The Riddle of Epicurus

[Ceridwen018]

is that it is impossible to define any god without making it incomprehensible.

That doesn't make any sense. If god is defined, he is no longer incomprehensible. It is the lack of definition which makes god incomprehensible.

Even the pagan gods were to some degree incomprehensible.

Well, the first god who ever overcomes his/her incomprehensibility and gains a bit of definition had better save me a seat in his/her church.

It is a question that cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the skeptic.

What does that say about the question?

As for the question of distinguishing nonsense from truth, we both agree about the difficulty of discerning truth to begin with

. However, to disprove an invisible pink unicorn, I will point out that the unicorn, like everything else in the universe is subject to physical laws. It neither upholds the universe, nor exists outside of it. That is an attribute given to God, that He is not contained by the universe, fashioned it, and so on (most of this by revelation, so if the revelation goes, so do the arguments about what God has done). Now, with the unicorn being another creature, it is both pink and invisible, which is nonsensical for any creature.

Next time I see a unicorn, I'll be sure to study it's behavior carefully, and will hopefully arrive to the logical conclusion that it is a physical creature, bound by physical laws.

The point is that unicorns, (who, through their lack of existence, cannot be correctly labeled as 'physical creatures'), most certainly could exist outside of the universe--just as effectively as anything else.

 

[No*s]

That doesn't make any sense. If god is defined, he is no longer incomprehensible. It is the lack of definition which makes god incomprehensible.[/quite]

Actually, that isn't the case. You can define something by saying almost entirely what it is not. That definition isn't comprehensible. God is not limited, He is not contained within the universe, He is not contained by time, He is not comprehensible to a human, etc. That's a definition, and that definition doesn't give you comprehension.

Well, the first god who ever overcomes his/her incomprehensibility and gains a bit of definition had better save me a seat in his/her church.

Well, I would stay away from that church then...

What does that say about the question?

It either says that the question cannot be answered in a way the skeptic finds answerable. There are certain expected criteria for the answer, and if that criteria is not met, then it isn't acceptable. Sometimes, that says more about the person asking it than it does its subject. The standard definition for God, whether this is a pantheistic definition or a monotheistic definition, renders God incomprehensible. The question of evil, or the question of God's motives, is often posed specifically to challenge the latter, and it is from belief in the latter that I speak.

Since this God is incomprehensible by nature, why would you expect an answer other than that? That is what dumbfounds me sometimes, and would be even if I had not included the "cannot be comprehended" clause. Just as the question says something to you, it says something to me when a question is asked, and the nature of the being being tested by it cannot be used as an answer.

Very puzzling...

Next time I see a unicorn, I'll be sure to study it's behavior carefully, and will hopefully arrive to the logical conclusion that it is a physical creature, bound by physical laws.

The point is that unicorns, (who, through their lack of existence, cannot be correctly labeled as 'physical creatures'), most certainly could exist outside of the universe--just as effectively as anything else.

Well, actually, if you defined a unicorn as existing outside the universe, then it would no longer be a unicorn. It's funny, but in every case I've seen unicorns in literature, movies, etc., they have a body, breathe, eat grass, live, die, and the like. They bear all the characteristics of a part of the universe, and I have yet to see one that was portrayed as a being beyond the universe who assumed a body for whatever reason. Given the definition, yes it is a ridiculous comparison. Until you can point to one in literature, that also still fits the definitions I have above, I will hold the comparison to be ridiculous. After all, words mean things.

Of course, if you make it extrauniversal, then you've effectively made it God, in which we're back to square one.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Spinks... God is not only willing to prevent evil, but he has defeated evil.

 

[No*s]

Spinks... God is not only willing to prevent evil, but he has defeated evil.

Hoa boy ND. You've opened yourself up with this one. I know what you mean and would qualify it with "the final victory hasn't come," but I can already see the responses to that one (and in their shoes, would be making the exact same ones). I hope you enjoy yourself .

