What are Christian responses to Carlo Alvaro's argument against theism (the “Heaven Ab Initio” Argument from Evil)?

Question

I'm referring to Carlo Alvaro's paper The “Heaven Ab Initio” Argument from Evil:

HAIAFE (“Heaven Ab Initio” Argument from Evil):

1. As a perfect being, God’s goal is to create free-willed creatures that choose to love God and forever exist with him in a state of eternal bliss.
2. An omnibenevolent God would want to create free-willed beings in a state of eternal bliss devoid of evil if he could and if evil and suffering were unnecessary.
3. An omnipotent God can create free-willed beings directly in a spiritual state of eternal bliss devoid of evil.
4. However, God created physical creatures in a physical world that is full of unnecessary evil and suffering.
5. Therefore, God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

(A possible extended conclusion: 6. Therefore, there exists a deistic god that created the universe, but this god is not a person who willfully created the world or that has a relationship with humans. Hence, god cannot prevent or eliminate evil and suffering).

In short, Alvaro argues that there is a way for God to create free-willed beings that can grow morally without ever experiencing evil. The option is for God to create free-willed beings directly in a spiritual form in a non-physical state of eternal bliss. In such a state, there are no objects of temptation, and by directly creating spiritual beings, God can eliminate carnal pleasure, which is the root of lust and evil and suffering. This, therefore, precisely demonstrates that “There is no morally sufficient reason for God to allow instances of evil” and, a fortiori, it shows that the God of classical theism does not exist.

How do Christians rebut Carlo Alvaro's position?

Alvaro anticipated and responded to a few responses to his argument:

1. The Freedom Objective:

   A strong objection to God’s creating free creatures directly in heaven concerns freedom of choice. Namely, one might concede that God can create free-willed creatures directly in heaven and even that many of them might live happy lives in heaven. However, if God created his children directly in heaven, essentially, he would force them to accept such an eternal life without giving them a choice.

2. The “Morally Good Reason”:

   First, the theist can reply that even if the HAIAFE is valid, in the end, it is not possible to know God’s mind. Additionally, for all we know, it might turn out that God has morally good reasons for creating humans the way he did. Perhaps, when time comes and we meet him, God will explain to us why he did not create us directly in heaven.

3. The “Resurrection of the Body”:

   Concerning our resurrecting in heaven with a physical body, not all theists believe that this is true. Even if it is assumed that it is, it does not undermine the HAIAFE.

So I am particularly interested in other responses to Alvaro's argument.

Answer 1

I would answer that God did do this. He created the angels in Heaven who had already tasted the Fruit of Life. In his divine mercy he created mankind on the Earth, also.

From this perspective the author even makes strong arguments for the necessity of the human-angel dichotomy. Particularly, "Is all this true? Even if it is, why would compassion, resilience, and other virtues matter if God created us directly in heaven?"

If the angels are 'non-fallen' then how would they grow in compassion if not for the compassion of their fellow servants on the Earth?

Answer 2

Alvaro states that:

Clearly, the strength of the HAIAFE depends on the likelihood that the premises are true.

This is correct. He goes down various premises, eventually coming to:

The question is whether premise 3—God can create free-willed beings directly in a spiritual state of eternal bliss devoid of evil—is true. I think that virtually all theists would accept this premise, which is a direct inference from God’s omnipotence. It is often argued that God’s omnipotence should be viewed in the sense that God can do whatever is logically possible. For example, omnipotence does not mean that God can create another God. If “God” is defined as an eternal and uncreated being, it would be impossible for God to create an uncreated being. However, the fact that God cannot create an uncreated being does not undermine God’s omnipotence. Similarly, God cannot create a married bachelor or a square circle or a triangle with more or fewer than three sides. Nevertheless, it still follows that God is omnipotent. In short, omnipotence does not entail that God can bring about something self-contradictory.

This is also correct, so far, and far more intellectually honest than many trolls who love to deploy exactly this kind of argument. But...

However, there is nothing intrinsically incoherent or impossible about God’s creating a non-physical realm inhabited by free-willed spirits that will directly experience God and freely choose to enter into a loving and friendly relationship with their father and creator. Consequently, if God is omnipotent (and heaven is not an impossible state of affairs) it follows that God can create spiritual beings directly in such a realm. Therefore, unless the theist can show that it is impossible for God to create free-willed beings directly in heaven, and that God must create humans in the physical world where humans experience evil and suffering before they go to heaven, it must be concluded that premise 3 is also true.

