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

[FurtherSuntime]

I missed it, indeed. And I am not saying that any “free will” is important. As a constructor myself, I would never give “free will” to any of my creations (computer programs). But for some reason people around here insist that “free will” is something awesome, wonderful and MUST be there. My reply to them: if you have the freedom to make any choice, there is already free will. There is no logical need to extend that freedom into committing murders, etc… Mind you, our “free will” is not absolute. We are always constrained by our physical limitations. Important to point out: “free will” is the same as the “free ability to carry out one’s desires”.

Again, as a constructor, I consider any kind of “free will” a dumb choice of the constructor’s part. And if that “free will” is free enough to distort the intent of the creator, then it is not just dumb, but horribly stupid. Consider:

1. God is the constructor, with all his super-duper attributes.
2. God wishes to create the world, where everyone is “saved” (meaning without sin).
3. God gives the ability to humans to make free selections which will destroy the intended world. Due to the “original sin” not everyone is saved any more, and also the “goodness” of the world is destroyed.
4. God could have created a world without sin, and even give the people freedom - but not the freedom to destroy his creation.

This is what you, Catholics teach. In essence you teach that God is an idiot, who could have created the world he intended, but did not. No matter what I could say about God would be as disrespectful and demeaning to God, than what you, the believers say about him. Don’t you see the irony?

I don’t think its a matter of who is saved to be honest. I think thats a translation problem emerging out of insecurities… Most people do the best they can and don’t deserve all the non-sense. If man got rid of the childish superiority non-sense, genuineness may become a reality

Never good enough for all though, all requires a villain. The curtain must rise for the guilty one in todays twisted pretend game of spirituality. Give us a sinner or we shall make one up, we need to exercise our own madness. We must accuse, in order to feel un-accused.

Evaluation , sin…original sin are stories for the confused in order to find some kind of meaning
in a confused existence . Man remains unable to handle his own consciousness. Its early yet.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I did not mis-understand the dumb little parable, I was trying to show how bazaar the
given overview was. Besides the experience of evil translates a value to goodness. Therefore the goodness of the world cannot be destroyed anymore than energy can be destroyed. It is logical. Evil is a word for failed attempt, not non-attempt., and is relative. All rooted in genuine compassion is absolute goodness:thumbsup:Often we see people trying to use the failed attempt in others which represents sadness, in order to selfishly exalt themselves.by comparrison.
The very popular exalting, is the greatest evil of all… no doubt about it.

 

[PJM]

=Luke K;8240772]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.

READ Isaiah 43 7 and 21 and take NOTE of the word "MIGHT"

Because Permmiting Evil causes one to to choose Good or to choose evil. Choose Life of Death, Choose Love of God or HATE of God.

Choose carefully!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[shoe]

It seems to me that hell is a very suitable place for the people who get some kind of cruel pleasure by inflicting pain and injury unto their innocent and harmless victims. I believe that if God did not have a special place like hell for the likes of Hitler and other destructive people, many a person would probably be praying to God that He should create one.

 

[Luke_K]

On the contrary, a true and full guided tour of hell would prevent human freedom, because it would prevent us from choosing God freely. Think of it this way, if a woman know she will die cruelly if she does not marry me, then is her choice to marry me really free? We are told enough of how bad hell is and how great heaven is, but to safeguard our free will, the immediacy of the threat of hell is lessened.

Well frankly, it doesn’t seem like we have free will either way. What kind of choice is it to serve God or suffer in utter despair and torment for eternity? I think, being totally honest with myself, I would like to see or maybe even experience hell for a moment if it guaranteed that I would be persuaded not choose it, considering how awful it is. It doesn’t take a person’s free will away if they freely ask God to give them a “true and full guided tour of hell” as some saints supposedly have experienced.

As for God’s goodness, consider a parallel. It is good for me to become a doctor, but that does not mean that I am obligated to become a doctor, for it is also good for me to become a canon lawyer, a teacher, or a police officer and I cannot become them all. The mere fact that something is good, does not obligate one to do it. It was good for God to create, but he may not have been under obligation to create. (Though some would say, he may have been and that his freedom is different form human freedom. God’s freedom may consist in that he is compelled by no force outside himself and is free to flourish as the type of (greatest conceivable) being that he is free of external encumbrance). Second, the decision to create did not enhance God’s goodness because he was already morally perfect and the standard or moral goodness.

