one philosophers answer to the riddle of Epicurus

robtex · Nov 10, 2005

I came across and interesting philosopher on an interesing site yesterday. The site is pretty large but of particular interest was his take on the story of Adam and Eve. I see it as the gentleman's take on the riddle of Epicurus which goes like this:

If God is willing to prevent evil but not able?
Than he is not omnipotent
Is he able but not willing? Than he is malevolent
Is he both able and willing? Whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing? Then why call him God?

http://leados.blogs.com/blog/2005/04/riddle_of_epicu.html

L Ray Smith says God is malevolent and he uses the Bible's first chapter of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve to present his point. Here is the link I hope you find it interesting:

http://bible-truths.com/lake2.html

The parts that caught my attention the most was,

"
"For the creature [and/or creation itself] wasMADE subject to VANITY NOT WILLINGLY, but by reason of Him [thats God] Who HATH SUBJECTED the same in hope. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the BONDAGE OF CORRUPTION into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the WHOLE CREATION groans and travails IN PAINuntil NOW" (Rom. 8:20-22)!"

"And when the woman saw [in her heart] that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eye [in her heart], and a tree to be desired [in her heart] to make one wise [an idol of the heart], she took [For out of the heart proceed ... thefts...] of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen. 3:6)."

Do you agree with his theories? If so why? If not why not?

Jayhawker Soule · Nov 10, 2005

No God(s).

michel · Nov 10, 2005

robtex said:
I came across and interesting philosopher on an interesing site yesterday. The site is pretty large but of particular interest was his take on the story of Adam and Eve. I see it as the gentleman's take on the riddle of Epicurus which goes like this:

If God is willing to prevent evil but not able?
Than he is not omnipotent

I don't believe that God is willing to prevent evil.
Therefore this point can be discounted.

Is he able but not willing? Than he is malevolent

That is a possible reply, but only one of the possibles. He is able, but if he did prevent evil, we humans would not have a freedom of choice to do evil. Therefore the whole point of our existence on Earth would be a fruitless charade.

Is he both able and willing? Whence cometh evil?

I'm not sure I understand the question;" is he able to prevent evil, and willing to do so ?"
I understand as being the question. That was covered by the previous point.

Is he neither able or willing? Then why call him God?

This is what makes me think I have misunderstood the previous and this question. I understand it as "is he unable to prevent evil ? and unwilling to do so ?"
The answer to the first part of the quesion has already been covered by the second point. The answer to the second part is answered in the first point.

I see it as the gentleman's take on the riddle of Epicurus

I have to be honest enough to admit that I do not know the riddle of Epicurus. All I can say to this genteman's 'take' is that he has concebtrated on the points without giving any thought whatsoever to God's 'possible' positive motives; he has concentrated on only the negative aspects, which, to my mind, is morally dishonest.

Scuba Pete · Nov 10, 2005

This premise is fallacious:

Epicurean theorem said:
Is he able but not willing? Than he is malevolent

As a parent, when I let my children make mistakes, I don't see myself as being malevolent. I see myself refusing to be a micro-manager and forcing my kids to love me or my beliefs.

It is easy to assign the worst possible motives to God to justify our disbelief. It is far better to look inward to discern why MY HEART wants to reject the truth and to repent of that.

Halcyon · Nov 10, 2005

Demiurge theory. Simple as that. Nothing new.

Pah · Nov 10, 2005

NetDoc said:
This premise is fallacious:

As a parent, when I let my children make mistakes, I don't see myself as being malevolent. I see myself refusing to be a micro-manager and forcing my kids to love me or my beliefs.

It is easy to assign the worst possible motives to God to justify our disbelief. It is far better to look inward to discern why MY HEART wants to reject the truth and to repent of that.

It is a good way, at times, to bring up children - I agree.

However, to make the parenting comparision to God carry any weight, you would have to make it known to the kids that without their love or when they make mistakes, you write them out of the will and throw them out of the house.

It's a valid premise and exactly what comes of making God all powerful but weak or lenient in the face of evil.

