Three questions from Epictetus: How would you answers them?

[Jeremiah]

With respect to gods, there are some who say that a divine being does not exist; others say that it exists, but is inactive and careless, and takes no forethought about anything; a third class say that such a being exists and exercises forethought, but only about great things and heavenly things, and about nothing on the earth; a fourth class say that divine being exercises forethought both about things on the earth and heavenly things, but in a general way only, and not about things severally. There is a fifth class to whom Ulysses and Socrates belong, who say:
I move not without thy knowledge.-- Iliad,x., 278

Before all other things then it is necessary to inquire about each of these opinions, whether it is affirmed truly or not truly.

For if there are no gods, how is it our proper end to follow them?

And if they exist, but take no care of anything, in this case also how will it be right to follow them?

But if indeed they do exist and look after things, still if there is nothing communicated from them to men, nor in fact to myself, how even so is it right [to follow them]?

** Epictetus was a Greek philosopher but he should not be confused with Epicurus (Epicurus is the one most known around here for the problem of evil). Epictetus was a Greek slave who had been educated for the benefit of his Roman master.

 

[smokydot]

** Epictetus was a Greek philosopher but he should not be confused with Epicurus (Epicurus is the one most known around here for the problem of evil). Epictetus was a Greek slave who had been educated for the benefit of his Roman master.

Epictetus' statements cannot be included in any reply to them because you have them in a quote.

His third statement that if God exists, he has not communicated himself to him, is not correct, for God has communicated with mankind in the Scriptures of the Bible, revealing first of all that he is the only true God.

So, according to Epictetus, if God exists, then he should be followed.

 

[PolyHedral]

Epictetus' statements cannot be included in any reply to them because you have them in a quote.

His third statement that if God exists, he has not communicated himself to him, is not correct, for God has communicated with mankind in the Scriptures of the Bible, revealing first of all that he is the only true God.

So, according to Epictetus, if God exists, then he should be followed.

But this is quite silly: there are many different scriptures, all of which are equally valid, and all of which are equally vague.

 

[Jeremiah]

Epictetus' statements cannot be included in any reply to them because you have them in a quote.

His third statement that if God exists, he has not communicated himself to him, is not correct, for God has communicated with mankind in the Scriptures of the Bible, revealing first of all that he is the only true God.

So, according to Epictetus, if God exists, then he should be followed.

"Epictetus' statements cannot be included in any reply to them because you have them in a quote."

They cannot? I am sure if you tried you'd find a way.

"His third statement that if God exists, he has not communicated himself to him, is not correct, for God has communicated with mankind in the Scriptures of the Bible, revealing first of all that he is the only true God."

As another Greek said, "All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final. Reserve your right to think, for even to think and be wrong is better than not to think at all." -- Theron/Hypatia

The Bible can act as a guide, but it was not written by gods, it was written by humans. This means it contains errors, which is obvious upon reading it. It would be a erroneous act to relinquish your own thought and to follow the Bible blindly on the baseless belief that it is the work of a god. Especially when it clearly is not the work of a god but the work of humans.

 

[smokydot]

"Epictetus' statements cannot be included in any reply to them because you have them in a quote."

They cannot? I am sure if you tried you'd find a way.

"His third statement that if God exists, he has not communicated himself to him, is not correct, for God has communicated with mankind in the Scriptures of the Bible, revealing first of all that he is the only true God."

As another Greek said, "All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final. Reserve your right to think, for even to think and be wrong is better than not to think at all." -- Theron/Hypatia

So we get to decide who to believe. . .the revelation of God or Theron/Hypatia. . .that's a no-brainer.

The Bible can act as a guide, but it was not written by gods, it was written by humans. This means it contains errors, which is obvious upon reading it. It would be a erroneous act to relinquish your own thought and to follow the Bible blindly on the baseless belief that it is the work of a god. Especially when it clearly is not the work of a god but the work of humans.

That is your belief, which is no more authoritative than my belief in the revelation of God.

Each gets to decide. . .none of it, belief or unbelief, is a matter of proof.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The problem with answering this question, comes from the fact that Epictetus was a Stoic, and the Stoics believed that all things had a material/physical aspect, including the soul. So, for god to exist, to a Stoic, it would have to be material in some way, which really doesn't make any sense to me. But, to answer the question anyway, the only way to follow any god would require two things: 1. that there is evidence of the existence of said god, and 2. said god revealed it's will to man in some way. Since there is no evidence for my first argument, there is no need to speculate on my second argument. But, let's say that there is evidence for the existence of some god, we go onto my second point. There are several religions that claim that god has given them revelation about who he/she/it is, and it's will for mankind, and they all differ on major points. How do we judge which revelation is correct? Since there can be no objective evidence to prove a particular revelation true or false, there is no way to know which one would be correct. Therefore, my second argument is moot. It's all speculation. But, since there is no evidence for the existence of any god, it doesn't matter.

 

[Nooj]

But this is quite silly: there are many different scriptures, all of which are equally valid, and all of which are equally vague.

Maybe the gods want you to do what you are doing right now and that is their 'message', not written in scripture or passed down by a prophet, but in other more subtle ways, so that one can carry out their wills unknowingly.

 

[Mister Emu]

For if there are no gods, how is it our proper end to follow them?

It would not.

And if they exist, but take no care of anything, in this case also how will it be right to follow them?

That depends on its nature, specifically of its lack of care... does it not care at all, does it not care whether we listen to its advice(if given)?

If it is dispensing knowledge, and is a benevolent being, then I would say that following it would probably be a good thing to do.

But if indeed they do exist and look after things, still if there is nothing communicated from them to men, nor in fact to myself, how even so is it right [to follow them]?

I suppose, if we are assuming the truth of the idea that the deity has not communicated anything to humanity, that it would be impossible to follow them, not right or wrong.

 

[Muffled]

"Epictetus' statements cannot be included in any reply to them because you have them in a quote."

They cannot? I am sure if you tried you'd find a way.

"His third statement that if God exists, he has not communicated himself to him, is not correct, for God has communicated with mankind in the Scriptures of the Bible, revealing first of all that he is the only true God."

As another Greek said, "All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final. Reserve your right to think, for even to think and be wrong is better than not to think at all." -- Theron/Hypatia

The Bible can act as a guide, but it was not written by gods, it was written by humans. This means it contains errors, which is obvious upon reading it. It would be a erroneous act to relinquish your own thought and to follow the Bible blindly on the baseless belief that it is the work of a god. Especially when it clearly is not the work of a god but the work of humans.

It does not matter who wrote the text. It is the communication of God that is being reported.

It is not erroneous to accept what God has to say on faith. All too often a person's thinking gets in the way of the truth.

 

[Heneni]

For if there are no gods, how is it our proper end to follow them?

If there are no gods following such gods would not be proper.


And if they exist, but take no care of anything, in this case also how will it be right to follow them?

It they do exist and take no care of anything it would not matter to them if you followed them or not for they care not for anything including not caring about whether you follow them or not. Therein lies the irony. If you do not care you would in effect be following the non caring gods.


But if indeed they do exist and look after things, still if there is nothing communicated from them to men, nor in fact to myself, how even so is it right [to follow them]?

(The above statement is illogical: if its known that these gods look after things then the gods must have communicated this to mankind in some way, not necessarily verbally, or men would not have known that they look after things)