The Ultimate Question

[Pieman333272]

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.

It’s a hard question to fathom. Truth be known, though we may in our limited understanding think there are only two choices, there may be many more. Even our limiting of the number of choices to two, is our exquisite choice! Unless we determine that there are but two out of ignorance.

When Aquinas says, “God’s knowledge is what brings things into existence,” he means the totality of physical being. We are currently experiencing the roll-out of Creation. What he does simultaneously, we sense in time. Sometimes the roll-out kills. Sometimes parts of the roll-out take a while to kill. But to God those are the instantaneous releasings of now discarnate souls. We are souls, no matter whether we’re on this side of our skins or the other.

God bless,
jd

Wait, just so I know I’m reading you right, are you saying we have the choice, but God knows the choice we will make? Or were you getting at something else?

 

[BlueShadow123]

I have already planned to ask him that when I meet him. Then I will be sure to find you, ‘Spock’, and tell you the answer.

Okay?

 

[EricFilmer]

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.

No, it is permissive will. God did not force Satan or anyone to do evil, just as he does not force anyone to do good. God gives his creatures freewill, and instructs, guides and empowers them to do good, but does not force. Therefore, God permits evil. But he still does something about evil, ultimately rendering goodness from every evil that is committed.

No angel or human can be created perfect (meaning perfect by divine standards) because only God is perfect. No created being can be God because God, by definition, is eternal and uncreated. Therefore, as soon as God creates a person, that person will fall short of God’s glory at some point. In many occasions, this imperfection will result in culpable evil. In light of this, the only way to avoid the existence of evil is for God not to create any persons at all with whom to share his love. Nevertheless, love and goodness has the natural desire to share itself beyond what is necessary, even if it involves sharing love with imperfect beings.

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

I don’t pretend to know God’s will, so I only offer my opinion. This intermediary place allows people to freely choose whether or not to love God. This intermediary place also allows a person to truly exercise the virtues of faith, hope and trust in God. Love born out of faith, hope and trust is deeper and more profound than love born out of simple appreciation for being created in heaven.

 

[slywakka250]

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.

It seems what you are really saying is that a universe that does not actually fall is not perfect.

EricFilmer:

In light of this, the only way to avoid the existence of evil is for God not to create any persons at all with whom to share his love.

Spock mentioned above the case where God only creates ONE rational creature. In this case, is this one guaranteed to fall?? What if God says its time for judgement day as soon as this one creature makes a single morally good action, thus generating some “real” love for God. This seems very possible. Therefore, evil is not necessary in order to create man, only the POSSIBILITY of evil, which may or may not happen.

BUT the fact that in our world, evil is not a mere possibility, but an actuality, implies that evil IS in fact necessary to bring about the best possible universe. So again like I said above, it seems clear that my evil actions contribute to the perfection of the universe, by giving God something to redeem, by giving the good people something to prove their virtue by, etc.

So, God NEEDS evil to bring about the greatest possible good. When I do something evil, then, I do something good, because if I did not to that evil, the universe could NOT be fully perfected, as God only allows the specific amount of evil, which will generate the greatest possible good. so all evil that does happen is necessary evil.

so why am I punished by God for my evil, when it is only by my sins that the universe reaches its greatest possible goodness, and by nothing else. God needs my evil action to make a perfect universe. he couldn’t do it himself because he can’t do evil. It seems God owes the sinners a thank you, rather than an eternal punishment.

 

[The_Exodus]

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.

Two things. You misunderstood my first point, which is, namely, unless there were evil or “unhealthiness” you could not make the claim you are making now, i.e. I prefer healthiness to unhealthiness. In other words, it is only on the supposition that there is unhealthiness that your view makes any sense. On the supposition that there is no evil experienced at all, it would be incoherent to say “I prefer health to unhealthiness” since “unhealthiness” would be a concept without any foundation. Ergo, you owe it to your experience of “unhealthiness” that you can say “I would prefer a universe in which everyone is always healthy.” It is not at all clear you could make this claim, were there a universe with no unhealthiness at all.

