• lice
    1
    I believe that this paradox has the true meaning of false religion on it. I have always been a non believer growing up. But was forced in religion due to my family. This theory explains on how good is "all good" but lets innocent people die. And if he doesn't see it happen than he is not "all seeing" so on so forth.
  • Miller
    92
    Problem of evil is a bad argument for atheism, it has been defeated and therefore using it just makes atheism look wrong. So if you want to win debates don't use it. Find better ones.

    Why does evil exist? Well there is two kinds of evil: Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. Changing it will just create a new set of goods and bads.

    And don't assume god does not feel every bit of pain we feel along with us. Life without pain does not work. Nobody would do anything.
  • 180 Proof
    6.5k

    An argument against 'divine providence', or for 'divine indifference' (and NOT necessarily - decisively - an argument for the nonexistence of 'the divine') ...180 Proof
    (Click on my handle for more.)
  • SolarWind
    180
    Life without pain does not work.Miller

    What would be in heaven then? That is, by definition, a life without pain. But such a life should not be possible => You have contradicted yourself.
  • 180 Proof
    6.5k
    What would be in heaven then?SolarWind
    "Heaven" is only as real as Narnia or Middle-Earth. So to answer: anything you can imagine whether or not it makes any sense. :sparkle:
  • Cuthbert
    397
    But was forced in religion due to my family.lice

    Forcing anything on anyone tends not to endear them to it.

    Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven.Miller

    If creators do not bear responsibility for the harm caused by their creations then God's off the hook, granted, but so is all humanity.
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    Epicurus was not completely right and he's becoming less and less right as time flies but, I fear, he'll be right on the money all at once again.
  • 180 Proof
    6.5k
    When the mood strikes you, Fool, show us how "The Riddle of Epicurus" goes wrong. Thanks.
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    When the mood strikes you, Fool, show us how the "Riddle of Epicurus" goes wrong. Thanks.180 Proof

    The Riddle Of Epicurus! I like the phraseology. It strikes a chord in me. Riddles usually have an answer, a good one that, in my experience, amounts to, how shall I put it now, exposing this :point: FAKE ATTACK!

  • 180 Proof
    6.5k
    Epicurus was not completely right ...TheMadFool
    From two years ago:
    (a) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.

    (b) Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.

    (c) Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?

    (d) Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?

    'The Riddle of Epicurus' (~300 BCE)
    180 Proof
    Epicurus is not claiming "god doesn't exist", only calling into question that such a malignantly indifferent and/or impotent "god" is not worthy of being worshipped (or called "god"). So what is "not completely right" with this riddle?
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    indifferent180 Proof

    The opposite of that would be a nosey parker. We might wanna use the expresssion "mind your own business".

    impotent180 Proof

    Are you wishing for a celestial dictator? Thanks Christopher Hitchens for coining that phrase.

    So what is "not completely right" with this riddle?180 Proof

    What's "not completely right"? Lemme see...that it's good that God leaves us alone and can't do jack shit about how we do things.

    Hey 180 Proof, please bear with me if I make silly mistakes. You know me, I'm mad and I'm a fool.
  • Cuthbert
    397
    You know me, I'm mad and I'm a fool.TheMadFool

    You don't seem mad and you're definitely not a fool.
  • Miller
    92
    What would be in heaven then? That is, by definition, a life without pain. But such a life should not be possible => You have contradicted yourself.SolarWind

    Heaven is just another utopic fantasy, like communism.
  • Miller
    92
    If creators do not bear responsibility for the harm caused by their creations then God's off the hook, granted, but so is all humanity.Cuthbert

    No matter what creation is created it will contain pain and "evil". You can change the position of it but not the fact of it.
  • baker
    3.3k
    Problem of evil is a bad argument for atheism, it has been defeated and therefore using it just makes atheism look wrong. So if you want to win debates don't use it. Find better ones.

    Why does evil exist? Well there is two kinds of evil: Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. Changing it will just create a new set of goods and bads.
    Miller

    And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good.
  • Tom Storm
    2.5k
    And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good.baker

    Indeed.

    If we believe in an omniscient God (which I do not) would it not be the case that human understanding of good and evil is severely limited and that our attempt to pin what we think of as evil onto God's list of responsibilities is a fraught and shallow affair?
  • baker
    3.3k
    That's why I say that if God exist, God is a Trumpista. It's the simplest explanation.
  • Tom Storm
    2.5k
    I can see that.
  • Miller
    92
    And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good.baker

    I hate my parents, because they made me eat vegetables.
  • kaczynskisatva
    1
    This thread would be easier to deal with if you had posted the Epicurean paradox, for reference.

    For reference, it goes like this.

    - Evil exists.
    - Therefore...
    and it ends with a statement that any God tolerates evil.

    The solution is simple - it is a false premise.

    Evil does not exist.

    If we assume there is a God, then God decides what is good for God.

    People have their own opinions about what is good and evil - for them. The Epicurean paradox, then, boils down to - "Daddy, why can't I just have everything I want, all the time?"

    God, not you, would be the moral center of the universe. God, not you, would be good. You would, in fact, according to normal religious philosophy, be a sinner, or evil. So, any "evil" happening to you would just be Evil, happening to itself, which would be just, so it would be good.

    If there is a moral center to the universe, God in that sense, all is good, there is no evil, and so these words don't mean much. If there isn't, then these words also don't mean much.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment