• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Epicurus

6Michael6Bennett6

At The Left Hand Ov God
Here is an interesting quote from an ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus.
Anyone feel free to discuss the quote, or to debate it.

“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?”
 

6Michael6Bennett6

At The Left Hand Ov God
I've loved it ever since I read it for the first time. I have posted it in other forums and have asked it to many religious people, and when it comes to that quote, they cannot defend their own religion. If their religion was something that they are investing their entire life into and many would die for their religion, then why cannot they provide proof of their religion? If they are willing to do all that for their religion, surely they have good reason for believing in it, such as proof? But yet, I still have yet to find any religious people with proof of their religion. Lol, maybe this thread will be different.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, remember that not all religions believe that there is such a thing as 'evil'.
There are different concepts for the causes of suffering with different reasoning behind them.

Religion is hardly about physical evidence. It largely comes from feeling and a sense of knowing. This is generally an illusion, but we're all helpless entities, mystified by our own existence and struggling to make sense of everything. We go with what feels or seems right to us and place our trust in whatever path that is because without some trust we just feel helpless. This applies also to those atheists who place their trust in science.
 

jmvizanko

Uber Tool
Here is an interesting quote from an ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus.
Anyone feel free to discuss the quote, or to debate it.

“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?”

Well despite the fact that I agree with the logic, I'll play devil's advocate for the hell of it. One could make the argument that a god wanted to create a universe that included the entire range of good and bad possibilities, in order for us to truly have free will and overcome obstacles. Of course, why he would set up the natural laws so that random children die of horribly painful diseases kind of shoots down the idea that that is worth it. Then again, if a good and powerful god created the universe the way it is for that reason, why couldn't he have created a "free" universe in such a way that such things wouldn't happen?
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
While I'm sure it was impressive however many centuries ago, this argument is as worn out as Pascal's Wager. Furthermore, it only applies to omnimax, theistic God-concepts.
 

6Michael6Bennett6

At The Left Hand Ov God
Ok let me clear one thing up that was my mistake. I did mean to apply this to religions who believe in a diety and evil, because that's the only religions it can apply to. I wanted to bring it up as a scientific way to challenge those religions who do believe in a diety/dieties and evil.

In these religions with gods and evil, most of the time, evil is considered to be something opposite of what the god represents; so, in these religions, there would have to be evil; since *the god gave the people to ability to make their own decisions.* (* = I'll refer to this later)

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent."
In these religions, the god is considered to be all-powerful. Obviously stated here, if he cannot prevent evil then he is not all-powerful.

"Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."
What kind of loving god would set you free in a world where there is going to inevitably be evil? Surely the god could no be loving.

"Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?"
If he is able to get rid of evil, then why didn't he? Especially if he is also willing (inclined to) then why didn't he? He would either have to not be able to get rid of the evil, or would have to be an evil god himself.

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
This one is obvious, if he can't get rid of the evil, he is not all-powerful. If he is not willing to, then it is because he knows he can't (not all-powerful), or he doesn't want to (malevolent). If he isn't omnipotent and is malevolent, I do not see the need to call him a god whatsoever.

*Some may argue: "well the world was perfect once, he can do it again"
Well, what caused the impuritey in the world? Us being able to choose what we do. The only way that he could fulfill his promise of a PERFECT world in the afterlife, would be to take away our ability to make our own decisions; for if he didn't, heaven would turn imperfect. If heaven turned imperfect, then would it just be a huge cycle of worlds? Take this thread whereever you choose, I have to get off for tonight, but will be back tomorrow.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
"Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."
What kind of loving god would set you free in a world where there is going to inevitably be evil? Surely the god could no be loving.
Sure He can. He just loves us enough to let us choose whether or not to love Him back. Personally, I'll take the existence of suffering over being a mindless automoton any day.
 

6Michael6Bennett6

At The Left Hand Ov God
Sure He can. He just loves us enough to let us choose whether or not to love Him back. Personally, I'll take the existence of suffering over being a mindless automoton any day.
Ok, but how does he fulfill his promise of the perfect afterlife? This world was stated to be perfect until we decided to make a wrong decision. To make heaven perfect, we would have to not be able to make our own decisions. I rather burn in hell....
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Ok, but how does he fulfill his promise of the perfect afterlife? This world was stated to be perfect until we decided to make a wrong decision. To make heaven perfect, we would have to not be able to make our own decisions. I rather burn in hell....
Meh, the whole thing falls apart once you throw in Christian notions of the afterlife.

I tend to compartmentalize, sorry.
 

6Michael6Bennett6

At The Left Hand Ov God
Well, its ok lol; because this whole quote can only go so far and only so many religions. It is good for those few, but pretty much worthless for the other religions. On this thread, I was hoping to get a response from someone believing in a diety and evil.
 

Zadok

Zadok
Here is an interesting quote from an ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus.
Anyone feel free to discuss the quote, or to debate it.

