The Epicurean paradox

[CeT-To]

Okay, so i'll post a direct reply to all the unanswered replies later on tomorrow, half asleep so i'll just make a general post.

What most, if not all failed to understand is that i'm assuming that God is omnipotent, I shall explain what this word means; Unlimited power "1.A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency." Taking this reasoning into play, Once God creates something he could either do:

Wrong - God cannot do logically impossible and if he could lol then you don't have a problem since then God can be all loving and omnipotent yet evil can also exists and all that suffering even if you think its contradictory since remember by your definition ( even tho i disagree he can do the logically impossible ) God can do the logically impossible.

Human A, God created Human A's entire future and everything and anything inbetween, everything is static and already 'written' to happen.

Human B, God created Human B without writing or knowing his/her future, but wait? Thats a logically invalid statement, I shall illuminate, God = G knowning = K

If (G=K) is true and (G=Not K) = true, that is a paradox, while omnipotence is accepted to be logically impossible and a paradox to hold true, therefore coming to a conclusion that speculation on this matter is pointless. Because we're but mere humans with limited minds. We cannot comprehend a being of omnipotence.

So, if a human decides to try and understand omnipotence and label its actions with human ideals, that is invalid, is it not? Therefore since you believe the bible is inspired by the logic of God that is the only foundation I will work on. Your own idea of what God may think will prove to be invalid ( Or prove me wrong).

Yeah this is incoherent thinking, let me show you - God can start up history in a way that in the end thru peoples free will actions - history will end with the most possible people saved. Of course God intervenes such as Christ and like in egypt etc etc but never with the free will of people. See, there is a completely logical coherent way to combine God's future knowledge and predestination with human free will. Plus you aren't starting with the right Christian concept of God since God cannot contradict himself and cannot do the logically impossible like creating something that exists and doesn't exist at the same moment, so you aren't starting from the logic of God.

SO! if you read that chunk of text, now my arguement can come into play "God loves you" whence cometh evil? If there is a truly horrid life, lets say a young woman grown up with bandits and used as an object (theoretical) isn't that lacking of any love?

Also, taking into account that God is infact omnipotent, and not just a powerful alien creature, I shall state this: Raw speculation will never hold a known to be true answer, therefore such speculation is pointless. Thus, I want replies based on the bible, since it would be a foundation of evidence if it truly is inspired by God.

If I wrote something that contradicts me, feel free to bluntly point it out, 3:35am currently *yawn*.

LOL okie, there, i pointed out that there is no contradiction with evil and suffering in the world and God is not morally to blame for and i pointed to you your contradiction of God being able to do logically impossible things.

No but seriously are you saying that evil & suffering = God does not exist? Because that's what you are saying since, you, upon accepting you conclusion that God is morally unjustified you lower his status to a powerful being thus he is not God and thus God does not exist. I have shown in my post that it is possible for God to have morally sufficient reason for us to go thru what we do go thru, tho the evil isn't caused by God that is caused by us, also suffering isn't inherently evil - since it can refine character, for example a person suffers when they try to stop their smoking addiction but the suffering isn't bad, it is needed to stop the smoking addiction and show us the result of our bad behaviour - hence it is for the refining of character. So there is not logical contradiction with God and evil & suffering existing simultaneously.

God bless

[narnia4]

Others have argued some other points I would have made, but I'd also like to add that you're attack on the free will defense seems to be off the mark. Definitions vary, but if we're talking about "free will" as many would understand it, we're talking about God giving human beings the choice to commit good and evil. So you're sort of appealing to free will and denying it at the same time.

Omnipotent means that he is all-powerful, not necessarily that he causes everything. And the leap in logic that because God knows something he must have caused it, frankly that's something I've simply never understood. If you know a random historical fact, does that mean you caused it? So if God gave us souls that are not only part of the body but also IMMATERIAL (meaning that there is a real choice to be made, not just a preplanned route), then I would argue that we are responsible. I also don't see goodness as a necessary attribute of "a" god.

I think an intriguing possibility is the one that Plantinga and others have advanced, namely that this is the best possible world. If God made us all little robots we could carry out his orders without consciousness or will, but to me that would be a pretty boring world and would take the "good" out of it. Maybe God chose to create the best world possible when all humans have the choice of their own to accept or reject him.

