Problem of Evil

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:52 PM']agreed.

That still makes world 2 impossible though.
[right][snapback]896326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Agreed.

[Snarf]

As for free will in heaven, I had a lapsed Protestant friend (now she believes in God, attends services, but is pretty unreligous in her views) tell me that she has a hard time accepting heaven because personal interests will always collide, even if they're well-intended enough to merit a place in heaven. My problem with that view is that it judges a mustard plant from its seed. I think we will transcend in heaven our earthly demeanors not to the point that free will is abolished, but that it will be superfluous. In Revelations, where John sees all the elect as being robed in white, I personally interpret that as meaning that all souls in heaven will essentially be the same, except for the perfectified body. We will all have our somatically unique sentience, but I think that our intelligence, judgment, and pleasures will be the same. I can tolerate having grown up a Hoosier with my personal likes, dislikes, rational abilities, and dispositions, but I can't really make sense of the idea of taking them beyond the corporeal world.

I just don't see baseball versus football arguments as being possible in heaven.

And yes, Mary was simply born without Original Sin, but she was fully capable of denegrating that Grace by freely choosing personal sin. Lucky for us, she didn't.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 23 2006, 11:28 PM']As for free will in heaven, I had a lapsed Protestant friend (now she believes in God, attends services, but is pretty unreligous in her views) tell me that she has a hard time accepting heaven because personal interests will always collide, even if they're well-intended enough to merit a place in heaven.  My problem with that view is that it judges a mustard plant from its seed.  I think we will transcend in heaven our earthly demeanors not to the point that free will is abolished, but that it will be superfluous.  In Revelations, where John sees all the elect as being robed in white, I personally interpret that as meaning that all souls in heaven will essentially be the same, except for the perfectified body.  We will all have our somatically unique sentience, but I think that our intelligence, judgment, and pleasures will be the same.  I can tolerate having grown up a Hoosier with my personal likes, dislikes, rational abilities, and dispositions, but I can't really make sense of the idea of taking them beyond the corporeal world.

I just don't see baseball versus football arguments as being possible in heaven.[/quote]
And all this time I thought we would just be loving to glorify God seeing Him face to face. Silly me.

[rkwright]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:43 PM']No.

Sin must be a choice.

World #2 can't exist as you've described. Sin is a choice against God's will.

Free will means we can choose against God... sin.
[right][snapback]896248[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I disagree with you here, and if I'm not mistaken I think Pap would too.

Free will only means choice, it does not mean sin. A world can be completely sinless and free will still exist (Garden of Eden\Adam and Eve, or Heaven). Sin is dependent on free will, but Free will is NOT dependent on sin.

World #2 has free will but no sin. Its like the Garden of Eden with no fall. Why is this impossible? Its how the world was created, why is it impossible for it to have remained this way?

[quote]Why won't they sin? It doesn't make sense. Mary was extraordinary... not wholly different, just an INCREDIBLE example of love of God. If there are MANY free creatures, many will choose against God.[/quote]

Now you're getting it. It is extremely unlikely, the probabilitiy of this world is very small. BUT it is possible, and so when God was looking at the which world He wanted to create, why didn't he choose that one?

Pap how is World #2 impossible? is this the line you're refering to?

[quote]#2 is not an option because it fails to recongize the possibility that free will presents.[/quote]

I assume by possibility you mean possibility to choose sin? How do free creatures that never choose to sin fail to 'recognize' (though I think demonstrate would work better here) free will? Since Mary never sinned did she not recognize the possibility of free will? Or Adam and Eve pre-fall?

Thanks for the help on this guys!

Edited February 24, 2006 by rkwright

[Snarf]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 23 2006, 11:42 PM']And all this time I thought we would just be loving to glorify God seeing Him face to face. Silly me.
[right][snapback]896354[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Thank you for reminding me that I can't even escape condescension at a Catholic message board.

[N/A Gone]

a really good book...i mean a very amazing good book on this is called

"Is God to Blame"
by Dr. Greg Boyd.

i cant give it enough props

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 24 2006, 01:27 AM']Thank you for reminding me that I can't even escape condescension at a Catholic message board.
[right][snapback]896403[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was not trying to be condescending, but rather just lighthearted. My apologies that my comment was not accepted in the same spirit it was written in.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Feb 24 2006, 02:58 AM']a really good book...i mean a very amazing good book on this is called

"Is God to Blame"
by Dr. Greg Boyd.

i cant give it enough props
[right][snapback]896422[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Rev good to see you back! your thoughts on this? Of course an open thiest can get around this problem very easily...

