Why does God allow evil in the world?

[joandarc2008]

Many atheists/agnostics have questioned where did evil come from. Even some Christians in crisis have asked, “Why do bad things happen to good people?”

I personally have always liked the argument of St Thomas Aquinas that I became acquainted with when I was a young agnostic in college. It was actually taught to me by an atheistic philosophy professor. I think that life experience in itself makes the point.

So here it is:

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

The reasoning:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Have fun everyone.

God bless,

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Reply to Objective 1 is actually pretty well-thought out. It made it so absolutely *no *agnostic or atheist could argue against it and that’s pretty clever…

With a completely “good” world, there would inevitably be at least one outcast to rebel. With a completely horrible world, the good-hearted would rebel from the evils…

Wow, that is *very *clever. :sad_yes: I don’t even think I have an answer for this.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[joandarc2008]

And by the way everyone in my haste to post this I forgot to mention this source - this is from St Thomas Aquinas. God bless,

 

[JDaniel]

And by the way everyone in my haste to post this I forgot to mention this source - this is from St Thomas Aquinas. God bless,

Hello joandarc2008,

Do you have a particular question, or questions, you want responses to?

JD

 

[Swan]

Many atheists/agnostics have questioned where did evil come from. Even some Christians in crisis have asked, “Why do bad things happen to good people?”

I personally have always liked the argument of St Thomas Aquinas that I became acquainted with when I was a young agnostic in college. It was actually taught to me by an atheistic philosophy professor. I think that life experience in itself makes the point.

So here it is:

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

The reasoning:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Have fun everyone.

God bless,

There are a lot of intelligent responses to the first cause argument right here in this section that are more eloquent than any efforts I might make, so I’ll just leave it at that. But I don’t find the existence of anything at all a direct indicator that the “cause” is any god, let alone the Judeo/Christian one. There are many cultures, including dead ones such as the ancient Egyptians, that had first cause arguments. I guess I don’t understand how yours is any better than theirs. In the final analysis, isn’t it all just conjecture and abstract considerations?

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Hello joandarc2008,

Do you have a particular question, or questions, you want responses to?

JD

I think joandarc2008 just wishes to have a discussion rather than having a specific question.

Reply to Objective 1 is actually pretty well-thought out. It made it so absolutely *no *agnostic or atheist could argue against it and that’s pretty clever…

God is so good, he can bring good out of evil? Show me how God brings good against a child that is raped and killed. Show me how God brings good out of the countless millions who have suffered and died throughout history. Evil exists, and so if God exists, God must be either unwilling, unknowing, or incapable of banishing it.

Saying that we cannot know what is God’s plan is a cop out. It’s saying that we don’t know why there is evil we cannot fathom it, so we’re just going to hope that someone out there in the aether has some sort of purpose for us. I hope that’s true. But I can’t say definitively that it is.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

So basically everything is caused by something, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, so therefore the very first cause is what we call God.

But if “nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.”, but there has to be a “first mover, put in motion by no other”, don’t these statements completely contradict each other? It’s saying that “Everything has a cause, except for the thing that must exist that has no cause.” If there can exist something that didn’t have a cause, why make God be that something, and not the Universe? How can the contention that everything has a cause except God be valid, but the contention that everything has a cause except the beginning of the universe invalid?

I’m not trying to argue that the universe didn’t have a cause, I’m just trying to illustrate that it’s impossible to prove the existence of God in this manner.

 

[Fran65]

Saying that we cannot know what is God’s plan is a cop out. It’s saying that we don’t know why there is evil we cannot fathom it, so we’re just going to hope that someone out there in the aether has some sort of purpose for us.

It would be a cop out if it meant that either we gave up trying to understand the universe and its origins or that we did not, as Catholics try and prevent and deal with evil when it occurs.

However, neither of those two things are true. For example the Catholic Church continues to contribute to our knowledge of Physics and Cosmology through, for example, the Vatican Observatory. In addition, the Catholic Church and the laity are involved in trying to prevent and deal with evil. The existence of Catholic charities such as CAFOD, prison ministry and care of the sick, poor, abused and abandoned are all undertaken around the world. In addition, we pray and try to act as Christian role models in an increasingly secular world.

