Why God didn't desire a universe without evil?

[fhansen]

This is all true. You have stated that there is freewill in Heaven. Yet, you previously said that freewill requires evil for us to be truly free, earlier, when referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, and this means that your assertion needs to be scrutinized.

Well here’s the quote about St Thomas, offered in post #46 by TK421. I’m not sure how it would conflict:

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.

 

[friardchips]

Well here’s the quote about St Thomas, offered in post #46 by TK421. I’m not sure how it would conflict:

St. Thomas Aquinas also couldn’t reason the Immaculate Conception, either. Which was later certified as Dogma, which I happen to believe in. He might have changed his mind in later years.

We need to think for ourselves basing our faith and reason on the Dogmas.

I have outlined a few reasoned questions that I think require some attention.

Am raising these questions in order to journey with the OP in this thread that we might arrive at an answer to his question in the light of faith and mind of the Church.

This is the OP’s thread, btw. I don’t want to hog it.<<

(One other point worth considering is that Adam and Eve fell AFTER they were made in God’s image).

 

[friardchips]

Darkness I think according to your system is lack of light.

Right. Would you agree that a more rounded way of describing what darkness is would be to say that darkness is deprivation of light?

 

[fhansen]

Kind of. To be specific, He doesn’t want us to orient ourselves, He wants us to participate in His grace by letting Him lead us.

Can you explain “own” a bit more precisely?

That participation requires our willingness, so the effort becomes a synergistic one, with our own wills drawn into increasing participation.

Okay. With the word “reward”, you are communicating that you think life is a test?

Kind of. This non-Edenic life is a school, wherein we’re expected to learn the fallacy of sin/evil and the value of good, as we directly encounter/experience both, the ultimate good being God, Himself. We’ve “arrived”, passing the “test”, as we turn more fully to Him and away from evil.

All good. Is this referring to the logistics of human freedom towards the intellect and will’s ultimate end or towards a new beginning?

I’m not really sure I understand the question. All right moral choices are a movement towards God, who is our ultimate end. The change is a process as we struggle against sin, but definitely involves a new beginning, maybe more than once.

This citation does not appear to be an attempt to argue the case for evil being a cause of freedom. Because the Catechism clearly says 'As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good, there is the possibility of good and evil…of growing in perfection OR of failing and sinning.

I didn’t say evil is a cause of freedom. Adam was free prior to evil entering the scene- entering into *his *life/world at any rate. Evil was simply always an option due to his freedom. IOW, freedom for a created being allows for the possibility of evil, while evil does not contribute to the possibility of freedom.

As you can see, the Catechism tells us that it is right choices from all the good choices that make us free, and perfects us, not sin. Good can come from sin because God can make all things possible but this does not make sin essential to be free.

As a thought, good can come from sin indirectly as we learn the value of good and the worthlessness of sin. The more we value the true good and turn away from evil, the more we are orienting ourselves towards our ultimate good, with His help. Apparently God deemed this experience worthwhile for us, for perfecting His creation -which the Church teaches was made in a “state of journeying to perfection”.

 

[fhansen]

St. Thomas Aquinas also couldn’t reason the Immaculate Conception, either. Which was later certified as Dogma, which I happen to believe in. He might have changed his mind in later years.

Ok, but where does Aquinas’s citation state that evil is a cause of freedom?

 

[reggieM]

God is truly and infinitely free.

We say that God “created freely” meaning He was not forced or coerced to do it - His actions are not determined by anything. But the idea is more that God is sovereign over reality. It’s not really the same as “being free” in the sense that we normally use it. It’s a question of Simplicity - an undivided purity.

It’s not a matter of having options - in that sense, true freedom does not coexist with a decision-making process. To be “free to choose” would mean to be able to choose a greater good or a lesser good. But God can only “choose” the best. In fact, we might not even use the term “choice” with God’s actions. They come from His knowledge which is pure and direct - towards the greatest good.

So, there is freedom meaning “unhindered”.
But that is different from freedom meaning “having many options to choose from”.

We use the word in both senses and that can cause confusion.

The Saints, for example, were tremendously free in the sense of “unhindered to pursue God”. But they gladly were not free, in the sense of “having many options”. In fact, they reduced their options of choice in order to be unhindered in love of God.

So, the conflict in the ideas comes from that. To reduce freedom in order to gain freedom means there are two different senses of the word being used.

 

[Vico]

Evil is absence of good. It is possible to do always good. Isn’t it?

If there was no free will then there could be no actions contrary to perfection. Once a free will thought, action, or occurs contrary to perfection, then there is both good and evil.

 

[Russell_SA]

The number of possible universe, what it could be if we have done so and so, is infinite.
This means that universes without evil are possible. Why God didn’t desire a universe without evil?

Good and evil are subject to your reference point. If you live in a reality where there is only puppies and icecream, someone may conclude that pecan icecream is evil. This would be absurd to this reality of course, but in a reality where they don’t experience our level of “evil”, they have a different reference point of evil; a different line drawn in the sand. It all depends on your reference point of zero on the number line. So by default, if you have sentient creatures that can interact with reality, you will have good and evil as a result. Don’t want a universe with good and evil, get rid of all thinking life that can interact with reality.

