Blast from the Past! The Epicurean paradox from 300 BC!

[Excon]

Your posts are irrelevant as well.

Wrong Juanita.
What I stated was on point and more than relevant.
It is my, as well as anyone else's personal beliefs regarding the existence of a G_d that are irrelevant to such discussion.

 

[Paleocon]

You'll fail any introductory course in Logic with this. Read up on Logic 101. People can't just spew random utterances and pretend what they say is logically true. Religion works like that. Logic does not.

The conclusion follows from the premise, therefore it's a valid argument.

 

[Radical]

Here's more proof that religion set back civilization for thousands of years. The question about gods was posed by Epikouros (better spelling than the Epicurus on comon websites) around 300 B.C.

NO ONE supporter of deism was ever able to respond to this question since Epikouros posed it. Here it is:

"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?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'. "

That's the proof there are no gods.

Either-Or fallacy.

 

[Visbek]

That's the proof there are no gods.

Yeah, I wouldn't go that far.

I do think theodicy is a serious problem for some Christian denominations. As far as I know, it isn't as serious an issue for other religions, such as Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism.

That said, it is awfully entertaining to watch Christian apologists twist themselves into pretzels trying to deal with theodicy.

 

[Visbek]

Either-Or fallacy.

Sorry, but this is not an example of a false dilemma.

It's pretty simple. If a deity is the sole creator of all existence, and omnipotent, and omniscient, then the deity must ultimately be responsible for evil. Evil would not exist if the deity didn't want it to exist. And yet, it doesn't make sense to suggest that the deity which created evil is also benevolent.

There is no third way or intermediate step that is omitted, unless you are going to weaken the powers of the deity, or simply accept that it is not benevolent.

 

[DarkWizard12]

So, your god will indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of people all the way around the world in order to test your belief at the opposite side of the planet? All these lives where and are props for your belief? Multiply this for millions of times when unnecessary death and destruction occured throughout human history.

No, certaintly not my belief...but yes he will kill hundreds of thousands of people around the world. God has done that and taken credit for it, so no need for me to lay the blame.

In addition to being self-centered to a mental disorder level, I question how people choose to make this claim when they themselves know that this claim is false. If they think that it's true then we have recently explained the causes and symptoms of delusion.

Well...if you weren't the one killed(and you definitly seem to be alive now), neither you nor I most likely weren't the ones being tested. I find your comment offensive, if you were implying that i was referring to you personally when i said "to test man in judgement".

 

[Visbek]

If something bad happens to you, that's training for you; to handle bad events and actions and grow as an individual. Choice means nothing when you aren't allowed to make mistakes.

Yeah, about that.

A truly omnipotent creator deity could easily design humans to be fully cognizant and programmed at birth.

A truly omnipotent creator deity could easily design a universe in which humans have both free choice, and cannot make certain choices.

We already know that's pretty much the case anyway. E.g. someone who is a sociopath cannot truly imagine what it means to be sympathetic or empathetic, but can still make choices. Because of neurological and/or psychological conditions, they don't care much about other people, and the decisions they make will be different than those with humans who are capable of empathy. But they can still choose to be kind, or at least choose not to kill for the fun of it.

In some cases, we will put people through challenging, even traumatic, even life-threatening situations as part of an educational process (e.g. Spartan-style hazing and training; adolescent rituals, etc). However, in most cases we do not say that it is morally acceptable to inflict trauma, attempt to kill, or successfully kill someone in order to train that person, or other people, in how to handle a bad situation. That is generally not regarded as the action of a benevolent person; so why would a benevolent deity do such a thing?

tsunamis aren't bad or evil. They're unthinking weather events.

If I flipped a switch that caused a flood which killed 200,000 people and made 1 million homeless, and I knew it would have that effect, and I did it anyway, would you classify me (or my action) as good, bad or neutral?

 

[Logicman]

God casts evil into Hell in the Book of Revelation.

Thus to say God is unwilling or unable to deal with evil is utter nonsense.

 

[Grand Mal]

Because evil doesn't exist either. Evil is a deistic idea - a result of human imagination.

Don't confuse "evil" with "justifiable destruction". Human language is often inadequate to deal with reality.

Then there's no paradox.

 

[soot]

So, since *you* cannot disprove that a volcano god exists then a volcano god *may* exist.

That's what I called earlier a mental disorder.

Since it cannot be disproven that dark matter exists then dark matter *may* exist.

Is that statement indicative of a mental disorder too?

 

[sangha]

Sorry, but this is not an example of a false dilemma.

It's pretty simple. If a deity is the sole creator of all existence, and omnipotent, and omniscient, then the deity must ultimately be responsible for evil. Evil would not exist if the deity didn't want it to exist. And yet, it doesn't make sense to suggest that the deity which created evil is also benevolent.