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

The report from the bbc was crisp and short: the leader of the torturers was a common rethless thug. He felt a lot for God. He definitely was not a Stoic.
He spoke of the magnificence of God. But that God was the very hiddenness of the report on his personality. A personality contains the "God" that person aspired to.
Get it? God was making him "feel" good. Ya; I don't believe it for a minute. The epicurean God was more attuned to something of the failure to "prove" His existence. But the medium persists in hiding and encouraging the perticularite Reality of whatever we FALL for.
The Epicurean God is the hidden heart beyond indifference ( we fall out of Love as much as in). Couldn't we for a split second learn how to be Selfish. Then we would love again.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Spinks... God is not only willing to prevent evil, but he has defeated evil.

I'm confused. Let's forget the word 'evil' for a moment, as we seem to have a disagreement on its definition: Is God willing to prevent tsunamis?

Well, actually, if you defined a unicorn as existing outside the universe, then it would no longer be a unicorn. It's funny, but in every case I've seen unicorns in literature, movies, etc., they have a body, breathe, eat grass, live, die, and the like.

That's a no-no, No*s--that's just how unicorns manifest themselves in our world.

Of course, if you make it extrauniversal, then you've effectively made it God

I don't see how this statement makes any sense at all, unless you define "God" as "All the entities, beings, spirits, etc. that could possibly exist in a universe outside of ours."

Please excuse my earlier post--I don't find the 'incomprehensible argument' laughable, so much as curious. Thank you No*s for your fine, well-thought-out replies.

I can see your point there, butthe problem with that is, is that it is impossible to define any god without making it incomprehensible.

Is this supposed to support belief in gods? Again: how does one distinguish between "incomprehensible" and "nonsensicle"? Perhaps the reason it doesn't make sense to us is because it doesn't make any sense! Just something to think about.

It is a question that cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the skeptic.

Of course it can be answered to the satisfaction of a skeptic. You could argue that God is not willing to prevent evil, or not able to prevent evil, or that God does not exist, or that evil does not exist. At least those arguments would be comprehensible.

As for is God willing to prevent disastors, He can, so why He doesn't, I appeal to "who can know the mind of God?" I know you don't like it, but it's still the way I look at it.

I understand what you're saying, No*s. The problem I have is that you claim to know the powers of God, you claim to know that God is good, but then when asked why a good god would not use His powers to prevent evil, you claim it is impossible to know the "mind" of God. First of all, what is the difference between knowing God's attitude towards humanity (caring, uncaring, etc.) and knowing His "mind"? Secondly, by what method(s) do you know God's powers, whether or not he is good, etc., and why can these methods not be used to understand His "mind"?

I would further ask "Who can know the powers of God?" and "Who can know the existence of God?" and "Who can know anything about the supernatural at all?"

 

[No*s]

I'm confused. Let's forget the word 'evil' for a moment, as we seem to have a disagreement on its definition: Is God willing to prevent tsunamis?

For that question, I have to say "I don't know." At times He prevents something, and at times He doesn't. I think, in answer to the tsunami, we can clearly say He chose not to. Why? I can't say, nor do I guess.

That's a no-no, No*s--that's just how unicorns manifest themselves in our world.

The one I talked to yesterday told me the opposite lol.

I don't see how this statement makes any sense at all, unless you define "God" as "All the entities, beings, spirits, etc. that could possibly exist in a universe outside of ours."

You are right. I stretched myself too far there, and sort of begged the question. My reasoning was that anything outside the universe must be self-existant, which is a criteria I can only see attributing to a deity. That, however, is an assumption, and the argument presented the conclusion as argument. Sorry.

Please excuse my earlier post--I don't find the 'incomprehensible argument' laughable, so much as curious. Thank you No*s for your fine, well-thought-out replies.

No problem. I've been pretty curt myself at times on this board.

Is this supposed to support belief in gods? Again: how does one distinguish between "incomprehensible" and "nonsensicle"? Perhaps the reason it doesn't make sense to us is because it doesn't make any sense! Just something to think about.

I can see that. I don't make the argument I make as an argument for God. It is an explanation. On that point, I can actually agree. It doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean that there isn't sense behind it. What makes sense to us may be completely irrelevant in the long-run, and what is nonsensical may in fact be correct.