Here's where things go off the rails. First, Alvaro abandons half of point 3, going abruptly from "God can create free-willed beings directly in a spiritual state of eternal bliss devoid of evil" to simply "God [creating] free-willed beings directly in heaven". Second, the notion that evil and suffering are intrinsically tied to physical matter, that God is a being of pure spirit and that achieving happiness involves being free from physicality is not Christian at all, but rather Gnostic.

What Scripture teaches us is quite clear on the subject. Though it does not explain exactly why, the facts are indisputable: we cannot obtain a state of perfection and perfect happiness without the experiences of mortality. Hebrews 5:8-9 says that Jesus "learned ... obedience by the things which he suffered," and this helped him to be "made perfect" so that he could become "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." If even Jesus could not be made perfect without such experience, and none of us can claim to be greater than him, then how can we expect to?

After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples and explicitly denied being "a spirit"; he went out of his way to demonstrate to them that he had a fully physical body of "flesh and bones" that they were able to touch and feel, and was even able to eat food with them. (Luke chapter 24.) And in all things, Jesus set an example for us to follow, (John 13:15, 1 Peter 2: 21, 1 John 4:17,) including his resurrection. We're told that the resurrection will be universal and come to all mankind (1 Cor. 15: 21-22). Clearly this is an important part of the Plan!

Alvaro challenges us that, "Therefore, unless the theist can show that it is impossible for God to create free-willed beings directly in heaven, and that God must create humans in the physical world where humans experience evil and suffering before they go to heaven, it must be concluded that premise 3 is also true." As is typical with such challenges, he of course establishes no standard of evidence by which to gauge the proof he's demanding. But if he's willing to accept arguendo our idea of God, of spirits, and of heaven, I say he's not allowed to cherry-pick and just stop there. Accepting this much drags the rest of the Gospel in along with it, and the Gospel makes it clear that we cannot be "made perfect" and experience eternal bliss in the Hereafter without 1) the experiences and trials of mortality, and 2) a physical, resurrected body.

Therefore, at premise #3 his argument falls apart, per his own admission, under the "God cannot create that which cannot exist due to being impossible or contradictory in nature" rule.

Why is it impossible or contradictory in nature to have un-embodied spirits that exist in perfect heavenly bliss? We don't know. We haven't been told. But what we have been told makes it clear that it was impossible even for Christ himself to achieve such a thing.

Answer 3

My answer is to ponder the lesson we are to learn from Gethsemane:

36 Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go over there and pray.” 37 And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” 39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:36-39)

Jesus, with sober words and under great emotional pressure, in perfect communion with his infinitely loving, all-knowing, all-powerful Father, asked if there was another way. The Father's silence may be taken as "No". There was no other way to accomplish God's plan. If we think that we are clever enough to find that other way, we are mistaken. If there was no other way besides the death of His Son for the Father to order things, how are we to fare any differently? Nobody, leastwise the Creator of the Universe, pays a higher price than is necessary when buying something at the market.

Jesus said in John 13:15: Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. For Jesus to show that greatest love and so prove himself the all-loving God, he had to give his life. For us to become like him by imitating him, we must also, in lesser fashion, give our lives for others in service and sacrifice.

Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

If our greatest calling is to become like Jesus and his greatest proof of his divinity is to give his life for us in love and it is foolish to pay more for something that necessary, then the world must come to a state of wickedness so great that such a great sacrifice becomes necessary and is duly offered. Love seeks a way to bless the beloved. Jesus walked that way both by necessity and by free choice.

Answer 4

OP: Alvaro argues that there is a way for Christian God to create free-willed beings that can grow morally without ever experiencing evil.

Assuming the OP has correctly summarized Alvaro, I'd simply start with the example of Adam and Eve (A&E).

Free-willed. But some might say there was evil present. Okay, let's agree.

So, A&E were created let's say 2 days before evil was present in Eden. Why would God allow evil to be present in Eden? To grow morally. In other words, one cannot grow morally without knowing its opposite; that is, sin.

