• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theists: Response to Epicurus famous argument.

Muffled

Jesus in me
However, God has the power to stop evil but chooses not to. Hence, Epicurus's argument applies.

But the claim that God does not create evil falls afoul of the worshipers' claim that he is both omniscient and the creator of all things. In principle, people cannot have free will from God's perspective, because free will implies ignorance of future behavior. They can only have free will from their own perspective. From God's perspective, people cannot choose to behave other than in the one way that he knows they will behave. Hence, the act of creation makes God the ultimate creator of all the evil and suffering in the world.

On the contrary. God would have to be evil to eliminate evil. Since He is good he allows evil. God has given everyone an opportunity to avoid evil but hardly anyone avails himself of it. The reality is that most people enjoy evil too much to give it up.

Evil is not a creation. It is a perversion of creation.

This is an old argument. If no one had free will, there would be no evil.

This does not mean the person doesn't have free will. I know how my wife will behave (I ought to; we have been married 40 years) but I am not likely to change that behavior although at times I can manipulate it.

Since everything was created good, how does that make God the creator of evil?
However I would agree the risk of evil occuring, lies in creating intelligences with a free will. It is most likely that God knew this would happen but like any risk/reward situation, He must have thought the reward was greater than the risk.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Really? So do you has a Christian just throw out this passage to suit what you believe?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

If one where to believe your "God" then he does in fact create Evil.
And if that is true then there is no way the your "God" can be Good.

No, I just see it in a different light.

This is not evil from God's perpective but evil from man's perspective. The evil that God does comes from His goodness and is ultimately good even though it does not appear that way to man.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
]I dont recall Jesus spending his time with just the good folks[/COLOR]. He is said to have spent his time hanging with prostitutes and tax collectors. the lowest of the low. now...why would that be if he wasnt accepting them?

I thought the message of Christianity was that God loves us all equally? How can that be true if what you just said is also true? the two principles are mutually exclusive. One of em has to be wrong.:angel2:

Jesus said the healthy don't need a physicain. He spent time with the people who had the greatest need and largely because they sought Him.

That was an accusation by the Pharisees. The reality is that Jesus spent most of His time with His disciples.

Those who are in sin are most in need of repentence. Jesus never approves of their sin and preached against sin.

Of course, that is why Jesus came to save the sinner from his sin.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
On the contrary. God would have to be evil to eliminate evil. Since He is good he allows evil...


These statements are absurd and self-evidently false. You present no coherent argument that evil has to exist in order for there to be good. You do not need to have a broken arm in order to have a healthy one. You do not need to be tortured in order to appreciate the need to avoid torture.

God has given everyone an opportunity to avoid evil but hardly anyone avails himself of it. The reality is that most people enjoy evil too much to give it up.
By your logic, a person who is continually tempted to commit murder has MORE opportunity to be good than a person who is never tempted to commit murder. That is patently absurd. It is also absurd to claim that most people enjoy evil. What about the victims? Surely you are not claiming that they enjoy the suffering caused by evil.

Evil is not a creation. It is a perversion of creation.
Not all "evil" is human-generated, and we have been talking about the horrible suffering caused by natural disasters. You are completely ignoring that aspect of the discussion. You also ignore the fact that victims often have no opportunity to thwart evil, so blaming evil on humanity alone is pointless. God is putatively the only being with the ability to actually prevent evil. The question here is why he permits it when he could prevent it.

This is an old argument. If no one had free will, there would be no evil.
That is not the question. The question is whether the prevention of evil by God would rob us of free will. Please explain how that works, because I have never heard a coherent defense of the claim.

This does not mean the person doesn't have free will. I know how my wife will behave (I ought to; we have been married 40 years) but I am not likely to change that behavior although at times I can manipulate it.
Don't put yourself in God's shoes. You are not God. You cannot change your wife's behavior, but God certainly can. In theory, he is not as limited as human beings are in what he can achieve. What may seem an impossible hurdle for you is not necessarily impossible for an omnipotent being.