[Paphnutius]

[quote]Pap how is World #2 impossible? is this the line you're refering to?[/quote]Becuase in effect in world two the creatures cannot choose otherwise. The creatures must choose God because He has actually "forced" or "coerced" them into accepting Him by what you are calling grace. They cannot reject that grace for God has made them to accept it. Mary never sinned, fact, but that does not mean that Mary was incapable of sinning. In order for the creatures to be free, they must be able to choose for God by freedom of will, this would at least seem to imply that there are other options.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 24 2006, 10:29 AM']Becuase in effect in world two the creatures cannot choose otherwise. The creatures must choose God because He has actually "forced" or "coerced" them into accepting Him by what you are calling grace. They cannot reject that grace for God has made them to accept it.  Mary never sinned, fact, but that does not mean that Mary was incapable of sinning. In order for the creatures to be free, they must be able to choose for God by freedom of will, this would at least seem to imply that there are other options.
[right][snapback]896565[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The people of world #2 have the same choices we do. They can reject the grace just as Mary had the choice. But when its all said and done, at the end of time, the people in world #2 never sinned and always opted for good.

World #2 the people are still free, they are faced with the same choices, but they don't choose to sin. A sinless, yet free world. The choice of sinning is present, but they never do it. Evil is a possibility, but it is never actualized in world #2. In world #2 Adam and Eve are still faced with the choice to eat the apple, but they don't. Why don't they ever sin? Because they freely chose not to. They weren't forced into it any more than in our world they weren't forced to eat it.

This all hinges on possibilities. Look at it from outside time, from the Creator's perspective. He can make 2 worlds with free creatures in it. He knows that at the end of time, when the worlds have run their course, that in world #1 sin will exist. There will be evil, hardship, ect all due to the free creatures choices in it. When He looks at the possibility of making world #2, He sees that at the end of time, even when faced with temptations, they never strayed. They always stayed with God and there is no sin in this world. Why did the Creator make world #1 over #2?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 24 2006, 09:56 AM']Rev good to see you back! your thoughts on this?  Of course an open thiest can get around this problem very easily...
[right][snapback]896548[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


how do you think we would get around it very easy? hehe...buyt yea, theodicy is a major reason I hold to openess principles

[Myles Domini]

I have always balked at the Problem of Evil because I do not regard it as a problem. I find the obsession with the problem of evil amongst people today to be a culturally conditioned phenomena mainly amognst people who have no direct experience of the most gratitious forms of suffering.

The places in the world where monotheism is growing fastest are the places where its agreed people are suffering most profoundly. Yet, it is generally agreed that those peoples are the most 'conservative' believers and find no problems accepting the traditional understanding of God's goodness in spite of their plight.

In my opinion I believe its symptomatic of Westerners being accustomed to instant gratitification at the wave of a dollar or a euro that causes Europeans and Americans find evil to be such a 'problem'. Case in point St Thomas Aquinas.

Some people say that Aquinas' answer to the problem of evil is unsatisfactory. But what gives them the right to say that? My answer to most modern critics of Aquinas is that when they've experienced the war torn, disease ridden, violent nature of medieval Europe whilst holding the vows of poverty, chastity and obidience I will begin to take note of their criticisms!

As to your question why world #2? Well if you follow Alvin Plantinga's free will defence then there is no way it could've been otherwise. Me I'm not so sure. Defining freedom as an act taken arising from nature uncoerced from outside with knowledge of the ends of one's choice I dont see that its inconceivable that God could've created man to always choose the good. Indeed, that is what Heaven is like. As you said rkwright the possibility need exist but there's no reason why it has to be actualised. Why allow it then?

Part of me has the inclination to ask: why not? The logical problem of evil is based around the notion that an all good God cannot be all powerful and there be evil in the world. As Aquinas shows when he treats the question [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104900.htm"]The cause of evil[/url] there is a logically coherent answer to this charge thus making it null and void. We needn't go further, the charge has been answered we need only motion for a dismissal the state of our clients mind is not on trial. Yet, if you want to know why God made the world the way it is I believe Job 38-42 gives a great answer. Beyond that however I speculate that the reason God allowed us the freedom to do wrong was about love.

