The Riddle of Epicurus

[Scuba Pete]

Vigil,

Why shouldn't you jump in?

But physical death is not evil. Since it is not evil, then why should God prevent it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If you ever saw "Bruce Almighty" you might get an inkling for the causality I am referring to. In it, ol' Brucey decided to woo his SO and so lassos the moon and pulls it in close on a whim. The resulting tsunamis (how apropos) showed that messing with the order of things could have dire consequences. In fact the entire film showed how changing ANYTHING on a whim (even to postponing the deaths of a 150,000 people) could have unforeseen consequences.

Now I'm REALLY confused. Earlier, you said it was "obvious" that God is not willing to prevent tsunamis. Now you suggest that, like Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty", God means well but is simply not very skilled at preventing bad things from happening.

Hmm...something that is both unwilling and unable to prevent suffering for humans...sounds a lot like plain ol' Nature to me.

Why try to understand when it's far more convenient to mock?

Why answer a question when it's far more convenient to avoid it?

 

[linwood]

Now you suggest that, like Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty", God means well but is simply not very skilled at preventing bad things from happening.

Read closer Spinkles.

I think Docs implying that for all we know the act of halting/postponing something like the recent tsunamis might have had effects elsewhere that would have been just as bad or worse.

I think..maybe I need to read closer.

I dunno.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

That's funny, because dicto simpliciter was what came to my mind.

Since it is not a statistical syllogism and does not contain a generalization or numerical qualifiers - or any categorical statements, I'd say that the fallacy of dicto simpliciter is nonexistent in the Riddle of Epicurus.

So, I find the original premise as completely flawed and intellectually insincere. It's a nice diversion from reality, but nothing more than that. Even being the simple man that I am, I could never base my outlook on such an overly simplistic "riddle".

I would suggest that you CHOOSE to see the Riddle of Epicurus as flawed and intellectually insincere in order to maintain your belief system. I find the Problem of Evil to be one of the most damning arguments of all against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God. I would also posit that the diversion from reality lies with the group that suspends the only rules of logic that man is capable of understanding in order to allow for an uknownable set of rules that apply to an unanswering God. In turn, I could never base my outlook on such an overly convoluted set of rules. Again, as I stated before, this is where we part ways - in terms of accepting answers to the question of the existence of God.

But of course, I expect my words to be twisted and even some added in an attempt to discredit me rather than to face these issues head on. Why try to understand when it's far more convenient to mock?

NetDoc - you do me a disservice. When have I mocked you? On the contrary, I have shown you nothing but respect on this thread.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Scuba Pete]

TVOR, you have never ever mocked me... not with out it being obviously tongue in cheek. I am sorry that you thought I was reffering to you. However, I have been mocked on this board and in this thread. It only destroys the avenues of communication.

But the riddle is based on a HUGE oversimplification of a complicated issue.

What about "free choice" did you not understand or just simply reject? This has been completely avoided by EVERYONE discussing this thread (except me). People are DEMANDING answers from me and yet do not feel it neccesary to address any of my concerns.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You see TVOR... it left out the "E" factor.

E) God is not only WILLING and ABLE but he ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING TO DEFEAT EVIL.

But you don't see it because God didn't do it YOUR way. He did it HIS way which preserved our free will. How is that so convoluted?

 

[Master Vigil]

"But physical death is not evil. Since it is not evil, then why should God prevent it?"

I understand your point, but what about all the rapes, murders, etc... that happens in the world. Why doesn't god stop that? I'm sure he definitely could. I also fail to see how preserving our free will defeated evil, all I see is that it helped evil thrive. Or could it be that free will doesn't exist as we want it to, and that everything we do is based on cultural, moral, and parental upbringing. We never do anything outside of our nature, or once we do, our nature changes. Or could it be that god is not good or evil, and that perhaps good and evil don't even exist except within our mental perceptions?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Once free will is gone, man is no longer responsible for his actions or able to love.

A world without love is pretty meaningless.

 

[Master Vigil]

I'm not sure how getting rid of free will gets rid of love?

 

[Master Vigil]

If anything, god could make it so that all we could do is love. And with his great omnipotence and omniscience make it so that it would be real love, and not just a machine type love. Or god could still have free will, but have no way of choosing evil. We would still have the choices, but no one would choose evil. And with his great omnipotence and omniscience he could make that completely free, I do not put any limitations on gods omnipotence or omniscience.

 

[No*s]

I agree with what part of what you say, No*s, but I think that that is the core of this debate. The Non-Theists are holding God's feet to the fire, by applying the only "definitions and understandings" that we have. Theists, on the other hand, are willing to accept an unknown (and unknowable) set of "definitions and understandings", in order to explain the essence of God.

The logic is undeniable - and the premises are sound. It is the "definitions and understandings" that you reject, and that we hold to be "not open for debate".

