A possible contradiction - goodness of creation

[BobCatholic]

Premise: Evil is a privation of good.
Premise: Any reduction in good, is evil.
Premise: God created all things good.
Premise: Humans are created in the Image and Likeness of God. That is good.
Premise: Human beings cannot get into heaven in their current state. They need a Savior, who is Christ.
Premise: Nothing impure can get into heaven.

Argument: People are created good, but are not good enough for heaven.
Argument: There is a privation there, that is evil
Conclusion: That means that people are really evil, and not good.

But this is contradicting the premises. God created people good and endowed us with His dignity.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

The supernatural destiny of human beings is not part of human nature. It's a gratuitous gift. If we grant the premise (which I think is correct) that the soul is naturally immortal, still God did not have to admit the deceased to Heaven. He could have granted them a simple earthly paradise, or something like the Limbo of the Fathers.

Secondly, although humans are created good, we also all inherit Original Sin, so we are not able to enter Heaven.

[Doom]

Also, "good" does not mean "morally good" , when God says that creation is "good" he doesn't mean creation is moral.

[BobCatholic]

The supernatural destiny of human beings is not part of human nature. It's a gratuitous gift. If we grant the premise (which I think is correct) that the soul is naturally immortal, still God did not have to admit the deceased to Heaven. He could have granted them a simple earthly paradise, or something like the Limbo of the Fathers.

So because of the privation of good, this means the human nature is evil.

Secondly, although humans are created good, we also all inherit Original Sin, so we are not able to enter Heaven.

So we are created good, but thanks to Original Sin, we become evil, because of that privation of good.

[BobCatholic]

Also, "good" does not mean "morally good" , when God says that creation is "good" he doesn't mean creation is moral.

So something can be "good" but morally evil? I don't understand that.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

The supernatural destiny of human beings is not part of human nature. It's a gratuitous gift. If we grant the premise (which I think is correct) that the soul is naturally immortal, still God did not have to admit the deceased to Heaven. He could have granted them a simple earthly paradise, or something like the Limbo of the Fathers.

So because of the privation of good, this means the human nature is evil.

No. It's the privation of a due good that makes something evil. The Beatific Vision is not a due good for any created thing.

It might be cool to have wings like a bird, but that's not a good due to human nature and so it is not evil that I lack them.

[Doom]

Also, "good" does not mean "morally good" , when God says that creation is "good" he doesn't mean creation is moral.

So something can be "good" but morally evil? I don't understand that.

Whatever the opposite of the logical fallacy of "equivocation" might be you are committing the opposite fallacy.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Failure to draw a necessary distinction? Univocation? (I think I made up that word.)

[BobCatholic]

No. It's the privation of a due good that makes something evil. The Beatific Vision is not a due good for any created thing.

It might be cool to have wings like a bird, but that's not a good due to human nature and so it is not evil that I lack them.

So how do I get all the due goods of a human?

If I have all the due goods of a human, can I go to heaven?
Those who are evil go to hell.

[BobCatholic]

Failure to draw a necessary distinction? Univocation? (I think I made up that word.)

What is the distinction?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

What is the distinction?

Moral good vs. physical good.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

If I have all the due goods of a human, can I go to heaven?

A due good is something that properly accompanies something having a nature, so that we would say the "something" is not a full instantiation of that nature if it doesn't have it.

Sanctifying grace is necessary to get into Heaven, but sanctifying grace is extrinsic to human nature. Its absence is not a lack of a due good, but its absence does stop someone from getting into Heaven.

[BobCatholic]

What is the distinction?

Moral good vs. physical good.

Which good gets us into heaven?

[BobCatholic]

If I have all the due goods of a human, can I go to heaven?

A due good is something that properly accompanies something having a nature, so that we would say the "something" is not a full instantiation of that nature if it doesn't have it.

Sanctifying grace is necessary to get into Heaven, but sanctifying grace is extrinsic to human nature. Its absence is not a lack of a due good, but its absence does stop someone from getting into Heaven.

So basically God creates us morally evil. That's why we need grace, something extrinsic to human nature to get into heaven.

[Doom]

What is the distinction?

Moral good vs. physical good.

Which good gets us into heaven?

Neither

The fallacy of equivocation is using the same word in two different senses in the same argument.

What you are doing is the opposite of that, taking a word with many different meanings and senses, namely "good" and insisting that it can have one and only one meaning.

Do you agree with the statement "Life is good"? Does that mean "Life is nothing but pleasure and joy from beginning to end?" Of course not. Life is filled with difficulty and adversity. And yet, unless one is suffering from depression or other mental illness, people never seriously think 'I wish I never existed" because we think that, despite all the problems, it is better to be alive than not. This is why we mourn the dead; we have an innate sense that life is good, and death is bad.

But when I say "life is good", do I mean "morally good"? Of course not, that doesn't even make sense.

So "good" has more meanings than you are attaching to it.

[Doom]

What is the distinction?

Moral good vs. physical good.

Which good gets us into heaven?

Neither

The fallacy of equivocation is using the same word in two different senses in the same argument.

What you are doing is the opposite of that, taking a word with many different meanings and senses, namely "good" and insisting that it can have one and only one meaning.

Do you agree with the statement "Life is good"? Does that mean "Life is nothing but pleasure and joy from beginning to end?" Of course not. Life is filled with difficulty and adversity. And yet, unless one is suffering from depression or other mental illness, people never seriously think 'I wish I never existed" because we think that, despite all the problems, it is better to be alive than not. This is why we mourn the dead; we have an innate sense that life is good, and death is bad.

But when I say "life is good", do I mean "morally good"? Of course not, that doesn't even make sense.

So "good" has more meanings than you are attaching to it.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

If I have all the due goods of a human, can I go to heaven?

A due good is something that properly accompanies something having a nature, so that we would say the "something" is not a full instantiation of that nature if it doesn't have it.

Sanctifying grace is necessary to get into Heaven, but sanctifying grace is extrinsic to human nature. Its absence is not a lack of a due good, but its absence does stop someone from getting into Heaven.

So basically God creates us morally evil. That's why we need grace, something extrinsic to human nature to get into heaven.

No. You're reading what I didn't say. There is such a thing as naturally good.

[BobCatholic]

What you are doing is the opposite of that, taking a word with many different meanings and senses, namely "good" and insisting that it can have one and only one meaning.

OK, so how am I supposed to understand goodness in the argument I posted?

Please walk me through that.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Another point: We don't get to Heaven by being good. We get to Heaven by being holy, which is the result of an unmerited, unearned gift of grace.

[Doom]

What you are doing is the opposite of that, taking a word with many different meanings and senses, namely "good" and insisting that it can have one and only one meaning.

OK, so how am I supposed to understand goodness in the argument I posted?

Please walk me through that.

Ontologically good.