Love is known in sacrifice and best appreciated in sacrifice. God could've manipulated man to always choose the God but if we always chose the God could we really have understood the reality of forgiveness, of redemption, of the God who is abounding in steadfast love quick to mercy and slow to anger? Yes, conceptually of course we could've. But having no experience of these things would we truly be able to taste the reality? Without knowing what it meant to fall would we appreciate what it means to be helped to our feet again inspite of the fact that nothing we could ever do, even scaling the heights of created perfection, could ever make amends from the infinity penalty incurred against the infinite justice of the uncreated God? Had we not known loss and agony and pain could we have truly seen the passion for what it [b]is[/b]: the ultimate possible expression of the Divine Love for humanity?

At this point I quote St Augustine: "God would not allow evil lest he could draw from it a greater good" and direct you to the crucifix. [quote]16 ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.[/quote]

Edited February 24, 2006 by Myles

[rkwright]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 24 2006, 03:06 PM']I have always balked at the Problem of Evil because I do not regard it as a problem. I find the obsession with the problem of evil amongst people today to be a culturally conditioned phenomena mainly amognst people who have no direct experience of the most gratitious forms of suffering.

The places in the world where monotheism is growing fastest are the places where its agreed people are suffering most profoundly. Yet, it is generally agreed that those peoples are the most 'conservative' believers and find no problems accepting the traditional understanding of God's goodness in spite of their plight.

In my opinion I believe its symptomatic of Westerners being accustomed to instant gratitification at the wave of a dollar or a euro that causes Europeans and Americans find evil to be such a 'problem'. Case in point St Thomas Aquinas.

Some people say that Aquinas' answer to the problem of evil is unsatisfactory. But what gives them the right to say that? My answer to most modern critics of Aquinas is that when they've experienced the war torn, disease ridden, violent nature of medieval Europe whilst holding the vows of poverty, chastity and obidience I will begin to take note of their criticisms!

As to your question why world #2? Well if you follow Alvin Plantinga's free will defence then there is no way it could've been otherwise. Me I'm not so sure. Defining freedom as an act taken arising from nature uncoerced from outside with knowledge of the ends of one's choice I dont see that its inconceivable that God could've created man to always choose the good. Indeed, that is what Heaven is like. As you said rkwright the possibility need exist but there's no reason why it has to be actualised. Why allow it then?

Part of me has the inclination to ask: why not? The logical problem of evil is based around the notion that an all good God cannot be all powerful and there be evil in the world. As Aquinas shows when he treats the question [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104900.htm"]The cause of evil[/url] there is a logically coherent answer to this charge thus making it null and void. We needn't go further, the charge has been answered we need only motion for a dismissal the state of our clients mind is not on trial. Yet, if you want to know why God made the world the way it is I believe Job 38-42 gives a great answer. Beyond that however I speculate that the reason God allowed us the freedom to do wrong was about love.

Love is known in sacrifice and best appreciated in sacrifice. God could've manipulated man to always choose the God but if we always chose the God could we really have understood the reality of forgiveness, of redemption, of the God who is abounding in steadfast love quick to mercy and slow to anger? Yes, conceptually of course we could've. But having no experience of these things would we truly be able to taste the reality? Without knowing what it meant to fall would we appreciate what it means to be helped to our feet again inspite of the fact that nothing we could ever do, even scaling the heights of created perfection, could ever make amends from the infinity penalty incurred against the infinite justice of the uncreated God? Had we not known loss and agony and pain could we have truly seen the passion for what it [b]is[/b]: the ultimate possible expression of the Divine Love for humanity?

At this point I quote St Augustine: "God would not allow evil lest he could draw from it a greater good" and direct you to the crucifix.
[right][snapback]896821[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

thanks myles for your post, I was waiting for your response. I'm working on Plantinga's essay right now, along with some others. Hopefully by the end of the weekend I'll have something on it.

The second to last paragraph is a very good response that I heard a few days ago from a close friend of mine. World #1 allows God to show His love and mercy more fully, and maybe there is more love in the world because of it.

I like what you said about experiencing evil, and honestly Hume's classic model of the problem of evil doesn't seem like much of an argument. Though this one (I think tihs is Macke's?) was a new twist on an old argument, interesting though.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Allow me a few philosophical reflections: I don't have a lot of time to spend on this, but it seems to me that all of the comments here, despite the intelligent points in some, are making a glaring mistake. All of them are assuming that "God could have done X or Y." But if we look at what we mean by "God" we see that this is clearly not the case.

Leibniz, in his attempt to deal with this problem, came to the conclusion that this is the "best of all possible worlds," by reasoning that because God is Wisdom and wisdom does not err, it follows that God does not err. If, he continues, God does not err, and God could have created this world or a different one, then we must conclude that this world is better than the other. Therefore, this world must be the best of all possible worlds.

