Why God didn't desire a universe without evil?

[tonyrey]

Good points. You have to measure what is evil against the ultimate result.

Let’s say to insult your new puppy dog is an evil. It’s very minor but it hurts anyway.

Now I give you a choice: Let me insult your puppy (and accept the hurt) and I will give you a million dollars.
Or, I won’t insult the dog and you can avoid getting hurt.

In this case, the benefit for suffering hurt from me is greater than avoiding it.

There’s the other thing, more simply: No pain, no gain. People just accept that as part of sports, projects - anything that demands effort.

Finally another - “You don’t get any respect unless you’ve paid your dues”.
Paying dues means coming up the hard-way. Enduring evil.

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger?
No, but what kills you for the right reasons can make you a hero in the eyes of God.
That’s where it’s all measured.

If there is no God, then no reward. Then evil doesn’t make sense.

:tiphat: Unassailable logic! The atheist wants to have it both ways but we can’t have one without the other any more than we can have a positive without a negative…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You have to measure what is evil against the ultimate result.

Welcome to the wonderful world of moral relativism.

If there is no God, then no reward. Then evil doesn’t make sense.

On the contrary. If there is a LOVING God, then evil does not make sense. God could prevent all pains, all evils if he wanted to - because omnipotence can deal with anything and everything, except a logical contradiction. If there is no God, then evil does not need explanation, it needs to be fought against, it needs to be prevented or lessened by our non-omnipotent means, and I am happy to say that we make progress. Not as much as we would like to do, but at least we could eradicate many diseases, we imprison as many criminals as we can.

One of these millennia, hopefully we shall be able to detect violent aggressions - BEFORE they happen and we shall be able to prevent them. I am afraid, however, that it will be the Christians who will fight tooth and nail to preserve the violent actions, on the nonsensical platform that free will is “good”, and the victims of violence should simply deal with the consequences - for example by offering up their suffering to Jesus.

I recall quite a few threads when the hypothetical question was presented: “should we employ mind-control to prevent the violent acts against others?” and ONLY the Christians “voted” NO… ONLY they were the ones who “valued” rapes, tortures, murders… in the name of “free will”.

 

[Vico]

No one. I guess it was an original thought to be like God.
I can’t find the story of the fall of the angels in the Bible. It may be in Revelation.

Revelation 12:7-9
7 Fierce war broke out in heaven, where Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought on their part, 8 but could not win the day, or stand their ground in heaven any longer; 9 the great dragon, serpent of the primal age, was flung down to earth; he whom we call the devil, or Satan, the whole world’s seducer, flung down to earth, and his angels with him.

Revelation 9:11-15
11 their king was the angel of the abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, in Greek Apollyon, that is, in Latin, the Exterminator. 12 Of the three woes that were pronounced, one is now past; the two others are still to come.13 And when the sixth angel sounded, I heard a voice that came from the four corners of the golden altar which stands in the presence of God. 14 It said to the sixth angel, as he stood there with his trumpet, Release the four angels who are imprisoned by the great river, the river Euphrates. 15 So these were released, four angels who were waiting for the year, the month, the day, the hour, when they were to destroy a third part of mankind.

 

[reggieM]

God could prevent all pains, all evils if he wanted to - because omnipotence can deal with anything and everything, except a logical contradiction.

It would be very painful for me if I never had a chance to offer pain, sacrifice or enduring evil of some kind as an act of love for God and others. It would be more painful if I could never show love that really cost me something that way.

So, there’s your logical contradiction.

If God prevented all pain and evil, it would cause pain to those who would prefer having it as a part of life.

 

[reggieM]

I recall quite a few threads when the hypothetical question was presented: “should we employ mind-control to prevent the violent acts against others?” and ONLY the Christians “voted” NO… ONLY they were the ones who “valued” rapes, tortures, murders… in the name of “free will”.

We might think of various regimes that did not like “violent words” that were anti-revolutionary.

Using mind-control to prevent violent acts would probably shut down the video-game industry, so perhaps people were concerned about that.

Violence is not restricted to physicality alone. There is emotional abuse and trauma that can come from bullying, ridicule and hatred expressed in words alone.

So, are you in favor of using coercion to eliminate speech or writing that causes emotional hurt to anyone?