As Paul put it 2,000 years ago:

I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. Rom 7:21

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 7:24

So, the premise that God can create A&E (free-willed beings) that can grow (morally) without decay (evil) is simply a false premise.

Hope this helps, short as it is.

Answer 5

Yeah, this guy seems lost in the intellectual maze.

If God created beings in a plane without choices to make, then how could they be free willed? And if they have a free will, then how can God stop them from making a "wrong" choice?

Maybe a comparison would be to say that creating a round square must be doable by an omnipotent being.

Answer 6

The option is for God to create free-willed beings directly in a spiritual form in a non-physical state of eternal bliss. In such a state, there are no objects of temptation, and by directly creating spiritual beings, God can eliminate carnal pleasure, which is the root of lust and evil and suffering. ... Christian God could have accomplished all these goals, without the need for evil and suffering, by creating human beings directly as spiritual beings in a non-physical state of eternal bliss.

That bolded sentence from the abstract is a non-starter for Christian theism. It's an axiom of Christianity that God decided to create human beings as an "amphibian": possessing physical body subject to time and physical laws but with spiritual soul that can contemplate and desire eternity. (See Eleonore Stump explaining What is Human Mind.)

Also, point 4 in the argument

4. However, Christian God created physical creatures in a physical world that is full of unnecessary evil and suffering.

smacks of Gnosticism which teaches that evil and suffering is a direct consequence of one's having a physical nature. But Genesis 1 is clear in asserting theologically that the physical creation is "very good". Genesis 3 points evil to issue from human's rebellion against God. Although the Bible is not explicit in attributing the contributory cause of evil's presence on earth to angelic rebellion, the apocryphal account (alluded by the paper in section 4) points to the speculation that evil angels disagreed with God's creating humans and once punished they then retaliated in corrupting the good world God has created, making the earth an evil territory under evil angels' dominion ("prince of the world") until Jesus came to liberate the earth and to liberate the humans from their rebellious hearts, so that one day the humans and the earth can become glorious again.

Conclusion

Without reading the paper in detail, one argument against Carlo Alvaro' solution for the problem of evil is that it is proposing the solution for the wrong problem by misrepresenting the very purpose of why God create human beings out of dust and breathe His spirit into them. Because of that, the solution that could work for other theists will not work for Christianity, at least mainstream Christianity.

Answer 7

One the one hand, yes God could have put man in a bubble with no temptations and only eternal bliss. On the other, what value would there be in doing so?

Obviously it would be nice for us if that had been the case, however the fact that he didn’t indicates that his goal was not nepotism; he didn’t desire to simply hand over every good to people for no reason and without regard for merit. Rather, the scriptures are clear that we are judged and rewarded according to our deeds.

To do good is to love, whilst (intentional) sin is to hate. Note that hate doesn’t need to be passionate - but can take the form of apathy. There is such a thing as unintentional sin, but it is handled distinctly from intentional sin / blasphemy and so I shall skip over it for the purposes of this thread.

To love, in turn, is to act with respect for others. The greatest love is to sacrifice your own life for another; that is to give up everything for another’s sake.

Hate on the other hand is acting so as to intentionally bring unjustified harm to another; whether the harm is considered to be the point of the action or else deemed an acceptable collateral cost of whatever your goal is. This includes ignoring the plight of those in need when you are in a position to help them.

Scripture tells us both that God is love and that we are created in God’s image; to be like God. A phrase that is repeated throughout the Law and the Pentateuch is to be Holy because the LORD is holy. The purpose of the Law was to instruct people on how to live Holy lives and become like God - as man was intended to be from the beginning.

However, love requires freewill. If you sacrifice for another because you must - then that is not truly a sacrifice but is rather a simple mechanical response. If you live in bliss so that you are never faced with the dilemma of sacrificing for another (or sacrificing another for your own self-gain), then you cannot say that you have ever loved.

In order for our actions to have meaning, we must have the ability to act contrary to the noble course of action. And only when we have the freedom to choose to outright sin and commit acts of hate do our actions serve to truly define who we our and to differentiate us.

For the same reasons, we cannot be so corrupted by sin as to be unable to do good. If we are condemned to sin then we cannot be held accountable for it.

The argument presented in the OP - that God could have created man in a blissful state devoid of temptation- really misses the point altogether. God wants to put us to the test and to refine us into a Holy People.