Then as I hear Ravi Zacharias bring up often, the problem of evil is a very real, soul-searching, important issue to the Christian... but its a bigger PROBLEM to the atheist, who often believes in the apparent reality of objective good and evil but have NO basis to believe in them. For that reason among others, this argument has always rung hollow to me because while the Christian can at least attempt to explain or try to grasp the actions and allowances of God, the atheist is stuck with a law that has no lawgiver that they follow for no rational reason.

Finally, I'll be honest and say that the moral arguments against God have simply never impressed me. Who can judge God? Who can understand him fully? We certainly can't. We recognize that good and evil exists, but do we know exactly what they are (why do we assume that pain is BAD)? If Christianity is true, then God IS good, righteous, holy, and just. For us to apply our own understanding and the modern paradigm that caters specifically to current thought and try to judge the perfect standard seems absurd if you're assuming Christianity is true. And as already stated, that's the only way the argument could work, by assuming Christianity's truth. And if you assume Christianity's truth, you're admitting that God is infallible and that we cannot know his ways and will never be able to judge him. And another reason it doesn't impress me is because it often simply comes down to emotional outrage and ranting and raving (how many times do people simply not care at all until they happen to lose a person close to them?) when this is easily one of the single most addressed topics out there in theology... its been addressed numerous times in articles, books, and more books.

[CeT-To]

Good post Narnia, especially outlining the leap of logic from knowing something to causing it.

[wrain62]

Maybe atheists of the world are being brainwashed somehow to believe we are stupid no matter what we say.

Us Christians are one to talk about being brainwashed, because it only supposed to happen to us with our blind faith; us as humans cannot believe without evidence so we must believe in naturalism on pain of irrationality.

But putting that kind of punishment is itself irrational because it results in a condescending-prideful limitation to ideas.

But maybe the limitation is really a pruning for pure knowledge that excises the disproven and nonsensical ideas for a greater cause...

But is our belief really nonsensical and disproven? The conclusions of our positions are ultamatly opinions.

Who is to judge what is nonsensical and disproven without proof themselves?

Only the perfectly logical.

So the only thing to do in this position is to appeal to the point that the validity in our belief is unknowable.

But only unbelivers say it is unknowable, and they do not have any bias, right...

My point is that the position of atheistism is just as or more emotional or philosophical as Christianity.

Especially when you consider that they hold so strongly on to logic and reason to hide this, yet cannot account for its existence.

I sure that my reasoning here somewhere is not perfect but that is just the point of being human--- to search for truth. I hope you see our points man.

[Empty Lord]

Others have argued some other points I would have made, but I'd also like to add that you're attack on the free will defense seems to be off the mark. Definitions vary, but if we're talking about "free will" as many would understand it, we're talking about God giving human beings the choice to commit good and evil. So you're sort of appealing to free will and denying it at the same time.

Omnipotent means that he is all-powerful, not necessarily that he causes everything. And the leap in logic that because God knows something he must have caused it, frankly that's something I've simply never understood. If you know a random historical fact, does that mean you caused it? So if God gave us souls that are not only part of the body but also IMMATERIAL (meaning that there is a real choice to be made, not just a preplanned route), then I would argue that we are responsible. I also don't see goodness as a necessary attribute of "a" god.

I think an intriguing possibility is the one that Plantinga and others have advanced, namely that this is the best possible world. If God made us all little robots we could carry out his orders without consciousness or will, but to me that would be a pretty boring world and would take the "good" out of it. Maybe God chose to create the best world possible when all humans have the choice of their own to accept or reject him.

Then as I hear Ravi Zacharias bring up often, the problem of evil is a very real, soul-searching, important issue to the Christian... but its a bigger PROBLEM to the atheist, who often believes in the apparent reality of objective good and evil but have NO basis to believe in them. For that reason among others, this argument has always rung hollow to me because while the Christian can at least attempt to explain or try to grasp the actions and allowances of God, the atheist is stuck with a law that has no lawgiver that they follow for no rational reason.