If there can exist something that didn’t have a cause, why make God be that something, and not the Universe?

My understanding is the universe does not have the attributes of something that is ‘uncaused’. It exists in time and space and is changing. It cannot, therefore, be the first cause.

As ateista stated on another thread - ‘disproving’ the first cause argument would not disprove God’s existence…

 

[joandarc2008]

God is so good, he can bring good out of evil? Show me how God brings good against a child that is raped and killed. Show me how God brings good out of the countless millions who have suffered and died throughout history. Evil exists, and so if God exists, God must be either unwilling, unknowing, or incapable of banishing it.

Saying that we cannot know what is God’s plan is a cop out. It’s saying that we don’t know why there is evil we cannot fathom it, so we’re just going to hope that someone out there in the aether has some sort of purpose for us. I hope that’s true. But I can’t say definitively that it is.

Well it would depend on the unique situation of that child. Maybe that child would have grown up to be intrinsically evil. Maybe it was that act that got that perpetrator caught so he/she could not do it to other children. Maybe it was also the fear it put into the parents in the area to keep their own children a little closer and a little safer.

God bless,

 

[Fran65]

Maybe that child would have grown up to be intrinsically evil

Ouch.

Joan, I understand the intention of your post. However, this type of speculation does not appear fruitful or compassionate.

Best to leave it as this is a fallen world and we are waiting for Jesus to return. Until then God’s seeming inaction is a mystery.

 

[That_one_guy]

Hi guys! I wanna play!

In my personal ‘opinion’ “evil” is direct and intentional malicious actions designed to harm someone either physically or by proxy.

Any body can harm another creature or destroy the creation of someone else. Somewhere down the line the idea of inflicting harm became virtually synonomous with the concept of being a tough guy. But, in reality, being tough is really an indication of how much one is able to endure! You wanna see tough? Look at Jesus! Now THAT dude is tough. THE TOUGHEST!!

The natural entropy of the universe as introduced by Adam and Eves transgression is not necessarily evil, although it did introduce the emotion of shame, from which,i believe, all the other so-called negative emotions ultimately are derived from. Fear and hate being the two most prominant which seem to guide those who are adamantly in denial of the existance of our loving God.

 

[joandarc2008]

Ouch.

Joan, I understand the intention of your post. However, this type of speculation does not appear fruitful or compassionate.

Best to leave it as this is a fallen world and we are waiting for Jesus to return. Until then God’s seeming inaction is a mystery.

I am sorry that you took offense - I am not trying to say anything here about the gift of children, but if the child in question had been a young Hitler or Stalin we cannot judge. This is just a straight philosophical forum, it is not meant to be emotional.

God bless,

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

This question is a perpetual one. It is discussed over coffee and beer at every seminary and university bull secession in the world I think. At least it was among us when I was an undergrad back in the '60’s and in the 80’s when in Seminary and still in many settings where I find myself often defending God’s position.

Perhaps the best answer is that of the shadow. The shadow is nothing in itself but it is an absence of light. Scripture tells us that “God is light and in Him is no darkness…” John’s Gospel tells us that, “…light came into the world but men loved darkness rather than the light…”.

Lighting a candle dispels the darkness of a room or even that of a cavern. Bringing God’s light into a situation dispels the evil.

Are there victims? Yes. Jesus tells us about builders that were killed in the collapse of a tower they were building and asks if they were more sinful than those who were not killed. He goes on to say that they were not and that we should take care to be prepared because we could be next.

Wanting to walk in the light with a lamp for my feet,

Harri

 

[Fran65]

Welcome to That one guy. I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Harri, I can see that argument, but I’m still a bit stuck as to how the absence of light solves the problem of natural evil.

Joan, no offence taken, but I can see how it might read to someone else.

 

[joandarc2008]

No problem, Fran, and that is why I wanted to clarify.

