Why would God create a universe with even the possibility of eternal evil?

[Julia_Mae]

Now, that’s a relief.
And who, might I aks, invented that definition?

The same guy who invented the definition of atheist.

Or pencil.

Or or.

 

[razredge]

Now, that’s a relief.
And who, might I aks, invented that definition?

Well, if we worshipped an evil God we would all be maltheists.

Though I’m not sure you can say going by reason and empirical evidence alone that God is evil, at most he is merely indifferent and distant.

I think our belief that God is good comes from revelation or our perception that he is good (which is certainly more prevalent than its negation).

You should read Luke’s entire post. He explains it.

Which post? The original post with the two world comparison?
I think (among other issues with his proposition) he misunderstands the nature of ‘infinite’ as an attribute to God - where he thinks it is an actual infinite rather than the greatest conceivable or actual instance of a particular attribute or property.

 

[belorg]

The same guy who invented the definition of atheist.

The definition of atheist is an objecive definition, it was formulated by someone, but nobody actually invented it.

Or pencil.

See above

Or or.

See above

 

[belorg]

Well, if we worshipped an evil God we would all be maltheists.

No, you wouldn’t. You would still define your God as good. That’s why I ask ‘Who invented that definition’. I know the answer: theists did, they tend to define that which they belief in as good, but the real question is: is there any objective basis for calling God ‘good’?

Though I’m not sure you can say going by reason and empirical evidence alone that God is evil, at most he is merely indifferent and distant.

If you use empirical evidence and still mainatin that God intervenes in huma affairs, then God is not just indifferent and distant, he is evil by every definition of evil except a circular one.

I think our belief that God is good comes from revelation or our perception that he is good (which is certainly more prevalent than its negation).

I doubt the last part of your statement here is true.

Which post? The original post with the two world comparison?

Yes

I think (among other issues with his proposition) he misunderstands the nature of ‘infinite’ as an attribute to God - where he thinks it is an actual infinite rather than the greatest conceivable or actual instance of a particular attribute or property.

I don’t think he does.
Let’s say God is ‘the greatest conceivable or actual instance of the attribute or property of goodness’
God sans creation is the greatest good.
God with creation however, since creation is defined as less good than God, is not the greatest good anymore. So the conclusion is: the greatest good deliberately created lesser good, which is a contradiction because ‘the greatest conceivable or actual instance of the attribute or property of goodness’ cannot create the possibility of evil without ceasing to be ‘the greatest conceivable or actual instance of the attribute or property of goodness’.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The definition of atheist is an objecive definition, it was formulated by someone, but nobody actually invented it.

You were the one who used the word “invented” not me, I was just answering in the same way.

AND - having spoken to rather a lot of d self-identified atheists over the years, the definition is not so clear as you might believe. The word is from the Greek, you know, used in Holy Scripture to mean “without God.”

Consider:

386 Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

Properly, there is no name for that which we call “God” or any definition of Him, including some gender assignment made by the necessity of the limitation of human language.

God is good. It is not a quality of God, as if we might say “Fred is tall.” God* is* good. All goodness is God.

Evil emerges from the rejection of the good, it occurs ineluctably in the absence of God.

It’s a binary system.

 

[Julia_Mae]

This is not philosophically sound. You can’t treat nothing as if it has a substance (which you appear to do by calling it nothingness).

Metaphysics is still part of philosophy as far as I know. And it is not I who do it, you’ll have to speak to the Church. From the CCC:

338 Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun.

 

[razredge]

No, you wouldn’t. You would still define your God as good. That’s why I ask ‘Who invented that definition’. I know the answer: theists did, they tend to define that which they belief in as good, but the real question is: is there any objective basis for calling God ‘good’?

That’s a good question - I suppose he created us so he’s at least somewhat good.
I think there are philosophical proofs of God’s goodness but I don’t know them, I think we believe God is good mainly because Jesus said so.

If you use empirical evidence and still mainatin that God intervenes in huma affairs, then God is not just indifferent and distant, he is evil by every definition of evil except a circular one.

Ah, but I don’t maintain that God intervenes in human affairs (except perhaps very, very occassionally).

I don’t think he does.
Let’s say God is ‘the greatest conceivable or actual instance of the attribute or property of goodness’
God sans creation is the greatest good.
God with creation however, since creation is defined as less good than God, is not the greatest good anymore. So the conclusion is: the greatest good deliberately created lesser good, which is a contradiction because ‘the greatest conceivable or actual instance of the attribute or property of goodness’ cannot create the possibility of evil without ceasing to be ‘the greatest conceivable or actual instance of the attribute or property of goodness’.

The possibility of evil present in creation is necessary for the greater good of free creatures who share existence with God.

 

[joshrp]

God is perfectly good in and of himself. How then is it compatible with God’s perfect goodness to create a universe with a significant probability of eternal evil? The eternal evil I speak of is that of Satan, demons, and damned humans.

Think of it the comparison between these two worlds:

1. Only God exists. This world has infinite goodness and no possibility for evil.
2. God and free creatures exist. This world has infinite goodness but also the possibility for eternal damnation and evil.

No more goodness can be attained by creating. Only the possibility of evil is added.

Freedom is good. A universe with free creatures is better than one without it. So regardless of whether the universe has good or evil in it, a universe with freedom in it is the best of all. And if you have freedom then you are going to have to allow people and angels to choose evil if that is what they want to do.