There is no third way or intermediate step that is omitted, unless you are going to weaken the powers of the deity, or simply accept that it is not benevolent.

It's not a false dillemna - it's a false premise

Specifically, the premise that a world without evil would be a good thing. I would argue that the capacity to act evilly is an inherent quality of human nature without which, we would be something other than human.

 

[Jerry]

Yeah, about that.

A truly omnipotent creator deity could easily design humans to be fully cognizant and programmed at birth.

A truly omnipotent creator deity could easily design a universe in which humans have both free choice, and cannot make certain choices.

We already know that's pretty much the case anyway. E.g. someone who is a sociopath cannot truly imagine what it means to be sympathetic or empathetic, but can still make choices. Because of neurological and/or psychological conditions, they don't care much about other people, and the decisions they make will be different than those with humans who are capable of empathy. But they can still choose to be kind, or at least choose not to kill for the fun of it.

In some cases, we will put people through challenging, even traumatic, even life-threatening situations as part of an educational process (e.g. Spartan-style hazing and training; adolescent rituals, etc). However, in most cases we do not say that it is morally acceptable to inflict trauma, attempt to kill, or successfully kill someone in order to train that person, or other people, in how to handle a bad situation. That is generally not regarded as the action of a benevolent person; so why would a benevolent deity do such a thing?



If I flipped a switch that caused a flood which killed 200,000 people and made 1 million homeless, and I knew it would have that effect, and I did it anyway, would you classify me (or my action) as good, bad or neutral?

An omnipotent god could, but isn't required to.

 

[Radical]

Sorry, but this is not an example of a false dilemma.

It's pretty simple. If a deity is the sole creator of all existence, and omnipotent, and omniscient, then the deity must ultimately be responsible for evil. Evil would not exist if the deity didn't want it to exist. And yet, it doesn't make sense to suggest that the deity which created evil is also benevolent.

There is no third way or intermediate step that is omitted, unless you are going to weaken the powers of the deity, or simply accept that it is not benevolent.

Who says you have all the options available? Perhaps the benevolent, omnipotent deity knows that it is most beneficial to have evil in the world. Restricting me to two options (no deity or deny an aspect of the deity) isn't logically necessary. I can (and do) say that the deity is sole creator, omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient and simultaneously allows evil. This is not unjust.

 

[Juanita]

Wrong Juanita.
What I stated was on point and more than relevant.
It is my, as well as anyone else's personal beliefs regarding the existence of a G_d that are irrelevant to such discussion.

The OP stated that his ancient quote was "proof of no God", so I'm lost as to where this discussion has gone! There is no actual proof either way, so what are we talking about?

 

[Excon]

The OP stated that his ancient quote was "proof of no God", so I'm lost as to where this discussion has gone! There is no actual proof either way, so what are we talking about?

Well Juanita, why don't you know?

You said we were all wrong when what I said wasn't.


That is what got us to this point.

The OP was using man's definitions of what evil is, when to a G_D that may not be evil at all.

 

[ashurbanipal]

That's the proof there are no gods.

No it's not. God may be malevolent. Apparently most theists thought so prior to the classical period in Greece.

 

[tosca1]

So, your god will indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of people all the way around the world in order to test your belief at the opposite side of the planet? All these lives where and are props for your belief? Multiply this for millions of times when unnecessary death and destruction occured throughout human history.

In addition to being self-centered to a mental disorder level, I question how people choose to make this claim when they themselves know that this claim is false. If they think that it's true then we have recently explained the causes and symptoms of delusion.

:roll:

If you'll use Epicurus for your argument - you better get to know him a bit more.

You have no proof! That's not proof!

He was not denying the existence of gods.


His system included advice on the proper attitude toward politics (avoid it where possible) and the gods (do not imagine that they concern themselves about human beings and their behavior), the role of sex (dubious), marriage (also dubious) and friendship (essential), reflections on the nature of various meteorological and planetary phenomena, about which it was best to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification, and explanations of such processes as gravity and magnetism, which posed considerable challenges to the ingenuity of the earlier atomists.

Epicurus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



Just read his advice on the proper attitude towards gods.

and the gods (do not imagine that they concern themselves about human beings and their behavior),

Does that sounds like he's saying there are no gods? Sounds more like he's saying there are. :lol:

 

[tosca1]

Here's more proof that religion set back civilization for thousands of years. The question about gods was posed by Epikouros (better spelling than the Epicurus on comon websites) around 300 B.C.

NO ONE supporter of deism was ever able to respond to this question since Epikouros posed it. Here it is:

"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?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'. "

That's the proof there are no gods.