Second, you missed the primary point I was making, which is this. “But that is really irrelevant, and subjective. The Christian answer is objectively and logically sound. God allows beings to fail, in order to manifest a multitude of effects, all of which combine to form a harmony more perfect than if that harmony were different.”

There is nothing illogical about this answer. You’ve yet to show anything but “personal preference” to a universe without any evil at all. Further, it has been granted by you that many very good things could not occur (the patience of martyrs for example), were there no evil. It seems to me you are asking for a coherent answer, but at the same time wanting that answer to suit your palate.

 

[The_Exodus]

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.

Sonoran,

Thank you for your questions, and the way you’ve phrased them. I’ll be happy to answer them the best I can. I said the following

Exodus:

Free will, if it posits an uncaused cause, or the passing of potency to act without God as cause, is an incoherent concept.

To understand what this means, one must first understand a “law” of being, so to speak, which is this. No being passes from potency to act, except by some other being in act. The word potency here is used to refer to the “potential” state or mode of being that a given being has. A slab of marble, for instance, is potentially a statue, but only if a sculptor makes it such. The word act refers to a being in actuality, or its actual, current mode of being or existence. The slab of marble is actually a slab, for instance.

Now, this law of being applies to all levels of existence, whether spiritual/moral or physical. Further, by observing this law is how we can prove that God exists, and is a being with no potency. We can trace in the line of being, as it were, that all beings which receive the act that they have, depend on other beings in act, and so on. This cannot go on infinitely, else no being would ever receive act. There would be in infinitely regressive chain of causation (not in time, mind you, but logically or causally speaking) which would be infinitely insufficient in explaining how anything receives act. An infinite paintbrush does not give us a painter, just like an infinite amount of idiots do not give us an intelligent person. Eventually, we must posit a first cause which is uncaused, and, consequently, all act and no potency. This being does not “receive” existence in any way. It, rather, gives existence. This is what the Thomists mean when they say God is not determined BY creatures, but determines THEM.

Observing this fact, we can see that free choice or free will must have an explanation. Why one being chooses one act cannot be from the unmoved and uncaused will of the person alone, because we would then have an act - that is, the choice - which outside the scope of the divine causality and motion. Where could such an act receive its being? How could it pass from potency into act, unless it be moved to it? In short, if we posit a sort of “autonomous, spontaneous” freedom, we are positing an absurdity: an act without a cause, an uncaused act.

Further, if we draw this to its logical conclusion, we can see that God has either positively determined every good, or permitted every evil, logically speaking, prior to any act of any being whatsoever. He has done all this in such a way that is most wise, just, merciful and free. This is sometimes called “negative reprobation” and is thought to make God unjust, but the truth is that no creature, prior to it being in act, has any ontological status whatsoever. It is neither innocent, nor good (in which cases God would be unjust in allowing it to fail.) Rather, it is an uninstantiated substance or form, and, as such, deserves nothing from God, and has no “character” as it were. Yet God allows some forms or “vessels” to be defectible, or to fall back into nothing, which all beings are able and naturally tend to do, if they are not held in being at all times by God. God is not bound to keep defectible creatures from failing. If this were the case, no evil would ever occur. Rather, as said above, he allows or permits some to fail which, subsequently, makes them deserving of punishment. Again, it ought not to be thought of that God is letting an “innocent” or “naturally good” being fail, because, ontologically speaking, prior to God’s determination regarding said being, it has no “status” or “character.” It has not begun to change or experience any sort of movements, either good or evil.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the above.