 

[friardchips]

We say that God “created freely” meaning He was not forced or coerced to do it - His actions are not determined by anything. But the idea is more that God is sovereign over reality. It’s not really the same as “being free” in the sense that we normally use it. It’s a question of Simplicity - an undivided purity.

I have read your previous posts and you are not far from what I am thinking but you might be over-complicating things, which is what I think some posters here are doing. God, though one God, is three distinct Persons but in perfect relation to the other Persons in the Holy Trinity. Therefore, God is in perfect unity in substance, but also truly free, within Himself. I think true freedom is perfect relational cohesion. God is true freedom. And so freewill is also realised as really free when with God. If we are made in the image of God then our freedom does not lead us to an abstract but rather the most perfect realisation of our tenuous links to true freedom here on earth. So some people understand freedom as one thing and yet inherently, freedom is much “simpler”*. Of course, the term ‘free’ equates to being free from something. God is not free of anything because He is not subject to anything, ever. So, yes, God being called ‘free’ might be wrong usage of the word ‘free’. But we are freed though, from this life. So freedom could be thought of as release which reaches its ultimate state in the next life. Freedom realised in purest form.

It’s not a matter of having options - in that sense, true freedom does not coexist with a decision-making process. To be “free to choose” would mean to be able to choose a greater good or a lesser good. But God can only “choose” the best. In fact, we might not even use the term “choice” with God’s actions. They come from His knowledge which is pure and direct - towards the greatest good.

‘Choose’ is probably the wrong word for God, yes. He Wills. Yet we can choose, in Him. :hey_bud:

So, there is freedom meaning “unhindered”. But that is different from freedom meaning “having many options to choose from”.

Depends what the options are. You said choosing between one good over another good. And while there might be levels of good choices - there most certainly are - we are not always to know for ourselves what the best choice is. If God is not about choices so much as ‘willing’ then really there is no ‘choice’ as we are not so much about choices as we are about obedience.

We use the word in both senses and that can cause confusion.

Yes, though if the word is used in one context to define a certain proof, then we need to use it across the board, or, define exactly what we do mean, first, for everything, because otherwise things will get even more confusing.

The Saints, for example, were tremendously free in the sense of “unhindered to pursue God”. But they gladly were not free, in the sense of “having many options”. In fact, they reduced their options of choice in order to be unhindered in love of God.

So, the conflict in the ideas comes from that. To reduce freedom in order to gain freedom means there are two different senses of the word being used.

I think we are on the same track but I think this is also where the complication is. One doesn’t have to redefine the word ‘freedom’ because people mistakenly use it to denote two things. Though ‘unhindered’ is an apt word on some level. I think the word ‘freedom’ is still the same word which is okay for any instance. Especially in the case of the Saints.

The complication is that some think ‘freedom’ in the subject of freewill means to have the choice to sin. But freewill ought to mean the freedom to simply be with God -as you said. To be away from danger is to be truly free: a freewill. So, in the case of determining what constitutes ‘freedom’, in this life, in terms of living with choices, we have to know what we are freeing ourselves from, in order to one-day be truly free, or freer. So did saints make themselves less free or were they freeing themselves up from unnecessary burdens that would make the spiritual life harder? To attain the true realisation of freedom they freed themselves from the dangers of the world. And in the case of satan, they prayed. God did not leave us on our own. Heaven conquers the devil, not us. Freedom cannot be the same as slavery in the worldly way. So the only paradox exists in worldly freedom not spiritual freedom. Spiritual freedom is to be free from the world and satan that one might make truly free choices (or the only free choice that is God’s Will); whereas, the freedom that the world offers is actually not freedom at all, or living with freewill, but is in actual fact, slavery.

 

[friardchips]

That participation requires our willingness, so the effort becomes a synergistic one, with our own wills drawn into increasing participation.

Kind of. This non-Edenic life is a school, wherein we’re expected to learn the fallacy of sin/evil and the value of good, as we directly encounter/experience both, the ultimate good being God, Himself. We’ve “arrived”, passing the “test”, as we turn more fully to Him and away from evil.

I’m not really sure I understand the question. All right moral choices are a movement towards God, who is our ultimate end. The change is a process as we struggle against sin, but definitely involves a new beginning, maybe more than once.

I didn’t say evil is a cause of freedom. Adam was free prior to evil entering the scene- entering into *his *life/world at any rate. Evil was simply always an option due to his freedom. IOW, freedom for a created being allows for the possibility of evil, while evil does not contribute to the possibility of freedom.

As a thought, good can come from sin indirectly as we learn the value of good and the worthlessness of sin. The more we value the true good and turn away from evil, the more we are orienting ourselves towards our ultimate good, with His help. Apparently God deemed this experience worthwhile for us, for perfecting His creation -which the Church teaches was made in a “state of journeying to perfection”.

Overall, I think this view is basically, not quite right. Because what you are suggesting here, which I have read from other posters before, is that God ‘permits’ sin.

The Church teaching, that we are in a “state of journeying to perfection”, does not mean that we were made to walk through a test. And this teaching doesn’t equate to what was in the Mind of God, initially, before the Fall of humanity.

