Epicurean Paradox.

J

Jaster Mereel

Hostis Humani Generis
Registered Senior Member
"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"--Epicurus

Discuss.
 
issues of good and bad are only issues to us humans. In god's mind, there is no good or bad to a situation, there only is the situation itself.

God does what he does and we all try to make sense of it in our own words.
 
Jaster Mereel said:
"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"--Epicurus

Discuss.
Click to expand...

You confine your arguments into two posabilities. But you should know there are other posabilities.

God wants to eliminate bad things, eventualy but is willing to allow bad things to go one untill the time is right to put an end to the bad things. God has an eternal plan and all human history is as a blink of the eye in comparrison.

Romans 9
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Revelation 6
9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

Things have to be completed first. All is going to plan. Your Epicurus is like a little brat having a temper tantrum because he wants his mom to buy the chocolate bar in the shop isle NOW :mad:


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Adstar said:
God wants to eliminate bad things, eventualy but is willing to allow bad things to go one untill the time is right to put an end to the bad things.
Click to expand...

How convenient. Isn't it funny how the existence of god is a heck of a lot like the non-existence of god?
 
Plunkies said:
How convenient. Isn't it funny how the existence of god is a heck of a lot like the non-existence of god?
Click to expand...

problem is, none of us really know what god is, so god could be (and probably is) the most obvious thing in the universe. But we just don't know it because we're looking for something else.
 
Things have to be completed first. All is going to plan. Your Epicurus is like a little brat having a temper tantrum because he wants his mom to buy the chocolate bar in the shop isle NOW
Click to expand...

Actually, Epicurus was a Greek, so he wasn't considering the God of the bible. Also, he didn't deny the existence of God/gods, and he wasn't complaining about the existence of bad things. He was merely posing the question.
 
Plunkies said:
How convenient. Isn't it funny how the existence of god is a heck of a lot like the non-existence of god?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's quite amusing actually, but not for the reasons you think.

Also, in order to consider the paradox as a paradox, i.e. engage in this discussion in a meaningful way, one must first accept as a basic premise that God/gods exist. Otherwise, there is no paradox.
 
I like Roy Lennigan's responses the most right now, actually, but of course that's because I lean (on my theistic days) towards the idea that God is not a person, with a will, and intentions, etc...

They're all good though. Continue.
 
Bad and good is relative.
A BBQ is good for you and me, but bad for a cow or a chicken.
 
Is morality relative? Yes, I would say morality is relative. It's subjective. It depends on who you are, what is "good" and what is "bad". This is quite obvious, from the earliest age people know it, despite other's attempts to force an absolute morality upon them.

However, this does not imply that there is no morality. A thing being subjective does not mean it is non-existent. Nothing about the word "subjective" implies that a thing which holds this quality does not exist, it merely means it is subject to change. I think that people have a tendency to feel that, if something is not absolute, it either doesn't exist or is inconsequential.

This paradox does not eliminate the notions of good and bad, because the fact remains that to some people bad things are happening. I think that stating morality is relative does nothing to eliminate the paradox.
 
But then the same action might be good for one person and bad for another. How could God chose a course of action that benefits both?

If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature.
Click to expand...

So, I'm saying manipulating events could be within God's power, but if he doesn't, it might not spiteful, but rather because the choice isn't between good and evil; it's between what's good for one and what's good for another. In either case, he would have to create badness for someone, so he avoids chosing.

Also, what might be considered subjectively bad by someone could prove beneficial for a larger number of creatures in the future. For example, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, was that good or bad? It was good for us, but bad for the dinosaurs. If he prevented it, he would help the dinosaurs, but prevent the humans from forming. It may be impossible to make choices that are always good for every party effected, and it may have nothing to do with spite.
 
I would argue that the Riddle of Epicurus is the single most effective argument in the history of philosophical thought, besides maybe Aristotle's proofs of the first principles or Plato's justification for the capacity for knowledge to exist.

Moreover, here is why the "argument from free-will" fails miserably:

1. A perfect being must value perfect goodness above all else.
2. Free-will is not perfectly good as it causes evil.
3. Hence, a perfect being must value perfect goodness above and beyond free-will.

Similarly:

1. A perfect good being must act towards perfect goodness at all times.
2. Incidents of evil act against perfect good.
3. Thus a perfect good being must act against all evil.
 
Also, if anyone would care to respond from the idea that "God wants us to be good because we want to be good", I shall ask whether or not you think this is reasonable:

God wants us to wear jackets because we are cold, not because he made us. Thus he made jackets, when it was perfectly within his scope to simply not create cold.

Oh, and to show that free-will and God are not incompatible:

1. God is perfectly good.
2. God is perfectly free.
3. Thus perfect goodness and perfect freedom are not incompatible.
 
Jaster Mereel:

I should have clarified it as saying "a perfect being which has the attribute of perfect goodness", like I did with "a perfectly good being" later on.

If that was your critique, then sorry about that. A slip up on my part.
 
Prince_James said:
Jaster Mereel:

I should have clarified it as saying "a perfect being which has the attribute of perfect goodness", like I did with "a perfectly good being" later on.

If that was your critique, then sorry about that. A slip up on my part.
Click to expand...

Nope. All I needed was clarification. Thanks.
 
Plunkies said:
How convenient. Isn't it funny how the existence of god is a heck of a lot like the non-existence of god?
Click to expand...

Yes. In that way only those who love the truth will come to it and those who love something else have their justification not to come to the truth.

God is very wise and has made it this way. to give those who hate Him as way to claim plausible denial so that they will not be saved and they can be condemned those who love unrighteousness.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Jaster Mereel said:
"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"--Epicurus
Discuss.
Click to expand...
This argument is akin to the idea that if aliens come to earth they will be peaceful because their advanced technology implies an "advanced" culture. Complete BS.

What makes a god a god? Power. God created the universe. He did it for reasons of his own. Different religions have different ideas about him, but the fact that a being has the power to create the universe says nothing about his motives or his intentions {if any} regarding mankind.
 
Ya, ok. It's not my quote. Take it up with Epicurus. Wait. He's dead. I just wanted to watch the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top