 

[simspt]

Simpst’s post is complicated. I can go into detail, but Plantinga is wrong.
Let me just present a very simple scenario: “Suppose that there is only one moral agent in the world. Suppose that this agent is confronted by only one moral dilemma”. The agent is free to choose which way to resolve the dilemma, but - natually - he cannot choose both ways, only one. Therefore there are only two possible worlds, one, in which the agent chooses the moral solution, and the other one, where the agent chooses the immoral solution. God can instantiate either world. In the first one, the agent will freely choose morally, in the second one the agent will freely choose immorally.
It is the agent who makes the choice, not God. God merely provides the “freamework”, so to speak. By the fact that God chooses to intstantiate world #1, God does not “force” or “compel” the choice. The choice is free, and there is no immoral decision.

Is is not possible that in every possible world that could be actualized by God a person would potentially perform a wrong action if they are truelly free with respect to that action? The criticisms against transworld depravity haven’t convinced me that Plantiga is wrong. I have a difficult time with the compatibilist view of free will.

 

[slywakka250]

Is is not possible that in every possible world that could be actualized by God a person would potentially perform a wrong action if they are truelly free with respect to that action? The criticisms against transworld depravity haven’t convinced me that Plantiga is wrong. I have a difficult time with the compatibilist view of free will.

Transworld depravity does not seems to necessitate the existence of evil in the first place though. Only that given an evil person, that person can remain evil in every possible world.

Are you arguing that it is impossible to have a moral agent who doesn’t choose evil?

What about angels who choose God? These creatures have chosen good, and will never choose evil, as their will is fixed.

If God created one good angel, then there you go. a moral agent with no evil.

Or are you suggesting that God necessarily had to create a great many moral agents, and that creating only one is a logical impossibility???

 

[simspt]

Transworld depravity does not seems to necessitate the existence of evil in the first place though. Only that given an evil person, that person can remain evil in every possible world.

Are you arguing that it is impossible to have a moral agent who doesn’t choose evil?

What about angels who choose God? These creatures have chosen good, and will never choose evil, as their will is fixed.

If God created one good angel, then there you go. a moral agent with no evil.

Or are you suggesting that God necessarily had to create a great many moral agents, and that creating only one is a logical impossibility???

I think that one can accept the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God while simultaneously acknowledging that we exist in an evil world without making a logical contradiction. No more than that. It is quite possible logically that God could not create a world with free agents who never choose evil.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Exodus:

You’ve yet to show anything but “personal preference” to a universe without any evil at all.

I don’t believe everyone’s clamoring for a world with zero evil, but certainly it’s more than Spock’s view that humanity would prefer a world with less suffering. Society can only do so much–like hiring police, and make writing laws that punish people who torture children to death–but that doesn’t always stop people from doing it. The popularity of XTC’s “Dear God”, which made similar points, indicates it resonated with many:

youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo

The song does, in fact, mention what Spock considers the ultimate question–the creation of Satan.

 

[The_Exodus]

I don’t believe everyone’s clamoring for a world with zero evil, but certainly it’s more than Spock’s view that humanity would prefer a world with less suffering. Society can only do so much–like hiring police, and make writing laws that punish people who torture children to death–but that doesn’t always stop people from doing it. The popularity of XTC’s “Dear God”, which made similar points, indicates it resonated with many:

youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo

The song does, in fact, mention what Spock considers the ultimate question–the creation of Satan.

I’m not sure I follow you. What is your objection, specifically?

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Sonoran:

Knowing does not equal making you do one thing or the other. We have free will but it is not something we can hide from God. The pre-destination of the Elect is something we have to wrestle with. Only Mary was born into the family of the Elect. The rest of us have to earn it. God knows who will and who won’t. That doesn’t mean that we should do nothing to ensure that we’re part of the family. God’s expectation is that the Elect will do what needs to be done and is simultaneous with his knowledge that we did.

God bless,
jd

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Exodus:

I’m not sure I follow you. What is your objection, specifically?

I’ve voiced no objections to what you said, merely suggested it wasn’t only Spock’s personal preference, but also a common preference among humans, that if there were a personal God he should prevent more of the world’s suffering, even if that means curbing some free weill. Which is probably obvious enough that I shouldn’t have bothered stating it.

