The Problem of Evil (Aquinas 101)

[@tombrennan6768]

On this feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, I thank and pray for the priests of The Thomistic Institute. Your work has certainly helped me think about and experience my faith on a deeper, richer level. At the same time, I'm humble enough to know that as St. Thomas learned, this is all like straw compared to what it would be like to witness God in His fullness.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Tom, it's our joy. Thanks for the encouragement. May the teaching of the Angelic Doctor draw us by knowledge and love to undying worship of the One True God in heaven, unto ages of ages. Amen.

[@andrewferg8737]

@@ThomisticInstitute Positing permitted evil for the sake of a "greater good" is misleading without a strong and clear caveat; namely that the resultant good be greater than would have pertained in a contingent or sinful situation. Without this caveat we expose ourselves to the error of assuming a "necessary evil". God lacks no virtue from all eternity and requires no evil to achieve His greatest of all possible goods. "And not rather, as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just" (Romans 3)

[@markmyword8220]

“But then, what about the children?” [asked Ivan Karamazov ] “How will we ever account for their sufferings? For the hundredth time I repeat, there are many questions that could be asked, but I ask you only one-about the children-because I believe it conveys fully and clearly what I am trying to tell you. Listen, even if we assume that every person must suffer because his suffering is necessary to pay for eternal harmony, do still tell me, for God’s sake, where the children come in. I can understand the concept of solidarity in sin and also solidarity in retribution. But how can there be solidarity in sin with small children?” Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

[@JoaoAntonio-ox5vf]

I don't think any of these people are going to dare giving you an awnser lol

[@ELROD.1_0_1]

Indeed its the most difficult situation even as Christian I also feel the same thing. Thing is, we all gonna die one day. Its just 'how you gonna die'. God may allow suffering that has no apparent reason-a child dies, we are injured in a car accident, or a natural disaster strikes. These situations are the most difficult to understand. Yet though we do not see the reason for such suffering we know that there is one, even if it is not apparent from our limited perspective. We are particularly vulnerable and weak when we suffer because we recognize that we are not in control. Yet it is precisely at this moment that we can become our strongest, if we learn to depend on God. Christ died to save us from the loss of heaven. He did not die to save us from suffering in this world. I'm from kerala (India). We just witnessed a massive landslide that killed 360+ people last week. Still no idea why God allowed it. But here we are holding onto our Lord. Because he didn't promised a 'safe' life in this world. But he indeed promised an eternal life with him. We all die. But hope and Faith will keep you alive eternally. Instead of questioning the cause of a disaster, say yes to them. I pray you'll also find a light through the pain like I did...

[@williamswenson3970]

I literally said "wow" and had to walk away from my desk when Fr. Dominic dropped the line about the incomplete circle being an essential part of a greater good to bring us to understand the problem of evil. It literally blew my mind...it was an "aha" moment for me...how a simple illustration could convey such a complex idea so profoundly. Thanks, I'll be sharing this with some friends. :)

[@ThomisticInstitute]

The image comes from a Ed Feser blogpost that's available in the course readings . . . here it is (aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/feser-on-evil).

[@williamswenson3970]

@@ThomisticInstitute thanks for the follow up and the resource ;) Feser is a Thomistic powerhouse.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@williamswenson3970 He is indeed!

[@mariobaratti2985]

@@ThomisticInstitute link's not workin :)

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@mariobaratti2985 Hmm . . . looks like the parentheses were causing a problem. Try this: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/feser-on-evil

[@whoami8434]

The first minute was absolutely unforgettable. I will never forget how smooth and how actually good that answer to the problem of evil is. Wow.

[@scotte4765]

The first minute was nonsense. The only actual reason he gave for privation of good being a good thing was to illustrate to people what the concept "privation of good" means. Please go tell a homeless person that God wants them to be homeless so they can understand what it means to be homeless. Come back and tell us how grateful they were for that explanation. If there were no privations of goods in the first place, nobody would need to understand the concept, would they? What stupidity.

[@Win5ton67]

@@scotte4765 The fact that evil is the absence or privation of good does not entail that God wills that evil. He only "permits" it for a greater good. God therefore doesn't want this or that person to be homeless, but would rather that we help that person. In fact, God perhaps put him on our road so that we might do exactly that.

[@scotte4765]

@@Win5ton67 So God is capable of manipulating events and human decisions to put a homeless person on our road but not able or willing to end or prevent their homelessness in the first place. What a conveniently unfalsifiable claim. If God witnesses everything that happens and has the power to stop any event he chooses, but chooses not to, then he is willfully allowing those things to happen. He may not be the entire cause of many events, but his conscious decision to allow every case of homelessness, every murder, and every rape is a necessary cause of all of them. This is a basic and inevitable logical conclusion for a being that is said to be all-knowing and all-powerful.

[@johnard100]

What was God trying to accomplish when he created child raping priests? Please explain that to the victims, because I don’t this video does that

[@carlosc619]

@@scotte4765 You are almost right, but need to go further… why is the homeless homeless?

[@xyckriz]

He is a Priest-Lawyer (Yale Law School). Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers!

[@Patrick-vz6im]

Maybe a Canon Lawyer 😏

[@xyckriz]

@@Patrick-vz6im He was a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice before he entered the Order of Preachers in 2001.

[@travelinghermit]

In other words, he's familiar with logic, but opts for rhetoric

[@stevenxiaofenghuang]

I’m very impressed. Very very impressed. I just like to share, if I may, I have been listening to what the Jewish side (the rabbis) are saying about these themes, and the way they give answer to these questions. Also very interesting and informative. All in all, I’m very impressed by this Institute.

[@clementbretanno1116]

Thank you Father Dominic. God bless you and your ministry...

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@davidrasch3082]

The best way to gauge how much I have learned is to try to explain it to my seven year-old grandson....

[@luciasamaras7767]

Our Loving Father has designed a world in which we can grow spiritually - grow toward him. He desires that our loyalty and devotion be voluntary and wholehearted. Therefore, he allows us to choose. Thanks to you and St. Thomas for sharing these philosophical insights.

[@scotte4765]

Children don't choose to be abused. Anyone who sits back and allows that to happen when they could prevent it deserves no loyalty or devotion.

[@apologiaromana4123]

As a roughly evangelical protestant, I enjoyed this.

[@Raven-zr8gm]

Thanks be to God 🙏✝️

[@nancymiller349]

I'm so happy I found these videos.

[@kristindreko1998]

Thank you for this video! May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

[@HumanbeingonfloatingEarth]

U guys do a great job tackling real issues in a clear way. Really enjoy your work. Many thanks.

[@armandolugo576]

The cirlce is a great illustration of what we must do to complete the circle.

[@margitrujillo6943]

Thanks for stimulating my thinking with new paradigms for the Trinity!

[@josephzammit8483]

St. John Bosco Guide, Teacher and Model for Priests kzbin.info/www/bejne/h6nRiqdvhpiMqqs

[@jayorilla3696]

Thank you Doc Mandell!

[@joecaner]

I find Aquinas' definition of evil as an absence of good to be unsatisfactory. It does not address active manifestations of evil. One can just as easily define good as the absence of evil. It as logical and as useless to one's understanding.

[@josiahgittman1268]

I was thinking the same thing, something being “incomplete” or “not good” does not mean that it’s evil.

[@ash5033938337]

Yes it does, you have to apply reasoning. If evil is privation and we witness evil in a serial killer, for instance, then what is the privation? It could be the privation of understanding in one’s being of culpa (fault), which likely manifests as a result of worldly attachment and hatred towards God. To hate God’s goodness is never justified, so if you do, you are always necessarily making yourself a judge.

[@andyisdead]

​@ash5033938337 if evil is only privation, why do we feel pain and not just a feeling of hollowness?

[@reasonforge9997]

Remember that story that was so deep and moving and meaningful...the one where nothing bad ever happened and everybody was happy all the time? No, I don't remember such a story either. Stories that really move us have the protagonists grow and become more than what they were in worlds that are far from perfect. Whatever world is best for the growth of the most meaningful parts of human character, I would hardly expect it to be just a happy-happy-happy place.

[@TPG859]

heaven is exactly that. gods ability to create a place like heaven shows his ability to make an all good dimension or existence. why would he put his most loved creations through the tortuous pain of life only to make them bow to him and bend the knee. this is a selfish god. he does not deserve my praise or anyone. god created and made all evil in this world. he is evil

[@reasonforge9997]

@@TPG859 What happens with a child who grows up getting everything their own way? You have a spoiled rotten adult who can't be put in charge of adult things or even have the genuine adult pleasure of hard work and accomplishment. Much less should a reasonable person expect to be prepared for Heaven who never developed on Earth. Heaven is not simply mindless pleasure a spoiled basket case could enjoin, but the deepest fulfillment of our potential as only God knows. Do not try to make it less than Christian doctrine says is.