 

[reggieM]

In a nutshell it goes: “if there is some greater good, which is desirable, AND some relatively minor suffering is LOGICALLY necessary for that greater good to materialize, then it is rational to suffer the minor pain to get the greater good.”

The greater good that is desirable is the ability to choose between good and evil.
It would be less good to have no freedom of choice.
So, some suffering (the opportunity for evil) is logically necessary for the greater good of freedom of choice.

The example I gave was not about a justification of evil, but about compensation or reparation for evil acts.

On a personal level, we should ask ourselves how we can repair all the evil (and therefore hurt to others) we have put into the world.
If (I think you’re saying), a million dollars is not a just compensation for an insult given to a puppy dog, what is the amount (how do you calculate?) needed to compensate for all of the insults that any one of us has given over a lifetime?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Indeed. It was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed out that we cannot sit on the fence indefinitely. The very way we live reveals what we really believe…

That’s what drives me crazy about agnostics. People need to believe or not believe.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It would be very painful for me if I never had a chance to offer pain, sacrifice or enduring evil of some kind as an act of love for God and others. It would be more painful if I could never show love that really cost me something that way.

If you crave pain and suffering so much, go and burn your hand in some bonfire.

So, there’s your logical contradiction.

If God prevented all pain and evil, it would cause pain to those who would prefer having it as a part of life.

That is NOT a logical contradiction. Actually if there was no pain and suffering, you would not even know that you are missing something.

Violence is not restricted to physicality alone. There is emotional abuse and trauma that can come from bullying, ridicule and hatred expressed in words alone.

So, are you in favor of using coercion to eliminate speech or writing that causes emotional hurt to anyone?

Typical attempt to change the goalposts. Once we can have a common ground by accepting that rapes tortures should be eliminated, then we can step further. (Big chance of that!)

The greater good that is desirable is the ability to choose between good and evil.
It would be less good to have no freedom of choice.

Nonsense. Ask anyone who has been raped and tortured, or anyone whose child has been raped and tortured, and see how many of them would say that the “free will” of the criminal is the best thing since sliced bread, and it should not be tampered with. Your attitude is the one of those selfish people who are always “willing” to endure the suffering of others - oh, so heroically - but who run to the dentist as soon as they have a minor toothache. The word is “hypocrite”.

Of course if anyone would “value” the rapes and murders in the name of “free will”, I would expect big marches on Pennsylvania Avenue where people would hold up sings: “Free our criminals! We value their free will!”… somehow I do not see it coming.

Moreover, I am sure that you wish to get to heaven, where there will be NO pain and suffering. Will it be a “miserable” existence for you, if you will not be able to offer up your pain and suffering? Sheesh!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The greater good that is desirable is the ability to choose between good and evil.
It would be less good to have no freedom of choice.
So, some suffering (the opportunity for evil) is logically necessary for the greater good of freedom of choice.

Just as an FYI, your proposition needs to be applicable to the souls in hell as well. That is to say, temporarily having free will needs to be better than eternal damnation.

 

[reggieM]

If you crave pain and suffering so much, go and burn your hand in some bonfire.

Ever read what happened when they put a candle flame under St. Bernadette’s hand?

That is NOT a logical contradiction. Actually if there was no pain and suffering, you would not even know that you are missing something.

If you didn’t exist you wouldn’t know anything. So, would a universe with no conscious beings be as good as one that has them? In order for God to create beings with the opportunity to grow and learn, there has to be pain. There can be no growth without pain, since it leaves behind one existence and moves to another (growing pains). It’s the same with learning.

Actually, any universe where there is contingency (dependencies) and change (gain or loss) will have some defects of being - which is another term for evil.

 

[reggieM]

Just as an FYI, your proposition needs to be applicable to the souls in hell as well. That is to say, temporarily having free will needs to be better than eternal damnation.

Eternal damnation is a choice and some will say the choice is perpetual. The doors of hell are locked on the inside, but nobody wants to leave. They have chosen their destiny, freely. So, the pain of damnation is something good, since it honors the free integrity of the person and is a manifestation of justice. Satan does not want to be with God. Some would say, the damned souls continually and freely choose separation - for eternity. To deprive them of the pain of separation from God, that they have chosen freely, would be an injustice to them.