This statement might get me in trouble, but I'm going to make it anyway . We are small animals with tiny brains. We have trouble with basic things like mathematics and nuclear physics (well, they aren't basic from our POV). I believe it was Asimov who said that "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic" (He was actually saying this against beliefs like mine, but it is useful here to me, so I'm going to quote it anyway...but with this disclaimer for honesty's sake). We can only comprehend a TV because we have advanced to this point intellectually.

The same thing applies to children. They don't always understand their parent's desire. In fact, they are incapable of it. It simply cannot make sense in their position. When they get older, a great many of the rules start to make sense. Unfortunately, adolescence comes after that, which starts the whole process over.

What "makes sense" is subject to the learner. Things make more sense, and they become more reasonable as we learn. The more complex the subject, the more maturity and/or learning is required to master it. Sometimes, we are blocked because we have conceptions in the way that prevent our understanding something. Obviously, I think that is the case here.

I, therefore, agree. It makes no sense. My "incomprehensability" argument has little to do with either justifying or condemning God. I'm simply pointing out that the answer must be beyond us, and I doubt it will make sense any time soon. This may be either because God doesn't exist, or it may be because there is a God, but in either case, the order we see is senseless.

I'm sorry for being so verbose to say "I agree."

Of course it can be answered to the satisfaction of a skeptic. You could argue that God is not willing to prevent evil, or not able to prevent evil, or that God does not exist, or that evil does not exist. At least those arguments would be comprehensible.

He apparently allowed it to happen. I can't say why, but I can say all things in nature come from Him, if we take the definition seriously. Sadly, that's something I've been chastised for in the past while I was a Baptist.

I understand what you're saying, No*s. The problem I have is that you claim to know the powers of God, you claim to know that God is good, but then when asked why a good god would not use His powers to prevent evil, you claim it is impossible to know the "mind" of God. First of all, what is the difference between knowing God's attitude towards humanity (caring, uncaring, etc.) and knowing His "mind"? Secondly, by what method(s) do you know God's powers, whether or not he is good, etc., and why can these methods not be used to understand His "mind"?

I would further ask "Who can know the powers of God?" and "Who can know the existence of God?" and "Who can know anything about the supernatural at all?"

The answer to your question comes in two parts. First, I believe in Revelation. God has chosen to reveal Himself, obviously. That, I think, is the sole source of evidence about God. If He doesn't reveal Himself, we have only nature to say that He exists. If He hasn't revealed Himself, then we can't know anything at all.

Now, there is a second point in this. What we do know about Him, is only simile. It only describes one aspect of God. In all truth, it is an anthropomorphism, just like we do with death, nature, and many other things. So, when I say God is "loving," I mean that God will act in a way that means He loves us. However, God also said that He hated Esau, and this applies to a different simile. His actions toward Esau seemed like hate. Likewise, God is a God of peace, but this same God has ordered war, and even genocide, and is there a "God of war." A last example is "God is a God of healing," but this same God strikes plagues upon the earth.

People frequently ignore the latter, ugly things about God. The things that are uncomfortable, and they are difficult. I, myself, am gulty, though I've shaken more than a few people's faith through the kind of discourse we're having now. So, these anthropomorphisms are simply a means of Revelation, IMO, and they can only describe some of the ways God relates to us. As such, I'm not really saying much about His personality there, just his actions with humanity, and I can frequently cite both positive and negative actions.

I think you can see, also, how this doesn't carry over into knowing the mind of God. These distinctions only describe His relation with us. I hope that makes more sense. I can say one thing, and then keep it there. Without a revelation, though, I have no means to say even that much. What little positive attributes I can give to God based on the revelation I believe, are often quite confusing in themselves.

On your last question "Who can know the supernatural at all?" We find ourselves in the toughest quandry of all. Did God act in history. If He didn't, then we can't know anything about the supernatural in that respect, or even notice it. If He did, then we come to the problem of knowing which is which. As I've admitted before, I cannot give evidence we can hold in our hands of any of it. The closest I can come is the Holy Fire, but I tend not to hold that up. If neccessary, we can start another thread on whether revelation occurs, but that subject is a bit beyond this thread.

I have also stayed up too late on this forum again. Looks like another all-nighter. It sure is addictive.

