Epicurean Paradox

[mediamogul]

Circular argument of the day award.

Also I would like to point out that Drich is arguing for something much more disturbing than it appears at face value, as he has done in other threads. He is arguing for a crusades type morality in which the supposed "will of god" is the only standard by which actions are judged. One is compelled to follow the will of god as the ONLY moral precept. There is literally no moral in this conception only obedience to god's will.

He has expressly stated that genocide, slavery, and the like are perfectly acceptable under the guise of divine command.

This is a dangerous kind of fundamentalism. One I doubt very much that even he believes and puts into action.

One could also point out that you are arguing for the type of "Morality" that put Hitler in power, and justified whatever steps it was necessary to resurrect germany from poverty and despair. For every single act was purposed for, and the preservation of the Fatherland, it's people and culture. (outlined in Mien kaumph) Thus sealing the fate and mindset of an entire country to follow a mad man where ever He decided to go. Hitler knew the power of controlling "morality" something you don't even seem to be aware of, and what is worse are willing to freely give to the popular culture you are apart of. (Those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it.)

Just FYI the travesties committed in the dark ages of the Church were not a call from God as you have misrepresented. for the same verses we have now existed then. Nothing in the word of God supported the actions of the Church. Their actions like the members of 1930 and 40's Germany, like your actions today was/is an appeal to general morality and preservation of culture and Way of life. Which is Exactly what you are doing here now.. Or do you want to talk about the sins of the gay community to confirm? (which would have you defend the ever changing popular morality, the same type of ever changing morality that Evil men seek to control.) Once in control they can bend and change morality at will simply by directing the culture to choose the lessor of two evils. As the sliding scale degrades so goes your moral High horse. What you will have left will be a pile of excuses as to the reasons you have let your moral values slip.

This pattern repeats itself over and over and over and over again. It's like every generation has to learn this lesson to one degree or another. Every couple of generations to a devastating degree.

So Yes I do believe in Absolutes, like the absolute standard offered by the Expressed will of God.

---

I'm pretty sure I just explained that Epicuras denies (not affirms, denies) the consequent....I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat yourself? Argumentum ad naseum ring a bell?

@Perhaps- Being able and willing does not "neccesitate action", but that's hardly a criticism of the argument, since that's precisely what the argument asks us, if able and willing, why is there no action (and before, again, free will is offered...the free will defense removes the "able"-omnipotence- bit)?

So do you now want to look up some verses with me? I will give you a link for book chapter and verses, you read them and tell me what you see. then we can walk through what is happening together.

Let's start in the beginning. Gen 3:1-13 this lays the foundation for the most basic understanding of sin.

Read these 13 verses and tell me what you see.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

No Drich the mistake was in the BELIEF that the only good was gods will and that they understood what that will was. It is a supremely dangerous mechanism operating today in the mind of abortion clinic bombers and in the Islamic theocracy that perpetrates the majority of atrocities against women for instance. The same mistake you are perpetrating. "God wills it" was the battle cry of the Crusades.

Don't even try that weak Hitler card. Hitler stated "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Same brand of fundamentalist thinking based on bogus eugenics. Also you will notice I did not argue FOR anything only against that same divine command "we are justified in anything" line you have been selling.

[The Grand Nudger]

Verses? I thought we were discussing logic here? Are you abandoning that fort now that it seems indefensible? Typical "missionary" bullshit. Here we are again though, your verses mean jack shit to me, unless you can establish those same verses as an authority (which you cannot). You can't even leave the fucking gates Drich, do you honestly expect to win this race?

Yet again, I call massive bullshit. Troll.

[Minimalist]

---

This was a good question asked and answered in that "other web site"


I'm often trolled by atheists who ask me this, what do you guys think?

I usually defend it in that it's not in God's nature to act in that way, but I'm not sure how good of an argument that is.

For those of you who don't know what the Epicurean Paradox is, it is as follows:

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?
Taken from the last time I answer this question:

My response:
We answer this like we do with any other question.

first we define the parameters of the question. Meaning we take into account the circumstances of the who or when the question was asked, and then we look at what is asked.

Second we help the one asking the question to redefine any misconceptions they may have in the questions asked, leading to a false assumption, then we address the question according to the bible.

Finally we draw together all of the points i have outlined so they can come to a biblically based conclusion.

For example we know that this Greek philosopher lived about 2300 years ago and was not privy the revelation of Christ and the teachings of the NT. at best He was living in a truly dark age which saw no light of salvation. If someone is using his words in the context He wrote them, then a simple explanation of the Gospel should answer each and every question Epicurus had.

But I know the general popularity this set of questions has found in recent days is not because of the original intent this philosopher had when He wrote this query. Our modern want-to-be's have taken this question and married it with a pop culture understanding of the words, sin, evil and a loose understanding omni aspects of God.

So what we must do now is re-educate and give a biblical account of these words and how they relate to the popular culture's understanding of these questions. We do this by deconstructing the question line by line.
(I took the liberty of looking up the actual quote)

We start with the basics by giving a biblical definition of Sin, Evil and Freewill.

Sin, is anything not in the expressed will of God.

Evil is a malicious intent to be outside the expressed will of God.

Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.

Free Will Is the ability to be outside of the Expressed Will of God on your own accord. In other words The "gift" of free will is the ability to Sin.

We have been given this ability so we may choose where we wish to spend eternity, but as with any real choice comes a price and consequence.

