Why would God create if destined for hell?

[SilentKnight]

I’m a fairly smart guy, but I haven’t a clue of what your trying to say.

Ditto.

This said, I sympathize with your frustration over asking a fairly simple question and just about everyone failing to grasp what it is you are asking, but I did answer your question in a post you may well have missed in the fray.

The direct answer I provided is that we simply don’t know, although the more I think about the situation, the more I wonder if that’s true. (More in a moment.)

The indirect answer I provided was that people essentially ask this question for one of two reasons: Because, in faith, they want to understand better, or because of less noble intentions, they want to be able to pin responsibility for their actions on someone other than themselves.

Ultimately, as many have managed to say thus far, people end up in hell as a matter of justice, not as a matter of the whim of a capricious God. So, we may not know why God would create someone, knowing in advance where their final hopeless destiny lay. But we do know that those who end up in hell have no one but themselves to blame for it. In answer to your original question, an indirect but important point.

Now. Back to my assertion that we don’t know. As I said, I’m not sure that’s true. The more I contemplated the situation, the more it seemed to me that justice is itself the answer. At the risk of sounding painfully and even foolishly redundant, the answer would be “because reality is reality”. Let me see if I can elaborate on this with sufficient clarity…

If one is going to create men and women and offer them the choice of life or (spiritual) death and, with it, the consequences, then one must offer men and women the choice of life or death and, with it, the consequences. It is “not fair” to do this and then take away the consequences for those who make a negative choice.

Doing so does not, as Leif suggested, eliminate the free choice for good that those destined for Heaven make. It does eliminate the choice those destined for hell would make. Some might call this “mercy”, and I am not in a position to deny that that’s what this is. My “rebuttal” to this, however, (and it’s a very interesting one, if I may say so - realize that this is not something I have previously “crafted”, it is all now spontaneously floating into my mind ) is that the nature of mercy is that it is extended only to those who want it. Those who are destined for hell, by definition, do not want it. Thus, reality being what it is, God does not prevent the generation of those who will end up in hell because - in a “weird” sort of way - they don’t want Him to. They are there because they have chosen to be so. Justice.

…So maybe in this way, some of the others really have been answering your question all along - just none of us (including the posters themselves, I’d bet) have realized it until now. LOL.

SK

 

[Nullasalus]

Ditto.

I’m not trying to be difficult - so far two people have at least understood enough to offer counterexamples to me. If there’s a part which you find confusing and you’re truly curious, ask and I’ll do my best to explain.

 

[SilentKnight]

Some beings deserving of heaven may have contingent links to beings deserving of hell. And I do not buy the response that an omnipotent God can just create said deserving beings without the contingent link and still be the ‘same’ being.

What does this mean? I understand the English, but don’t understand the theory. I can’t really be more specific with my question because I don’t understand at all what you’re talking about and, thus, wouldn’t know how to be more specific.



SK

 

[Nullasalus]

What does this mean? I understand the English, but don’t understand the theory. I can’t really be more specific with my question because I don’t understand at all what you’re talking about and, thus, wouldn’t know how to be more specific.

That’s specific enough, honestly. Let me preface this by saying I think any question of hell is more complicated than “Why does God torture some people for all eternity?” You have to wonder about the nature of hell - is it eternal excruciating torment? Do certain sins merit certain torments, but eventually they are ‘paid for’ until you’re left with a bearable, but forever damned existence? Etc.

What I’m saying is this: Imagine there is a person (Agent 1) who, owing to a certain feature they have (let’s call it feature X), merits damnation.

There is another person, call them Agent 2. They don’t have feature X - if they’re born, they’ll go to heaven. But Agent 2’s existence is somehow dependent on Agent 1’s existence. Say (as another poster gave) Agent 2 will commit a rape resulting in Agent 1’s birth.

That introduces a dilemma. By the standards outlined here, Agent 1 is going to hell. But if you spare the world Agent 1, you’re keeping Agent 2 from being born. From the perspective of an omnibenevolent God, I’m not certain it’s more right to keep Agent 1 from being born to spare him damnation at the cost of denying Agent 2 life and salvation - I think a strong argument can be made in the other direction. I also disagree that God could just create Agent 2 in a world without Agent 1, because it seems to me that history is an essential part of individual being. You could create someone that is LIKE Agent 2. Someone similar, even very similar, to Agent 2. Certainly identical in appearance. But without the actions of Agent 1, it will never truly be Agent 2.

