A Return to the Argument from Evil (by Epicurus)

[RestlessSoul]

Maybe take some time to understand what the rest of us are referring to by "the problem of evil." The OP gives a good summary.

It's not just "evil exists and this is a problem."

If I don't understand something, I ask questions.

So you could perhaps take some time to answer mine, since it was simple enough.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There is a misunderstanding here. The problem of evil is a philosophical one: There is a logical contradicton between an omnimax God and the existence of evil.

By problem of evil, we don't mean that evil existing is a problem (even though it is), that is another subject.

The problem of evil may be a philosophical one.

Though perhaps not, if you are digging your family out of the rubble in a warzone somewhere.

 

[Koldo]

So when you say want, you mean will? They don't have quite the same meaning.

Problems of perception always arise when we ascribe human characteristics like desire (want) to God. To talk of God's will is to talk, perhaps, of a higher purpose. Do you think Jesus of Nazareth wanted to be tortured and killed? Probably not. In accepting his fate, did he aim to 'align his will to God's'? Possibly.

Whenever I use 'want' as a noun I mean the same as 'will' and 'volition', but distinguish all of them from 'desire'.

Regardless, is God capable of voluntary actions?

 

[Koldo]

The problem of evil may be a philosophical one.

Though perhaps not, if you are digging your family out of the rubble in a warzone somewhere.

Please read about the problem of evil here: Problem of evil - Wikipedia

It is not what you think it is. You will keep missing the point if you don't read about it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Whenever I use 'want' as a noun I mean the same as 'will' and 'volition', but distinguish all of them from 'desire'.

Regardless, is God capable of voluntary actions?

The nearest I can come to answering that question is to say that I believe God has a plan. Sometimes I believe that everything happens according to God’s will, but I’m less sure about that.

So in that sense, yes, God is capable of voluntary actions. But not, I would argue, as we understand them; because to be capable of voluntary actions, it is necessary to be incarnate as a physical being in the material world. And even if God is such a being, that is certainly not all that God is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I don't understand something, I ask questions.

So you could perhaps just answer mine, as it was simple enough.

If you want to threadjack, you'll have to do it without help from me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I don't understand something, I ask questions.

So you could perhaps just answer mine, as it was simple enough.

If you want to threadjack, you'll have to do it without help from me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Please read about the problem of evil here: Problem of evil - Wikipedia

It is not what you think it is. You will keep missing the point if you don't read about it.

Okay then. So we can resolve the “problem of evil” philosophically. Or we can’t. Whichever.

What though, do we do about the very real problem which is the existence in the world, of that which is evil?

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you want to threadjack, you'll have to do it without help from me.

I thought it was only @firedragon who ruthlessly policed the content of threads, and the parameters of debate therein. Seems I’ve done him a disservice.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem of evil is connected to the human brain. When memory is created by our brain, emotional tags are added to sensory content, as they are written to the cerebral matter. Our memory reflects this duality of feeling and content, with the strongest memories having the strongest emotional valance; marriage, first child, trauma, etc.

The value of this schema for the animal brain is if a similar situation was to trigger the memory, the animal will react to the attached feeling, without having to think. If he saw a wolf for the first time, he may stop to look until he realizes this is scary. If he see it a second time, the fear attachment to memory will cause an instant reaction, without having to rethink the situation like the first time; part of learning.

For the animal brain, each memory situation will be tagged with a single emotional valence so there is no ambiguity in terms of instinct being reinforced by memory. Good food will be tagged as good and scary predictors will be tagged with fear. Where this all changed, was symbolized by the fall from paradise due to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; symbolic of law.

Law and knowledge of good and evil polarizes behavior into good and evil. Law is like a coin where only one side is visible at a time; heads or tails, but the other side is always implied, even if hidden from view. There is the good path and bad path implicit in each law. The problem with this is the animal brain cannot tag the law coin, with one emotional tag, since law and knowledge of good and evil addresses both good and evil. The brain uses two conflicting emotional tags; good and evil, when writing to memory.

A classic example of two conflicting feelings are sexual taboos. There is a natural impulse for sex and a law or taboo that creates a conflicting tagging. The person is left in suspension created by the law. It would be like the animal both desiring and fearing a food. It wants to run away, but he also wants to approach, so all he can do, is orbit but unable to eat. The love and hate relationship is very stressful.

This state of suspension can use a lot of brain energy, so the brain will attempt to reduce the conflict by making one side of the coin of law conscious and the other side unconscious. The unconscious will repress one side of the conflicting feelings, so one can act in a natural animal way; one feeling and less brain energy use. The self righteous person, in religion or politics, may see their way as perfect and feel content, because the fear side is repressed. That coin never seems to flip.

This repressed side of the coin of law, with is the sum of all the dark side memories of all laws we have been exposed to, can consolidate and become a type of subroutine, that is driven by the unconscious mind; Hitler. This is more that just a subroutine in a semi-conductor based computer. The difference is ,this subroutine forms within the intelligent computer matrix of the human brain. The subroutine can become an intelligent subroutine and have its own personality; dark side of the person. The preacher who condemns sex may find himself compelled to prostitutes. He is fully function yet out of character; flip side of the coin.

The common nature of cultural and religious laws, for large populations, makes these living subroutines, more or less common to all, since they all use the same data. We all seem to think everything is polarized in nature. A collective blue tooth association can form among groups. This integrated affect is symbolic of Satan; mob mentality and war. Or this can become funneled into one person, who expresses Satan for the collective; Anti-Christ.