 

[EricFilmer]

So, God NEEDS evil to bring about the greatest possible good. When I do something evil, then, I do something good, because if I did not to that evil, the universe could NOT be fully perfected, as God only allows the specific amount of evil, which will generate the greatest possible good. so all evil that does happen is necessary evil.

so why am I punished by God for my evil, when it is only by my sins that the universe reaches its greatest possible goodness, and by nothing else. God needs my evil action to make a perfect universe. he couldn’t do it himself because he can’t do evil. It seems God owes the sinners a thank you, rather than an eternal punishment.

Yeah, good luck with that one at your personal judgment.
And what exactly is your point here in terms of the thread’s topic?

 

[JDaniel]

Wait, just so I know I’m reading you right, are you saying we have the choice, but God knows the choice we will make? Or were you getting at something else?

Pieman:

Yes, that’s the way I see it. Do you see a problem in that?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Spock mentioned above the case where God only creates ONE rational creature. In this case, is this one guaranteed to fall?? What if God says its time for judgement day as soon as this one creature makes a single morally good action, thus generating some “real” love for God. This seems very possible. Therefore, evil is not necessary in order to create man, only the POSSIBILITY of evil, which may or may not happen.

BUT the fact that in our world, evil is not a mere possibility, but an actuality, implies that evil IS in fact necessary to bring about the best possible universe.

What is true evil? And, what is truly evil in this world? By that I mean, evil, not some other thing that we haphazardly give the moniker “evil” to? I’m not trying to put you on the spot. You have an interesting argument here; I’d like to see it fleshed out, so to speak.

So again like I said above, it seems clear that my evil actions contribute to the perfection of the universe, by giving God something to redeem, by giving the good people something to prove their virtue by, etc.

So, God NEEDS evil to bring about the greatest possible good. When I do something evil, then, I do something good, because if I did not to that evil, the universe could NOT be fully perfected, as God only allows the specific amount of evil, which will generate the greatest possible good. so all evil that does happen is necessary evil.

so why am I punished by God for my evil, when it is only by my sins that the universe reaches its greatest possible goodness, and by nothing else. God needs my evil action to make a perfect universe. he couldn’t do it himself because he can’t do evil. It seems God owes the sinners a thank you, rather than an eternal punishment.

See above.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

No, it is permissive will. God did not force Satan or anyone to do evil, just as he does not force anyone to do good.

The act of creation is not simply permissive. As a matter of fact, the differentiation between “permissive” and “active” will is nonsense when talking about God. Such a distinction is only valid if the creator has no omniscience. If the creator has omniscience, then he cannot hide behind some nebulous “but I did not know it” type of defense. He knows what the created being will do, so he must bear full, complete responsibility for any action of the created one, be it good or bad. I am amazed that you guys constantly wish to give credence to God for the good things he allegedly does, and want to whitewash God for all the bad things he does or permits. If God has a desk, it should carry the sign: “The buck stops here!”. Which he openly admits in Isiah 45:7.

But he still does something about evil, ultimately rendering goodness from every evil that is committed.

This empty assertion has been repeated ad-nauseam. Any proof for it?

I don’t pretend to know God’s will, so I only offer my opinion. This intermediary place allows people to freely choose whether or not to love God.

The angels had the same freedom. This world is not necessary for that purpose.

Love born out of faith, hope and trust is deeper and more profound than love born out of simple appreciation for being created in heaven.

Why would it be? By the way, I have no idea what you mean by “love” here.