The absence of light argument is also a good one. I find that some of the biggest evil in the world is that where you cannot find God or is done in the name of worshipping a false idol - jihaddist terrorism. So I can definetly see the absence of God causing evil by causing an absence of good. So where God is absent there can be evil. The problem a then "smart " atheist brings up is that if God is omniscient than he is everywhere and I believe that is where St. Thomas’s argument comes in - that that evil is allowed in order to bring the good out of it.

Father, welcome.

God bless,

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

… atheist brings up is that if God is omniscient than he is everywhere

 

[joandarc2008]

You are correct I was searching for the word that meant always present but was incorrect. Is it that sin itself blocks God out or that God does not choose to be where the sin is great? This is jsut one of those little philosophical questions in my head?

God bless,

 

[That_one_guy]

You are correct I was searching for the word that meant always present but was incorrect. Is it that sin itself blocks God out or that God does not choose to be where the sin is great? This is jsut one of those little philosophical questions in my head?

God bless,

If I may,…I think sin hides us from God.Like putting an opaqe shield in front of us.And I think it works both ways.So it hides God from us also.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

As ateista stated on another thread - ‘disproving’ the first cause argument would not disprove God’s existence…

I’m not trying to disprove God’s existence, that’s impossible. But I am trying to refute proof of God’s existence, because I think that is equally impossible.

 

[That_one_guy]

I’m not trying to disprove God’s existence, that’s impossible. But I am trying to refute proof of God’s existence, because I think that is equally impossible.

You gotta admire someone who wants to do the impossible.
LOL

 

[JDaniel]

God is so good, he can bring good out of evil? Show me how God brings good against a child that is raped and killed.

Please forgive my crudeness in asking this next question. It is important to know what precise “evil” you are talking about here. What is evil in this in this scenario?

Show me how God brings good out of the countless millions who have suffered and died throughout history.

Again, please forgive my crudeness in asking this next question. It is important to know what precise “evil” you are talking about here. What is evil in this in this scenario?

Evil exists, and so if God exists, God must be either unwilling, unknowing, or incapable of banishing it.

There is a high probability that your first two premises are correct absolutely. From them, how does one arrive at the final three?

Saying that we cannot know what is God’s plan is a cop out.

How can a “truth” be a “cop-out”?

It’s saying that we don’t know why there is evil we cannot fathom it, so we’re just going to hope that someone out there in the aether has some sort of purpose for us. I hope that’s true.

I do too! :dancing:

But I can’t say definitively that it is.

This too is amendable.

So basically everything is caused by something, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, so therefore the very first cause is what we call God.

Correct.

But if “nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.”, but there has to be a “first mover, put in motion by no other”, don’t these statements completely contradict each other?

Not if one remembers that the perception and understanding of this phenomenon is from nature and the universe. Think, in logic (our computations on the phenomena of reality) the above two statements are absolutely TRUE. But, we also know that no “infinities” exist, plus, if one did, there could only be middle causes - no first cause and no effect. But, we know that effects occur and have occured, directly from nature. So, we have no choice but to reason that there must be a First Cause, or, First Mover, and this we call God.

We could call it anything we want, but, the concept of God would still be identical in it.

It’s saying that “Everything has a cause, except for the thing that must exist that has no cause.” If there can exist something that didn’t have a cause, why make God be that something, and not the Universe?

From science.

How can the contention that everything has a cause except God be valid, but the contention that everything has a cause except the beginning of the universe invalid?

Because science tells us that the universe had a “beginning”. Anything that has a beginning is caused, so, it cannot be the first cause.

I’m not trying to argue that the universe didn’t have a cause, I’m just trying to illustrate that it’s impossible to prove the existence of God in this manner.

You are a thinker and I thank you for displaying that. Re-read my responses. You may, or, may not, change your mind. Also, remember that there were millions of “thinkers”, during the past centuries, that became “believers” through the process of thinking.

Also remember, there may always remain some “doubt”. At the point when belief grossly outweighs doubt, is the time when “faith” takes over.

JD