The epicurean paradox

[Link]

I simply got rid of two of these, all-knowing (future is not known) and all capable (there are impossible things to do).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Funny. I looked at the picture and noticed that there is no "no" option for the first statement "Evil (capital 'E') exists".

It's something I always have problems with. It implies that "Evil" is some entity that exists as a noun. As something that exists independently of the behavior of moral agents.

I heavily disagree with that. Evil does not exist as such. Evil is an adjective. A moral judgement of a specific action, decision or behavior done by a moral agent. It's not a "force" or "entity" or "thing".

So when I am asked "does Evil exist?", my answer is actually "no".

At best, I would say that behaviour we judge as being evil occurs.

 

[Link]

Evil means suffering in this context,

 

[Alien826]

Funny. I looked at the picture and noticed that there is no "no" option for the first statement "Evil (capital 'E') exists".

It's something I always have problems with. It implies that "Evil" is some entity that exists as a noun. As something that exists independently of the behavior of moral agents.

I heavily disagree with that. Evil does not exist as such. Evil is an adjective. A moral judgement of a specific action, decision or behavior done by a moral agent. It's not a "force" or "entity" or "thing".

So when I am asked "does Evil exist?", my answer is actually "no".

At best, I would say that behaviour we judge as being evil occurs.

How about "This is a crappy place to live and could be a lot better (as evidenced by some people having much better lives than others)"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evil means suffering in this context,

Then why doesn't it say that?

I mean, the two are very different concepts.

 

[Link]

Then why doesn't it say that?

I mean, the two are very different concepts.

They are synonymous. Words have different meaning in different contexts.

That tasted "good". Is different then: this person is "good".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How about "This is a crappy place to live and could be a lot better (as evidenced by some people having much better lives than others)"?

Those with better lives will also have crappy things in their lives.

I think these are non-issues (in the context the OP is about, that is). The entire concept of "the problem of evil" in theological context is also something I never really saw as an actual "problem" either. More like a fact of life. Then again, I don't require any "special" explanation for it as a non-believer in gods that are supposed to be all-powerful and all-good. But even in that context, I think it's fishy at best.

For "light" to be a thing, you need darkness to contrast it.
For "happiness" to be a thing, you need unhappiness to contrast it.

In the words of But*head from MTV's "beavis and but*head":

Eum.. uhuhuhuh... you know, if like... uhuhuhuh... nothing sucked, and like ...everything was cool all the time... uhuhuhuh.... how would you know it was cool??

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are synonymous.

No, they aren't.

Words have different meaning in different contexts.

That tasted "good". Is different then: this person is "good".

You might want to look up what "synonym" means.

 

[Link]

No, they aren't.


You might want to look up what "synonym" means.

Evil in certain contexts, means exactly as "affliction" or "suffering". It does not always have moral context. You can use it synonymously with those words.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evil in certain contexts, means exactly as "affliction" or "suffering". It does not always have moral context. You can use it synonymously with those words.

"I evil from a headache".


Nope.

Furthermore, "to suffer" is a verb. Evil is an adjective (and a noun when used mythically).

 

[Koldo]

Funny. I looked at the picture and noticed that there is no "no" option for the first statement "Evil (capital 'E') exists".

It's something I always have problems with. It implies that "Evil" is some entity that exists as a noun. As something that exists independently of the behavior of moral agents.

I heavily disagree with that. Evil does not exist as such. Evil is an adjective. A moral judgement of a specific action, decision or behavior done by a moral agent. It's not a "force" or "entity" or "thing".

So when I am asked "does Evil exist?", my answer is actually "no".

The problem is that God is purported to be good. And the same criticism you are making towards evil, if accepted, applies equally to good.

At best, I would say that behaviour we judge as being evil occurs.

How would this not maintain the same problem though?

 

[Koldo]

Those with better lives will also have crappy things in their lives.

I think these are non-issues (in the context the OP is about, that is). The entire concept of "the problem of evil" in theological context is also something I never really saw as an actual "problem" either. More like a fact of life. Then again, I don't require any "special" explanation for it as a non-believer in gods that are supposed to be all-powerful and all-good. But even in that context, I think it's fishy at best.

For "light" to be a thing, you need darkness to contrast it.
For "happiness" to be a thing, you need unhappiness to contrast it.

In the words of But*head from MTV's "beavis and but*head":

Eum.. uhuhuhuh... you know, if like... uhuhuhuh... nothing sucked, and like ...everything was cool all the time... uhuhuhuh.... how would you know it was cool??

Prove that unhapiness has to exist if happiness exists.

 

[Link]

Prove that unhapiness has to exist if happiness exists.

I think God could've made sure we all get guided. However, that guidance with God making sure we cannot deviate, would not be that meaningful and God would be a trivial feature and our love for him not much meaning. This is because there is no chance of going wrong.

Sure, he can make sure, would we be happy and not suffer? Maybe, maybe over time, it would feel so meaningless and we would be unhappy about it.

Of course, when you allow free-will, things can go wrong, but he chose to do that, setting it up that it would be highly improbable things go wrong.

What was highly improbable has happened, and doors of improbability lead to others, that now, guidance for most, is what has become improbable, but still possible (we got to try).

