Epicurean Paradox and my Faith

[Redemptionsong]

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:

Maybe you should have gone to seminary?!

IMO, all the answers are to be found in Jesus Christ.

There can be no love without freedom. The potential for evil is eradicated by creating a good soil for the seed.

 

[PruePhillip]

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

I never said that.
In fact in Judaeo Christianity the emphasis is upon you proving for yourself the validity
of scripture. And if you just believe, without proving anything personally, then you don't
understand at all. This proof is not a 'corporate' proof - it's designed to a person issue.

 

[blü 2]

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.

I don't see any way that humans can have free will if God is omnipotent and omniscient ─ there's not the slightest possibility of doing anything that God didn't perfectly foresee before [he] made the universe.

And separately from that, there's no way that humans can make decisions independently of our brains' evolved decision-making mechanisms.

But let's imagine there's a way round that. There are a lot of things that are in our evolved physical and emotional form, and there are a lot of things that are left out. Then God could have given humans free will in a world that naturally provided them with sufficient AND built in contentment with sufficient, and built in benevolence AND left out rage and aggression.

No?

 

[thomas t]

a God that not only allowed but wanted genocide to occur.

Genocide implies it's unlawful.
However, God created all peoples. So he can destroy them if he wants.
Every artist can destroy his own piece of arts, if he wants, and noone has a reason to say it's unlawful, in my opnion. It's all his.

 

[thomas t]

But if God is all powerful God would have the perfect remedy for every evil and every suffering and there would be no need to wait through all of history to accomplish this. It would happen instantly, or in seconds to everybody. A so called instantly perfect truth.

Why should God bother to make all the evils undone that humans inflicted on each other?
Doing so would blur responsibilities, in my opinion.
As if He Himself was responsible for all the evils that humans authored.

 

[osgart]

Why should God bother to make all the evils undone that humans inflicted on each other?
Doing so would blur responsibilities, in my opinion.
As if He Himself was responsible for all the evils that humans authored.

Evil and its free activity teaches nothing of worth. There are people who do not cause evil. And it would be to God's glory to end it.

 

[thomas t]

Evil and its free activity teaches nothing of worth. There are people who do not cause evil. And it would be to God's glory to end it.

If they are wronged, they are wronged by other people I think.
So it's up to them to end harming others. Not to God, I think.
Why should God do the clean-up when others are responsible for the mess? For his glory, you say? I doubt it.
It's not glorious to always do the tidying up...
If you think it's glorious, come to my house and tidy up. I need a cleaner. Be sure: all the dirt teaches nothing of worth .

 

[blü 2]

Why should God bother to make all the evils undone that humans inflicted on each other?
Doing so would blur responsibilities, in my opinion.
As if He Himself was responsible for all the evils that humans authored.

But if God is omnipotent and omniscient then it's impossible for anyone to do anything that God didn't perfectly foresee before [he] made the universe, and that being so, it happened because [he] willed it, no?

 

[osgart]

If they are wronged, they are wronged by other people I think.
So it's up to them to end harming others. Not to God, I think.
Why should God do the clean-up when others are responsible for the mess? For his glory, you say? I doubt it.
It's not glorious to always do the tidying up...
If you think it's glorious, come to my house and tidy up. I need a cleaner. Be sure: all the dirt teaches nothing of worth .

Are you sure that God wouldn't know how to repent evil people to do their own tidying up? Then God is not all knowing and all powerful.

 

[PureX]

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

Words don't have "meaning". They represent ideas that we ascribe meaning to. And the ideas they represent can be inaccurate. So can our use of the words.

 

[stvdv]

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:

@stvdvRF

 

[Koldo]

Words don't have "meaning". They represent ideas that we ascribe meaning to. And the ideas they represent can be inaccurate. So can our use of the words.

I am sorry but that's not how language works.
We are the ones that create the words and assign meanings to them. Therefore, our usage can only be inaccurate in the sense that a given usage is not popular and would be misunderstood by others. So for something to be God, for example, it must match the meaning we have assigned to the term.

 

[Koldo]

View attachment 45841

If evil exists in "wharped" dual mind of human only then evil exists. The paradox persists.

If you exist only on this world, then you exist.
If oxygen exists only on this universe, then oxygen exists.
And so on.

 

[stvdv]

If evil exists in "wharped" dual mind of human only then evil exists. The paradox persists.

You say:
IF evil exists in "wharped" dual mind of human only THEN evil exists.

So I guess you also say:
IF unicorn exists in "wharped" dual mind of human only THEN unicorn exists.
IF God exists in "wharped" dual mind of human only THEN God exists.
@stvdvRF

 

[Koldo]

You say:
If evil exists in "wharped" dual mind of human only then evil exists.

So I guess you also say:
If unicorn exists in "wharped" dual mind of human only then unicorn exists.
If God exists in "wharped" dual mind of human only then God exists.

Depends on what you mean by 'exist'.
Differently from God and unicorns, I don't see evil as something that has an existence independent from the mind. In other words, evil is not some sort of discrete object out there in the world. Meaning that evil is like happiness, joy, sadness, anxiety...

 

[PureX]

I am sorry but that's not how language works.

Language doesn't work at all unless we respect the ideas that the words we use represent. I understand that language morphs over time because people extend and misuse the words. But doing that is as likely to disrupt communication as it is to advance it. And ignoring this doesn't change it.

We're done here.

 

[Koldo]

Language doesn't work at all unless we respect the ideas that the words we use represent. I understand that language morphs over time because people extend and misuse the words. But doing that is as likely to disrupt communication as it is to advance it. And ignoring this doesn't change it.

We're done here.

Language working has nothing to do with respecting "the ideas that the words we use represent". Rather, it has everything to do with having a shared meaning.

By the way, if you were to tell me there is some sort of actual God out there that doesn't relate (or only barely) to how we (as in most of the world) use the word 'God', you would be the one disrupting the communication.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Genocide implies it's unlawful.
However, God created all peoples. So he can destroy them if he wants.

This seems to imply that human beings have no inherent worth, because if they did, even God would have to acknowledge it in his actions.

Every artist can destroy his own piece of arts, if he wants, and noone has a reason to say it's unlawful, in my opnion. It's all his.

... unless he gives it away.

No artist has the right to destroy their creation once they've given it to someone else.

 

[Heyo]

I am sorry but that's not how language works.
We are the ones that create the words and assign meanings to them. Therefore, our usage can only be inaccurate in the sense that a given usage is not popular and would be misunderstood by others. So for something to be God, for example, it must match the meaning we have assigned to the term.

Accurate in principle, wrong in the special case you mention. "God" is one of those words that have no meaning assigned to them.

 

[Quetzal]

View attachment 45841
@stvdvRF

Was it not written in the Bible that the tree of knowledge gave fruit of being able to determine good and evil?