Well my concern isn’t specifically God’s freedom. It’s the fact that a world with free creatures cannot be greater than one without them, as long as God is in both worlds. Therefore, since free creatures do not make a world any better than without them, the only thing they can offer is the possibility of eternal evil.

What do you think the morally sufficient reason could be for a world with the possibility of evil that cannot be achieved without the possibility of evil? If the possibility of evil is required for a goodness that did not exist in God, then God is not the perfect fulfillment of goodness. Remember how Jesus said that God alone is good (Matthew 19:17)? Any goodness in creation is already present in God, and comes from God.

 

[Julia_Mae]

This is clearly expressed in the Catholic dogma, too. See the Dogmas:

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

Which clearly states that God actively participates in every human action, murders included.

How about instead of some anonymous website, you find some Vatican source for “Dogmas of the Catholic Church.”

 

[danserr]

What do you think the morally sufficient reason could be for a world with the possibility of evil that cannot be achieved without the possibility of evil? If the possibility of evil is required for a goodness that did not exist in God, then God is not the perfect fulfillment of goodness. Remember how Jesus said that God alone is good (Matthew 19:17)? Any goodness in creation is already present in God, and comes from God.

Don’t you think that free souls united to God and enjoying eternal happiness is a morally sufficient reason for creating a world with the possibility of evil? If such souls are not free to reject God (and hence do evil), then they are not really free to choose him, and hence not able to be freely united to Him. They would be mere automata.

I have a hard time completely following the rest of your post. It doesn’t seem to me that your counter-factual follows. God is the very paradigm and source of perfect moral goodness. This doesn’t change because he creates creatures with free will, since free will is an over-riding good or else a morally sufficient reason for allowing the existence of evil. This doesn’t make God less good in any way. He still remains morally perfect and the paradigm of moral goodness. Any good in creation does ultimately come from God, either because He made it good, or else gave his creatures free will who do good themselves. The evil is not from God, but from abuse of free will.

On the contrary, a true and full guided tour of hell would prevent human freedom, because it would prevent us from choosing God freely. Think of it this way, if a woman know she will die cruelly if she does not marry me, then is her choice to marry me really free? We are told enough of how bad hell is and how great heaven is, but to safeguard our free will, the immediacy of the threat of hell is lessened.

Well frankly, it doesn’t seem like we have free will either way. What kind of choice is it to serve God or suffer in utter despair and torment for eternity? I think, being totally honest with myself, I would like to see or maybe even experience hell for a moment if it guaranteed that I would be persuaded not choose it, considering how awful it is. It doesn’t take a person’s free will away if they freely ask God to give them a “true and full guided tour of hell” as some saints supposedly have experienced.

I think you are not sufficiently considering the analogy I suggested. Wouldn’t that interfere with a woman’s free will to marry? Wouldn’t a full guided tour of hell do the same? Why would it be different? Your brief full guided tour of hell would seem to interfere with your free will and your choice to freely choose God. So we are free because even though we are told hell is bad and awaits souls that reject God, the immediacy
of the threat is lessened. (like people who smoke even though the will die someday for it).

Now what do you mean, we don’t seem to have free will either way? As things stand now, it seems we do. People certainly seem to reject God on a regular basis. Hell simply allows people the freedom to reject Him. CS Lewis wrote that “the door to hell are locked on the inside.” Hell isn’t fiery torments, it is simply a soul choosing freely to reject God.

God leaves souls free to reject Him, because only then can their decision to accept Him have any meaning.

Sorry for the quick post, I need to run.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Poor George perseveres in his quest to stay away from the shadowy life. Struggling in addictions I suppose, awful living conditions, no friends most likely and who appears, fred the devil in his big shot limo trying to entice poor George to return to that which CAUSED ALL OF IT>

Except that it’s a real story and Fred isn’t like that at all. Know what’s interesting? Your bizarre rewrite of who Fred is, is a lot like what George said and how he ended up staying in “hell.” Except he didn’t blame the game, he blamed Fred for not lending him money.

Which doesn’t seem to bode too well for you, IMO.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Nonsense. Only a literally insane person would reject help.

It happens all the time. And while I present the story as a parable, it’s a true story. It isn’t even very unique.

You are obviously very angry and post very rudely. I’m sorry for whatever hurt you so much. But what I see is you, in pain, in a place where you could be assisted out of your pain, refusing help.