I also just discovered there is a limit to smilies *insert smiley*.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have also stayed up too late on this forum again. Looks like another all-nighter. It sure is addictive.

Tell me about it! Great post, No*s, thanks for your insight.

And now I await answers to questions I posed to NetDoc and Scott.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Spinks... God is not only willing to prevent evil, but he has defeated evil.

Hoa boy ND. You've opened yourself up with this one. I know what you mean and would qualify it with "the final victory hasn't come," but I can already see the responses to that one (and in their shoes, would be making the exact same ones). I hope you enjoy yourself .

Muhuhahaha! *rubs hands together in evil fashion*

 

[No*s]

Tell me about it! Great post, No*s, thanks for your insight.

And now I await answers to questions I posed to NetDoc and Scott.

Welcome...I have a feeling that Scott was wiser than I (I've seen NetDoc). We all know what tomorrow is, so he may have stayed away in preperation and rest. I can't travel to Church much, so I'll simply read through the Liturgy . NetDoc was wise enough to get off early.

Muhuhahaha! *rubs hands together in evil fashion*

And that just proves what I have always suspected! You are demon possessed .

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm confused. Let's forget the word 'evil' for a moment, as we seem to have a disagreement on its definition: Is God willing to prevent tsunamis?

OK, so now we are jumping from "evil" to tsunamis? Is your contention that somehow a natural event is inherently evil?

I heard on the news yesterday that the technology exists for us to predict tsunamis. In fact they have now decided to install these buoys along both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. This is not "new" technology but has been around for a while. But I guess it's easier for us to BLAME GOD who allowed us to have this technology than to BLAME MAN for not using what we already have.

We seem to want to have our cake and eat it too! We are awed by those "purple mountain majesties" and somehow see the forces that created them as evil. We live on a planet that is in constant flux. We are in awe of the majesty and power of that "flux" but somehow think that we... mankind... should be immune to those forces.

 

[Faust]

( The uknowableness of God is firmly entrenched in the Fathers, and for every quote you can come up with, I can come up with another counter-quote, and often from the same Father.) Quote from No*s
Good point, but that also means that if you search well enough you can find evidence to support any proposition.( with varying degrees of strength ) Also finding contradictory statements made by the same Father doesn't seem to be a good source for either of our positions but it might lean toward disqualifying their use in support of positive statements about religion.
Please don't be put off by posts I make that may seem to be short on tolerance. It's not my intention. It's just that I simply can not get on board with the idea of supplying negatives in order to support positive statements about something.
For example, I could make the statement that the Loch Ness Monster is not a giant aquatic poodle. Grammatically, that statement presupposes the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, but presupposition skips over the responsibility of the person making the statement to say something supportable by evidence. It's starting on square two so to speak.
I see in your recent posts that your proof boils down to revelation. I can't argue that with you. I can however respect your position on the matter of faith and believe we could bore a good many people to tears on the writings of the early church fathers on just that philosophical position. I am however a born skeptic and can't change something so basic to my nature.
Faust.

 

[No*s]

( The uknowableness of God is firmly entrenched in the Fathers, and for every quote you can come up with, I can come up with another counter-quote, and often from the same Father.) Quote from No*s
Good point, but that also means that if you search well enough you can find evidence to support any proposition.( with varying degrees of strength ) Also finding contradictory statements made by the same Father doesn't seem to be a good source for either of our positions but it might lean toward disqualifying their use in support of positive statements about religion.
Please don't be put off by posts I make that may seem to be short on tolerance. It's not my intention. It's just that I simply can not get on board with the idea of supplying negatives in order to support positive statements about something.
For example, I could make the statement that the Loch Ness Monster is not a giant aquatic poodle. Grammatically, that statement presupposes the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, but presupposition skips over the responsibility of the person making the statement to say something supportable by evidence. It's starting on square two so to speak.
I see in your recent posts that your proof boils down to revelation. I can't argue that with you. I can however respect your position on the matter of faith and believe we could bore a good many people to tears on the writings of the early church fathers on just that philosophical position. I am however a born skeptic and can't change something so basic to my nature.
Faust.

