The Ultimate Question

[TimothyH]

TimothyH I don’t accept that there is some “blanket” perfection. A perfect bullet can penetrate any armor. A perfect armor cannot be penetrated by any bullet. Perfection is always “perfect” in some respect.

I don’t understand your response to my post at all. I did not state anything about a “Blanket” perfection nor did I make a distinction betweeen two perfections.

I stated (though not simply) that only God is perfect and therefor, if anything else were to perfect, it would also have to be God.

That is the answer to why there is evil in the world. Since only God is perfect, anything which is not God would be less than perfect, that is to say, possess some imperfection (call it evil if you will).

If there is some sort of “Blanket” perfection as you put it, its name is God.

I will add that Man has not only free will but the ability to actually posess more or less perfection through his actions and the Grace of God (or lack thereof) which results.

Again, this is basic trinitarian theology. Reference F.J. Sheed (the founder of Catholic Answers!) and his book “Theology for Beginners” as well as his followup “Theology and Sanity”

 

[Cat_Herder]

Reference F.J. Sheed (the founder of Catholic Answers!) and his book “Theology for Beginners” as well as his followup “Theology and Sanity”

Actually, the founder of Catholic Answers is Karl Keating, Esq.

F.J. Sheed (not to be confused with [Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, Servant of God](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton J. Sheen)) is a prolific author and publisher with a legal background, like Mr. Keating.

 

[Spock]

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.

I agree with what you say, I just take exception to call it a change in “logic”. The logic is always the same. In the examples you bring up, it is not the “logic” that changes, rather our information about the world has changed, so our picture of the world undergoaes some changes.

When I talk about logic, I talk about basic principles, and a logical corollary to them. Example: “Love” means to have a positive disposition toward something, or someone, which must manifest itself in actions. Suppose a person “A” declares his love for person “B”. Suppose that person “B” falls on hard times, and person “A” is in the position to help, but he refuses to help. At that moment his professed “love” becomes an empty, meaningless utterance. This is an example of logic I am talking about.

Now, suppose that best way is really the inaction. Person “A” in his superior wisdom knows that the consequences of interference (which look like the optimal behavior) are really inferior to the inaction. That is all well and good, as long as person “A” explains the virtues of inaction. If he does not do that, then we must go by the appearances. To refer to “trust” is insufficient. That is the tactics of all the snake-oil peddling con-men, who only say: “trust me!”.

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.

I love your example to tell knowledge and wisdom apart! Excellent phrase. As for the rest, I am not with you. Indeed, intution is a very useful thing - as the first step. We intuit something, and start to act on it. As long as the result shows that our intuition was correct, our intuition gains respect. But that is contingent upon the good results. If the results contradict our intuition, then the intuition must be discarded.

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.

I went and read Job. I don’t like it at all (to be more precise, I find it disgusting). There are a few more passages in the Bible, expressing the same attitude. God is described as a bully, who says: “I am smart and powerful, you are not. So shut up, and accept whatever I do.”

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?

This is a very complicated question. I will give a short answer, and if you want to, we can go into details. Love is primarily an emotion, which must manifest itself in action. Emotions are not volitional. The oft-quoted sentiment that love is an “act of will” is sheer nonsense, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Spock]

I don’t understand your response to my post at all. I did not state anything about a “Blanket” perfection nor did I make a distinction betweeen two perfections.

I stated (though not simply) that only God is perfect and therefor, if anything else were to perfect, it would also have to be God.

That is the answer to why there is evil in the world. Since only God is perfect, anything which is not God would be less than perfect, that is to say, possess some imperfection (call it evil if you will).

If there is some sort of “Blanket” perfection as you put it, its name is God.

I will add that Man has not only free will but the ability to actually posess more or less perfection through his actions and the Grace of God (or lack thereof) which results.

Again, this is basic trinitarian theology. Reference F.J. Sheed (the founder of Catholic Answers!) and his book “Theology for Beginners” as well as his followup “Theology and Sanity”

A few remarks.