You seem to me to be the best and most obvious example of what I tried to explain: you have become part of something ugly and lightless, you are used to it, you seem to have no desire at all to leave it. We open the doors and say “Come out.” You attack, instead, making yourself now part of what is ugly and lightless. You have made yourself a hell you don’t even recognize as such. You are steeped in your powerless rage. Which is a really awful place to be.

Yet, you are here. So we’ll hope.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well frankly, it doesn’t seem like we have free will either way. .

Freewill is one of the most basic dogmas of the Catholic Church. I am wondering how you claim to be Catholic if you think there is no freewill, which is an atheist or certain type of Protestant position.

 

[Luke_K]

Freewill is one of the most basic dogmas of the Catholic Church. I am wondering how you claim to be Catholic if you think there is no freewill, which is an atheist or certain type of Protestant position.

I’m merely expressing a difficulty in understanding. I often use the word “seems” because I rarely claim to definitively know something.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’m merely expressing a difficulty in understanding. I often use the word “seems” because I rarely claim to definitively know something.

I beg your pardon. Thank you for explaining.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Except that it’s a real story and Fred isn’t like that at all. Know what’s interesting? Your bizarre rewrite of who Fred is, is a lot like what George said and how he ended up staying in “hell.” Except he didn’t blame the game, he blamed Fred for not lending him money.

Which doesn’t seem to bode too well for you, IMO.

Ah …ha ha ha…never mind my bode and try to keep focused:thumbsup:

 

[Spock]

How about instead of some anonymous website, you find some Vatican source for “Dogmas of the Catholic Church.”

I would love to, if there were such an article. Unfortunately Rome seems to be shy when it comes to details. I have never seen an officially endorsed list of dogmas, an official and detailed catechism, or an offical list of all the “infallible” teachings. Do a Google on “catholic dogmas” and see for yourself. The source I quoted is as accurate as it can be. You need to think about it. God actively participates in every torture, murder, rape and genocide. The infallible dogma of the Catholic Church says so.

You seem to me to be the best and most obvious example of what I tried to explain: you have become part of something ugly and lightless, you are used to it, you seem to have no desire at all to leave it. We open the doors and say “Come out.” You attack, instead, making yourself now part of what is ugly and lightless. You have made yourself a hell you don’t even recognize as such. You are steeped in your powerless rage. Which is a really awful place to be.

Well, I need to contradict you. I am the most optimistic, upbeat person you can ever hope to meet. Many times I have been mistaken for a devout Christian - based upon my behavior toward others - and when I came out of the “closet” there was geniune astonishment. (Have you taken in a homeless family into your home for over a year, feed them in your house, help them to get married, and deliver their first born? We did. So kindly put your condescending remarks about my dark and ugly nature into the proverbial place… )

But, if this is hell, I am glad to be here. It could be enhanced, of course, but it is pretty nice. There is nothing “dark and ugly” about it. If you wish to show me that there is a “better world”, you need to do better than tell me what you think about it. You need to show me - literally - that you are right and I am wrong. I will be very happy to be proven wrong. I would be very happy to “lose”, because “losing would be winning”. But you have to do better then reiterate your dogma. Words are cheap, no matter how honestly you believe them.

And, no, I am not rude at all, but I do not mince words, and use the phrases and expressions which are allowed by the rules of the board. If you don’t like it, that is your problem.

 

[Anthony_V]

God actively participates in every torture, murder, rape and genocide. The infallible dogma of the Catholic Church says so.

A God of loving compassion would not force you do do something out of your will, despite your nature to desire it. If that’s not true, what’s the difference between rape and sex? Likewise, God will not force his love upon you. You must accept it on your own accord, so a mutual giving might occur.

If by “actively participates” refers to a tolerance for a greater good, then yes. God then “actively participates” in said evils. You seem to have forgotten about the passion of Christ, in which he endured punishment for evils he did not even commit. If the creator himself endured such trials for the atonement of humanity, you can’t even imagine how the divine laws of justice work in their completion. If you did not prune a plant, but let it grow wild, it would make far less fruit than that of a tended one. In our case, we may decide how fruitful we want to be. If we constantly get the chance to choose between fruitful and fruitless, plus an invitation from our Lord to join him in Heaven, I don’t see how the opportunity could get much more perfect. We get the chance to choose if we want to be pruned or not.

