Epicurean Paradox and my Faith

[Hermit Philosopher]

When I was in college, I was very close to attending seminary. But this paradox destroyed my faith and I have yet to recover it. I know this is an oversimplification, but I can't get past it. I wanted to share to get some thoughts from others and how to approach these questions/conclusions. Here is a diagram that is pretty close to how I approach these questions:

Dear Quetzal

As you chose the word “destroyed” regarding your faith, I can only assume that by wondering “how to approach these questions”, you’d like something that could restore the faith you have lost/are losing...?

I have an idea, but it will require you to think outside the box in regards to the concepts of Existence and Divine Will. And, as I do not know which faith you belong(ed) to, it may go against other concepts, fundamental to your beliefs. It could solve the theistic problem of Evil, though!

Suppose that manifested reality is Man’s experience of what exists, as opposed to it being what actually exists. For sake of visualisation, imagine that what really exists are [mathematical] formulas - chosen by the Divine, if you will.

A formula is not good or bad, it just is. The value(s) of its’ results can be positive or negative but they’ll depend on what variables are used. Also, whether those +/- results are “good” or “bad”, will depend on Man’s experience of them in relation to other results. Many results can be drawn from these formulas - possibly endless amounts (a different philosophical q. altogether).

Suppose now that Divine Will is to assess the formulas that actually exist and that in order to do so, It must comprehend the experience of what their results are like. It knows what they are, yes; but how can It experience them (their manifestation) if not through manifested beings...?
Suppose that is what Man is for.

Then, Divine Will would be to try all possible variables and experience (through Man) all possible outcomes, and to prevent any from “playing out” would not be good in relation to assessing the formulas that exist!

All that is possible within our laws of physics (formulas) must occur ...all probability must manifested; somewhere, at some point, to someone.

Sorry, I must go now

 

[Koldo]

"Evil" is one side of a relative value assessment being made by we humans, and then being applied to our conception of "God". It assumes that "God" recognizes the same values as we do, and is therefor responsible for them (because "God" is presumed omniscient and omnipotent).

But the bottom line, here, is that this is ALL about our human conceptions of evil and God, and NOTHING about the actuality of evil, or God. So it's no wonder that the reasoning falls apart as soon as it's dissected and analyzed.

Is what we perceive as "evil" really evil?

Is what we perceive as "God" really God?

Is God really responsible for our cognitive predicament?

I strongly suspect that "no" is the most likely answer to all three of these questions.

Can a word not mean what we have determined it to mean? The answer is: No.

 

[PureX]

Can a word not mean what we have determined it to mean? The answer is: No.

Though it may not BE what we mean it to be.

 

[74x12]

When I was in college, I was very close to attending seminary. But this paradox destroyed my faith and I have yet to recover it. I know this is an oversimplification, but I can't get past it. I wanted to share to get some thoughts from others and how to approach these questions/conclusions. Here is a diagram that is pretty close to how I approach these questions:

God never lies about it; He admits that all things were made for His pleasure. My belief is that God won't take shortcuts or do things the fake way. That's why He has evil/suffering to perfect or test us. Even though He could make us already perfect; it would be less valuable. It would be like a false diamond. So, if you want a real diamond that is going to cost a lot more money than a fake/glass one. So that's why evil exists. For good to truly exist there must be some resistance. For example you can't be a doctor and heal someone's wounds if there wasn't evil conditions that made the wound in the first place.

That's why in the Bible the end of all creation or you could say the purpose of it all is the new Jerusalem which comes down from heaven shining like a precious stone that is perfect and flawless reflecting and shining the light of God. That is how God will view perfected humanity with the elect angels also. That is it will be an eternal memorial or testament to the true beauty of goodness overcoming and triumphant in the face of evil.

So every beautiful thing that will last forever will have it's value because it once was tested by the existence of evil.

The cool thing about the Biblical God is that He faced evil himself also. He's not a hypocrite. Jesus was God manifest and had to face the evil like we do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That paradox is so old, one has to wonder why nobody solved it yet or if it even is solvable.
Only that it has been solved. Thomas Aquinas was aware of Epicurus' paradox and others. Therefore he defined omnipotence as "maximal greatness". The Thomists god can't break logic and that is official doctrine of the RCC. But it is not something that is widely proclaimed to the laity.
Most people hate logic because they are bad at it. And a god that can break logic is just better.

The fact that Catholic charities like St. Vincent de Paul exist suggests to me that the Catholic Church as a whole doesn't accept this position. If we're already at "maximum greatness," it would be futile to try to make the world better.

 

[blü 2]

When I was in college, I was very close to attending seminary. But this paradox destroyed my faith and I have yet to recover it. I know this is an oversimplification, but I can't get past it. I wanted to share to get some thoughts from others and how to approach these questions/conclusions. Here is a diagram that is pretty close to how I approach these questions:

I don't think it's possible to speak of 'evil' as a single homogeneous phenomenon.

What's good for me and mine might not be good for you and yours ─ in fact it might be very bad.

And as they say, in war the story is written by the winners, who somehow always stand for essential good. Their victory proves, as Dylan put it, that they had God on their side.

Whereas if you take a step back and look at the world, it behaves exactly as if God existed only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

what seems is nothing but a belief that consciousness is only human. it isn't

And where did I ever imply that consciousness is only human? I haven't. But so far (barring unadvertised advances in AI), all consciousness that is known is LIVING. And based on an organic substrate.