Scuba Pete · Nov 10, 2005

Pah,

as a parent who has had to ask his daughter to leave his house, I can surely relate to God having to do that. And as God has done, I too made it possible for her to return. For me the comparison holds, but your mileage may vary.

robtex · Nov 10, 2005

michel said:
I don't believe that God is willing to prevent evil.
Therefore this point can be discounted.

Michel,

I had to edit my post. I misread the qoute I questioned. But different question. Does the lack of will to prevent evil (thus non-protection from evil) bestow malevolence upon God?

robtex · Nov 10, 2005

Halcyon said:
Demiurge theory. Simple as that. Nothing new.

Can you expound upon that statement and does L Ray Smith's essay hold validity? Why or why not?

robtex · Nov 10, 2005

NetDoc said:
This premise is fallacious:

As a parent, when I let my children make mistakes, I don't see myself as being malevolent. I see myself refusing to be a micro-manager and forcing my kids to love me or my beliefs.

It is easy to assign the worst possible motives to God to justify our disbelief. It is far better to look inward to discern why MY HEART wants to reject the truth and to repent of that.

Pete do me a favor go to the essay in the origninal post
http://bible-truths.com/lake2.html
and read the part about Adam and Eve in the garden of Edan. What the author is speculating and to me with merit, is that God engineered the apply to be eaten by the two as opposed to planting it there and telling expecting or thinking they would stay away.

As the creator of all things God had a motive for everything he did. To me, L Ray Smith's theory in the alleogorical account of Adam and Eve in the garden of Edan makes more sense than the traditional christian interpretation.

To be omnipotent gives one the power to navigate and customize the amount of evil the world has access to. God had the options of

1) putting the tree in or leaving it out
2) allowing the serpent access to Adam and Eve or preventing it
3) giving Adam and Eve the opportunity and curosity to inspect the tree or not
4) presenting wisdom (which was the sin attaintment of wisdom) to them himself in a controled envirorment or letting the serpant do it.

Given the scripture he presents I think he has a great arguement as to why God guided Adam and Eve to eat the fruit and than punished them for it which is malevolent.

Halcyon · Nov 10, 2005

robtex said:
Can you expound upon that statement and does L Ray Smith's essay hold validity? Why or why not?

According to Gnostic mythology, the god of this world, the creator, the demiurge, ranges from a flawed god to an extremely evil entity which among other things raped Eve and tried unsuccessfully to rape Norea, the daughter of Adam and Eve.

The essay (i skimmed it, its very long) seems to be suggesting that the god of this world created the world as an evil place on purpose. Gnostics suggest that the world is evil because a) the demiurge created it evil, just as Ray Smith suggests, or b) he created it evil/flawed because that is the only way he knew how to create it.

Smith's essay seems, to me, to be a modern take on some very ancient thought. His interpretation is as valid as anyone elses.

Pah · Nov 10, 2005

NetDoc said:
Pah,

as a parent who has had to ask his daughter to leave his house, I can surely relate to God having to do that. And as God has done, I too made it possible for her to return. For me the comparison holds, but your mileage may vary.

It's a tough decision - I'm sorry. But I still have to ask whether, at the very begining of teaching discpline, was she informed of those particular consquences? That was part of my scenario.

Scuba Pete · Nov 10, 2005

First,

I don't think God ever used the word "omnipotent" in describing himself. Please correct me if I am wrong.

My son has a PC in his room. He can either use it for good or for evil. I am the reason he has that PC in his room. I COULD enable all of the parental controls possible and relegate my son to browsing only www.SesameStreet.com. His CHOICE is neither my fault nor my vindication. It is HIS CHOICE. I did not create my son to be a puppy dog, following my every whim. I created him to have a critical mind and to make decisions that will affect his life. He is a responsible individual rather than being an automaton.

Everyone looks at the "Tree of Life" as something evil. It was actually quite sacred. There may have come a time when man could have eaten from that tree, but he did not wait to find out. He CHOOSE to disobey.

