Epicurus' riddle

[serp777]

Uh huh.



Why would what religious people mostly agree enter into it?



The point of the argument is to show that if there is a God, He couldn't possibly be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent.

Where it fails, IMO, is in it's dependence on the idea of some sort of pre-established, objective definition of evil.

I don't believe there is one. IMO, all morality is subjective.

If there is an omnipotent God, He/She/It wouldn't be subject to anything, therefore subjectivity doesn't apply.

In order to make the PoE work, you would have to come up with an example of evil that wasn't subjective.

Well I actually agree 100% that morality is completely relative. However, I guess i'm really just addressing this to people in the Abrahamic faiths who do believe that God is real and has an absolute morality. Its based on the assumption that there is actually an absolute standard of morality even if we cna't define it.

You're right in that it doesn't apply to a deistic God--one that is above human morality and finds it petty. The flaw in Epicurus' argument is that he doesn't specify the God he's talking about. Nevertheless I think my argument which focuses on the abrahamic faiths is fair since I don't really know of any abrahamic faiths where God doesn't have an absolute standard of morality. I mean maybe some do but the majority I assert would . So yeah the argument does have some flaws but I think it highlights problems with the abrahamic faiths particularly with regards to morality. So the argument does not apply to God.

If God is real and has an absolute standard of morality with respect to the abrahamic faiths, then evil would be the negation of God's absolute morality. I of course couldn't give an example since I couldn't know the mind of God. However my main question for you is why god wouldn't be subject to anything. Isn't he subject to our free will and choices?

 

[Quagmire]

Well I actually agree 100% that morality is completely relative. However, I guess i'm really just addressing this to people in the Abrahamic faiths who do believe that God is real and has an absolute morality. Its based on the assumption that there is actually an absolute standard of morality even if we cna't define it.

Well, putting aside for the moment the fact that only one Abrahamic faith existed in Epicurus' day, and that it's doubtful that he had any knowledge of it , you'd have to ask: if there is an absolute standard of morality, but we can't define it, what are we going to use as our definition of evil?

You're right in that it doesn't apply to a deistic God--one that is above human morality and finds it petty.

It wouldn't even necessarily apply to a personal God.

The flaw in Epicurus' argument is that he doesn't specify the God he's talking about. Nevertheless I think my argument which focuses on the abrahamic faiths is fair since I don't really know of any abrahamic faiths where God doesn't have an absolute standard of morality.

The problem is the assumption that it would have to be a standard that we would understand and agree with. I don't know of any faiths who claim to fully understand God or his motives.

I mean maybe some do but the majority I assert would . So yeah the argument does have some flaws but I think it highlights problems with the abrahamic faiths particularly with regards to morality. So the argument does not apply to God.

If God is real and has an absolute standard of morality with respect to the abrahamic faiths, then evil would be the negation of God's absolute morality.

Not necessarily: I think I understand what you're saying in regards to the Abrahamic faiths. On the one hand, we have a God who's pointing all over creation and saying, "Thou shalt not", on the other hand, it's His creation so why doesn't He just get rid of all the nots?

That's a good question. The answer most versions of most of the Abrahamic faiths give is , "We don't know", "God moves in mysterious ways", "He'll get around to it sooner or later, but in the meantime we just have to get by on faith", and considering that faith seems to be the whole point, these are all perfectly acceptable answers.

If the whole point of human existence (from a theological stand point) is to be tested, than there has to be something to overcome. Evil works nicely in that role.

I of course couldn't give an example since I couldn't know the mind of God.

I don't think anyone else could either, but until someone does I don't see any way for the PoE to really make sense.

However my main question for you is why god wouldn't be subject to anything. Isn't he subject to our free will and choices?

Not unless we get to make His choices for him, which I don't think we do.

 

[Thief]

read the op....and rethink the situation....

See it from God's point of view.....yes you can.....