Hell was not “made” for humans. It was “created” by fallen angels who departed from Heaven on their own accord. They very well knew the beauty of God and the bliss of Heaven, yet their pride caused them to sin. This dwelling away from God makes for incessant chaos, pain, destruction and the likes. God is all that is good, so that which is with/near God, is not good. God did not create Hell. Hell simply happened by the very nature of God’s goodness. When we die, our spirit departs from our body, of course. There are two basic choices: God, or not God.

 

[Spock]

A God of loving compassion would not force you do do something out of your will, despite your nature to desire it.

How would you decide, who is in the “driver’s seat”? Can we force God to actively do something that is not his will? If we could do that then God would be contingent upon our actions. But the dogmas say otherwise. God is absolute and immutable, whatever we do cannot have the slightest effect of him. God is absolutely simple (has no parts). Whatever we do is either actively willed (forced) by God or passively endorsed by God. In both cases they are in accord with his will. How could we do something that God does not want us to do?

Of course, I would gladly have God override my will, if that will is made upon incomplete and incorrect information. I would be most grateful to God, if he chose to hold my hand if I wanted to do something he fully knows is detrimental to his creation, and thus to myself. Moreover, I would consider that interference as the real, true sign of loving compassion you mentioned. Not the aloof silence (despite the fervent prayers to the contrary).

Likewise, God will not force his love upon you. You must accept it on your own accord, so a mutual giving might occur.

If only God would show his face to me, I would be in the position to make a meaningful choice. As is I am left to believe the word of some people who have no more information, than I do. And I do not believe them.

If by “actively participates” refers to a tolerance for a greater good, then yes. God then “actively participates” in said evils. You seem to have forgotten about the passion of Christ, in which he endured punishment for evils he did not even commit. If the creator himself endured such trials for the atonement of humanity, you can’t even imagine how the divine laws of justice work in their completion.

You know, what? I agree. It is impossible to fathom this so-called justice. It is anything BUT justice. The idea of this “atonement” is one of the teachings which makes absolutely no sense. Why would God need to have himself tortured and killed (question: how can God be killed??) and then when humans committed the MOST heinous act of all (deicide), then God could forgive our “trespasses”. Why could God simply forgive without going through that charade?

Hell was not “made” for humans. It was “created” by fallen angels who departed from Heaven on their own accord.

Gotta love these baseless assumptions - uttered as absolute, indisputable facts. As if you would have been there to observe. But be as it may, whoever did the actual construction of hell, did it with God’s active participation - if we accept the dogmas. Either God did it, or God “outsourced” it.

 

[Anthony_V]

How would you decide, who is in the “driver’s seat”? Can we force God to actively do something that is not his will? If we could do that then God would be contingent upon our actions. But the dogmas say otherwise. God is absolute and immutable, whatever we do cannot have the slightest effect of him. God is absolutely simple (has no parts). Whatever we do is either actively willed (forced) by God or passively endorsed by God. In both cases they are in accord with his will. How could we do something that God does not want us to do?

When absolute, power given is still power retained. God’s own will is exercised in his sharing of said will. If it was in his will, he could very much put you in a vegetative coma, and take away your free will. God’s power is such that we do not feel the weight of the chain, because it is in the chain that we are attached to him who is our rock and our hope. We often expect the rock to be wherever we might step. This is not the case, seeing as God is all… that is good.

Of course, I would gladly have God override my will, if that will is made upon incomplete and incorrect information. I would be most grateful to God, if he chose to hold my hand if I wanted to do something he fully knows is detrimental to his creation, and thus to myself. Moreover, I would consider that interference as the real, true sign of loving compassion you mentioned. Not the aloof silence (despite the fervent prayers to the contrary).

You just proved my point. I think you might misunderstand God’s overriding of will. You just said you wouldn’t mind it, and that in itself is submission.

If only God would show his face to me, I would be in the position to make a meaningful choice. As is I am left to believe the word of some people who have no more information, than I do. And I do not believe them.

I understand. It’s comforting to know we’re all on the same team, though, despite our differences. Same goal, just a lack of agreement on the means.

You know, what? I agree. It is impossible to fathom this so-called justice. It is anything BUT justice. The idea of this “atonement” is one of the teachings which makes absolutely no sense. Why would God need to have himself tortured and killed (question: how can God be killed??) and then when humans committed the MOST heinous act of all (deicide), then God could forgive our “trespasses”. Why could God simply forgive without going through that charade?

