Epicurean Paradox

[Mister Agenda]

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

That this guy defines raising legitimate issues as trolling.

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.

It doesn't resove the paradox, that's for sure.

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

Taken from the last time I answer this question: My response:
We answer this like we do with any other question.

Do anything but tackle it straight on?

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.

It doesn't matter who raised the paradox, it must stand or fall on it's own. Dissecting the questioner instead of the question is deflection.

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.

It's not a question about the Bible. It's a question about God. If the resolution to the paradox is in the Bible, fine, but the answer has to stand or fall on its own, just like the paradox.

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

I notice this method for answering a question never resorts to reason or evidence.

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.

You prove that by standing up your explanation against the paradox, not against Epicurus. What age Epicurus lived in is irrelevant.

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.

That's because the Paradox of Epicurus has stood the test of time and means exactly what it says now as it did then.

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.

I have a feeling you're the one about to come up with idiosyncratic definitions of these terms.

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)

The re-education thing might not work over the internet, perhaps a camp of some sort?

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

Wouldn't you do better to go with the sense in which Epicurus is using his terms? That is, wouldn't it be more honest to do so?

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

The Epicurean Paradox makes no mention of sin, so redefining it superfluous.

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

In the sense that Epicurus used it, evil was both human cruelty and natural suffering. To address the paradox you have to address it as it was meant.

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

The paradox isn't about sin, nor about the definition of evil you are using.

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.

The paradox isn't about free will. Even if it were, free will doesn't address natural suffering.

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.

I would say irrelevant to the paradox, but when you postulate a God that gives you free will and damns you for using it any way other than he prescribes, you make a good case for a God that is not that benevolent.

*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.

No need for him to address what hasn't yet been written. The question is if the writings you rely on actually address what Epicurus has written. Given that you have to change what Epicurus said to get the result you want, it doesn't look good.

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.

I am going to parse that as 'God is omnipotent and able to prevent evil if he wanted to.'

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.

So God creates us to spend eternity in heaven, what's the problem with that?

This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter).

This is true failure of imagination. All God has to do is not create any souls to exist in Hell at all. Why have hell in the first place? It sounds like what it is: a device to scare people into following your particular religion by making the consequences of not so doing so horrendous that people will follow it if they think there's a 1% chance it's true. Why does God have a desire to have any souls tortured for all eternity? Why would an omniscient God want something like that around? How could an omnibenevolent God not only tolerate eternal suffering but require it? Painting God as a capricious potentate may have resonated with ancient Near Easterners, but we've come a long way since then and can recognize it as monstrous, just as we can now recognize one human owning another as property is monstrous while the ancients considered it natural.

As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil.

It's an awful lot like the choice a mugger gives you when he gives you the option of 'your money or your life'...if the mugger followed you around at a distance and based his decision to kill you or not on whether you crossed at the light or in the middle of the street.

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.

Clearly you've gone with 'able but not willing'.

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.

So, will you have Free Will in heaven? I hear the answer is yes, and that there was quite a row with a third of the angels. No doubt free will in heaven will work THIS time with humans.

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 pretty sure Epicurus meant a powerful being responsible for our existence. Do you think God is NOT a powerful being responsible for our existence?

Conclusion: what you've presented here makes a case for a God who values Free Will above benevolence and provides for eternal torture for actually exercising Free Will to do anything but obey him. Clearly a God who is omnipotent but malevolent, who may be worth worshiping to avoid an eternity of torment, but is not worthy of worship because of his sadistic tendencies (claiming his imperfect creations deserve their torment when they are as he made them is a particularly malevolent touch).