Yes, I know lots of people make lots of claims about consciousness in defiance of what I just said. It's that they never provide any evidence of same, nor any description of any means by which it may work. It's just something they really want to believe, and therefore accept as true. Well, so far as anybody actually KNOWS -- it isn't.

 

[Koldo]

Though it may not BE what we mean it to be.

That's not possible. We are the ones that assign the meaning to words.

 

[robocop (actually)]

In Judaism, God creates perfect and imperfect things to fill the space of potential creation fully. That in itself is part of being perfect.

Sorry; my answer was part of one of my books so I need to keep it safe for my customers.

 

[Almighty God]

In which case, I believe it can be forgiven if people choose not to follow a God that not only allowed but wanted genocide to occur.

Sure but that has nothing to do with whether or not the god exists

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When I was in college, I was very close to attending seminary. But this paradox destroyed my faith and I have yet to recover it. I know this is an oversimplification, but I can't get past it. I wanted to share to get some thoughts from others and how to approach these questions/conclusions. Here is a diagram that is pretty close to how I approach these questions:

Putting aside my lack of faith in Gods existence, I have spent plenty of time trying to understand other people's belief system.

An omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God never quite sat right in these conversations. A very powerful...but not quite all omni-god...is easier to reconcile. The issue there is whether one should adjust their perception of God based on cognitive dissonance.

That's not a problem for me, with my beliefs, but for one with professed belief in an omni-god it is, imho.

 

[PruePhillip]

When I was in college, I was very close to attending seminary. But this paradox destroyed my faith and I have yet to recover it. I know this is an oversimplification, but I can't get past it. I wanted to share to get some thoughts from others and how to approach these questions/conclusions. Here is a diagram that is pretty close to how I approach these questions:

God doesn't so much 'test' to see what we will do, He 'tests' that we will learn and grow.
People who have never had adversity or depth of experience don't develop.
Don't be concerned about clever tricks of human reason. No reasoning can explain how
a universe created itself when it didn't exist. No reasoning can figure out WHY we are
here and none know where they are going. And as the world shows today - less religion
doesn't lead to a better world.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When I was in college, I was very close to attending seminary. But this paradox destroyed my faith and I have yet to recover it. I know this is an oversimplification, but I can't get past it. I wanted to share to get some thoughts from others and how to approach these questions/conclusions. Here is a diagram that is pretty close to how I approach these questions:

It always seems to me that the whole question of "theodicies" disappears entirely when you simply take God (however defined) out of the equation.

What you then seem to be left with is nature, "bloody in tooth and claw" to be sure, but no paradoxes whatever.

The moment you superimpose a "divine will" by a being with whatever sort of superpowers you care to give it, the paradoxes appear and cannot be dispensed with.

Ergo, my atheism.

 

[Heyo]

The fact that Catholic charities like St. Vincent de Paul exist suggests to me that the Catholic Church as a whole doesn't accept this position. If we're already at "maximum greatness," it would be futile to try to make the world better.

"Maximum greatness" refers to god, not the state of the world.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

God doesn't so much 'test' to see what we will do, He 'tests' that we will learn and grow.
People who have never had adversity or depth of experience don't develop.
Don't be concerned about clever tricks of human reason. No reasoning can explain how
a universe created itself when it didn't exist. No reasoning can figure out WHY we are
here and none know where they are going. And as the world shows today - less religion
doesn't lead to a better world.

So one of God's tests is for us to turn off reason? That doesn't make sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Maximum greatness" refers to god, not the state of the world.

But if God is thd ultimate source of everything, then the state of the world reflects on God.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That paradox is so old, one has to wonder why nobody solved it yet or if it even is solvable.
Only that it has been solved. Thomas Aquinas was aware of Epicurus' paradox and others. Therefore he defined omnipotence as "maximal greatness". The Thomists god can't break logic and that is official doctrine of the RCC. But it is not something that is widely proclaimed to the laity.
Most people hate logic because they are bad at it. And a god that can break logic is just better.

Aquinas dealt with the omnipotence paradox (for a given value of 'dealt'...mileage may vary).

However I wouldn't see that as eschewing the OP. Many people believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. That raises issues, and the manner in which Aquinas dealt with it simply tries to reconcile what God can do with what God does do.

If he can compartmentalize God in such a manner then I see how it can allow an omnipotent God who does not act with omnipotence. But the Epicurean argument remains, and God is in practise limited, even if only by his choice.

It would also be impossible for a human to tell if God's limits are self imposed or not.

 

[InChrist]

When I was in college, I was very close to attending seminary. But this paradox destroyed my faith and I have yet to recover it. I know this is an oversimplification, but I can't get past it. I wanted to share to get some thoughts from others and how to approach these questions/conclusions. Here is a diagram that is pretty close to how I approach these questions:

I only see one way God could have eliminated or not allowed evil and that is to have not given freedom.
But I believe giving His created beings real freedom was/is a priority.


Why does God allow evil? | GotQuestions.org

 

[robocop (actually)]

In Judaism, God creates perfect and imperfect things to fill the space of potential creation fully. That in itself is part of being perfect.

Alright, I have decided it's different than my book to give my answer.

Basically, you just say that paradoxes are part of the equation. "God's thoughts are not our thoughts."

 

[Clara Tea]

God puts souls in humans. Souls guide human actions if humans are allowed free choice. Good go to heaven, bad go to hell. Someone has to preside over hell (keep people in). That someone is Satan. Satan performs a service for God by keeping bad souls in line and keeping them from rejoining God.