[@scotte4765]

@@reasonforge9997 Whatever vague description you want to make for what Heaven WILL be like, virtually all Christians believe that it is not going to include egregious suffering such as we find in the horrors of war and children's cancer wards. If that is true, why should such experiences be needed to "prepare" people for existence in Heaven? I don't think non-believers are objecting to God not treating us all like spoiled children. It's more that "you needed to be raped multiple times so you can fulfill your potential in Heaven" is an absurdly callous, nonsensical, and unconvincing explanation for anything. It's like saying you need to endure bitter cold and severe frostbite so you will be "ready" when it's time to enter the ski lodge and have some hot chocolate. No, you really don't.

[@reasonforge9997]

@@scotte4765 Your impression of what the majority of Christians think Hell will be like is not very relevant to the question of what Hell is like if Christianity is true. The majority of people who believe in the existence of atoms do not have a very accurate picture of atoms. If you wish to talk about what the general perception is as if it were the same as talking about whether a thing is true, then knock yourself out, but don't expect anybody who is honestly seeking truth to take you seriously.

[@scotte4765]

@@reasonforge9997 I didn't mention or refer to Hell anywhere in my comment. I respectfully suggest you read comments more carefully before responding to them, or perhaps even make sure you're replying to the correct person.

[@yousufnazir8141]

Best explanation of the biblical theology and philosophy of science and religion in the form of simple way to the material world

[@peterj6740]

There are some people who are sadists and get pleasure out of inflicting pain on others and there are others who love , killing , raping and pillaging. There is more than an absence of good in this but simply the presence of evil through and through .

[@andyisdead]

Absence of good would be someone who refuses to do acts of charity

[@moontruther914]

But, if God is all-powerful, couldn't he allow for that "greater good" to come about without the need for suffering?

[@andrewferg8737]

"greater good" to come about without the need for suffering" ---- Evil is never required. The so-called Problem of Evil is based on the grievous error of positing a substantive, purposive, and rational evil. That is absurd. Evil is never rational. If it were not pointless, void, and without meaning, it would not be evil. It is only God our creator who by his mercy and grace calls the dead to life and that which is not to the good of that which is. "Why not say, as some slanderously claim that we say, Let us do evil that good may result? Their condemnation is well deserved!" (Romans 3) “Christ, crucified and risen, who with his love redeemed the nonsense of pain and death” (Pope Francis, August 2022)

[@andyisdead]

​​@@andrewferg8737he said "without need for suffering", not "without evil"

[@andrewferg8737]

@@andyisdead Suffering is an evil. You are confusing suffering and work. Work is a necessity, suffering is not. Work can be a joy or a torment of suffering, depending on the circumstance in which that work is performed. "Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work" (John 5) Peace be with you.

[@pastoralcounselor]

Excellent teaching! Thank you!

[@MagnumInnominandum]

" Nothing is ever my fault " So sayeth the Lord 😒🤨💩

[@mariofsantana3952]

My socks were blown off. I have to watch this again

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Wow. High praise. Be sure to watch future videos with shoes well-laced : )

[@mariao62]

What a great illustration! I'm a carrot! :-) Seriously, you do a wonderful job of explaining the types of evil in the world and our role in them.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers!

[@mariao62]

@@ThomisticInstitute Cheers back! These courses are amazing. God bless you for sharing your awesomeness with us.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@mariao62 Our joy!

[@KR1sh-kp9pl]

that analogy of the circle in the beginning was genius

[@Charliepup2023]

Amazing! How has this only got 5000 views?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

It's on its way to more! Thanks for watching!

[@adrineabassian4517]

@@ThomisticInstitute I just finished watching. Thanks to my son who introduced me to these videos. He is studying at Angelicum to be a priest for the Armenian Catholic Rite.

[@hbxit1888]

because it is a trash answer

[@RichardSalvucci]

Because not many are aware. It’s much easier to find .xxx stuff. And few of us worry about what we are doing to our world as a consequence

[@RichardSalvucci]

readings?

[@Hilderik1]

The pagan tragedians of Ancient Greece way before Socrates had more fitting answers to Deal with the issue of evil in my opinion

[@kojoarmah3915]

Thank you for this video. God bless you

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

[@markmyword8220]

A very good video. Well articulated. But it's too abstract. I've just finished my third reading of the classic, "Brothers Karamazov" by Fyoder Dostoevsky. I'm a practicing Christian, as was Dostoevsky, but the book's account of the torture of the five year old girl by her own parents and the question possed by Ivan the intellectual brother, troubles me no end. "And so these refined parents rejected their five-year-old girl to all kinds of torture. They beat her, kicked her, flogged her, for no reason that they themselves knew of. The child’s whole body was covered in bruises. Eventually they devised a new refinement. Under the pretext that the child dirtied her bed (as though a five-year-old deep in her angelic sleep could be punished for that), they forced her to eat excrement, smearing it all over her face. And it was the mother that did it! And that woman would lock her daughter up in the outhouse until morning and she did so even on the coldest nights, when it was freezing. Just imagine the woman being able to sleep with the child’s cries coming from that outhouse! Imagine that little creature, unable to even understand what is happening to her, beating her sore little chest with her tiny fist, weeping hot, unresentful, meek tears, and begging ‘gentle Jesus’ to help her… ...let’s assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquillity. If you knew that, only to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let’s say the little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it?”

[@julianmasiello3865]

I invite you to read The Dialogue by St. Catherine of Sienna, which answers that question posed at the end there by Dostoevsky.

[@KeepCalmCapybara]

Those who do evil things to others, are, at the same time, doing great evil to themselves. Ex: if I harm someone, I harm my soul at the same time; if I kill someone (phisicaly or mentaly), I kill my soul at the same time. Sin is basicaly something like this, it brings death, both phisical and spiritual.

[@runningdecadeix4780]

@@KeepCalmCapybara M'aiq knows many things others do not.

[@arete7884]

What many dont understand is humans arent evil in themselves but vehicles that can carry evil due to corruption, if a black gue seeped into a lake it would turn it black

[@arete7884]

Not entirely as suffering is neccessary would evolution and enlightenment

[@michaelflores9220]

I don't see evil as jsut a privation, but as a presence. & Aquinas experts Edward Feser and Bryan Davies answers the entire problem of evil with " God is above the law. He isn't worthy of criticism fo not helping 'cuz there's no law that says he has to help". I think only a psycho would feel satisfied by that answer.

[@deepakkapurvirtualclass]

God has free will and He 'always' loves and 'never' does wrong. So, why He does not give the same free will to human beings also. Then, we will also 'always' love and will 'never' do anything wrong. What is the problem in giving such kind of free will to us so that we never commit evil acts and retain our free will also (just like the fact that God has free will but he 'never' does anything wrong)?

[@kechzb9751]

Thank You!!! I've always struggled with the so-called "free will" explanation. It never made sense. God is our creator. He says, "I AM..." meaning His infinite and all forming presence in us. To explain the evil man does as a "free will" assumes that there is a part of us that does not belong to God or impenetrable by God. Instead, He allows evil for a purpose, our greater good - individual or society. As we reflect on this moment in our lives and what it means, it is a good reminder to hold to the hope of the rebirth/renewal of us post COVID-19.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Great point!

[@alexmcd378]

This sounds like the logic of a parent letting their child burn their hand instead of teaching them that fire is hot. If your god can't achieve his goals without causing suffering, he's kind of crap at his job. But he also supposedly drowned every animal and plant in the world because he was mad at humans, nevermind that he could have done his kill all the first born trick to only kill the humans and not have to reboot the entire planet. So we know he's bad at his job.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

@@alexmcd378 your idiocy comment is also not His fault that you did not get that evil is a privation of good (and being); therefore, there is not any causal relation between being and the lack of being. More: your argument with the story of Flood is a story and not history though it has a perfect absolute meaning. Who failed to teach the basics of the Bible's hermeneutics? God? Your dumb parents of School or just yourself?

[@alexmcd378]

@@krzysztofciuba271 Again, if god is so horrible at conveying simple messages that you need an advanced degree to understand them, then he's crap at his job and doesn't deserve the title of god. And I would say that it was god who failed me in that task. That's actually pretty obvious if you think about it without bias. Believe it or not hon, I was raised Christian, and I left the faith because I could see the evil in god's actions in the book, and the hate he inspired in his followers. If you want a quick and dirty measure of the morality of the theist vs the atheist, just look at the prison system. Theists are way over represented. Agnostics are represented less. And atheists commit the fewest crimes of them all. And this is a per capita ratio, so it isn't simply because there are fewer atheists. Atheists just commit fewer crimes. And why wouldn't that be the case? Christians are told that all crimes are forgiveable if you just ask god/jesus/mary/etc. The atheist has no magical way to wash away guilt, and must deal with it on their own.

[@Taima]

@@krzysztofciuba271 "Flood is a story and not history" well I'm glad you're so confident in telling hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of fellow Christians that they're idiots for believing it happened too, not that I disagree with that. You know what is history though? Every single actual flood, natural forest fire, hurricane and non-manmade disaster that's ever happened. Millions upon millions of people killed indiscriminately, but sure, let's nitpick the Flood and miss the point entirely.

[@waggyquack974]

'Original sin' is passed down through every generation so the whole of mankind is punished because of the sin of just two people. Is this the action of a just god?