You are the first...in mind and heart.
attempting to make another like yourself is a problem.
in spirit you get a direct reflection and all that answers you is your own echo.

the only other possibility is to blend spirit and substance.
Man.

but in the effort to form a unique spirit.....
God must be willing to stand back and allow you to suffer....and die.

there has been some level of manipulation....
see Genesis Chapter Two

 

[rusra02]

Adam and Eve were brainwashed automatons, basically, before the eating of the fruit. The serpent, in convincing eve to eat of it, bestowed them with free will (unless you believe free-will is a mistake and a sin?), and the ability to think for themselves. The serpent is definitely the hero.

Since Adam and Eve decided to rebel against God by eating what God had forbidden, I think it is obvious they had free will before Satan's slanders against God induced Eve to sin. I think it is similar to a gang leader urging a new gang member to steal a car. The new gang member already had free will to steal a car. The gang leader merely urged him to do so.

 

[rusra02]

Omniscient. If he doesn't know, even by choice, he isn't it.

Guess it depends on how you define the word. In any case, there is nothing Jehovah cannot foreknow, if he chooses.

 

[rusra02]

Which leads to the concusion that they were not perfect to start with.

Ciao

- viole

Being perfect does not mean one cannot sin. Otherwise, one would be a perfect robot, without free will to love or hate, to do good or bad. The God of love doe not force us to do his will, IMO. (Joshua 24:15)

 

[rusra02]

But they didn't die the day they ate the fruit. God lied.




Their descendants have been suffering due to their own ****-ups - not this barbaric notion of original sin.




So God is punishing the spirit for giving humankind free will and the ability to make choices - something he allowed the spirit to do in the first place. That's entrapment - something he intends to punish us all for. Yours is such a just god...




If Adam & Eve didn't 'rebel' then we wouldn't be here at all - humanity would't have come into being, much less advanced to the place we are now. Our situation is far from perfect, but at least there is a situation.

Adam and Eve received the death sentence the very day they sinned. From God's standpoint, they were dead. He allowed them to live for a time to produce offspring, to whom God could show mercy. Satan did not give Adam and Eve free will. By slandering God, he only misled the first humans into misusing the gift of free will Jehovah had endowed on them. Satan also misused the same gift of free will to slander God and cause the death of our first parents, and us also, IMO. No wonder to me why Jesus called Satan "a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie." (John 8:44) Had Adam and Eve not sinned, I believe they would still be alive, and God's purpose stated to them at Genesis 1:28 would be well under way to fulfillment: "Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Since Adam and Eve decided to rebel against God by eating what God had forbidden, I think it is obvious they had free will before Satan's slanders against God induced Eve to sin. I think it is similar to a gang leader urging a new gang member to steal a car. The new gang member already had free will to steal a car. The gang leader merely urged him to do so.

Should we kill misbehaving kids (as the bible demands, might I add), since they have "free will", or is there a point where we go, "you know what -- they are clueless"?

Also, Satan isn't in this story. A better analogy is a parent denying their child basic sex ed classes and the teacher goes behind the parent's back to give the child useful information.

Adam and Eve received the death sentence the very day they sinned.

If only the text actually said that.

He allowed them to live for a time to produce offspring, to whom God could show mercy.

How so? It's mercy to condemn an entire race because of two ignorant 7 year olds (the psychology of A&E suggest they would fit best in the early school age category of child development after all)?

Satan did not give Adam and Eve free will. By slandering God, he only misled the first humans into misusing the gift of free will Jehovah had endowed on them.

He's ... not ... in ... the ... story.

Satan also misused the same gift of free will to slander God

Why does God verify the serpent's accusation? God reveals that the reason He didn't want them to eat the magic fruit is PRECISELY why the serpent said He did.

To say the serpent is lying is to say God lied.

No wonder to me why Jesus called Satan "a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie."

And yet Jesus can't come up with a single biblical instance of Satan lying. He TEMPTS. That's not lying, that's being a jerk and revealing your hypocrisy.

 

[Demonslayer]

He allowed them to live for a time to produce offspring, to whom God could show mercy.

LOL. Follow this through, let's say Adam and Eve have two daughters and two sons.

How does the next generation happen?

 

[viole]

Being perfect does not mean one cannot sin. Otherwise, one would be a perfect robot, without free will to love or hate, to do good or bad. The God of love doe not force us to do his will, IMO. (Joshua 24:15)

Can God sin?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

LOL. Follow this through, let's say Adam and Eve have two daughters and two sons.