Let's look at alcohol. Inherently there is nothing wrong with it. In fact turning water into wine was Jesus' first recorded miracle. Go figure. My 16 YO is simply not ready for it. My 21 YO is. If my son drinks alcohol, I do not blame the manufacturer: I blame my son. If my daughter drinks alcohol I do not praise the manufacturer: I praise my daughter. Why? Either way, they are individually making their decisions. Both could make the same decision to drink and one would be wrong.

So, in short, the "article" appears to be nothing more than a rant by a gentlemen who thinks he is more clever than God and in doing so has made a HOST of assumptions and fallacious conclusions. Go figure.

Pardon me while I remain underwhelmed.

BTW, I could only make it through about half of his clap trap. His illogic makes me cringe.

Scuba Pete · Nov 10, 2005

No. Her first introduction to discipline was a simple "no" or "yes". As she grew older and was able to reason, she became more aware of the extent my discipline could go.

I am certain that the conversations recorded in genesis have been highly abridged so that we would be able to read it in one life time. I am also certain, that there were liberties taken with the actual conversation as well as the occurences. The point of Genesis is not to provide us with a transcript or a history book of the life and times of the first humans. It was set so that we could understand the underlying concepts of what happened.

Pah said:
It's a tough decision - I'm sorry. But I still have to ask whether, at the very begining of teaching discpline, was she informed of those particular consquences? That was part of my scenario.

Jayhawker Soule · Nov 10, 2005

NetDoc said:
As a parent, when I let my children make mistakes, I don't see myself as being malevolent.

That depends. How many have you slaughtered?

robtex · Nov 10, 2005

Netdoc I understand your analogy but I don't think you are getting L Ray's Smiths. He is saying based on the story of genesis that it is apparent that God is being is the propogater of both good and evil. If you go to genesis, and I am going to use biblegateway.com NIV version, and read Genesis chapter three you can see this:

Gensis 3:1 reads:
"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

God created a crafty serpant and put him in the garden. Why?

In Genesis 3:4
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

The serpent reveals that the attainment of wisdom, and thus the free will to know right from wrong, good from evil, is the sin not the act itself. Free will was not on the plate from the beginning but only after eating from the forbidden fruit.

Genesis 3:6
"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it"

We see that they ate it and God who is all knowing asks in Genesis 3:9 "Where are you?" An omnipotent God knew where they were. It is not unreasonable to think such a all knowing God was in fact toying with them. Without qouting genesis 3:10 thru 3:12 God continues to ask questions that as an omnipotent God he already knew. Further toying.

Back in Genesis 2:25 "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."

Why did they feel no shame? Because there was none or because they were ignorant to shame by the restriction God gave them up until that point to wisdom?

In genesis 3:13- 3:22 he goes through a list of punishments for an event he orchestrated in his creation of edan. That is malevolent.

Scuba Pete · Nov 10, 2005

robtex said:
Netdoc I understand your analogy but I don't think you are getting L Ray's Smiths.

The rejection of an analogy does not mean that I "don't get it". I do "get it" and summarily reject it. Your mileage may vary, but I find his reasoning to be faulty at best.

robtex · Nov 10, 2005

Netdoc, let me ask you than, based on your interpretation of Genesis, why did God

1) put the crafty serpant in the garden?
2) put the tree in the garden?
3) ask questions to things he already knew
4) allowed them to be in the garden with no shame before the forbidden fruit but forbidded them from not feeling shame from their nakedness after the fruit?

Malevolence seems reasonable in the context of the story.

Scuba Pete · Nov 10, 2005

1) I don't know. God never told me.
2) I don't know. God never told me.
3) I do this with my son all the time. Other than that, I don't know. God never told me.
4) Bad question: you can do better than ask a trollish question.

Pah · Nov 10, 2005

NetDoc said:
First,

I don't think God ever used the word "omnipotent" in describing himself. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You're not wrong - it is exactly the point. The attributes of God are man-made.

one philosophers answer to the riddle of Epicurus

Veteran Member

-- untitled --

Administrator Emeritus

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Lord of the Badgers

Uber all member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Lord of the Badgers

Uber all member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Le plongeur avec attitude...

-- untitled --

Veteran Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Veteran Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Uber all member