[@Enya111Bayting-pz2zv]

GOD is our Creator...if he did all the good things the good life..then he could do to take all the problems in he could give us the happiness because we deserve it... I prayed to our God almighty the desires that here inside my heart to be givem

[@Wande-t2d]

God manifest have mercy on me amen

[@displaychicken]

I’m loving these videos. You might even say I’m developing a “Habitus”.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Woot!

[@renlamomtsopoe]

What's a "Habitus"?

[@millergre]

Awesome job! Mater Dei, ora pro nobis.

[@lefteris1976]

Mental gymnastics. The reality is that God is unforgivable for what he has done to us.

[@scotte4765]

Blaming an imaginary being is as delusional as making excuses for it.

[@lefteris1976]

@@scotte4765 the athiest argument is as delusional as the creator argument.

[@scotte4765]

@@lefteris1976 There are hundreds of different arguments revolving around God, so I have no idea which ones you're even referring to. If you want to claim that God has done things to us, show us what God has done and how you know it was God that did it.

[@alphazero5614]

(Copy and pasting my response because most of these criticisms are similar) The issue with suffering is not whether God's actions seem personally "fair" or make us happy. As the Creator, God owes us nothing. Rather, the question is: does what God commands align with right reason about moral rules? If God's natural law and scriptures teach virtue, yet evils seem to contradict this, there is a problem. But evil acts don't negate God, if two things are true: 1) God still offers us guidance and grace through the Church to live well despite hardships. 2) Nothing God ordains in nature removes our freedom to choose the good, as reason shows it. So the difficulty isn't that evils don't fit our ideas of a perfect world. It's whether God's entire ordering of reality upholds the moral truths we discern using intellect. As long as this is so, God stays righteous and faithful even if much is still unclear. Our job isn't explaining why all serves us, but choosing obedience to the light we have. In the end, evils won't have the last word. God will complete what was intended for our sanctification and union with love. This is what really matters for salvation.

[@MrGoodwell]

I like to use the Japanese art of Kintsugi (fixing broken pottery with gold) as an analogy for what must be happening. He must be achieving an end in which he felt it was fitting to allow us to fall.

[@scotte4765]

A skilled potter ought to be able to put gold on the pottery in the first place, and a careful owner wouldn't let it get broken. An omnipotent god ought to be able to achieve his ends without needing human beings to suffer in the process. You're making excuses for incompetence and/or carelessness.

[@MrGoodwell]

@@scotte4765 Many "skilled potters" have tried and none have succeeded to reproduce the look of Kintsugi without breaking the pottery. Keeping also in mind that neither you nor I as people who know nothing about making pottery can make anything sensible about what potters should or shouldn't be able to do. I also have no idea what it requires to make human or what it takes to unite humans to God, and I would guess neither do you. So, I don't think your argument here holds any water. They're just assertions.

[@scotte4765]

@@MrGoodwell I know what the word omnipotent means, and someone who needs people to be broken in a thousand different ways to achieve his goals isn’t it. Unless, of course, people being broken IS the goal, in which case such a being isn’t deserving of worship, since that’s just sadism. There’s no evidence for these mysterious goals of God’s in any case, as long as we’re on the subject of unsupported assertions.

[@STho205]

@@MrGoodwell you show wisdom in logic. They are his assertions that he built of straw and hyperbole and then tore down in adolescent style, to compliment himself and therefore rival G-d in play. God is "Omnipotent" is his and other's contrived word or definition. It only holds water in context to our puny talents and abilities. These are the words ancient Greek and Egyptian gods use to define themselves. Trees cut down, carved, fastened with gold and silver by hammer and nail to be paraded about by naked primates and called omnipotent to scare or console the village. In the Hebrew and Christian text G-d simply says, "I am" . In Job he reminded the suffering human that said why are you doing this, I wouldn't do it if i were a god.... Where were you when I created all this? You call out why me. Why not? For all we know the temporal and physical universe we see as vast may be an insignificant element in existence. At one time we believed our house was vast, then our yard, then our street, our town, our country, our world.... But as we grew we found thrm to be specks of dust and we specks on specks. Good news is cast as seeds to the breeze. Some fall on stony land, some in thorns or dry sand and some in rich moist soil.

[@collegemathematicswithdomi6308]

@@STho205 Thank you for that meaningful response.

[@SkiesToInfinity]

I love these videos -- very interesting and useful. Thank you!

[@claymcdermott718]

I was in a NICU yesterday morning. My suffering, I can readily see as a just and necessary consequence of my evil. But the suffering of children seems an empirical fact discrediting divine omnipotence, against which a thousand theodical theories are as straw.

[@claymcdermott718]

I want to be wrong about that.

[@lukelombardi1059]

The suffering of the innocent child is transfigured and redeemed by the suffering of the ultimate innocent Child, the Son of God, Jesus Christ in his redemptive Passion, Death, and Resurrection, neither “theoretically” nor “intellectually” but in all actuality and fulness. Christ can forgive and redeem the unforgiveable and unredeemable because he took upon himself, though innocent, all the price for the world’s suffering and sin. In doing so, he permits us to say, beyond all knowing and understanding in our fallen world, that “I consider the sufferings of this present time as nothing compared with the glory yet to be revealed to us” (St Paul in Romans)

[@scotte4765]

@@lukelombardi1059 Saying God has a great fix for suffering does nothing to justify allowing that suffering to occur in the first place. Saying suffering is trivial in comparison to some future state of existence doesn't either. Both are just empty "everything's going to be fine" claims that not only ignore the problem but also have no evidence of even being true.

[@Taima]

@@lukelombardi1059 lol so children have to suffer and die horrible deaths to make sure the afterlife is good? I guess the secret to heaven is that it's powered by the tears and cries of tortured children.

[@therealaquacree]

For a world where there is free will to do evil, it follows that there ought to be many possible evils that can take place, including the suffering of children. For all we know, this pales in comparison to some other potential suffering. Imagine if we were created in a "perfect" world where the most painful thing was a dog licking you. But in that world, people being licked by dogs would be considered an abomination, and in that world, this could be what critics centre an evidential problem of evil around. Not at all condoning the suffering of children, but I am saying there could be much worse evils had God not intervened in this world despite our fallen state. Furthermore, it is often hard to see things from this point of view because challenging belief by pointing to things such as the suffering of children plays to emotion rather than logic, and it is easy to fall into a trap here.

[@lamenin]

Gods mercy. Amen

[@Taima]

"mercy"

[@guidosforza9007]

The 20 century was a time of total apostasy.In this 21st century evil is everywhere. We can defeat evil with an abundance of good deeds. We have the means but all the media are full of temptations and messages of happiness in this earthly and brief life. There is an eternal life waiting for us where there is no time or space. Quoting Saint Paul, we can’t even imagine what our good God has prepared for us in the afterlife.

[@andrewferg8737]

The so-called Problem of Evil is based on the grievous error of positing a substantive, purposive, and rational evil. That is absurd. Evil is never rational. If it were not pointless, void, and without meaning, it would not be evil. It is only God our creator who by his mercy and grace calls the dead to life and that which is not to the good of that which is. "Why not say, as some slanderously claim that we say, Let us do evil that good may result? Their condemnation is well deserved!" (Romans 3) “Christ, crucified and risen, who with his love redeemed the nonsense of pain and death” (Pope Francis, August 2022)

[@hortonharry3492]

Evil is never a problem, it just creates problems And needless to say in extreme magnitudes devastatingly tragic problems.

[@Philosophy.and.Tostitos]

At the same time, the more tragic a problem is, the more it moves us to desire the joy of Heaven. The time will come for creation to be perfected and for evil to be blotted out from our existence -- such is the final promise of Revelation. Until then, we are faithful in our waiting. The average human only has to put up with evil for about a century at most; and while we're still here, we must let God teach us how to love Him in our trials, and how to heal each other's sorrow. :)

[@hortonharry3492]

