The Ultimate Question

[Sonny69]

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?

Anyone can twist the Scripture by pulling out a passage and on the surface say this is what the mind of God has said, which is exactly what you did was impose onto the text without knowing the whole. Critical error.

Yes He causes calamity, but does that mean He creates evil? Apples to oranges comparison. He destroyed everyone on the earth except for eight people; does this equate to evil or perhaps it equates to ridding the earth of evil. What He will do in the future will destroy te entire known universe with fire; will that be evil or ridding the universe of evil. Why did Christ have to die on the cross; to be able defeat the the penalty of sin, which is eternal hell. Is that good or is that evil?

You see as He has said; His ways are higher than your ways, Your wisdom is foolishness before Him, and men have thought they are altogether like Him, but they are not even close to Him. I’m not sure why you choose “Spock” as you name; perhaps he is your favorite character in Star trek?

May God bless you. S69

 

[Sonny69]

Spock:

Originally Posted by Spock
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 is correct; if Spock had said the same to one of you; the outcome would likely be different. One who calls themselves Christian, then acts rudely w/out real or just cause needs to examine their heart. We all have done this; the difference is that sometimes we admit our mistake and apologize; often referred to as humility. God bless you. S69

 

[EricFilmer]

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.

And he does take full responsibility for it: the Cross.

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

Once again: the Cross. From the worst of all crimes (deicide) God renders the greatest gift (power for the redemption of all sin).

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

Love does not concern itself with only that which is necessary. Love has the natural desire to share itself beyond what is necessary (as I have stated before).

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

The same as anyone means. Any love story that is valued among people, be it fictional or factual, involves the people in love overcoming great obstacles and/or great sacrifice for the sake of that love. Our world permits the exercising of virtue for the sake of our love for God and one another. When virtue is exercised against the temptation to sin, it grows stronger and allows for greater expression and experience of love.

 

[Spock]

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.

Oh my! I must be very dumb, because I see no distraction from some “obvious truth”, much less slander and/or insult. Maybe you could explain. (Just a bit of grammer-nazi remark: “slander” is verbal, “libel” is written.)

PS You wouldn’t know what freezing was unless you knew what hot was.

I would know temperature. I would know pleasant temperature, since I would be experiencing it. The pleasant temperature is variable, not constant. Therefore I could imagine higher and lower temperature, and extrapolate.

Anyone can twist the Scripture by pulling out a passage and on the surface say this is what the mind of God has said, which is exactly what you did was impose onto the text without knowing the whole. Critical error.

Getting boring to be accused of “twisting” the scripture every time I quote it. You are second-guessing God’s own word. I don’t

Yes He causes calamity, but does that mean He creates evil? Apples to oranges comparison. He destroyed everyone on the earth except for eight people; does this equate to evil or perhaps it equates to ridding the earth of evil.

I can just see those evil toddlers brandishing their sharpened pacifiers as contemplating to eviscerate the abominable bunnies who are planning some wholescale slaughter of the neighboring puppies. The bare minimum is to drown all of them!

 

[st_felicity]

Spock is correct; if Spock had said the same to one of you; the outcome would likely be different. One who calls themselves Christian, then acts rudely w/out real or just cause needs to examine their heart. We all have done this; the difference is that sometimes we admit our mistake and apologize; often referred to as humility. God bless you. S69

And perhaps you would like to examine all the evidence before mini-lecturing me:

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.

There was “just cause” to be curt–and I did not insult him at all–I said** the thread **was fodder. And look… it still is.

I wonder if you will take your own advice.

 

[Spock]

And he does take full responsibility for it: the Cross.

I have never seen this interpretation. So you say that the Cross was a self-imposed punishment for all the evil things God committed?

Once again: the Cross. From the worst of all crimes (deicide) God renders the greatest gift (power for the redemption of all sin).

Apart from the fact that there was no “deicide” (how can an immortal being be killed?) there is no logical reason why the whole thing had to happen. Anyone can forgive unconditionally. There is no need to commit a “self-sacrifice” in order to be able to forgive.

Love does not concern itself with only that which is necessary. Love has the natural desire to share itself beyond what is necessary (as I have stated before).

This has nothing to do with the question at hand. You said that the actual world is necessary for freedom. I pointed out that the angels had the same freedom.

 

[The_Exodus]

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.

