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.
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.