@@Philosophy.and.Tostitos The you tube video: "Heyr himna smidur/ Hear, heavenly Creator (An Icelandic Hymn)" Frederick B. Malabot. This is a gorgeous hymn to God composed in the year 1208 by a deeply religious Icelandic chieftan named Tollbeinn Tumason. He had a disagreement over secular and religious authority with a bishop he had previously appointed. The disagreement had become so strained and hostile both men's armies went into battle against each other. During the fray, Tumason was seriously wounded by a rock that crushed his head (some accounts stated the rock fell from heaven). Subsequently, he lay on his deathbed and he composed this hymn to God there. In the hymn he pleads to God to heal him. Yet tragically he eventually died. Some of the lines are beautiful and rich in divine wisdom. One such line is: "send us, son of the Virgin, good causes, all aid is from thee in my heart." He beseeches God to send His healing aid to him and since the kingdom of God can be found in his soul and heart, he would simply wish to receive such divine aid to arrive within his heart. Jesus understood this highly important fact of we, as soul's and our relationship to the glorious kingdom of God. He stated look for the kingdom of God within your heart. Maybe he said look for the kingdom of God within ourselves but you get the drift. The love, grace and glory of He and his kingdom is already present within us. We just have to unfold and discover such a wonderous kingdom that resides within us. But with such a beautiful understanding is another highly significant fact presented by the Tibetan religion Eckankar. If we are truly fortunate and one of the rare few in the world that can understand this following divine principle from Eckankar we truly have it made. And the Eckankar principle is: "The root of all evil is in our hearts or in ourselves and nowhere else." Quit looking for evil in the world around us when we can easily find it in ourselves. And the evil within ourselves is all the evil we need to find and know. So with that forget the world. When one sees the evil so pervasive in the world such evil is nothing more than what already lives in our souls and hearts. The evil in the world is nothing more than a reflection and thus the same as what already exists within our souls and hearts. So why look for such evil in the world since it essentially exists in ourselves. The German philosopher Nietzsche stated: "All evil is nothing more than energy in need of transformation." All we have to do is to transform the evil in ourselves into heavenly divine essence that can be found in the kingdom of God. And the kingdom of God thus too is found in ourselves along with the reservoir of human and worldly evil. And with such a transformation comes precious divine wisdom. So a lot of important activity takes place in our hearts and souls in our embarking on our true and marvelous journey back to God. As the hymn states, send good causes, son of the virgin. That is we should only cause Good and love in the world and renounce all evil. So there should be no need for healing even such good causes embody divine healing also. And thus with that cause not any harm or hurt to others, as a result of our evil. Some more lines from the hymn: "May softly come unto me your mercy" God's true nature is gentle and kind and one of love s related by the word and subject of mercy in the lnes of the hymn. Further lines: "Remember me mild one, most we need thee, drive out, oh king of suns,generous and great every human sorrow from the city of the heart." Sorrow comes from the evil in our hearts and our deeds. And such sorrow has its own unique beauty and blessing from God. Such beauty and divine blessing that can only exist by virtue of the presence of evil within ourselves. Anyway, its a beautiful hymn and full of wisdom and understanding of certain attributes of God. And thus great to listen too. A 20th century Icelandic composer wrote the music. Also another great version of Heyr himna smidur on you tube is done by the Capetown Youth choir. Catch that video also. They did some beautiful religious hymns from Africa also that have a joyous rhythmic beat and tempo to it. That is truly African soul music. A lot like some of our rap music in style and rhythm as found here in the US. Disregard any lines that may pierce any portion of my text.

[@MisterDaviso452]

Goodness is simply that which reduces an Evil. Smaller Evils as the incomplete circle can be necessary to correct greater Evils such as ignorance, but they are nonetheless all Evil. There would be no need for Good if there were no Evil, and to perpetuate Evil is to be Evil yourself.

[@Plushie_Fox]

Ah yes, another hard question answered with "me being just too stupid to understand gods plans."

[@therealaquacree]

Firstly, I would argue that the scale of evil is all relative. Imagine a "perfect" world where the worst thing was for dogs to lick people, in this world this would be an abomination, an intrinsic evil. Just as in this world, the suffering of children is considered an abomination. Now you may say that this is a ridiculous analogy because the suffering of children is far worse, but this is precisely my point: it's relative. And then you may say I am inconsiderate, but this play to emotion can cloud logical sound judgement, and is often done with arguments such as these. The evil in this world is the best compromise between having true free will and protection from awful sufferings that can be removed without harming free will. If there is no bad, nothing can be good. Similarly, if there is no extreme bad, there can be no extreme good. Furthermore, if this is not convincing enough, it is a very weak standpoint to reject God because of one problem when there is a plethora of evidence (not proof, evidence) for His existence. I'm not saying you are doing this; I just want to put it out there to anyone reading. It is like dismissing gravity because you see a balloon fly into the sky - not knowing that the helium makes it lighter than air. So yes, it is important to say we simply cannot know everything, but we can know and reason many things: we just cannot know EVERYTHING. Therefore, taking a wholistic approach to philosophy, you should conclude that God exists

[@alphazero5614]

(Copy and pasting my response because most of these criticisms are similar) The issue with suffering is not whether God's actions seem personally "fair" or make us happy. As the Creator, God owes us nothing. Rather, the question is: does what God commands align with right reason about moral rules? If God's natural law and scriptures teach virtue, yet evils seem to contradict this, there is a problem. But evil acts don't negate God, if two things are true: 1) God still offers us guidance and grace through the Church to live well despite hardships. 2) Nothing God ordains in nature removes our freedom to choose the good, as reason shows it. So the difficulty isn't that evils don't fit our ideas of a perfect world. It's whether God's entire ordering of reality upholds the moral truths we discern using intellect. As long as this is so, God stays righteous and faithful even if much is still unclear. Our job isn't explaining why all serves us, but choosing obedience to the light we have. In the end, evils won't have the last word. God will complete what was intended for our sanctification and union with love. This is what really matters for salvation.

[@daymagtoto959]

my favorite video

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers!

[@nowthatimcatholic3640]

Love the videos

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers!

[@Fotomadsen]

You were very quick to gloss over the problem of natural evil. You can't make it go away with a "we simply can't understand it". Why did he create us in a way, so that we don't understand it? Why make animals suffer? I understand "evils" or problems that occur when we try to achieve something, learn something or other endeavours that will drive us forward. A simple example is trying to build muscle. It's hard, we sweat, our muscles hurt, we might get an injury from lifting to much. Etc. In that way I see "evil" as beneficial. But natural evil in this context could be that, the roof falls down on us because of an earthquake. What is to be gained from this evil? The greatest evil for me though is that god seems to not reveal himself to some of us. And according to most Christians I will forever suffer, if I am not baptised. If I am somehow saved anyway, then what is the point?

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

God's plan was for us to live happy in the garden, in wich suffering was nowhere to be found. There it is implied no one ate meat so no animal suffering either (if you think thay somehow matters). Then we have the whole story of the fall and how man chose to betray and distance ourselfs from God. That's just how I see it tho, I'm no philosopher.

[@alphazero5614]

(Copy and pasting my response because most of these criticisms are similar) The issue with suffering is not whether God's actions seem personally "fair" or make us happy. As the Creator, God owes us nothing. Rather, the question is: does what God commands align with right reason about moral rules? If God's natural law and scriptures teach virtue, yet evils seem to contradict this, there is a problem. But evil acts don't negate God, if two things are true: 1) God still offers us guidance and grace through the Church to live well despite hardships. 2) Nothing God ordains in nature removes our freedom to choose the good, as reason shows it. So the difficulty isn't that evils don't fit our ideas of a perfect world. It's whether God's entire ordering of reality upholds the moral truths we discern using intellect. As long as this is so, God stays righteous and faithful even if much is still unclear. Our job isn't explaining why all serves us, but choosing obedience to the light we have. In the end, evils won't have the last word. God will complete what was intended for our sanctification and union with love. This is what really matters for salvation.

[@robertwilsoniii2048]

I'm more convinced by the argument from free will. If we don't have incompatibilist free will, then being saved would be pointless.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

Free will doesn't require evil or suffering.

[@Francisco-lf3zi]

I would greatly value and thank anybody to read, analyze and critique my thoughts on the problem of evil. First of, I will address the evidential version of the problem of evil, not the logical one. This means that the arguments to be considered are inductive, not deductive. That is to say that I will deal with the plausibility or likelihood of the following proposition being true. "Evil we see in the world is allowed or created by an all loving all powerful God, for reasons we cannot understand." The idea that there is, or may be, a good reason for a benevolent and all powerful God allowing or purposely creating awful things like birth malformations or natural disasters, but us not understanding or being able to understand this reason, is in my view a weak argument. Here is why. Well, there may be such a reason, but that does not make this argument plausible or that mysterious reason remotely probable. Why would an all benevolent, all powerful god not make us capable of understanding that good reason? Answering with the same argument of "there is a reason we cannot understand" solves nothing, it only pushes the same problem further back. Notice that I am talking about evil that is not the result of human actions, like birth malformations or natural disasters. If awful things as child cancer exist, but god created that suffering or the mere possibility there of, did he/she/it do it so because of being an awful designer, a limited creator, or maybe he/she/it inflicts unnecessary suffering just because or out of sadism? There may be a very intricate reason or even a reason impossible for us to understand. But I have never read about or heared of any evidence that would make this "good reason" for this "necessary evil" plausible. Just saying that there is or may be such a reason does not make the argument itself more plausible, because it doesn't offer any evidence.

[@Grateful2Life]

Please take a look at the following explanation. You will be greatly benefitted: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJSxeoeogNacq68

[@Fotomadsen]

Exactly. He is very quick to move on from natural evil and no he can't just hand wave it away with "we simply can't understand it". The reason he has to do this, is because the explanations that people have tried to give doesn't make sense when they are scrutinised. The problem even stretches further than humans, as many more animals are made to suffer. Don't even get me started on the problem of letting the consequences of Eve and Adam's sin rest on every descendent of those two. That is not just either. Or the problem of finding god and especially the "right" one.

[@ernesthader1109]

Pain and suffering is part and parcel of our existence and experience but even in thr most ideal conditions and in the presence of God, the angels still rebelled and did evil things. I would assume there's no pain and suffering like what we exprience there in heaven but still thr angels fell and sinned against God.