This is because imagination is built on experience. You cannot imagine what you have absolutely no experience of in any way. Hence, a blind person cannot imagine colors. My point still stands.

spock:

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

It is a response built on Christian revelation. You don’t have to accept it, but you are the one asking a Christian response to a question that doesn’t even make sense unless you grant God, Satan, good and evil, etc. exist.

spock:

Agreed, not illogical, but unsupported.

Ok, so we move from you claiming it as “unreasonable” to it being “unsupported.” It is a claim about the Christian faith Spock. In the same way as the phrase “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” It has never been claimed to be mathematically demonstrable.

So this point is really a straw man, unless you came on a Christian forum, asked Christians for their answer, and then, once they’ve made a solid response, told them that Christianity is “unsupported” in the first place. Why waste your time?

spock:

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”.

There is mcuh dispute between a universe with painful, though ultimately desirable, “soul making” and one that doesn’t have any pain at all.

spock:

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

Does the dog actively seek out a vet? Christianity claims that, regardless of what our personal preference is, a lot of the pain that we experience is good for us, in our current condition. You may punish your son, for instance, because he needs correction. This concept really isn’t so hard to understand.

Now, I also maintain that the fall was not necessary (even for creatures with freedom), so the above point only follows for people like those in our current condition. God, however, wanting to display many effects and create a universe with diverse harmony and grades of being, chose to allow some beings to fail.

The free and willing patience of martyrs is one of the things that pleases God, which would not be there were there no evil.

spock:

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!

That would be impossible, because I would have to know the future, know the secret thoughts of every heart, and be perfectly just and good in my judgments.

Christianity involves claims that cannot be proven. “God brings good out of evil” is one such claim. I can give some examples of that happening: an alcoholic looses his job and hits rock bottom, lives a month in the streets, and is moved to actively seek help. He is humbled by his pain, sees his dependence on God, finds religion and becomes a better person. I cannot, of course, “prove” every single evil bringing about a greater good.

This is only one hypothetical example. But there is more involved in the “brings greater good out of evil” idea. There is also the idea that “God wants to display his effects.”

God is the highest good, and he loves his own goodness more than any created goodness. This is because his being is goodness itself. Now, although he is infinitely simple, he wants to display his being in a multitude of ways throughout his creation. He wants to make the universe a sort of symphony, so to speak, where one note accents another or is followed by another. Now, he wanted, of his own good pleasure, to allow certain beings to fail, in order to make a more harmonious and fitting universe. Were there no evil, justice and holy hatred of evil would not be displayed, for instance.

We don’t claim to prove every claim, so your point is a bit of a straw man. If Christianity claimed to be mathematics, you would have a case. As it is, it says “this is what we believe.” We can answer questions about that belief, to show it is not against reason, but we cannot demonstratively prove it. Indeed, if we could, there would be no debate. There would also be no faith.

 

[Spock]

This is because imagination is built on experience. You cannot imagine what you have absolutely no experience of in any way. Hence, a blind person cannot imagine colors. My point still stands.

Sure you can. No one has ever seen a seven-headed, fire breathing dragon that demands virgins for breakfast - and imagination can still talk about such creatures. But let it be your way. Maybe we would not be able to imagine “bad stuff”. But that would not prevent us from enjoying the “good stuff” - instinctively.

It is a response built on Christian revelation. You don’t have to accept it, but you are the one asking a Christian response to a question that doesn’t even make sense unless you grant God, Satan, good and evil, etc. exist.

Of course I do not accept revelation. But revelation would not be necessary if you had actual examples just how this world would be “worse off” if there would be no evil.

Ok, so we move from you claiming it as “unreasonable” to it being “unsupported.” It is a claim about the Christian faith Spock. In the same way as the phrase “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” It has never been claimed to be mathematically demonstrable.

I am not asking for proof. I am only asking for evidence, which does not presuppose that I should a-priori accept the claim. There was a Christian theologian, who said (not a verbatim quote, I don’t have the text available - my source is in the US, and currently I am in Europe): “the last thing is to ask for is evidence of God’s existence. You have to assume that God exists and then you can look for evidence for his existence”. Which is nonsense. One should look at all the evidence, and then let the chips fall where they may.

There is mcuh dispute between a universe with painful, though ultimately desirable, “soul making” and one that doesn’t have any pain at all.

The point was that you talked about my “personal opinion”, and I contrast it with the universal desire to eliminate as much bad as possible.

