Epicurus Quote

[_EX]

Hey fellow believers.

I heard this today and I have no idea how to take it

If you havent heard it, here it is:

“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?”

I also heard that God is able but not willing, for test purposes.
However, an omnipotent God wouldnt need to test us as he should know already and the test (life) is not fair. It is not a fair test.

So, how does one take this?
Please explain it to me.

 

[Incariol]

Hey fellow believers.

I heard this today and I have no idea how to take it

If you havent heard it, here it is:

“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?”

I also heard that God is able but not willing, for test purposes.
However, an omnipotent God wouldnt need to test us as he should know already and the test (life) is not fair. It is not a fair test.

So, how does one take this?
Please explain it to me.

*indifferent*

Epicurus was not a Christian, and didn't really grasp the idea of God allowing free will.

 

[_EX]

Even if the creater wasnt christian, I still dont know how to respond to this criticism.

Can anyone find an answer?

 

[Incariol]

Even if the creater wasnt christian, I still dont know how to respond to this criticism.

Can anyone find an answer?

Epicurus fails because he assumes that any God who does not will to prevent evil, while being able, is malevolent. He ignores the fact that a God can choose not to for some other reason, like God does to give us free will.

 

[_EX]

My friends know that free will doesnt create evil.
Saying that humans chose to sin doesnt not answer this question.
God has to create evil then allow us to sin. However, this doesnt sound like my God. I want to know the truth.
I cant fly unless God allows me and I certainly cant give myself wings so I can neither create an action or do that action without God's permission.

Help.

I want a response that is flawless.

 

[Incariol]

My friends know that free will doesnt create evil.

We have the free will to choose to act evil.

Saying that humans chose to sin doesnt not answer this question.

Yes it does, it explains why an able God allows evil without being malevolent.

God has to create evil then allow us to sin. However, this doesnt sound like my God. I want to know the truth.

Semantics. God doesn't "create evil". Evil isn't a quantifiable substance like granite. Evil is something we commit in our free will.

I cant fly unless God allows me and I certainly cant give myself wings so I can neither create an action or do that action without God's permission.

Yes, like free will

Help.

I want a response that is flawless.

I gave you one. God is able to oppose evil, but does not as he desires us to have free will which includes the capacity to choose evil. This motivation avoids the malevolent nature posited by Epicurus.

 

[brightmorningstar]

I second Incariol's response.

Epicurus fails because he assumes that any God who does not will to prevent evil, while being able, is malevolent. He ignores the fact that a God can choose not to for some other reason, like God does to give us free will.

In addition Paul and NT apostles argued against epicurean and stoic philosophy aspects of which are prevalent in secular liberalism and creeping into the church. This is essentially the same reason that Marcionism held.

 

[_EX]

We have the free will to choose to act evil.

But I couldnt choose something if it wasnt a predestined action that I can do.
I cant bite my ears because it isnt a predestined action that I can do. God has to allow that action. Nothing can be done if not allowed by God.

Yes it does, it explains why an able God allows evil without being malevolent.

Not really. Even to me, this doesnt answer it.

Yes, like free will

But it is like buying stuff. I cant buy anything not on sale.
I cant create an action to do if it isnt put there by God, correct?

I gave you one. God is able to oppose evil, but does not as he desires us to have free will which includes the capacity to choose evil. This motivation avoids the malevolent nature posited by Epicurus.

Just plain old "free will"

We can have free will without evil. There can be a list of only good choice to make. it is a possibility.
My friends have told me this countless times.


Your answer seem to dance around the question. Maybe its just a vibe.
I cant use this stuff sorry.
I need more.

 

[Incariol]

But I couldnt choose something if it wasnt a predestined action that I can do.

And predestination of our actions isn't in accordance with Christian theology. We aren't automatons; this appears to be something you aren't getting.

I cant bite my ears because it isnt a predestined action that I can do. God has to allow that action. Nothing can be done if not allowed by God.

No, you can't bite your ears because it isn't physically possible.

Not really. Even to me, this doesnt answer it.

Except it does. I've explained it three times so far. If you really don't get it, there's nothing I can do for you except to suggest not reading Epicurus.

But it is like buying stuff. I cant buy anything not on sale.
I cant create an action to do if it isnt put there by God, correct?

*patiently*

Yes, because he is giving us free will, remember. Free will becomes meaningless if God doesn't offer an actual choice.

Just plain old "free will"

We can have free will without evil. There can be a list of only good choice to make. it is a possibility.
My friends have told me this countless times.

Your friends sound unintelligent. That misses the entire point of free will, which ultimately is for us to choose being in a relationship with God (good) or not (evil). If we can only choose good, our free will is a farce, and God is a kind of spiritual rapist who forces Himself on us.

