Epicurus riddle.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The riddle doesn't account for the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds. It also doesn't address the role of kenosis, if there is one.

EDIT:

To clarify my earlier post, objections that rely on the Problem of Evil fail to undermine the Sovereignty and Might of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Taken collectively, the following clarifications show that the objections are naïve, at best:

The supposed refutation presupposes that God may act contrary to order. Unlike the pagan notions of the Divine, our Lord does not govern His creation by magic; but rather, according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19: 1-6).

By necessity, the creation cannot equal or exceed the perfection of God. (Revelation 1:8, Isaiah 43:10) Without some privation, creation would be a second God identical in all ways, a violation of the Law of Identity.

A world with the possibility of voluntary love is better than one in which love is compelled or absent. (Duet 10:12, 1 John 4:7, John 15:12, John 3:16)

Our Lord is Just and will restore His order when disrupted by either moral or natural order (Rev 21:4, Job 34:12)

The Passion of Our Lord shows that He does not stand aloof from our pain; but rather participates in it (Matthes 27:32-56). Pain is a given; suffering is optional.

Additionally, the argument tacitly accepts that there are moral absolutes. If the skeptic holds that moral values and judgments can be mitigated by circumstance then he places his own incredulity above Divine Judgments.

[Minimalist]

It's not a "riddle."  It's a statement of the obvious.

[Catholic_Lady]

The riddle doesn't account for the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds. It also doesn't address the role of kenosis, if there is one.

EDIT:

To clarify my earlier post, objections that rely on the Problem of Evil fail to undermine the Sovereignty and Might of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Taken collectively, the following clarifications show that the objections are naïve, at best:

The supposed refutation presupposes that God may act contrary to order. Unlike the pagan notions of the Divine, our Lord does not govern His creation by magic; but rather, according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19: 1-6).

By necessity, the creation cannot equal or exceed the perfection of God. (Revelation 1:8, Isaiah 43:10) Without some privation, creation would be a second God identical in all ways, a violation of the Law of Identity.

A world with the possibility of voluntary love is better than one in which love is compelled or absent. (Duet 10:12, 1 John 4:7, John 15:12, John 3:16)

Our Lord is Just and will restore His order when disrupted by either moral or natural order (Rev 21:4, Job 34:12)

The Passion of Our Lord shows that He does not stand aloof from our pain; but rather participates in it (Matthes 27:32-56). Pain is a given; suffering is optional.

Additionally, the argument tacitly accepts that there are moral absolutes. If the skeptic holds that moral values and judgments can be mitigated by circumstance then he places his own incredulity above Divine Judgments.

Very well said.

[Mudhammam]

The riddle doesn't account for the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds. It also doesn't address the role of kenosis, if there is one.

I can easily imagine better possible worlds. A start would include the elimination of natural evil, such as excessive suffering and death as a necessary mechanism for the evolution of species, and catastrophes such as tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. Even if you argue that suffering of this sort, that a more perfect God could easily rid the world of (as we are told in many religious traditions that eventually he will), is needed for greater acts of goodness to be realized, it still remains unreasonable to believe that none of the evil observed could have been reduced without the loss of opportunity for such acts. Of course, your point is valid if you concede that God is not omnipotent. Otherwise, you can only hold out on faith that the simplest and most evident explanation is incorrect, though consequently this is by definition an irrational belief to hold.

To clarify my earlier post, objections that rely on the Problem of Evil fail to undermine the Sovereignty and Might of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Taken collectively, the following clarifications show that the objections are naïve, at best:

The supposed refutation presupposes that God may act contrary to order. Unlike the pagan notions of the Divine, our Lord does not govern His creation by magic; but rather, according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19: 1-6).

If that's the case, that God's creation is "according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility," we should not expect to find ourselves inhabiting an atom in which the infinite amount of space surrounding us is both hostile and chaotic. Aside from the fact that it is only due to our ability to adapt that we are able to survive what are otherwise rather harsh conditions, we actually cannot adapt to basically anywhere else in the known universe, minus these few continents that we do indeed possess. So, appearances would suggest that creation reflects anything but the work of an orderly, intelligent, or benevolent creator... at least insofar as it concerns human beings and any judgments we are able to make about morality, beauty, order, etc.