1. “Perfection” without stating in what respect that 'thing" is perfect is a meaningless phrase.
2. “Perfection” in “all respects” - which supposedly what God is - is a self-contradictory expression. Something cannot be “perfectly good” and “perfectly evil” at the same time.
3. Apart from that “imperfection” is NOT “evil”. This is athe kind of fuzzy and nonsensical utterance I am fighting on this board. A slightly dented sphere is an imperfect sphere, but it is NOT evil in any meaningful sense of the word.
4. This is a philosophy board, not a theology board. I am not particularly interested in theology here. For that I would go the Aplogetics board.
5. “Free will” does not lead to evil in a logical fashion. Of course it does lead to the possibility of evil, but not to the actuality of evil. And “evil” is a synonym for “wickedness”, and to “malevolent action”. The question in this thread is “why does God allow for Satan to carry out his evil intentions”.

I hope you will concentrate on that.

 

[Spock]

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.

Excellent. So why does God not do “something” about Satan?

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.

Unconditional forgiveness is not impossible. And it is a higher level of forgiveness.

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.

Are you serious? To punish or sacrifice an innocent being for the “sins” of others is the antithesis of “justice”, not “perfect” justice. By the way, “justice” is just a human concotion to describe the attempt of “rectifying a wrong” - which is impossible. And prevention is infinitely better than “rectification”. A perfect being would prevent “wrongs”, instead of allowing them, and later hide behind some “justice”.

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

Being in heaven would also allow us to choose whether to love God, or not.

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.”

Sorry, my friend, you did not “clarify”, you just stated your preference.

 

[Spock]

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.

Apart from the dragons, of course, which are fully mythological creatures. However, in that hypothetical world we would enjoy lots of things. It is a very small step for the imagination to imagine a slight and a not so slight difference, and appreciate things for what they are as opposed to what they could be. Animals have no imagination (that we would know about), but they still enjoy to have a full stomach, even if they have no recollection of being hungry before, and cannot imagine being hungry again. Have you observed a cat displaying all signs of “happiness” after a good meal, sitting in front of a pleasant fire on a comfortable pillow?

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.

I do not ask theological questions. I ask philosophical questions.

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.

Very good. At least we can agree on this.

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.

But not on this. If you run it through those 4 requirements I stipulated, your answer will not satisfy those. Now, you can do two things. Either show that those 4 requirements are faulty in some respect or another, or you accept them as reasonable. Which one will it be?

 

[Spock]

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.

Good question. First, I am a parent. Second, I never wanted to be a parent, not for one second. Third, I am glad that I am a parent (and grandparent now). Fourth, suppose that I wanted to be a parent, I could NOT have known that the child will commit “evil” things. Actually he never committed “evil” things. But assuming that I would have known that he will turn out to be an “evil” person, you can bet your last penny, that I would not have created him. (To clarify: by “evil” I mean a wicked, malevolent person)

 

[EricFilmer]

Excellent. So why does God not do “something” about Satan?

He does. As I have stated before, God instructions, inspires, nourishes, and empowers us to resist temptation and live virtuous lives. In other words, this is spiritual warfare, and it is waged against Satan with God’s help. At the end of time, Satan will be dealt with definitively, and he will no longer be a problem to people.

Unconditional forgiveness is not impossible. And it is a higher level of forgiveness.

God is justice which is tempered by mercy. But it seems that you want God to entirely forsake justice on account of mercy. Let us say that a thief stole 1000 dollars from you and got caught. The judge may be merciful and tell the thief that he doesn’t have to go to jail. That is mercy. But what if the judge also said that he didn’t have to restore the 1000 dollars to you? That would be a violation of justice.

Are you serious? To punish or sacrifice an innocent being for the “sins” of others is the antithesis of “justice”, not “perfect” justice.

The focus here is not “justice demands punishment” but rather “justice demands restitution.” We punish ourselves by the sins we commit. In terms of restitution, someone else can do that on our behalf. Going back to the thief example, let us say that the thief spent the 1000 dollars he stole from you before he got caught. He is poor and unable to pay it back. But his brother could step in and pay back the 1000 dollars on his behalf. Restitution is satisfied, because 1000 dollars was stolen, and 1000 dollars was restored. One of the reasons that Jesus became human was to be our brother and satisfy justice in a similar manner.

By the way, “justice” is just a human concotion to describe the attempt of “rectifying a wrong” - which is impossible.

No, Justice is not a human concoction. Ultimately, Justice is a person, and his name is God. And God rectifies wrongs in this life, and at the end of time all wrongs will be rectified definitely.

And prevention is infinitely better than “rectification”. A perfect being would prevent “wrongs”, instead of allowing them, and later hide behind some “justice”.