Leibniz's error is the same that is being made by many people here. He is assuming that God could have made another world. But what follows from this conclusion? If we admit that God could have made another world, then we are admitting that God [i]could have made an unwise choice[/i]. But this is clearly not what we believe. Rather, we must conclude that [u]possibilities do not exist for God[/u]. This makes sense, given that a "possibility" is nothing more than the ability to actualize a potential, and we know that there is no potentiality in God.

Leibniz was wrong to say that this is the best of all possible worlds. It is the [i]only[/i] possible world with respect to God's act of Creation. In human action lies potentiality, and so possibility. It is possible for you or I to do other than we have done because we have the capacity for error, but God's action comes from Himself, and He is pure necessity, pure actuality. This necessity, this actuality, is nothing other than the necessity and actuality of Love.

So the answer to the "problem of evil" that I put forward is this: There is no problem of evil, only confused thinking on the part of the questioner. The moment someone states "God could have made..." is the moment someone starts thinking illogically about God. But without that premise, the supposed "problem" falls apart.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[N/A Gone]

i have to ask....

but why?

also, molinism is allowed within the church and the whole point of it was that there was multiple possibilities

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Feb 24 2006, 09:09 PM']i have to ask....

but why?

also, molinism is allowed within the church and the whole point of it was that there was multiple possibilities
[right][snapback]896920[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're misunderstanding [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm"]Molinism[/url]

Edited February 24, 2006 by Myles

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Feb 24 2006, 09:03 PM']Allow me a few philosophical reflections: I don't have a lot of time to spend on this, but it seems to me that all of the comments here, despite the intelligent points in some, are making a glaring mistake. All of them are assuming that "God could have done X or Y." But if we look at what we mean by "God" we see that this is clearly not the case.

Leibniz, in his attempt to deal with this problem, came to the conclusion that this is the "best of all possible worlds," by reasoning that because God is Wisdom and wisdom does not err, it follows that God does not err. If, he continues, God does not err, and God could have created this world or a different one, then we must conclude that this world is better than the other. Therefore, this world must be the best of all possible worlds.

Leibniz's error is the same that is being made by many people here. He is assuming that God could have made another world. But what follows from this conclusion? If we admit that God could have made another world, then we are admitting that God [i]could have made an unwise choice[/i]. But this is clearly not what we believe. Rather, we must conclude that [u]possibilities do not exist for God[/u]. This makes sense, given that a "possibility" is nothing more than the ability to actualize a potential, and we know that there is no potentiality in God.

Leibniz was wrong to say that this is the best of all possible worlds. It is the [i]only[/i] possible world with respect to God's act of Creation. In human action lies potentiality, and so possibility. It is possible for you or I to do other than we have done because we have the capacity for error, but God's action comes from Himself, and He is pure necessity, pure actuality. This necessity, this actuality, is nothing other than the necessity and actuality of Love.

So the answer to the "problem of evil" that I put forward is this: There is no problem of evil, only confused thinking on the part of the questioner. The moment someone states "God could have made..." is the moment someone starts thinking illogically about God. But without that premise, the supposed "problem" falls apart.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]896910[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I hadn't thought of that

Edited February 24, 2006 by Myles

[God Conquers]

Awesome answer Jeff.

However, I do object to the statement that "there is no problem of evil" because, even admitting that this world is the only possible world, evil is still a problem for the mind of man. Although you would be right on if you are simply coming to that conclusion for the "problem of evil" stated as is in THIS particular question.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Feb 24 2006, 04:30 PM']Awesome answer Jeff.

However, I do object to the statement that "there is no problem of evil" because, even admitting that this world is the only possible world, evil is still a problem for the mind of man. Although you would be right on if you are simply  coming to that conclusion for the "problem of evil" stated as is in THIS particular question.
[right][snapback]896984[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

When I talk about the "problem of evil" I am doing so strictly in the sense of the philosophical debate. Of course evil is a problem in the sense of the common usage, and that problem is not trivial. But when philosophers discuss "the problem of evil" they are discussing whether or not the existence of evil should cause us to doubt God's existence. The point of my previous post is that this philosophical "problem" is nothing more than a confused question.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Feb 24 2006, 03:09 PM']i have to ask....

but why?

also, molinism is allowed within the church and the whole point of it was that there was multiple possibilities
[right][snapback]896920[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you are asking with your "but why?" question, however I can answer your question about molinism. Molinism, or any other libertarian system, does not contradict what I have said above. These systems concern themselves with [i]human[/i] acts, not the nature of the Divinity itself. As I said above, human acts have possibilities, Divine Act does not.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff