A Return to the Argument from Evil (by Epicurus)

[danieldemol]

Why do you think God's job is the same as a police officer's job? For that matter how can Epicurus understand God? It's like an ant trying to understand a human. Really it's more of a disparity than that.

Wouldn't Jesus trying to understand God be just as much of a disparity as Epicurus?

Do you believe the claims of one who lacked reason because He promised eternal life, yet deny the one who set forth a completely logical problem?

Personally I believe in an omnipotent God, but can see that God has some questions to answer about why the material realm is filled with seemingly unnecessary suffering.

In my opinion.

 

[Quagmire]

Seems to me that all that's needed is some standard established by God,

And where, pray tell, might one get a peek at this standard.

and then God's creation failing to meet the standard God put in place.

The standard can be completely subjective and arbitrary; the only important part for the PoE is that God accepts it.

At this point I don't think we're talking about God anymore. I think we're just talking about religion.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Why do you think God's job is the same as a police officer's job? For that matter how can Epicurus understand God? It's like an ant trying to understand a human. Really it's more of a disparity than that.

If humans are so incapable of understanding the mind and capability of god, why should he expect anything of us at all? Why make laws for us to follow?... Why even reach down from his high seat in heaven to humor us? Seems kind of like a kid playing with ants on an anthill to me, but as you say, the disparity is even greater than that.

When a kid decides to roast ants on that ant hill with a magnifying lens, or when he plucks the limbs off an ant for his entertainment, is that right or wrong? I mean, the ants can't even begin to understand him or his motivations...

The problem I have with the idea that might makes right is that it goes against what is so obviously observed in suffering, which is very much a universal thing for any creature with the ability to feel pain... Suffering should always be avoided, especially by the one who creates the rules that allow for it to even exist in the first place. That is the ultimate evil.

 

[viole]

Here's the scenario: there are a young woman, a young man with a knife, and police officer (armed) at night on a dark section of the street. In plain view of the officer, the young man runs towards the woman (this takes several seconds) brandishing his knife, and when he gets to her, stabs her multiple times until she falls to the ground and bleeds to death. The officer, throughout this event, does nothing. Perhaps he's religious and thinks, "who am I to interfere with his free will?"

There is an another example that I always considered unexplainable for God, since He could save one innocent life without any visible, nor miraculous intervention, which might mess up with people's free will.

The typical case, which happens every now and then, during the summer. A stressed out parent forgets to bring his little kid to the kindergarten, parks the car in the parking lot outside, go to work, and the kid horribly and slowly dies in the heat inside the car.

A possible way to save that life would have been something as simple as inducing a little memory in the father's brain. Or letting the kid making some noise before parking. The father would have had never interpreted it as divine intervention. So, it would have been a win win situation.

But no. God literally let that kid die for no apparent reason at all, destroying, in the process, also the father, who will presumably live his entire life with an excruciating bad consciousness.

I think that when we say that God does not exist we are helping Him. Since His non existence is the only excuse He really has.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quagmire]

Isn't it curious that the defenders of the god notion are almost always willing to relativise morality and almost never power?

I'm not sure what you mean, Heyo.

Could you rephrase that?

I think it's because "might makes right" in their mind and the result is that god believers are, on average, no more moral (by any standard) than non believers but they are more authoritarian on average.

This is a topic for another thread, but from what I've seen control freaks come in all stripes.

I don't know if there's a set of ideals anywhere that someone hasn't tried to use to dominate someone else.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Regarding the OP, I’d say we don’t have enough information to answer the question.

We don’t know what was in the cop’s head.

We don’t know what was in the head of the other protagonists.

Do we assume that the cop, the girl and the boy are three separate entities? Perhaps they are not. Perhaps the whole tableau is the dream of a fourth party.

Is the girl’s death the end of the story?

When did the story begin?

Sometimes - often - there are no answers. But next time I see a guy waving a knife about in public, I’m calling the cops anyway.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure what you mean, Heyo.

Could you rephrase that?

There are two ways out of the dilemma Epicurus poses. Either by admitting that god is not omnipotent or by admitting that god is not omni benevolent.
And even so omnipotence is a contradiction in itself, monotheists are usually attacking the other horn, sometimes with interesting consequences.
(E.g. you are risking the whole "original sin" narrative by claiming that we can't discern good from evil - in contradiction to Genesis.)

 

[Quagmire]

There are two ways out of the dilemma Epicurus poses. Either by admitting that god is not omnipotent or by admitting that god is not omni benevolent.

