Riddle of Epicurus, your answer?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

God is Azathoth?

Written some good stuff "Lovecraft."

Originally posted by Nephthys
Well my definition is that it means he can do whatever. If he isn't that then why should I worship what seems like a glorified dictator?

So you won't worship him if he is as powerful as it is possible to be, but you WOULD worship him if he was MORE powerful than it was possible to be?

Your objection has flawed intellectual value.

Anything but an absolute being is nothing more than the kid with the biggest stick. Heck, even a limited god could at least try to fix the worlds problems, which it doesn't seem he is and lets face it, if this planet was a returnable we'd be asking for a refund.

And you're of flawed intellectual value!

Originally posted by Nephthys
And you're of flawed intellectual value!

He wasn't attacking you, Nephthys. He meant that your objection was flawed, is all.

I was only joking. I meant no offence.

The idea of a Christian (or any religious) God is absurd, and Epicurus succinctly established that. The morals of religions define Evil, and to them God is the absolute force of Good. By their (our) own definition, God is the enemy of Evil, but allows it to exist because... he has a plan? He's malevolent indeed to permit such a thing.

I prefer to think of God as a separate and wholly unconcerned entity with little to no regard for the existence of life on this little rock. I feel that makes him mysterious and comparatively more likable than the malicious abominations that religions concoct.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Anything but an absolute being is nothing more than the kid with the biggest stick. Heck, even a limited god could at least try to fix the worlds problems, which it doesn't seem he is and lets face it, if this planet was a returnable we'd be asking for a refund.

And you're of flawed intellectual value!

That seems to be spectacularly missing my point. He's still just the kid with the biggest stick even if he transcends that which is logically possible, which is a silly thing to say he is capable of anyway. There is no difference except a. scale and b. one option makes no sense.

If you want to go into the morality of the most powerful being in the cosmos, that's a whole different argument. But your original statement was logically flawed for... well, just read my original objection again.

Lucien, you are stating an objectionable opinion as an out and out fact. An error. Your claim that permitting evil to exist is malevolence is highly contestable.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lucien, you are stating an objectionable opinion as an out and out fact. An error. Your claim that permitting evil to exist is malevolence is highly contestable.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The idea of a Christian (or any religious) God is absurd, and Epicurus succinctly established that. The morals of religions define Evil, and to them God is the absolute force of Good. By their (our) own definition, God is the enemy of Evil, but allows it to exist because... he has a plan? He's malevolent indeed to permit such a thing.

If God is the ultimate arbiter of good (Socrates might have something to say about that), then everything he allows to happen is ergo, good since in traditional views, everything is part of God's plan (which opens up some curious questions into the nature of Free Will, but I digress.)

If everything is part of God's plan, then even the "evil" that is allowed to happen, must ultimately be a necessary part of God's scheme. Typically the reasons for this that are given is that somehow humans screwed shit up and thus God has to enact damage control because if he just wiped the slate clean and made everything better, it would violate our Free Will.

Apparently.

Originally posted by Autokrat
If God is the ultimate arbiter of good (Socrates might have something to say about that), then everything he allows to happen is ergo, good since in traditional views, everything is part of God's plan (which opens up some curious questions into the nature of Free Will, but I digress.)

If everything is part of God's plan, then even the "evil" that is allowed to happen, must ultimately be a necessary part of God's scheme. Typically the reasons for this that are given is that somehow humans screwed shit up and thus God has to enact damage control because if he just wiped the slate clean and made everything better, it would violate our Free Will.

Apparently.

I like the idea of a God who legitimately doesn't care about us, and isn't involved with our world or our lives in any way.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
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?

your ideas and answers please🙂

Ah, my favorite debate - the problem of evil.

God, in the traditional Western definition, is thus:

- Good
- All powerful/omnipotent/what-have-you
- Beyond human understanding or reproach

But this argument here clearly puts that into doubt. Motive is a strong basis for determining morality of actions for those who are not believers in consequentialism. Try this for example:

Motive: To create an abundance of good for mankind.
Actions: Allow evil and free will through either negligence, apathy, or inability.
Consequence: Bad things happen to good people, perhaps more often than good things do.

Let's examine the second part of the argument since it was objected to by a few folks. I'll use the following example - you see a young child of three years old in the water in a bay. You are a strong swimmer and you know you can reach the boy and bring him to safety. But you do not. You are both able and unwilling; are you not malevolent in your decision? Is evil not a lack of empathy and goodwill towards others?

I feel some of you missed that point entirely.

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
Motive: To create an abundance of good for mankind.
Actions: Allow evil and free will through either negligence, apathy, or inability.
Consequence: Bad things happen to good people, perhaps more often than good things do.

Why do you presume that free will is the result of negligence, apathy or inability? It is in fact a tradition Christian view that free will is the highest good afforded to humanity.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why do you presume that free will is the result of negligence, apathy or inability? It is in fact a tradition Christian view that free will is the highest good afforded to humanity.