The motivation of God to create us was love. God created us to love us and be loved by us in return. True love is never to be forced upon anyone, but must be offered as a gift which can be accepted or rejected. We reject God and his love through sin. If God prevented us from sinning then he would be forcing us to accept him. Therefore, our freewill would be violated, and we would be incapable of giving God true love.

Being in heaven would also allow us to choose whether to love God, or not.

This is theoretically not possible. Being in heaven means being in the fullest possible participation in the divine life of God. It is for those who have already chosen to love God. To say otherwise would be like throwing someone into a pool and saying, “I give you the choice to either be dry or wet.”

Sorry, my friend, you did not “clarify”, you just stated your preference.

Then at this point you will need to clarify your question. If neither of us believes that this world is “necessary” then why are we discussing it?

 

[Spock]

He does. As I have stated before, God instructions, inspires, nourishes, and empowers us to resist temptation and live virtuous lives. In other words, this is spiritual warfare, and it is waged against Satan with God’s help. At the end of time, Satan will be dealt with definitively, and he will no longer be a problem to people.

That is not much of a consolation to those who already “fell prey” to the Prince of Earth.

God is justice which is tempered by mercy. But it seems that you want God to entirely forsake justice on account of mercy.

The phrase of “justice tempered by mercy” is an oxymoron, like mixing oil and water. God could and should stick to one one them.

The focus here is not “justice demands punishment” but rather “justice demands restitution.”

And that is what is impossible. The past cannot be changed. Some attempts can be made in the simplest cases, like the one you brought up. But it is never a true restitution. The emotional scars cannot be “erased”. There is no “undo” button in real life.

In terms of restitution, someone else can do that on our behalf. Going back to the thief example, let us say that the thief spent the 1000 dollars he stole from you before he got caught. He is poor and unable to pay it back. But his brother could step in and pay back the 1000 dollars on his behalf. Restitution is satisfied, because 1000 dollars was stolen, and 1000 dollars was restored.

Only if that brother did it volitionally and voluntarily. But to demand that he should do it would compound the injustice. For the judge to say: “I will let you go free, if your brother would pay that 1000 dollars back” would simply be blackmail and coercion. Is that the “perfect justice” you refer to?

Of course in most cases not even that rudimentary restitution can be done. Suppose that I saved those 1000 dollars to buy some very expensive medicine to save someone’s life. The trial does not finish in time, so the person would die, even if I got my 1000 dollars back at the end. That cannot be remedied. Furthermore, this is still an extremely simple case. How can restitution be made to someone who was raped and murdered? And don’t say that restitution will come in heaven.

No, Justice is not a human concoction. Ultimately, Justice is a person, and his name is God. And God rectifies wrongs in this life, and at the end of time all wrongs will be rectified definitely.

Oh, please, give me a break. Wrongs cannot be rectified. The memory of the wrong could be erased by some nifty brain-washing technique, but past reality cannot be changed. That is beyond even God’s powers.

We reject God and his love through sin. If God prevented us from sinning then he would be forcing us to accept him. Therefore, our freewill would be violated, and we would be incapable of giving God true love.

Nonsense. I lead my life according to the best principles. From the “outside” I have been mistaken for an exemplary Christian, except for not going to church. I don’t even reject God, I simply do not believe in God. But, of course I do not “love” God, how can anyone love someone, whose existence he does not believe in? According to first commandment, I am in the state of mortal sin. Isn’t that enough? Why is there the need for me to be able to compound that non-love with committing murders and rapes (which I do not want to do in the first place)?

This is theoretically not possible. Being in heaven means being in the fullest possible participation in the divine life of God. It is for those who have already chosen to love God. To say otherwise would be like throwing someone into a pool and saying, “I give you the choice to either be dry or wet.”

Conjecture. The angels were able to “reject” God. We could, too.

Then at this point you will need to clarify your question. If neither of us believes that this world is “necessary” then why are we discussing it?

Ok, Let’s clarify, it is always a good idea. The question was “why does God allow Satan to tempt and mislead us?”. But I can make it even simpler. The fundamental freedom we need is the ability to love God or not. We have that. It is not necessary to have even more freedom to be able to commit atrocities.

 

[EricFilmer]

That is not much of a consolation to those who already “fell prey” to the Prince of Earth.

