Theist responses to Epicurus's riddle?

[Srelex]

I'm curious to know you may consider to be the best and the stupidest theist responses to the riddle posited by Epicurus--in case you need to know: 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?

I'm also especially curious to know that fundies say to this, if only for the sake of amusement.

[Serafina]

The standard response is "free will!" - "in order to have free will, god must have permitted evil".
Either that, or "it's caused by sin, not by god".

The latter of course does not actually answer the question - and the first answer ignores that a truly omnipotent universal creator could have just created an universe with no possibility for evil.
When that is countered by "he did, but then man sinned" - well, why was that tree there in the first place - and furthtermore, that would mean that god actually created all of the evils in the world by changing the worl due to sin.

Either way, if you get that far in the discussion, they will either repeat their argument about "free will" (ignoring that you adressed that) or mumble something about "gods mysterious ways".

To give a couple example how a benevolent creator would have made the world:
-why is it possible to murder people in the first place? Why is death possible in the first place
-why do we need food? An omnipotent being would have no need for that, thus preventing starvation
-same goes for nearly every other need
But as i said, that always is blamed on the "original sin" by fundies - so why was that tree there in the first place?
And shouldn't an omnipotent god have known that it would happen?

Bottom line: You will run around in circles, since fundies do not question god in the first place.

[Channel72]

The fact is, the "free will" defense is broken, even within the parameters of Christian theology. It's obviously possible for God to create man so that 1) man has free will, and 2) man has no ability to sin. In fact, this is precisely what Christians believe to be the state of man in Heaven. So man's entire miserable and "fallen" existence on Earth is both redundant and cruel.

[Serafina]

The fact is, the "free will" defense is broken, even within the parameters of Christian theology. It's obviously possible for God to create man so that 1) man has free will, and 2) man has no ability to sin. In fact, this is precisely what Christians believe to be the state of man in Heaven. So man's entire miserable and "fallen" existence on Earth is both redundant and cruel.

Well, i never said that it was a correct argument, just that that is what fundies will say

[Lord of the Abyss]

I've also heard the argument that all the evil and suffering in the world is according to God's Plan, and therefore isn't evil because anything God does is right by definition.


Then there's the claim that it's all part of God's Plan, which we mere mortals can't understand and so aren't qualified to criticize. It's interesting how God's inscrutability vanishes when it's time to tell us what God wants us to do though. Or when they want to claim God is good; if we can't judge him, how can we call him good?


And then there's the argument that the process is important, or even the point. That if we don't suffer, that if there is no evil we won't learn what he wants us to learn, or that suffering builds character, or that without evil we wouldn't appreciate good. Which among other things ignores the fact that by definition an omnipotent doesn't need any messy intermediate steps to accomplish its goals.


And one of the more disgusting; the claim that since we'll live forever in the afterlife, any amount of suffering in the world is of infinitely short duration in comparison and therefore simply doesn't count.

[Serafina]

The latter also fails to adress the concept of hell or earning heaven:
If it truly is infinity, how can any amount of good deeds be enough to earn it? Likewise, how can any amount of evil deeds justify an eternity of punishment?

Ironically, these people always fail to graps the concept of infinity - including infinite power=omnipotence.
An truly omnipotent, benevolent god would create nothing less than a perfect world (as heaven is supposed to be), without any errors or needs to prove one self, without any evil or suffering.

Anything less is obviously proof that god is either not omnipotent or not superbly benevolent.
Both do obviously not contradict a powerfull or somewhat benevolent god - but that already contradicts a fundamentalists world view (tough not their actual teachings).

Oh, and one last point: "god created us in his image, that's why we have characteristic X".
Not only indicates that if you can point out something less than perfect with humans (anything that could be improved in any way), but it also shows that god is not omnipotent - after all, a omnipotent being could change itself in any way it wants, thus not being limited to a less than perfect form.

[Channel72]

If it truly is infinity, how can any amount of good deeds be enough to earn it? Likewise, how can any amount of evil deeds justify an eternity of punishment?

According to most fundamentalist brands of Christianity, good deeds don't earn you a seat in Heaven. Salvation can only be achieved through faith in Jesus.