What about free will is intrinsically good, can you tell me? Is it the ability to be something other than good? To weigh decisions without absolute evidence and make short-sighted decisions? Is it the ability to defy what you perceive to be truly good (i.e. God)?

I have yet to see any rational explanations which justify free will as a good concept by itself. I suspect it's because the individualist in us would rather be a unique face in a crowd then the cog in a benevolent machine.

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
What about free will is intrinsically good, can you tell me?

Define good.

However in the Christian tradition that I was raised in free will is the highest good in part because without it your actions mean nothing. You cannot be good without the choice to be evil.

Consider a magical "life saving machine" that automatically saves anyone is sees in danger. It has been programed to do this, indeed it is no more sentient than a rock. It's actions may be good but the device itself is morally neutral.

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
Is it the ability to be something other than good? To weigh decisions without absolute evidence and make short-sighted decisions? Is it the ability to defy what you perceive to be truly good (i.e. God)?

It would contain all those things.

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
I have yet to see any rational explanations which justify free will as a good concept by itself.

There is not perfectly rational reason for anything at some point all such arguments become an appeal to emotion or tradition. Anyone who claims to have a perfectly rational philosophy is either a raging egomaniac or trying to trick you.

So to appeal to emotion: slavery is bad and you're bad for saying it is just as good as freedom.

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
I suspect it's because the individualist in us would rather be a unique face in a crowd then the cog in a benevolent machine.

What an odd sentiment for a person with that handle . . .

Originally posted by Bicnarok
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?

No spoon, either.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Define good.

A solid place to start, but I'd say that the question is still posed to you. You have asserted that free will is in some way indicative of God's goodness, because if he had removed the possibility either goodness could not be defined or it would be an apparent evil; your choice on how you choose to follow that line of reasoning.

However in the Christian tradition that I was raised in free will is the highest good in part because without it your actions mean nothing. You cannot be good without the choice to be evil.

So in essence, evil is necessary for good? This makes common sense, I think. One problem is however the dilemma of an all-powerful individual who refuses to remove evil entirely because it defines good. Look at it this way:

- God determines all.
- God creates good will, giving humans the ability to choose between good and evil.
- We postulate that good will is good, but evil is not good. The terms are mutually exclusive. Yet one begets the other.
- We further speculate that good cannot be defined without being contrasted. So in order for good to exist, so must evil.
- God is all-good, because it appeals to our intellects that he is and furthermore we can cite much good coming from him.
- God must contain some evil as well, for his goodness cannot arise from a void and some of his works directly or indirectly lead to evil, even if it's by something as simple as making good.
- God creates both good and evil, thus making his morality unclear or mixed at best. We cannot say God is conclusively all-good without admitting that he has done evil or allowed evil even though it is theoretically within his grasp.
- We then sit there and say free will is good, because the idea that we cannot control our destines and our god, should he exist, is neither truly good nor evil (so like man!) scares us. It also makes the inevitable embrace of death unbearable.

Consider a magical "life saving machine" that automatically saves anyone is sees in danger. It has been programed to do this, indeed it is no more sentient than a rock. It's actions may be good but the device itself is morally neutral.

This is an analogy which fails to take into consideration how free will apparently works. If the machine weighed its own limited subjective programming and decided based on those decisions to save some and kill others, it may be a closer comparison. But no creator of said machine could be considered entirely good unless the criteria for said machine was better than the usage we have over free will.

There is not perfectly rational reason for anything at some point all such arguments become an appeal to emotion or tradition. Anyone who claims to have a perfectly rational philosophy is either a raging egomaniac or trying to trick you.

So to appeal to emotion: slavery is bad and you're bad for saying it is just as good as freedom.

This is a silly stance to have on rationality, unless you are applying some kind of hidden qualifier for "perfect rational reason" which then invalidates all formal reasoning. Because humans are apt to commit fallacies which are often emotionally fueled does not invalidate the objective concept of reason any more than a bad driver invalidates the use of cars.

What an odd sentiment for a person with that handle . . .

I love irony. And puns too.

Originally posted by Autokrat
If God is the ultimate arbiter of good (Socrates might have something to say about that), then everything he allows to happen is ergo, good since in traditional views, everything is part of God's plan (which opens up some curious questions into the nature of Free Will, but I digress.)

excellent point, if a flawless god created everything, then the way it is now must be part of the plan. And "evil" is probably a point of view, if your a lunatic impaler with no feelings of remorse is it your fault for being born the way your were.

I remember an episode of Dr House where a psychopath was the patient, and apparently this lack of "feeling" can be diagnosed. That is of course if the series is based on actual medical fact, which I think it is.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I remember an episode of Dr House where a psychopath was the patient, and apparently this lack of "feeling" can be diagnosed. That is of course if the series is based on actual medical fact, which I think it is.

House is barely based on medical fact, but psychopathy (technically Antisocial Personality Disorder) is a real diagnosis, though not a medical one.

There's a website dedicated to reviewing House from a Medical Doctors perspective actually. Is interesting to read.