Epicurus' riddle

[Quagmire]

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

"Gratuitous" is pretty subjective too.

 

[Tumah]

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.

So you're argument is, "I don't see that, therefore I am right".
Personally, I don't see it either. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. The Talmud says that our inability to see the positive of [seeming] tragedies is a feature of this world, but in the Messianic age, we will be able to see how it was all positive. Although that doesn't help you much, for me it solves the issue Epicurus brings up.

 

[dust1n]

So you're argument is, "I don't see that, therefore I am right".
Personally, I don't see it either.

Let's take an example. Smallpox.

People have small pox, but suffering isn't bad, and anything that causes smallpox isn't from evil, and even though God could eliminate it, he stands by and does nothing and that isn't evil either.

People have small pox, but suffering is bad, and anything that causes smallpox is evil, more or less, and humans could potentially eliminate, instead of standing by and doing nothing because that might be potentially evil.

I think I will err with the latter, seeing how it resulted in small pox being eradicated.

I also find it funny your rebuttal argument is, "I don't see that either, yet I am still right about it!"

But that doesn't mean it isn't true. The Talmud says that our inability to see the positive of [seeming] tragedies is a feature of this world, but in the Messianic age, we will be able to see how it was all positive.

That doesn't mean there is no such thing as evil. It also doesn't really do much to address the multiple references to objective evil in the Talmud.

"What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter."

Pst, what do you know supposed prophet of God as portrayed in the Jewish religious texts...

Although that doesn't help you much, for me it solves the issue Epicurus brings up.

Yeah, I mean, I could open a brand new box of puzzle pieces, dump on the floor, and claim that the puzzle has been solved. It wouldn't be much of a problem to me either if the puzzle wasn't actually solved.

 

[dust1n]

"Gratuitous" is pretty subjective too.

Is it? Either children dying of Tay-Sachs Disease is necessary suffering or it is unnecessary suffering. So what is the suffering from Tay-Sachs needed for? And if the answer is, it's necessary in order to make the world as it is, please refer to Epircurus's question again on what it means when God isn't capable of doing something.

 

[Quagmire]

Is it? Either children dying of Tay-Sachs Disease is necessary suffering or it is unnecessary suffering. So what is the suffering from Tay-Sachs needed for? And if the answer is, it's necessary in order to make the world as it is, please refer to Epircurus's question again on what it means when God isn't capable of doing something.

In order for "necessary" or "unnecessary" to mean anything it would have to be attached to some goal or purpose. Since we don't know what the "purpose" of life is (from god's perspective), or whether or not there is one, labeling something "gratuitous" is a pretty big presumption.

 

[dust1n]

In order for "necessary" or "unnecessary" to mean anything it would have to be attached to some goal or purpose.

Agreed.

Since we don't know what the "purpose" of life is (from god's perspective), or whether or not there is one, labeling something "gratuitous" is a pretty big presumption.

Well, if there is not a purpose, than there is no necessity for it. But if there is a purpose, and God can only achieve that making Tay-Sachs disease, then could isn't capable of anything, because He would be incapable of achieving that purpose without making Tay-Sachs disease.

Note the first line of the riddle, which is,,,

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."

 

[Quagmire]

Agreed.



Well, if there is not a purpose, than there is no necessity for it. But if there is a purpose, and God can only achieve that making Tay-Sachs disease, then could isn't capable of anything, because He would be incapable of achieving that purpose without making Tay-Sachs disease.

Still a presumption. He may have an infinite number of choices for achieving whatever it is He's trying to achieve, but choose Tay-Sachs disease --- or suffering in general --- for His own reasons, reasons we couldn't possibly fathom.

In order to present this as evidence against benevolence or omnipotence, you'd have to be able to explain why suffering of any type is an objective evil, some reason other than the fact that we dislike it.

Note the first line of the riddle, which is,,,

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."

Still need to come up with an objective definition or example of "evil".

 

[Tumah]

Let's take an example. Smallpox.

People have small pox, but suffering isn't bad, and anything that causes smallpox isn't from evil, and even though God could eliminate it, he stands by and does nothing and that isn't evil either.

Right. Because His reason for creating and causing smallpox is a positive reason, even though right now, we can't see what that reason is.

