Did Epicurus disprove God?

[Landerage]

I agree with you, good and evil are human words to describe things that we feel are sort of right or wrong, but in fact God might consider something "evil" for us, a good thing. It's all interpretation of humans, so Epicurus proves nothing

 

[Acim]

For me it only makes sense that God, who obviously created an evil tree, is the source of evil. If he didn't want evil to exist then he would of just skipped straight to Heaven. Just imagine for a second that Adam and Eve didn't eat from that apple and they reproduced... okay skip ahead 6000 years(lol) and now what? We have to keep an eye on billions of people to ensure this fruit isn't eaten? Can we make a compound around the tree to ensure no one enters or would God be ******? Face it, at some point this fruit would of been eaten and God knew it. The guy...is..evil... and there is no hope for us if he truly does exist.

This whole paragraph humors me.

Glad the Gnostic version can bypass the faulty logic at work here.

Evil is (entirely) relative, and illusionary. When one is omniscient (knowing all there is to know) evil disappears into the nothingness of which it came.

Tell me, are you able to get on with your life knowing all the 'evil' that is done in your night dreams? Who is 'god' there?

 

[Azekual]

Glad the Gnostic version can bypass the faulty logic at work here.

Explain Gnosticism to me.

 

[Blackdog22]

I agree with you, good and evil are human words to describe things that we feel are sort of right or wrong, but in fact God might consider something "evil" for us, a good thing. It's all interpretation of humans, so Epicurus proves nothing

I thought that evil, from a religious pov, is what God deems to be so. The commandments? Thou shalt not kill, put other idols before him, etc. God clearly lays out what he considers evil since I am pretty sure he was ****** off about us eating that piece of fruit. If he would've considered it a good thing I would imagine he would of not cursed us all forever.

 

[Blackdog22]

This whole paragraph humors me.

Glad the Gnostic version can bypass the faulty logic at work here.

Evil is (entirely) relative, and illusionary. When one is omniscient (knowing all there is to know) evil disappears into the nothingness of which it came.

Tell me, are you able to get on with your life knowing all the 'evil' that is done in your night dreams? Who is 'god' there?

Explain Please.

So when God says thou shout not kill that means we can kill because killing being wrong is an illusion? What does that even mean? If evil disappears into nothing then how can God choose between right and wrong? How can he judge anyone if every evil act is just an illusion? Where do these rules in the Bible come?

I don't have full control of my dreams nor is their real physical pain for anyone in my dreams. If I were in control of my dreams I would likely rid my dreams of evil.

And one last question. How exactly does Heaven work? Considering Heaven is supposed to be an all good place. If this is all relative will there be justified murders in Heaven? Will rape be subject to some illusion and thus acceptable?

 

[Landerage]

I thought that evil, from a religious pov, is what God deems to be so. The commandments? Thou shalt not kill, put other idols before him, etc. God clearly lays out what he considers evil since I am pretty sure he was ****** off about us eating that piece of fruit. If he would've considered it a good thing I would imagine he would of not cursed us all forever.

I don't quite see ur point, what's the relation between obeying God's commands (which is a right and wrong matter) to the evil/good matter. It was not evil to take that fruit in our understanding but it was wrong because God said no to that tree. What matters more then if God is good or evil, is that if he's right or wrong and I do believe that God is always right

 

[Benhamine]

What I had argued was that the removal of the capacity to act --for ANY one act, out of all the acts we could possibly do --effects 'free will' in regards to that act. If someone takes away your capacity to "kill the child," it is no different in regards to 'free will' than if they had taken away your capacity to "do nothing," or your capacity to "help its parents with support." If there's no chance to choose an option, then there's no 'free will' decision that could possibly be made in regards to that option.

But you options are already limited based on what physical capabilities God left you with (IE you can't just wish the kid into nonexistance, or just make him happy with your thoughts, or any of the options that could exist but we don't think of because they don't) and the options restricted by what others have done around you.

The only thing I'm arguing is that the argument that God wanted us to have free will is bogus. He already limited our free will in that he didn't make us all gods so why then wouldn't he limit it to at least make us benevolent?

-Benhamine

 

[waitasec]

I thought that evil, from a religious pov, is what God deems to be so. The commandments? Thou shalt not kill, put other idols before him, etc. God clearly lays out what he considers evil since I am pretty sure he was ****** off about us eating that piece of fruit. If he would've considered it a good thing I would imagine he would of not cursed us all forever.

that seems to be the case. meaning, god's understanding of evil is just as relative as our understanding of it. and that of course means...

 

[waitasec]

I don't quite see ur point, what's the relation between obeying God's commands (which is a right and wrong matter) to the evil/good matter.

it's obeying a command that is subjected to gods relative understanding of what is right or wrong.

It was not evil to take that fruit in our understanding but it was wrong because God said no to that tree.

you see this doesn't add up then. if they were innocent, how could god make them accountable for understanding the word "no". innocence is freedom. innocence means "yes" to everything, unless they already knew about good and evil...

What matters more then if God is good or evil, is that if he's right or wrong and I do believe that God is always right

meaning god always gets his way.
this would explain how we approach empirical truth, we never argue with it because it would be frivolous to do so.

 

[Landerage]

it's obeying a command that is subjected to gods relative understanding of what is right or wrong.


you see this doesn't add up then. if they were innocent, how could god make them accountable for understanding the word "no". innocence is freedom. innocence means "yes" to everything, unless they already knew about good and evil...




meaning god always gets his way.
this would explain how we approach empirical truth, we never argue with it because it would be frivolous to do so.