How does the next generation happen?

Family business, I guess.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

Can God sin?

Many religious people feel gambling is a sin.

During the Job incident, God made a wager with the Devil. I think gambling with Satan is pretty sinful

 

[viole]

Many religious people feel gambling is a sin.

During the Job incident, God made a wager with the Devil. I think gambling with Satan is pretty sinful

I don't think it is necessarily sinful, if we assume that God already knows the outcome, being omniscient and all. For sure it was pointless. Testing people like Job by tormenting them when you already know the outcome is really pointless.

On second thought, it might be sinful as well. Or, at least, morally questionable.

And Satan was, obviously, an idiot. Who would make a wager with someone who knows everything?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

Should we kill misbehaving kids (as the bible demands, might I add), since they have "free will", or is there a point where we go, "you know what -- they are clueless"?

Also, Satan isn't in this story. A better analogy is a parent denying their child basic sex ed classes and the teacher goes behind the parent's back to give the child useful information.


If only the text actually said that.


How so? It's mercy to condemn an entire race because of two ignorant 7 year olds (the psychology of A&E suggest they would fit best in the early school age category of child development after all)?


He's ... not ... in ... the ... story.


Why does God verify the serpent's accusation? God reveals that the reason He didn't want them to eat the magic fruit is PRECISELY why the serpent said He did.

To say the serpent is lying is to say God lied.


And yet Jesus can't come up with a single biblical instance of Satan lying. He TEMPTS. That's not lying, that's being a jerk and revealing your hypocrisy.

Surely you don't think a serpent spoke to Eve with no outside agency controlling it? Revelation 12:9 reveals Satan was, in fact, the original serpent. Satan was center stage in these events. Satan used the serpent to lie to Eve, telling her; "You certainly will not die." (Genesis 3:4) Did Eve die? Jesus knew Satan lied. Eve's act of eating the forbidden fruit was a grasping at complete moral independence, deciding for herself what was good or bad for her to do. She and Adam thus rejected God's authority to decide for his human creation what is good and bad. I think most people today likewise grasp at what does not belong to us; the ability to decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil.

 

[rusra02]

Can God sin?

Ciao

- viole

No. Deuteronomy 32:3,4 states: "For I will declare the name of Jehovah.Tell about the greatness of our God! The Rock, perfect is his activity,For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust;Righteous and upright is he."

 

[rusra02]

LOL. Follow this through, let's say Adam and Eve have two daughters and two sons.

How does the next generation happen?

Their sons marry their sisters and produce children. Then their children may marry their cousins, and so on.

 

[dust1n]

I take it seriously. I just feel that the basis is flawed, in that there is no objective evil that G-d. There is only perceptions of evil. Hence there is nothing for G-d to prevent. Only things for people to change their perception of.

So wouldn't the sentiment "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." Basically, the things that negatively affect people isn't the problem, my perception that such things are problems is the problem?

 

[Tumah]

So wouldn't the sentiment "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." Basically, the things that negatively affect people isn't the problem, my perception that such things are problems is the problem?

Your perception that such things are negative is the problem. Therefore there is no malevolence, because the events are always objectively positive.

 

[dust1n]

The whole problem with the Poe is that it presupposes the existence of evil in some objective and absolute sense, as opposed to the more common application where it means "Something that I personally object to".

Replace "evil" with "gratuitous suffering" and the problem would remain. Not stopping gratuitous suffering would be malevolent if one is capable of doing so.

 

[dust1n]

Your perception that such things are negative is the problem. Therefore there is no malevolence, because the events are always objectively positive.

Right, I don't think my perception that starving children is a problem, is the problem, personally. He certainly is aware that the humans he created apparently cause false perceptions of suffering. Even if people caused their own suffering, the question would still stand in my mind. If God is willing to end people causing their own suffering, but isn't capable, then he can't do everything, and if isn't he willing (because we disagree about what it means to suffer) though he is capable, then he doesn't really constitute someone worthy of admiration. And that's disregarding the huge leap of faith necessary in the first place.