People have small pox, but suffering is bad, and anything that causes smallpox is evil, more or less, and humans could potentially eliminate, instead of standing by and doing nothing because that might be potentially evil.

A human who does not help save someone's life is acting evil because he is going against G-d's command to save life. If we have a calculation for when to injure a person, than we (as a court system) does so. But we can't injure a person without having a calculation. Since we don't know G-d's calculation, we can only save those that need it.

I think I will err with the latter, seeing how it resulted in small pox being eradicated.

I also find it funny your rebuttal argument is, "I don't see that either, yet I am still right about it!"

My rebuttal was, I understand that you will not agree, but this is my belief in how the issue is resolved.

That doesn't mean there is no such thing as evil.It also doesn't really do much to address the multiple references to objective evil in the Talmud.

It does. Or rather I should say that evil is not considered an objectively bad thing.

"What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter."

We translate that verse as referring to evil and good people. Not evil itself.

Pst, what do you know supposed prophet of God as portrayed in the Jewish religious texts...

I'm not sure what this line was meant to say...

Yeah, I mean, I could open a brand new box of puzzle pieces, dump on the floor, and claim that the puzzle has been solved. It wouldn't be much of a problem to me either if the puzzle wasn't actually solved.

I think a better analogy than puzzles would be you arguing that surgeons are bad because they cut people.

 

[Quagmire]

People who talk in the library may be an objective evil. Especially if they're librarians.

 

[dust1n]

Still a presumption. He may have an infinite number of choices for achieving whatever it is He's trying to achieve, but choose Tay-Sachs disease --- or suffering in general --- for His own reasons, reasons we couldn't possibly fathom.

Right, it doesn't matter if there are reasons why God is necessitated to make Tay-Sachs disease, because if God is can't do anything without making Tay-Sachs disease, than he is not all-powerful. As soon as God is required to do one thing in order to achieve in any goal, he immediately is not capable of doing anything.

In order to present this as evidence against benevolence or omnipotence, you'd have to be able to explain why suffering of any type is an objective evil, some reason other than the fact that we dislike it.

Still need to come up with an objective definition or example of "evil".

I don't. I disregard evil. But if God is capable of stopping unnecessary suffering and chooses not to, then he would still be malevolent. Whether me watching someone be tortured to death, even though I have a gun and can stop the torture immediately, is evil or not, has little to do with whether he is malevolent.

 

[dust1n]

Right. Because His reason for creating and causing smallpox is a positive reason, even though right now, we can't see what that reason is.

So how can you claim it is a positive reason when you don't anything about the reason?

A human who does not help save someone's life is acting evil because he is going against G-d's command to save life. If we have a calculation for when to injure a person, than we (as a court system) does so. But we can't injure a person without having a calculation. Since we don't know G-d's calculation, we can only save those that need it.

You already said there is objective evil. How can I be evil under any conditions given that there is no evil?

My rebuttal was, I understand that you will not agree, but this is my belief in how the issue is resolved.

Sure. I was just stating, feeling like one has resolved an issue for themselves is of little value to anyone who still has an issue.

It does. Or rather I should say that evil is not considered an objectively bad thing.

And a subjectively bag thing is not a bad thing.

We translate that verse as referring to evil and good people. Not evil itself.

If there is no objective evil, then how can any refer to an evil person and it in anyway reflect reality?

I'm not sure what this line was meant to say...

I think a better analogy than puzzles would be you arguing that surgeons are bad because they cut people.

It was meant to say, that if I stated 2+2=5, and you were like, I don't see how that makes sense, and I was like, I also don't see how that makes sense but this page I have here says, "I will one day make sense," so it is, in fact, safe to say, that it does make sense.

Your analogy would be a great one if surgeons purported themselves to be capable of doing anything.

 

[Quagmire]

Right, it doesn't matter if there are reasons why God is necessitated to make Tay-Sachs disease, because if God is can't do anything without making Tay-Sachs disease, than he is not all-powerful. As soon as God is required to do one thing in order to achieve in any goal, he immediately is not capable of doing anything.

How did you get "Is required to" from "Chooses to" and "can't" from "Chooses not to"?

I don't. I disregard evil.