Since everything was created good, how does that make God the creator of evil?
Everything was not created "good". His creation led inevitably to the occurrence of evil, and he did nothing to prevent it, even though he was theoretically capable of preventing it. If a human being stood by and let preventable evil occur, we would judge that as depraved indifference.

However I would agree the risk of evil occuring, lies in creating intelligences with a free will. It is most likely that God knew this would happen but like any risk/reward situation, He must have thought the reward was greater than the risk.
"Most likely that God knew...?" Don't be absurd. We imagine God to be omniscient. He had to know. How else could his prophets make prophecies unless God knew enough to inform them of the future? Since he knew how people would behave, he was unable to create beings that could surprise him by their behavior. Indeed, technically speaking, an omniscient being cannot create any events whose outcomes would be unknown to that being. Hence, from God's perspective, people have no free will. Free will can only exist in those who are ignorant of future outcomes, and God does not fall into that category.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Youre only looking at it one way, destruction and woe, could be used as good things, bringing distaster and woe to evil people therefore bringing them to justice for example.
So let me get this straight: Evil is necessary so that we can punish instances of evil. :areyoucra

If we just got rid of the evil, then we wouldn't need it to keep evil in check.
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Our world does not indicate that such a being [God] exists.

You are quite welcome to your opinion!

And the world doesn't indicate God doesn't exist, either!

But since the existence and non-existence of God are equally unproveable in any objective sense, I'm not going to waste time debating this.

Each of us can follow the path we've chosen with no problem whatever.

Peace,

Bruce
 

logician

Well-Known Member
But since the existence and non-existence of God are equally unproveable in any objective sense,


Peace,

Bruce

This statement is patently false. The basic assumption must be that no god exists, i.e. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming that a god exists is by the most extrordinary claim, thus that claim is the one that must be proven.
 

dtackett

Member
I believe he stated specifically objectively. I can throw out lots of subjective evidence , let's not kid ourselves that it's a futile endeavour. A lot of atheists I have spoken with will ask for evidence and arguements, then reject them because they're valid but not sound and the evidence isn't objective. If you already know you're limiting the evidence that's a disingenuine approach. Rejecting all valid (not necessarily sound) arguements and subjective evidence I don't feel is an "even keel" approach. Rationality and Nature has proven again and again that symmetry is the best way.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
This statement is patently false. The basic assumption must be that no god exists, i.e. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming that a god exists is by the most extrordinary claim, thus that claim is the one that must be proven.
Prove it. (Gotta watch those postive statements, friend.)
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
The other respondants are correct: I said "objective proof," and you can offer none for the nonexistence of God just as none exists for His existence!

Pure assertion without objective evidence on your part . . .

Bruce
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
The other respondants are correct: I said "objective proof," and you can offer none for the nonexistence of God just as none exists for His existence!

Pure assertion without objective evidence on your part . . .

No, logician was quite correct. If you assert that something exists, then you have a burden to provide reasons in support of the claim. We can quibble over what constitutes "proof", but there is no presumption that your claim is reasonable just because no one can "disprove" it. Failure to meet your burden of proof does not mean that your claim is false. It does mean that no one is obligated to take it seriously.

Epicurus' argument is a kind of proof that God does not exist, because it exposes incompatibilities between the way God is defined and what we observe in our world. Epicurus shows that reasonable expectations fail. Hence, the burden is on those who still claim that such a God exists to make a plausible case for the compatibility between human suffering and God. That is what the debate here has been about.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Epicurus' argument is a kind of proof that God does not exist, because it exposes incompatibilities between the way God is defined and what we observe in our world.
It is no such thing. At most, incompatibilities indicate that the definition is faulty (which some, like Epicurus, already knew).
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
No, it'd be for Copernicus to show what they are. I have no interest in "proving" anything.

I asked for a clarification of your last statement. I am not in a position to judge why you consider Epicurus' argument to fail on the basis of a faulty definition. Can you give us a better idea of what you meant by that comment? What is the "faulty definition" under which it fails?
 
Top