However, the disturbing aspect of this doctrine is that it goes hand in hand with the concept of Original Sin, which dictates that all humans, by default, deserve Hell. Even the word "salvation" implies the need to be rescued from something, and in this case it refers to the need to be rescued from Hell. Although fundamentalists will say that you need to be "saved" from your own sin, a brief reflection on this bizarre doctrine conjures up the image of a horrifically malevolent God who creates humans and places them on a conveyor belt which moves them towards a furnace. Unless they do the right song and dance before it's too late, they'll fall off the conveyor belt and into the fire. Despite this ridiculous situation, fundamentalists (and mediocre Christian rock bands) continue to fall over in praise, profusely thanking God for "saving" them from His own evil machine.

[Rye]

The responses come in three main forms:

1) God defines True good and bad, thus the riddle is in error.
2) Evil is a result of free will and it would be wrong to intervene in that, or to intervene in the adversity that allows the goodness of the human spirit to thrive.
3) He has a Big Plan with lots more goodness at the end and the evil that occurs is part of it (or it is wrong of us to assume they are bad because we don't know all the ramifications of the evil in life).

1) is solipsism, 2) and 3) are unconvincing when you find a child's raped and mutilated torso in a suitcase or under a collapsed house.

However, the disturbing aspect of this doctrine is that it goes hand in hand with the concept of Original Sin, which dictates that all humans, by default, deserve Hell. Even the word "salvation" implies the need to be rescued from something, and in this case it refers to the need to be rescued from Hell. Although fundamentalists will say that you need to be "saved" from your own sin, a brief reflection on this bizarre doctrine conjures up the image of a horrifically malevolent God who creates humans and places them on a conveyor belt which moves them towards a furnace. Unless they do the right song and dance before it's too late, they'll fall off the conveyor belt and into the fire. Despite this ridiculous situation, fundamentalists (and mediocre Christian rock bands) continue to fall over in praise, profusely thanking God for "saving" them from His own evil machine.

Indeed. The doctrine is called "total depravity" by the way; that all mankind is given to a fallen (sinful) nature.

[Simon_Jester]

(1) failed before Christ was even born, with Plato's Euthyphro dialogue.

(2) doesn't make a great deal of sense, because if it's right or neutral for me to interfere with evil then surely it would be right for God to intervene to the same degree... which, all too often, he does not do.

(3) is the one that comes closest to holding water, in my opinion. Granted, it boils down to "I'm sorry, but this question is above my pay grade, and I'm just going to have to trust the boss to handle it properly." But while that's not a logical argument, it's at least a decent one, one that is not actively riddled with logical holes.

If Fred simply believes that God is trustworthy, and assumes that God has some sort of plan that makes it all work out for the best in the infinite long run... that may be frighteningly trusting of him, but at least it's logically self-consistent.

But it requires an awful lot of detachment for Fred to say this kind of thing when presented with true horrors, as Rye says.

[Keevan_Colton]

I've done philosophy essays on the problem of evil, and the most compelling argument I've come across is that an omnipotent being can create a universe with free will, but without the possibility for evil. (Not counting of course that free will isn't part of the riddle and is added in to try and get out of it, assuming it's a priori good great enough to outweigh the creation of the capacity for evil...)

The best response was "but then man couldn't freely choose to love god and that is what is really important" which was one of the biggest piles of horseshit I've heard in a while. (Again, cop out time with adding additional motives to a god-entity...of course if the creation of evil for the purposes of ego stroking rather plays into the malevolent part of the riddle)

An entertaining little notion to explain to someone how you can have a universe without evil and with free will, is the Red Dwarf episode Justice and it can help keep your spirits up while dealing with people.

[Einzige]

I've done philosophy essays on the problem of evil, and the most compelling argument I've come across is that an omnipotent being can create a universe with free will, but without the possibility for evil. (Not counting of course that free will isn't part of the riddle and is added in to try and get out of it, assuming it's a priori good great enough to outweigh the creation of the capacity for evil...)

This is a very solid point. Here's an extract from a sort of pseudo-essay I wrote on just this topic.

One argument I frequently hear bandied about by the defenders of the faith is predicated upon the notion of 'free will': God allowed for the possibility of sin, say they, in order to preserve the integrity of choice to His creations, and, thusly, the freedom to embrace salvation through repentance. According to this line of argumentation - and in direct contradiction with numerous Biblical passages, e.g. Ephesians 2:8 - the possibility of choosing evil is a necessary corollary to the responsibility of choosing good.