There are a few ways to question this, I think, but I hope this at gives you a better idea of where I’m coming from.

 

[SilentKnight]

That’s specific enough, honestly. Let me preface this by saying I think any question of hell is more complicated than “Why does God torture some people for all eternity?” You have to wonder about the nature of hell - is it eternal excruciating torment? Do certain sins merit certain torments, but eventually they are ‘paid for’ until you’re left with a bearable, but forever damned existence? Etc.

What I’m saying is this: Imagine there is a person (Agent 1) who, owing to a certain feature they have (let’s call it feature X), merits damnation.

There is another person, call them Agent 2. They don’t have feature X - if they’re born, they’ll go to heaven. But Agent 2’s existence is somehow dependent on Agent 1’s existence. Say (as another poster gave) Agent 2 will commit a rape resulting in Agent 1’s birth.

That introduces a dilemma. By the standards outlined here, Agent 1 is going to hell. But if you spare the world Agent 1, you’re keeping Agent 2 from being born. From the perspective of an omnibenevolent God, I’m not certain it’s more right to keep Agent 1 from being born to spare him damnation at the cost of denying Agent 2 life and salvation - I think a strong argument can be made in the other direction. I also disagree that God could just create Agent 2 in a world without Agent 1, because it seems to me that history is an essential part of individual being. You could create someone that is LIKE Agent 2. Someone similar, even very similar, to Agent 2. Certainly identical in appearance. But without the actions of Agent 1, it will never truly be Agent 2.

There are a few ways to question this, I think, but I hope this at gives you a better idea of where I’m coming from.

Gotcha. Yes. In fact, part of this actually strikes me as an alternate “translation” of what I just said to Onetime above. Same (or at least similar) idea, different wording. (…I think.)

And my reply to this - after scrupulously noting that you reversed Agent 1 and 2 in the underlined section - is that we know from theology that it is never permissible to do evil in order that good may result. Evil can only be tolerated/allowed for the sake of a greater good, not actually committed with the intention of bringing good out of it. If it is not permissible, then it is neither desirable. Right? If not desirable, then not preferred, or “better”.

The way you worded the scenario was “From the perspective of an omnibenevolent God, I’m not certain it’s more right to keep Agent 1 from being born to spare him damnation at the cost of denying Agent 2 life and salvation”. Here’s the rub. Agent 2 - prior to the post-assault conception - does not exist. Therefore, it is misspeech to state that it is “not right” to keep Agent 2 from essentially going to Heaven. Yes. In fact, it is because if one backs up a step, one must first realize that Agent 2 only exists because Agent 1 raped someone. First and foremost, if our concern is living according to Catholic teaching, we must be concerned with the act of the rape itself and decry its actualization. We must advocate and hope that it never happen in the first place. To look at what might happen after the rape and see good in that and to then say that “it is better that it happened” is not consistent with Catholic moral theology. This, instead, is something called “consequentialism”. The belief that the ends justify the means. They do not in any way, shape, or form. To say that they do is to relativize the nature of sin.

SK

 

[Nullasalus]

This, instead, is something called “consequentialism”. The belief that the ends justify the means. They do not in any way, shape, or form. To say that they do is to relativize the nature of sin.

SK

My first response is: The Book of Job.

I think you are making a grand mistake by trying to argue that God is constrained by the same commandments He institutes for humanity. Further, nowhere did I say that Catholics should not be concerned with rape, with murder, with sin, etc. We must do our best to follow God’s commandments, and submit our will to God’s.

But if God chooses to allow sin, I’m in no position to question that. Especially considering that if I insisted that God allow no evil in the world, I wouldn’t exist, nor would anyone I know, nor would anyone who’s ever existed, most likely. One reason “the ends don’t justify the means” for humans is precisely because we are limited beings in every way; we don’t really know what the true ends are, because time presses inexorably marches forward no matter what we do or what we aim for. Nor can we be certain we have the capacity to fix whatever we break; if someone dies as a result of my carelessness, I can’t put that right.