By necessity, the creation cannot equal or exceed the perfection of God. (Revelation 1:8, Isaiah 43:10) Without some privation, creation would be a second God identical in all ways, a violation of the Law of Identity.

If you cannot imagine some privation without the excessive and unnecessary suffering present in the world, you lag even behind the ancient who fantasized Isaiah 11:6.

A world with the possibility of voluntary love is better than one in which love is compelled or absent. (Duet 10:12, 1 John 4:7, John 15:12, John 3:16)

Non-sequitur

Our Lord is Just and will restore His order when disrupted by either moral or natural order (Rev 21:4, Job 34:12)

My first paragraph rebuts this to the extend that it requires blind faith in an elaborate scheme in place of a far simpler explanation, but even if it were true, it wouldn't establish the necessity of most or all of the present disorder.

The Passion of Our Lord shows that He does not stand aloof from our pain; but rather participates in it (Matthes 27:32-56). Pain is a given; suffering is optional.

Non-sequitur.

Additionally, the argument tacitly accepts that there are moral absolutes. If the skeptic holds that moral values and judgments can be mitigated by circumstance then he places his own incredulity above Divine Judgments.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but why shouldn't there be moral absolutes simply because there is no God, whether he's omnipotent and morally indifferent or evil, or benevolent but restricted in his powers? If you mean that we're not in a position to determine good and evil, without divine guidance, you're argument is simply question begging, and further, it disallows yourself from making any such judgments.

Clearly, you have failed to invalidate Epicurus' paradox.

[Jenny A]

[Godscreated]

Didn't read the link did you? The link represents 'the problem of evil' and how it has been argued for literally thousands of years! I don't have to argue with you because you are the one who literally arguing with how this paradox is accepted and defined.

We are slaves to either God or sin, their is no free will either.

So why do I want to worship God? I do not want to be bound/be a slave to sin.

Nonsense, you don't want to fry in hell. That's all the Christian belief system is, the fear of punishment.

Nonsense, Christianity is about love, "a love that saves us from hell through forgiveness", this is true love. We choose this love because we do not want to go to hell. Call this fear if you choose, I want argue against it. What happens to those who actually seek this love and grow in it, we come into a living relationship with God and desire to leave sin behind us as much as possible. For those who do not seek this love, well, they should be terrified of the punishment they are building for their eternity, it will be a hell beyond belief until they have to face God and then live eternally the hell they have made for themselves, the hell they live is their's and their's alone. They make it and then will live it.
GC

[Mudhammam]

Nonsense, Christianity is about love, "a love that saves us from hell through forgiveness", this is true love. We choose this love because we do not want to go to hell. Call this fear if you choose, I want argue against it. What happens to those who actually seek this love and grow in it, we come into a living relationship with God and desire to leave sin behind us as much as possible. For those who do not seek this love, well, they should be terrified of the punishment they are building for their eternity, it will be a hell beyond belief until they have to face God and then live eternally the hell they have made for themselves, the hell they live is their's and their's alone. They make it and then will live it.
GC

Insert Islam for Christianity, and then consider what you think about your prospects of spending eternity in hell because you have chosen to follow your will over the will of God. You don't have to tell us about the terror it causes you, I don't care. Oh, it doesn't cause you to blink because you're confidant that Islam is bullshit? Well, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on your religion too, which by the way, encourages nothing but a sort of perverse self-love that actually gets people like yourself to talk as if you have acquired some special rights on account of your bullshit detector failing to function every now and then.

[Godscreated]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
God has prevented evil, thus is able.
Then he is not omnipotent.
He's thus omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
God has prevented evil, showing He's willing.
Then he is malevolent.
Thus He's not malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Yes, as stated above, why be redundant in asking.
Then whence cometh evil?
Evil comes from the hearts and minds of people. Even evolutionary thinking doesn't deny this point.
Is he neither able nor willing?
As above He's able and willing.
Then why call him God?”
Because He's able and willing to save people from the evil they have made.

Knockout in the first round.

Epicurus was knocked out before he began, the above bold is mine and shows why ol' Epi never was a concern to God and His followers.

GC

[Godscreated]

[Minimalist]

Knockout in the first round.

Epicurus was knocked out before he began, the above bold is mine and shows why ol' Epi never was a concern to God and His followers.

GC

Still conning yourself with fairy tales, G-C.