Why God didn't desire a universe without evil?

[friardchips]

Well, of course God ‘permits’ sin/evil-that’s basic Catholic teaching; He allows it while not willing or causing it. And so the Church address this very point in the CCC:

324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

Actually, the Catechism does not and cannot offer any explanation. It basically states that we don’t know why He “permits” evil. Except to offer that good can come from bad. In actual fact, the Catechism is being exceedingly strict in the way it understands the word because as you can see the dictionary terms don’t really offer a strictly suitable explanation for the usage:

google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=dictionary%3A+permit&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

‘permit1
verb
pəˈmɪt/Submit
1.
officially allow (someone) to do something.
“the law permits councils to monitor any factory emitting smoke”’

‘synonyms: allow, let, authorize, give someone permission/authorization/leave, sanction, grant, grant someone the right, license, empower, enable, entitle, qualify; More
noun
ˈpəːmɪt/Submit
1.
an official document giving someone authorization to do something.’.

What the Catechism means, very strictly, is that God ‘allowed for’ (the terms you used) the possibility of evil when He gave us freewill and not that God ‘permits’ evil to be okay or to ever be chosen as a ‘choice’. What the Catechism is putting forward is, if God created everything, and evil exists and could affect us, then He was, in the absolute case, permitting evil to be able to exist. We cannot use ‘permit’ in an unthinking way because otherwise we would have no commandments and no Hell.

So please be careful banding the word ‘permit’ around unless you know what the Catechism means with the use of the word. It is a word that draws a very fine line with usage. When we use the Catechism, we have to take care, to learn why a word of phrase or term is used.

Of course it does, since God had to know the Fall would occur-certainly no surprises would be in store for an omniscient God-and so He would’ve already planned for that occurrence from the beginning, deeming it worthwhile nonetheless to create. And so the CCC takes it a step further:

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.” And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"

Also, you seem to be taking these citations out of context. To also understand the word, permit, with clearer understanding, one has to understand what ‘evil’ is, which is why I was continuing with the OP on the subject. If we can say exactly what evil is, then we’d be able to make clearer distinctions. I will explain:

God is a loving Father. To ignore Genesis and the logic that follows is to think God as a testing Father, yet we all know that God knows how painful the effects of evil are on us, and as a loving Father, whilst He might know that with suffering we can join to His Son’s Cross, does not desire us to undergo some of the things we do to each other; otherwise, God would not have given us the Commandments, some being:

‘Love thy neighbour’.
‘Thou shalt not kill’.

The fact that we must suffer for God is a result of the Fall. Humanity can join with the Cross to repair humankind’s relationship with God.

If you think that God created the universe thinking this torture inflicted upon one another was an okay outcome, a test, then you would not only be incorrect, but undermining what it is that God Himself went through, to save us, as you would be arguing against His own Commandments. God did not save us from Himself. He saved us from Satan.

Disease and death came into the world because of sin. Scripture. It is true that God allowed for the possibility of sin (I have too, used this term before) because God knows all things that will happen in advance. To choose God instead of the selfish act of mistrust. But Adam and Eve were tempted. If you say that life is a test not to sin then what you are doing is saying that Adam and Eve was permitted to Fall. The Fall, as I said, was the result of temptation directly from Satan. And they were cast out.

God does not wish evil or extreme pain on us e.g:- think of war etc…this is a contradictory premise because to say this would be to say God doesn’t mind us injuring that which He Himself has Created. God is LOVE.

Jesus came not to judge the world, but to forgive. To offer Himself in Mercy. He came and pitied us. As He said from the Cross: “Forgive them”. If God permitted evil with the angle that you are approaching the Catechism, then there would be nothing for God to forgive.

 

[friardchips]

IOW, there’s something potentially greater yet to be had by man’s experiencing the Fall.

Yes, God authors life. And God is the “Beginning and the End”. His Will is accompomplished through humankind. But sin is not from God. Because there is a Hell. So, Adam and Eve made an unbelievable act by allowing themselves to fall to a temptation that was unthinkably and unfathomably selfish.

