Epicurean Paradox and my Faith

[Quetzal]

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.

I find this to be a convenient argument to excuse atrocities.

 

[Quetzal]

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.

I appreciate your comment, but I think it is important to understand that these sorts of phrases are not always helpful to those who question the faith at baseline.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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

Rats. I forgot about this. You’re right! And it complicates things in my previous reasoning.

Back to drawing-board again, I guess.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[dybmh]

I know this is an oversimplification, but I can't get past it.

I haven't read all the replies in this thread. Maybe someone already mentioned this? If not, I think you have the solution here. It's an oversimplification.

The flaw in the paradox is in the condition "If God does not prevent evil then God is not good and God is not loving." This is an oversimplification. It's binary and it does not allow for a condition where God is more good than evil and is more loving than wrathful. It assumes that a small amount of evil overwhelms any amount of good. That doesn't make sense. If God does much much more good than evil, God is still good and still loving eventhough evil exists. This defeats the binary logic in the paradox.

 

[oldbadger]

Why does evil need to exist at all?

Hello Quetzal....
Deists don't believe that there is an involved God at all.
Whilst I can see that mature intelligent people can be quite horrid, evil does not exist in any kind of creature on Earth. Every creature just does what it does.

People like PolPot, Hitler, Stalin and such are high criminals, it is true, and wicked, but spiritually speaking ..... Evil? Nah!

 

[thomas t]

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?

I think there is true freedom of choice for people. I don't assume God's all-time omniscience, since there is no Bible verse indicating it.
It is mainstream theology, though.

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.

In my opinion, there are creation rules that limit God's power. God's power is restricted - in this creation. God decided that triangles have three sides. So even God can't create the square triangle now. He opted for three sides for triangles as a creation rule.
In this creation, triangles have three corners.

Likewise, in this creation there is free will. And I think God wanted to have true free will.

 

[thomas t]

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

In my opinion, it's like this: God gave life to humans only for a limited time. up to the point he seizes it again. Man can not hold God accountable for taking lives, in my opinion. He never gave life away for a minimum time span, I think.

@Quetzal, I don't need to excuse anything God does. God is sovereign, as I see it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In my opinion, it's like this: God gave life to humans only for a limited time. up to the point he seizes it again. Man can not hold God accountable for taking lives, in my opinion. He never gave life away for a minimum time span, I think.

So no objection to my point that you imply that human life had no inherent value, eh?

 

[thomas t]

So no objection to my point that you imply that human life had no inherent value, eh?

yes. In my opinion it's because God was the one giving life to humans, it has an inherent value - up to the point God seizes it.
I forgot to mention it in my last post.

 

[osgart]

I think there is true freedom of choice for people. I don't assume God's all-time omniscience, since there is no Bible verse indicating it.
It is mainstream theology, though.

In my opinion, there are creation rules that limit God's power. God's power is restricted - in this creation. God decided that triangles have three sides. So even God can't create the square triangle now. He opted for three sides for triangles as a creation rule.
In this creation, triangles have three corners.

Likewise, in this creation there is free will. And I think God wanted to have true free will.

So then the good is lumped in with the evil. A dichotomy of humans in creation.

And those high crime individual's have no redeemable worth. Yet the good is stuck in with the evil.

With high crime individuals my opinion is that if they can be redeemed they should be redeemed.

Do you imply that all humans have a wicked nature; perhaps in degrees.

In these cases I think the wicked can't and won't decide for any redeemable thing. It would have to be all God's doing to redeem, and nothing to the person's credit.

 

[Quetzal]

@Quetzal, I don't need to excuse anything God does. God is sovereign, as I see it.

Which is a problem. Why do you accept and trust that God sees a use in something like the Holocaust or the massacres at the hands of Communism? How do you rationalize all of that suffering by waving a hand and saying God knows best?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Every parent can destroy his children?

 

[blü 2]

I think there is true freedom of choice for people. I don't assume God's all-time omniscience, since there is no Bible verse indicating it.
It is mainstream theology, though.

