Why God didn't desire a universe without evil?

[JapaneseKappa]

Evil is of three kinds, (physical, moral, and metaphysical). Is moral evil excluded from this discussion? For the other two:

“Metaphysical evil is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world. … Pain, which is the test or criterion of physical evil, has indeed a positive, though purely subjective existence as a sensation or emotion; but its evil quality lies in its disturbing effect on the sufferer.” - Catholic Encyclopedia

Sharpe, A. (1909). Evil. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

You tell me. You’re the one who asserted that evil (of an unspecified kind) existed in the universe so long as the idea of evil (of an unspecified kind) existed.

 

[reggieM]

This is a misconception. Necessity is not the same thing as “not created.” Necessity means that something could not have been otherwise. So, for example, if it were impossible for God to not create the world, then the world is both created and necessary.

We’re speaking about necessary being in the ultimate sense. A thing that is contingent on some other non-necessary thing, cannot be necessary in itself.

 

[reggieM]

Not at all. Evil is a volitional action which causes unnecessary, gratuitous harm to someone with a nervous system, and the one who commits this act is aware of the harm and intends to cause it. It is not synonymous with “harm”, or “hurt” or “bad”. It is not synonymous with “pain” or “suffering”. Not even with causing pain or suffering. The “volitional” and “knowing parts” are integral parts of “evil”.

I don’t think this definition works in a universal sense.
What it is saying is:
Harm can be done to people, if someone considers it necessary.

 

[Vonsalza]

By that rule good also applies in converse to good. But evil is considered negatively as the deprivation or absence of good, but one must have the idea of both together.

I’m pretty close to you on this with one little distinction;

God’s “goodness” exists independent of evil. However, the ability to comparatively identify it as “good” requires a non-good juxtaposer (i.e. evil).

 

[fhansen]

So we could probably say that, relative to God, creation is evil, because it lacks His perfection. But this is only to say that, relative to a perfectly intact arm, a bruised or broken arm is evil, in that it lacks the perfection of the intact arm and is therefore less able to fulfill its purpose as an arm. From here we can see how evil can manifest itself in creation, once free will is thrown into the mix.

The Christian answer to this is that creation-plus-free will, *ourselves *IOW, must come to align with and subjugate itself to God, in a relationship of union whereby we participate directly in His goodness and perfection. ‘Apart from Me you can do nothing’, is the basis of the New Covenant. The only beings who can possibly disobey Truth/Reality/God, are created beings with free will. All other creation remains aligned with God’s perfect will by default.

 

[fhansen]

I’m pretty close to you on this with one little distinction;

God’s “goodness” exists independent of evil. However, the ability to comparatively identify it as “good” requires a non-good juxtaposer (i.e. evil).

Yes, and man was exiled from Eden for that very purpose, to learn of the goodness and trustworthiness of God in contradistinction to the evil that we experience as a result of disobedience. Adam & Eve had it* too *good in a sense. Since everything was good in their world, good had no identity of its own; the word would have no meaning or reason to exist without the contrast presented by evil.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I don’t think this definition works in a universal sense.
What it is saying is:
Harm can be done to people, if someone considers it necessary.

You missed it when I said: unnecessary and gratuitous. Not just any harm.
The parts for “evil”:

1. someone who can feel pain and is able to suffer.
2. someone who knowingly and volitionally inflicts unnecessary harm (without due compensation).
3. Necessary harm, which is logically needed for achieving a “greater good”, is not evil.
   This is universal. All these attributes are necessary. Of course, it is questionable if there IS any harm in the face of omnipotence.

 

[goout]

Certainly: according to real actual Catholic theology, it is impossible for God to not love us, and so your characterization of my point as a straw man is inaccurate. Second, since you were the one who brought up love in the first place, why don’t YOU explain whether or not your now-corrected understanding of God’s love was relevant to my point at all.

You know some words. You don’t know what they mean.

You keep proposing God’s love as an insurance policy against the actions resulting from free will. That’s not the Christian understanding of “God is love”.

Straw man, self evidently.

 

[goout]

Oh, what a haughty attitude. There are several different ways to define free will. I use the concept of libertarian free will. I just don’t know what YOU mean by it. I even asked the specific question about it. But if you cannot tell me, what YOU mean by free will, then what is the point? It was YOU who used “free will” as a defense, when asked about the problem of evil.

Get serious please.
You’ve been talking about things you don’t understand for what, thousands of posts now, and now have the cowardice to parse something like “free will”.

Hard to take you seriously.
Please read before you criticize something you don’t understand.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Get serious please.
You’ve been talking about things you don’t understand for what, thousands of posts now, and now have the cowardice to parse something like “free will”.

Hard to take you seriously.
Please read before you criticize something you don’t understand.

And the haughty and condescending attitude continues, instead of answering a simple question. What else is new?

 

[Vico]

I’m pretty close to you on this with one little distinction;

God’s “goodness” exists independent of evil. However, the ability to comparatively identify it as “good” requires a non-good juxtaposer (i.e. evil).

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote something about good, perfection, and being in Summa Theologiae:

I answer that, Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea; which is clear from the following argument. The essence of goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. i): “Goodness is what all desire.” Now it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect; for all desire their own perfection. But everything is perfect so far as it is actual. Therefore it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as it exists; for it is existence that makes all things actual, as is clear from the foregoing (I:3:4; I:4:1). Hence it is clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present.
newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm

 

[JapaneseKappa]

We’re speaking about necessary being in the ultimate sense. A thing that is contingent on some other non-necessary thing, cannot be necessary in itself.

