Argument from evil, restated

[Esquilax]

Again, in each case, it isn't god being judged, but god claims.

That's a total cop-out. If you make a statement, like "God is evil." then you are judging both a certain conception of god and the claim about god. If the god, as conceived, actually exists, then you are if fact pronouncing judgement on that God. For example, if I say, "That chair is stable because it has four legs," and you say, "No it's not stable. It has four legs but one is broken." then we are talking about both the chair and why it is or is not stable.

I would have thought that this much time on this forum would have shown you that, when an atheist makes a statement like that, they're doing so while operating with a worldview in which that god does not exist, right?

[Drich]

The argument from evil, atheism's killer argument. Killer because the believer's can't get around it, not that they will ever admit it. I doubt that anybody ever put it as eloquently as Epicurus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
There really is no way to dispute the truth of this, and it is not like I didn't try. But you can look and look and look, and it is still there. Evil exists. God is supposedly omnimax. That means it had to come from him. Everything comes from him. That means he is responsible for evil, which means he is a malevolent being. What kind of god is that?

Yeah, I know that your religioholics are going to tie themselves up in all kinds of knots because they are now in danger of not getting their god-fix. (Maybe we should start a new 12-step group for these guys. The higher power would be real-world evidence) When you've been immersed in this from as long back as you can remember, it is difficult to free your mind from it. It is quite frightening, actually. I don't think I will get much argument about that from my fellows on this site that came to atheism from religious backgrounds. Especially if they had parents that were kind of fanatical. You cannot bear the thought that there is no one up there. You always thank him for all the good things, and let him off the hook for the bad things. Why do you think that they are called “good God-fearing people”? They are afraid, that is why. Oh, sure they will tell you about the wonders of God's love, but even if they do not admit it they are frightened. What if I'm gonna be one of those who doesn't get to go to heaven? What if I messed up somehow? I can't get mad at these guys, no matter how bloody annoying they may get, because that used to be me.

But then it finally sinks in – there is no workable theodicy to let sky-daddy off the hook. It just doesn't make any bloody sense any other way. No one is there. You can A/S/K all you want, if you think you are getting an answer that is just because you want to be. It isn't reality. Then one day I was struck from my RD-400 while on the road to Sodom-on-the-Hudson (aka NYC) and a booming voice came out of the sky and spoke to me:“Why? Why? Why are you falling for this crap? Reality is far more interesting, and Christopher Hitchens is a far better writer than those iron-age nomads. And he has a sense of humor, something they sorely lack! Pick up your cycle and run rings around every Hardly-Ableson you come across as a sign of your conversion to reality!

I was saved! Thanks to the great god Reality, which could no longer be denied. And God can't blame anyone but his own self. If he had just not put that damned tree in the garden and committed the first act of entrapment. (It kinda gives you this picture of J Edgar Hoover with a beard and flowing white robe. Ugh! That's what I get for putting cheap gin in my martini's.) That brought evil into the world and the whole thing went to hell in a bucket. And Jstrodel, Drippy and GC can scream all they want, but Reality shall smite their sky-daddy over and over again. Hallelujah!

If the Epicurean Paradox is your trump card your argument is in trouble.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-11945.html

[Praetorian]

Round amd round we go.

A: "Problem of evil."

C: "Free will."

A: "What part of, 'omnipotent' don't you understand?"

C: "Mysterious ways!"

It's sickening.

[Ryantology]

If the Epicurean Paradox is your trump card your argument is in trouble.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-11945.html

Pay special attention to everyone who tears Drich's argument to shreds afterwards, it'll save you the trouble of having to do it again.

[Drich]

Don't hurt yourself trying to pat yourself on the back ryan, because if you thought you tore this argument to shreds then you did not understand what was being discussed.

The primis is simple. The paradox fails because Epricus could not have known the God of the bible as He wrote his supposed paradox before the Bible was compiled, thus depriving him of the knowledge needed to establish the paradox in the first place. At best what has happened is epiey was speaking of the only gods that were avaible to him. (The greek and roman gods) who (some of which) do actually claim to be Omni max-ish beings.

The God of the bible makes no such claim. The God of the bible simply states that He is the Alpha and the omega, the Beginning and end of everything. (Which mean He is what He wants to be when He wants to be it.) This allows Him to power to yield to stupid paradoxical foolishness like epiey's (and some of your) best efforts.