God is also omnipresent, which puts [him] in every cubic millimeter and every millisecond of spacetime, so the realm of [his] omniscience must include the future.

Indeed, if God is perfect, does it not follow that [he] could guess or surmise the future with perfect accuracy?

In my opinion, there are creation rules that limit God's power. God's power is restricted - in this creation. God decided that triangles have three sides. So even God can't create the square triangle now. He opted for three sides for triangles as a creation rule.

On @osgart's point, alternatively ─

(a) 'triangle' is a human definition, so a square triangle is a human error or joke, or

(b) God can place a square and a triangle in Quantum Mechanics superposition, so that like particle/wave duality you have square / triangle duality.

 

[stvdv]

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...

You say:
I don't see evil as something that has an existence independent from the mind, evil is not some sort of discrete object out there in the world. Meaning that evil is like happiness, joy, sadness, anxiety

Exactly my point. Evil does not exist independent from the mind. Hence the so called "Epicurean Paradox" is a non-Paradox. People are perfectly capable to control their own mind, no need for God nor to blame God for being inconsistent.

 

[stvdv]

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

It was also written to "not eat from that fruit". So the solution to solve "good and evil" problem was given in Genesis

 

[Quetzal]

It was also written to "not eat from that fruit". So the solution to solve "good and evil" problem was given in Genesis

This is not practical given that our membership to Eden expired thousands of years ago.

 

[Koldo]

So the paradox is solved. Evil
You say:
I don't see evil as something that has an existence independent from the mind, evil is not some sort of discrete object out there in the world. Meaning that evil is like happiness, joy, sadness, anxiety

Exactly my point. Evil does not exist independent from the mind. Hence the so called "Epicurean Paradox" is a non-Paradox. People are perfectly capable to control their own mind, no need for God nor to blame God for being inconsistent.

What do you mean by "People are perfectly capable to control their own mind, no need for God nor to blame God for being inconsistent."?

Taken at face value, I disagree with this statement. Can you elaborate?

 

[Ponder This]

So the question is: Is God bound by logic?

Well, if God created everything, then he also created the system of logic that exists in the universe, and thus God existed before that logic. In that case, God can't be bound by that logic, since there was a point at which God existed and that logic didn't. If we claim that God is bound by logic, then there was a time when God was bound by something that did not yet exist. Either that, or God limited himself to logic once he created it, and why would he choose to give up some of his powers?

Ha ha. Well, if the number 1 didn't exist before God existed, then how can we only have 1 deity? If we say, "Nothing existed until God existed." Then what was this "nothing"?
And so I would say that it isn't that logic does or does not exist before or after God, but rather that logic itself has its own limitations.

The problem of being "bound by logic" goes right to the question of what it means to be "all-powerful".
The classic paradox is: Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? If He cannot create the stone, then He is not "all-powerful". If He cannot lift it, then He is not "all-powerful".
Logic is inadequate to trap something that is not bound by the rules of logic.

"This statement is a lie." What can logic say about such a statement?
Liar paradox - Wikipedia

 

[blü 2]

It was also written to "not eat from that fruit". So the solution to solve "good and evil" problem was given in Genesis

The problems with that are many. First, God doesn't order Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit; instead [he] warns them: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."(2:17). Then [he] pretends it was a commandment: "Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (3:11) This is underlined by the fact that they don't die the same day ─ just as the snake said. Second, at the time when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, God had denied them the ability to know good from evil. Therefore they were incapable of forming an intention to do wrong. Therefore they were incapable of sin. Third, the Garden story never mentions sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death, or anything like that. Adam and Eve are NOT expelled from Eden for eating the fruit. Instead God sets out [his] reasons clearly in Genesis 3: "22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken."

Yes, I know Paul mentions it ─ I seem to recall the idea originated midrash-wise among Alexandrian Jews late in the second century BCE ─ but no one appears to have made a fuss of it till Augustine of Hippo around 400 CE. A pity none of them paused to read what the text actually says ...

 

[Heyo]

The problems with that are many. First, God doesn't order Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit; instead [he] warns them: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."(2:17).

Isn't that an order, a commandment?