Finally, I'll be honest and say that the moral arguments against God have simply never impressed me. Who can judge God? Who can understand him fully? We certainly can't. We recognize that good and evil exists, but do we know exactly what they are (why do we assume that pain is BAD)? If Christianity is true, then God IS good, righteous, holy, and just. For us to apply our own understanding and the modern paradigm that caters specifically to current thought and try to judge the perfect standard seems absurd if you're assuming Christianity is true. And as already stated, that's the only way the argument could work, by assuming Christianity's truth. And if you assume Christianity's truth, you're admitting that God is infallible and that we cannot know his ways and will never be able to judge him. And another reason it doesn't impress me is because it often simply comes down to emotional outrage and ranting and raving (how many times do people simply not care at all until they happen to lose a person close to them?) when this is easily one of the single most addressed topics out there in theology... its been addressed numerous times in articles, books, and more books.

To your first paragraph, we live 100 years or so in this life, then according to christianity we either go to heaven or hell, now lets say you go to heaven. Eternity, can you comit evil in this place? Does the thought even occur into your mind? I doubt it, since it is paradise. So if either free will is lost in heaven or you're to blissful to comit it, your first paragraph in my opinion is disproven due to the fact that heaven would be evil-free since it is a utopia, could we not have that here?

To your second, If God was the initial spark of everything, that would make him omnipotent, and yes that does mean everything and anything unimaginable. As i've stated before, do not try to understand God with human aspects because it would be like trying to compare an insects abilities with a giant. Therefore only pure logic (without human aspects) and the Bible would be needed to try to understand such a being. Also, whether you believe its a necessary attribute or not, the Bible heavily suggests (usually) goodness with God. I'll not delve into that, for it would be a different topic.

To your third, then what is heaven?

To your fourth, I personally view good and evil as two perceptions a human being can have, they're both values. Whether you find one or the other morally correct is up the beholder one might view as stealing as a virtue and morally correct, while the latter (normal people) will view that as a crime and as a sin.
Therefore, I base my actions on logic, rather than good and evil; for example; "If i steal that cake, will I get in trouble? Possibly, is it worth stealing? No." - A logical way to comprehend actions. If this is a good method or not, the beholder chooses. (Beholder = individual)

To your fifth, you assume pain is bad, because its uncomfortable, I on the other hand assume pain is good, because it warns you of danger. I'm challanging two areas that conflict with eacother, and asking for an answer I'm not assuming the entire thing is correct, because thats what i'm doing here, i'm saying "Hey, if this is true, how can this be true?" I'm admitting nothing here, I'm using logic to understand/reason with something I personally view as incorrect, now you're free to prove me wrong and possibly change my opinion, no?

[Stu]

To your fourth, I personally view good and evil as two perceptions a human being can have, they're both values. Whether you find one or the other morally correct is up the beholder one might view as stealing as a virtue and morally correct, while the latter (normal people) will view that as a crime and as a sin.
Therefore, I base my actions on logic, rather than good and evil; for example; "If i steal that cake, will I get in trouble? Possibly, is it worth stealing? No." - A logical way to comprehend actions. If this is a good method or not, the beholder chooses. (Beholder = individual)

Precisely right -- in a world without God, moral relativism is the only way.
The Christian God ensures moral absolutism.

Now as you have said, you base your definition of good and evil on logic applied by an individual to any particular scenario. Let's run with that.

Is it really wrong to kill someone for the food in their fridge if it will help feed your family, and ensure their survival?
Why should you not kill a man if the money in his wallet will put food on your table?
Why should you not invade a neighboring country if your population will soon outgrow it's territory and resources?

For many, the above scenario's are perfectly logical.

The same applies to the animal kingdom (which includes humans if you hold to an atheistic worldview) -- lions will kill any other predators in their domain to ensure their pride has the best chance of survival through access to an abundant source of prey.

We are continually told that mankind is increasing in numbers far too rapidly for the earth to accommodate us all, does it not make more logical sense to euthanize the elderly and sick so that current and future generations can survive; and to ensure the earth does not become overpopulated and depleted of resources?

Good and evil without God, is nothing more than a useful tool to control.


There is no good and evil in a world without God, only each individuals interpretation thereof.
Even if a group of like-minded individuals congregate (say a country) and choose to see good and evil in a similar light; it still does not define good and evil, but remains a group of individuals who hold similar views -- as there could just as likely be another group who hold to very different set of standards.

[narnia4]

Others have argued some other points I would have made, but I'd also like to add that you're attack on the free will defense seems to be off the mark. Definitions vary, but if we're talking about "free will" as many would understand it, we're talking about God giving human beings the choice to commit good and evil. So you're sort of appealing to free will and denying it at the same time.