So without a claim to Omni benevolence the paradox fails. Unless you are speaking of the greek and roman gods who this paradox was original written against.

[FallentoReason]

If he's not omnibenevolent, then why suppose he knows the best way to live?

[Ryantology]

Don't hurt yourself trying to pat yourself on the back ryan, because if you thought you tore this argument to shreds then you did not understand what was being discussed.

That thread predates my joining here, so I could not be patting myself on the back.

The primis is simple. The paradox fails because Epricus could not have known the God of the bible as He wrote his supposed paradox before the Bible was compiled, thus giving him the knowledge needed to establish the paradox in the first place.

The response is even simpler: If God created the universe and everything within it, and evil exists within the universe, then God either directly created evil, or created the conditions which allow evil to happen, and it follows that all evil is God's fault. God could have made evil impossible but chose not to, so. God could have created humans to be incapable of evil, but chose not to. Even if he gave mankind free will to commit evil, the evil created as a result of that is still his responsibility, as it only exists as a result of his choice to offer free will. With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. It all comes back to him in the end.

If Epicurus had the chance to read the Bible and saw how God was depicted, he would have known that his paradox was unnecessary, because God himself is a thoroughly evil character.

[Drich]

If he's not omnibenevolent, then why suppose he knows the best way to live?

I don't understand the question

---

That thread predates my joining here, so I could not be patting myself on the back.

I can remember who it was but someone else made that same claim, and totally did not grasp what was being discussed. The other person simply kept spouting the typical atheist argument meant to over turn the typical Christian answer to this paradox. My mistake.

The response is even simpler: If God created the universe and everything within it, and evil exists within the universe, then God either directly created evil, or created the conditions which allow evil to happen, and it follows that all evil is God's fault.

So? Again Alpha/Omega (Does what He wants to do/Does not answer to foolish human constructs of what a god is supposed to be.)

God could have made evil impossible but chose not to, so. God could have created humans to be incapable of evil, but chose not to.

Indeed, Blessed be the Name of the Lord!

Even if he gave mankind free will to commit evil, the evil created as a result of that is still his responsibility, as it only exists as a result of his choice to offer free will.

amen Preach it brother!!!

With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. It all comes back to him in the end.

So enter Christ on the Cross and the circle is complete!!! Evil in relation to accepting Christ on the cross means We can have our cake and eat it too.

We sin, we are evil, and all of that gets washed away by the blood of Christ, IF and only IF we accept the gift given to us, and Love God with all of our being and love each other as we want to be loved. That's it that's all.

This is what free will is. It is not the greek philosophy of being able to choose what you what when you want. Biblically based free will is the ablity to make one single choice. Whether or not to choose redemption. As we are slaves to sin we will always be sinful in this life the only true choice that we have is the ablity to be redeemed of those sins we will continue to make (saved or not) till the day we die.

If Epicurus had the chance to read the Bible and saw how God was depicted, he would have known that his paradox was unnecessary, because God himself is a thoroughly evil character.

Only if you produce and maintain a self based righteousness apart from God. which is what popular morality/self righteousness is. I don't know epricus but from what I read you are probably right. Who but God truly knows.

[Godscreated]

If he's not omnibenevolent, then why suppose he knows the best way to live?

We believe God is all good, however we are smart enough to know the difference in God's justice and what you refer to as benevolent. You want to compare our liberal court system to God's court. We sentence people to a punishment considering the criminal and not the victims. God punishes with the offended in mind and gives the offended justice. This is being benevolent to the one who deserves the benevolence.

[FallentoReason]

If he's not omnibenevolent, then why suppose he knows the best way to live?

We believe God is all good, however we are smart enough to know the difference in God's justice and what you refer to as benevolent.

What an odd statement to make. One would think that being just stems from benevolence. Apparently not for your god..?

You want to compare our liberal court system to God's court. We sentence people to a punishment considering the criminal and not the victims. God punishes with the offended in mind and gives the offended justice. This is being benevolent to the one who deserves the benevolence.

Please specify what you mean by "punish". Eternal damnation? Because in the here and now, the exact opposite is true to what you want me to accept. The victim is the last thing on God's mind because the criminal can be cleansed by God's grace, as if God speaks on behalf of the wronged party. Murderers can potentially go to heaven while their victims can potentially go to hell, depending on their beliefs before departing from this world. The entire thing is bent on benefiting the criminal, not the victim.