Thanks,
TVOR

Precisely (and my brain is mush as I write this ). We supply different premises to the question. Both our sides are, frankly, perfectly logical, but it all spins on our presuppositions. I would argue that God, by His very nature, is unknowable, and that that is the most logical assumption.

We humans only really understand what we touch and feel...especially about persons. Take you, for instance, I know very little about you, really, and I understand less in all likelyhood. I know things about your personality, interests, age, etc., because you have told me or the board. These things I can know, and to some degree understand. I can also surmise that you have been aroused sexually. I can understand that you've been angry or hurt and comprehend those feelings.

I can do this, because those are common experiences or almost innate knowledge by this point in my life. You are semi-comprehensible.

OTOH, I cannot really know how you feel on average. I can't know the subtle values by which you make judgements, or what keeps you awake at night (unless you dane to tell me those things). I can't know what it's like to think as you do. You will have odd behaviors and quirks that you cannot explain to me, and I couldn't possibly guess as to why they occur. On those points you are at least in part a mystery, and we are the same basic type of being.

Now, when it gets down to animals, though, I am less certain. I can know why they hunger. I have that experience in common. I know what it is like to be born and to take a dump. I have that in common. I cannot understand a female dog going into season. Sure, I can see it and measure it, but I can't possibly understand it. It's completely outside my realm of experience to only have arousal part of the year...and then without ceasing. For that matter, I don't understand women .

Why do Hippopotomi harrass the crocodiles when they kill something, and then go away? I've never heard an explanation of the physical reasons, and whatever goes on in their mind...now that I really can't comprehend.

I can list roaches, if they have a consciousness. What do they think like? What are their values? If we ever create AI...imagine the possibility and mindset of a thing born without desire to reproduce (a possibility), hormones, or other such things. It is, again, outside our ability to comprehend.

We really are incapable of judging the mindsets of any of these things, and if they had moral standards, we really couldn't judge that. And they are far, far closer to us than even the closest deity we could define. For instance, Zeus wasn't just some big tough guy in Greek mythology...he was the sky. When you look at it that way, manifesting oneself in a body, and having the sky as your body, without age, without corruption, and I don't think we could understand him. Now, the God in question in this thread is without limit, outside the universe, without weakness, without desire, without beginning, without end, outside time, etc. All our human appellations given to this type of being must be similes or metaphors.

Now, when we can truly understand the mentality, and the mores, of the animals around us, or when we can easily grasp other cultures, then I will concede a possibility of understanding God. However, given what we have experienced and what we do know, then we have no hope of getting even the slightest handel on God, and I believe that this is confirmed daily by our experiences with other people and animals to whom we have far closer kin.

Given my argument above, and I believe it sound, without revelation, then God cannot be known in any way except, maybe, some vague creator. Revelation, however, is another thread, and it's quite unprovable. Nonetheless, with the above, it at least makes the Epicurian Riddle inapplicable to the definition of God we tend to be using in this thread (and most likely any for that matter).

(I have enjoyed this thread ).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What about "free choice" did you not understand or just simply reject?

I did not understand. Please explain how "free choice" is dependent on permitting and/or creating/perpetrating evil.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Given my argument above, and I believe it sound, without revelation, then God cannot be known in any way except, maybe, some vague creator. Revelation, however, is another thread, and it's quite unprovable. Nonetheless, with the above, it at least makes the Epicurian Riddle inapplicable to the definition of God we tend to be using in this thread (and most likely any for that matter).

I completely agree. The "Problem of Evil" exists only for a God that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If you acknowledge a Deity that creates|perpetrates|permits malevolence, and you reject the attribute of omnibenevolence, then you have successfully resolved the "Problem of Evil".

Just note that this resolution is far different than (a) blaming the victims, or (b) asserting that malevolence is a necessary precondition of "free choice". It is also far different than the selective allegory defense, where one presumably gets to take gLk 10:12 as "Gospel truth" while Lk 17:29 is relegated to story.

(I have enjoyed this thread ).

I've enjoyed your participation.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Unlike the animal kingdom, humans possess the ability to choose to do good or evil. We call this "Free Will". In fact, most every trait in the animal kingdom can be reduced to procreation or the pursuit of food. They don't build atom bombs, and neither do they build atomic reactors.


For every discovery man has made, there exists equal opportunities for good as for evil. Fire can be used for heat or to destroy a house or forest. Food can be used to feed the body, or to make us unhealthy and obese. Atomic power is another such discovery whose opposites are obvious, but there are some where the dichotomy may not be readily apparent.


Humans are also creatures of emotions. We display a full range of emotions from sacrificial love to sacrificial hate. Man uses his emotions to determine just how he will use his discoveries. I would contend that Charles Manson was not demonstrating love when he killed. Neither was Mother Theresa hateful of those she served. Almost always, examples of extreme hate or love will have a profound impact on others. That is the nature of extremes.