[@therealaquacree]

@@Fotomadsen .Firstly, I would argue that the scale of evil is all relative. Imagine a "perfect" world where the worst thing was for dogs to lick people, in this world this would be an abomination, an intrinsic evil. Just as in this world, the suffering of children is considered an abomination. Now you may say that this is a ridiculous analogy because the suffering of children is far worse, but this is precisely my point: it's relative. And then you may say I am inconsiderate, but this play to emotion can cloud logical sound judgement, and is often done with arguments such as these. The evil in this world is the best compromise between having true free will and protection from awful sufferings that can be removed without harming free will. If there is no bad, nothing can be good. Similarly, if there is no extreme bad, there can be no extreme good. Furthermore, if this is not convincing enough, it is a very weak standpoint to reject God because of one problem when there is a plethora of evidence (not proof, evidence) for His existence. I'm not saying you are doing this; I just want to put it out there to anyone reading. It is like dismissing gravity because you see a balloon fly into the sky - not knowing that the helium makes it lighter than air. So yes, it is important to say we simply cannot know everything, but we can know and reason many things: we just cannot know EVERYTHING. Therefore, taking a wholistic approach to philosophy, you should conclude that God exists.

[@Bob-be2pj]

These philosophical explanations fall flat in the face of the degree of suffering in the world.

[@millergre]

If that is the case, I would pose the question, "Do I appreciate the good in the world?" or "Is it probable that anything works in a world so full of chaos?"

[@Deathhellandthegrave]

Are we to believe that god brings about a greater good out of every single evil? I don't think so.

[@Totaltwist]

Though I see the idea of the greater good being a positive, it still means this god either isn't or is capable of making a world were evil exists. Though an incomplete circle was useful for the purposes of this demonstration, the circle wouldn't be needed if the world was already made where imperfect circles were never needed.

[@maryjohnstone4777]

Thanks For.fr a great , informative video,clearly explained.Its quite a topic, to cover ,almost hard to really understand.G B U.

[@ernesthader1109]

The most common argument against God was His inability to commit evil. The argument goes that He can't be perfect if He can't do evil.

[@polemeros]

How do the apparent eons and eons of animal pain/death prior to the arrival of humans, and the possibility of a Fall, square with a benevolent all-powerful God? Aquinas robustly maintains that prior to the Fall lions and falcons, for example, killed other animals for food. So how was that all due to sin?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

So, the objection you pose is sometimes called the Buddhist objection. It makes the judgment that animal pain is horrendous and intolerable and therefore ought to be mitigated to the extent that it is possible. Seeing as God has not mitigated it (even prior to any consideration of human sin), therefore . . . A typical response to this is to direct attention to God's designs in creation. We begin by admitting that his purposes are mysterious to us (cf. Job 38). But, it seems that we need to try to enunciate God's purpose in creating in a positive rather than in a negative way. The best way to mitigate pain and suffering would be to never create in the first place. But, God judges it good to afford creation the opportunity to share in his divine life. So, why? Given that he does create, we can reason further upon his revelation. God creates out of love. He does not need creation. Rather, he creates because he thought that we might like it. In a sense, his love overflows the bounds of his divine nature, and creation is the variegated testimony of that choice. Furthermore, it seems, from the hierarchy and order of creation, that he is not about a work of bland egalitarianism. Rather, he makes his perfections known and manifest by creating a variety of creatures. So, he makes minerals, plants, animals, man, angels . . . and in doing so, he fills every nook and cranny of creation with testimony of his love and occasion to contemplate his perfections. It seems further, that wherever you have embodied creatures that operate by their own proper principles, then each will build itself up by the destruction of something else. Plants consume nutrients. Herbivores consume plants. Carnivores consume hebivores. Etc. But, one might object, why not make a world in which there were no carnivores [herbivores, plants, etc.]? And the answer, it seems, is because the world would be less glorious, and it would testify less gloriously. So, could God have created a better world? Sure. Scripture says so. But, he made this one, and the Christian disposition is to try to access the wisdom of his choice by adopting a contemplative stance before the wonder of creation.

[@alexmcd378]

Man should have created a better god would be the more accurate summary. The death toll of innocents in exodus alone is horrifying, done by God or through his agents. Yhwh was the war god of ancient Semitic people, so it makes sense that he was cruel. He was also one of several gods until a faction of his followers gained control and rewrote the holy books. He would have been one more of thousands of forgotten gods if he didn't have the best marketing campaign on his side.

[@Taima]

@Joseph Wilbur lol maybe if you're some sadist who believes there's nothing more beautiful than the suffering of animals it is.

[@bluckobluc8755]

​@@alexmcd378Ironic you have to use Judeo-Christian morality to judge same said God... Interesting

[@alexmcd378]

@@bluckobluc8755 obviously I'm not using Christian morality if I can conclude that God is evil.

[@federicoma.2708]

Excelente.

[@PInk77W1]

Jesus said A grain of wheat is only a grain of wheat But if it falls to the ground and dies it yields A great harvest

[@dennisjacob1081]

We can't even peer the deepest oceans of our own planet for get comprehending the whole of creation

[@scotte4765]

And yet Christians will still claim to know fundamental characteristics of the even more incomprehensible being behind it all. Such arrogance.

[@brianw.5230]

Great video!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thank you!

[@brianw.5230]

@@ThomisticInstitute no, thank you. For all you do.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@brianw.5230 Cheers!

[@LJ7000]

In regard to the free will arguement mentioned, if God can act within the free will he created like you say, to direct the will to good, then surely that isn't free will he created.

[@grubblewubbles]

Amen

[@noahscheibmeir5842]

I don’t know if you are still answering questions on this one, but I hope you can help me with this one: If I’m born in original sin, and suffer the ill effects of that state which leave me discombobulated in my pursuit of the good, even after baptism, how responsible am I for the sins I committed in such a state? Isn’t that like blaming someone for being drowned in a pool even though an enemy locked a weight to their ankles and pushed them in?

[@mauijttewaal]

Only God, who has complete knowledge of all circumstances, can answer that question. But does it matter? Whether you're responsible or not, the shit has happened and God is more than willing to forgive;-)

[@mauijttewaal]

BTW God is not blaming us for anything;-)

[@lanceasher6492]

@@mauijttewaal So aren't we responsible for our sins

[@MightyWeeks]

The 2 Quasi explanations are: 1) God allows evil because there is a higher good than we can ever imagine. (Argument from ignorance.) and 2) That God allows sin to show his goodness as our savior.... As a Christian struggling in his faith, these answers are incredibly anti-climactic. Basically stating "We don't know why there's evil, but the Bible says he is infinitely good so... yeah."

[@scotte4765]

I find that second argument to be particularly specious. The flowery religious language used for it is usually something like "God allows evil so that his glory can shine out that much more," but what it amounts to is someone purposely allowing a damaging problem to happen so they can be praised for coming in to fix it later. Not only would we never admire such self-serving manipulation in other people, but in this case the damage done seemingly includes the eternal damnation of any number of human beings and after several thousand years we're still waiting for any of the fixes to be done. You are right to be struggling to accept terrible explanations such as these.

[@alphazero5614]

(Copy and pasting my response because most of these criticisms are similar) The issue with suffering is not whether God's actions seem personally "fair" or make us happy. As the Creator, God owes us nothing. Rather, the question is: does what God commands align with right reason about moral rules? If God's natural law and scriptures teach virtue, yet evils seem to contradict this, there is a problem. But evil acts don't negate God, if two things are true: 1) God still offers us guidance and grace through the Church to live well despite hardships. 2) Nothing God ordains in nature removes our freedom to choose the good, as reason shows it. So the difficulty isn't that evils don't fit our ideas of a perfect world. It's whether God's entire ordering of reality upholds the moral truths we discern using intellect. As long as this is so, God stays righteous and faithful even if much is still unclear. Our job isn't explaining why all serves us, but choosing obedience to the light we have. In the end, evils won't have the last word. God will complete what was intended for our sanctification and union with love. This is what really matters for salvation.

[@stevewyche5232]

If you think about it, God nor Jesus ever addressed this question. Man is the one who argues that evil exists because we have freewill.

[@Cathalb]

I see some fallacies, but I guess it is for my lack of knowledge or because it was a desperate attempt to say God is good. I believe He is and that He wants us to live in our greatest shape, but I don't think this is the answer. I still respect St. Thomas Aquinas and you guys for letting us see this pearl of philosophy

[@lanceasher6492]

If sickness and death and suffreing wasn't apart of god's original plan then it seem that god doesn't know the future and somebody else is ruling over god.

[@calderart]

As there can be nothing outside of God then as one person said, evil is just a misused part of God. We can use a hammer to create furniture or to murder another person. Man has free will and we can use it to save a life or take it. The problem of evil lies in the heart of man. God promises to give us a new heart through faith in Christ.

[@scotte4765]

Christians, STOP spitting out "Free Will!" every time this topic comes up. Free will doesn't explain the suffering caused by diseases and natural events. Free will doesn't explain God letting one person remove the free will of another. Free will doesn't prevent God from fixing or preventing the damage after some harmful choice is made. Free will doesn't explain how you will have an eternity in Heaven where free will exists AND all evil is prevented forever, but somehow on Earth evil has to go along with allowing free will.

[@neetard7360]

Think of the cost of lives of war, for instance There is harrowing loss of life, weeping, & unfathomable trauma given to each & every survivor However, on a societal note, war tends to come with great advances in technology & knowledge of how things work as a whole. It also spurs the conscious of great many advocates to speak up against war & it's more pointless attributes & if everyone is lucky it repels those who act to seek harm & ensures freedom for those who were occupied by an enemy force & by those who were innocent yet swept up in the tragedy for reasons out of control while giving riches to the conquerer far beyond what could be gained by simple trade & diplomacy I don't know if I'm right to call those upsides redemptive, especially with how huge & exploitive wars have become in recent times, but in a general sense & with a traditional understanding of war I think it illustrates the 2nd mystery on a level that most can grasp

[@ShermanT.Potter]

I was raised Catholic, I'm agnostic now. If God is all powerful and all knowing, he could stop evil immediately. What is evil, is creating a being that can cause itself to go to a place of eternal torment if it does any number of actions, or can't believe specifics in regards to what God is. Take my case, for example. Anxiety, panic attacks, OCD (including scrupulosity), and depression. The scrupulosity was so bad at one point, that I felt that if I did whatever action was in my head at that moment (benign things like gulping or walking), I would simultaneously be condoning a bad thought in my head. So when the action you're thinking about is breathing, you have to hold your breath until you can clear the thought, or confirm in your mind that it isn't bad to do that action, and it won't be condoning it. Or the derealization of panic attacks, or curling up in a ball and crying. God allows this, and other psychological issues, for years upon years. In regards to the afterlife, this is the issue that follows. Say I go to heaven, and I'm with God. I can't praise him, to do so would be illogical. Especially considering the much greater evils of the world he allows to occur, such as genocide, child r**e, other religions that convince people to follow them and therefore go to hell, etc. But I don't want to be in hell, nor do I wish to be around the devil, the scapegoat of why evil occurs. So what do I do in the afterlife? FIght the devil eternally? Which won't make any difference, due to God's will wanting there to be the precise amount of evil in the world that there is. I wish my soul could just be destroyed. In fact, I've told God that if I'm going to do anything to cause me to go to hell, he can kill me, or destroy my soul. Life is a sick game.

[@SKF358]

Begging the question at the end of the video. God is perfectly good, so His allowing evil is actually a good thing.

[@scotte4765]

@CatholicByTheGraceOfGod Nonsense. People can be healthy without requiring anyone to be sick. People can be happy without requiring anyone to be miserable. Yin and yang may be frequently observed in our lives but that doesn't make a mix of good and evil a necessity. And by your assertion, eternity in Heaven with God must necessarily include the occurrence of evil because otherwise it can't be good. Do you believe that? Are you looking forward to an eternal Heaven where, once in a while, some woman still gets raped?

[@fma1946]

Very good video

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks!

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of the video on the problem of evil using syllogistic logic: Premises: 1. God is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good. 1. Evil exists in the world. 1. An omnipotent God would have the power to eliminate all evil. 1. An omniscient God would know how to eliminate all evil. 1. A wholly good God would desire to eliminate all evil. Syllogism: 1. If God is omnipotent, God would have the power to eliminate all evil. 1. If God is omniscient, God would know how to eliminate all evil. 1. If God is wholly good, God would desire to eliminate all evil. 1. Evil exists in the world. 1. Therefore, either God lacks one or more of the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness, or God does not exist. In this logical analysis, the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God. The deductive argument shows that the problem of evil still poses a philosophical challenge to traditional concepts of God despite attempted theological responses over the centuries. The existence of unnecessary suffering provides strong inductive support for the conclusion as well. Addressing the problem requires revising fundamental assumptions about God's nature rather than mere ad hoc defenses. Thus the challenge posed by the problem of evil remains relevant and compelling both logically and evidentially. This demonstrates the importance of philosophy in critically examining even centuries-old theological problems using reason and evidence.

[@scotte4765]

Good analysis and formal articulation of the problem. I offer a few small suggestions for improvement: 1. Number your premises and conclusions with consecutive numbers so they can be uniquely referred to in any responses. (You have them all numbered with 1) 2. Modify the fourth premise to include "be aware of all occurrences of evil" along with what you have, i.e., God can't claim he didn't know about it. 3. Modify the fifth premise to say "A wholly good God would _attempt_ to prevent and eliminate all evil," not just "desire to." This makes it more explicit that we should be seeing such a God doing something about evil, and doing so preemptively. I know your phrasing already implies this, but I think it is important to phrase this premise strongly and explicitly since it is virtually always the one that theists attempt to rebut. I.e., "yes God does desire that, but he waits/holds back because X, Y, or Z."

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

@@scotte4765 Here’s a revised presentation of the philosophical critique on the problem of evil, accommodating the suggestions provided: By clarifying God’s omniscience to include awareness of all occurrences of evil and emphasizing the active intervention expected of a wholly good God, the argument becomes more robust and harder to counter. The potential gaps or loopholes that might have been exploited in the original formulation have been minimized or eliminated in the revised version. As for your comment about the numbering issue sometimes when I write these out on my notepad and copy paste my responses into youtube comments on my phone the format messes up my numbering apologies I didn’t even notice it was doing that until you pointed out the problem. Premises: 1. God is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good. 2. Evil exists in the world. 3. An omnipotent God would have the power to eliminate all evil. 4. An omniscient God would know how to eliminate all evil and be aware of all occurrences of evil. 5. A wholly good God would attempt to prevent and eliminate all evil. Syllogism: 1. If God is omnipotent, He would have the power to eliminate all evil. 2. If God is omniscient, He would know how to eliminate all evil and be aware of all occurrences of evil. 3. If God is wholly good, He would attempt to prevent and eliminate all evil. 4. Evil exists in the world. 5. Therefore, either God lacks one or more of the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness, or God does not exist. In this revised logical analysis, the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God. Addressing the problem requires a reevaluation of fundamental assumptions about God’s nature. The deductive argument emphasizes that the problem of evil remains a formidable philosophical challenge to traditional concepts of God. The presence of suffering and evil offers strong support for this conclusion, underscoring the value of philosophy in critically evaluating age-old theological issues using reason and evidence.

[@scotte4765]

@@Enigmatic_philosopher Looks great. I thought maybe your device had auto-numbered it for you or something like that. The big challenge, of course, is not in tightening up the argument itself but in getting any Catholics here to respond to it in a similarly rigorous way. They love to tout their intellectual legacy with videos like this but extremely few of them live up to it in my experience. There is great value in this even just as an exercise in honing our own thinking and argumentation even if you get no replies from Catholics. If you wanted a further project you could try formulating similar syllogisms countering commonly given responses, all of which attack premise #3 (in the syllogism) in one way or another. So how might you logically counter any of these popular rebuttals: - "God refrains from stopping evil because doing so would impinge on our free will which God values highly." - "God refrains from stopping evil for reasons of his own which are incomprehensible to us but still consistent with his other stated characteristics." - "God waits to stop evil so that as many people as possible have the opportunity to turn to him voluntarily." (a variant of the free will response) - "God allows evil to happen so that he can turn it to his own ends and bring about an even greater good." And just for completeness, some of the more blatantly fallacious responses I've seen often: - "As an atheist your morals are subjective so you're in no position to dictate what God should or shouldn't do." - "You just hate God." - "The Bible says so."

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

@@scotte4765 Thank you for pointing out these common rebuttals. Here’s my general response to them: 1. On God valuing free will: An omnipotent deity could, in theory, design a reality where free will exists without the presence of evil. Plus, many evils, like natural disasters, are not connected to human free will. 2. God’s reasons being incomprehensible: Claiming we can’t grasp God’s reasons is special pleading. By this logic, we can’t assert any attributes of God, making reasoned theological discourse impossible. 3. God’s patience for voluntary devotion: This implies God permits widespread suffering for the sake of potential devotion. An omniscient being would know in advance who would turn to Him, rendering the waiting unnecessary. 4. The Greater Good defense: This suggests God can’t achieve a particular good without allowing evil, which seems to limit His omnipotence. Also, many evils seem gratuitous with no discernible greater good resulting. 5. Questioning atheists’ morals: Claiming atheists can’t critique God’s actions due to their subjective morals is an ad hominem. Morality can be understood through societal norms, empathy, and logic, without invoking religion. 6. Accusations of hating God: This is another ad hominem attack. Critiquing a concept doesn’t mean one hates it, especially if they don’t believe it exists. 7. Appeal to the Bible: Using the Bible as the sole source of validation here is circular reasoning. It presupposes its own validity in a discussion that aims to evaluate its core concepts. This should serve as a good general response to these objections for now. I’ll be working on crafting more rigorous syllogistic responses as time allows. However, I do wonder: if no one engages in this dialogue, is my time best spent crafting these rebuttals? I have posted arguments on many videos on this channel and I have yet to get a single rigorous engagement or counter.

