Why God didn't desire a universe without evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  • this is the action of the will as a response to God directly and/or the good in existence which He has Willed.
But we need to go simpler still. I am not about human actions. Think in terms of light. What is evil, in itself?
Darkness, confusion, etc.
 
Is it possible to have good without bad ?

Doubt it , simply because you can’t have action without reaction
You can’t have a positive without a negative ,
Basic science,
God is good without bad. Maybe the question then is this, ‘can God create another God?’ Is anything that God creates necessarily perfect only by degrees, with a perfection relative to and inherently less than His perfection, and therefore “evil” even if only minutely so?

Such evil could manifest itself only in the case that free will is also included -when given to created beings. This allows for the possibility of the evil expanding or blossoming and distancing the being even further from God, from His perfect will. But this freedom, given to rational beings created in God’s image, also allows for the being to grow in perfection, to grow nearer to God, more closely aligned to His will and image as right choices are made.
 
I agree with all you said but I think you didn’t get my argument.
It’s generally not accepted as possible, including with God. A universe where people have free will but always choose good is like a square circle. It’s not an applicable concept. A person that God creates with free will is, in a way, a god, and gods will do what gods do. They are not bound by algorithmic/Calvinistic mechanisms.

St Aquinas addresses this question in his Summa. The question being that in order to prevent the reprobate, that God might either use his foreknowledge to not create those who would chose evil, or inhibit their free will from acting in that way. Aquinas argues that in the former - if the future actions of a reprobate are going to determine/dictate what God does, then it would be an instance of evil triumphing over good, or coercing good, which is inconceivable and contrary to Divine supremacy. A person who chooses evil must live with those choices. In the later, if God were to create free will and then inhibit free will from acting in an evil way, then it is functionally identical, or de facto identical, to not having free will, and it would not be love.
 
confusion, etc.
Confusion is an attributed effect in relation to perception as a measure of order.
Depends what you mean by darkness. Darkness in itself could be seen in relation to light from the sun. Remember, we are trying to reach a decent summary of what evil, is. What is darkness, spiritually? (think about what or who is light, spiritually).
 
It’s generally not accepted as possible, including with God. A universe where people have free will but always choose good is like a square circle. It’s not an applicable concept. A person that God creates with free will is, in a way, a god, and gods will do what gods do. They are not bound by algorithmic/Calvinistic mechanisms.

St Aquinas addresses this question in his Summa. The question being that in order to prevent the reprobate, that God might either use his foreknowledge to not create those who would chose evil, or inhibit their free will from acting in that way. Aquinas argues that in the former - if the future actions of a reprobate are going to determine/dictate what God does, then it would be an instance of evil triumphing over good, or coercing good, which is inconceivable and contrary to Divine supremacy. A person who chooses evil must live with those choices. In the later, if God were to create free will and then inhibit free will from acting in an evil way, then it is functionally identical, or de facto identical, to not having free will, and it would not be love.
👍👍
 
Going by this logic, then, someone who is truly free, is only free because they can do evil?

And it is the ‘necessary’ option of evil that makes one truly free?

With this logic, the devil is good, yes? And temptation is required?

The devil’s abode is not Hell?

Adam and Eve, if Satan had not tempted them, would, essentially, not be ‘free’ in Paradise?

So, God did not cast them out of Paradise?
 
It’s generally not accepted as possible, including with God. A universe where people have free will but always choose good is like a square circle. It’s not an applicable concept. A person that God creates with free will is, in a way, a god, and gods will do what gods do. They are not bound by algorithmic/Calvinistic mechanisms.
It is not really square circle. It is possible. Think of all universes that we could do so and so. The number of these universes is huge. It is very possible to find one universe that people only do good in that universe.
St Aquinas addresses this question in his Summa. The question being that in order to prevent the reprobate, that God might either use his foreknowledge to not create those who would chose evil, or inhibit their free will from acting in that way. Aquinas argues that in the former - if the future actions of a reprobate are going to determine/dictate what God does, then it would be an instance of evil triumphing over good, or coercing good, which is inconceivable and contrary to Divine supremacy. A person who chooses evil must live with those choices. In the later, if God were to create free will and then inhibit free will from acting in an evil way, then it is functionally identical, or de facto identical, to not having free will, and it would not be love.
We are talking about another problem. We are not suggesting to not create the person who will commit evil instead create the universe that all people do good always.
 
Going by this logic, then, someone who is truly free, is only free because they can do evil?

And it is the ‘necessary’ option of evil that makes one truly free?

With this logic, the devil is good, yes? And temptation is required?

The devil’s abode is not Hell?

Adam and Eve, if Satan had not tempted them, would, essentially, not be ‘free’ in Paradise?

So, God did not cast them out of Paradise?
Very good questions. 👍
 
Going by this logic, then, someone who is truly free, is only free because they can do evil?

And it is the ‘necessary’ option of evil that makes one truly free?

With this logic, the devil is good, yes? And temptation is required?

The devil’s abode is not Hell?

Adam and Eve, if Satan had not tempted them, would, essentially, not be ‘free’ in Paradise?

So, God did not cast them out of Paradise?
I’m not really sure how this follows. I was mainly responding to TK421’s comments on Aquinas. Either way evil will always be optional for any being possessing free will, other than God and those who’ve elected, with the help of grace, to completely align themselves/commune with Him, a state of being only fully consummated with the Beatific Vision. No, evil isn’t necessary but only potentially beneficial as it ultimately helps turn beings away from it, and towards the good alone.

In a sense man without God is evil, and this is a state made possible for Adam first of all, due to free will, and then for his descendants after him. Only to the extent that man is in communion with God does justice reign and evil is precluded in man.
 