 

[Spock]

Two things. You misunderstood my first point, which is, namely, unless there were evil or “unhealthiness” you could not make the claim you are making now, i.e. I prefer healthiness to unhealthiness. In other words, it is only on the supposition that there is unhealthiness that your view makes any sense. On the supposition that there is no evil experienced at all, it would be incoherent to say “I prefer health to unhealthiness” since “unhealthiness” would be a concept without any foundation. Ergo, you owe it to your experience of “unhealthiness” that you can say “I would prefer a universe in which everyone is always healthy.” It is not at all clear you could make this claim, were there a universe with no unhealthiness at all.

Not true. Only if we were also deprived of our imagination. Even if there were no examples of someone falling under a train and having his leg amputated, we could still imagine it.

Second, you missed the primary point I was making, which is this. “But that is really irrelevant, and subjective. The Christian answer is objectively and logically sound. God allows beings to fail, in order to manifest a multitude of effects, all of which combine to form a harmony more perfect than if that harmony were different.”

Which is just another empty assertion, with nothing to support it.

There is nothing illogical about this answer.

Agreed, not illogical, but unsupported.

You’ve yet to show anything but “personal preference” to a universe without any evil at all.

Personal? I would venture to say that this preference is universal. I have no knowledge of anyone who actively an purposefully seeks of pain and suffering. Every society attempts to maintain its balance by creating a judicial system to avoid “evil”.

Further, it has been granted by you that many very good things could not occur (the patience of martyrs for example), were there no evil.

Again, who cares about the patience of these martyrs? Do the martyrs actively seek out that martyrdom? If they do, they are insane.

It seems to me you are asking for a coherent answer, but at the same time wanting that answer to suit your palate.

I would accept any answer which would be rational and reasonable.

If you wish to assert that “God makes some greater good from every evil”, prove it! Don’t just say it.
If you wish to stipulate a “greater good”, make it a valid example, not just some “patience of the martyrs”.
Here are some guidelines:

1. The recipient of the “greater good” must be the same who endured the suffering. It is unacceptable to inflict some pain on person “A”, so that person “B” will reap some benefits. Unless, of course person “A” volunteers for it, and is aware of the consequences.
2. The “greater good” must really outweigh the suffering in the eyes of the sufferer. And if the sufferer is mature and lucid, he must be asked first, if he wants the suffering. A doctor is obligated to ask, as long as the patient is in the position to make the decision.
3. The suffering cannot be lessened without losing the benefit.
4. The suffering must be a logical prerequisite to the benefit. If the same benefit can be reached without the suffering, the suffering cannot be justified.

Take these simple stipulations into consideration. Can you now show that every instance of pain and suffering will yield a “greater good” for the sufferer? I doubt it. And before anyone jumps in, the oft repeated nonsensical “argument”, that “it may be that every suffering may yield some greater good, even if we don’t know what it is” is unacceptable. “May be” is not an argument. “May be” does not equal “it is true”. I am really sick and tired of “may be”. Show that “it is” - and you have a convert to be proud of.

 

[Spock]

Is is not possible that in every possible world that could be actualized by God a person would potentially perform a wrong action if they are truelly free with respect to that action? The criticisms against transworld depravity haven’t convinced me that Plantiga is wrong. I have a difficult time with the compatibilist view of free will.

First, I am not talking about the compatibilist free will, which I consider nonsense. Just analyze the example I gave you. The agent has one decision to make. There are two possible worlds, world “A”, where the agent makes the good decision, and world “B”, where the agent maked the bad decision. God can instantiate either one. If only one of them is “possible”, the agent has no free will.

I think that one can accept the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God while simultaneously acknowledging that we exist in an evil world without making a logical contradiction. No more than that. It is quite possible logically that God could not create a world with free agents who never choose evil.

No, it is not logically possible. If there is one agent, confronted by one moral dilemma, and who always must choose immorally in one specific scenario, then the agent does not have the freedom in that specific scenario.

 

[Sonny69]

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!

Two things; you used emotion to distract from the obvious truth and point and secondly; you used insult and slander because you have nothing left to stand on on. Sad. May God bless you. S69 PS You wouldn’t know what freezing was unless you knew what hot was.