Omnipotent means that he is all-powerful, not necessarily that he causes everything. And the leap in logic that because God knows something he must have caused it, frankly that's something I've simply never understood. If you know a random historical fact, does that mean you caused it? So if God gave us souls that are not only part of the body but also IMMATERIAL (meaning that there is a real choice to be made, not just a preplanned route), then I would argue that we are responsible. I also don't see goodness as a necessary attribute of "a" god.

I think an intriguing possibility is the one that Plantinga and others have advanced, namely that this is the best possible world. If God made us all little robots we could carry out his orders without consciousness or will, but to me that would be a pretty boring world and would take the "good" out of it. Maybe God chose to create the best world possible when all humans have the choice of their own to accept or reject him.

Then as I hear Ravi Zacharias bring up often, the problem of evil is a very real, soul-searching, important issue to the Christian... but its a bigger PROBLEM to the atheist, who often believes in the apparent reality of objective good and evil but have NO basis to believe in them. For that reason among others, this argument has always rung hollow to me because while the Christian can at least attempt to explain or try to grasp the actions and allowances of God, the atheist is stuck with a law that has no lawgiver that they follow for no rational reason.

Finally, I'll be honest and say that the moral arguments against God have simply never impressed me. Who can judge God? Who can understand him fully? We certainly can't. We recognize that good and evil exists, but do we know exactly what they are (why do we assume that pain is BAD)? If Christianity is true, then God IS good, righteous, holy, and just. For us to apply our own understanding and the modern paradigm that caters specifically to current thought and try to judge the perfect standard seems absurd if you're assuming Christianity is true. And as already stated, that's the only way the argument could work, by assuming Christianity's truth. And if you assume Christianity's truth, you're admitting that God is infallible and that we cannot know his ways and will never be able to judge him. And another reason it doesn't impress me is because it often simply comes down to emotional outrage and ranting and raving (how many times do people simply not care at all until they happen to lose a person close to them?) when this is easily one of the single most addressed topics out there in theology... its been addressed numerous times in articles, books, and more books.

To your first paragraph, we live 100 years or so in this life, then according to christianity we either go to heaven or hell, now lets say you go to heaven. Eternity, can you comit evil in this place? Does the thought even occur into your mind? I doubt it, since it is paradise. So if either free will is lost in heaven or you're to blissful to comit it, your first paragraph in my opinion is disproven due to the fact that heaven would be evil-free since it is a utopia, could we not have that here?

To your second, If God was the initial spark of everything, that would make him omnipotent, and yes that does mean everything and anything unimaginable. As i've stated before, do not try to understand God with human aspects because it would be like trying to compare an insects abilities with a giant. Therefore only pure logic (without human aspects) and the Bible would be needed to try to understand such a being. Also, whether you believe its a necessary attribute or not, the Bible heavily suggests (usually) goodness with God. I'll not delve into that, for it would be a different topic.

To your third, then what is heaven?

To your fourth, I personally view good and evil as two perceptions a human being can have, they're both values. Whether you find one or the other morally correct is up the beholder one might view as stealing as a virtue and morally correct, while the latter (normal people) will view that as a crime and as a sin.
Therefore, I base my actions on logic, rather than good and evil; for example; "If i steal that cake, will I get in trouble? Possibly, is it worth stealing? No." - A logical way to comprehend actions. If this is a good method or not, the beholder chooses. (Beholder = individual)

To your fifth, you assume pain is bad, because its uncomfortable, I on the other hand assume pain is good, because it warns you of danger. I'm challanging two areas that conflict with eacother, and asking for an answer I'm not assuming the entire thing is correct, because thats what i'm doing here, i'm saying "Hey, if this is true, how can this be true?" I'm admitting nothing here, I'm using logic to understand/reason with something I personally view as incorrect, now you're free to prove me wrong and possibly change my opinion, no?

Ok I guess I'll line this up in order...

1. There are several possible reasons why this could be false. For one, while I believe in free will, that is not to say that its completely free of circumstance. Becoming a Christian means that you're asking the Holy Spirit to change you because you can't change yourself. Its allowing yourself to be sanctified. There are things that I COULD do (meaning its physically possible), but since I'm a Christian I simply WON'T do them anymore. In heaven, after our choice is made and the Holy Spirit is in our life and we have seen God, we'll have gone through our journey and won't sin.