 

[Vico]

That’s what drives me crazy about agnostics. People need to believe or not believe.

If an agnostic says that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable it denies the existence of the Trinity which we who believe give assent to. Does it seem correct to you to say that the agnostic does not, therefore, believe?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If an agnostic says that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable it denies the existence of the Trinity which we who believe give assent to. Does it seem correct to you to say that the agnostic does not, therefore, believe?

The agnostic says he just doesn’t know. It’s like in an election, these people who can’t decide who to vote for. Pick one and be done, but don’t waffle around. To me it is like someone playing two ends against the middle. Trying to play it safe without making a commitment.

 

[reggieM]

Moreover, I am sure that you wish to get to heaven, where there will be NO pain and suffering. Will it be a “miserable” existence for you, if you will not be able to offer up your pain and suffering?

“Jesus will be in agony until the end of the world, we must not sleep during that time.” (Blaise Pascal, Pensees, Penguin books, 1966, p.313)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Ever read what happened when they put a candle flame under St. Bernadette’s hand?

Nope. Did she demand a blowtorch, which would be more effective? Or offered her other extremities to be burned, too? Have you ever experienced parents of raped and tortured children to praise the “free will” of the torturers of their children?

So, would a universe with no conscious beings be as good as one that has them?

Good for whom? Not for the raped and tortured children.

“Jesus will be in agony until the end of the world, we must not sleep during that time.” (Blaise Pascal, Pensees, Penguin books, 1966, p.313)

Oh, please, spare me of such nonsense.

 

[drac16]

In the salvation of sinners, He shows His mercy and compassion. On the other hand, through the punishment of guilty sinners, He shows His holiness and wrath. His primary desire is to bring glory to Himself, so He shows the full range of His attributes. He is glorified when He punishes just as much as when He saves.

There is a degree of choice. He allows for evil so that we can learn from it. If someone doesn’t learn, that is their own fault.

 

[Vico]

The agnostic says he just doesn’t know. It’s like in an election, these people who can’t decide who to vote for. Pick one and be done, but don’t waffle around. To me it is like someone playing two ends against the middle. Trying to play it safe without making a commitment.

Can the people that say “I don’t know” say, at the same time, “I believe?”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Can the people that say “I don’t know” say, at the same time, “I believe?”

Every honest believer says it.

 

[reggieM]

Nope.

It might be good for you to read the lives of the saints, like Bernadette.

archive.org/details/bernadetteoflour00ralp
archive.org/details/BernadetteTheSequelToOurLadyOfLourdes

Have you ever experienced parents of raped and tortured children to praise the “free will” of the torturers of their children?

St. Maria Goretti was attacked by a rapist and murdered by him. She did not blaspheme God or show hatred. Nor did her parents. The same is true for Bl. Alexandrina de Costa who was attacked by a rapist and ended up paralyzed for the rest of her life. She did not curse against God, but forgave her attacker.
amazon.com/Alexandrina-Agony-Glory-Francis-Johnston/dp/0895551799/ref=pd_sim_74_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0895551799&pd_rd_r=4EPGNNBMEWZ93BYTJB7E&pd_rd_w=u7DUb&pd_rd_wg=BDZAj&psc=1&refRID=4EPGNNBMEWZ93BYTJB7E
There are many young children Catholic who were tortured among the Roman martyrs. St. Agnes was 16 yrs old, abused and tortured. St. Agatha was imprisoned in a brothel, abused and finally tortured and had her breasts cut off.
There are many child-martyrs through the ages, some even suffering under atheistic regimes.
None of these blasphemed God - they instead, praised Him and thanked Him for all of His gifts - including that of free will.

The misuse of a gift is not a reason for the refusal of it.
Free will can be used for good or evil.

You may not be familiar with the concept of redemptive suffering also. You could find this in the life of Jesus Christ. He was tortured and killed, even though innocent. His mother stood and watched his torturous death. Neither blasphemed or cursed God for the gift of free will. Jesus’ suffering and death was redemptive - it was a sacrificial offering for sin.

Would it be reasonable to blame God for our own sins?

 

[reggieM]

Every honest believer says it.

How do you know that?