Epicurus

[waitasec]

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

do you believe god created evil?

 

[doppelganger]

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

Unless "God" called me to tell everyone what it means. In which case it does mean what I think it means. Luckily, I haven't gotten any marching orders from the Big Guy yet.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Unless "God" called me to tell everyone what it means. In which case it does mean what I think it means. Luckily, I haven't gotten any marching orders from the Big Guy yet.

hahaha

You're a lawyer, right?

 

[doppelganger]

hahaha

You're a lawyer, right?

No. I earn money providing legal services.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No. I earn money providing legal services.

Close enough.

 

[doppelganger]

Close enough.

You don't think it's sloppy to confuse "being" with "doing"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You don't think it's sloppy to confuse "being" with "doing"?

Not for my purposes here. It's horse shoes and hand-granades.

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

"Furthermore, it only applies to omnimax, theistic God-concepts"

The fact that it says God now, is probably due to our translational. Greeks were polytheist and they didn't believe in omnimax gods.

 

[Jeremiah]

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?”

You might want to try the search function, this quote has been posted here many times.

Religious Education Forum - Search Results

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?”

I believe that Epicurus has some more teachings along these lines.

 

[Skwim]

You might want to try the search function, this quote has been posted here many times.

Your point being . . . . . . . . .?

 

[Jeremiah]

Your point being . . . . . . . . .?

That there are many great responses to this quote already, and they might be of some interest to him.

 

[doppelganger]

"Furthermore, it only applies to omnimax, theistic God-concepts"

The fact that it says God now, is probably due to our translational. Greeks were polytheist and they didn't believe in omnimax gods.

It's been a while, but my recollection from studying Epicurus was that as you state, he was talking about the Greek gods. As I recall, his own answer to the question was not that they did not exist, but that they were not interested in the good of mankind, so his own view was something along the lines of the gods being "able, but unwilling" and therefore "malevolent." Anyone who has read him more recently is welcome to correct me on that though.

 

[6Michael6Bennett6]

As I recall, his own answer to the question was not that they did not exist, but that they were not interested in the good of mankind

Even if that was his conclusion (I have to admit, I haven't studied him too much in depth), it still seems applicable to modern day religions with a diety and that believe in evil.
And about the search, I will look into the other threads about this.

 

[Jeremiah]

It's been a while, but my recollection from studying Epicurus was that as you state, he was talking about the Greek gods. As I recall, his own answer to the question was not that they did not exist, but that they were not interested in the good of mankind, so his own view was something along the lines of the gods being "able, but unwilling" and therefore "malevolent." Anyone who has read him more recently is welcome to correct me on that though.

I have not read up on Epicurus, but have done some reading on Ancient Greek religion. If I understand it right, the Greeks had a different view on morality and gods. Unlike traditional Judeo-Christians views, for the Greeks, morality did not come from the gods. Morality only pertained to humans and therefor the gods were outside it. Although, we should not make the mistake of assuming this was true through out all of Greek religion. As I understand it, Greek religion did not have the same Judeo-Christian notion of the one and only truth. They did not have the same dogmatic adherence and their myths and legends were altered all the time.

For a causal layman like me, though, it is hard to piece together. So much of Greek literature has been translated with a Judeo-Christian filter. I don't really understand it all, but considering all this, it makes this quote by Epicurus vexing.

 

[Tathagata]

It's been a while, but my recollection from studying Epicurus was that as you state, he was talking about the Greek gods. As I recall, his own answer to the question was not that they did not exist, but that they were not interested in the good of mankind, so his own view was something along the lines of the gods being "able, but unwilling" and therefore "malevolent." Anyone who has read him more recently is welcome to correct me on that though.

Ok, so you admit that his argument proves that God (or any god for that matter) is malevolent and not necessarily meant to say God doesn't exist.

However, his argument, when applied to an omnibenevolent God, it does refute his existence. If God is defined as omnibenevolent, then if such a God can be shown to be malevolent, then such an omnibenevolent God does NOT exist.



.

 

[doppelganger]

Ok, so you admit that his argument proves that God (or any god for that matter) is malevolent and not necessarily meant to say God doesn't exist.


.

Right. By it's very text, the argument is about the inconsistency of the attributes of the gods rather than the existence of the gods. If you want to see the exact same argument specifically applied to the Judeo-Christian "God" read Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People.

For myself, I think "good" and "evil" are solely creations of human thought, and have nothing to do with the flow of chaos that is the Divine.

 

[Reptillian]

If you've ever read Cicero's "The Nature of the Gods", he gives an overview of the Epicurean view of the gods as bodied beings concerned with their own happiness and pleasure. The conclusion is basically that Epicurus doesn't really believe in the gods so he proposes these properties in sort of a jesting "tounge in cheek" manner. Rather than be accused of atheism and impiety, Epicurus proposes a view of the gods that nobody would deem worthy of worship or devotion.

 

[doppelganger]

If you've ever read Cicero's "The Nature of the Gods", he gives an overview of the Epicurean view of the gods as bodied beings concerned with their own happiness and pleasure. The conclusion is basically that Epicurus doesn't really believe in the gods so he proposes these properties in sort of a jesting "tounge in cheek" manner. Rather than be accused of atheism and impiety, Epicurus proposes a view of the gods that nobody would deem worthy of worship or devotion.

Even without being "tongue in cheek," the way most "theism" presents "God" is an invitation to atheism and passive nihilism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's been a while, but my recollection from studying Epicurus was that as you state, he was talking about the Greek gods. As I recall, his own answer to the question was not that they did not exist, but that they were not interested in the good of mankind, so his own view was something along the lines of the gods being "able, but unwilling" and therefore "malevolent." Anyone who has read him more recently is welcome to correct me on that though.

From the all-knowing wiki:

This type of trilemma argument (God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists) was one favoured by the ancient Greek skeptics, and this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an atheist.[2] According to Reinhold F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academical source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean.[3]

The earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in the writings of the skeptic Sextus Empiricus.[4]


Epicurus' view was that there were gods, but that they were neither willing nor able to prevent evil. This was not because they were malevolent, but because they lived in a perfect state of ataraxia, a state everyone should strive to emulate; it is not the gods who are upset by evils, but people.http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#cite_note-larrimore-1