Christianity claims that, regardless of what our personal preference is, a lot of the pain that we experience is good for us, in our current condition. You may punish your son, for instance, because he needs correction. This concept really isn’t so hard to understand.

Christianity “claims” a lot of stuff. It is always nice to see support for these claims.

The free and willing patience of martyrs is one of the things that pleases God, which would not be there were there no evil.

When and where did God say this? But the smell of burnt offerings is also supposed to be pleasing to God’s nostrils, but we do not burn aminals any more.

That would be impossible, because I would have to know the future, know the secret thoughts of every heart, and be perfectly just and good in my judgments.

Christianity involves claims that cannot be proven. “God brings good out of evil” is one such claim. I can give some examples of that happening: an alcoholic looses his job and hits rock bottom, lives a month in the streets, and is moved to actively seek help. He is humbled by his pain, sees his dependence on God, finds religion and becomes a better person. I cannot, of course, “prove” every single evil bringing about a greater good.

I know that. But it is not a good idea to make claims that cannot be proven. Which cannot even be substantiated. In your example you did not (and could not) show that in the hypothetical example it is “better” to have a recovering alcoholic than to have someone who was never an alcoholic in the first place.

The Christian claim is that God will make some “greater good” out of every instance of evil he permits. That is a very substantial claim. To refute it all I have to do is show one instance where this is impossible. Don’t forget those 4 simple points I stipulated. I will repeat them here:

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.

Do you find something unreasonable or questionable here? I can easily bring up actual and and not hypothetical examples, which violate these 4 simple requirements. Thereby proving that God does allow suffering which cannot be justified. Which will prove (mathematically, if you will) that God is not benevolent.

 

[dcrowmik]

Spock – I, for one, appreciate the certitude with which you bring your questions. As I have read through them along with your responses to the answers, I ask this simple question: are you asking and challenging because you are seeking some truth other than what you now observe and believe to be true, or are you simply attempting to validate, without room for the possibility of change, your own philosophical thoughts and views?

Allow me, if I may, to offer some of my thoughts to you. Please realize, however, I am definitely not as developed in my train of thought, my logic process or my education as you (inferring this from your questions and answers). Thus, my thoughts to you may seem a bit simplistic but are a sincere attempt to answer what you ask or, at the very least, allow you to question and search further in your mind that which you may be seeking.

Now, it seems to me that your questions and comments are all strictly from a purely logical point of view with no opening for what you may consider to be illogical. That’s all fine and good but I sometimes wonder if that’s always the best, for we know that sometimes what we may consider to be “illogical” today can be considered “logical” tomorrow. After all, take a look at all the scientific and medical knowledge (to name just two) we know today to be true and “fact” that are completely opposite to what we “knew” to be true and fact yesterday, last year, a decade ago, etc. Sometimes those changes in factual thinking came from empirical analysis and measurement, sometimes from different ways of observing, sometimes from hunches and sometimes from the proverbial “aha moment” or “light turning on”. Consider, then, the stagnation society would be in if it always operated with the supposition that “fact” is fact and nothing can be different whether we can see, touch, taste, hear or smell it differently or not today, tomorrow or the next day.

These vast changes in thinking often times take a leap of faith to embrace or consider. It becomes the difference between knowledge and wisdom (I’ve always liked the phrase, “knowledge is knowing that a tomato is technically a fruit and wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.”) Jumping between our logical, analytical, fact based mind to our seeking, unknowing, feeling mind entails somewhat of a leap of faith. Because our logical mind can’t fathom (“fathom” being more than simple, logical extrapolation) something of which it does not currently have the data or understanding, it therefore has a difficulty or impossibility computing or imagining what it does not yet conceive.

Thus, is your mind honestly open to attempting to accept something it does not consider, in its present focus, to be true? If so, attempt to understand some answers to your questions based upon a different way of looking at them. Have you read this, Fides et Ratio? It’s a good discussion on faith and reason.

If God has a desk, it should carry the sign: “The buck stops here!”. Which he openly admits in Isiah 45:7.

You’ve quoted scripture a number of times. That’s admirable. Do you use it to sincerely make your point? Do you believe it, is that why you use it? Many times we answer based on scripture and we don’t do a good job of it. I’m wondering if it’s because we simply just don’t know God fully as He FULLY knows us. What are your thoughts on Job, chapters 38-40. Also, what does Psalm 139 mean to you?

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

What is your concept of love? To begin to understand God, as you have been asking, one has to know love and feel love. I ask you, what is love?

 

[dcrowmik]

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.

Let us hear what you may consider to be the “rational and reasonable” answers. At some point, if you truly are a “convert to be proud of” in the future, you must answer your own questions (even if it might be hypothetical in your mind) and let us respond to those answers.

I would know temperature. I would know pleasant temperature, since I would be experiencing it. The pleasant temperature is variable, not constant. Therefore I could imagine higher and lower temperature, and extrapolate.

Are you saying your logical mind is omnipotent and that you can say with absolute, 100% certainty what my ideal of pleasant is as well as that of Person A, B, C and so on? I’m not talking about statistical probability as to what “most” would consider pleasant but absolutely what my and their pleasant temperature would be. I posit that your honest answer is, no, you cannot state now with absolute certainty. Yet God can. Others have shown through scripture that ability of God to know all. You have cast aside those answers yet have used scripture yourself. At some point faith is going to have to step in and tell your logical mind that, yes, this source or that, is to be used as the basis for authoritative answers.

Getting boring to be accused of “twisting” the scripture every time I quote it. You are second-guessing God’s own word. I don’t

Since you don’t second guess God’s own word, consider the meaning of Gn 1:26 (man is made in the image and likeness of God). For to understand and attempt to comprehend what you may consider to be “illogical” answers about God, do you think it may be a good practice to turn inward and seek some of your answers from there? Since you don’t second guess God’s word you would begin to see that we, because of our constant sin, are images of God, however stained we are, and that we are in Him and He is in us (and that is all contained in scripture which you don’t second guess).

Faith, brother Spock, faith and hope to you.

 

[mdrummer5]

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.

It is not man’s place to question God’s decision to do anything. However if you want logical you may have answered your own question with your fourth point… to test the faith of man.

 

[dcrowmik]

The Christian claim is that God will make some “greater good” out of every instance of evil he permits. That is a very substantial claim. To refute it all I have to do is show one instance where this is impossible. Don’t forget those 4 simple points I stipulated.

You can begin to answer the question yourself, however simply, by looking at yourself as a parent (you who were created in the image and likeness of God). Why would you have children (actually if you do, theoretically if you don’t), knowing full well that at some points in their life they will do evil things and you will have to correct or punish them. If they are going to do evil anyway, why even create them in the first place?

Look inward to yourself to answer that question to begin to answer your original question.

What is your answer? Is love a component of the answer? Build upon that and tell us your thoughts.

 

[The_Exodus]

Sure you can. No one has ever seen a seven-headed, fire breathing dragon that demands virgins for breakfast - and imagination can still talk about such creatures. But let it be your way. Maybe we would not be able to imagine “bad stuff”. But that would not prevent us from enjoying the “good stuff” - instinctively.

This is sort of beside the point, but, epistemologically speaking, you cannot imagine what you have not had any experience of whatsoever. And in your example, you go on to prove my point, by citing the following concepts/words: “seven,” “head,” “fire,” breathing," “dragon,” “virgins,” “breakfast.” You’ve seen or experienced every single one of these things before you thought them up, and, even in the case of fantastical creatures, one is only dividing and combining elements previously seen or experienced. There is no creation ex nihilo in the mind.

spock:

Of course I do not accept revelation. But revelation would not be necessary if you had actual examples just how this world would be “worse off” if there would be no evil.

I can’t ever give an example that Christ is the Son of God. This is a revelatory claim that is either believed or not. What are you views on it?

spock:

I am not asking for proof. I am only asking for evidence, which does not presuppose that I should a-priori accept the claim. There was a Christian theologian, who said (not a verbatim quote, I don’t have the text available - my source is in the US, and currently I am in Europe): “the last thing is to ask for is evidence of God’s existence. You have to assume that God exists and then you can look for evidence for his existence”. Which is nonsense. One should look at all the evidence, and then let the chips fall where they may.

The existence of God is a far different matter than revelatory claims, which are believed on authority. Hence, I believe it can be proven that a first cause exists (though you may dispute this), but I cannot prove he had a “son” who was born of a virgin. I follow St. Thomas (and the tradition of the Church) which draws a distinction between what is believed by faith alone, and the articles or preambles to the faith, which reason can demonstrate. The existence of God is such a preamble.

spock:

The point was that you talked about my “personal opinion”, and I contrast it with the universal desire to eliminate as much bad as possible.