Thanks

No, I didn't take you as being short on tolerance. I was simply saying that the Fathers did use the system I proposed, and did quite often use apophaticism, and what catophatic statements they made, they made on the basis of revelation also, sometimes personal revelation. So, when the two positions taken together, aren't out of harmony...at least when you look at the catophatic statements as simile. It was the use of those Fathers as evidence against apophaticism that I was quick to object to...and yes, I can bore people to tears with patristic quotes .

I actually wasn't trying to provide arguments for the existence of God here. I was seeking to relieve an apparent tension the argument presented. I'm quite big on having as harmonious and logical a system as I can, when it is taken to its logical conclusion. That doesn't mean that I can prove everything, it just means that I like to resolve internal tensions. The Problem of Evil posits a tension in Christian monotheism, and I don't like those. I, therefore, respond to demonstrate that the tension is resolvable, and thus, keeping my system "rational," in the sense that it isn't contradiction either logic or evidence, granting that presuppositions cannot always be logical...only the systems bult on them. Call it crazy, but that's how I tend to do things.

Yes, my argument ultimately boils down to revelation. I wasn't clear about that early on, and that applies only to the catophatic statements. The "unknowable" argument, I feel, is pretty reasonable without it if any form of deity is accepted. I can also understand how it wouldn't hold much water for a skeptic.

 

[Faust]

Quote from NetDoc, (I heard on the news yesterday that the technology exists for us to predict tsunamis. In fact they have now decided to install these buoys along both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. This is not "new" technology but has been around for a while. But I guess it's easier for us to BLAME GOD who allowed us to have this technology than to BLAME MAN for not using what we already have.)

Please don't take this as an attack NetDoc, I'm merely using this quote to support my previous statement about presupposition. This statement presupposes the existence of God which I believe is at the heart of the quote from Epicurus.
I see this over and over again and only wish to provide constructive criticism because this type of argument leaves the door "wide open" for agnostics / atheists / skeptics.
Faust.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But I guess it's easier for us to BLAME GOD who allowed us to have this technology than to BLAME MAN for not using what we already have.

Excellent - blame the victim. Humanity was sinful, hence the biocide of the flood. After the great Lisbon earthquake/tsunami that inspired Candide, the priests went out and hung the offending heretics. Now, being far more sophisticated, even theists who decry naturalism shake their heads, proclaim it a natural disaster, and shout: "Don't BLAME GOD, BLAME MAN" - much like someone baiting the rape victim about where she was and what she wore.

These, of couse, are the same people who pepper their conversations about what God is and what God wants of us with platitudes about how God's actions, intentions, and attributes are unknowable. Clever.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I agree with Deut, NetDoc.

Also, are you entirely sure that they have such technology in Asia? All of that is really beside the point, though.

For that question, I have to say "I don't know." At times He prevents something, and at times He doesn't. I think, in answer to the tsunami, we can clearly say He chose not to. Why? I can't say, nor do I guess.

Maybe you should guess, No*s. In fact, what's keeping you from guessing?

This really hits at the heart of this thread. Obviously, god chose not to stop the tsunami...actually, I think it would be more accurate to state that god chose to cause the tsunami. That aside, many argue, (even you, with your parent/child analogy), that everything has a purpose, and just because we can't see the good in that purpose, doesn't mean that it won't reveal itself in time, and then we'll all understand and be happy. The difference between god and a human parent, however, is that a human parent often cannot choose how to teach their children different lessons, whereas god can...an all-powerful god, anyhow. If god were all-powerful, and all-good, he could have taught us whatever lessons we'll be learning from this tsunami, without killing thousands and ruining the lives of millions. The fact that he didn't do that, speaks against his all-goodness. Please realize that I'm just using the tsunami as a convenient example--i'm not in a state of, "boo-hoo, woe is me" that Scott suggested earlier.

I have noticed from reading your posts, No*s, (and correct me if I've missed something), but you've never out and out condemned this riddle. You've simply stated that, "we cannot know god". To me, this means that you are willing to accept the idea that god is either not all good, or not all powerful...but for some reason you're choosing not to come out and say it.

Another thing--I believe it is you who provided the argument that we cannot hold god to human standards. I disagree. Christians set their standards by the example that god supposedly provided in the bible. God is the one who told us what good and evil was. Why would he give us a definition of good, and then expect us to not worry about it when he violates his own definition?