That’s a completely different topic called temporal punishment. When you get into the logistics of it, physical things do not invoke spiritual matters. Rather, spiritual things invoke physical matters. Physical/spiritual metaphysics aren’t my forte. You could ask someone more knowledgeable than I am

Gotta love these baseless assumptions - uttered as absolute, indisputable facts. As if you would have been there to observe. But be as it may, whoever did the actual construction of hell, did it with God’s active participation - if we accept the dogmas. Either God did it, or God “outsourced” it.

I’m embarrassed of my lack of resources I apologize. School and the likes are quite time consuming, so I don’t have much time for reading (save the Bible every now and then). Good thing I only have one year left of high school :extrahappy: I am ecstatic to get out of public school and be rid of artificial cafeteria food forever!

 

[meltzerboy]

W Somerset Maugham asked the same question in “The Razor’s Edge” and had some interesting answers to it. His character, Larry Darrell, rejects Christianity on the basis of jus that question. He says:

"If an all good and powerful God created the world, why would he create evil? The monks said ‘So that man, by conquering the wickedness within him, by resisting temptation, by accepting pain and sorrow and misfortune as the trials sent by God to purify him, might at last be made worthy to receive his Grace.’ " Larry is pained by this and questions whether it is sufficient to believe that God created such barriers or just found a world already in trouble and tried to make the best of it. Why should anyone worship such a God?

It is a difficult question indeed.

Given your background, you might be familiar with Judaism’s teaching that G-d created the Universe partially incomplete, and it is up to us to complete it by means of exercising our free will in the direction of moral behavior and acts of charity. Further, the so-called “evil inclination” serves the good purpose of challenging us to resist temptation and thereby enabling us to draw spiritually closer to G-d. Think of a parent who allows their child to eat their favorite dessert before finishing their meal. The child is happy about this but feels no real sense of achievement. On the other hand, the parent who requires that the child eat their meal first, before receiving dessert, enables them to appreciate the dessert even more and, in addition, feel some sense of accomplishment. Besides, the meal is, hopefully, a nutritious one, beneficial to the health of the child albeit unbeknown to them. Now, what G-d asks of us is even more challenging. Unlike the parent, He does NOT require us to do the right thing in order to reap spiritual rewards. Rather, He gives us the free will to choose good or evil, but not without some guidance and help along the way. Still, the ultimate choice is our own, since in so doing, we can feel the sense of achievement in our self-control and self-discipline, as well as aligning our will with G-d’s, and thus thinking, feeling, and behaving in a way that takes us BEYOND our own self-motivation. This process does not result in a destruction of the self but a realignment of it toward G-d’s intentions, of which we may become fortunate enough to understand are eternally beneficial to us.

 

[Anthony_V]

Given your background, you might be familiar with Judaism’s teaching that G-d created the Universe partially incomplete, and it is up to us to complete it by means of exercising our free will in the direction of moral behavior and acts of charity. Further, the so-called “evil inclination” serves the good purpose of challenging us to resist temptation and thereby enabling us to draw spiritually closer to G-d. Think of a parent who allows their child to eat their favorite dessert before finishing their meal. The child is happy about this but feels no real sense of achievement. On the other hand, the parent who requires that the child eat their meal first, before receiving dessert, enables them to appreciate the dessert even more and, in addition, feel some sense of accomplishment. Besides, the meal is, hopefully, a nutritious one, beneficial to the health of the child albeit unbeknown to them. Now, what G-d asks of us is even more challenging. Unlike the parent, He does NOT require us to do the right thing in order to reap spiritual rewards. Rather, He gives us the free will to choose good or evil, but not without some guidance and help along the way. Still, the ultimate choice is our own, since in so doing, we can feel the sense of achievement in our self-control and self-discipline, as well as aligning our will with G-d’s, and thus thinking, feeling, and behaving in a way that takes us BEYOND our own self-motivation. This process does not result in a destruction of the self but a realignment of it toward G-d’s intentions, of which we may become fortunate enough to understand are eternally beneficial to us.

Well spoken.

 

[Karenfern]

I like what Spock said.

Free will means that we can choose good or evil. We have inclinations to both, including the inclination to do less than we could to make the world a better place. I think the “slacker” tendency is way more prevalent than real nastiness.

God does not do evil. God may allow it but it is our doing, not God’s.