2. I'm not quite sure I'm following here. The Bible says that we humans don't know everything about God, we know that our human logic can only go so far... but I'm not sure what you mean by "pure logic without human aspects" or how you think that's possible or that our reason is "enough"? Then my point with that is what God are you trying to disprove here, the Christian God that with the assumption that the Bible is reliable?

3. Its part of it, but you're again neglecting the importance of a free choice on the part of the individual. Other doctrines come into play here as well, but the only way to be in Heaven is if the Holy Spirit invaded our lives and eliminated free will, and I doubt atheistic moralists would be too fond of that alternative either. But there's more to this that I might try to get into when I have the time.

4. So basically morality goes into the gutter then. I just don't see any way around that. If the "beholder" is Hitler, then murdering millions of Jews is morally praiseworthy "for him", and you can't say its wrong. There are things that all of us would find despicable and morally wrong, but the atheist has to play around with words to try to convey how wrong it is without actually appealing to a morally standard which is just absurd. And this again brings up the point, maybe what is actually good is whatever God does and we simply don't understand it from our limited human perspective. If your definition of morality were true, than God never COULD do anything morally wrong because its in the "eye of the beholder" and he'd be the ultimate "beholder". God could pick and choose what's right and he wouldn't be "evil" because everything he does is good by definition. I don't hold to that definition of evil, but I'm just showing that your argument here fails on multiple levels.

5. To analyze the coherency of a value system or belief, you temporarily assume the validity of the system in order to try to show that its incoherent/wrong. If you're looking from an atheistic perspective, then certainly you aren't going to understand it or be able to analyze it correctly. So the only question is if its impossible for God and evil to coexist, have you shown that its impossible? In my mind not even close, so the objection doesn't stand.

[Stu]

@Empty Lord

I think you are also applying some selective reasoning here.

Remember, and this is critical, that when God created the world it was not as we experience it today, he created it without sin. It was a blissful existence in the garden of Eden.
That changed when Eve chose to eat of the fruit. Death came as a result of the fall of man.

[wrain62]

@Empty Lord


Remember, and this is critical, that when God created the world it was not as we experience it today, he created it without sin. It was a blissful existence in the garden of Eden.
That changed when Eve chose to eat of the fruit. Death came as a result of the fall of man.

I think that the evidence does show that death existed before adam, afterall the animals of the world are designed around the concept of death. I´m not sure that creation of the world equals our existence in the garden of Eden either. physical death cannot be a result of sin. Also remember God created this world not to be perfect but to be good. I personally find perfection within inperfection if that makes any sense.

[kmr]

Eternity, can you comit evil in this place? Does the thought even occur into your mind? I doubt it, since it is paradise. So if either free will is lost in heaven or you're to blissful to comit it, your first paragraph in my opinion is disproven due to the fact that heaven would be evil-free since it is a utopia, could we not have that here?

I think that you have missed something. To go into heaven at all, we have to accept the gift that Christ gave us, and allow God to turn us into sinless beings. It is by our own free will that we choose to let God do this for us.... if you want to say that this is giving freewill up, then do so, but I do not at all think that this is the case. You can also choose to ignore God and remain with sin, and thus not be able to enter heaven. It is all about choice.

[Stu]

I think that the evidence does show that death existed before adam, afterall the animals of the world are designed around the concept of death. I´m not sure that creation of the world equals our existence in the garden of Eden either. physical death cannot be a result of sin. Also remember God created this world not to be perfect but to be good. I personally find perfection within inperfection if that makes any sense.

Yeah perhaps death was the wrong word. Suffering and sin might have been a better description.
One of his main gripes is that God never acts -- or why would he create a world with so much pain and suffering. My point was that the initial creation was not like that, it was a world of harmony. Sin entered the picture after Eve disobeyed God.

So yeah I agree that death might very well have occurred prior to the fall of man; after all I'm sure mosquito's, bee's and many other creatures could've died of natural causes or simply old age.

[wrain62]

Empty Lord I think you are trying to point that it is more moral for God to not allow for the existence of morality itself; for there is no good or bad without free will. Am I wrong?