How would you answer Epicurus' Riddle?

[Apathy826]

“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?”
-Epicurus

Just curious...

 

[AlexBP]

I would be lazy and just provide a link to one of the previous threads on the subject.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7540162/

 

[contango]

“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?”
-Epicurus

Just curious...

I'd just wonder what makes Epicurus think he gets to decide what God should do based on his own assumptions of what God should be.

 

[keith99]

If God is omnipotent in the sense Epicurus uses he could create an immovable object.

He could also create an irresistable force.

How can this be?

Why doesn't God make us all love him of our own free will?

Same problem.

I happen to not believe in God, but my dislike of specious arguments is stronger than my disbelief (which is actually just strong doubt).

 

[variant]

Not a theist but here you go:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Why need a God be omnipotent? Cultures thorough history have believed in Gods with limited potency.

Why should God be concerned with preventing what humans consider evil?

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Perhaps God has different standards, or better things to do with it's time, or inflicts what we call evil for it's own purposes? Perhaps it is testing some theory, or playing or whatever.

Why is it a problem that God could be considered malevolent? Why are our considerations of Gods actions important?

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Our imaginations.

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus

Just curious...

This assumes that the primary reasons for a God would be to prevent what we call evil and care about our freedom from it.

Counter question: At what level of capabilities and what level of willingness to do our bidding would we define something as a God?

 

[variant]

If God is omnipotent in the sense Epicurus uses he could create an immovable object.

He could also create an irresistible force.

How can this be?

Make sure they can't meet.

Why doesn't God make us all love him of our own free will?

Same problem.

You can always rig the system so that it is overwhelmingly likely to come up in your favor. How little freedom would you consider lack of free will?

 

[GadFly]

Not a difficult problem whatsoever. It is all in the definitions. The question is asked in the past tense as if God has finished creating man within a deterministic world with free will. The fact is that God is still in the process of creating and when he is finished withe the end being Jesus Christ, we will understand the beginning. God created the beginning and as an sculptural artist, he often scraps his creation in favor of reorganization of media, which man calls evil, but is God adjusting his peace of art. God wants perfection so he does sanctify his matter until he arrives at perfect, making man in his own image. God will finish the creation and there will be no conflict.

 

[KCfromNC]

Easy - realize that a being which can't logically exist doesn't.

 

[sandwiches]

Not a theist but here you go:



Why need a God be omnipotent? Cultures thorough history have believed in Gods with limited potency.

Why should God be concerned with preventing what humans consider evil?

Perhaps God has different standards, or better things to do with it's time, or inflicts what we call evil for it's own purposes? Perhaps it is testing some theory, or playing or whatever.

Why is it a problem that God could be considered malevolent? Why are our considerations of Gods actions important?



Our imaginations.



This assumes that the primary reasons for a God would be to prevent what we call evil and care about our freedom from it.

Counter question: At what level of capabilities and what level of willingness to do our bidding would we define something as a God?

You merely repeated by what Epicurus said. If God's not omnipotent and doesn't prevent what humans consider evil, then why worship him?

 

[Nooj]

You merely repeated by what Epicurus said. If God's not omnipotent and doesn't prevent what humans consider evil, then why worship him?

Because he'll send us to Hell. Fear of pain is a good motivator. And even if Hell didn't exist, why not worship God? Is there a reason why we shouldn't?

 

[sandwiches]

Not a difficult problem whatsoever. It is all in the definitions. The question is asked in the past tense as if God has finished creating man within a deterministic world with free will. The fact is that God is still in the process of creating and when he is finished withe the end being Jesus Christ, we will understand the beginning. God created the beginning and as an sculptural artist, he often scraps his creation in favor of reorganization of media, which man calls evil, but is God adjusting his peace of art. God wants perfection so he does sanctify his matter until he arrives at perfect, making man in his own image. God will finish the creation and there will be no conflict.

Well, it's reassuring to know that some humans justify raping, murder, wars, and suffering of the human race in general as a mere "reorganization of media" by an artist.

 

[sandwiches]

Because he'll send us to Hell. Fear of pain is a good motivator. And even if Hell didn't exist, why not worship God? Is there a reason why we shouldn't?

If he has to threatent us with pain, then that's definitely a reason NOT to worship! Now, I simply see no reason to worship anything. What's the point? Why must one sentient entity be subservient to another entity? Does God desire worship and subservience? Why? Would we think a human better or worse if he desired to be worshiped? If so, why do we think that the same attributes we find despicable and contemptible in humans would be desirable or admirable in a being of infinite power and knowledge?

 

[Nooj]

If he has to threatent us with pain, then that's definitely a reason NOT to worship!

I believe the fear of pain trumps any outrage over the nature of the deity for most people.

Now, I simply see no reason to worship anything. What's the point? Why must one sentient entity be subservient to another entity? Does God desire worship and subservience? Why? Would we think a human better or worse if he desired to be worshiped? If so, why do we think that the same attributes we find despicable and contemptible in humans would be desirable or admirable in a being of infinite power and knowledge?

So think of God as a horrible tyrant. Still, the question remains. Why not worship the tyrant? You're going to get rewarded in heaven afterwards.

 

[sandwiches]

I believe the fear of pain trumps any outrage over the nature of the deity for most people.

Actually, I can buy that. As long as we're talking about forced worship, sure.

So think of God as a horrible tyrant. Still, the question remains. Why not worship the tyrant? You're going to get rewarded in heaven afterwards.

Worship someone out of convenience... Sure. I can buy that as well. I think that for most Christians, this is the reason they are Christians to begin with, anyway. Whether or not this is ethical, depends on the person. To me, it'd be unethical to worship a murderer or rapist or someone who permits those to occur.

Now, to go back to Epicurus, the question remains and I think it's easy to answer by something most people don't like to think about: God is evil. Of course, seeing as how there's no reason to believe in any god, to begin with, the most reasonable answer is that there is in fact no God. Thus we have no conflicts with the question and it fits reality perfectly.

 

[keith99]

If he has to threatent us with pain, then that's definitely a reason NOT to worship! Now, I simply see no reason to worship anything. What's the point? Why must one sentient entity be subservient to another entity? Does God desire worship and subservience? Why? Would we think a human better or worse if he desired to be worshiped? If so, why do we think that the same attributes we find despicable and contemptible in humans would be desirable or admirable in a being of infinite power and knowledge?

I think you might like the following. It is from teh notebooks of Lazarus Long:

The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all of history.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Another good question would be: Is it possible for someone to whom God has not revealed himself to understand much about him?

 

[sandwiches]

Another good question would be: Is it possible for someone to whom God has not revealed himself to understand much about him?

A better question: How can we verify that what we believe to be revelation is correct and true?

 

[AlexBP]

Well, it's reassuring to know that some humans justify raping, murder, wars, and suffering of the human race in general as a mere "reorganization of media" by an artist.

Who exactly are these human beings?

 

[sandwiches]

Who exactly are these human beings?

GadFly, the user I quoted, for instance.

 

[AlexBP]

I don't see Gadfly justifying rape, murder, &c... in that quote.