No one who accepts the gift of salvation offered by Christ falls prey to Satan, if by falling you mean hell. Satan is able to mess with us (in this life), but we can become true champions of virtue by sparring with him. Consider the example I gave awhile ago that a teenage football player who only plays football against kindergartens is not a true football champion, despite the obvious success he would have in such games.

The phrase of “justice tempered by mercy” is an oxymoron, like mixing oil and water. God could and should stick to one one them.

Explain exactly how it is an oxymoron.

And that is what is impossible. The past cannot be changed. Some attempts can be made in the simplest cases, like the one you brought up. But it is never a true restitution. The emotional scars cannot be “erased”. There is no “undo” button in real life.

The restitution that justice demands does not need to include completely undoing the past crime. Restitution acknowledges that a crime was committed and needs to be rectified. The only way to fully undo the crime is to go back in time and prevent it from happening. This results in a violation of freewill. But justice can be satisfied (in terms of restitution) without having to completely undo the crime.

Only if that brother did it volitionally and voluntarily. But to demand that he should do it would compound the injustice. For the judge to say: “I will let you go free, if your brother would pay that 1000 dollars back” would simply be blackmail and coercion. Is that the “perfect justice” you refer to?

Jesus freely chose to pay the wages of sin on our behalf. That is why we call the Cross a sacrifice that he chose to endure for our sake.

Of course in most cases not even that rudimentary restitution can be done. Suppose that I saved those 1000 dollars to buy some very expensive medicine to save someone’s life. The trial does not finish in time, so the person would die, even if I got my 1000 dollars back at the end. That cannot be remedied. Furthermore, this is still an extremely simple case. How can restitution be made to someone who was raped and murdered? And don’t say that restitution will come in heaven.

In this thread you have a habit of telling us what not to say. Don’t say “freewill” and “don’t say in heaven.” Well, God says that in heaven every tear will be wiped away. In the end, creation will be dealt with accordingly in terms of both God’s mercy and justice. If God’s notion of mercy and justice is different from yours then what does that prove?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Oh, please, give me a break. Wrongs cannot be rectified. The memory of the wrong could be erased by some nifty brain-washing technique, but past reality cannot be changed. That is beyond even God’s powers.

Once again, you seem to think that restitution / rectification has to be to the extent that the sin effectively never happened to begin with.

Nonsense. I lead my life according to the best principles. From the “outside” I have been mistaken for an exemplary Christian, except for not going to church.

I do not know what you specifically consider “best principles” but I presume that you mean that you live according to the Christian concepts of virtuous living. The virtues come from God, as does the conscience that motivates us to follow them. So you are living in accordance with God’s instructions and assistance, at least to some degree, even if you do not acknowledge him as the source.

I don’t even reject God…

I guess what you mean here is that you don’t reject the possibility of his existence.

…I simply do not believe in God.

You will. It’s just a question of when and what the status of your soul will be at the time.

But, of course I do not “love” God, how can anyone love someone, whose existence he does not believe in?

That’s not a problem that I have to contend with.

According to first commandment, I am in the state of mortal sin. Isn’t that enough? Why is there the need for me to be able to compound that non-love with committing murders and rapes (which I do not want to do in the first place)?

I’m not sure what your point is here.

Conjecture. The angels were able to “reject” God. We could, too.

Angels are different kinds of beings than we are. Theoretically, God dealt with them in a different way than us. Neither of us knows exactly how the angels were dealt with, so we cannot make a true comparison. Plus, our unique situation in this life makes us capable of being champions of virtue in ways different than the angels. There are different kinds of athletes in our world, aren’t there? There are different kinds of soldiers. All of them have merit. Both an angel and a saint are champions of virtue, but became such in different ways. A person becomes a saint by exercising virtue in a heroic way within this temporal realm. But you seem to be saying that this has no merit because God could have simply created him to be an angel instead, and dealt with him in whatever fashion he did with angels.

Ok, Let’s clarify, it is always a good idea. The question was “why does God allow Satan to tempt and mislead us?”. But I can make it even simpler. The fundamental freedom we need is the ability to love God or not. We have that. It is not necessary to have even more freedom to be able to commit atrocities.

Keep in mind that love is both a noun and a verb. In other words, it is something that we have and is something that we are supposed to do. We love by committing acts of love. We also have the freedom to not love, which means doing acts contrary to love. If God limits the freedom we have to commit atrocities then he likewise limits our ability to do great acts of love. After all, if I have the freedom to do a great sin, but I refrain from the temptation out of the love I have for God and my neighbor, then that is a great expression of love. The greater the temptation and the greater our capacity to do sin, the greater the exercise of virtue which overcomes it.

 

[Gregory_I]

Provide an example of freedom to love that does not involve freedom to harm.

 

[NYTony]

Ok, Let’s clarify, it is always a good idea. The question was “why does God allow Satan to tempt and mislead us?”. But I can make it even simpler. The fundamental freedom we need is the ability to love God or not. We have that. It is not necessary to have even more freedom to be able to commit atrocities.

First of all, I think it is a mistake to assume we need Satan in order to commit evil. We humans have shown that we are more than capable to perform evil acts without his prodding. Your question has been debated for centuries by the greatest of thinkers and you have rejected the response of greater good/free will. I understand that because your unbelief in God does not allow you to accept that answer. For example, let’s say a terrible crime is committed in which innocent people are killed and untold pain and suffering is heaped on the victim’s family. A Christian will take solace in the fact that the innocent will be richly rewarded for their undeserved sacrifice and the families and even the public might learn valuable lessons from that evil. If you don’t believe in that reward or that we can learn from that pain and suffering and perhaps become better people, then of course this question will never be answered to your satisfaction. Make any sense?

 

[awatkins69]

The problem here is that there is no logical contradiction between an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being creating an agent which freely commits an evil action.

Free will **defenses **do not even try to offer an explanation of “why?” That’s called a theodicy. Honestly, I have very little idea as to why. Defenses on the other hand simply attempt to show that there is no logical contradiction between the Divine Attributes and agents which commit evil actions.

So, is your question about whether there is a logical contradiction, or is your question about why we think God allows certain evils? We may not have an answer to the latter one. I don’t. This doesn’t make me irrational in the least to be a Christian, however.

 

[The_Exodus]

I do not ask theological questions. I ask philosophical questions.

“Why does God…etc.” are all theological questions.

spock:

But not on this…etc

I can only take this to mean there is no rebuttal to the claim that God can allow beings to fail in order to display a myriad of effects (including justice and righteous hatred of evil), and also because it enables greater goods to occur were he not to permit evil?

You have yet to show any incoherence in the above notion.

 

[The_Exodus]

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).

You have everything correct, according to St. Thomas, until the sentence beginning “unless.” Even if we posit an infinite regression, we do not escape absurdity, because there would be an infinitely insufficient chain of causal agents. The nature, so to speak, of the chain would be “to pass into act after being acted on” or “to be moved by another.” An infinitely long paintbrush, for example, does not give us a painter.

son:

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.

Correct.

son:

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?

At this point it is necessary to flesh out the idea of “free will.” What do most people think it means? It obviously cannot mean a spontaneous, uncaused act. Such an act would be without reason. Far from preserving the freedom of the individual, this would posit an absurdity.

Now, what is not repugnant to freedom is that there are motivations for the free act. Again, how could this not be? If there were no motives, there would be an irresolvable indeterminence. The being would be frozen, as it were, with no reason to choose A over B. So, obviously, freedom does not imply that there is nothing at all which moves the will.

Second, it must be observed that the object of the will is goodness as such; not this this or that good, but Good-ness. Now, Good-ness is the same thing as God. The two are convertible. As such, goodness “as it is” or goodness as such exists transcendentally. We only see things which have been dipped, as it were, in its transcendental liquid. We will this good object - this good apple, or whatever, but we do not see the essence of goodness.

So, since we do not see goodness’ essence, the object of our will is, so to speak, always just beyond our grasp. If we were to behold it (as the Faith teaches we shall in the beatific vision), we would be completely satiated, and unable to turn away (since goodness as such is desirable under every aspect.) From this it follows that, since we do not behold goodness as such, and since it is always just beyond our grasp, all the objects we perceive can be viewed as good under a certain respect. Pizza tastes good, for instance, but it is bad for one’s health.

Now, this infinite distance between goodness as such, and goodness as it appears under a certain aspect in an object is why the will is “free.” By “free” is meant there is no necessity in the will to this or that object, since, as said above, prior to the beatific vision, no object can satisfy the will, since no object is goodness as such, but only good under this aspect, and bad under that aspect.

son:

rather my concern is with the implications of omniscience when it concerns the future…

Excellent question.

The classic Thomistic idea is this. God’s knowledge is predicated on his will. God cannot see, for instance, what he has not willed to occur. This is the case if we are talking of future (implying time, obviously) contingencies (which implies more than time - i.e. ontological inferiority.) In terms of contingencies, it must be admitted that all creatures are contingent, or not-necessary, and have their reason for being in God himself. Were God to cease willing their being, they would cease to be. Were God cease thinking about them, their identity would cease to be as well.

Now, what this means is that there is no creature which can determine God’s knowledge. Indeed, how could it? No being can act, unless moved, ultimately, by God. No creature can exist unless he holds it in existence. Consider these two things very seriously. It follows from them that, the way creatures act - if they perform good - is determined by God, as gift through grace, or permitted through wisdom. Unless this is so, we must posit the creatures “acting on their own” or being, in a sense, their own “God’s.” They would be existing in a sort of Platonic state, outside of God’s influence. Creatures would then be able to determine God’s knowledge, for he would look “at” them and gain information “by” them. When we know a thing, we take it in, and it affects our minds. It, so to speak, *determines *our knowledge, whether we like it or not. This cannot be the case with God.

From this it follows that what God knows, he knows because he has determinately willed to know: either by postive or permissive decree. How, for instance, could God know that it was Peter who was approaching, unless God had willed for Peter to do this, and consequently for God to know it? Indeed, if he had not willed to know it, how could Peter be approaching (moving on his own causation)? How could Peter’s contingency of walking be true? What would *ground *it?

The key to understanding God’s knowledge is to stop thinking in terms of eternity and time, and start thinking of necessity verse contingency. Many think that to posit God in eternity solves the problem, because then they say that God just “sees” future contingencies. Yet, if this was the whole story, God’s knowledge would be like our own. It would “take in” and he would be “determined by” what he saw. In a sense, God would be ignorant, and, ontologically speaking, would be determined by the very contingent beings he created in wisdom and perfect, infallible foresight and decree - which would of course be impossible.

Great questions.

 

[Spock]

Explain exactly how it is an oxymoron.

Justice means that the reward/punishment be commensurate to the deed. Mercy means that the punishment be less than deserved. (There is no word for overly great, undeserved reward). Therefore a sentence cannot be both commensurate to and less than what the deed deserved. Hence the contradiction. A sentence can be either just or merciful, but can never be both.

The restitution that justice demands does not need to include completely undoing the past crime. Restitution acknowledges that a crime was committed and needs to be rectified. The only way to fully undo the crime is to go back in time and prevent it from happening. This results in a violation of freewill. But justice can be satisfied (in terms of restitution) without having to completely undo the crime.

Uh-oh. This is getting a but fuzzy. Using your theft example, does a restitution happen if the thief gave back one dollar of the 1000 he stole? And, of course, just what kind of a restitution can happen in a rape/murder/torture case? And how can justice be satisfied by “partially” undoing the crime?

Jesus freely chose to pay the wages of sin on our behalf. That is why we call the Cross a sacrifice that he chose to endure for our sake.

Yes, I am familiar with the story. The question is “why was it necessary?”. If you say that justice means restitution. what was “restored” by this sacrifice? If God is “mercfiful”, why was that sacrifice logically necessary?

In this thread you have a habit of telling us what not to say. Don’t say “freewill” and “don’t say in heaven.” Well, God says that in heaven every tear will be wiped away. In the end, creation will be dealt with accordingly in terms of both God’s mercy and justice. If God’s notion of mercy and justice is different from yours then what does that prove?

I am trying to keep the conversation on a platform which can be accepted by both of us. And it is very difficult to do. I ask you not to use the types of arguments like “God will deal with it at the end of times”, because you know full well that such arguments are meaningless for atheists. Also I ask you not to say something like “God’s notion of mercy and justice”. It is your notion (your notion as a believer) not God’s.

And if it is different from mine, then we are unable to create a common platform, and thus no meaningful conversation can take place. At that point we can try to reconcile the differences. As an example, right now I have no idea how do you define “restitution”? And what level of restitution will “satisfy” justice? These are fully “secular” questions, not theological.

 

[Spock]

That’s not a problem that I have to contend with.

Well, that is the crucial point. How is it possible to “love” someone whose very existence is in doubt?

I’m not sure what your point is here.

Since I violated the first commandment, I am already in the state of mortal sin. And I was “free” to do it. That is what separates the goats from the sheep. Why is there a need for “additional” freedom?

