Theists: Response to Epicurus famous argument.

[dust1n]

Sorry if this thread has been made before.

For theists: What is your response to Epicurus's famous quote:

"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?"

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

God is eminently All-loving and capable, but what the author of the quote overlooks is that He created us with free will, and thus any evil in the world is our own doing (evil being the relative lack of good attributes)!

So we have ourselves to blame for any evil we've created!

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Storm]

Sorry if this thread has been made before.

For theists: What is your response to Epicurus's famous quote:

"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?"

Not a theist, precisely, but I'll play devil's advocate.

I can see the argument that a benevolent, omnimax God would let us make our own mistakes.

 

[MSizer]

Not a theist, precisely, but I'll play devil's advocate.

I can see the argument that a benevolent, omnimax God would let us make our own mistakes.

And let innocent victims suffer for them and the perpetrators get off scott free? That's what happens often. Blows the free will argument right out of the water if you ask me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only conclusion, IMHO, is admitted that God is a terrible and fearsome God.

At the same time, however, God is redemptive in nature, slowly working to make everything right.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/34657-process-theology-cross.html

 

[Storm]

And let innocent victims suffer for them and the perpetrators get off scott free? That's what happens often.

I'm unaware of any theology without consequences.

Blows the free will argument right out of the water if you ask me.

Well, you're biased.

 

[MSizer]

I'm unaware of any theology without consequences...

I agree, which is why theology doesn't make sense to me. Why would an all powerful all loving creator create circumstances where suffering is unevently and unfairly distributed. Theology IMO is the art of excusing fallacies to the point that some people can be convinced that it's ok to do so.

 

[Storm]

I agree, which is why theology doesn't make sense to me. Why would an all powerful all loving creator create circumstances where suffering is unevently and unfairly distributed. Theology IMO is the art of excusing fallacies to the point that some people can be convinced that it's ok to do so.

Well, that was predictable.

 

[MSizer]

Well, that was predictable.

2 + 2 still = 4.

 

[Storm]

2 + 2 still = 4.

:sleep:

 

[MSizer]

OK, so an 8 year old girl in phoenix was recently bound and gang raped in a shed by 4 neighborhood boys. Her family now are taking the stance that she has brought shame upon their family, and defending the 4 boys who raped her.

You tell me how god is all loving and all powerfull.

 

[Storm]

OK, so an 8 year old girl in phoenix was recently bound and gang raped in a shed by 4 neighborhood boys. Her family now are taking the stance that she has brought shame upon their family, and defending the 4 boys who raped her.

You tell me how god is all loving and all powerfull.

That's entirely a human tragedy.

I suppose you think God should stop them, but this violates free will.

 

[MSizer]

That's entirely a human tragedy.

I suppose you think God should stop them, but this violates free will.

What do I have to say to make it clear? God didn't have to make free will. He didn't have to create a world where that crap happens, but he (allegedly) did. Therefore, it's impossible that god is both omnipotent and all loving.

If he were, we would all have been born right in heaven where no suffering exists. Since we were not, it is impossible that he is both perfectly loving and perfectly powerful.

 

[Storm]

What do I have to say to make it clear?

Your postition is perfectly clear. I just happen to think it's oversimplified and wrong.

God didn't have to make free will.

Unless He wanted morality to mean anything. Apparently, He did.

He didn't have to create a world where that crap happens, but he (allegedly) did. Therefore, it's impossible that god is both omnipotent and all loving.

If he were, we would all have been born right in heaven where no suffering exists. Since we were not, it is impossible that he is both perfectly loving and perfectly powerful.

Nope.

 

[MSizer]

OK, let's try this angle then. I'm god. I want morality to mean something (insert: I don't understand why he'd care, but going along with your view) so I'll create humans, and just for fun, I'll make about 1 in 100 of them psychopathic, so that they can't experience remorse or even empathy. And just for even more fun, I'll give some of them unsusual desires, like sexual attraction to children, or sexual attraction to violent murder. And I won't equip the rest of them with any understanding of psychopathy, so they'll simply have to find out about the horrific desires of these people after they act on them, therefore innocents and their loved ones will suffer, and then if they can catch the ones who do these things, they'll kill them.