[@alphazero5614]

(Copy and pasting my response because most of these criticisms are similar) The issue with suffering is not whether God's actions seem personally "fair" or make us happy. As the Creator, God owes us nothing. Rather, the question is: does what God commands align with right reason about moral rules? If God's natural law and scriptures teach virtue, yet evils seem to contradict this, there is a problem. But evil acts don't negate God, if two things are true: 1) God still offers us guidance and grace through the Church to live well despite hardships. 2) Nothing God ordains in nature removes our freedom to choose the good, as reason shows it. So the difficulty isn't that evils don't fit our ideas of a perfect world. It's whether God's entire ordering of reality upholds the moral truths we discern using intellect. As long as this is so, God stays righteous and faithful even if much is still unclear. Our job isn't explaining why all serves us, but choosing obedience to the light we have. In the end, evils won't have the last word. God will complete what was intended for our sanctification and union with love. This is what really matters for salvation.

[@callofsuccess7960]

Fr Dominic, I have a difficulty.. at about 4:25, you say “it was never part of God’s original plan for sin to enter the world, and it is a result of our free will” .. how does this fit with predestination? Is God not ultimately responsible for his creation, especially human beings? Did he not predestine us to sin? How could the following all be true simultaneously? A) God is the creator of humanity B) God predestines every human C) humans sin regularly D) therefore, God is the author of sin I hope my logic is flawed here and this is an easily resolvable issue. God bless you Fr and all the work that yall do 🙏🧎‍♂️‍➡️📿⛪️

[@scotte4765]

Your logic is not flawed. To say that God did not purposely plan for sin, evil, and suffering to happen, you MUST say that he either didn't know it would happen, or he didn't care that it would happen, or he couldn't do anything to stop it (or some mix of those three together). You must give up some part of his supposed omniscience, goodness, or omnipotence. There is no other logical option.

[@rubenespinoza6821]

Wonderful! content!! I wish have more like this in spanish... Also, I'm always impress no matter how good id your content any time you'll have "dislikes"

[@byron8657]

Evil is defined in the Webster Dictionary as the absence of Good! K

[@sieglinde1776]

If someone is experiencing unjust suffering, how do you offer it up to God instead of being angry and resentful that God is permitting or has permitted you to experience what seems like unjust suffering? This is something I've been struggling with for awhile.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Here are some principles for thinking about suffering: 1. Recognize that you’ll never have a complete answer (in this sense of perfect comprehension). 2. All suffering is a result of sin; moral evil and the havoc it wreaks in human society is not part of God’s perfect will for man, though he permits it in light of the fall. 3. Suffering only begins to make sense in light of the cross. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that we might not suffer alone. 4. God is provident beyond our imagining; as much as you want the best for everyone, God wants it all the more and then some; he loves your destiny and that of all men with an unfathomably zealous desire. 5. Life on earth is not ordered to contentment or present happiness; if you put a whole host of people in a building and tell half of them that they’re in a hotel and the other half that they’re in a prison, the former lot will be sorely disappointed and the latter pleasantly surprised. Life is not a hotel; it’s much closer to an athletic facility. We should think accordingly. 6. God would not permit evil to befall except he could draw from it some greater good; the martyrs’ testimony is dependent on the torturers persecution; St. Augustine was able to sing, “O happy fault which merited for us such a Savior.” 7. God is taking all the sin and suffering, every ugly aspect of each man’s story and constructing with it a kind of monument of mercy. Rather than saying, “Look how horrible that is,” we can say instead, “Look what the mercy of God will redeem in its time.” Hope that's helpful.

[@sieglinde1776]

Thank you, this is helpful.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@sieglinde1776 We're glad to hear!

[@daymagtoto959]

The Thomistic Institute the best illustration for me is the story of Joseph son of Jacob/Israel

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@daymagtoto959 That's a great point!

[@philotheasbliss]

Beautiful explanation.

[@HopeLaFleur1975]

Ok, here is a deep question..why does child abuse exist. Why are some children allowed to suffer the awful abuse some adults inflict in them. I have often thought as to why is this permitted to such innocent of victims. As I child there was a young girl that lived next two us..her and her sister were subject to cruel harsh verbal and physical abuse by their stepfather. They would come over every night but return to their homes. We could not comprehended how this man was so cruel to them. Their father passed away and in such a rush their mother re-married this man. I remember going over the house and him beating the girls, by kicking them in the stomach, calling them names I will not repeat..it horrified me. We did call the police several times..but this was a time that was not like today. I just wonder why God allows so much suffering to young children especially abuse.

[@lewis72]

For me this is one of numerous reason why I do not believe that god exists.

[@thatcatholicgirl5675]

Those girl’s stepfather was given a choice: hit his stepdaughters, or treat them with love. He chose the former. That’s not on God-that’s on the stepfather for using his free will for evil. I struggled a lot with this question myself-I’ve been there too.

[@MrMuugoo]

I just don’t get why God just doesn’t tell us plainly.

[@PInk77W1]

Life is a test. That would be like giving the answers To the test. Oh yeah and if u get an A on this test Your reward is eternal paradise

[@jasongr3219]

Evil is a privation of perfect order, not necessarily a quantitative privation. If your circle had lumps on it, or if it was an oval, it would have imperfect order, this "evil" if a perfect circle is the standard.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

In your daily prayers ask your personal god to remove evil from his perfect creation. He can do it with no effort on his part but he won't. Don't ask why.

[@ronaldtrunk7944]

so "sin is our fault, not gods". but we have the pre-disposition and the tempations of the world that causes our sin. this is totally not fair. this is why we have guilt. we are told we are awful

[@danielpoot7275]

However, somehow, I think it was better that God just eliminated Adam and Eve as a punishment for their sin. That way we would have never existed. Never experiencing suffering and injustice nor would we ever feel the terror of hell and the frustration of following the divine law.

[@chrisbernal5164]

I do not know whether it is a matter of presentation but obviously he started from an ontological evil and thence to moral evil. The problem that I see is that the relation of the moral and ontological is not explained. Ontologically considered, If any being, moral beings included, is constituted with matter and form as St. Thomas taught, then evil must have matter and form. Obviously, when evil is conceived as privation, it has no matter and form. Therefore, the problem of evil arises from the fact that created beings originated from nothing. Even if God, thus, wanted to, He could not create without evil in it. The imperfect world we live in is the most perfect that God could ever create.

[@alexmcd378]

A question for everyone who says that you need an advanced education in theology or must follow the word of bible teachers in order to understand the Bible. How do I choose a teacher without interpreting the text myself? The different teachers and schools and seminaries teach different interpretations of the text. They can't all be correct. And if I choose the wrong one, then I am putting my soul at risk. So how do I choose correctly without interpreting the text on my own first? How else can I assess the teachings of the differing teachers, except to compare them to the text itself? I would love an answer to this logical trap if you have one. This is a major part of why "you need education to interpret the text" is unconvincing, though not the only reason. If it's impossible to understand the true meaning of the text without education, then it is also impossible to choose the right educator. So relying on one's own interpretation is in the end, all we can do.

[@scotte4765]

A bigger question related to that is why would a God with a vital message of salvation for all humanity communicate it in a way he would know would result in frustration, confusion, misunderstanding, and outright violence? Does God really expect people struggling to put food on the table each day to study ancient Hebrew and Greek? How is it we've had two millenia of miscopying, mistranslation, violent disagreements, and absurd claims like the one you bring up without God showing up to clear things up even once? The Bible looks like a fragmented and conflicted mish-mash of human-made mythology, poetry, history, fiction, and theology because that's exactly what it is. There is no "true meaning" to it except for what the different human writers of each part were trying to accomplish at the time they wrote those parts.

[@scotte4765]

@Saintly You're welcome to disagree, but assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration, particularly when they ignore legitimate objections made against them, as yours does here. Thanks, though.

[@scotte4765]

@Saintly *If that’s not credible evidence, I don’t know what is.* It isn't. It's yet another unsubstantiated claim. I agree that you don't seem to know what credible evidence is. *what evidence did you provide for your claim that the Bible has no true meaning, other than what YOU think it looks like? Isn’t that somewhat hypocritical?* Allow me to rephrase what I said above. We know the Bible is a collection of man-made writings from a range of time periods and cultures, encompassing a similarly wide range of topics, genres, themes, and purposes. There is no compelling evidence that it is anything more than that, at least in terms of origins, authorship, or some single "true meaning" that undergirds the entire collection. Anyone wishing to claim that it is has the burden of proof to provide such evidence. Finding yet another way to rephrase "God did it" doesn't constitute evidence.

[@alexmcd378]

@Saintly you're dodging the question, intentionally or not. You claim the Catholic church has the true interpretation. But every other church has the same claim to truth. I'm asking how a person can reliably determine true teaching from false in order to know what to believe? What method did you use when you choose to be Catholic?

[@alexmcd378]

@Saintly Jesus as God varies from sect to sect actually. But giving quotes from an old book aren't significant evidence. Other religions have equally old books and an equal claim to truth. How does one determine which old holy book to believe, if any?