So what is that non-necessary thing that the universe is contingent on?

 

[goout]

And the haughty and condescending attitude continues, instead of answering a simple question. What else is new?

No haughtiness.
You do not like challenges. Because you do not like challenges, you parse words in order to avoid facing challenges.

Again, you seriously want to parse what is meant by free will on this message board, after all this time and discussion?
And at the same time expect some credibility from others?
How can that work.

You should do some reading on Christian philosophy before critiquing it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You do not like challenges. Because you do not like challenges, you parse words in order to avoid facing challenges.

You are not qualified to declare what I like or dislike. There are many different approaches to the question of “free will”. First, there is the distinction between the “libertarian” and the “compatibilist” approach. Are you familiar with them? Then there is question: “does free will include the freedom to act on that will”? Not a trivial question. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

You should do some reading on Christian philosophy before critiquing it.

There is no explicit and coherent Christian or Catholic philosophy. It is a hodgepodge of Aristotelian ideas and Molinist speculations sprinkled with some Aquinas and a pinch of Plato.

 

[Vico]

You tell me. You’re the one who asserted that evil (of an unspecified kind) existed in the universe so long as the idea of evil (of an unspecified kind) existed.

So in post #279 you wanted me to comment only on a “universe without evil” and not a “universe without the ideal of moral evil”. Instances of moral evil exist though angelic or human malice, which can be solely in the mind.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You know some words. You don’t know what they mean.

You keep proposing God’s love as an insurance policy against the actions resulting from free will. That’s not the Christian understanding of “God is love”.

Straw man, self evidently.

You are the one who has made errors regarding Catholic teaching on God (i.e. by asserting that God is free to not love.) Therefore I don’t believe you are qualified to identify straw men. If you want to persist in that claim, please provide some link to a reputable Catholic source and explicitly show how it contradicts what I have said about Catholic teaching.

Now, to recap our discussion:

1. You asserted that there exist people who are grateful for both the good and bad in this universe, so if we’re just thankful for the good, we can be happy.

2. I asserted that our feelings on the matter are irrelevant, and compared your position to Stockholm Syndrome (where unjustly imprisoned people may fall in love with their captor)

3. You did not understand the analogy.

4. I clarified the analogy by explaining that the just-ness of the imprisonment doesn’t depend on how the prisoner feels about it afterwards (i.e. once they have fallen in love.) In the same way, what God should have desired for the world does not depend on whether or not some of us could be happy with the bad parts.

5. You asserted that the existence of goodness presents a problem of goodness, and that I was ignoring free will.

6. I explained that we were talking about the Christian God, who does not have any problem of good. I also explained that free will does not “outweigh” the infinite consequences of evil.

1. You did not respond to that post

---

Second conversation

---

8. I responded to someone else that “It means that when God created the world, he desired it to be exactly the way it is, evil and all.”

9. You objected to point 8 on the grounds that “love is not a force” and mentioned something about relationships.

10. I showed that Gods love for us does entails certain things.

11. You denied this and accused me of constructing a straw man

12. I explained my reasoning and gave a source

13. You accused me of not staying on topic

14. I explained that my reasoning showed that you were wrong in #11, and asked if your objection was salvageable in light of my correction

15. You accused me of not knowing what words mean, and making an argument I did not make

1. Since I don’t really know how to respond to someone who is literally just making stuff up at this point, I decided to just summarize our discussion and let others be the judge.

 

[reggieM]

You missed it when I said: unnecessary and gratuitous. Not just any harm.

You added nothing to what I said, but if you insist:

I don’t think this definition works in a universal sense.
What it is saying is:
Harm can be done to people, if someone considers it necessary and non-gratuituous.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So in post #279 you wanted me to comment only on a “universe without evil” and not a “universe without the ideal of moral evil”. Instances of moral evil exist though angelic or human malice, which can be solely in the mind.

Right. But that’s not what anyone means when they say “the idea of evil.” The “idea of evil” means that you can conceive the idea of evil actions, in the same way that you can conceive the idea of flying like superman.
Yes, having malicious thoughts are examples of actual evil actions.
No, being able to conceive the idea of having malicious thoughts does not mean that you’ve actually had malicious thoughts.

 

[reggieM]

So what is that non-necessary thing that the universe is contingent on?

To prevent an infinite regress, contingent being relies, ultimately on necessary being. Necessary being is pure being, the source of existence itself. From the fullness of being, contingent beings were created.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This is a misconception. Necessity is not the same thing as “not created.” Necessity means that something could not have been otherwise. So, for example, if it were impossible for God to not create the world, then the world is both created and necessary.

We’re speaking about necessary being in the ultimate sense. A thing that is contingent on some other non-necessary thing, cannot be necessary in itself.

So what is that non-necessary thing that the universe is contingent on?

To prevent an infinite regress, contingent being relies, ultimately on necessary being. Necessary being is pure being, the source of existence itself. From the fullness of being, contingent beings were created.

So… you’re retracting your first objection? In order to raise the objection “A thing that is contingent on some other non-necessary thing” you must have thought that the universe was contingent on some other non-necessary thing. But now you’re admitting that the universe is not contingent on some other non-necessary thing?

So then my original point stands and your use of necessity was based on a misconception.