The Riddle of Epicurus

[No*s]

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?

Who's to say we know the mind of God that we can judge it? I would say that we do not, and since He is not a man, I doubt that He sees events, morality, the world, or anything else the way we need to. If this is the case, then why judge His motives the way we would a man's?

 

[huajiro]

Deut....you make me feel cheated in life

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who's to say we know the mind of God that we can judge it?

That's right, brother. We sure wouldn't want anyone to do anything blasphemous ... like thinking.

 

[No*s]

That's right, brother. We sure wouldn't want anyone to do anything blasphemous ... like thinking.

Rather than simply post a sarcastic remark, how about you tell me how you can possibly understand it, much less judge it accurately. We have a hard time with other cultures, are really suspect if we even try to guess what's in the mind of other animals, and so on. In my mind, it is presumpuous, at best, for a couple of little animals on a backwater world, with an extremely limited knowledge base, to judge the actions of God.

So how about validating the premise? How do you understand the mind of a being purported to be the creator of the universe? How do you judge it, and by what standard?

If you feel that validating this point is unworthy, then you will understand if I don't feel the need to take you seriously on it. You're normally so logical, that I also feel cheated here...to have received such a disparaging response.

 

[Faust]

Rather than simply post a sarcastic remark, how about you tell me how you can possibly understand it, much less judge it accurately. We have a hard time with other cultures, are really suspect if we even try to guess what's in the mind of other animals, and so on. In my mind, it is presumpuous, at best, for a couple of little animals on a backwater world, with an extremely limited knowledge base, to judge the actions of God.

I believe the original post referencing Epicurus points out the difference between accepting an absolute based on faith, and applying reason governed by logic in order to assess a proposition. Therefore, Duets. reply seems to be true to the thread.
Sorry I haven't been on for awhile, I've been very busy.
Faust.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you feel that validating this point is unworthy, then you will understand if I don't feel the need to take you seriously on it.

You may take me as you wish, but killing the messenger does little to resolve the problem.

Actually, I find your assertion that one can't know the mind of God (if one exists) compelling. Just don't turn around and pretend to know that God is good rather than evil, invested rather than uninterested, loving rather than hateful, forgiving rather than vengeful, etc.

 

[Lightkeeper]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]The Riddle of Epicurus


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?




[/size][/font]

[size=-1]( And when he is the author of incomparable evil and misery? [Deut. 32.8] )[/size]


​

​

​

A few things come to mind here. This is all assumption, assumption there is a God and assuming what God does or doesn't do. Also, in the Eternal there is no concept of time, how would we know what is or isn't being done. There is also an assumption that God would have feelings. There is an assumption that God has human characteristics. There is an assumption that humans can figure out why they call that which can't be understood, God. There is also an assumption that the God of the OT was more than a figment of the imagination. There is also an assumption that God may not be able to transcend or evolve. There is an assumption that God is responsible for our pain.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Excellent!

 

[No*s]

I disagree.

If it were an issue of how I treat my fellow man on the basis of my faith, and I were out causing tsunamis and whatnot, then that response would be applicable. It would also be preaching to the choir. I doubt we could find a person on this forum who would be willing to do that, or cause a massive plague to hit the earth, flood an area, or whatever. If that is the case, then the post is placed in the wrong place.

Rather, he is challenging belief in God by judging God by an admittedly human standard of behavior. He must prove that the standard applies. God is not a man. He must validate his premise as a result. If you judge something by a standard, then you must consequently be able to defend that standard.

IMO, "faith" when it comes to the existence of God here is irrelevant. It decides only whether one believes in God. It has no bearing on the quality of the argument, and we are talking about a being completely unlike us. If He doesn't exist, justifying the presuppositions only makes the argument stronger. If He does exist, then determining His nature is the only way to evaluate whether the argument is strong or weak. If we cannot establish that they are applicable, then the argument is sophistry.

 

[No*s]

You may take me as you wish, but killing the messenger does little to resolve the problem.

Actually, I find your assertion that one can't know the mind of God (if one exists) compelling. Just don't turn around and pretend to know that God is good rather than evil, invested rather than uninterested, loving rather than hateful, forgiving rather than vengeful, etc.

Understandable and thank you. I like this response better .

In my faith, we use the apophatic approach to God almost exclusively. The same God who is forgiving is also veangeful. The same God who is loving also hated Esau. We treat all the descriptions about God as allegories at best. Every aspect of God is incomprehnesible. What is "knowable" is such only because we believe in revelation in places. So no worry, I don't try to play off one aspect of God here against the other. They are all applicable as far as I'm concerned simply because we cannot know.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Understandable and thank you. I like this response better.