It's only a dilemma if you accept the premises he puts forth in the first place, which I don't.

(E.g. you are risking the whole "original sin" narrative by claiming that we can't discern good from evil - in contradiction to Genesis.)

And I should care about that because . . . ?

 

[Heyo]

It's only a dilemma if you accept the premises he puts forth in the first place, which I don't.



And I should care about that because . . . ?

You don't?
Then we do agree that the monotheist religions are completely amoral (as is their god)?

 

[Koldo]

A basic dictionary definition would be:
"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

And I would add to that; "the limitations of our own perception".



I know all of mine are.



Only hypothetically, as is the case with, say, math.

Then I disagree with your statement that subjectivity is pretty much useless here. Essentially every conversation tends to involve a certain degree of subjectivity. On this particular case I am asking you about a thought of yours: What relation you see between my post and your question. The entire point of having a conversation is to make yourself understood by someone else.

 

[Koldo]

Still not understanding what you mean by "the function" of evil.

In order for an equation to work, all the variables have to have a set value.

In this thread so far, the existence of an objective evil hasn't been established, so it's still a question mark. You cant use a question mark as a variable or else the solution is up for grabs.



No one's asking for specifics.



Unless you can provide an objective example of "evil", this isn't an understanding, it's just an opinion.



Terrible, horrible, and bad are just synonyms for evil. They don't explain the concept or demonstrate it's objective existence, they merely serve to repeat the claim.



It isnt necessary to 'dodge" anything until it's been proven that it actually has substance.



The only way to legitimize the problem of evil would be to demonstrate something has happened to anyone that could be considered objectively "bad", that is: bad from all perspectives, under all circumstances.



This is exactly the problem: we're not talking about any objective quantity that can be labeled and identified as "evil" and applied universally. We're talking about our own vastly limited and mostly self-serving, human perspective.

If there is any sort of grand scheme to the universe or existence itself ---- which is something that has to be assumed if we're having a discussion about an omnipotent being and it's intentions---- then for all we know, in whatever grand scheme there may be what we consider evil may in fact be the greatest good.



IMO, there is no such thing as evil. There are only things that we as humans prefer over other things.

To presume some failing in the structure of the universe or the fabric of reality based on the fact that some of it runs counter to our preferences --- which is really all we're doing when we use the word evil----seems just a tad ego centric

The problem about your argument, and pretty much any argument that revolves around putting into question the existence of evil is that by the same token you can not assert that good exists. It is a self-defeating argument.

In other words, you also attack the premise that God is omnibenevolent. For all we know, in whatever grand scheme there may be what you consider good may in fact be the greatest evil.

 

[RestlessSoul]

To explain or understand God is, I would suggest, impossible.

I suspect it’s futile even trying to understand eternal divine mystery in human terms.
As soon as we begin to conceive of our creator as “He”, we’re going down a bind alley (though even blind alleys can lead to the light).

To achieve some sort of Union with God - or the Universe, the Universal Creative Unconscious, The Great Spirit, Haachem, the Ancient One, call it what you will - through prayer and meditation; this I believe is a worthy goal, one that is certain to bring rewards if undertaken in good faith.

 

[Koldo]

“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​

The most serious argument against this, generally speaking, is the "free will" excuse. God wants us to have free will, and so cannot intervene when evil happens. There are two very serious problems with this apology, which need to be explored.

The first, which is really very easy, is that free will has nothing whatever to do with natural calamity. An undersea earthquake raises a tsunami that kills a quarter million innocent people, including infants, children, nuns and murderers alike. Unless we are going to assign "free will" to the earth (and call her Gaia), this is simply not applicable.

But let's look at it from the perspective of a person doing evil, from free will. To do that, let us, just for a moment, take this argument down from its lofty heights to a merely human level -- meaning, let's leave God out of it.

Here's the scenario: there are a young woman, a young man with a knife, and police officer (armed) at night on a dark section of the street. In plain view of the officer, the young man runs towards the woman (this takes several seconds) brandishing his knife, and when he gets to her, stabs her multiple times until she falls to the ground and bleeds to death. The officer, throughout this event, does nothing. Perhaps he's religious and thinks, "who am I to interfere with his free will?"

So let's reframe old Epicurus' argument to fit this situation:

“Is the officer willing to prevent this murder, but not able? Then he is not competent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is a bad officer.
Is he both able and willing? Then how could the stabbing have taken place?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a police officer?”