“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?”

There is a serious flaw in the logic.
Since evil exist and in order for there to be individuality then each individual must be able to choose otherwise the individual does not really exist but is an extension of what chooses for them. But if they cannot choose evil then their choice is a lie and thus they cannot be an individual. Also if G-d does not have the power to overcome evil, even though an individual chooses evil, then he is not omnipotent. But by the atonement G-d redeems evil and therefore is able to save those that also desire to be free of evil to be able to live without it.

And so it is that evil is allowed to exist so that individuals can exist of themselves and have power to know the difference between good and evil and thus exist as an individual by their choices and not just a physical extension of his creator. And so it is that G-d’s omnipotence is proven in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ which makes atonement for evil. And we may all choose and be individuals – subject to evil or free to live with G-d and without evil.

Zadok
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Zadok said:
There is a serious flaw in the logic.
Since evil exist and in order for there to be individuality then each individual must be able to choose otherwise the individual does not really exist but is an extension of what chooses for them.But if they cannot choose evil then their choice is a lie and thus they cannot be an individual.
The free will/determinism issue has just about been argued to death here without a single decent argument in its defense. But that's a whole other issue.

Also if G-d does not have the power to overcome evil, even though an individual chooses evil, then he is not omnipotent.
Bingo.

But by the atonement G-d redeems evil and therefore is able to save those that also desire to be free of evil to be able to live without it.
So what? It still leaves god powerless to prevent evil, which is one of the points of the quote. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."

And so it is that evil is allowed to exist so that individuals can exist of themselves and have power to know the difference between good and evil and thus exist as an individual by their choices and not just a physical extension of his creator.
But under the original plan humans were not supposed to know evil. If you recall, they were duped into bringing it upon themselves plus all the rest of us. So, evil was never a necessary condition for any aspect of human existence. Had the apple incident never taken place we would all be living in a blissful evil-free universe. So let's have none of this Evil-Is-Necessary stuff. Your god sure didn't think it was.

And so it is that G-d’s omnipotence is proven in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ which makes atonement for evil.
You have got to be kidding. We expect nonsense like this is from pulpit pounding fundies, but not thinking people on RF.
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
"God" is willingness and unableness, and willingness and ableness.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
"God" is ableness and unwillingness, and ableness and willingness.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
"God" is ableness and willingness, and unableness and unwillingness.

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
"God" is (I think you know what's coming, come on, say it with me...) unableness and unwillingness, and ableness and willingness.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
The great ones can say it all in a few sentences. Epicurus says in eight lines what took Kushner 150 pages.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Anybody here ever read Dostoevsky's "Rebellion" from The Brothers Karamazov? Dostoevsky gives a pretty definitive answer to the free will defense of "God's" evil through his character Ivan. In twenty years, I've yet to find anyone who can refute it, except by abandoning one or more of the traditional attributes of "God" (i.e. "omnipotent", "omniscient"). Which is a tacit acknowledgment of what Ivan wants - to surrender the need for definitive order and purpose, and embrace the chaos of the universe for what it is without delusions about "God" and "justice" that lead ultimately to a passive nihilism wrapped up in the regal garb of religion.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...chapter35.html

Ivan for a minute was silent, his face became all at once very sad.

“Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer. Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on purpose. I am a bug, and I recognize in all humility that I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that everything flows and finds its level — but that’s only Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can’t consent to live by it! What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it? — I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me rise again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair. Surely I haven’t suffered simply that I, my crimes and my sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the religions of the world are built on this longing, and I am a believer. But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them? That’s a question I can’t answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are numbers of questions, but I’ve only taken the children, because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all their fathers’ crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you see he didn’t grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: ‘Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.’ When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can’t accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child’s torturer, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ but I don’t want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It’s not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to ‘dear, kind God’! It’s not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don’t want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother’s heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don’t want harmony. From love for humanity I don’t want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it’s beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket.”


“That’s rebellion,” murmered Alyosha, looking down.
This is the setup for the book's most famous chapter, "The Grand Inquisitor."
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Religion is hardly about physical evidence. It largely comes from feeling and a sense of knowing. This is generally an illusion, but we're all helpless entities, mystified by our own existence and struggling to make sense of everything. We go with what feels or seems right to us and place our trust in whatever path that is because without some trust we just feel helpless. This applies also to those atheists who place their trust in science.

and it is the "feeling" of knowing that gives way to a dangerous path. it takes away a persons ability to BELIEVE in themselves. and it leads one to question WHY things happen. why must there be a reason for ANYTHING
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;2111706 said:
Anybody here ever read Dostoevsky's "Rebellion" from The Brothers Karamazov? ....

This is the setup for the book's most famous chapter, "The Grand Inquisitor."

Three words: paragraphs.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;2111717 said:
Not really my business to edit Dostoevsky's prose.

Ah, don't worry about it. It's going to say what you think that it means anyway. :D
 
Top