You're thanking me because you like the response? That's interesting.

In my faith, we use the apophatic approach to God almost exclusively. The same God who is forgiving is also veangeful. The same God who is loving also hated Esau.

You say, in part: "we use the apophatic approach to God almost exclusively. The same God who is ... is also ..." Perhaps you should supply your definition of apophatic theology, because this doesn't look like it to me.

 

[SoulTYPE]

Different people will see God in different ways. Therefore they will write about him in different ways. The Epicure riddle is not necessarily the right or wrong way to see God.

 

[No*s]

You're thanking me because you like the response? That's interesting.

No, I'm thanking you because I liked the tone much better. It wasn't flat out dismissive and addressing me with disdain. I think you can understand why I would like it better when I put it that way.

You say, in part: "we use the apophatic approach to God almost exclusively. The same God who is ... is also ..." Perhaps you should supply your definition of apophatic theology, because this doesn't look like it to me.

I wasn't clear. When I say apophatic, I do mean that "you can say what God is not." We use it almost exclusively, so I was juxtaposing what we say even with terms like "love" against "hate" to show that it is describing some of God's actions in human terms. It in no way says those terms are wholly applicable. To say "God is love" we must first understand that "love" here bears a resemblance to human love, but it is not human love and is still quite unknowable. To say "God hates" is to describe God's actions in human terms. God in no way hates. He is not a human.

When people anthropomorphize everything from death to love, they aren't saying those things are this. It's a comparison to make some sense out of it. They aren't human, and we do so only to get a handle on it. It doesn't mean we understand it that way or that we should.

It is only applicable if we believe that God reveals Himself. If He doesn't, even that language must be dropped completely. That is pretty much the only way catophatic approaches are applicable. If God doesn't reveal Himself, then there's no use even thinking about Him. There is nothing we could really say about Him.

I hope that clarifies a bit.

 

[No*s]

Different people will see God in different ways. Therefore they will write about him in different ways. The Epicure riddle is not necessarily the right or wrong way to see God.

No, unless you believe truth is subjective, the argument in the riddle holds if its premises are true. I dispute some of the premises.

It can no more be subjective than if you went to the store, bought three oranges and was charged for thirty. We would both agree that that is objectively wrong. So it is with God. If the riddle's premises are correct, then the riddle's arguments are correct.

If we reduce God to that level of subjectivity He is a figmant of our imagination and no more worthy of consideration than "a bit of undigested beef."

 

[SoulTYPE]

No, unless you believe truth is subjective, the argument in the riddle holds if its premises are true. I dispute some of the premises.

Many riddles or quotes can hold truth if not taken out of context. This riddle does hold, yes. Bu so do many others.

read my first post in this thread dudes!

 

[No*s]

Many riddles or quotes can hold truth if not taken out of context. This riddle does hold, yes. Bu so do many others.

read my first post in this thread dudes!

This is all well and true, but that doesn't detract from the fact that truth is objective by its nature. Even "subjective" truth is objective. Strawberries taste good. Now, another person may not agree, but it is subjective only in the sense of where it is tested. I like strawberries, so with me it is objectively true. With another, it may be objectively false.

Like I mentioned on the oranges example, we operate on an objective truth in virtually every part of our lives. If I buy a coke for a $1.00, and I get charged $1.80, then something is wrong. It is false. I may have had the price wrong, in which case the $1.80 is right. I may have been right, in which case I've been overcharged. However, we may both be wrong. In that case, neither of us is right.

We can be certain that there are things not true about God. Not all opinions are equally valid, and so not all beliefs about Him are true. However, the question is can we tell the difference between falsehood and truth, and if so how? If we cannot, then we must be agnostic. No aspect of God can be known in any way. If we can, then we have excluded other definitions simply by accepting a proposition.

If we take the "everybody looks at God different and we're all right tact," then we've defined God away. He has no meaning and no bearing on our lives. It may well be the case that God favors actions that we don't think are compatible, but we cannot have "one God" and "many gods." We cannot have "everything but God is a creation" and "the creation is god." These ideas are not compatible. so, the sentiment simply cannot work.

I will say, though, that I firmly believe in letting everybody practice their religion . That doesn't mean we can't have discussions or debates, and it doesn't mean all ideas are equal. It just means we treat them all equally.

 

[Scott1]

The Riddle of Epicurus

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?