Since Epicurus did not deny the existence of gods, and had actually gave an advice on the proper attitude towards gods, by stating:

and the gods (do not imagine that they concern themselves about human beings and their behavior),

Epicurus did not deny the existence of gods. He instead stated that what gods there may be, do not concern themselves with us, and thus, that they would not seek to punish us either in this or any other life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus



Your argument is effectively demolished.


Now, will you be a deist? :lol:

 

[Dibbler]

You are all wrong as was he. You are all basing your arguments on the wrong premise!

What is the correct premise, please ?

 

[Paralogic]

Since Epicurus did not deny the existence of gods, ...

He proved there aren't any.

 

[Juanita]

Well Juanita, why don't you know?

You said we were all wrong when what I said wasn't.



Sorry Excon but after 3-4 days it's easy to lose the gist of the discussion! OK, let's talk about evil then. IMO souls were created pure but their curiosity brought them to this physical world of negativity. They were not created evil, they were not born evil! They were given free will to make decisions and choices. The Source/Creator has no need to interfere. Neither evil nor negativity exist in the world of Spirit. I do not believe that God judges us at all, but that we judge ourselves when we have our life review. God does not see evil, only life lessons that we either learn or not. Do not accuse me of spouting again! We discuss, we debate, we do not spout!

The OP was us

 

[Juanita]

What is the correct premise, please ?

I think that the premise, boiled down, is that God is responsible for the evil in the world; that he rewards the do gooder and punishes the sinner; that he saves one from catastrophy, but not his neighbor!

 

[tosca1]

He proved there aren't any.

No, he did not.


Read his "paradox" again:

"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?"

He's stating his point:

IF God is willing to prevent evil, but is unable to (which means He's not that powerful).....or He's able to prevent it but not willing (then that means He's malevolent)....then, why do you call Him, God?

See those question marks???



His conclusion to EXONERATE God/gods - meaning, to free Him/them from blame - is to basically say that gods had left their creation to their (creation) own devices after they'd created them. That, it's us (the creation), who'd put and invented these expectations about our behaviours, like as if God/gods keep tabs on our behaviours.

He's saying that gods do not concern themselves with our behaviours. Big difference.

 

[tosca1]

He proved there aren't any.

Here is what is explained about the writings of Epicuruc:

Short citations of Epicurus' works appear in other writers (e.g., Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, and the Greek commentators on Aristotle), often taken out of context or presented in a polemical and distorted fashion.

One must be cautious about ascribing these views to the founder himself, although the school tended to be conservative and later thinkers embellished rather than altered Epicurus' own teachings.

People at an early time knew that gods exist thanks to the simulacra that they give off, although the precise nature of the gods according to Epicurus remains obscure (for contrasting intepretations, see Konstan 2011 and Sedley 2011); but the gods, for him, do not interest themselves in human affairs, since this would compromise their beatitude (see Obbink 1996: 321–23).


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/



You're taking that so-called paradox out of context. Nowhere does it even remotely suggest that God/gods do not exist - but by that boldened statement from my quote, what message Epicurus conveys clearly, contradicts your own interpretation!


but the gods, for him, do not interest themselves in human affairs, since this would compromise their beatitude

He sounds like a deist - that he knows there's something to what the people believe, but he does not agree that gods care about our trivial lives! I assume that Epicurus might've compared us to fishes in a large fishbowl perhaps - an amusement of some sort for God/gods. I've seen a movie about gods in Olympus placing bets over humans as they watched them! Humans were an amusement!


If Epicurus believe gods do not exist, he would flat out state it! Why would he entertain the idea that gods do not interest themselves with human affairs, if he believe gods do not exist?

 

[tosca1]

Originally Posted by Paralogic View Post
So, your god will indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of people all the way around the world in order to test your belief at the opposite side of the planet? All these lives where and are props for your belief? Multiply this for millions of times when unnecessary death and destruction occured throughout human history.

In addition to being self-centered to a mental disorder level, I question how people choose to make this claim when they themselves know that this claim is false. If they think that it's true then we have recently explained the causes and symptoms of delusion.

After my explanation on the previous posts, now it seems you've presented us with a new paradox. :lol:

If you're saying that the so-called paradox quote from Epicurus is an actual proof that God does not exist - that would be because either you didn't understand what was actually being said, or you tried to use it anyway in the context you prefer even though you know it's not supposed to be taken that way.
Either way, you don't come out looking good and rosy.

If what you say however, is, indeed true that Epicurus believed there are no gods, then his reasoning is in question, and his mental faculties in serious doubt.......and he exhibits the very same kind of illogical reasoning atheists give, for believing there is no Creator (despite the fact that they - atheists - don't have anything to support that with any reasonable and logical evidence - not proof - but, logical evidence)!

Where do you (and poor Epicurus) fit in?



Your reasoning on your premise (upon which you've dragged poor Epicurus along with you), suggests that both you and Epicurus are at least quite.......confused.