidden) by the rules of conduct. You can call me anything you like to. It only reflects on you and your character. No skin off my nose. Fortunately for me I meet many nice people here, which whom I can conduct a civilized conversation, even if we do not agree.

This is why I see (at least how this thread started) as I do:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7404050&postcount=5

You said:
"Sorry, guys and gals, this is not what I asked."
I interpreted that as rather flippant.

Then, you continued with points that specifically ignored what had been said prior saying specifically that it* “doesn’t cut it. Let’s see the next attempts.”* Again–flippant, in addition to being measured only by your own personal incredulity and a dismissal. And then you called it “irrational and nonsensical” and an “excuse.”

If you were offended by my deeming the thread pointless at that point, try seeing how YOU came across.