Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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

Well 2 doesn't necessarily follow, perhaps he created evil for some greater good. And 4 depends on your definition of God, you could call him God for creating starting everything off perhaps, or for creating life, or whatever.

maybe there is no evil,

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

First, God is not a he, or in anyway human. Evil is defined by humans, and I don't think we can hold God to that.

The answer:

God is not concerned with the petty affairs of humans.

If you want to look at it that way, then yes he is malevolent on the sole fact that he applied freewill to us. What kinds of evil do you want him to prevent? Gays?

It's indeed the second sentence that kills it- the conclusion is a non sequitur.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent!
True

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent!
Untrue, bad things can result in greater goods. Good actions, traditionally giving "free will" can result in certain evils.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Defining evil is an extraordinary difficult task that has never produced satisfactory answers. There's also the issue of the "bigger picture" which people might be totally unable to see.

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
This presumes a certain definition of God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
First, God is not a he, or in anyway human. Evil is defined by humans, and I don't think we can hold God to that.

The answer:

God is not concerned with the petty affairs of humans.

God is Azathoth?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...

God is Azathoth?



I had to look it up.

Well, I'd grant 3, if he was willing and able there's no reason that there is "evil".

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?


...because it takes one to create a species that will deliberately set-up conundrums like this.

Because there is neither a god nor evil.

thats a boring answer

Yet a truly omnipotent God would not need for there to be bad things for the greater good. He(or whatever) could take bad totally out of the equation. Unless he is willing but not able or able but not willing.

In my opinion, evil is relative.

You might at well edit the poem to read:

Is God able to prevent Michael Bay from making movies?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Yet a truly omnipotent God would not need for there to be bad things for the greater good. He(or whatever) could take bad totally out of the equation. Unless he is willing but not able or able but not willing.

You seem to be assuming that an omnipotent god can violate logic, which is not universal in the definition of omnipotence.

Well any god who allows rape, torture, famine blah blah if he could stop it isn't going to be on my list for 'Most likely to be worshipped'.



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? Also, if he is 'God', then didn't he create those laws?

(I am btw assuming the judeo-christian model of god)

Originally posted by Nephthys
Well any god who allows rape, torture, famine blah blah if he could stop it isn't going to be on my list for 'Most likely to be worshipped'.



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? Also, if he is 'God', then didn't he create those laws?

(I am btw assuming the judeo-christian model of god)

Why would you want to worship God? That seems silly to me. I'm sure God you not want or need your worship.

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. As is the claim that Evil has a purpose.

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. Aye. It's why I can never believe in religious Gods. The preachers who'd create and spread the religion would call Evil an unfortunate byproduct, something to be overcome. Some would call it a way for God to test our resolve/character/faith. Why anyone would worship a Creator who puts us through Evil just to test us, when it's in his power to skip to the end result right from the get-go, is beyond me.

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?

God: Did not Voltaire comment that I am a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh?
Audience: But You set this all up. Why make it so that we are all so afraid?
God: Because in truth, there is no audience.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

This riddle of Epicurus is, as shown, flawed. However its essence is of some philosophical merit.
It is currently characterized as the "Problem of Evil" Which, roughly summarized is as such:
If God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, why does evil exist today?
There are many arguments for both sides, that this so called problem is not actually a problem, or that God as such does not exist.
These arguments run the entire gamut of theological though.
They appeal to the greater good of Heaven, to misconceptions of what evil may be, and even something called the best possible worlds argument.

If you are interested in this, I recommend checking out this link
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

It is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which in general is a very good source to get an overview of specific philosophical topics.

I think the riddle serves as a good counter to the compassionate God; compassion as defined by humans, of course.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In a way, yes. We are all part of God. However, it is a very, very large universe, and we are as insignificant as a grain of sand. It is simply a product of our ego, to ask such a question in the first place.

no, if God exists then we are not insignificant at all, he sent his son to die for our sins, i wouldnt call that insignificant. If you're simply saying we're insignificant on a "universal scale" due to our actual size..then that has nothing to do with anything the OP mentioned.

Anyway, the simple answer is this..

Evil is mans burden, not Gods. Consider this, evil must exist in order for good to exist, human state of pleasure is directly related to the good things happening to us in light of the evil things that could happen. Would you let your child ride his new bike at the park? Yes, so would i, but there is quite a good chance he may slip and fall or graze his knee or split a lip or somesuch, but we let the child go knowing full well what might happen.

