Epicurus riddle.

[Angrboda]

from Latin omni- meaning "all", and benevolent, meaning "good"

[Minimalist]

[Lemonvariable72]

Isn't the free will argument just a poor attempt at passing the buck? I mean the question asked is where does evil come from and they reply free will, but free will also comes from their god so their god still created evil.

And i think the bible also says their god created evil.

doesn't this discussion still beg the question of the possibility of the existence of a non-anthropomorphic god?

Holy fuck I literally made a joke about thread being necro'd 2 posts before you nercro'd it

[Jenny A]

“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?”

Opinions on this riddle?

As pointed out this is known as the epicurean paradox. This so call paradox was written 341 years before Christ was born. which means this paradox was not written by epicrus, was not written in effect to the God of Christianity or the Jews, and or does not describe a paradox found in either of those two religions. Therefore if it was written by Epicrus it was directed at his personal understanding of how his greek gods worked.

Ok, that said why can these values be carried over to Christianity or Judaism you ask?

The paradox presupposes that God is Omnipotent, omniscience, and Omnibenevolent. The problem with that? These are not All biblical attributes of God. The key to the Paradox is Omni benevolence, because it is this all consuming love that would demand that sin be removed from the presence of a 'loved one.' Which is the one Omni-aspect of God listed here Not found in the bible. God does not love everyone. That is a religious teaching (man's description/belief about God) Not a attribute God labels himself with in the bible. In fact the opposite is true. Their are those in whom God is reported to hate in scripture. Not to mention the 'conditions' of God's love found hiding in verses like John 3:16. That said for those in whom God does love his love is without bounds.

Without this idea of Omni benevolence the paradox is broken concerning the God of the bible. So then the question becomes why call Him God? Simple answer: The word God describes a being who is in total authority and control of all of what he has created (everything) not a being who must yield to a broken philosophers limited ability to reason.

The riddle does not assume omnibenevolence.  Rather it notices that if there is an omnipotent god, who does not act to quell evil, that god is malevolent.

[Infanta]

“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?”

Opinions on this riddle?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
God is willing and able.
Is he able, but not willing?
Yes, no.
Is he both able and willing?
Yes.
Then whence cometh evil?
Free will
Is he neither able nor willing?
No.
Then why call him God?”
Redundant question.

Opinions on this riddle?
God enables us to have free will, meaning that some will do evil and some won't. It's our choice, God is allowing us to determine our fate and he is very patient. Evil will be dealt with in his time.

Ah yes, that moronic "free will" argument again. People don't do evil in a vacuum.  If someone does evil, then someone else is suffering as a result of it.  So while God is standing by letting a murderer or rapist exercise their "free will", some poor innocent individual - a child perhaps - has no choice whatsoever. How is the victim determining their fate exactly?

[robvalue]

Free will. If I ever get my hands on it, I'm going to slap it silly until it begs for momma.

I'm really tired of it being trotted out as an excuse. Like you say, if someone is raping a kid, the kid's free will is being violated. So either God steps in to violate the free will of the rapist, or he watches as the kid's free will is taken away. Which would be the better option?

Oh wait, the better option would have been to not create humans who would ever even think about raping each other. But that would imply some sort of thoughtful design.

[Drich]

from Latin omni- meaning "all", and benevolent, meaning "good"

Did you miss the point, for a chance to grade my paper?

The word is not used by God to describe Himself. This is a characteristic man ascribes to God in error.

God describes himself as the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and end of all things. This means God decides who and to what degree he shows benevolence.

The fact that their is a Hell, The Fact that the bible records there are those in whom God hates, shows conclusively He is not "All good" to everyone.

So therefore the paradox fails because, 'the problem of evil' presumes Omni-benevolence when that is not apart of biblical Christianity.

[Drich]

[Drich]

[Drich]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
God is willing and able.
Is he able, but not willing?
Yes, no.
Is he both able and willing?
Yes.
Then whence cometh evil?
Free will
Is he neither able nor willing?
No.
Then why call him God?”
Redundant question.

Opinions on this riddle?
God enables us to have free will, meaning that some will do evil and some won't. It's our choice, God is allowing us to determine our fate and he is very patient. Evil will be dealt with in his time.

Ah yes, that moronic "free will" argument again. People don't do evil in a vacuum.  If someone does evil, then someone else is suffering as a result of it.  So while God is standing by letting a murderer or rapist exercise their "free will", some poor innocent individual - a child perhaps - has no choice whatsoever. How is the victim determining their fate exactly?

Give my argument a gander.