God’s in a different situation - He occupies a position of omniscience and omnipotence. He can right wrongs, end evils, etc. I provided one reason God may permit evil, or even damnation. I don’t know God’s mind, so obviously I could be wrong about this, or only partially right, etc. But I wouldn’t be able to apply a human standard to God. Where was I when the mountains were raised, and all that.

 

[SilentKnight]

My first response is: The Book of Job.

Sorry. Again, I’m not sure what this means…?

I think you are making a grand mistake by trying to argue that God is constrained by the same commandments He institutes for humanity.

I’m not…?

Further, nowhere did I say that Catholics should not be concerned with rape, with murder, with sin, etc. We must do our best to follow God’s commandments, and submit our will to God’s.

But if God chooses to allow sin, I’m in no position to question that. Especially considering that if I insisted that God allow no evil in the world, I wouldn’t exist, nor would anyone I know, nor would anyone who’s ever existed, most likely. One reason “the ends don’t justify the means” for humans is precisely because we are limited beings in every way; we don’t really know what the true ends are, because time presses inexorably marches forward no matter what we do or what we aim for. Nor can we be certain we have the capacity to fix whatever we break; if someone dies as a result of my carelessness, I can’t put that right.

1. The ends do not justify the means because the ends do not justify the means. Or, put differently, because morality is objective, not subjective. They do not fail to justify the means because we are unable to know what the ends will end up being.
2. God allowing sin and saying that sin is ultimately a “good thing” because it ends up bringing about a lot of good are two completely different concepts, first of all. And second, the latter is, as I have already noted, fallacious thinking. It doesn’t square with Catholic theology. See John Paul II’s *Veritatis Splendor *for more.)
3. Not to sound “crass” or “uncaring”, but if, say, Adam and Eve had never sinned and then most of us in the world never came to be as some sort of consequence to that, great!!! It would be “unfortunate” for us (not that there would, in this case, be an “us” to begin with, but…) but no sin!! Perfect!! (No pun intended. )

SK

 

[thomfra]

Because God wants friends and lovers - not puppets.

If our love for God is “cooked” into us, then it isn’t our love at all, but only His own manipulation. He creates us free because He wants our love for him to be genuine.

Yes, there is the risk that we won’t love Him, and will end up in Hell. But because there is the possibility that we won’t love Him, the fact that we do love Him is all the more sweeter to Him.

Yes but why would god who need anything? He’s God - he omnipotent “needs” nothing?

 

[Nullasalus]

Sorry. Again, I’m not sure what this means…?

Book of the bible. I’d recommend it, but I’m spelling out why I’m taking the position I am here anyway, so I guess it’s not totally necessary. Mostly the end, where Job starts asking for answers about why God would permit his suffering.

I’m not…?

Then I don’t get why you’re bringing up consequentialism in response to what I’m saying. If it’s to insist that humans should never permit evil on the justification that the ends are worth it, I agree. If it’s to insist God never permit it, well, then that’s constraining God by said commandments.

1. The ends do not justify the means because the ends do not justify the means. Or, put differently, because morality is objective, not subjective. They do not fail to justify the means because we are unable to know what the ends will end up being.

I said part of the reason - there are other arguments. I agree that morality is objective, in that God’s goodness is the source of morality. I personally am not prepared to argue ‘God has no justification to allow killing’. Considering the crucifixion, I think this position has some flaws for a Christian perspective.

1. God allowing sin and saying that sin is ultimately a “good thing” because it ends up bringing about a lot of good are two completely different concepts, first of all. And second, the latter is, as I have already noted, fallacious thinking. It doesn’t square with Catholic theology. See John Paul II’s *Veritatis Splendor *for more.)

I can’t be certain, but I feel like we’re not communicating between each other properly here. I’m not saying that sin itself is an ultimately good thing. I’d be tempted to say that God allowing sin is entirely justifiable, or could be given the rationale I’ve provided.

