Riddle of Epicurus

I don't remember when I first read this, but it makes sense to me:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Seems pretty airtight to me, unless you have faith, in which case logic doens't apply.

Comments

[Ian]

The simple answer is that without a chance to choose between good and evil we are but automatons going through the motions without will or change. Therefore evil is a gift, though we find it hard to comprehend motives beyond our own.

[John]

Who defines good and evil? If God defines it, then it is simple fiat and not something inherent in the actions that are defined as good or evil. If it is something outside of God, then he isn't really God.

[craig]

Sorry, but that is a load of crap, Ian. Is evil a gift if it just slaughtered your mother? Is evil a gift if it just sliced off an ear or poked out your eyeballs? Only someone with a simple mind or who has never encountered it face on would call evil a gift.

I would not be an automaton without evil. There are many choices to be made between numerous and plenty good things that would remain.

I would concede, though, that sometimes it is unclear as to whether a lesser "evil" is actually evil. For example, losing one's job may be considered evil at first, but if it turns into a better opportunity elsewhere it may not be evil. But I am talking about major evils like murder, unnecessary warfare, terror, mayhem, etc.

[Gene]

When I was child my mother would allow the physcian stick me with a needle. I felt she was being cruel and unkind but years later I see the wisdom in her ways.
It is true, we cannot understand God and our minds cannot grasp the greatness and power of God. Nor can we understand all that is involved in the fall of man or the curse of God upon the human family because of Adam's sin. Even though these are mysteries that we cannot understand, we are assured by the word of God, as well as logic, that God is just and has no respect of persons in assuring all have opportunity to be saved.

The folly of the created questioning the ways of the creator.

[John]

Oops, Gene. Circular reasoning.

God is good because it says so in the Bible.
The Bible is good because God says.

So there's really no way to verify this. That's the whole problem with it. You're just assuming things so you can get on the moral high horse and talk down to us. Some people prefer to be open about it, and some act like they are humble about it.

Not that I don't do the same thing sometimes, but at least I try to be logical. The question of a Supreme Being or not is at once the largest and most small of questions.

But who created the creator? Did God create himself? If he was 'just there, always' then it would be easier (via Occam's Razor) to just assume the world was there. It is easier because we don't have to worry about what God thinks, what he does, etc. if we say the world was always around.

[Gene]

John,
"God is good because it says so in the Bible.
The Bible is good because God says."

By the way, I found these comments in you post but not mine??

Once again, you try to understand how you creator has always been. If it is not logical to YOU then it must not be true. Who is not being HUMBLE here?? YOU assume there is no God because you do not have proof. What abot these..

First, there is the ontological argument. Over 98% of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, on all continents believe in the existence of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
A second is the teleological argument. Since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer. For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243. A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

Seems to me evolution requires much more faith than faith in God.

[El Brazo]

Free will is a gift of God.

When we abuse that free will, this is evil.

God did not create evil, we do, we abuse our free will, by violating the commands of God.

[Stu]

Quote from Gene: "For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243. A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules."

You are wrong in your assumption here. There is life below the ocean where there is no sun it is around the vent stacks of volcanic activity. Our planets proximity to the sun only increased the speed of the development of life.

There is also record of a completely dark cave where sulfer is so noxious it is dangerous to humans. The life is microbs that have been found to be living off of the sulfer.

We humans are still infintile in knowing about life. All I can say is look all around you there is life everywhere. The problem is we havent looked hard enough to discover it all. Im willing to assume it is everywhere in the universe. The majority of it is probably not as complex as us humans but it is surely there.

[Masood]

Gene,

The ontological arguments is logically incorrect as it assumes that the idea of an attribute is equivalent to its existence.

The teleological argument cannot be used to prove that God exists since it can only lead to an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause may or may not be divine.

These arguments have long been proven to be invalid to prove the existence of God.

You can never make sense of Life and God by just reading the Bible.

-Masood

[Gene]

John,
You stated my post was wrong but never stated how?? The statement you quoted is not my opinion, it is scientific fact.

"it would not be capable of supporting MUCH of the life it currently does"

You are willing to assume there is other life in the Universe but no God??

[Gene]

Masood,

A single uncaused cause of the universe must only be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
God Is Self-Existent and Eternal. He is the Self-existent, eternal, "Uncaused Cause" behind all that there is. This conclusion is both ontologically and logically necessary concerning the ("un") causality of God. For, He is neither an illusion, a god created by another god, or a god who is self-created. Our Lord has no beginning, He has no end, nor is He contingent upon anything. He is Self-contained, the Unmoved Mover, the all in All, and the "I Am"--Who loves and cares for our every breath. Therefore the argumnent still holds true.

There is much more to say about the uncaused thing including possible questions and objections. But it’s sufficient to say that an uncaused thing would have to be necessary, eternal, changeless, perfect, and unique. (God)

[John]

Gene--

"Masood,

A single uncaused cause of the universe must only be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence."

This seems like a bunch of pseudo-scientific bananna jargon to me.

uncaused cause doesn't mean anything.

[Gene]

John,
I would agree with you but it is how the scientific/philosophical community refers to these aspects.

[Masood]

Gene,

I have no problem with the attributes of God you mention.

But to say that the teleological argument *leads* us "necessarily" to God is false. All that the teleological argument does is lead us to a an uncaused cause. Also it is problematic to use the same concept of causality as in the temporal realm and apply it to the causality in relation to the God's Creation.

-Masood

[Jay]

Interesting post.

John, you certainly know your philosophy. Masood you are a tenacious "devil's advocate".

Keep in mind neither of you can prove the other right or wrong. This question is timeless and still no one side is absolutely proven.