You can't do that if we're talking about the Problem of Evil. You would have to change it to the "Problem of Unpleasantness", which isn't the same thing.

But if God is capable of stopping unnecessary suffering and chooses not to, then he would still be malevolent.

That's just a subjective human opinion. If you're going to apply subjectivity to a being that's isn't subject to anything, you can make him anything you want.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus Christ didn't consider the account of Adam to be metaphoric.(Matthew 19:5,6) I believe such an unwarranted interpretation is actually a repudiation of true Christian teaching. (Romans 5:12)

Yah. He did.

 

[sojourner]

If the architects knew about the poisonous and detrimental effects of lead based paint in their buildings and used it anyways, then they've committed a crime. Surely you'll agree that using something with the knowledge of the negative impact it will have makes it your fault. Carrying around radioactive waste knowing the harmful effects of it, and then putting it in the water supply is also surely a crime. God knows all and knew what was going to happen when he started using free will and therefore just like the painters he is the cause of evil. Also that's yet still another argument against omnipotence and omnibenevolence--is God not able to make a world where evil doesn't exist, or less evil exists, but yet you still have free will? If not then he is not all powerful, and if so then he isn't all good since he could have made the world less evil or removed evil entirely

You're torturing the meaning of "omipotence." "Omnipotent" doesn't mean that "God can create the world any way God wants to. Your argument is moot.

 

[sojourner]

If the architects knew about the poisonous and detrimental effects of lead based paint in their buildings and used it anyways, then they've committed a crime. Surely you'll agree that using something with the knowledge of the negative impact it will have makes it your fault.

No, lead paint is fine, so long as you don't eat it. Lots of products are harmful -- like rubbing alcohol -- if used improperly. It's not the fault of the manufacturer, nor is it illegal. It's the fault of the person misusing the product.

 

[sojourner]

God knows all and knew what was going to happen when he started using free will and therefore just like the painters he is the cause of evil.

Nope. God's not responsible for our free actions.

 

[sojourner]

is God not able to make a world where evil doesn't exist, or less evil exists, but yet you still have free will? If not then he is not all powerful, and if so then he isn't all good since he could have made the world less evil or removed evil entirely

Nope. Evil is a product of humanity -- not God.

 

[sojourner]

Also free will is contingent upon evil since if you could not commit an evil action then you would have limited free will--you would only be able to do morally justified actions and so you could not make a decision any other way.

Not all free-will choices are choices between good and evil. Sometimes a choice is between an apple or an orange -- neither of which is evil.

 

[sojourner]

You're portraying the theology of abrahamic faiths as if its one thing, one interpretation. That's entirely false. That's why there are so many different sects, because of all the different interpretations. Omnipotent means all powerful to many theologians. if God can't do certain things then he isn't all powerful. Its as simple as that. I've shown that being all powerful and all moral is contradictory. If you can't do an evil action then you aren't all powerful and you don't have free will since you could only choose the right actions each time. And if you can do an evil action then you aren't all good because something that is all good could commit no wrong actions. You're imposing your own definitions here and claiming them as facts- I don't even know or necesserily accept which definitions you're using; you haven't clearly defined what omnipotent, omnibenevolence, and omniscience actually mean to you. Here are some of the possibilities of different theological interpretations:

1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
3. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
4. A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
6. Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

. I'm going by the dictionary definition, not your interpretation of what some theology has said about it. How could I know what your definition is? There are thousands of different theological perspectives and interpretations that exist for Christianity alone so define which one you're talking about and make a case for why you can solely determine the superior theological perspective I should be arguing against.

When one argues theology, one uses a theological definition. "Power" means something completely different in the electrical-circuit world than it does in the diesel-engine world. You can't measure the horsepower of an engine in terms of watts. You can't measure electrical power in terms of bhp. There are any of several ways to express omnipotence theologically, and they all depend upon circumstances involved. You can't just set up some arbitrary and logically-impossible scenario and then declare that "God is not omnipotent." You have to work within the parameters of any of several theological constructs that describe omnipotence. So far, you haven't done that.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry that's a complete assertion and solely your interpretation

No. It's not "solely my interpretation." It's an interpretation that is widely-accepted in orthodoxy.