​

​

This sad little riddle comes to those of us with faith as the cry of a confused child. "Why me? Boo hoo.... What a world, what a world!"..... poor dear. As Christians, reading something like this fills our hearts with pity and sadness. So many in this world (and through every age) come to a thought like this at some point in their life and cry out into the night in confusion. Those of us who have, by God's grace, come to know the love of God read this "riddle" and snicker..... but the challenge for us is to feel sorrow for our brothers and sisters who are so deviod of faith that these "questions" have meaning to them.

A "malevolent" God? The poor simpleton.... where did he get the notion that God was good rather than evil? What is evil? An evil, indifferent, or absent God is still a God.... not the point Deut 32.8 was going for, I'm sure. Epicurus does not seem to doubt the existance of God as a higher power, but, like primitive man who thought lightning was the wrath of some unseen "god", Epicurus lacks the grace of understanding.... the grace of faith..... and so, like a spoiled child, he lashes out at God and questions His goodness and power. In reality, these are not questionss that relate to God's omnipotence or goodness, but of His love for us as children. Epicurus, and those who read and relate to this riddle, want to be loved by God.... want a simple world, something easily explainable.... devoid of evil, sickness and death.... these poor souls want HEAVEN! ... but don't know how to obtain it with their own understanding and power. A person like this will use riddles, logic, reason, knowledge, sarcasm, anger... whatever they can and use every ounce of their desire to "force" God out of existance (to no avail, of course).... as if by doing so.... THEY become gods.... they become masters of their own rudderless ships.... comforted in their aimless journey by the notion "At least I am at the helm!"

Every man should eventually come to ask about the "ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existance: whence do we come, and where are we going?" (Nostra Aetate Pope Paul VI) Those of us who live in this age tackle this question with more refined concepts than a riddle, but the journey is still just as difficult, the questions just as valid.

Those of us with faith have come to accept the mystery... have come to accept that ther is no sure answer to questions such as these. "I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution," (Saint Augustine, Conf.). The humility of a Christian is that after knowing this, we make the decision (with divine assistance) to have faith in the absence of certainty.... to believe in an unseen and sometimes seemingly uncaring God. Some people (I won't mention any names) need 100% proof... but I'm not sure that a burning bush, a Barbara Walters interview, and a face to face meeting would sway them. So be it. My faith gives me the comfort to know that people such as these are in the hands of a merciful judge.

What it boils down to... in my not-so-humble opinon, is that we are all on our own "ship" (to borrow from my ealier analogy) and as we sail through life the atheist often laughs as we sit on deck and let an unseen God "steer" our ship... "Ignorant fools! There is no god! Get up and take the helm!", the atheist cries... then shakes his head in disgust as one of "God's ships" slams into the rocks and sends the passenger to their death.... "See, I told you!".............. but, the atheist then notices that he is aiming for the same rocks, and attempts in vain to "steer" his rudderless ship... to no avail.... "At least I was in charge!" he cries as the ship crashes and sends him to his death....

And so it goes..... none of us will get out of this life alive... and the journey tied together with those we love along the way is what defines our humanity.......

......... not the compilation of enough data to satisfy ourselves that there are no more mysteries yet left to solve.

To Epicurus, and those who think as he does, my sincere affection and the prayer that on your search for knowledge..... you find love.



Peace,

Scott

 

[No*s]

Whoa Scott. Frubals for that one. That was far more aggressive than I was willing to be.

Kennteh

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To the Catholic mind the "Problem of Evil" is no problem at all. It is merely a "sad little riddle" posted by a "poor simpleton" who, being no more that "a confused child", fails to ponder the "ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existance". Given the proper mix of ridicule, ad hominem, and obfuscation, anything is possible.

... where did he get the notion that God was good rather than evil? What is evil? An evil, indifferent, or absent God is still a God.... not the point Deut 32.8 was going for, I'm sure.

Quite wrong, my bitter friend. I am more than willing to acknowledge that "an evil, indifferent, or absent God is still a God." and, in fact, one far more reminiscent of the God of the Torah. Thanks for making this so clear.

 

[Scott1]

To the Catholic mind the "Problem of Evil" is no problem at all. It is merely a "sad little riddle"

Gotta pay attention Deut.... the sad little riddle refers to Epicurus, not the problem of evil.... and try not to confuse my writing with Catholic theology.... I don't profess to speak for the Chruch outside of quotes...... nice try though.

Quite wrong, my bitter friend. I am more than willing to acknowledge that "

an evil, indifferent, or absent God is still a God." and, in fact, one far more reminiscent of the God of the Torah. Thanks for making this so clear.

Hehe.... taking things a bit personally? Get over yourself..... I'm not bitter, I just grow tired of the same questions over and over again..... "boo hoo.... God doesn't love me".... I just have little patience for it... I apologize.

Scott