Of course I could just put everyone in heaven right away with an innate desire to love each other, but that just makes too much sense. Surely they'd prefer to be born on earth with psychopaths, schizophrenics and pedophiles. Yes, surely they'd all choose that over heaven.

How does that make any sense storm? Can you seriously buy into that?

 

[Storm]

OK, let's try this angle then. I'm god. I want morality to mean something (insert: I don't understand why he'd care, but going along with your view) so I'll create humans, and just for fun, I'll make about 1 in 100 of them psychopathic, so that they can't experience remorse or even empathy. And just for even more fun, I'll give some of them unsusual desires, like sexual attraction to children, or sexual attraction to violent murder. And I won't equip the rest of them with any understanding of psychopathy, so they'll simply have to find out about the horrific desires of these people after they act on them, therefore innocents and their loved ones will suffer, and then if they can catch the ones who do these things, they'll kill them.

Of course I could just put everyone in heaven right away with an innate desire to love each other, but that just makes too much sense. Surely they'd prefer to be born on earth with psychopaths, schizophrenics and pedophiles. Yes, surely they'd all choose that over heaven.

How does that make any sense storm? Can you seriously buy into that?

When you oversimplify it like that, of course your argument makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, reality is more nuanced.

 

[MSizer]

When you oversimplify it like that, of course your argument makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, reality is more nuanced.

How so? I do not believe I'm oversimplifying at all. You keep saying I'm oversimpliying, but you're not offering any argument to substantiate it.

 

[Storm]

How so? I do not believe I'm oversimplifying at all. You keep saying I'm oversimpliying, but you're not offering any argument to substantiate it.

Well, for one thing, you leave out all the perks of being alive. You also absolve humans of all responsibility for our own choices.

Then there's free will itself. You say you don't see any need for it, but without it, we'd just be God's slaves. Would you really prefer to be a mindless automoton if it meant you didn't have to think? Me, I'll take human failing over mind rape and never look back.

 

[MSizer]

Well, for one thing, you leave out all the perks of being alive. You also absolve humans of all responsibility for our own choices..

So? Why is that bad?

Then there's free will itself. You say you don't see any need for it, but without it, we'd just be God's slaves. Would you really prefer to be a mindless automoton if it meant you didn't have to think? Me, I'll take human failing over mind rape and never look back.

But you are anyway. You're a slave to your subconcious functions. We all are. And we should be happy for that. Imagine how much it would suck if we had to always remind ourselves every moment to take a breath, and keep our blood flowing? Humans are automotons in many respects, and that's a good thing. It would be perfect if we didn't have to think about avoiding wrong. Do you wish you had a choice to take control of your own blood flow? Of course not. It's only added resoponsibiliy, which would make life more difficult. If all were controlled subconciously so that we were kind and loving, it would be ideal. If he has the alleged power and love people claim he has, he would have had no reason to stop autonomy where he did. It is your view IMO that is oversimplified.

 

[cottage]

Greetings!

God is eminently All-loving and capable, but what the author of the quote overlooks is that He created us with free will, and thus any evil in the world is our own doing (evil being the relative lack of good attributes)!

So we have ourselves to blame for any evil we've created!

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce

Unfortunately the FWD is no defence at all. In fact it simply serves to restate the perennial problem of evil. A very common theist response is:
‘There would be no point in God creating a world of automatons’, who always did exactly as programmed, and so he created a world of free agents with the power to make choices’. There are two things wrong with that. It assumes that evil must be available as a possible choice - an example of begging the question, since evil exists only because it is God’s will - and if he didn’t will it then self-evidently it wouldn’t exist!

The other point is that we can make all sorts of choices without having to inflict pain and suffering on our fellow men, and nor do we need evil as a perverse form of adversity test. We can conceive of a world devoid of evil, where the inhabitants co-exist in a harmonious way. And isn’t that exactly what most theists, along with the rest of us, would wish to be the case? So there is no logical objection to there being no evil; there is, however, the question of whether free will is even possible (more of which later)!