Epicurean Paradox

[Faith No More]

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

If one is willing and able, why would one still do nothing?

[Drich]

Because the preservation of Free will takes precedents to your/Epicurus' understanding or Judgement of God.

[Faith No More]

If free will takes precedent then god is not willing to stop evil.

[Tempus]

Because the preservation of Free will takes precedents to your/Epicurus' understanding or Judgement of God.

Which then raises the question of how 'free will' exists simultaneously with the god you believe in. A god who knows and has planned for the future. If this god knows for certain what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow then it is predetermined.

It's curious that your god, an all perfect being, is apparently unable to create the world exactly as they want it. Instead, they decide to use a tedious and self indulgent narrative to achieve it over an immense period of time. At best your god is pretty inefficient.

[Drich]

If free will takes precedent then god is not willing to stop evil.

Have you read any of the posts before the last one? If so you will know that evil is a apart of the gift of free will, it is the proof of it. Therefore it can be said not only is God not willing to stop evil He made allowances for it.

---

[Which then raises the question of how 'free will' exists simultaneously with the god you believe in. A god who knows and has planned for the future. If this god knows for certain what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow then it is predetermined.

Freewill as defined in scripture has nothing to do with the freedom of the individual choices you make.

Simply put, Free will is the ability to have a will independent from the Expressed Will of God. In otherwords Free Will as defined in scripture is the ability to sin (See the OP for exact details)

It's curious that your god, an all perfect being, is apparently unable to create the world exactly as they want it. Instead, they decide to use a tedious and self indulgent narrative to achieve it over an immense period of time. At best your god is pretty inefficient.

-Or perhaps it's just your understanding of Him.

[Faith No More]

Therefore it can be said not only is God not willing to stop evil He made allowances for it.

Which is exactly the essence of the quote you are trying to refute. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[Drich]

Therefore it can be said not only is God not willing to stop evil He made allowances for it.

Which is exactly the essence of the quote you are trying to refute. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

What were the implication of Epicurus' idea of a god who would not stop evil?

What are the implications of God of the bible's purpose of evil?

Do you see a contrast? The result may have been the same but the conclusion or understanding of evil places the Epicurean Paradox in peril.

(Oooo What a nice cake! MMMM It tastes good too)

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I can understand the the reasoning of suffering being the result of free will,except for a couple of quibbles,hardly worth mentioning really:

Free will is NOT a universal Christian doctrine. Because of the doctrine of predestination, some Christian sects deny the existence of free will. Make sense if you also accept the notion of an omniscient God.

Free will does NOT explain the evil done to or suffering endured by the innocent EG children and animals.


In my opinion,the problems of evil and suffering are simply incompatible with the notion of the Abrahamic god with his ascribed infinite qualities.

[Faith No More]

What were the implication of Epicurus' idea of a god who would not stop evil?

What are the implications of God of the bible's purpose of evil?

Do you see a contrast? The result may have been the same but the conclusion or understanding of evil places the Epicurean Paradox in peril.

(Oooo What a nice cake! MMMM It tastes good too)

Which if we assume is all true then Yaweh's motivation for allowing free will is of key importance. If Yaweh's motivations to allow free will, which are therefore his motivations for being unwilling to prevent evil, are malevolent, then the quote holds true. So, don't eat that cake just yet, and answer this question: why would Yaweh allow free will?

[Drich]

What were the implication of Epicurus' idea of a god who would not stop evil?

What are the implications of God of the bible's purpose of evil?

Do you see a contrast? The result may have been the same but the conclusion or understanding of evil places the Epicurean Paradox in peril.

(Oooo What a nice cake! MMMM It tastes good too)

Which if we assume is all true then Yaweh's motivation for allowing free will is of key importance. If Yaweh's motivations to allow free will, which are therefore his motivations for being unwilling to prevent evil, are malevolent, then the quote holds true. So, don't eat that cake just yet, and answer this question: why would Yaweh allow free will?

You sound like my wife (Don't eat your cake just yet)

Why does God allow sin? (A will apart from His own?) So that we may choose, whether or not we want to spend an eternity with God. In order for there to be a choice their must be true options. Ours are the expressed will of God or our own.