*Side note; Apparently Epicurus did not have a complete understanding of God's word or His plan as outlined here. nor would anyone of that time period, but to those who would twist this effort to suit their own agenda there will be little excuse.

On to the actual quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Evil is the ultimate expression of sin. It is the proof that we indeed have a will outside of God's expressed will. In other words Evil is the proof or ultimate result of free will.



Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

If we were not given the choices this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell. This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter) As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil. It is a choice made in a man's heart apart from the expressed Will of God. Because we have been given a true choice we have to all live with the consequences.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Again, Evil is the proof of Free will. Free Will and the consequences of those choices are the point and purpose of this life. We are to choose where we wish to spend eternity. Without "Sin and Evil" there is not point of been given this existence.



Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Because the Title "God" has absolutely nothing to do with how Epicurus nor the person using this quote defines it.

---

After all that jerking off, I hope you at least came.

[thesummerqueen]

This thread is so rife with special pleading fallacy it's putting me off my coffee.

[Faith No More]

To be willing does not necessitate actual doing. For example, I'm willing to call my best friend bob, but that doesn't mean I'm going to (especially since that isn't his name). This also does not contradict omnipotence.

If calling your friend bob would prevent extreme emotional and physical trauma, would you still refrain from doing it? This is the essence of the quote which your analogy fails to address.

[Perhaps]

To be willing does not necessitate actual doing. For example, I'm willing to call my best friend bob, but that doesn't mean I'm going to (especially since that isn't his name). This also does not contradict omnipotence.

If calling your friend bob would prevent extreme emotional and physical trauma, would you still refrain from doing it? This is the essence of the quote which your analogy fails to address.

In regards to omnipotence, being willing and able doesn't contradict its meaning. As for the idea that it is malevolent to let someone suffer, perhaps that is true, or perhaps there are occasions when it is necessary.

I just tried to analyze the argument for validity, not for its meaning. If it fails the validity test then it isn't worth presenting as an argument in favor of contradiction.

[The Grand Nudger]

The world is rife with "necessary" suffering then, I suppose? Trouble is , this calls the omnipotence bit into question again. Nothing is "necessary" or "unecessary" for an omnipotent being. No conditions need be met, case in point, there is no "need" of anything at all. Omnipotence has a very specific meaning. Remove anything and you are left with "extremely powerful, but not omnipotent" (also addressed by the argument). Able and willing, but still nothing (as you seem to be arguing for) does not criticize or invalidate any part of the argument, in fact, it repeats a conclusion from that very argument....

There's a reason that all attempts at apologetics with regards to this argument (an argument that is as old as the hills) rely on a complete redefinition of terms. We fucked up when we formulated our idea of a triune god, we fucked up hard. Understandable, since no one has ever had any idea what a god actually is/was in the first place.

[Perhaps]

The world is rife with "necessary" suffering then, I suppose?

Necessary in so much as God didn't choose to make it not so, yes.

Trouble is , this calls the omnipotence bit into question again. Nothing is "necessary" or "unecessary" for an omnipotent being.

That's correct.

No conditions need be met, case in point, there is no "need" of anything at all. Omnipotence has a very specific meaning. Remove anything and you are left with "extremely powerful, but not omnipotent" (also addressed by the argument).

Mhm

Able and willing, but still nothing (as you seem to be arguing for) does not criticize or invalidate any part of the argument, in fact, it repeats a conclusion from that very argument....

Being able and willing, but still nothing does not make the subject malevolent, as it seems to be what you are leading into.

There's a reason that all attempts at apologetics with regards to this argument (an argument that is as old as the hills) rely on a complete redefinition of terms. We fucked up when we formulated our idea of a triune god, we fucked up hard. Understandable, since no one has ever had any idea what a god actually is/was in the first place.

I agree.

[Minimalist]

Being able and willing, but still nothing does not make the subject malevolent, as it seems to be what you are leading into.

Um...if you are an able-bodied person standing on the edge of a dock holding a life preserver and the person next to you falls in the water you can throw them the life preserver or not. If you fail to act and they drown, you are something of a prick.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is nothing that you could add to the statement "able and willing but nothing" that would leave it intact, no qualifiers can be made. That's the problem.

"If able and willing but nothing" is not the part which leads to malevolence, this part leads to something altogether different. That's the part where we ask "Then wtf?"

Able but not willing is where people invoke malevolence. You could give a number of other explanations which might lead to other conclusions (convoluted ones involving nothing more than bare assertions in each case, and in each case I could offer a similarly derogatory remark.) Able but not willing is a problem for omni-benevolence, not evil. I think that this has been addressed at least twice in the last few pages..remove an attribute and you have no problem of evil at all. I think Min summed up the reason we invoke malevolence in this case as best as one can hope for.

I'm willing to wager that you won't be able to offer any explanation that doesn't fall under the "Willing but not able" or "Able but not willing" categories btw. For example, your remark about god not choosing to make something so. Is god able but not willing? Willing but not able? Round and round we go.

"Well, god didn't choose to make this so, he could change it, but it remains so." Able but not willing.
"Well, god didn't choose to make this so, he wants to change it, but it remains so." Willing but not able.
"Well, god didn't choose to make this so, he could change it, he wants to change it, but he gave his word." Not able (see how the qualifier makes this bullshit?)
"Well, god didn't choose to make this so, he could change it, he wants to change it, but he doesn't want to interfere." Not willing (see above)