― Evangelicalhumanist (with apologies to Epicurus)
​

(Okay, that last clause works better for God, but never mind.) Anyway, let's look closely at the "free will" argument in this case. If the officer had got out his taser, dropped the guy on the spot, then knelt on him holding him down while calling for backup -- has the assassin been stripped of his free will? Not at all. He may yet be struggling mightily in his hot desire to kill an innocent person. His will remains what it was, he has just been prevented from exercising his will to the detriment of another person.

Please discuss.

You think that "free will" is the most serious argument against the problem of evil?

It's certainly popular, but I always took it to be, well, transparent nonsense.

The only response I've ever seen to the problem of evil that I didn't find absolutely ridiculous was Leibniz's: that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and that a world with less suffering or evil than our world would involve logical contradictions (and could therefore be legitimately beyond the power of an omnipotent being to bring about).

This argument has its problems, too... but nowhere near as many as that "free will" nonsense.

Actually, as I see it, the best "argument" is to bite the bullet and claim that omnipotence is not really unlimited power. That understanding it as unlimited power is an error.

This view is entirely compatible with every religion that involves God. If anything, it makes even more sense. Just to cite an example: For the bible literalist, it would entail that God had no other way to fix the world other than flooding it. It also explains why miracles only happen now and then and not 100% of the time. From this starting point, the theist can claim that this is the best possible world that God could pull off.

In the end, God would still be an extremely powerful being. I have no idea why so many people refuse to accept this solution.

 

[epronovost]

Still not understanding what you mean by "the function" of evil.

The "function" of evil in the Epicurus dilemma is its use to establish an evidence of absence or not. It's a criteria of analysis.

In order for an equation to work, all the variables have to have a set value.

No that's why variable exists in mathematical equation. You don't need a set value. You only need a set function or a set definition.

Unless you can provide an objective example of "evil", this isn't an understanding, it's just an opinion.


The only way to legitimize the problem of evil would be to demonstrate something has happened to anyone that could be considered objectively "bad", that is: bad from all perspectives, under all circumstances.

It is "bad" under all circumstances to make humans of the same community suffer outside of a situation of self-defense and defense of others. That's a universal rule of all moral codes. It's impossible for human to flourish, prosper and be happy, etc. without that rule. Is that the sort of "objective evil" you were searching for? It's a universal rule. It's always true. It can be observed and measure (as in we can make the difference between alive and dead people and quantify both groups). It's broken as it happens.

IMO, there is no such thing as evil. There are only things that we as humans prefer over other things.

"Things that we don't prefer" is a definition of "evil" that's consistent, can be observed and measured and for which a omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would have to be accounted for (for that matter this definition of evil/good is consistent with a school of ethics and morality called emotivism). The question then becomes why is there stuff we don't prefer if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent? The universe could be nothing but pleasure if He wanted to.

To presume some failing in the structure of the universe or the fabric of reality based on the fact that some of it runs counter to our preferences --- which is really all we're doing when we use the word evil----seems just a tad ego centric

That it's ego centric doesn't make it less observable and measurable. That something is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That you find the definition of evil egocentric is purely subjective too and has no impact on the capacity to observe, quantify and qualify phenomenons according to its definition. The same goes for good too as well as all other feelings or state of being (like chaos, order, harmony, peace, etc). They are all relative and egocentric.

 

[Colt]

“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​

The most serious argument against this, generally speaking, is the "free will" excuse. God wants us to have free will, and so cannot intervene when evil happens. There are two very serious problems with this apology, which need to be explored.

The first, which is really very easy, is that free will has nothing whatever to do with natural calamity. An undersea earthquake raises a tsunami that kills a quarter million innocent people, including infants, children, nuns and murderers alike. Unless we are going to assign "free will" to the earth (and call her Gaia), this is simply not applicable.

But let's look at it from the perspective of a person doing evil, from free will. To do that, let us, just for a moment, take this argument down from its lofty heights to a merely human level -- meaning, let's leave God out of it.

Here's the scenario: there are a young woman, a young man with a knife, and police officer (armed) at night on a dark section of the street. In plain view of the officer, the young man runs towards the woman (this takes several seconds) brandishing his knife, and when he gets to her, stabs her multiple times until she falls to the ground and bleeds to death. The officer, throughout this event, does nothing. Perhaps he's religious and thinks, "who am I to interfere with his free will?"

So let's reframe old Epicurus' argument to fit this situation:

“Is the officer willing to prevent this murder, but not able? Then he is not competent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is a bad officer.
Is he both able and willing? Then how could the stabbing have taken place?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a police officer?”