If you mean that God brings good from bad, then sure, after the Fall, we journey through a process to perfection, but sin was not the only ‘other’ option before The Fall. Satan did tempt and it was the temptation specifically that was the cause of the Fall, not God. The participation was caused by temptation. Adam and Eve could make choices before. But the tempting aspect of disobedience was a temptation that was directly linked with Satan e.g:- the thought to be disobedient might never have occurred to them, without Satan. Though a choice, not a tempting one. And therefore, no choice. The choice remained an abstract rather than a reality. They were in good grace and so didn’t feel they needed to do anything. Their minds and hearts were close to God. They walked with Him. Satan made the option of eating the fruit tempting in the same way he tricked the fallen angels. He perverted their reasoning. It was the fact that they listened to Satan, and not only did that, but acted upon the unthinkable, that was such an apocalyptic fall from grace.

So, Adam and Eve were free before the fall, not after. They were made in the image of God. They were given freewill. This was separate to temptation. Giving in to the Tempter took away their freedom. Their freedom was blighted by original sin - the darkening of the intellect and will - and they were not free to wander in Eden anymore.

Freewill was not created at the point of the Fall. When God created the universe, He created all that we know. And Creation included freewill.

 

[reggieM]

… the freedom that the world offers is actually not freedom at all, or living with freewill, but is in actual fact, slavery.

Great points throughout and I agree. Especially there - it is easy to get confused and think that worldly freedom is the same or better than spiritual freedom. Yes, the freedom God offers comes at a cost, but it is the true Freedom that gives meaning and value to our lives.

 

[friardchips]

Great points throughout and I agree. Especially there - it is easy to get confused and think that worldly freedom is the same or better than spiritual freedom. Yes, the freedom God offers comes at a cost, but it is the true Freedom that gives meaning and value to our lives.

Team work.

Jesus paid that.

 

[fhansen]

Overall, I think this view is basically, not quite right. Because what you are suggesting here, which I have read from other posters before, is that God ‘permits’ sin.

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.

The Church teaching, that we are in a “state of journeying to perfection”, does not mean that we were made to walk through a test. And this teaching doesn’t equate to what was in the Mind of God, initially, before the Fall of humanity.

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!’"

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

If you mean that God brings good from bad, then sure, after the Fall, we journey through a process to perfection, but sin was not the only ‘other’ option before The Fall. Satan did tempt and it was the temptation specifically that was the cause of the Fall, not God. The participation was caused by temptation. Adam and Eve could make choices before. But the tempting aspect of disobedience was a temptation that was directly linked with Satan e.g:- the thought to be disobedient might never have occurred to them, without Satan. Though a choice, not a tempting one. And therefore, no choice. The choice remained an abstract rather than a reality. They were in good grace and so didn’t feel they needed to do anything. Their minds and hearts were close to God. They walked with Him. Satan made the option of eating the fruit tempting in the same way he tricked the fallen angels. He perverted their reasoning. It was the fact that they listened to Satan, and not only did that, but acted upon the unthinkable, that was such an apocalyptic fall from grace.

So, Adam and Eve were free before the fall, not after. They were made in the image of God. They were given freewill. This was separate to temptation. Giving in to the Tempter took away their freedom. Their freedom was blighted by original sin - the darkening of the intellect and will - and they were not free to wander in Eden anymore.

Freewill was not created at the point of the Fall. When God created the universe, He created all that we know. And Creation included freewill.

Of course, in any case I never even hinted at some sort of determinism at work here. 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”, and so there was **“the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning.” **(CCC 1732) Otherwise the Fall would’ve been impossible.

 

[STT]

I would say the two universes you postulate (one in which in one people always do good and another in which people sometimes do evil) are, in fact, the same universe, and was created by God. It is a false dichotomy to assert two separate universes distinguished by the choices of people whether to always do good or or to sometimes do evil.

tee

The two universe are in fact both are created by God by it is clear that they different.

 

[STT]

Right. Would you agree that a more rounded way of describing what darkness is would be to say that darkness is deprivation of light?

Lets assume so.

 

[STT]

If there was no free will then there could be no actions contrary to perfection. Once a free will thought, action, or occurs contrary to perfection, then there is both good and evil.

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

 

[tee_eff_em]

The two universe are in fact both are created by God by it is clear that they different.

Could you restate please? Cannot parse.

Or maybe not…

No, the existence of free will just allows that possibility of good and evil.

One still can do always good. Isn't that possible

?

…Since now you finally agree with me?

tee

 

[STT]

Could you restate please? Cannot parse.

Or maybe not…

I mean two universe are create by God but they are different in the sense that people does different things and we can distinguish them.

…Since now you finally agree with me?

tee

No.

 

[tee_eff_em]

No.

You can all you want to, but:

“Why God didn’t desire a universe without evil?”

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



Let me know if you ever want to engage in rational discussion.


“”
tee

 

[STT]

You can all you want to, but:

“Why God didn’t desire a universe without evil?”

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



Let me know if you ever want to engage in rational discussion.


“”
tee

I honestly cannot understand what do you mean.