Your answer seem to dance around the question. Maybe its just a vibe.
I cant use this stuff sorry.
I need more.

I directly answered the question. There is no "question", only your insistence that free will can somehow not include evil, which doesn't make sense. You can't have free will and choice with only one option. There is no "more", this is the logical, obvious answer.

 

[LWB]

If Epicurus had spent more time at the theatre, he might have glimpsed why human history is permitted to have its tragic elements. Shakespeare would know what I'm talking about.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Epicurus believed in gods, he was trying to disprove the notion of a personal, caring god. But as for a response: (it should also be noted that no major academics consider the Epicuriean argument to be of any real value)

"A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good."
- Alvin Plantinga

 

[_EX]

And predestination of our actions isn't in accordance with Christian theology. We aren't automatons; this appears to be something you aren't getting.

Maybe predestination was a bad word. I mean it is a created option.
I cant choose to do anything that hasnt been allowed, correct?

No, you can't bite your ears because it isn't physically possible.

Assuming God created the world from nothing, the limitations we have in the physical world are either the absence of permission or predetermined limitations specifically created to be impossible.
However, sinning is not one of these things.
I can choose to do evil. It is an action that has been allowed. If it wasnt a created option, it would be like me biting my ear, totally impossible.

Why arent evil actions impossible?
If you say "free will", then you must insist that I can bite my ears because it is my free will to do so.
See, I cant see this to be the answer I need.

Except it does. I've explained it three times so far. If you really don't get it, there's nothing I can do for you except to suggest not reading Epicurus.

It doesnt make sense to say that free will created evil.
Free will is an ability to choose to do something. It doesnt create evil.

You can have free will without evil so whence cometh evil?
It didnt come with free will unles God created that as one of our options.

If he just wanted to give us free will, he could just give as a list of good things to do, none of which being evil.
If God, creater of everything, didnt create evil, then whence did it come?

Is it a bad thing that our God created evil?
Maybe that should be my stance.

*patiently*

Yes, because he is giving us free will, remember. Free will becomes meaningless if God doesn't offer an actual choice.

Do you want fries with that?

Yes or no?

It is your choice, your free will.

Does this free will sprout evil? No. Neither choice is evil so free will does not create evil.
You can have free will without evil so I dont know why you are saying it as though it leads to evil.

Your friends sound unintelligent. That misses the entire point of free will, which ultimately is for us to choose being in a relationship with God (good) or not (evil). If we can only choose good, our free will is a farce, and God is a kind of spiritual rapist who forces Himself on us.

You could do no evil and still be away from god.
Unless you count not doing anything christian as evil.

Is not believing in God evil?
No. it isnt against God, it isnt for God. You will not go to heaven for this so God wouldnt be forcing himself on you. You could choose to not be christian, while still not acting evil.
It is neutral. God could allow us to choose from good or neutral actions.

I directly answered the question. There is no "question", only your insistence that free will can somehow not include evil, which doesn't make sense. You can't have free will and choice with only one option. There is no "more", this is the logical, obvious answer.

You answered it, yes. It wasnt very good though.

Free will doesnt include evil unless something allows it be an option.

Free will is just the ability to make a choice. There are multiple choices you could chose before you hit an evil one.
You could choose to donate to Caritas or to World vision. Both are good choices.

You could also choose to not donate to either. This isnt an evil act. It is neutral.
If you think that not donating is evil, you are sinning right now by not donating 24/7.

 

[Armistead14]

I find the creation story lacks a perfect truth to good and evil. Most Christians imply God allowed evil to promote free will.

If you look at Adam and Eve, they already had free will before the fall, they used it. God placed the tree of knowledge in the garden and told them not to eat lest they die, they used free will to choose not to eat it. Obvious they had knowledge of right and wrong and chose not to eat for who knows how many years.

Then the fall story, first Satan. Obvious God always knew Satan would fall. We must consider God made Satan to fall, one cannot fall from God unless his design allows it. Like parents that tell a kid not to go into the cookie jar, the kid will because of human flaws, he desires the smell, the taste because he was designed too. Satan could only fall because his design allowed it.

When Satan fell, God didn't destroy Satan, heck, he didn't even take his power away or put him in the corner of the universe, he gave him dominion over the earth, the same earth where God placed man, but why?

Why certainly tempted, Adam and Eve chose not to eat of the tree until Satan shows up. How could they even be tempted to eat without knowledge, being tempted shows they had desire, lust, etc..Satan even told them they could be like God, how would they even know those feelings of power without already having knowledge to start with? They only ate to obtain power because they understood what it meant, which shows they had a full range of knowledge.

Had they no knowledge before, how could God hold all humanity from then on to be hellbound just for being born?

The end result has been a earth of mass suffering and pain.

Why I don't take the Gen. story as literal, I do think it gives us some truths. Man has always had freewill and knowledge, but it seems God put all the pieces in place to allow evil with that knowledge, but then teaches us we don't have to live like that. Seems God had to give us evil to teach us goodness. The harshness to us seems unfair, because we see so much unfair suffering.

 

[_EX]

That sounds more logical and is what I was thinking but that means God creates evil.

Isnt that a bad thing?

Is there an answer to this question that doesnt seem to contradict the totally loving nature of God?

By creating evil, God has ultimately lead to people's damnation

 

[Walter Kovacs]

My post gave the answer that modern academia has regarded as dismantling the Epicuriean riddle.

 

[Cuddles333]

My post gave the answer that modern academia has regarded as dismantling the Epicuriean riddle.

Hi Walter!

I don't think I ever responded to any of your posts before.

The OP said:
I also heard that God is able but not willing, for test purposes.
However, an omnipotent God wouldnt need to test us as he should know already and the test (life) is not fair. It is not a fair test.

I read your quote of Alvin Plantinga and it does not concern whether God's action is fair or unfair for us humans. It is just showing that it is not illogical for God to have operated as he did.

Towards the end of the article there is something that I think needs explained (at least to me) because it implies that Adam & Eve were not morally good before Satan interacted with them (or were proved to be morally no good) following his conversation with them:

"....for he could have forestalled the occurance of moral evil only by removing the possiblity of of moral good."


It is my understanding that we are all born carnal (with an animal nature) and that without the supernatural agents of temptation (Satan and his demons), we would be morally good. However, we would not have within us the zoe life that Adam & Eve lost for us.

So, I guess like what the OP was saying, it does seem kind of unfair. God could have eliminated Satan even before He convinced the 1/3 of the angels of heaven to follow him.

 

[Armistead14]

When one looks at biblical facts, one must accept God created evil as part of his plan and purpose, yes it can be a hard concept to swallow, that evil Satan was made as a tool to be used in his plan. The hard issue is why evil is a part of this earth, we don't have to partake of it, but because of our human nature we often will. The harder issue is the unfairness of it, because often those that choose to do right suffer from unfairly from great evil. Again, I've never understood Christian doctrine that man didn't have freewill or knowledge of good and evil before they ate, the story itself shows they had a full range of freewill and knowledge of good and evil before the fall.

God decided to give us a full range of all emotions, good and evil why on earth. The greatest theologins in history have debated this issue many times and still can't come up with an answer that is reasonable for us.

Col:1:15-
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

It's clear to me that all things through him and for him, notice all powers in heaven and earth, all his living creation. People are willing to accept that all things were created for him, but deny verse 20, that these same all things, in heaven and earth will be reconciled through the cross. Why many accept the "all" things in verse 16, they change "all" to some when it comes to the cross.

Why we try to grasp with understanding and doctrine at evil and suffering, it seems impossible for us still today. This second some child is being tortured, some girl brutally raped, someone dying from starvation and God could stop it, but he doesn't. We often hear of events where people claim God did stop it for some, which seems almost cruel, why protect some children and not others.

Creating, allowing or even using evil as God knowing the mass billions of people would spend an eternity of torture can never make sense, but I long sense shed that view, I don't find it biblical at all, just a pagan teaching that found it's way into the political church to control people by fear.

The best we can do is grasp, but it appears evil must exist for us to grasp what is right, this appears to be a mystery that we cannot see clearly. So we keep an eternal perspective, knowing for whatever reason God will bring it to an end and that men still have the will to chose to do what is right.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

lol^^^

 

[dies-l]

My friends know that free will doesnt create evil.
Saying that humans chose to sin doesnt not answer this question.
God has to create evil then allow us to sin. However, this doesnt sound like my God. I want to know the truth.

Evil is not a created thing. It is a non-thing (like darkness, emptiness, slience, etc). It is the absence of good. Thus, evil does not exist because anyone created it. God is the only good. The absence of God is therefore evil. And, for free will to be free, it must allow the rejection of God. Therefore, evil is a necessary consequence of free will.

I cant fly unless God allows me and I certainly cant give myself wings so I can neither create an action or do that action without God's permission.

And, God gives you the ability to reject Him. And, this freedom cannot exist without a potential for evil.

Help.

I want a response that is flawless.

Good luck with that.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

So, I guess like what the OP was saying, it does seem kind of unfair. God could have eliminated Satan even before He convinced the 1/3 of the angels of heaven to follow him.

"God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata — of creatures that worked like machines — would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

"Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will — that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings — then we may take it is worth paying.

"When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: 'Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?' The better stuff a creature is made of — the cleverer and stronger and freer it is — then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit best — or worst — of all." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity