Is Man Able, But Not Willing?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
michealb
If god is omnipotent he could remove the evil without harming others kind of the definition of omnipotent. You really lack creativity.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus
c. 341–270 B.C. Greek philosopher held that good is defined by what feels pleasurable or avoids pain, conversely, what is evil or bad is defined as what feels bad or is painful.
Is God willing to prevent evil: this statement presumes that what we call “evil” is evil in the eyes of God. Christians would hold that sin (evil) is corruption of the human will, not what feels bad. “I directed my attention to discern what I now heard, that free will was the cause of our doing evil, and Your righteous judgment of our suffering it.” Augustine, “The Confessions (Book VII), 3. Thus we see that God’s creation is all good, even that of men who have a concupiscence. Then, where does evil come from, ‘As Augustine says (Contra Julian. i): "The Lord calls an evil will the evil tree, and a good will a good tree." Now, a good will does not produce a morally bad act, since it is from the good will itself that a moral act is judged to be good. Nevertheless the movement itself of an evil will is caused by the rational creature, which is good; and thus good is the cause of evil.’ Summa I, 49, a.1
But not able? : That is, some say, that God is not able to prevent evil. In response, given man’s concupiscent nature, it’s not God’s inability to cooperate with his good; rather it’s man’s error. Thus sin is permitted though our weakness. Even still, God provides his strength to overcome this concupiscent nature though cooperation with His will. To the argument that an omnipotent God can stop all evil pretends that he hasn’t already done so. He gives us his remedy through Jesus Christ who will conquer all evil.
Thus Epicurus’ argument becomes specious, and subjective to the nature of Epicurus: what feels good is virtuous, what feels bad is evil. In fact, since sin is the failure of man’s will we see that the argument can be rephrased:
Is Man willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. [A true statement]
Is man able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. [A true statement]
Is man both able and willing? Then evil comes from man. [A true statement]
Is man neither able nor willing? Then he is a sinner. [A true statement]
Normally, we can’t come to know God independent of our experience (a priori knowledge) However St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent. I, xiii) provides with a postpriori knowledge of God’s existence:
• Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
• For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
• The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
• The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e. an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
• The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.
SOURCE: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Existence of God
Consequently, we see once again a right reasoned logic shows us that God is omnipotent as well as omniscient.
JoeT
How Does a Chemical Reaction Become Intelligent?
All:
Atheists often use evolution as an intellectual excuse for rejection of God. The ideology is that God didn't create man; rather he evolved from some primordial puddle of ooze. Some would extend this further, and say man then evolved to create God.
The Darwinian theory of evolution depends on mankind's ability to axiomatically define our observable surroundings and explain how sustained life can be perceived in nature without the aid of God. To do this, science depends wholly on mankind's ability to identify those things not perceived in nature and how they affect our measure nature. Thus, we can conclude that Darwinian science holds that to know absolute truth, one only need to know math, chemistry, physics, and biology; not to mention a dozen or so other natural sciences. These rationalist clerics of science have turned the supernatural question of “how did God make heaven and earth” into “prove that God made heaven and earth.” The problem with science's approach is best expressed by G. K. Chesterton observation, “A man might measure heaven and earth with a reed, but not with a growing reed.” (1905 Heretics )
In 1953 Stanley Miller's experiment for the first time produced the basic building blocks of proteins necessary for all life; a primordial soup of amino acids in a strictly controlled experiment. The problem was that the experiment was conducted in a mixture of methane and ammonia not found in the prebiological environment. In 1983 the experiment was repeated by Miller using a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen now thought to be the prebio conditions. The experiment failed to produce the goo of life. In 2007 the experiment was redone by chemist Jeffrey Bada; repeating the experiment again, this time changing the reactive mixture once again. This constrained experiment finally produced primordial soup. Only under strictest of laboratory conditions can the very basic building blocks of life be produced. But, beyond that science using Darwinaianism show how “intelligent” life is then derived. The probabilities of this being repeated in nature are slime to none (Pun was intended).
To date, science has failed to produce a realistic, repeatable, unconstrained theory explaining creation of the simplest of life forms. Furthermore, it cannot produce a plausible theory of how the first proteins evolved in nature. Even doing so, science would be faced with the enormous problem explaining how prebio conditions were stable and sustained for sufficient time for these basic proteins to form an amino acid linked in a group. Science's difficulties get exponentially enormous when explaining how this simplest of these linked chains remained in equilibrium to form genes that, to add more complexity, form chromosomal chains of DNA. Logically, we would expect the most simple of these chains to form first somehow, magically presumably; and then, change to chromosomes of sufficient self-knowledge to reproduce, first to a simple one cell organism, then to a more complex organism, finally through billions of years, billions of self initiated changes (a yet unknown process), morph into the one, and only one, sentient, self-aware being.
The scientist has thus far failed to explain how simple chains of amino acids, through successive changes, evolve into a complex animal or plant, they certainly can't explain how an amino acid chemically reacts with an agent to become self-aware.
As shown, the probabilities of man rising from a pool of primordial goo by chance are infinitely improbable, so much so as to be nonexistent; you would need a firm “faith” in the science to hold these views. In fact they are so improbable that only God could unravel the complexities. Therefore, it would be more intellectually honest to turn science back to measuring God's laws so as to define His creation, as opposed to asking nature to prove man created God.
Considering the inadequacies of science, my question to the atheist is how a sentient, self-aware being came into existence from amino acids, through natural selection, to become what we know as man? When, where, and how, do amino acids become aware enough to know that cell division is necessary to sustain life. It seems to me that cooperating with His supernatural grace provides the best answer; God created heaven, earth, and man; the how is only important in the need to know the details of His natural laws. Comments?
JoeT