If you think that life is a test then this does not allow for the possibility that Adam and Eve could have resisted Satan.

Of course, in any case I never even hinted at some sort of determinism at work here.

Actually, you have hinted at it, which is why you thought of defending yourself on the point without me bringing up the term.

Again, you are misusing the Catechism. I already went through this last section of the quote so am not going through that again. However, I will address the first part:

Also, while created good, Adam and Eve had not yet achieved their perfection in Eden; they hadn’t yet positively opted for God. Their “freedom [had] not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God”…

While this is true, this doesn’t mean that they were in any state to choose Satan as an applicable choice. You make it sound as if Satan was offered the opportunity to go and tempt Adam and Eve. I believe this to be incorrect interpretation. Satan had access to Adam and Eve because of the nature of what he was as a fallen angel. He was free to move according to his place in existence as a fallen angel…the reason he tempted was not because he was offered the opportunity but because he had fallen from Heaven due to jealously hating the idea that humans could be created in the image of God. He loathes us. After he fell from Heaven, EVERYTHING, satan did and does is to get back at God. So Satan tempted Adam and Eve was a way of hurting God. And the fact that Adam and Eve listened to him instead of their loving Creator who had absolutely doted on them, was enough of an injustice, to have them as a result of natural justice, thrown out of Eden.

To use an example, if I went up to someone and tempted them to go and do something evil like being horrid to someone, this does not mean that God cannot still bring back the situation, and bring good from bad.

You are surmising that Adam and Eve’s choice to choose God was in that moment. But it might just have been that if Adam and Eve did not eat from the Tree for as long as God permitted - maybe to the end of their life - and instead, trusted that God knew best, then they would be at the stage as of those in Heaven. The reason, I think, that the Catechism says that they were not yet in fullness with God, is because those in Heaven cannot fall again. This immediately points to the fact that Adam and Eve, because they fell, were not in some kind of Heavenly state already - had not yet new bodies - although they were in a sublimely grace-filled state, because we know that God would walk with them.

I think it is that you just have the emphasis in the wrong place. God is not a judging and condemning God but a loving Father.

Do stick to what the Catechism says but please take care as to how you read it (or rather, pray it). The Catechism is careful not to go into anything that it cannot assert with full assurance because a lot of this is of a mystical reality. In many areas, it only implies. It suggests through faith and reason but does not always state explicit answers though the meaning will be provided for with proper discernment and prayerful analysis. This is the “journey” for us. Because God is not a manual to read and learn. He is a loving God to grow in knowledge of, in “relationship”.

So, to get back to the point, is someone truly free, with freewill, after the Fall, no. They are not. Because of Original Sin and even after Baptism, we still suffer Concupiscence.

---

This brings us onto the subject of the OP’s question. Parallel universes.

I agree with the OP that with God humanity was not expected to sin, though He knew we would. Does this mean that we could live in an existence without sin and still truly be free. I don’t think the need to enter into a parallel universe topic is necessary. Instead, we know that God knows all possibilities. If those possibilities are what we might call parallel universes then possibly. I would begin by asserting that it was in the power of Adam and Eve to say “No” to the devil.

 

[friardchips]

We can go back further in fact and say that if Satan had not done what he had done then Adam and Eve would not have been tempted. They might have had less-good choices, some strong natural impulses, but the choice to eat from the tree would not have been the result of a temptation, and might have thus remained just an abstract idea e.g:-

If I have a good upbringing, I can learn about what is good and evil in the world. I can know that those who inflict certain evils are doing an injustice. These ideas are presently abstract to me. I do not have to undergo victim-hood in certain specific areas or be the inflicter to know such things are evil and so they remain abstract. Does that make me less human or more human. The fact that we trust some things are evil to do and so we do not, I would argue makes us more human, not less. Enlightenment in terms of the Tree, was not something we had to endure. So, can this example not directly relate to the Tree from which fruit was taken. It was an abstract but with the sheer force of evil that Satan made himself into - by his choice to rebel - and the heart of Adam and Eve taking aboard his temptation, this abstract was brought into the fore.