― Evangelicalhumanist (with apologies to Epicurus)
​

(Okay, that last clause works better for God, but never mind.) Anyway, let's look closely at the "free will" argument in this case. If the officer had got out his taser, dropped the guy on the spot, then knelt on him holding him down while calling for backup -- has the assassin been stripped of his free will? Not at all. He may yet be struggling mightily in his hot desire to kill an innocent person. His will remains what it was, he has just been prevented from exercising his will to the detriment of another person.

Please discuss.

You should be thankful that God tolerates the evil of Atheist who constantly strive undermine genuine faith. The tears are allowed to live along side the wheat.


54:0.2 The Gods neither create evil nor permit sin and rebellion. Potential evil is time-existent in a universe embracing differential levels of perfection meanings and values. Sin is potential in all realms where imperfect beings are endowed with the ability to choose between good and evil. The very conflicting presence of truth and untruth, fact and falsehood, constitutes the potentiality of error. The deliberate choice of evil constitutes sin; the willful rejection of truth is error; the persistent pursuit of sin and error is iniquity." UB 1955

 

[Colt]

“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​

The most serious argument against this, generally speaking, is the "free will" excuse. God wants us to have free will, and so cannot intervene when evil happens. There are two very serious problems with this apology, which need to be explored.

The first, which is really very easy, is that free will has nothing whatever to do with natural calamity. An undersea earthquake raises a tsunami that kills a quarter million innocent people, including infants, children, nuns and murderers alike. Unless we are going to assign "free will" to the earth (and call her Gaia), this is simply not applicable.

But let's look at it from the perspective of a person doing evil, from free will. To do that, let us, just for a moment, take this argument down from its lofty heights to a merely human level -- meaning, let's leave God out of it.

Here's the scenario: there are a young woman, a young man with a knife, and police officer (armed) at night on a dark section of the street. In plain view of the officer, the young man runs towards the woman (this takes several seconds) brandishing his knife, and when he gets to her, stabs her multiple times until she falls to the ground and bleeds to death. The officer, throughout this event, does nothing. Perhaps he's religious and thinks, "who am I to interfere with his free will?"

So let's reframe old Epicurus' argument to fit this situation:

“Is the officer willing to prevent this murder, but not able? Then he is not competent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is a bad officer.
Is he both able and willing? Then how could the stabbing have taken place?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a police officer?”

― Evangelicalhumanist (with apologies to Epicurus)
​

(Okay, that last clause works better for God, but never mind.) Anyway, let's look closely at the "free will" argument in this case. If the officer had got out his taser, dropped the guy on the spot, then knelt on him holding him down while calling for backup -- has the assassin been stripped of his free will? Not at all. He may yet be struggling mightily in his hot desire to kill an innocent person. His will remains what it was, he has just been prevented from exercising his will to the detriment of another person.

Please discuss.

You should be thankful that God tolerates the evil of Atheist who constantly strive undermine genuine faith. The tears are allowed to live along side the wheat.


54:0.2 The Gods neither create evil nor permit sin and rebellion. Potential evil is time-existent in a universe embracing differential levels of perfection meanings and values. Sin is potential in all realms where imperfect beings are endowed with the ability to choose between good and evil. The very conflicting presence of truth and untruth, fact and falsehood, constitutes the potentiality of error. The deliberate choice of evil constitutes sin; the willful rejection of truth is error; the persistent pursuit of sin and error is iniquity." UB 1955

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since God decides what "good" and "bad" mean anyway, whatever God does is supposed to be "good".

Another way to look at it would be, that God does not cause the natural calamities.
Which means technically he did not act malevolently although he allowed it.

And yet, if a parent simply "allows" something horrible to happen to a child, while not actually causing the harm, would you let that parent off the hook?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You should be thankful that God tolerates the evil of Atheist who constantly strive undermine genuine faith. The tears are allowed to live along side the wheat.

You be thankful for what you wish. I will not be thankful for an idiot God who expects my belief while holding himself insensible to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And where, pray tell, might one get a peek at this standard.

From the tenets of whichever religion has hypothesized the God we're talking about.

At this point I don't think we're talking about God anymore. I think we're just talking about religion.

It's always been about religion.

It's very easy to come up with a God for whom the problem of evil isn't a problem. The problem of evil arises when a religion makes certain claims about God.

 

[Colt]

You be thankful for what you wish. I will not be thankful for an idiot God who expects my belief while holding himself insensible to me.

God loves you enough to create and indwell you, but you just ignore him out of ignorance.