Just like you can't storm into a nation, kill it's army and it's king and then say to it's people "there you are free, you're welcome" God cannot come down here and smite every petty theiving, child molesting, car stealing, money launderer who ever lived. Why? Because evil is OUR burden, not Gods. The whole riddle is null and void, simply because it's based on Human ideals and we have no idea of the ideals of any God.

I'm gonna have to pick 4. I would view god as an entity who creates something and lets it do its own thing, with absolutely no involvement. More or less an inventor, or maybe even just the builder. These universes prolly some off an assembly line like an XBox.

Originally posted by Juk3n
no, if God exists then we are not insignificant at all, he sent his son to die for our sins, i wouldnt call that insignificant. If you're simply saying we're insignificant on a "universal scale" due to our actual size..then that has nothing to do with anything the OP mentioned.


It seems you only look at this from a christian stand point. Kinda narrow-minded, considering the riddler could've been from any faith.

Originally posted by rader
It seems you only look at this from a christian stand point. Kinda narrow-minded, considering the riddler could've been from any faith.

Epicurus was an Greek from about 300BC. So I'm going to bet that he that most people he knew believed in the Greek gods/fate. He himself was an atomistic, materialist, hedonist (in the philosophical sense).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Epicurus was an Greek from about 300BC. So I'm going to bet that he that most people he knew believed in the Greek gods/fate. He himself was an atomistic, materialist, hedonist (in the philosophical sense).
I thought the Greek Gods died out long before that... I'm prolly wrong though.

Originally posted by rader
I thought the Greek Gods died out long before that... I'm prolly wrong though.

Yeah, you are pretty definitely wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, there is only one god to you, and that is a Christian god? What if I was talking about a real God, and not a Christian god?

no i just used the christian God as an example, im of no faith, so using one God from one religion in my example is the same as using anyother , if ANY God exists each religion has about the same chance of it being "there own" God.

Originally posted by Juk3n
no i just used the christian God as an example, im of no faith, so using one God from one religion in my example is the same as using anyother , if ANY God exists each religion has about the same chance of it being "there own" God.

However, I wasn't talking about any of those gods.

Originally posted by rader
I'm gonna have to pick 4. I would view god as an entity who creates something and lets it do its own thing, with absolutely no involvement. More or less an inventor, or maybe even just the builder. These universes prolly some off an assembly line like an XBox.


Agree if God is anything he's simply the guy at the top of the mountain who tosses thr first stone to start the avalanche. Evolution to me is all part of Gods plan, i mean if there IS a God. Seems sound to me, why create a lifeform/s that die at the first sign of change in the environment. If there is a God, i think it's very probable he simply gave us a life, gave us this world, said 10 words and left us to our own devices.

"Good Luck, Be Good and clean up after yourselves...Goodbye".
It's Humans that sorta added anything else, sorta like..

God "Good Luck, Be Good and clean up after yourselves...Goodbye".
*Opens door, leaves, Closes door starts car, drives off*
Man runs out in his underpants and socks.. " Hey, i don't know how to work the oven, How do we contact you of we need somth....." - dust trails from the car -
Man walks back into the house goes to the kitchen, sees a card pinned to the fridge " Incase of emergency, Gods Answer Machine - please leave a messege"
Story of mans life

makes about as much sense as any other explaination.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Agree if God is anything he's simply the guy at the top of the mountain who tosses thr first stone to start the avalanche. Evolution to me is all part of Gods plan, i mean if there IS a God. Seems sound to me, why create a lifeform/s that die at the first sign of change in the environment. If there is a God, i think it's very probable he simply gave us a life, gave us this world, said 10 words and left us to our own devices.

"Good Luck, Be Good and clean up after yourselves...Goodbye".
It's Humans that sorta added anything else, sorta like..

God "Good Luck, Be Good and clean up after yourselves...Goodbye".
*Opens door, leaves, Closes door starts car, drives off*
Man runs out in his underpants and socks.. "How do we contact you of we need somth....." - dust trails from the car -
Man walks back into the house goes to the kitchen, sees a card pinned to the fridge " Incase of emergency, Gods Answer Machine - please leave a messege"
Story of mans life

makes about as much sense as any other explaination.

Do you believe that one day, in the future, humans will be extinct?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I wasn't talking about any of those gods.
same for the greek ones and the roman ones, same for any of the Gods you WERE using. As far as humans are conserned a God is god, all powerful, all knowing, when has he ever been refered to as anything other?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you believe that one day, in the future, humans will be extinct?
absolutley, if not extinct then just watered down with another speicies, no speices lives forever, change is inevitable. But im half sure there will always be human on this planet as long as it is inhabitable.