Keep in mind that love is both a noun and a verb. In other words, it is something that we have and is something that we are supposed to do. We love by committing acts of love. We also have the freedom to not love, which means doing acts contrary to love.

So far, so good. I agree.

If God limits the freedom we have to commit atrocities then he likewise limits our ability to do great acts of love.

Oh, come on. When I love my child, I perform acts to display that love (nurture, caress, etc…). I am free to raise a shovel and hit him. Does that freedom “increase” my love toward the child? If it would be impossible for me to perform such an act (which I don’t want to perform in the first place), would that loss of freedom decrease the love I feel to my child? Get reasonable, my friend. You merely repeat some nonsense you read or heard somewhere.

After all, if I have the freedom to do a great sin, but I refrain from the temptation out of the love I have for God and my neighbor, then that is a great expression of love. The greater the temptation and the greater our capacity to do sin, the greater the exercise of virtue which overcomes it.

Is this another “numbers-game”? You don’t have the freedom to wipe out your neighborhood by simply “willing” it. You are not “free to do this”. Is now your love toward your neighbor is somehow less meaningful because you are unable to curse him to smithereens? If you had that power, would your “love” increase?

 

[Spock]

The problem here is that there is no logical contradiction between an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being creating an agent which freely commits an evil action.

It depends on how you define “omnibenevolence” and how you define “evil actions”. I offer these definitions:

1. Omnibenevolence is not to perform actively or allow passively any actions which cause or allow unjustifyable, gratuitous harm to anyone.
2. Evil action is to cause or allow unjustifyable, gratuitous harm to someone.

Voila, there is your contradiction. Of course you are free to define them otherwise. If you can offer a different, but reasonable defintion, we can examine it.

Free will **defenses **do not even try to offer an explanation of “why?” That’s called a theodicy. Honestly, I have very little idea as to why. Defenses on the other hand simply attempt to show that there is no logical contradiction between the Divine Attributes and agents which commit evil actions.

So, is your question about whether there is a logical contradiction, or is your question about why we think God allows certain evils? We may not have an answer to the latter one. I don’t. This doesn’t make me irrational in the least to be a Christian, however.

Free will defense is one form of theodicy. There is another one, which can be called the “greater good” defense. There is a third one which denies the pain and sufffering. And there is the fourth one, which shouts down the opposition, by saying (actually shouting): "Who are you, you miserable, abominable heathen to criticize God? Shut up! Does the pot have the right to criticize the maker?

 

[awatkins69]

It depends on how you define “omnibenevolence” and how you define “evil actions”. I offer these definitions:

1. Omnibenevolence is not to perform actively or allow passively any actions which cause or allow unjustifyable, gratuitous harm to anyone.
2. Evil action is to cause or allow unjustifyable, gratuitous harm to someone.

Voila, there is your contradiction. Of course you are free to define them otherwise. If you can offer a different, but reasonable defintion, we can examine it.

Free will defense is one form of theodicy. There is another one, which can be called the “greater good” defense. There is a third one which denies the pain and sufffering. And there is the fourth one, which shouts down the opposition, by saying (actually shouting): "Who are you, you miserable, abominable heathen to criticize God? Shut up! Does the pot have the right to criticize the maker?

I think that’s all fair enough. The point of free will defenses however are to say that significant free will is such a great good that the creation of free agents who perform evil actions is justifiable, and thus compatible with omnibenevolence. So you still have yet to show the contradiction. The reason I distinguish between “defenses” and “theodicies” is because a theodicy attempts to explain “why?” I don’t think I can answer that question for everything.

Also, with the fourth one you seem to have a distaste for, I think it’s actually a fair reply, although I don’t like it as much myself. But God is not the type of agent which has obligations to creatures. What are your views on meta-ethics? If we go by virtue ethics/natural law, then what is good is reducible to some natural property, namely, what leads to the “fulfillment” or “fluorishing” of human beings (the realization of some potentiality). But theists say God is a being with no potentiality. It doesn’t even make sense to call God “virtuous”, at least univocally speaking.

Only reason I say that is because I don’t think the fourth one is as useless as you think it is.

BTW, there is an analogous argument by atheists, of the form “No, there’s so much evil in the world there could be no God! It’s impossible! But you’re all just blind to the truth and reason!!” I find this one to be the least compelling of course.