I understand your opinion, and, to a degree, sympathize with it, but unless one grants that there is an equal amount of personal weight to the claim that good can come of bad, and “soul growing” can occur, I think such an objection is biased and unbalanced.

spock:

When and where did God say this? But the smell of burnt offerings is also supposed to be pleasing to God’s nostrils, but we do not burn aminals any more.

If I cited Scripture, would you really take it seriously? If I appealed to your “inner self” or personal experience would you seriously consider my example (i.e. soul growing) or would you dismiss it out of hand as savoring to you as “sour grapes?” Would you stop to consider that your palate is a bit lopsided?

Second, burnt offerings were pleasing to God because it showed that those who offered them were giving the best of their flock to him. It has nothing to do with physical nostrils. All such words are used metaphorically.

spock:

I know that. But it is not a good idea to make claims that cannot be proven. Which cannot even be substantiated.

They are substantiated by revelation. That is what theology is. You are asking a theological question and expecting some sort of mathematical response. This is a category mistake on your part.

spock:

In your example you did not (and could not) show that in the hypothetical example it is “better” to have a recovering alcoholic than to have someone who was never an alcoholic in the first place.

That is correct, nor was I trying to prove it better for the person to never have been an alcoholic. But, given the supposition that there are alcoholics, the example I gave shows how pain would bring about greater good. If the world is fallen, then we are in such a supposition.

spock:

The Christian claim is that God will make some “greater good” out of every instance of evil he permits. That is a very substantial claim.

Why? This is merely your personal epistemological fancy. You have not shown yourself that greater good claims are substantial. But this, as well as your stipulations, while well-thought out, are really irrelevant to me, since I think God could have, if he wanted to, created a world with no evil at all.

Hence I turn to the fact that you’ve conventiently left out (for several posts now) the main, ultimate reason why I said evil exists: because God permits it (for he is not bound to hold defectible creatures in perfect existence), to display a multitude of his effects, a truer and more harmonious reflection of his being.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

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.

Thank you for the further explanation. From what I understand, beings possess the potential to act, but don’t actually act without being caused to act by another being in act. Unless we posit an infinite regression of beings in act causing other beings to move from potency to act, there would need to be a being that possessed no potency but is always in act (it wasn’t caused to act by another being).

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.

In other words, if a being moves from potency to act on its own, it would be absurd because such a move would be 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.

Thank you for the explanation. I do think I better understand the argument now (or at least getting there). If God has positively determined every good or permitted every evil, does that leave room for a being to freely choose between good and evil?

JDaniel:

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

I agree that knowing does not equal making one do a particular thing or another, but rather my concern is with the implications of omniscience when it concerns the future. If we assume that omniscience indicates that God knows what choice we will make before we reach the point in time we will make it, would that make our choice predetermined (even if we don’t know what determines our choice)? I ask this because it seems that omniscience shows the outcome of an event before that event has taken place. If we assume that God’s omniscience cannot be violated (in other words, if God knows I will choose A, I would not choose B) then if God knows I will choose A in some event in the future, is there a possibility that I could have chosen B instead? In other words, though the idea that God has knowledge of what we’ll choose before we choose it doesn’t mean his knowledge influences our choice, does it mean that our choices are predetermined by some unknown force beforehand?

 

[tester]

i skimmed the previous posts: sorry if this has been mentioned:

Just like darkness is not the opposite of light; darkness is the absence of light.
And just like cold is not the opposite of heat, cold is the absence of heat .
Evil is not the opposite of good : it is the absence of it.
'Evil does not exist ,or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.

God is ,?
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.-1 John 4:8

What is the greatest love?
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. –John 15:13

The ultimate answer is for God to demonstrate the greatest love he provided a reason.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. -Romans 5:18

IOW : God provide a scenario to allow Him to “use” his love; the greatest love, sacrificial love.
And this brings Glory to God

 

[Scaun]

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.

I do not know the exact answer but… perhaps so that he will serve as an example for others?
1 Corinthians 10:5-11 NIV
Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. **These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. **
Just as God allowed those Israelites to be born (even though He knew they’d sin) to be an example for us -among other reasons- in the same manner He allow Satan and the other fallen angels to exist -even though He knew they’d fall- to serve as an example to us and to the other angels mainly. It may be that without their example other angels would have fallen instead.

But I’ll repeat, I’m not sure this is the right answer.

