Proof God created evil

[dwbid42]

We've all heard this question before - "Can God Ceate a square circle?". There's many other questions like this asking if God can do anything logically impossible and of course the answer is no. It is logically impossible to create a free willed individual with out at least the possibility and most probably the inevitability of that individual sinning (going against God's will) given enough time there by bringing evil into the creation.

Now with what the Bible tells us about God and how loving he is - 1Jn 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE . - I submit that it would be logically impossible for God to have created an individual for him to fellowship with, to love and that would love him in return not to have free will. Love is something that can be freely given or with held. If love was something that was not freely given but "built in" could that possibly be defined as love. There would be no satisfaction is such a "love".

So God ALLOWED that evil would come in as a "necessary evil" in his creation but didn't create it.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Evil exists so that true love can exist.

Fair enough, so true love is the justification for God "allowing" evil to be a part of His creation plan; He indirectly created evil for the sake of true love. In the real world, does this translate to: I will kill one, to save two?

 

[DeepWater]

Evil began in the mind and then the heart/desires of Lucifer.
Once fallen, the devil's "evil desires" became the "Adamic Nature" in the human race.
All "evil", is simply the manifestation of the devil's nature playing out within the heart and minds of people.
This is why Jesus described the unsaved as "you are of your FATHER the DEVIL and the LUSTS of your Father you will do".
These "lusts" are simply the nature of the Devil, and he is the "Father" of all who are not born again.

 

[DRobert]

Let's get something straight here. "God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil" (CCC311)

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition both affirm this.

 

[DRobert]

OP I'm still waiting for you to define "free agent" and "potential" in your own words.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

your #7 & #8 above, stating, God is 100% responsible for evil. AND 8. Therefore God created evil, IS ABSOLUTELY 100% WRONG!!!

So do you agree that it was impossible for free agents to remain sinless?

 

[DingDing]

But isn't it like being given a test specially modified in such a way that we are 100% certain to fail and still being held responsible for failing?

I think this might be one of those questions like: is the glass half empty or half full? You seem to see the creation of mankind as a giant failure; I see it as a great success. Now, admittedly there are many created persons who are not going to go along with God's redemption plan. So in your analogy, God knows that all will fail the initial test, but that is not the end of the story. God never expected anyone to pass the initial test; that test ends up being more of a learning experience. And the end result is that no one can pass the final test without help - and God has provided the help.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

What would you say if I told you God let's Satan live to destroy the workers of iniquity who refuse to obey Him?

How does it relate to the OP?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Fair enough, so true love is the justification for God "allowing" evil to be a part of His creation plan; He indirectly created evil for the sake of true love. In the real world, does this translate to: I will kill one, to save two?

We cannot see God's master plan of good in what He does today. But we do get a glimpse of it in the story of Joseph and with the greatest love story of all. For Jesus (who was the Son of God) died for the sins of the whole world.


....

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Could you define "free agent" in your own words for us?

I use it to mean all entities that are free to make morally significant choices i.e. {humans, angels, spirits and even God Himself}.

How do you define "potential"?

Just the dictionary definition: having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future (therefore it has a probability that is non-zero, or there is no potential).

 

[DRobert]

I use it to mean all entities that are free to make morally significant choices i.e. {humans, angels, spirits and even God Himself}.


Just the dictionary definition: having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future (therefore it has a probability that is non-zero, or there is no potential).

Hi OP. Thanks for replying. Is your definition of "free agent" your own or from a specific source?

In other words, by free agent you mean a creature that has free will defined according to the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Thanks for clarifying "potential". I was wondering also which dictionary did you use to define "potential"?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Yes he did, but I don't understand your angle with the post. It almost sounds like you want to "blame" all evil on God.

He created evil but by creating perfect love first. Did he really have a choice? Did He remove His own choice by giving us choice instead? That sounds like perfect love to me, just like He gave His earthy existence through Jesus Christ as a sacrifice in place of our sin so He can have an intimate relationship with us, His creation, the ones created in His image whom He loves eternally. Sounds like a perfect scenario to me.

God's perfect creation must obey Him to remain perfect since He is perfect. Anything less would separate His creation from Him. He loves us so much that not only did He create us but He gave us a choice to love Him back instead of "making" us love Him. There was only one tree in the garden. Adam and Eve could have eaten of "any" tree in the garden yet God commanded them not to eat from the "one" tree. He even explained what would happen if they did, that they would be separated from Him where at that point they were walking "with" Him. The loss of blessing was immense when they chose to disobey Him.

Let me ask this question, before Yeshua, when a priest died from being in the presence of God due to being unclean, was it because God hated that priest? Or was it because darkness cannot be in the presence of perfect light, that the guidelines for a priest to become clean before entering God's presence was for the priest's benefit, not His, since God's perfection would destroy any evil on that priest?

Ok, so you believe omnibenevolence sufficiently produces evil and for the greater good of meaningful relationship i.e. true love?

 

[DingDing]

Hi OP. Thanks for replying. Is your definition of "free agent" your own or from a specific source?

In other words, by free agent you mean a creature that has free will defined according to the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Thanks for clarifying "potential". I was wondering also which dictionary did you use to define "potential"?

Are you saying only catholics believe in free-will, or are you just bashing catholics in general. And did you make your statement of your own free-will?

 

[jimbohank]

Ok, so you believe omnibenevolence sufficiently produces evil and for the greater good of meaningful relationship i.e. true love?

Is there evil? Did God create those who would do evil? Did He have a choice, in perfect love, to not give us the choice to love Him or not love Him? God could have terminated His creation at any moment He chose or chooses, yet we are still here because He loves His creation and wants as many to come to Him as possible. I think the answer is obvious but the angle of the question is suspect to me. It isn't about "evil" but about grace from eternal damnation in separation from Him becaue of "our" wicked hearts, "evil".

 

[LoveofTruth]

Please either find the mistake in this logic, or find the false premise:

1. God created free agents
2. Free agents have the potential to do evil, e
3. Potential has a non-zero probability, p, where 0<p<1
4. Therefore, over infinite time, the probability of a free agent to perform evil approaches 1 [Let t represent time, then P(e)=1-(p)^t, ∴ P(e)=1 as t→∞]
5. Therefore God created free agents knowing they would create evil
6. It was impossible for free agents to remain sinless
7. Therefore God is 100% responsible for evil
8. Therefore God created evil

If this is true, is "the end justifies the means" the only response available? In other words, was the value of free agents to God greater than the evil they would create? In times of suffering, is there comfort found in recognizing the overall reason for evil is because we are more valuable to God when we have a moral free will?

Using this argument you used the Angels that did not sin with Lucifer will sin one day and all be damned . But scripture doesn't speak of this. Also using your logic all believers in heaven will one day turn from the lord and be damned as well .

No , God made angels perfect as he did Lucifer . perfect in all his ways until iniquity was found in him . Satan is tha Father of Lies and God cannot lie.

The only weight of your argument would be that God crested all things , all angels and men and he made them good. But to be able to freely love God they must have a choice to not love him and turn. -'And since God did not make himself, and since he alone is perfect amd cannot sin ever . All created beings are not God and have the possibility of going away from God. But the blame is not on God but on men who chose to go away. Yes God can see the end from the beginning and he knew that men and angels could go away from him but this was not why he made them.

 

[DingDing]

Using this argument you used the Angels that did not sin with Lucifer will sin one day and all be damned . ...

Well, I did not get that from his argument.

 

[Aryeh]

Huh? On the one hand you say "the only entities that have 100% free will are perfect entities - Christ, angels etc" and on the other hand you say "God created agents, but they aren't free". So you argue that either angels were not created or they were created perfect while humans were created perfect. However Lucifer was an imperfect angel. So your argument fails.

But the real question is: do you believe there are NO CREATED FREE AGENTS?

The one known as Lucifer BECAME imperfect. He was made perfectly. I said imperfect beings do not get free will - that means sinners.

It isn't contradictory.

 

[Aryeh]

No, I do not mean any of this extra and unnecessary math that doesn't relate to the purpose of the post. Because I am not including anything about repentance or salvation in this thread. We are discussing the probability of evil tending towards 1 over an infinite time with respect to an omnibenevolent God Who desires meaningful relationship by creating free agents.

If you don't include anything about repentence or salvation, your entire position is incomplete at best.

You do need all of that "math" if you want what you are suggesting to make remote sense. Leaving an equation as you left it is meaningless without definitions, or explanation.

And, your explanation fails to include how the probability changes when other factors like salvation are accounted for.

Your original post is extremely incomplete. But, as I said before your premise #1 is wrong, so technically your extrapolation that need #1 to be true all fail also.

And, as I also already said the limit of t is ridiculous physically, bease infinity itself isn't a number, and (again) it completely negates and ignores any other factors that contribute to evil.

Leaving these out is misleading and incomplete.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

predetermination leaves no room for boasting

I still disagree. Boasting doesn't need to be logical because all sin is illogical. Furthermore, boasting within predetermination could occur by God making a person boast.

Right; and so "believers are responsible for being in heaven" and "those in hell are responsible for rejecting it": surely you can see it?

And God is responsible for offering heaven. Your original statement included that Free Will gives a person 100% credit for their place in heaven. But God is to be credited for making heaven available.

Also, I don't really think anyone is "rejecting" salvation as you're implying. No one would freely reject salvation. This is like saying a man is in a burning building, and rejects the firemen at the window, freely choosing to burn. Surely you see how nonsensical this is? To reject salvation means they must first know and understand that it is there; the man in the building must know that the firemen and escape route are there, before he can reject it.

The same argument could be made against any bad choice couldn't it? Yet people make bad choices.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The OP is false.

Sorry to persist, but which of the premises is false? You haven't actually stated which premise is false.