The philosophical weakness in Epicurus' riddle is the second sentence: "Is he able [to prevent evil], but not willing? Then he is malevolent." This is not necesarrily so. There are thousands of contradictions with free will that necessitate detachment and all sorts of seemingly unfavorable conditions.

Kirkegarrd had it right. It is only the personal truths that you find for yourself that can transform and fulfill your life. So find your truths and live by them.

[Gene]

"But to say that the teleological argument *leads* us "necessarily" to God is false."

Masood,
I would have to equate this to stealing a a new Mercedes and claiming I dug it up in the back yard. Design requires a designer.

[Masood]

Design requires a designer as well as material. The anology you mention cannot be applied to Nature as we view it. If you really think about what you are saying, you will realize that you are limiting God's Infinite Power to a mere designer who has available only things that are "external" to this designer and hence his creative power is limited by his material. God forbid. May He be much Exalted over all that is being said here.

My intention is not to disprove the existence of God. God Is. And Alhamdullillah (Thank God) I believe in Him.

My intention is to show your folly in using confused logic to prove the existence of God.

-Masood

[Gene]

Masood,
Because I am a man and finite it is not possible to provide an anology that would portray the true omnipotence of God. I would agree with you that my analogy indeed does fall short since God creates essentially from nothing

[Cowcharge]

First, whoever Epicurus was, I bet he was a good cook. Secondly, I would change part of his riddle from "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.", to "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is uncaring.". Much like those New Yorkers who watched out their windows while that young woman was butchered. I doubt they were actually enjoying the show, they just didn't care enough to do anything. If there is a god, I guess we ARE made in his image, at least in New York. Speaking of which, if we are made in his image, why would he have a bellybutton?

The ontological argument is logically false.
Ok.... so let's accept as fact that most people believe(ed) in some version of god (these days I'm not so sure, but for the sake of argument...). For that argument to even begin to hold water, you must include those who believed in the dozens of gods in ancient Egypt, Greece, etc. Celts? Druids? Wiccans? Gypsies? Pagans? Thuggees? Most sincere Christians I know believe that their particular sect is the "One True Faith" (they would have to in order to have faith at all, right?). Your own faith necessarily invalidates differing faiths. Since Christians are not a majority of the world's population, that means the majority of the world's population do not believe in God, correct? At least not in the true god, as your god is the true god, right? So, how do reconcile this? When you're defending your religion, you define other religions as invalid, but when trying to prove the existence of god, all these false faiths are suddenly valid? You can't have it both ways.

Believing in something does not make it so. People believed for millennia (much later than the creation of the major religions) that the sun and stars orbited the Earth (I was going to use the "Earth is flat" example, but any sailor can (or could have 100,000 years ago) prove that's not true). It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. Or did it all of a sudden stop being true when people stopped believing in it? So, even though they couldn't grasp the simple laws of planetary orbits, they had god all worked out to the last detail? By that argument, as soon as enough people stop believing in god, he ceases to exist.

Teleological: " Since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer."

The universe does display an amazing complexity. However, how do you prove that it has a "design", which is the basic premise (not fact) of that argument? You'll argue that it's too complex to have been randomly created, so it must have been designed. Prove it. It's the same old "I don't know how it was done so it must be god" argument). There are 70 sextillion stars in the universe (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 detected so far according to CNN). Ours is the only one with life near it? Did god frig up the design of the first 69,999,999,999,999,999,999,999?

The fact that the universe is wonderful and mysterious to we ignorant humans does not necessarily lead to it's having a "design". According to Carl Sagan, there must be at least 10,000 planets supporting life in the universe.

Free will? That's a convenient way to explain away god's indifference to human suffering. Let's assume that's true. You want me to worship a being that dumps a bag of red ants on a black anthill just to watch them go at it? God is watching over you, but you're on your own. Not very comforting in my book. Sounds more like god's a reality show junky. I bet he loves watching Big Brother on CBS.

[John]

lol Cowcharge

[John]

Jay-

You're right about the weakness of the 2nd sentence in the whole. But I think since this is probably used to argue against a 'caring' God, not just any run-of-the-mill Supreme Being, then it does apply here.

[Gene]

Cowcharge,
I stated that over 98% of people throughout history, believe in the existence of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

I never stated that the "god" was the true living God. What it does show is that they had enough sense to realize they all did not come into existance by happenstance. Follow the logic?

"Since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer."

This world contains 11 million different kinds of species. Each of these represents an amazing design of engineering and life. Yet, man, in all of his intelligence, is not even able to create one new species. Pollster George Gallup once
commented that the existence of God was statistically provable: "Take the human body alone - the chance that all the functions of the
individual could just happen, is a statistical monstrosity. Every intelligent design indicates a designer. The greater the design,the greater the designer. The complex structure of the universe declares that there had to have been a great Architect. An accident could not have formed our great universe. Beavers who construct small pond dams could never construct a dam comparable to Hoover Dam. There is a great
intelligence behind nature.

These are facts cowcharge using logical conclusions. Not speculation as you provided. Show me where Carl Sagan proved that even (1) planet other than earth that harbors life?

"God is watching over you, but you're on your own."

Where did you get this gobbly goop from? God sent His son Jesus Christ to die for the sins of the world. He is with me everyday and I never doubt it. You obviously have never met him and at this point you are your own. You don't have to be.

[Roger S.Baker]

Just another way to say man kind has no power and can not put his finger on God...

God is to slick for our feeble minds

[Roger S.Baker]

But if we be still we will be able to hear God

[John]

"stated that over 98% of people throughout history, believe in the existence of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief."

Or it could be humankind's insatiable lust for power.