Subsequently, our lives are made of our choices: Choices to love or to hate. One can not exist without the other. In fact, hate is the absence of love just as evil is the absence of God. America was formed out of a need for this "freedom". "Give me liberty or give me death!" The need to be able to choose can be seen at all stages of life and we cherish it. When we see societies and cultures where these basic freedoms are taken away we shudder inwardly.


But we demand of God to eradicate evil. When he does that (the flood) we complain of him doing the same. We plead with him again to get rid of all the evil in the world, and simply have no idea that we are either asking him to make us into mindless robots with no free will of our own or to destroy the world yet once more.


You may make of this what you will. Call me a prophet or charlatan, for it does not matter what men may say of me. The acceptance or rejection of these ideas is also a choice. How you accept or reject is yet another choice. Yes, my feelings may be bruised when people resort to putting words in my mouth or see this as me picking a fight with them. Some will stop and think and see this riddle as a fool's paradox with no real answer... much like if God is all powerful can he create a stone so large that not even he can move it? Some will bristle at that reference and choose to embrace it as the crux of all reason.


That's OK by me. I am not going to try to force you to choose one over the other. God won't either. But one of us is arguing with the signpost and will be taking the wrong way home. For what it's worth, we are betting our lives on our choice.

 

[Scott1]

The Riddle of Epicurus (as stated at the beginning of this thread) is a concise rendering of the Problem of Evil. From a purely logical standpoint, it is rock solid, and is one of the cornerstones from which most Atheists (or in my case, Agnostics) begin to doubt the existence of God.

Rock solid? My friend, you know I love ya, but come on.... this is high school stuff.... I really don't understand why it attracts so many of you.

The only way a Theist can deny the unstated conclusion - that the Judeo-Christian version of God (omnipotent, all-loving, omniscient) does not exist - is to deny that the rules of logic and rational thought that mankind lives by apply to God

Well I have a rule to NEVER make definitive statements like that.

Rules of logic and rational thought come into a discussion about a theoretical God and his theoretical love of his theoretical children?

Rational? Let's have some deep rational, logical discourse about the Easter bunny.....

With half-due respect,
Scott

ooooh... almost forgot: Ceridwen, I'm not sure how to answer your question.... I believe God is good (evidence sometimes to the contrary) but admit that my human understanding (or lack thereof) of good and evil and what God is could mean that ANYTHING I believe about God or faith is wrong..... you know me better, I never implied that my faith is anything but that: Faith.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But we demand of God to eradicate evil. When he does that (the flood) we complain of him doing the same.

When theist's "demand of God to eradicate evil", they no doubt expect a proportional response along with some sensitivity to collateral damage.

We plead with him again to get rid of all the evil in the world, ...

Was the tsunami, with its "cleansing" of entire villages, a case of God getting rid of evil? Certainly some fundamentalists make such a case.

..., and simply have no idea that we are either asking him to make us into mindless robots with no free will of our own or to destroy the world yet once more.

Are you seriously arguing that the widespread devastation was necessary to uphold "free will"?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Rock solid? My friend, you know I love ya, but come on.... this is high school stuff.... I really don't understand why it attracts so many of you.

Odd that. It was around high school when I began to question God on this very front. At that age, I was not capable of forming my thoughts into something as well constructed as the Riddle of Epicurus, but that exact line of thought is what started me on the road.

Rules of logic and rational thought come into a discussion about a theoretical God and his theoretical love of his theoretical children?

Exactly. This is why I have respect for you in your belief system, Scott. I know that you base your belief in God on your heart, and you make no claim to anything else. I do not share your belief system, but I STRONGLY admire your honesty regarding why you hold such beliefs.

With half-due respect,

If that is what you deem myself or my position worth, I'll take it. The fact that we do not agree on this issue does not preclude my respecting you.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'll take one last stab at it....

NetDoc-- How might we best characterize a God who is unwilling to prevent suffering (i.e. benevolent, malevolent, loving, impersonal, lazy, etc.)? No*s, for one, characterizes God as an impersonal entity that cannot be held to human standards (much like a snail or an orange).

 

[SoulTYPE]

I'll take one last stab at it....

NetDoc-- How might we best characterize a God who is unwilling to prevent suffering (i.e. benevolent, malevolent, loving, impersonal, lazy, etc.)?.

Satan.

 

[Scuba Pete]

NetDoc-- How might we best characterize a God who is unwilling to prevent suffering

I don't know... that's not my God's MO.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

"If you believe in forever, then (physical) life is just a one night stand." Spiritual death is the real crisis, and that is what the Garden of Eden was all about. We die spiritually very early on with our first sin. We are then given the rest of our lives to "Choose Life". But God will not force us to love him, for that is not real love. It's not a matter of "blaming the victims" but of people choosing to get into the life boat instead of trying to swim for shore on their own, because they simply can not believe in invisible pink lifeboats. The lifeboats are real enough, but we choose to not see them.