Did Epicurus disprove God?

[Dan4reason]

Epicurus said: God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

I suspect that he was right. Do you think he disproved God?

 

[idav]

It is an argument against a god that is omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. All powerful, all knowing and all loving. It is argued that such a god with those three omni's cannot logically exist.

 

[ChristineES]

He might have disproved Him to some people, but one can't disprove things for everyone.

 

[Orias]

Epicurus said: God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

I suspect that he was right. Do you think he disproved God?

I think he disproved us, since this God character seems to float about in all arts and sciences alike.

But then again, some could just argue that not all people act upon emotion, and can be extremely emotional, of course not being able to carry out a willed task can be impotent, an unwilling act is not malevolent, choosing not to act upon a hostile or hated intent is different. Not willing to prevent evil is not being malevolent, willing to cause harm is malevolent, but he doesn't do that, since he loves all...apparently.

It seems he is trying to go about by saying evil doesn't exist, but there is bad and there is good to every person. This neutral state exists in illusion, since the statement itself speaks of the existence of evils and goods. Though it seems to me that evil is more of a moment than an actual characteristic, though I'm not saying that it can't be a characteristic.

Its all subject to reaction really.

 

[Orias]

It is an argument against a god that is omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. All powerful, all knowing and all loving. It is argued that such a god with those three omni's cannot logically exist.

Logic cannot logically exist to those who follow an inconsistent set of un-evolved apparatuses. There's always a new horizon that teaches experience, which forms logic. Not being able to experience something doesn't make it illogical, just improbable.

But then again, what do we know?

 

[waitasec]

Epicurus said: God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

I suspect that he was right. Do you think he disproved God?

as a non theist...i say yes.

 

[Dan4reason]

It is an argument against a god that is omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. All powerful, all knowing and all loving. It is argued that such a god with those three omni's cannot logically exist.

But how do we know that an omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate evil?

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

You do realize that suffering is the result of human beings, and that to fix it as you describe God would have to take away free will and make us into robots who only do what's right? To me that would be malevolent.

 

[Dan4reason]

He might have disproved Him to some people, but one can't disprove things for everyone.

Correct. I think that maybe the people who are convinced by this argument are wrong, or maybe it is just the opposite. What do you think?

 

[Willamena]

Epicurus said: God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

I suspect that he was right. Do you think he disproved God?

I think he disapproved illogical images of God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Epicurus proved that if God exists, God is not good.

But Epicurus did not prove that God does not exist.

 

[idav]

But how do we know that an omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate evil?

Personally I don't have a problem with evil as much as I have a problem with not preventing the corruption of innocence if one is able. Here we are with cops and detectives trying to do what we can but we can't prevent anything for the most part just clean up the mess or prevent serial offensenses.

 

[Otherright]

Epicurus said: God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

I suspect that he was right. Do you think he disproved God?

Finally, someone asks it. In philosophy (particularly the philosophy of religion), there is an entire series of such questions that are called the Epicurean Problems or Epicurean Paradoxes, and they all started with this question.

Of course, Epicurus was not referring to the Christian God in particular in this paradox, just the gods in general. I'm glad someone asked this question. I refer to others in different posts as this one becomes so complex that entire books are written on it.

Have fun with it. Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo.

 

[Dan4reason]

You do realize that suffering is the result of human beings, and that to fix it as you describe God would have to take away free will and make us into robots who only do what's right? To me that would be malevolent.

1: Not all suffering is a result of human beings. Take elephantitis for example.
2: Since God knows the future, he already know what choices you will make when he places you in the womb of a certain mother. Does that sound like free will to you? Why don't God make someone born in an environment where they are more likely to come out of life as better people, and not put people into environments that have a high probability of messing them up?
3: God makes your DNA and this is somewhat responsible for your actions. So God has some choice in how good you are. Is this free will? Why can't God make us good as he possibly can? DNA will not completely determine the kind of person you are, but it will sure make being good easier.
4: The fact that we have emotion and physical sensations (pain, pleasure, etc) means we will never have full control over our decisions. Is this free will? Why couldn't God have given us the types of emotions that allow us to have complete control over our actions?
5: If God stops everyone from doing anything bad, that destroys free will, but maybe he doesn't have to go that far. Maybe he can let people make all the personal choices they want but keep them from harming other. If it is still against free will to keep people from harming others every single time, then why not just keep the really bad things from happening? Maybe God won't keep you from taking meth, or taking a purse from an old lady, but he might just want to prevent the holocaust because it tore down so many people? God has been known to intervene in historical events before.
6: By using the free will argument you are arguing that the only way to eradicate evil is to eliminate something very good (free will) so God cannot completely eradicate evil. This argument assumes that there are things God cannot do which contradicts his omnipotence. If God is omnipotent, why can't he eradicate evil without harming free will?

 

[Dan4reason]

I think he disapproved illogical images of God.

So you don't think God is omnipotent or omnibenevolent?

 

[Azekual]

It is an argument against a god that is omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. All powerful, all knowing and all loving. It is argued that such a god with those three omni's cannot logically exist.

Omnipresent means he's everywhere. Omnipotent means he's all powerful.

Check your Omni's

 

[Azekual]

Epicurus said: God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

I suspect that he was right. Do you think he disproved God?

If he is not willing, but able, that doesn't necessarily make God malevolent. "Evil" could easily be an illusion fabricated by an omnipotent being to test the faith of his creations, offer said creations a choice, and/or give his creations "balance"

 

[Otherright]

If he is not willing, but able, that doesn't necessarily make God malevolent. "Evil" could easily be an illusion fabricated by an omnipotent being to test the faith of his creations, offer said creations a choice, and/or give his creations "balance"

Playing the devil's advocate for God. That's funny.

 

[Matthew78]

Epicurus said: God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

I suspect that he was right. Do you think he disproved God?

Stated as it is, the argument from Epicurus doesn't in itself logically disprove the existence of God with all of the attributes of being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An additional premise is needed-why would a divine being who is not willing to prevent evil be considered malevolent? One needs to supply this additional premise as Mackie did in his famous paper on the logical problem of evil. His additional premise is that a good being would eliminate evil as far as it could.

Alvin Plantinga is credited with having answered Mackie's argument and I might've agreed until I read Raymond Bradley's paper. I think that the missing premise in the argument from Epicurus is that anyone who is able but not willing to prevent evil is guilty of criminal negligence. I think the best argument that I have seen is put forth by Bradley. The only way I can accept that there is any kind of divine being is if that being is somehow a being of finite power and finite knowledge if that being is all-god or if the being is omnipotent and omniscient, then that being must be someone morally neutral but even this is doubtful.

 

[Otherright]

2: Since God knows the future, he already know what choices you will make when he places you in the womb of a certain mother. Does that sound like free will to you?

If this is the case, then there is no such instance of free will. IF you were doomed to hell, then you were so from the beginning, and there was nothing you could've done about it.