There is a difference between choosing amongst natural impulses that might be good and lesser good choices, and responding to a temptation, which is connected to an act of disobedience.

 

[friardchips]

Lets assume so.

Okay, so we agree that darkness is deprivation of light.

So, in simplified terms, let’s apply darkness and light, to good and bad…

If darkness is evil, and light is good, and we have said …

that darkness is a deprivation of light, then replacing the words darkness and light, for evil and good, we can say:

1. That evil is deprivation of…what?
2. That evil is lesser degrees of…what?

 

[STT]

Okay, so we agree that darkness is deprivation of light.

So, in simplified terms, let’s apply darkness and light, to good and bad…

If darkness is evil, and light is good, and we have said …

that darkness is a deprivation of light, then replacing the words darkness and light, for evil and good, we can say:

1. That evil is deprivation of…what?
2. That evil is lesser degrees of…what?

So evil is deprivation of good.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I honestly cannot understand what do you mean.

I’m hip.

Do you stand by your assertion:

One still can do always good. Isn’t that possible?

And since that is formed with a trailing question, let’s be more specific. Do you stand by your assertion:

One still can do always good.

?

tee

 

[STT]

I’m hip.

Do you stand by your assertion:

And since that is formed with a trailing question, let’s be more specific. Do you stand by your assertion:

?

tee

Yes, “one still can do always good” to me is correct.

 

[Vico]

No, the existence of free will just allows that possibility of good and evil. One still can do always good. Isn’t that possible?

Good or evil are relative and for a good or evil action there must be the idea or good or evil first. Free will allows for the choice. Not sure what you mean by always, maybe, as long as there is free will? Speaking in the sense which caries responsibility.

 

[fhansen]

Actually, the Catechism does not and cannot offer any explanation. It basically states that we don’t know why He “permits” evil. Except to offer that good can come from bad. In actual fact, the Catechism is being exceedingly strict in the way it understands the word because as you can see the dictionary terms don’t really offer a strictly suitable explanation for the usage:

google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=dictionary%3A+permit&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

‘permit1
verb
pəˈmɪt/Submit
1.
officially allow (someone) to do something.
“the law permits councils to monitor any factory emitting smoke”’

‘synonyms: allow, let, authorize, give someone permission/authorization/leave, sanction, grant, grant someone the right, license, empower, enable, entitle, qualify; More
noun
ˈpəːmɪt/Submit
1.
an official document giving someone authorization to do something.’.

What the Catechism means, very strictly, is that God ‘allowed for’ (the terms you used) the possibility of evil when He gave us freewill and not that God ‘permits’ evil to be okay or to ever be chosen as a ‘choice’. What the Catechism is putting forward is, if God created everything, and evil exists and could affect us, then He was, in the absolute case, permitting evil to be able to exist. We cannot use ‘permit’ in an unthinking way because otherwise we would have no commandments and no Hell.

So please be careful banding the word ‘permit’ around unless you know what the Catechism means with the use of the word. It is a word that draws a very fine line with usage. When we use the Catechism, we have to take care, to learn why a word of phrase or term is used.

Ok. Now, you had objected to the concept that God permits sin. Do you have a reasonedobjection to my response to that? Did you find fault with, “He allows it while not willing or causing it” for example?

Also, you seem to be taking these citations out of context. To also understand the word, permit, with clearer understanding, one has to understand what ‘evil’ is, which is why I was continuing with the OP on the subject. If we can say exactly what evil is, then we’d be able to make clearer distinctions. I will explain:

God is a loving Father. To ignore Genesis and the logic that follows is to think God as a testing Father, yet we all know that God knows how painful the effects of evil are on us, and as a loving Father, whilst He might know that with suffering we can join to His Son’s Cross, does not desire us to undergo some of the things we do to each other; otherwise, God would not have given us the Commandments, some being:

‘Love thy neighbour’.
‘Thou shalt not kill’.