God knows they were gona commit the sin, the story was made to make people learn the wisdom behind it.
Nobody knows why God created this life and why he chose certain things to appear as we see them like our bodies, but those can be answered by him only. it's true he gets it his way, but he's mercyful as you can see.. he gave us pretty faces, food, water and a beautiful nature as prove for his mercy and that he is "good" in our human term. People commit sins but it's a way of gaining his forgiveness and recognize it and sense his mercy

 

[waitasec]

God knows they were gona commit the sin, the story was made to make people learn the wisdom behind it.
Nobody knows why God created this life and why he chose certain things to appear as we see them like our bodies, but those can be answered by him only. it's true he gets it his way, but he's mercyful as you can see.. he gave us pretty faces, food, water and a beautiful nature as prove for his mercy and that he is "good" in our human term. People commit sins but it's a way of gaining his forgiveness and recognize it and sense his mercy

i see no mercy. i see indifference.
and that is the argument that epicurus, i think, makes.

 

[Willamena]

But you options are already limited based on what physical capabilities God left you with (IE you can't just wish the kid into nonexistance, or just make him happy with your thoughts, or any of the options that could exist but we don't think of because they don't) and the options restricted by what others have done around you.

The only thing I'm arguing is that the argument that God wanted us to have free will is bogus. He already limited our free will in that he didn't make us all gods so why then wouldn't he limit it to at least make us benevolent?

-Benhamine

It doesn't matter how many options there are, that's not at issue --the argument was about an option that existed, and then was removed. You cannot 'freely choose' something that no longer exists, or that never existed in the first place.

"Free will" is never limited when it is defined as the capacity to choose, because it is the capacity to choose any one of the many options available regardless of how many options are available. Even if there's only two things to choose between (this or not this), there is still choice and so there is still free will.

 

[Benhamine]

The very original post that I responded to you on was in you stating it wasn't absence of free will by not giving us the ability to fly or teleport.

It doesn't matter how many options there are, that's not at issue --the argument was about an option that existed, and then was removed. You cannot 'freely choose' something that no longer exists, or that never existed in the first place.

So then not giving us that ability...is absence of the free will to do it.

-Benhamine

 

[Willamena]

So then not giving us that ability...is absence of the free will to do it.

Essentially, in effect, but the "free will" (capacity to choose) to do it is not the ability to do it, they are different things. Also, something that is not an option isn't necessarily an option taken away from us. We never could fly or teleport.

What I had said was that "free will" is not found in [God] giving us abilities (or not giving us abilities), it is found in the capacity to choose. If there's no chance to choose something, then "free will" is nowhere in that picture.

Is that clearer?

 

[Benhamine]

Essentially, in effect, but the "free will" (capacity to choose) to do it is not the ability to do it, they are different things. Also, something that is not an option isn't necessarily an option taken away from us. We never could fly or teleport.

What I had said was that "free will" is not found in [God] giving us abilities (or not giving us abilities), it is found in the capacity to choose. If there's no chance to choose something, then "free will" is nowhere in that picture.

Is that clearer?

That's the point though. If God didn't give us the ability then we don't have the choice to choose that ability. In this same sense it wouldn't be any different to limit our ability to do evil than limiting our ability to fly. Thus it's not a valid argument to say that God didn't want to take away our free will because free will isn't binary. At that point though, it's hard to argue that this amount of free will was "just right."

-Benhamine

 

[waitasec]

That's the point though. If God didn't give us the ability then we don't have the choice to choose that ability. In this same sense it wouldn't be any different to limit our ability to do evil than limiting our ability to fly. Thus it's not a valid argument to say that God didn't want to take away our free will because free will isn't binary. At that point though, it's hard to argue that this amount of free will was "just right."

-Benhamine

look at it like this
do animals have free will? are they aware of the fact they do not have the ability to reason like humans do? no. but they do have free will, however limited it is from our perspective but not to theirs.

 

[idav]

look at it like this
do animals have free will? are they aware of the fact they do not have the ability to reason like humans do? no. but they do have free will, however limited it is from our perspective but not to theirs.

I think the opposite is true. Animals do not have free will from our perspective. Even more so from gods perspective we would not have free will either. God would likely find it amusing for us to think we can change his plan.

 

[Benhamine]

look at it like this
do animals have free will? are they aware of the fact they do not have the ability to reason like humans do? no. but they do have free will, however limited it is from our perspective but not to theirs.

Frubals to you good sir! That's what I've been trying to say haha.

-Benhamine

 

[Benhamine]

I think the opposite is true. Animals do not have free will from our perspective. Even more so from gods perspective we would not have free will either. God would likely find it amusing for us to think we can change his plan.

My dog has the ability to make choices, thus he has free will over the choices in front of him, just like us. He can eat his food or be a stubborn little punk (as he usually is ) but the free will is there. It's merely limited compared to ours because they don't have the cognitive capabilities we do.

-Benhamine

 

[waitasec]

I think the opposite is true. Animals do not have free will from our perspective.

but we are assuming their POV not ours.
they decide whether or not they want to sleep or play...obey or not.

Even more so from gods perspective we would not have free will either. God would likely find it amusing for us to think we can change his plan.

assuming gods perspective...he didn't give us the ability to teleport or fly even though we want to....
so what is the difference between that and understanding the relative meaning of good and evil?
i don't see a difference.