1. Not to sound “crass” or “uncaring”, but if, say, Adam and Eve had never sinned and then most of us in the world never came to be as some sort of consequence to that, great!!! It would be “unfortunate” for us (not that there would, in this case, be an “us” to begin with, but…) but no sin!! Perfect!! (No pun intended. )

Apparently, God has reasons for permitting sin. Maybe there’s an Adam and Eve somewhere, in some reality, that will result in a perfect and non-fallen world. I’m reminded of Perelandra.

 

[thomfra]

YES YES YES YES YES

PRECISELY.

This is a question I really want an answer to as well.

Answers like “because he loves us, and wants us to love him” seem to be the standard responses on other threads.

But I believe that the only correct answer is “we don’t know why, it’s beyond our grasp”.

 

[onetimeposter]

Silentknight, thanks for your response…well thought out.

Nullasalus, your theory is not taking into an account that if this were to take place…how could a benevolent God be the author of your scenario…wouldn’t that contradict his benevolence?

As far as the notion that good can come out of evil and that is why it is permitted, even if only God has the wisdom to see the good…there is a problem with that.

Take a fictitious example of a prostitute who is murdered by a homeless man, who then commits suicide.

The bodies are never found, no one ever goes looking for either person as they are both marginalized, no one misses them and the few people they knew, simply assume that they went to live in another city.

There has been no good that came of this and because no person on earth knows the two people are dead, one of them murdered, what good could possibly come from an act that is unknown to anyone?

 

[john_doran]

Why can He not actualize a world in which everyone chooses rightly?

you know the answer to this already: possibly there is no such world.

SeekingCatholic:

No, that’s not the meaning of free choices, and the compatibilists and Thomists and Molinists disagree with you.

well, you’re certainly correct about the compatibilists, but not so much about thomism and molinism.

but even if you are right about those views, then so much the worse for them: the notion that a choice can at one and the same time be “free”, but also “determined” is simply and straightforwardly incoherent.

if we can’t see eye-to-eye on this point, then i’m not sure how further discussion can work.

SeekingCatholic:

So then, under Thomism, God could certainly create a world in which all creatures chose rightly.

??? no, not necessarily. how does that follow from the simple contingency of created beings?

SeekingCatholic:

Plantinga’s “transworld depravity” defense is based on the idea that for all we know, every possible creature in each possible world will go wrong at least once. The existence of the good angels refutes this.

no. the simple fact that the good angels didn’t sin in this world does not entail that there are not other possible worlds where they did sin.

SeekingCatholic:

Premise 1 is true. In the case of Thomism, our actions are pre-determined because God caused them. Look it up if you don’t believe me. (ST I-II Q.79 A.2)

oh, i’m aware of thomas’ views on the human will, and they are vexed and more nuanced than your reading.

god “causes” the will by creating it and its nature, and moves it by being man’s ultimate good (in the way other external goods are said to move the will). but neither of these influences on the will are determinative of specific acts of willing.

SeekingCatholic:

In the case of Molinism, our actions are pre-determined because God caused the external circumstances, and the external circumstances are of the nature of a brute fact counterfactual (in every possible world in which X is in situation A, he will do Y).

not so, i’m afraid.

look, a choice is free if there are (at least) two possible worlds, W and W* that are identical up to the time t of a choice, but which differ at t only in the difference of choice made in each world.

what god sees is his own counterfactual of freedom: namely, that if he actualizes W, then C will occur; and if he actualizes W*, then C* will occur. but this is not determining the choice, since the choice is a feature of the possible world ***independently **of god’s action. all god does is make world W or world W, the actual world, which obviously does nothing to determine their constitutive states of affairs.

(incidentally, this is precisely the thomistic concept of god’s “causing” free choices: he creates them without thereby ***determining ***them).

SeekingCatholic:

So you prove my point. The efficacy of grace is caused by God. So why couldn’t God have actualized a world in which all creatures cooperate with grace?

because (possibly) there isn’t such a world.

SeekingCatholic:

Then you have just thrown Catholic moral theology into the toilet. It teaches that one may tolerate an evil for the sake of a greater good or to avoid a worse evil. Your categorization of this as “consequentialism/utilitarianism” is way off the mark.

no, i haven’t; and no, it’s not.

it’s the very core principle of utilitarian ethics to maximize the good (or minimize evil).

i realize that some traditional ethical idiom favors talking about greater good, but as a matter of substantive moral reasoning, that kind of talk has no place in (catholic) ethics. at all.

