Here's more proof that religion set back civilization for thousands of years.
:lol:
NO ONE supporter of deism was ever able to respond to this question since Epikouros posed it.
Um. Lots of people have answered this pretty basic intro series of questions. I think what you mean is "no one has responded in such a fashion as to force you to begin believing in a theistic universe".
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Not necessarily. This assumes that there is no such thing as prioritization.
Example: I want Libya to be a functioning democracy rather than a basket-case breeding-ground for terrorism. As America, I have the ability (should I choose to exercise it) to invade Libya and govern it for two or three generations to make this happen. However, I have higher priorities for the employment of my national resources (and people). And so while I am willing for Libya to be a functioning Democracy, I will other things
more.
In this case, in order to prevent evil from occurring, God would have to destroy our agency - he would have to end that part of Humanity that makes us Humanity, strip from us moral choice, turn us into puppets. Whether you believe in God or not, you have to recognize the logical possibility that - assuming a theistic universe - God could have higher priorities such as not destroying humanity in order to wipe out evil. So this first portion of Epicurus' paradox is built on a false assumption.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Also false. God is no more malevolent for allowing me agency to make moral decisions than I am malevolent for not enslaving you to force you to do Good more often. I could, I suppose. I have guns, and the training to use them, and I've handled prisoners who are likely far more dangerous than you before. That gives me the power to break your will and force you to do mine. Am I really malevolent for not doing so? It's worth noting, though, that in the scenario you paint, no one is really choosing Good - they are being handled like puppets to do Good. God, apparently, values our ability to choose to do Good more than he values the ability to force us to do Good. So this portion of the formulation falls prey to the same false assumption.
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.
and this is my favorite part, because it is actually the section that undoes the whole argument. Whence
does come evil? Whence comes to you this idea of evil? Whence cometh the necessary precursor to Evil, which is Good? What gave you this weird, universal standard against which you compare actions, thoughts, and words to find an ephemeral moral position? It's not an evolutionary advantage to have an urge to self-sacrifice (end your genes) for those who don't make the group stronger, but it is a moral thing to do. Cowardice makes you more likely to survive, but there's not a culture that celebrates it. There's not a culture, in fact, that
doesn't claim a moral code, and that doesn't claim a divine at it's center. You could say from a strictly materialistic point of view that things are good
for you or bad
for you, but you could not say that they are
good or
bad in and of themselves.
The existence of Evil, if anything, is evidence
of God, else, whence comes Good that we may identify Evil?