[@MrChaosAdam]

I'm same sex attracted. Is that part of some greater plan? Is my life an illustration for how others shouldn't be? I'm not being stingy, just asking.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Since the question concerns you personally, would you be willing to email [e-mail] to continue the discussion? If you want to post the conversation here at the end, that's certainly an option.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@chosenskeptic5319 Being attracted to the same sex is unnatural, and it goes against the original intent of God's human creation. I don't mean that in a condemning way.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@chosenskeptic5319 I didn't suggest that you were. I was disagreeing with your understanding of sin

[@bobpolo2964]

@@chosenskeptic5319 Are you using Scripture as your authority or is this from your own understanding?

[@bobpolo2964]

@@chosenskeptic5319 Is Jesus Christ the Lord of your life?

[@clemensvanlier1151]

Thanks for the video! I had a couple of questions: - In the beginning you give a definition of the term 'natural evil', and you name that 'deers eat grass, lions eat deers'. But isn't it so that 'eating meat' is something from after the fall? Okay, not saying this to promote a vegetarian lifestyle, but just on the fact that, in the story of the creation, God gvies fruits etc. as food, it doesn't say anything about eating animals. And next to that, one could point out to the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah where the lion sits next to the lamb etc. And if eating meat is something from after the fall, could one say that this is part of the creation God had in mind? - Later in the video you discuss the problem of the 'existence' of sin. You name the argument about the human freedom shortly, but Aquinas refutes this argument. I must say for me this always seemed a pretty good explanation for the existence of sin. I wouldn't say it's 'impossible for God to prevent evil' because of free will, but can you still speak of free will if God would constantly move the human will to do good? Isn't the possibility to do evil essential for the existence of free will? And how could the human being genuinly choose for God, if he wouldn't have the possibility to choose against God. And the existence of this kind of free will to me seems essential for the relationship of love we are called to by God. - And, last one; isn't there a difference in the attitude of the human being toward sin before/after the fall? I read that Aquinas says that the human being lost some kind of primordial grace through the fall. Doesn't this make the question about how the human being could sin before the fall a different one that after the fall? My apologies if the sentences are a bit vague, I hope you can understand what I mean. Greetings from the Netherlands. Looking forward to your answer.

[@scotte4765]

Animals eating meat is a result of evolution, because meat is an efficient source of energy and nutrients and has been so for millions of years, long before humans ever existed. Mythological stories about disobedient ancestors have nothing to do with it. "Natural evil" only refers to suffering caused by natural processes and events without any malicious intent.

[@greyforge27]

What about things like parasites and diseases? How are they privations? They seems to have existence to themselves, and to be evils.

[@johnwake1001]

This is one of my favorite videos of the series. The topic of evil is so relevant today, as is the need to understand it. Another question. Quoting Augustine Aquinas says: "God is so powerful that He can even make good out of evil." Are there lines in the Bible that directly say this? I understand that the whole story of salvation is attesting to this truth, but I wonder if it is directly expressed anywhere in the Bible, that God can bring good out of any evil. Thank you.

[@jonhowerton2537]

Maybe this verse “As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭50:20‬ ‭RSV-CI‬‬ This is in context of Joseph getting sold into slavery by his brothers because they were jealous of him. Joseph had a dream that a famine was coming and acted upon that dream by telling the Egyptians to store grain for the famine that’s coming, which resulted in many people being saved

[@johnwake1001]

@@jonhowerton2537 Yes, I was reading these very lines myself the other day. Thanks Jon!

[@jonhowerton2537]

@@johnwake1001 nice, your welcome, God Bless 🙏

[@scotte4765]

I'd be more impressed with a god who actually prevented the evil in the first place. Would you admire a police officer who allows all sorts of crimes to occur just so everyone can see how good they are at catching the criminals afterwards? Any omnipotent being ought to be able to bring about the greater good without needing evil as a prerequisite. E.g., tell the Egyptians about the famine directly, or prevent the famine entirely, and Joseph's ordeal wouldn't be needed. Seems easy enough, but God didn't think of that, apparently.

[@johnwake1001]

@@scotte4765 Ah, how could God fail to impress you? Irony aside, you dream of an ideal world and you measure God's work by human standards, human understanding of the ideal. Consider that there is no evil in itself, but only lack of goodness, which God is willing to tolerate for reasons that we don't fully understand. But we can have some intuitions. One is that God created us free, and he so much respects our freedom that allows us to freely choose between good and evil. Never mind the evil of the world. All evil that has ever been done or will ever be done is nothing compared to the one truly cosmic evil that we did and that God allowed us to do: God let us crucify him. Why? Because this was the path of our salvation. So the greatest evil in history is turned good.

[@HienNguyen-kz1jp]

@4:20 illness, suffering, and death that are not related to free will, including medical problems and natural disasters, are then attributed to original sin? is there another nonbiblical approach to the problem of natural evils? i'm willing to watch videos, read articles and possibly excerpts of books addressing this thanks

[@felicity380]

I think illness, suffering and death can be acts of free will e.g. drugs?

[@garyhudson3270]

illness, suffering, death can be brought on by poor choices, examples; smoking, obesity. alcoholism. suicide, etc.

[@scotte4765]

@@garyhudson3270 Suffering certainly can be caused by poor choices, but that doesn't do anything to get God off the hook, theologically speaking. You still have a God who does nothing for the innocent victims who suffer because of someone else's poor choices, and who watches people harm themselves and says, "eh, not my fault".

[@krzysztofciuba271]

U did not get: evil is privation on the definition; therefore, there is no causal relation between being (here,God) and the lack of good,being. A v.funny, if you would like to live 1000 years as a crippled on a wheelchair watching dumb TVs and movies and dumb people like in Middle Ages around you. Probably you are just a part of an evil society (around you) and do not see this evil(as a part of evil): idiocy, crimes, and global stupidity revealed now thanks to Mass media and the internet. Christianity only gives the answer to how to deal with evil and suffering: the cross and sacrifice has a sense -!Corinthians 1:18

[@scotte4765]

@B looo Dumb argument, sorry. If you don't have tyranny, you don't NEED martyrs in the first place. I would be perfectly happy to live in a world where we had no need of medical cures, police forces, or heroic sacrifices. Let the martyrs stay alive and do useful things for another forty years or more. Besides, who says God has to prevent ALL evil? Right now there's no evidence for him preventing ANY of it, and that's what makes Christian claims about him unbelievable. Let's start with the easy stuff, like stopping miscarriages or just giving us the formula for a cheap and effective malaria vaccine. But no, we get bleeding statues and magic burial blankets. How impressive.

[@rocio8851]

I am not a Catholic, yet I think Aquinas was the greatest thinker in Christian history. Of course, the authors of the Bible are excluded.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

God bless you!

[@scotte4765]

Yeah, that guy who wrote "suffer not a witch to live" and "in cities near you that you attack, leave alive nothing that breathes" was obviously an intellectual giant. That story about the talking donkey was also a philosophical tour de force. None of it was the ordinary product of a barbaric Bronze Age culture whose knowledge was the equal of its neighbors and whose ethics were only marginally better. That's totally out of the question. Posthumous Nobel Prizes to all the Biblical authors.

[@trivialrant9808]

Your circle analogy assumes all evil seeks to inspire some other good or moral lesson. The world is full of needless or unjustifiable evil that serves no purpose other then pain and death. A person killed in a natural disaster can never reflect or grow from the evil

[@mauijttewaal]

What about Christ's death?

[@taliellenightdream7071]

@@mauijttewaal Doesn’t explain natural disasters. But I can’t get over this: God sent himself to sacrifice himself, to himself. A god that demands bloodshed for payment (especially for a human nature he created) must be evil. Something is missing from this puzzle.

[@ljkoh20052000able]

Evil is the lack of good. Hence, God did not create evil since evil is only the lack of being good.

[@alexmcd378]

Leonard John Koh " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Your god disagrees with you. And I think job's family and the first born of Egypt would agree that God creates evil. Didn't he let the devil kill jobs family just to win a bet? And he slew the first born of Egypt to show off his power. That is evil.

[@ColeB-jy3mh]

Could you do a video on why there is only one God?

[@sosu6227]

I would like to ask, does Saint Thomas Aquinas address arguments simmiliar to Daoist philosohy, for example the idea that "good cannot exist without evil" or that "good is just the absence of evil"?

[@johnwake1001]

Great video and the example of circle is brilliant! One question: why can’t we invoke free will to explain our wrongdoings? I don’t mean to say that God CAN’T stop us from doing wrong, but that he lets us do it if such is our will. Your other video on grace seems to support my understanding.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Great question, John! It is indeed within God's power to prevent human evil. Generally, we know that he often makes a greater good out of evil than what we might have expected would happen, had that evil never occurred - the Incarnation of Christ is the greatest example. Our wrongdoings are not attributable to God not having given a sufficient grace to prevent them, but rather, to the loss original integrity and the wounds of the fall of Adam, as well as our sharing with Adam in the freedom to resist God's movements of grace. That he sometimes declines to prevent our evil acts does not mean that he condones them.

[@johnwake1001]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you, that was exactly my understanding. I listened again the respective part of the video and realised that my initial question was a bit irrelevant, since you argued against the assertion that God CANNOT prevent us from choosing evil because of our free will. You never argued against the assertion that we can choose evil because of our free will with God declining to prevent our choice.