Confusion is an attributed effect in relation to perception as a measure of order.

Depends what you mean by darkness. Darkness in itself could be seen in relation to light from the sun. Remember, we are trying to reach a decent summary of what evil, is. What is darkness, spiritually? (think about what or who is light, spiritually).
The property which doesn’t allow us to see clearly.
 
Is it possible to have good without bad ?

Doubt it , simply because you can’t have action without reaction
You can’t have a positive without a negative ,
Basic science,
It’s also important to recognize the limitations of this analogy:
Good and evil are not opposite and competing poles, and evil does not provide meaning to good.

Good is something. Good is real. Evil is the tendency toward the void of nothingness. It’s a lack in the good.
It is not really correct to say as has been said a couple times in this thread, that we need evil as the “villain” to give good it’s meaning.
Good already is the fullness of meaning,even before evil enters the world by the “no” of human beings and fallen angels. God is the good, and God is entirely sufficient in his trinitarian self.
 
Going by this logic, then, someone who is truly free, is only free because they can do evil?

And it is the ‘necessary’ option of evil that makes one truly free?

With this logic, the devil is good, yes? And temptation is required?

The devil’s abode is not Hell?

Adam and Eve, if Satan had not tempted them, would, essentially, not be ‘free’ in Paradise?

So, God did not cast them out of Paradise?
Free will in a created being allows for the possibility of evil; it does not necessitate it.
 
Confusion is an attributed effect in relation to perception as a measure of order.

Depends what you mean by darkness. Darkness in itself could be seen in relation to light from the sun. Remember, we are trying to reach a decent summary of what evil, is. What is darkness, spiritually? (think about what or who is light, spiritually).
The property which doesn’t allow us to see clearly.
I think we are at a stage beyond where we were - this is better than making blanket statements.

‘Property’ is an interesting word to use because it denotes a scientific element.

Go back to when you answered “darkness” after I put forward the question as being in relation to light. Before I said, “what is darkness, spiritually”. On any level or dimension, why is there darkness when we know there is light? What is darkness, in relation to light?
 
Huh.

I disagree, and believe the Church disagrees as well. Did you, yourself, not assert:
Yes, Devil and myself
Code:
but not always
.
So I would ask again: Is the Devil resistible or irresistible?

And, in case you wish a preview of where I am heading with this, I think you are sounding like Adam in the garden, who (contrary to a popular assertion) did not point the finger at Eve, rather he blamed God himself. :eek:

"The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
The Devil, whom you put in this universe, and who is irresistible, tempted me to evil.

I think that is not a wise position to take. :nope:

PS.
Think of two possible universe in which in one people always do good and in another people sometimes do evil. These are two universes and God have to power to create the one He wishes. Could we agree on this fact?
I do not agree.

tee
 
Going by this logic, then, someone who is truly free, is only free because they can do evil?
It depends what you mean by “free”. We’re talking about freedom to love and to do good.
A person is only free to choose love and choose good, if he has the option to not choose love and choose good.

The quality of “freedom” can never be absolute in a finite, created thing.

A rock is totally free to be a rock. The rock is a limited being, but it is good in as far as it is a rock. But it has many things lacking to it - may deprivations of good. A human being has much greater potentiality for good than a rock does. The ability to choose between good and evil, love and apathy - those are how humans have that potential for a greater good than a rock does.
And it is the ‘necessary’ option of evil that makes one truly free?
Only God has the ultimate freedom - because God has no limits. All other created things have limits on their freedom. So, nothing other than God is “truly free”. But as before, if you want to say that a rock is “free to be a rock” - then that’s fine. But we’re talking about the freedom to make a personal decision. In this case, having the possibility of an evil choice is a necessary.

But also, having the option of an evil choice does not mean one has to actually choose it. The good angels had the choice of evil but they never took that option. It was never necessary that any created being have to choose evil. So no, evil is not a necessary aspect of the universe and is not necessary to exist (evil does not actually exist - it is a deprivation of good). Having the potential to turn away from the good, or choose lesser goods rather than the highest good - these things are necessary. The potential is necessary but the actual choice of evil is not.
With this logic, the devil is good, yes? And temptation is required?
Of course, the devil is a creature of God who chose evil. Anything that exists has some aspect of good – since the act of existence, of Being, is something that God gives. The Devil actually does a lot of good, in spite of himself. Many people have been converted by watching exorcisms. That is the devil being exposed – as a result, people realize the danger of evil. So, God allows the existence of the devil, to teach us many good things. The devil doesn’t like this, but he is actually used by God to do good (at times).
The devil’s abode is not Hell?
Hell is a place of eternal punishment - sustained by God. That punishment is the fulfillment of Justice and Love. It is giving everyone who freely chooses evil, a place to live their decision. People who want to hate God are not forced to love Him - God respects their choices so they are free to choose to go to Hell. God respects all the creatures He created - and He loves them all.
Adam and Eve, if Satan had not tempted them, would, essentially, not be ‘free’ in Paradise?
God reveals the freedom each person has by allowing them to be tempted. Adam and Eve would not known what it means to be free if they weren’t given the challenge of temptation. Whether they were “free” in an ultimate sense - of course, no created thing has ultimate freedom, as I explained already. We all have some freedom and some limits to that.
So, God did not cast them out of Paradise?
God cast them out, necessarily, as a consequence of sin. They chose to sin, thus bringing human-evil into the world.
 
Free will in a created being allows for the possibility of evil; it does not necessitate it.
So do those in Heaven not have freewill? Are they less free than when they were on earth and subject to temptation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top