A Return to the Argument from Evil (by Epicurus)

[Koldo]

Why not?

I was asking in what way your question is related to my post.

 

[Quagmire]

I was asking in what way your question is related to my post.

I can only answer that subjectively.

 

[Koldo]

I can only answer that subjectively.

Then please go ahead and answer it subjectively.

 

[Quagmire]

Then please go ahead and answer it subjectively.

For the sake of this topic subjectivity is pretty much useless.

Could you rephrase your question in such a way that it would allow for some sort of an objective response?

 

[We Never Know]

And what's wrong with subjective? Would you be philosophically inclined to suppose that the knife "accident" by an irate girlfriend that left you sans genitalia was only subjective (really, only you were affected) and so couldn't really be considered evil at all?

Because, this same argument could be made about "good," as well as evil. Let us suppose that there is a religion that God wants only what is "good" for each human being -- how would you determine what that is, when in every examinable case, it could only be subjective? What, in the end, is an "objective good?"

If a god exists, why would he worry about mere words, objective and subjective, that man made up and only mean anything to man. They mean nothing to any other species that lives or ever lived.
Have you ever given thought to that we are the only species that everything in this universe only makes sense to us by our own made up words?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If a god exists, why would he worry about mere words, objective and subjective, that man made up and only mean anything to man. They mean nothing to any other species that lives or ever lived.
Have you ever given thought to that we are the only species that everything in this universe only makes sense to us by our own made up words?

Well that's very interesting. Why don't you try to explain why anybody would conceive of such a thing, let alone believe in it? By "such a thing," I mean, of course, a god that:

• exists,
• doesn't worry about "mere words,"
• is neither objective nor subjective,
• created man but is uninterested in what meaning man can construe from having been thus created?

 

[Koldo]

For the sake of this topic subjectivity is pretty much useless.

Could you rephrase your question in such a way that it would allow for some sort of an objective response?

How are you defining 'subjectivity' here?
Are thoughts subjective? Can they be objective?

 

[We Never Know]

Well that's very interesting. Why don't you try to explain why anybody would conceive of such a thing, let alone believe in it? By "such a thing," I mean, of course, a god that:

• exists,
• doesn't worry about "mere words,"
• is neither objective nor subjective,
• created man but is uninterested in what meaning man can construe from having been thus created?

We think we are great
We think we are smart
We think we have things figured out
We think we etc....

We are just another species on this rock and no others species even cares what we think. Ask yourself why would a god?

 

[epronovost]

The only way the PoE works is if we can come up with an example of objective evil.

So far I've never seen anyone be able to do that. No matter how drastic or extreme, any example of evil that you can provide would be subjective.

How is that relevant? A "subjective evil" is just as real as an "objective evil" in function both are addressed by Epicurus.

 

[Quagmire]

How are you defining 'subjectivity' here?

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".

Are thoughts subjective?

I know all of mine are.

Can they be objective?

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

 

[Quagmire]

How is that relevant? A "subjective evil" is just as real as an "objective evil" in function both are addressed by Epicurus.

What function specifically?

And how are both addressed by Epecurious?

For that matter I don't recall ever seeing anywhere where Epicurious even defined what he meant by 'evil".

It usually means something that we (humans) personally object to.

In fact I can't think of any example that wouldn't fall within that category.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

“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.

If you were to be given omnipotence - would you do what you want to do or what your don't want to do?

To rephrase - would you act according to your nature or against it?

God is a perfectly lawful Being - which means that He will not act against universal and eternal Law.

This is not because He is powerless before the Law or that He has limits - but because it is His nature. That is who He is.

Therefore - He will not break His promise to us by forcing us to live one way or another.

I understand that people might want Him to step in when things are bad - but wouldn't those same people get peeved if God were to then try to force them to do good?

You're okay when force is applied to the "bad" people - but not when its applied to the "good"? Cause no one is perfect.

And us not being to able to make our own decisions would make this life pointless.

Yes - He allows bad things to happen so that we can all learn from them and that we can all prove to Him - and to ourselves - what and who were want to be in eternity.

And part of living in mortality is living in adversity - even unto death - because everyone dies - it doesn't really matter how as long as you were living your best.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only way the PoE works is if we can come up with an example of objective evil.

So far I've never seen anyone be able to do that. No matter how drastic or extreme, any example of evil that you can provide would be subjective.

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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.

 

[epronovost]

What function specifically?

And how are both addressed by Epecurious?

The function of "evil" as in the Problem of Evil of Epicurus. The origin or specific nature of evil is unimportant to the problem. The only thing that is required is the understanding that there is "evil" (terrible, horrible, bad thing that happens to humans and other sentient being) observable in the world. The only way to "dodge" the problem of evil is to claim that nothing bad ever happened to anybody or anything sentient ever; that the world as we can perceive it is "heavenly" for lack of better term.

For that matter I don't recall ever seeing anywhere where Epicurious even defined what he meant by 'evil".

It usually means something that we (humans) personally object to.

In fact I can't think of any example that wouldn't fall within that category.

It's indeed what Epicurus, and everybody consider as "evil", something that doesn't conduct to the flourishment, happiness and prosperity of humans (or the interested group should a non-human or supra-human perspective be adopted). Evil has never meant anything else to anybody.

 

[InChrist]

“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.

I have noticed that most people who find fault with God for not stopping evil, are often the same people who are offended by the biblical accounts where God does intervene to stop evil...

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Genesis 6:11-13


Either way, it seems that the thought put forth by Epicurus, which many like to echo, does not consider the possibility that the Creator God may have a valid reason for allowing evil for the time being or for a more important purpose...


“There is a hidden premise—an assumption—left unstated: the assumption that there is absolutely no reason for an all-powerful and all-good God to allow evil. ”

What is Plantinga’s free will defense, and how does it address the problem of evil? | GotQuestions.org

 

[74x12]

“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.

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.

 

[darkskies]

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.

 

[Heyo]

The only way the PoE works is if we can come up with an example of objective evil.

So far I've never seen anyone be able to do that. No matter how drastic or extreme, any example of evil that you can provide would be subjective.

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

 

[Quagmire]

The function of "evil" as in the Problem of Evil of Epicurus.

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.

The origin or specific nature of evil is unimportant to the problem.

No one's asking for specifics.

The only thing that is required is the understanding that there is "evil"

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

(terrible, horrible, bad thing that happens to humans and other sentient being) observable in the world.

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.

The only way to "dodge" the problem of evil

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

is to claim that nothing bad ever happened to anybody or anything sentient ever;

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.

that the world as we can perceive it is "heavenly" for lack of better term.

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.

It's indeed what Epicurus, and everybody consider as "evil", something doesn't conduct to the flourishment, happiness and prosperity of humans

(or the interested group should a non-human or supra-human perspective be adopted). Evil has never meant anything else to anybody.

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