 

[cardero]

To some it may seem that GOD does not care but I have never K(NOW)N GOD to BE careless.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Like I said... You can't have your cake and eat it too!

God has employed HUGE forces to create our earth... they are still in force. Stopping them COLD might just stop us cold as well. But we can't see past our noses and see that God is STILL allowing our world to change. If we are going to enjoy the wonders of this earth, then we will also be exposed to it's terrors.

Biocide? I think not... however, he did flush out the gene pool considerably. Who are you to say that it wasn't a GREAT thing to have happen? Unless of course, you feel that you are omnisicient as well. I can trust God in much the same way (and far more so) that I trust the manufacturer of my dive equipment. If there is a huge issue, they have a recall! God had a huge recall, but the make and model continues on.

But back to the ORIGINAL issue. There is much more to fear than physical death: that is Spiritual death. Most of the people on this earth are dead already, but they don't even know it! God has made it possible to be reborn spiritually but we condemn him for what WE percieve as evil. God has indeed defeated evil, but he hasn't eliminated our free choice. We can either choose spiritual life or death... its all up to us! It's not a matter of blaming the "victims"... it's more like the victims blaming the doctor who is trying to help them after THEY had an accident.

But that has nothing to do with a tsunami... it has everything to do with evil. I have yet to see a plausible connection with the tsunami or earthquake or hurricane or WHATEVER as being evil.

 

[Jaymes]

Biocide? I think not... however, he did flush out the gene pool considerably.

Minor nitpick... the tsunami was tragic, but not that big in the grand scheme of things.

The birth rate per year in SE Asia is 21.3 per thousand
At 550,000,000 in SE Asia, it would take them a little over 4 days to produce 150,000 babies.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Like I said... You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Not to sound dense, my aquatic friend, but could you explain what you mean by this?

God has employed HUGE forces to create our earth... they are still in force. Stopping them COLD might just stop us cold as well. But we can't see past our noses and see that God is STILL allowing our world to change. If we are going to enjoy the wonders of this earth, then we will also be exposed to it's terrors.

Indeed. However, you must admit that if god were all-powerful, he would be able to create a world full of wonder, and totally devoid of terror.

Biocide? I think not... however, he did flush out the gene pool considerably. Who are you to say that it wasn't a GREAT thing to have happen? Unless of course, you feel that you are omnisicient as well.

Well, I will never agree that it was a 'great thing' for all of those people to be killed and maimed, but you will notice that I did allude to the possibility that this tsunami 'has a purpose' in god's plan, which will eventually be made known to us, such as a child not understanding why his mom makes him get home by curfew, etc. However, the entire point of this thread is in analyzing the idea that if god were all-powerful, he could have acheived the same ends without the use of a life-ruining tsunami. In fact, he could have done it without the use of any kind of negative phenomena, whatsoever.

I can trust God in much the same way (and far more so) that I trust the manufacturer of my dive equipment. If there is a huge issue, they have a recall! God had a huge recall, but the make and model continues on.

Oh....are you saying that there was something defective about those people? Such that they needed to be wiped out? Is everyone who is donating money to the cause going to be wiped out too because they are going against what god wants?

It's not a matter of blaming the "victims"... it's more like the victims blaming the doctor who is trying to help them after THEY had an accident.

...that the doctor caused. Personally, I wouldn't trust my doctor to help me if he'd just gotten done injuring me in the first place. I'd find a new doctor.

But that has nothing to do with a tsunami... it has everything to do with evil. I have yet to see a plausible connection with the tsunami or earthquake or hurricane or WHATEVER as being evil.

Alright then. In my eyes, something is evil if it kills thousands of innocent people, and ruins the lives of millions more. Something is evil if it completely wipes out several countries' ways of life. To clarify, I do not think that water is 'evil', nor do I think that earthquakes are 'evil'. These things are only 'evil' if there is something causing them to act in the way that they do--something other than natural, earthly forces. If you believe that god is all-powerful, then you must believe that god caused the tsunami and the earthquake. Therefore in my eyes, this is the definition of an evil god.