Thread: 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?

Why would a being have to be omnipotent to be worthy of worship?

Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir

Why would a being have to be omnipotent to be worthy of worship?

Interesting point!

Epicurus was responding, I think, to a Platonic conception of God, as a perfect creator from whom all attributes in the universe sprung. Everything in the universe, including the Greek Gods, were thought by Plato to emanate from the ultimate Godhead, and it was necessary that omnipotence be included, not really or a logical reason but to fit Plato's ideal of elegance. This concept went on to inform the Christian concept of God. So in this riddle Epicurus is pointing out the paradox of that concept.

Plato doesn't seem to have thought that, at least not that I've ever read. The notion of emmanation, in Plato, stops at the forms. It wasn't until Gnostic Christianity absorbed Neoplatonism that the idea of emmanation from a single Godhead came about.

Moreover, Epicurus didn't write this trilemma. It was probably first authored by Sextus Empiricus, writing nearly four centuries after Epicurus, and attributed to Epicurus only by Lactantius.

As for the quality of the trilemma itself...it's not very good. Perhaps God simply doesn't agree with our definition of evil. This would necessitate that God wouldn't be good by our standards, but then again, who are we to argue reality with God?

See, all this bull**** makes a lot more sense if you believe in karma and reincarnation

Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir

Why would a being have to be omnipotent to be worthy of worship?

A good point. I worship Kim Kardashian's body.

Instant Karma's gonna get you!

Originally Posted by Guy Incognito

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?

Perhaps God decided that depriving Humanity of Free Will would be an even greater evil, than allowing us to screw up on our own.

Originally Posted by Goshin

Perhaps God decided that depriving Humanity of Free Will would be an even greater evil, than allowing us to screw up on our own.

What do tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, plagues, AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease, hemophilia, ectopic pregnancies, etc, have to do with freewill?

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

Plato doesn't seem to have thought that, at least not that I've ever read. The notion of emmanation, in Plato, stops at the forms. It wasn't until Gnostic Christianity absorbed Neoplatonism that the idea of emmanation from a single Godhead came about.

As for the riddle being misattributed to Epicurus, you're probably right. The quote is attributed to Epicurus by Hume. As for the Godhead not being a concept of Plato, I would refer you to Plato's Timaeus where the concept is first formulated. I'll grant you that the concept of emanation was a later addition by the neoplatonists.