A Return to the Argument from Evil (by Epicurus)

[InChrist]

1) Omnipotence is unlimited power.
2) Unlimited power allows one to achieve any objective straight away, without the need to go through steps. For if it didn't, a higher power would be imaginable and there can be no higher power than unlimited power.
3) If an omnipotent being has a plan, every step of the plan must be an end in itself (because no steps are necessary to achieve the goal).
4) An omnipotent being has a plan.
4) Evil is a step of the plan.
5) Therefore, evil must be an end in itself.

I don’t think omnipotence means unlimited power, at least not according to the scriptures in reference to God, whose power is limited or controlled by His own Nature and Character qualities and His determined plan. This means that God will not use His power to go against Himself or His plan. Therefore, if His plan is to create truly free beings He will not use His power to override their freedom to choose good or evil. So the result is we see evil because human beings choose evil...as they reject God’s goodness and wisdom.

 

[1213]

...And the ability to cause those choices to actually happen?

Not necessary.

 

[1213]

Choose what evil?
What's the bare minimum evil that is necessary to claim we have freedom? Clearly it must not be all sorts of evil, since that's impossible to us.

Why not? But, evil is basically like darkness, or emptiness, nothing. So, choosing evil means actually rejecting good, because evil is lack of good. Therefore, the ability to choose evil, means people have freedom to reject good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not necessary.

Right... which creates a problem for you.

To explain why, say, people are murdered, you not only have to expain why we would have predisposition to murder people (which you haven't done yet, BTW), but also why someone would havd the capacity to murder.

I mean, even if I wanted to, I wouldn't be able to kill someone by telekinesis using just the power of my thoughts... so apparently not having that ability hasn't diminished whatever you're calling "freedom"... so if thoughts don't have to be deadly for "freedom" to happen, why would bullets have to be?

 

[viole]

If you don’t care about what God, the Creator of life, thinks then it makes sense that you would not care about life; even your own. I appreciate the insight your post provides.

Well, yes. I appreciate that.
But now you have to answer that: isn't is better to abort a human being, considering all the odds that will prevent it to get eternal salvation?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[InChrist]

Well, yes. I appreciate that.
But now you have to answer that: isn't is better to abort a human being, considering all the odds that will prevent it to get eternal salvation?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

No, because each person’s life or impact in this world has value and purpose in ways we can’t fully know and have no right to terminate.

 

[Koldo]

Why not? But, evil is basically like darkness, or emptiness, nothing. So, choosing evil means actually rejecting good, because evil is lack of good. Therefore, the ability to choose evil, means people have freedom to reject good.

I mean..Right now, it is impossible for me to kill you, for example, at this very instant. I lack the power to do it, therefore it is not like I am able to choose to do this evil. But if you say I still have freedom, then not every kind of evil must necessarily be available to me. Then why must some evils be available as a choice and others not?

Another example: If you were born without your hands you would be unable to punch me to death.

 

[Koldo]

I don’t think omnipotence means unlimited power, at least not according to the scriptures in reference to God, whose power is limited or controlled by His own Nature and Character qualities and His determined plan.

Possessing unlimited power doesn't entail that one must use it to do everything possible.

This means that God will not use His power to go against Himself or His plan. Therefore, if His plan is to create truly free beings He will not use His power to override their freedom to choose good or evil. So the result is we see evil because human beings choose evil...as they reject God’s goodness and wisdom.

What's more important to God: to create truly free beings or to create beings that experience the utmost well-being?

If the former, then God is not omnibenevolent.

 

[Koldo]

Yet, God does have a plan in the works to permanently end suffering for anyone interested.

Then God is already working on that. No need for us to do anything about it.

 

[InChrist]

What's more important to God: to create truly free beings or to create beings that experience the utmost well-being?

.

I’d say both are important and add that the goal of our utmost well- being is accomplished in God’s way and timing, not according to human wisdom, but God’s wisdom and not on this fallen planet, but for eternity.

 

[InChrist]

Then God is already working on that. No need for us to do anything about it.

How about showing interest or responding to God?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How about showing interest or responding to God?

Mind if I interrupt and answer that question myself?

I can't respond to God -- God has never communicated to me.

 

[InChrist]

Mind if I interrupt and answer that question myself?

I can't respond to God -- God has never communicated to me.

I don’t mind and don’t even think you are interrupting. Thanks for your response.

When you say God has never communicated to you, do you mean God has not actually verbally spoken to you, appeared to you or something of that nature?
Would I be correct in assuming that you don’t consider words in the Bible as God communicating you you?
Just trying to clarify.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don’t mind and don’t even think you are interrupting. Thanks for your response.

When you say God has never communicated to you, do you mean God has not actually verbally spoken to you, appeared to you or something of that nature?
Would I be correct in assuming that you don’t consider words in the Bible as God communicating you you?
Just trying to clarify.

That would be correct. The Bible, in my view, cannot possibly be anything like a communication from something that I would call a deity. Believers can't bring themselves to see, but the thing is so chock full of contradictions, ambiguity, error -- and sometimes even pure evil -- that such a notion is ludicrous. Also, I have spent some time studying (though I am no scholar by any stretch) how and when the many books of the Bible were written, including the many parallels that disagree with one another. To do this, because I'm not a scholar, I have had to rely on the scholarship of others -- but I have always been careful to check sources.

So the answer is: the Bible isn't God speaking. And I've certainly had no other form of communication from Him -- therefore, God has never communicated with me.

 

[Koldo]

I’d say both are important and add that the goal of our utmost well- being is accomplished in God’s way and timing, not according to human wisdom, but God’s wisdom and not on this fallen planet, but for eternity.

But which one is more important?

 

[Koldo]

How about showing interest or responding to God?

I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

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

The part above is the place to bring attention. Let’s settle on the idea that he is at least malevolent and unwilling to intervene in order to prevent evil and suffering. What are the implications of this?

For the person that sees the fundamental question as: “Should we or should we not believe in and worship God”, then this means that we should be atheists. But I would encourage people, especially the atheists, to reconsider whether this should be the fundamental question. Theists often see it as the fundamental question, but that doesn’t mean it should be the fundamental question.

Camus thought the fundamental question is deciding whether or not life is worth continuing. Now we are getting warmer in my view. This is the path that the dedicated truth seeker travels on and is the path that can truthfully lead to believing in a God that he knows is malevolent and unwilling to intervene.

 

[viole]

No, because each person’s life or impact in this world has value and purpose in ways we can’t fully know and have no right to terminate.

Why not? You said it yourself. We know that. Whatever happens will be in God's plan that ultimately optimises everything and turning into a winner.

Which leads me to my previous example. I buy a gun, I go out, I see a mother taking out her little child. I approach that and shoot the kid in the head, causing her instant death.

Did I make the world any worse, long term, by doing that?

If yes, why did not God jam my gun? If no, what am I guilty of?

Ciao

- viole

 

[InChrist]

Why not? You said it yourself. We know that. Whatever happens will be in God's plan that ultimately optimises everything and turning into a winner.

Which leads me to my previous example. I buy a gun, I go out, I see a mother taking out her little child. I approach that and shoot the kid in the head, causing her instant death.

Did I make the world any worse, long term, by doing that?

If yes, why did not God jam my gun? If no, what am I guilty of?

Ciao

- viole

Fact is if you shot a little kid, you would be guilty of murder...you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

And I never said that whatever happens will be in God’s plan.

 

[InChrist]

But which one is more important?

I already said both are important. It seems to me that God considers human freedom of utmost importance for our utmost well-being. Do have any thoughts about why that may be?