Originally posted by Juk3n
absolutley, if not extinct then just watered down with another speicies, no speices lives forever, change is inevitable. But im half sure there will always be human on this planet as long as it is inhabitable.

One day the sun will die, and the Earth will be gone. Humans will one day be gone. If there is a god that thinks humans are special, then what does that say about god who lets his/her/it's creation go extinct? I think it is more likely that we don't matter to God.

Originally posted by Juk3n
same for the greek ones and the roman ones, same for any of the Gods you WERE using. As far as humans are conserned a God is god, all powerful, all knowing, when has he ever been refered to as anything other?

When I say God, I mean the Mystic Law. The Mystic Law is not a god, but I'm talking to people who cannot understand what that means, and there is no way I can explain. I can try, but this is what I get.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
One day the sun will die, and the Earth will be gone. Humans will one day be gone. If there is a god that thinks humans are special, then what does that say about god who lets his/her/it's creation go extinct? I think it is more likely that we don't matter to God.

See that? You're assuming God jumped straite into making a man, like i said "tossing the stone off of the mountain" he simply (if anything) made it possible for life to be, grow, change,survive/whatever" Im sure he might be a little sad if all life were to be extinct, but who knows what might happen? The 'V's' might come, and interbreed, take some of us away to another planet where the humans will be watered down but still there, 1 part of 2/4/8/16/32...../1000 it'll be a new lifeform, with a lil bit of human in, just as God intended change/grow/adapt/survive...live. Not necasserily "Gods Plan" but if he just wound life up and let it go the far reaching consequences could go alot further than earth.

Originally posted by Juk3n
See that? You're assuming God jumped straite into making a man, like i said "tossing the stone off of the mountain" he simply (if anything) made it possible for life to be, grow, change,survive/whatever" Im sure he might be a little sad if all life were to be extinct, but who knows what might happen? The 'V's' might come, and interbreed, take some of us away to another planet where the humans will be watered down but still there, 1 part of 2/4/8/6/32...../1000 it'll be a new lifeform, with a lil bit of human in, just as God intended change/grow/adapt/survive...live. Not necasserily "Gods Plan" but if he just wound life up and let it go the far reaching consequences could go alot further than earth.

I am not making any such assumption. I do not believe in any creation. I also do not believe in supernatural. That means God is natural. You could say God is nature, but even that is fundamentally wrong.

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

I never try to solve the riddle nor do I try to find flaws.

I've seen it before and always made the observation that the first question begins with a deity. Then follows with a conclusion of a male by saying "he".

"He" for me establishes a male human concept. I don't see the how can a male human be omnipotent. If the word "He" is replace with "God" then the conclusion would be more difficult to discuss.

I like a different statement "God is that which no greater can thought"

Heh.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not making any such assumption. I do not believe in any creation. I also do not believe in supernatural. That means God is natural. You could say God is nature, but even that is fundamentally wrong.

Then we share an almost identical view, personally, i think man created God to elevate himself above other men. but thats a whole other argument.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Then we share an almost identical view, personally, i think man created God to elevate himself above other men. but thats a whole other argument.

Did you read my profile?

However, I was answering the thread question: God doesn't care, was my answer.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I never try to solve the riddle nor do I try to find flaws.

I've seen it before and always made the observation that the first question begins with a deity. Then follows with a conclusion of a male by saying "he".

"He" for me establishes a male human concept. I don't see the how can a male human be omnipotent. If the word "He" is replace with "God" then the conclusion would be more difficult to discuss.

I like a different statement "God is that which no greater can thought"

Heh.

Enjoy Anselm do you?
But you must realize that there are a huge number of flaws in his proof of God argument...

I enjoy philosophy.

Does he have flaws? I'm sure he does. Just like you and me..we have our flaws. It would pretentious to say otherwise.

God farted/crapped out this universe and set the physical laws of the universe.

Now its all up to us, to do what we want, and its up to natural/physical laws when disaster occurs (flood famine hurricanes sunami's, meteor strikes asteroid obliteration etc...)

For me I decide to be in Christianity.