The fact that we must suffer for God is a result of the Fall. Humanity can join with the Cross to repair humankind’s relationship with God.

If you think that God created the universe thinking this torture inflicted upon one another was an okay outcome, a test, then you would not only be incorrect, but undermining what it is that God Himself went through, to save us, as you would be arguing against His own Commandments. God did not save us from Himself. He saved us from Satan.

Disease and death came into the world because of sin. Scripture. It is true that God allowed for the possibility of sin (I have too, used this term before) because God knows all things that will happen in advance. To choose God instead of the selfish act of mistrust. But Adam and Eve were tempted. If you say that life is a test not to sin then what you are doing is saying that Adam and Eve was permitted to Fall. The Fall, as I said, was the result of temptation directly from Satan. And they were cast out.

God does not wish evil or extreme pain on us e.g:- think of war etc…this is a contradictory premise because to say this would be to say God doesn’t mind us injuring that which He Himself has Created. God is LOVE.

Jesus came not to judge the world, but to forgive. To offer Himself in Mercy. He came and pitied us. As He said from the Cross: “Forgive them”. If God permitted evil with the angle that you are approaching the Catechism, then there would be nothing for God to forgive.

I’m well aware of the protoevangelium. God has a purpose with the Fall, far beyond anger or punishment. It has to do with the formation or molding of man, for our good; otherwise He would never have allowed it. Everything you’ve written here about my concept of God has been pure presumption so far.

 

[friardchips]

Ok. Now, you had objected to the concept that God permits sin. Do you have a reasonedobjection to my response to that?

Provided. I was not saying that the Catechism is wrong per say but that it is intended to be read in a certain way. It is very exacting. I am questioning your understanding of it and not the Catechism itself.

Did you find fault with, “He allows it while not willing or causing it” for example?

I don’t think that ‘permit’ means ‘allowed for the extreme possibility’ of…

• it is a matter of grammar. I think that the grammar used is maybe pointing to something deeper that we haven’t yet discussed, which is why it states as such. The argument that life is a test, is not conducive to a loving God. Maybe it means…‘allowed for the possibility…’ but I think it has to mean something more. And the Catechism stated that in the paragraph you cited.

I’m well aware of the protoevangelium. God has a purpose with the Fall, far beyond anger or punishment. It has to do with the formation or molding of man, for our good; otherwise He would never have allowed it. Everything you’ve written here about my concept of God has been pure presumption so far.

I am not interested in the citation of documents unless people understand what it is they are referring to.

So far, your opinion, that life is a test, is Determinism.

I do wish to take back the part in response that said we would not need forgiveness under certain circumstances. God created a world which was ‘good’ but not another God with the same powers as Himself, and therefore, He created Creation - a something less than Himself - with a patiently forgiving heart, because we would not always make perfect choices. Life is a gift. And so as humans we would not always treat the gift absolutely perfectly in response to the Creator.

I also think that we are approaching this from the wrong angle. I don’t think ‘a test’ covers it. That is a bit bionic. And I actually think that until we know exactly what we are talking about when discussing the term ‘evil’ then we can’t completely understand the Catechism reference. I think the route to knowing is via the dialogue with the OP which tackles what evil itself, is. THEN, we can begin to understand the bigger picture. If that is even possible.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Yes, “one still can do always good” to me is correct.

So, did not God create a universe in which each individual may do always good?

tee

 

[STT]

So, did not God create a universe in which each individual may do always good?

tee

There is no may from God’s perspective. Universe is either like X or Y. May applies to our perspective since we don’t know decision of individuals.

 

[STT]

Good or evil are relative and for a good or evil action there must be the idea or good or evil first. Free will allows for the choice. Not sure what you mean by always, maybe, as long as there is free will? Speaking in the sense which caries responsibility.

So you are believing that it is not possible that always do good.

 

[Vico]

So you are believing that it is not possible that always do good.

It is possible that a human being always does good, morally speaking, with special help from God.

 

[friardchips]

A creature incapable of doing evil would be an amoral creature: they would be naturally good but not supernaturally good. They are always naturally good since they were created, and since creation comes from God it is always naturally good.

Sorry I didn’t get back. I had a million posts to answer and am aware this is not my thread…

As far as I know, this analysis is not backed up by Scripture. As far as I can see it, Adam and Eve were made in God’s image. If they have power of intellect and will then they are in the image of God. And the Catechism states that humankind is made body and soul in the image of God. So if we say that man was only man after being tempted then this is neglecting that man had already been made “good”; that he was given the body he was given, and that he could converse with God.

Something that is supernaturally good means that it chose goodness.

I see what you mean. So choosing God means that one is then supernaturally good, other than just stating that we have a supernatural soul. So your emphasis is on the good. I don’t think that is true because God made Creation ‘good’. And if Adam and Eve were made in God’s image then they had supernatural souls that were good.

What you mean, is that they were not perfected. But that does not mean that it was satan who would be a cause for their perfection.

The devil was created with the capacity to be supernaturally good. As we know from revelation, he is not supernaturally good but instead supernaturally evil. Something that is supernaturally evil means that it chose evil. Because the devil is supernaturally evil, that means his rightful place is in hell.

I am getting to the point of tackling this subject with the OP by examining what evil is. We have deduced so far that evil is deprivation of good. And this must mean other things too which I am about to raise.

The devil is naturally good because he was created by God. Natural goodness is a characteristic that is not chosen. Anything that is created is naturally good because it comes from God.

Right.

There is no such thing as something that is evil by nature, or, something that is ‘naturally evil’. There is natural good, supernatural good, and supernatural evil, but there is no such thing as natural evil.

I agree with you in that there is no such thing as natural evil.

But I do question where you say supernatural good or evil. I think it is dangerous because it risks making the devil opposite. Evil is not a force in itself. It has no power in itself. Evil is just a perversion of good. So supernatural evil is equally as strange a term as the concept of natural evil because God also made the supernatural soul, and if God made the supernatural soul, then He made it Good. If there is something other than good in this world then this would surely mean something outside of God. Because we know that God is who He IS, there can be nothing outside of Him. And no evil - as a power in itself - can exist inside of Him. Now there is a conundrum! (I am not saying that the devil is good, either).

 

[friardchips]

The only way that a soul could become supernaturally evil is to know what ‘evil’ is, in essence.

You just used the word “essence”. Which I have used earlier in this post to you now, so we are obviously heading in the same direction, analysis-wise. I think to know what evil is, is to know what evil is for the purpose of learning but not so we can be free.

I tackled this in posts to another poster. I think an idea can remain as an abstract, without knowing or understanding it e.g:- via conscience. When God created the world, consciences were given to us at that point. He did not make Adam and Eve without all their faculties. Do I know that to steal an apple from a tree without asking is wrong? Yes. If I do it, knowing it is wrong, then I have committed evil. But until that point, I might never think of eating an apple from the tree, and if I thought to take without asking, it might not be tempting. It takes a tempter to be tempted. This does not mean that I would not like to eat from the tree or that I might be naturally inclined to eat from the tree because I am hungry for the fruit. I would still have to apply trust in order to not eat from it, maybe. But even while having to trust, I might still be far from ever seriously contemplating going against my conscience.

The counter-argument to my position might be that our choices make us evil. A case being the devil. But in Hell we would have no choices apart from maybe evil ones and therefore where is the concept of freedom of choice, for evil, then? Yet, I believe that Hell exists and that heaven exists. Do people in Hell continue to be evil even without the option of being good?

They were free from the instant of their creation.

Right.

There are two types of temptation. External temptation and internal temptation. External temptation comes from an outside source. Internal temptation comes from within. Without Satan, it would still be within Adam & Eve’s capacity as supernatural creatures to reject God. Satan & his angels were not externally tempted because they were the first sinners.

Actually, this is not being precise enough. But it helps the discussion. And makes sense. Kind of what I said a second ago.

What I would add, is that internal temptation is where the temptation begins. As you said, with Satan. He had no external temptation. He was in Heaven, right!

Your paragraph largely depends on whether you think that Satan tempts from the inside or from the outside?! He is an angel with different powers to that of humans.

I believe that temptation begins in the heart. As Jesus said, if we look at someone lustfully, it is because we have already sinned from within.

Now this is what I wanted to say about being specific: the external temptation is only tempting, if one is tempted from within. Because Creation itself is good. External temptations are only temptations if they are felt as tempting from the inside. So external temptations are a consequence of internal temptation. This is different to natural impulses and instinctive choices. They are not temptations. We are able to pick between choices of good and lesser good without stepping into the discussion of evil. So there is a relational aspect between the interior temptation and the exterior temptation. Without the interior, there is no exterior.

God cast them out of Paradise in the sense that he was the enforcer of Divine Justice. Their rightful place was no longer in paradise. The responsible party for them being cast out was themselves.

Right. But Satan had a part to play, too. But yes, they were responsible for their actions that led to severe problems for the whole of humanity (Original Sin and Concupiscence).

 

[friardchips]

Do you have a reasonedobjection to my response to that? Did you find fault with, “He allows it while not willing or causing it” for example?

Permitting is a different term to ‘allowing for the possibility…’ and God did obviously allow for the possibility. But permitting is a difficult word, grammatically. I admit that I do find the word problematic.

God has a purpose with the Fall, far beyond anger or punishment. It has to do with the formation or molding of man, for our good; otherwise He would never have allowed it. Everything you’ve written here about my concept of God has been pure presumption so far.

This is what I take issue with. Going back to this again, I have a reasoned counter. This is not the same as saying that God allowed for the possibility of…To say that there was purpose to the fall would mean that He planned it.

So to bring up a reasoned counter:

What if Adam and Eve had turned Satan away? What then would happen to God’s plan for temptation being the way for man to be free, if Satan had been turned away?

So there had to be the option for Adam and Eve not to fall and an alternate path, because otherwise everything is predetermined, including every action. And therefore, the argument for freewill goes completely out of the window at first base.

There is a difference between understanding that God knew in advance that humanity would fall, and Him making it happen.

So the idea that the option of sin making us free is deterministic.

To think that we only learn from faulty action is to play God. That was why the fall itself was an act against justice. Contrastingly, if that alternate path had been taken, then where is the concept of evil being the only way to form us, then?

You say that choosing between good and evil of a certain kind is the way God intended for us to be molded. But to go back to the subject of abstract ideas and before they become a reality, we can go further still, and say that we cannot possibly know everything that happens in existence. And so, does that make us less perfect or free? Does that mean we are molded less?

e.g:- I might never think up all the moral situations there are on earth that could be lived, and how to work them out. I might never know the gravity of certain sins and might not even be able to think of every type of sin that has ever or will ever exist, but does that make me less free?

The only knowledge that matters is that GOD IS. That alone, sets us free.

We have a conscience designed into our humanity but this does not need temptation to grow in Wisdom.

But the question remains that we must choose God. Is it not possible to always choose good and grow in goodness without ever being tempted to do evil?

Does not the restraining of natural impulses for the sake of God not in itself help us to grow?

Can we not grow in trust through choosing between many choices, some good and some not so good, without the temptation of ‘evil’.

 

[STT]

It is possible that a human being always does good, morally speaking, with special help from God.

Good. So a universe that all people do good is possible. Isn’t it?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Yes, “one still can do always good” to me is correct.

There is no may from God’s perspective. Universe is either like X or Y. May applies to our perspective since we don’t know decision of individuals.

I really don’t understand your position.

Is it or is it not the case that individuals may always do good?



tee

 

[Vico]

Good. So a universe that all people do good is possible. Isn’t it?

It is possible where there is the potential to oppose the will of God (which is evil) – such as with Christian theology where the angels and later man fell through free will choice.