SeekingCatholic:

If God does not have a greater good in mind, or avoiding a worse evil, then the evil of damnation is gratuitous and God is not omnibenevolent.

again, no. the evil of hell is foreseen but unintended, just like the death of the attacker legitimately killed in self-defense; or the innocent lives lost when bombing a military facility; or…

 

[john_doran]

1. What “specific kind of freedom” is that, that doesn’t exist in a world in which no creatures choose eternal hatred of god?

that specific kind: where the result of some unimpeded/uninfuenced free choices result in eternal hatred of god. it’s the good of the freedom to choose that is willed, and the horrible choices actually made that is accepted as a foreseen but unintended consequence.

SeekingCatholic:

1. Yes it does need to be better, or else the evil is gratuitous.

no. see above.

SeekingCatholic:

All analogies limp, and this one suffers permanent paralysis. The proper analogy here is your friend’s son is drowning while your own child is only suffering sunburn, and you choose to apply lotion to your own child rather than rescue your friend’s.

no, that’s not the proper analogy.

that would be the proper analogy if there was good reason to think that there was no other way to understand the relationship between god’s actions and the existence of hellbound individuals. but there is another way…

so my analogy limps on to the finish line…

SeekingCatholic:

And I deny the impossibility. In the first place, such a world is not logically impossible as it entails no contradiction.

no contradiction that is evident to you based on that simple description.

frege thought his famous begriffsschrift wasn’t logically impossible for a long time, until russell pointed out the eponymous russellian antinomy, and it was revealed that, as formulated, frege’s theory was contradictory and thus logically impossible.

so maybe you’re right; but if you are, it’ll take more to establish that correctness that simple assertion.

SeekingCatholic:

Under Molinism, imagine a world with only one rational being. One would be forced to the conclusion then that no matter what being is created, and no matter what external circumstances, his first act must be rejection of God. Yet we know the first act of the good angels was acceptance of God.

the discussion isn’t about the creation of any world: it’s about the creation of this world (understood as a constellation of sufficiently proximate possible worlds).

god could have created a world with ***no ***rational beings, too, and there’d be no hell. but so what?
SeekingCatolic:

OK, then what other value is there?

freely choosing beings and the lives they live.

 

[elvisman]

God knows what our choice will be…He is omniscient.

He knows we will choose hell. He is creating a life, that He knows will use it’s free will too choose Hell. Therefor God is creating a life destined to an eternity damned in hell.

If God doesn’t know what our choices will be, before we make them, then God is not omniscient.

Can you address this?

You’re reading but you’re not understanding.
Jeremiah 1:5 says:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". He sees us before we were born and after we’re dead - simultaneously.

Yes, he knows exactly what your choices will be but he loved you enough to let you make that choice.

 

[Nullasalus]

Nullasalus, your theory is not taking into an account that if this were to take place…how could a benevolent God be the author of your scenario…wouldn’t that contradict his benevolence?

I don’t believe so. In fact, I think God deciding to only permit the existence of utterly perfect beings unconnected to either evil or hell would be vastly less benevolent. Keep in mind that when you argue ‘a truly benevolent God would never permit any evil to take place’, to me you’re saying ‘a truly benevolent God would never permit the existence of this world I know, or any individuals in it’. That alone should at least raise a red flag and make you wonder if your position isn’t overlooking something.

There has been no good that came of this and because no person on earth knows the two people are dead, one of them murdered, what good could possibly come from an act that is unknown to anyone?

There are a few problems with the example, but I’ll focus on the principle one: Whether or not anyone realizes what happened to those two, the effects of the deaths are going to fan out and multiply throughout the world upon the instant. People who would have met and interacted with either dead person will not have these events take place. Interactions with people who met those changed people (changed because they would have had different experiences) do not take place. Even meeting them isn’t necessary; their existence would have changed the world in any number of ways that will no longer come to pass, with eventual effects on other things/people, which eventually affect other things/people, and so on. There’s no point at which the ‘domino effect’ of these changes stop.