It was improbable Satan deviate but he did. It was improbably Adam (a) the elite servant he is, to eat of the tree, but he did. And it was improbable people follow others instead of God's chosen ones on earth but they did and Noah (a) could not alter that path. After that, things became difficult because of insincerity curse inherited from others. Believers who were saved usually a great portion turn ungrateful after delivery, and so deviation occurred time and time again, no matter how many times God brought back the truth.

The results are not the worst possible now, but they are not very good either. God has back up plans on top of back up plans.

His planning is always best, but there are better plans, that he prefers, and if we heed his warnings, those would unfold rather then alternative routes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prove that unhapiness has to exist if happiness exists.

How would you recognize one if the other doesn't exist?

That's what the buthead quote was about.
"If nothing sucks and everything is cool all the time, how would you know it was cool?"

These are types of things that need some kind of measuring stick.
What is "good" if there is no bad?
What is "light" if there is no dark?
What is "happy" if there is no unhappy?
What is "healthy" if there is no unhealthy?

It seems to me that none of these things have any meaning unless their counterparts can also manifest.

 

[Koldo]

How would you recognize one if the other doesn't exist?

That's what the buthead quote was about.
"If nothing sucks and everything is cool all the time, how would you know it was cool?"

These are types of things that need some kind of measuring stick.
What is "good" if there is no bad?
What is "light" if there is no dark?
What is "happy" if there is no unhappy?
What is "healthy" if there is no unhealthy?

It seems to me that none of these things have any meaning unless their counterparts can also manifest.

But the existence of something doesn't depend on someone recognizing it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that God is purported to be good. And the same criticism you are making towards evil, if accepted, applies equally to good.

Indeed.

But as I also stated, off course I don't believe in any gods (good or otherwise), so I don't see anything here that requires an explanation to begin with...
And even then, the same logic would apply in my head. What is "good" if "bad" isn't an option?

I'ld likely wonder more about why a good god would create lifeforms that procreate by laying eggs in the eyes of toddlers and have the worms eat their way out.
And I wouldn't call such lifeforms "evil" either. Just nasty (from the host's perspective).

How would this not maintain the same problem though?

Because it's not a "thing" that "exists". It's rather just behavior people choose to engage in.
In some cases, even by commandment of gods in scriptures... so a better question would be why those supposedly just and good loving gods would command people to engage in evil behaviour like infanticide. But then the answer is that it wasn't evil / bad "because religious reasons". So yeah...

Bottom line is that what the OP / epicurean paradox posits as being a "problem", I don't actually consider a problem. It is loaded up with a misconception of what "evil" actually is. The way I see it at least....

 

[Koldo]

Indeed.

But as I also stated, off course I don't believe in any gods (good or otherwise), so I don't see anything here that requires an explanation to begin with...
And even then, the same logic would apply in my head. What is "good" if "bad" isn't an option?

I'ld likely wonder more about why a good god would create lifeforms that procreate by laying eggs in the eyes of toddlers and have the worms eat their way out.
And I wouldn't call such lifeforms "evil" either. Just nasty (from the host's perspective).

If God is not good, there is no paradox. The problem of evil doesn't exist if God is not good.

Because it's not a "thing" that "exists". It's rather just behavior people choose to engage in.
In some cases, even by commandment of gods in scriptures... so a better question would be why those supposedly just and good loving gods would command people to engage in evil behaviour like infanticide. But then the answer is that it wasn't evil / bad "because religious reasons". So yeah...

Bottom line is that what the OP / epicurean paradox posits as being a "problem", I don't actually consider a problem. It is loaded up with a misconception of what "evil" actually is. The way I see it at least....

Hmm... What I am saying is that if we change from 'evil exists' to 'evil occurs' the paradox remains.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the existence of something doesn't depend on someone recognizing it.

But the existence of something can only be recognized in contrast of it not being present.

What is a lamp if you can't differentiate it from a rock or ball or car?

What is "happy" if you can't differentiate it from "unhappy" or "not happy"?

To borrow from buthead again: if being unhappy was impossible and everyone was always happy all the time, how would you explain to them that they are happy? How would you define "happy"? How could you comprehend what "happy" is if the situation where one is "not happy" couldn't exist? In a world where you can't even be "happier" tomorrow then you are today?

It makes no sense to me.
I don't see how you can have one without the other.

 

[Koldo]

But the existence of something can only be recognized in contrast of it not being present.

What is a lamp if you can't differentiate it from a rock or ball or car?

What is "happy" if you can't differentiate it from "unhappy" or "not happy"?

To borrow from buthead again: if being unhappy was impossible and everyone was always happy all the time, how would you explain to them that they are happy? How would you define "happy"? How could you comprehend what "happy" is if the situation where one is "not happy" couldn't exist? In a world where you can't even be "happier" tomorrow then you are today?

It makes no sense to me.
I don't see how you can have one without the other.

Why would we need to define happiness, or explain happiness, or comprehend happiness... for happiness to exist?

 

[Mock Turtle]

For me evil is mostly a religious concept and dependent upon much behind this notion (where did such come from for example), whereas suffering or good and bad behaviour (the worst perhaps being equivalent to evil) are simply experiences and behaviours of humans, and hence this decision tree is not part of my world. Given that suffering and behaviour can be quite well explained without any God or gods being involved - even if imperfectly at the moment.