 

[Gregory_I]

Okay SPock, let’s stop dancing:

What at the end of the day is your criterion for Good versus evil, and why?

Is goodness apparent?

Is evil apparent?

If you say that Good is apparent but there is no GOd, you could mean Good is what benefits you, and you alone.
For you to consider others is irrational, because why waste your energy on perceived ingrates and societal leeches?

If you say evil is apparent, but there is no God; well, on what basis? Other people are simply trying to do what is best for THEM. No one acts on evil impulses without some perceived self-benefit.

Therefore their actions are good, because they meet the same criteria for goodness as you establish for yourself: Self-Benefit. THerefore there is no evil.

Therefore, ***if ***God himself were as terrible as you make him appear, he is still Good, because he is doing what is best for him; and if you will not allow others to question the validity of your own actions, on what basis do you question God’s? if he exists.

It would be incomprehensible, but you could not consider it evil.

If however you believe that good is what benefits not only yourself, but the majority: Well, on what basis? What if the majority of people in a given society are cannibals? And what if they all decide that YOU are on the menu? Is their decision to gut you and roast you good or evil?

If it is good, then how do you explain other peoples reaction to this act as evil? On what basis should others accept this act as good? Where is the determinating factor?

If this action of theirs is evil, how can that be since they are merely seeking what benefits themselves and their society?

Perhaps you will say that good is following your conscience:
But a conscience presupposes adherence to a formed set of ideas. What makes these ideas good?

Perhaps you say evil is that which opposes you- BUt if someone opposes you in search of self-benefit, then how could that be evil, when they are doing good?

Can one action be both intrinsically good and intrinsically evil at the same time?

Perhaps you would say “THey are doing what is good for THEM and not for me.”

And what keeps them from saying the same about you? TO identify good as something that exists outside yourself (and you do simply by implying a good that others can benefit from that you do NOT benefit from) is to give it an objective existence. THis means that it must have an origin of greater or equal value. THerefore, good must come from goodness. And where does goodness come from?

What is your determinig factor, if not God?

There is no rational answer aside from God.

 

[NYTony]

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.

 

[NYTony]

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.

Sounds like you are describing what Jesus did for mankind.

 

[EricFilmer]

I have never seen this interpretation. So you say that the Cross was a self-imposed punishment for all the evil things God committed?

God does not commit evil, but he is nonetheless responsible to do something about it. In a similar way, a sheriff does not commit crime in his community but is nonetheless responsible to do something about it.

God is Life Itself. Sin is the rejection of God and therefore the rejection of life. The only realistic consequence of the rejection of life is death, which is why the Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death. Jesus paid this wage on behalf of all humanity by dying on the cross for our sins.

Apart from the fact that there was no “deicide” (how can an immortal being be killed?)…

Jesus is a divine person with a divine nature who took on an additional nature: human. In this human nature he could, and did, experience temptation, hunger, pain and death. When he was executed, it was the killing of God (deicide), at least in this sense.

…there is no logical reason why the whole thing had to happen. Anyone can forgive unconditionally. There is no need to commit a “self-sacrifice” in order to be able to forgive.

And here we address more of the attributes of God. God is also Mercy Itself and Justice Itself. The mercy of God moves him to forgive sins. But Justice still has to be satisfied, and justice requires restitution. Just because God forgives sin doesn’t mean that he ignores sin. Once again, the wages of sin is death. Because Christ became one of us, he is our representative, and pays that wage on our behalf. And because he is also God, his sacrifice is perfect and therefore perfectly satisfies Justice.

Originally posted by EricFilmer:
Love does not concern itself with only that which is necessary. Love has the natural desire to share itself beyond what is necessary (as I have stated before).

I never said that the actual world is “necessary for freedom”. I stated that this world allows people to freely choose to love God. And then I clarified that “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.”

My response did address the question at hand, but I’ll try to clarify it, nonetheless. So what if the angels exercise their choice in a realm different from ours? Just because God can deal with some of his creatures one way doesn’t mean that such a method is becomes the only way for all creatures. The situation with our world still allows us to become champions of virtue in the manner that I described in Post #40: “In the current state of affairs in our world, there is the opportunity for people to be true champions of virtue, and moral victories can indeed be victories in every sense of the word. A man may want his teenage son to be a great football player, but if his son only plays football against kindergartners then his successes would hardly be considered ‘great victories’.”