While we can’t perfectly picture the effects of those deaths (heck, we probably can’t even get a real grasp on the changes; there’s too many possibilities), I think it’s easy to understand the general idea of those consequences. Seemingly innocuous, minor events (Should I move to New York? What about Oregon?) result in a storm of differences in the world. My own existence is built on an ocean of past events and interactions stretching far, far back in time. Since I’m grateful for my existence to say the least, it makes sense for me to be grateful that all those past events were permitted. Even the experiences in my life that were painful or harmful to me - wishing those did not occur means wishing I (and others) didn’t exist. Luckily I have a future where I can hope for and work towards good and restitution. Good enough for me.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m pretty sure the Church teaches that God new you before you were born.

Because God lives outside of time, past present future is meaningless to Him…he see’s all and knows all. He knows what every decision you will ever make will be, before you have even made those decision.

You said…From God’s point of view, everything has already happened.

So, please answer my question…why is an all good, all loving God creating people who he knows will end up in hell?

Because there is no “will end up” with God. God is in Eternity, not in Time.

With God, as soon as He thinks of you and knows you, you are already created, have lived, have died, and have already ended up in Hell, all in the same instant that He thought of you. God’s action of thinking about you is what causes you to exist.

 

[Justin_A]

God did not create us to go to hell. True, many go there, but it is our choise, whether or not we think so, if we end up in hell. GOD
GAVE US HIS ONLY SON so that we might make it to heaven!

 

[onetimeposter]

Because there is no “will end up” with God. God is in Eternity, not in Time.

With God, as soon as He thinks of you and knows you, you are already created, have lived, have died, and have already ended up in Hell, all in the same instant that He thought of you. God’s action of thinking about you is what causes you to exist.

So, then why would an all good and all loving God create a life, that he knows will end up in hell, because God is all knowing and all seeing and he knows ahead of time that the person will make choices that will condemn themselves to hell?

If God cannot see a persons life before they have lived it, then God is not all knowing or all seeing.

You are avoiding the question entirely.

 

[onetimeposter]

God did not create us to go to hell. True, many go there, but it is our choise, whether or not we think so, if we end up in hell. GOD
GAVE US HIS ONLY SON so that we might make it to heaven!

You are yet another person who either cannot grasp the content of my question or you are choosing not to grasp the content of my question…follow along please:

1. God new us before we were born.
2. God is all knowing and all seeing.
3. God is all loving and all good.
4. Because God is all knowing and all seeing, God knows precisely every decision will we will ever make with our free will.
5. Because God is all knowing and all seeing, God will know ahead of time how we will live our lives and God will know what choices we make and those choices that people make, will determine if they go to heaven or hell.
6. One more time - God all knowing all seeing, God knows everything that will ever happen to us and knows every decision we will ever make…God will know ahead of time if we are destined for heaven or hell, because of our choices.
7. If God is all loving and all good, how could he create a person, when he knows before that person is born, that that person will live a life that will condemn themselves to hell.
8. Wouldn’t the more loving and good thing to do would be not to create the life that is destined for hell, rather than have that life spend eternity in hell?

**EVERYONE, PLEASE STOP TELLING ME IT’S OUR CHOICE…I KNOW THAT!

THIS QUESTION IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED, RATHER THE ANSWER IS COMPLICATED ( IF THERE EVEN IS AN ANSWER. THIS QUESTION IS ABOUT GODS FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE LIFE WE WILL LIVE AND THE CHOICES THAT WE WILL MAKE, BECAUSE GOD IS ALL KNOWING AND ALL SEEING)**

 

[Justin_A]

You must remember the t God, DID NOT, create us even to die!
We were made in the garden of Eden. There was no death,sikness or anything ells even like it. Our first parents, Adam & Eve chose death. It says in Genesis 3:2-4, when Eve is talking to the serpant:" We may eat of any tree in the garden ACCEPT the on in the center LEST WE DIE. The bible also says that Saten is “A lyer and the father of lye’s, a murderur from the begining”. Hell was created along with death when we CHOSE it. No evil thing can enter heaven, were God, ho is all good dwells.
So, WE, in a sence, chose, & made hell along with death, for our selfes. It’s a dark and unwanted statement I know, but its the truth, and God said, “the trth will set you free”.