• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The paradox of Epicurus

Nirvana

Member
“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
That says it all. Thoughts?
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Well, at least it would keep you off the streets at night, as my grandmother used to say.

מה שהיה הוא שיהיה ומה שנעשה הוא שיעשה ואין כל חדש תחת השמש
That sums it up.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
“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
That says it all. Thoughts?

The only logical weakness, and in my opinion a fatal weakness, in this argument is the following:

Good seems to exist. So, the conclusion that He must be malevolent, by not being willing to prevent evil, (second question) is unwarranted. For, I could say He is not willing to prevent good either, and therefore He is benevolent. Since He cannot be mutually contradicting things at the same time, the conclusion of the second question is nonsensical.

And if one of the conclusions of a complete set of conclusions is self defeating, then the whole argument falls apart. At least, logically.

This should be obvious when we rewrite the argument using full symmetry between good and evil.

Is God willing to prevent good, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is benevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh good?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”


Even thought my modified version is equally valid, it looks much less convincing toward disproving God.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
Could you translate that in Yiddish?

Do you want Tumah's comment translated into Yiddish? Do you want the Hebrew translated into Yiddish?

In any event, the Hebrew is from the Tanakh, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 1:9.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Do you want Tumah's comment translated into Yiddish? Do you want the Hebrew translated into Yiddish?

In any event, the Hebrew is from the Tanakh, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 1:9.

Well, I like Ecclesiastes. It is my favorite part of the Bible. But my Hebrew is restricted to "Shalom" and the first letter of the alphabet (for professional reasons). Which is not a lot.

But I am pratically a native German speaker, so Yiddish might be more helpful. At least for me.

Ciao

- viole
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Could you translate that in Yiddish?

Ciao

- viole
In Yiddish?
װאָס איז געװען דאָס װעט זײַן, און װאָס איז געשען דאָס װעט געשען, און נישטאָ קײן נײַס אונטער דער זון
Vos iz geven, dos vet zayn. Un vos iz geshen, dos vet geshen. Un nishta kayn nayes unter der zun.

I found an older translation (like how my grandparents might talk) which might be more similar to German.
וואם עס איז געווען, איז און וועט זיין, און וואס עס האט זיך געטהאן וועט געטהאן ווערען און אונטער דער זונן איז מעהר קיין נייעס ניטא
Vos es iz geven, iz un vet zayn. Un vos es hut zikh getuhn, vet getuhn veren. Un unter der zunen, iz mehr kayn nayes nita.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
In Yiddish?
װאָס איז געװען דאָס װעט זײַן, און װאָס איז געשען דאָס װעט געשען, און נישטאָ קײן נײַס אונטער דער זון
Vos iz geven, dos vet zayn. Un vos iz geshen, dos vet geshen. Un nishta kayn nayes unter der zun.

I found an older translation (like how my grandparents might talk) which might be more similar to German.
וואם עס איז געווען, איז און וועט זיין, און וואס עס האט זיך געטהאן וועט געטהאן ווערען און אונטער דער זונן איז מעהר קיין נייעס ניטא
Vos es iz geven, iz un vet zayn. Un vos es hut zikh getuhn, vet getuhn veren. Un unter der zunen, iz mehr kayn nayes nita.

I like the "nothing new under the sun" part. A lot. It is very Parmenidean.

Thanks.

Ciao

- viole
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
“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
That says it all. Thoughts?

What if God is able but not willing to violate free will?

What if God isn't allowing one being to harm another being but allowing one fragment of God concsiousness to harm another fragment of God consciousness?
 
Top