Maybe what some call god is both good and evil because of the definitions, actions, outcomes and labels we give it. But those ares only labels from a species that may not understand the workings of something or a process that is greater than we are.

its all just a test to see how we will survive imean this theme is in greek mythology the greek gods wud test the heroes too see if they can accomplish and conquer evil not just voilent ways other ways to and sometimes the greek gods help the heroes out a little when all seems hopeless so tths what our god is like bout he is testing us against greater evil nd he does help ius idunno why an idot like epicurus didnt think bout it bfore he made these wuestions i mean wudnt anyone do tht ??

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


God is not concerned with the petty affairs of humans. Sort of. God granted us free will to do what we want, when we want.

Funny when someone says "Why'd God allow Hitler to do the things he did?" God didn't allow it, he let it happen.

This is what I believe, that's all. Not trying to pass it off as law.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Sort of. God granted us free will to do what we want, when we want.

Funny when someone says "Why'd God allow Hitler to do the things he did?" God didn't allow it, he let it happen.

That's exactly the same thing. I mean literally the same thing. Allow to happen and let happen are synonymous.

And even if we ignore all the problem of a loving entity somehow valuing the passions of Hitler over millions of victims that died in horror we have to ask how free will created cancer or AIDS or the Black Death or tsunamis or volcano. There's a lot of good in the world, sure, but an "all loving" god shouldn't be creating any superfluous suffering.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
God didn't allow it, he let it happen.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's exactly the same thing. I mean literally the same thing. Allow to happen and let happen are synonymous.

And even if we ignore all the problem of a loving entity somehow valuing the passions of Hitler over millions of victims that died in horror we have to ask how free will created cancer or AIDS or the Black Death or tsunamis or volcano. There's a lot of good in the world, sure, but an "all loving" god shouldn't be creating any superfluous suffering. The old saying, "God has a plan." I don't pretend to understand it, I just go with it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The old saying, "God has a plan." I don't pretend to understand it, I just go with it.

Which isn't really that different from "God doesn't have a plan", in practice they'd be identical (unless you pretend to understand God's plan).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which isn't really that different from "God doesn't have a plan", in practice they'd be identical (unless you pretend to understand God's plan). You just blew my mind.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Sort of. God granted us free will to do what we want, when we want.

Funny when someone says "Why'd God allow Hitler to do the things he did?" God didn't allow it, he let it happen.

This is what I believe, that's all. Not trying to pass it off as law.

I'm not convinced about free will. I think it is an illusion, but I don't know.

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

God does whatever he wants to do.

Originally posted by The MISTER
God does whatever he wants to do.

Or is it more like, god does whatever people want?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or is it more like, god does whatever people want? No. Humans are finite.

Originally posted by The MISTER
No. Humans are finite.

But in the real world, god doesn't do anything, but people do things. Like everyone who says the you will make god angry. The truth is, what they really mean is that they will get angry.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But in the real world, god doesn't do anything, but people do things. Like everyone who says the you will make god angry. The truth is, what they really mean is that they will get angry.
In a way you are right because people behave as gods doing as they please as well.

Originally posted by The MISTER
In a way you are right because people behave as gods doing as they please as well. And for good reason. People offer me their virgins daughters all the time--because I'm a god.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And for good reason. People offer me their virgins daughters all the time--because I'm a god. David Koresh?? is that you?!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And for good reason. People offer me their virgins daughters all the time--because I'm a god.

You are in dead a god, that no one worships.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are in dead a god, that no one worships. You never know...People can be really very gullible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are in dead a god, that no one worships. I banned worship from my followers--too pretentious. Just mail one virgin daughter a day and you'll receive my blessing.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I banned worship from my followers--too pretentious. Just mail one virgin daughter a day and you'll receive my blessing.

Those are so hard to find. Can't I just send you an old hag?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Those are so hard to find. Can't I just send you an old hag? Is she chaste and someone's daughter? You get a C-, for the effort.

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

Everything after the question marks is a fallacy.

And a tad presumptuous of the nature of God. Epicurus seemed to have his own strict definition of what God is supposed to be, and his riddle debunks that God.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Everything after the question marks is a fallacy.

You have to explain when you say someone is committing a fallacy, or at least specify the fallacy.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And a tad presumptuous of the nature of God. Epicurus seemed to have his own strict definition of what God is supposed to be, and his riddle debunks that God.

Omnibenevolence and omnipotence are commonly advertised traits for God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have to explain when you say someone is committing a fallacy, or at least specify the fallacy.



Omnibenevolence and omnipotence are commonly advertised traits for God. And advertisements are never wrong.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And advertisements are never wrong.

Equivocation (see that's how you point out a fallacy).

Stop talking about penises. Not everything is phallusy.