Jesus did away with law, since he sensed this problem in the brain. Faith in the inner voice, allows the natural brain to set the emotional memory tags, so there is no conflict and therefore no repression induced living subroutine. Jesus taught one to avoid the collective mentality of law; outer man. Humans continued to use law ,so the living subroutine of evil remains. It is quite real; shadow of the ego

 

[firedragon]

I thought it was only @firedragon who ruthlessly policed the content of threads, and the parameters of debate therein. Seems I’ve done him a disservice.

Lol. Did you have to tag me here?

Apologies mate.

 

[firedragon]

I thought it was only @firedragon who ruthlessly policed the content of threads, and the parameters of debate therein. Seems I’ve done him a disservice.

Lol. Did you have to tag me here?

Apologies mate.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Lol. Did you have to tag me here?

Apologies mate.

I thought I’d include you in the joke, so I couldn’t be accused of laughing at you behind your back.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

I thought I’d include you in the joke, so I couldn’t be accused of laughing at you behind your back.

Peace.

Hey. Dont laugh at me. You can laugh with me.

Cheers mate. All good.

 

[Koldo]

The nearest I can come to answering that question is to say that I believe God has a plan. Sometimes I believe that everything happens according to God’s will, but I’m less sure about that.

So in that sense, yes, God is capable of voluntary actions. But not, I would argue, as we understand them; because to be capable of voluntary actions, it is necessary to be incarnate as a physical being in the material world. And even if God is such a being, that is certainly not all that God is.

Being a physical being in the material world is not necessary to do a voluntary action though. Think of God creating the universe, for example.

 

[Koldo]

Okay then. So we can resolve the “problem of evil” philosophically. Or we can’t. Whichever.

What though, do we do about the very real problem which is the existence in the world, of that which is evil?

That is another topic for another thread.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The only way the PoE works is if we can come up with an example of objective evil.

So far I've never seen anyone be able to do that. No matter how drastic or extreme, any example of evil that you can provide would be subjective.

I agree with you 100%...

However, the framing of the OP (and Epicurus' meandering) is done within the realm of God belief - within which (much more often than not) it is assumed that "good" and "evil" are real counterparts in the world/universe/whatever, and are commonly and frequently applied to all sorts of things. The Bible, for example, very very frequently mentions evil. I looked it up, and the concept is called upon upward of 600 times.

So... when bringing Epicurus' remarks up in conversation with a believer, it is very much a pertinent and logical addressing of the situation because "objective evil" is assumed by the person you are conversing with.

Your statement seems to me to be a lot like the theist's oft-put question of "You don't even believe in this stuff, so why do you keep referencing The Bible?", when we're actively talking about what THEY believe - not what I believe. The reason I reference The Bible is because, to the person I am talking to, The Bible's contents are supposed mirrors on reality - therefore there should be no problem in my addressing it as if it were as true as they believe it to be. Within that framework, certain things would still be logical and certain things not - and that is exactly what Epicurus takes advantage of.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Being a physical being in the material world is not necessary to do a voluntary action though. Think of God creating the universe, for example.

Okay then.

But if one thinks of the creation of the universe as akin to a child being born, how much volition does either the child or the mother have at the moment of birth?

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is another topic for another thread.

Fair enough

 

[We Never Know]

“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​

The most serious argument against this, generally speaking, is the "free will" excuse. God wants us to have free will, and so cannot intervene when evil happens. There are two very serious problems with this apology, which need to be explored.

The first, which is really very easy, is that free will has nothing whatever to do with natural calamity. An undersea earthquake raises a tsunami that kills a quarter million innocent people, including infants, children, nuns and murderers alike. Unless we are going to assign "free will" to the earth (and call her Gaia), this is simply not applicable.

But let's look at it from the perspective of a person doing evil, from free will. To do that, let us, just for a moment, take this argument down from its lofty heights to a merely human level -- meaning, let's leave God out of it.

Here's the scenario: there are a young woman, a young man with a knife, and police officer (armed) at night on a dark section of the street. In plain view of the officer, the young man runs towards the woman (this takes several seconds) brandishing his knife, and when he gets to her, stabs her multiple times until she falls to the ground and bleeds to death. The officer, throughout this event, does nothing. Perhaps he's religious and thinks, "who am I to interfere with his free will?"

So let's reframe old Epicurus' argument to fit this situation:

“Is the officer willing to prevent this murder, but not able? Then he is not competent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is a bad officer.
Is he both able and willing? Then how could the stabbing have taken place?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a police officer?”

― Evangelicalhumanist (with apologies to Epicurus)
​

(Okay, that last clause works better for God, but never mind.) Anyway, let's look closely at the "free will" argument in this case. If the officer had got out his taser, dropped the guy on the spot, then knelt on him holding him down while calling for backup -- has the assassin been stripped of his free will? Not at all. He may yet be struggling mightily in his hot desire to kill an innocent person. His will remains what it was, he has just been prevented from exercising his will to the detriment of another person.

Please discuss.

Its not the policeman's job to protect her.

"“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Ryan McMaken

Why do people assume its a gods job to protect them and stop evil.
Maybe since betrayal of a gods laws in the garden man has been left to go on his own to make and deal with his own comings.