This argument is not only flawed, it is self-refuting, as most theistic arguments are. For, without the doing of evil, the doing of repentance becomes unnecessary; the Death is no longer needed, the Resurrection rendered obsolete. In a world within which men lack the capacity for sin, they also lack the necessity of salvation. In a word, the argument is tautological.

But this is obvious. Less obvious is the inference one must assume from such a line of thought: that Jahveh, in all His power and potency, was no more able to overcome the limits of His context than men are able to overcome the burden of gravity. Put another way: the Christian, when he argues that God necessarily allows for evil to allow for good, finds it impossible to allow for an omnipotent Creator. For any being who is accorded the traditional powers under the Christian religion - the trifecta of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence - ought to find it trivially easy to create a world in which the possibility of evil is utterly impossible, and yet 'free will' is maintained. No monotheistic deity worth his weight in iron chariots could be thwarted in the attempt of making such a world.

This, indeed, is my addition to the famous riddle of Epicurus -- that a God with these characteristics would not only be able to prevent evil, but would additionally be capable of creating a world with perfect 'free will' and without evil, in much the same way as a program designer might specify certain parameters for computer characters. Thus the God of the gaps reveals himself here, too, in a less literal fashion: there is a massive gap in the logic of Jahveh if he has all the traits commonly ascribed to him.

One final objection to the argument might be raised, and, though it might seem ludicrous on its face, it nevertheless holds true. It's clearly obvious that God considered 'free will' a trifle in every other aspect of man's design: he cannot sprout wings to soar with the birds on a whim; he cannot grow gills to swim with the fish; he is absolutely incapable of doing anything save what his physiology allows. He is 'free', no doubt, within the limits of that body - and here we have seen this silly notion of 'freedom of the will' in a religious context through to its very end. For the same principle allowing for a 'free will' within the limited parameters of man's bodily existence ought to apply equally to the parameters of his spiritual life. If we can agree that the fact your dear author cannot sprout ten extra digits to help with his typing is not a meaningful violation of his will, then it would be no worse if he were literally incapable of committing evil.

Thus the argument falls on all fronts, one last Jericho to sound the trumps before.

[Narkis]

Strangely enough, most (christian) friends and relatives that I've asked had no trouble admitting that the god they believed in was not benevolent. They had trouble, however, with making the step from "not benevolent" to "malevolent". And not one of them had a problem with worshipping such a being, due to fear, essentially. Hell, demons, and the like are one hell of an incentive to stay faithful

edit: , if you believe in fairies, I wanted to add.

[Simon_Jester]

I've done philosophy essays on the problem of evil, and the most compelling argument I've come across is that an omnipotent being can create a universe with free will, but without the possibility for evil. (Not counting of course that free will isn't part of the riddle and is added in to try and get out of it, assuming it's a priori good great enough to outweigh the creation of the capacity for evil...)

The reasoning is the deprival of free will is itself an evil, I think. Epicurus might not have believed that; then again, for all I know he might have.

[Einzige]

I've done philosophy essays on the problem of evil, and the most compelling argument I've come across is that an omnipotent being can create a universe with free will, but without the possibility for evil. (Not counting of course that free will isn't part of the riddle and is added in to try and get out of it, assuming it's a priori good great enough to outweigh the creation of the capacity for evil...)

The reasoning is the deprival of free will is itself an evil, I think. Epicurus might not have believed that; then again, for all I know he might have.

But, as I've argued, such a position is untenable: a Being with omnibenevolent motives and the omniscience to act on them could apply His omnipotence to creating a world where 'free will' is maintained and evil is impossible. Even if by doing nothing more than micromanaging every detail of history from Creation through eternity.

[adam_grif]

Strangely enough, most (christian) friends and relatives that I've asked had no trouble admitting that the god they believed in was not benevolent. They had trouble, however, with making the step from "not benevolent" to "malevolent". And not one of them had a problem with worshipping such a being, due to fear, essentially. Hell, demons, and the like are one hell of an incentive to stay faithful

edit: , if you believe in fairies, I wanted to add.

If one is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then one is malevolent. Even without violating any free will or some such things, God is easily to prevent suffering, stop people from starving, ease people's pain, and so on. He could have intervened to stop wars and genocides. He could intervene to stop rape and people beating their wives. But he doesn't. Calling it the "problem of evil" is almost misleading, because this is an antiquated way of looking at it. It's the problem of suffering.

All of these things and more are unfathomably trivial for an omnipotent entity, it needs only to wish it to make it so. But it does not, if it exists. Hence, malevolence.

The "Free Will" defense is a philosophical train wreck for Christianity, Judaism and Islam as well. It essentially posits that God intervening with the world in detectable ways is tantamount to violations of "Free Will". This is wildly inconsistent with the God of the Torah, Bible and Qur'an, who routinely intervenes, talks to people, sends visions and undertakes all manner of horrific things (Old Testament primarily). Jesus literally using the power of God to perform miracles is the core of Christianity, and if you're non-literally interpreting the new testament, the game is up and you're not a Christian anymore. So you have to conclude that either God didn't have a problem violating the Free Will of millions of individuals (great flood et al.) over the course of history, or intervening to make things happen is not a violation of Free Will. So either nothing in the bible happened, or God is malevolent, period. There is no escape.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why is it immoral for a powerful god to allow evil to exist? If such a god was so far above us, would not letting humanity suffer be no different from how we let animals like frogs and kittens suffer as we dissect them with scalpels in our science classes? What if a hypothetical omnipotent god was just like that, performing an experiment on his creations? Why would any higher being put value on the lives of lower beings? Won't we be just like animals to them?

[adam_grif]

Why is it immoral for a powerful god to allow evil to exist?

That isn't what the argument entails. It's malevolent for a god to allow it.

malevolent (comparative more malevolent, superlative most malevolent)
1. having or displaying ill will; wishing harm on others
2. having an evil or harmful influence

Since anything God wishes to be the case can be the case with no expenditure of effort, anything that happens is explicitly permitted. Additionally, he specifically constructed the universe so as to allow these kinds of things to happen. It was within his power to create a universe that permitted free will but did not contain any suffering (omnipotence, omniscience), so it's clear that God "wanted" suffering to take place. The same goes for harm and evil (evil isn't objectively verifiable here, but the religions that this argument is targeted towards all make claims about evil existing and certain actions being evil, so...)

[Lord of the Abyss]

If such a god was so far above us, would not letting humanity suffer be no different from how we let animals like frogs and kittens suffer as we dissect them with scalpels in our science classes? What if a hypothetical omnipotent god was just like that, performing an experiment on his creations? Why would any higher being put value on the lives of lower beings? Won't we be just like animals to them?

There's some important differences. For one thing, we aren't omnipotent and omniscient; we have no other means of gaining important scientific knowledge than by using animals. An omnipotent could just wish for it; an omniscient already knows. Nor are we responsible for designing animals so they can suffer in the first place. I mean; imagine some scientist who as you say "dissects kittens"; but who creates those kittens from scratch and deliberately leaves the pain nerves in, despite intending to cut them up.

As well; intelligence and emotional complexity and so forth aren't just relative. We are more sophisticated beings, more capable of suffering than animals and plants in absolute, not just relative terms. Stab me and I suffer; it's highly unlikely that an insect suffers at all, much less as much as I do. Take away my freedom to choose what I do with my life, alter me or my hypothetical children without permission and you violate my plans and conception of myself and my offspring; few animals even have such things to violate, they just care how good they feel.

Also; some of the things we do to animals are wrong, so if God is just like us there, that's not a good thing. And, we aren't claimed to be morally perfect to begin with.

[Simon_Jester]

Why is it immoral for a powerful god to allow evil to exist? If such a god was so far above us, would not letting humanity suffer be no different from how we let animals like frogs and kittens suffer as we dissect them with scalpels in our science classes? What if a hypothetical omnipotent god was just like that, performing an experiment on his creations? Why would any higher being put value on the lives of lower beings? Won't we be just like animals to them?

That's kind of the point. From our point of view, that would be pretty cold, and we shouldn't be dancing around talking about how good God is for not making things even worse.

I mean, we dissect frogs, sure. But we don't expect frogs to bow down and worship us for mercifully deciding not to dissect them.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Why is it immoral for a powerful god to allow evil to exist? If such a god was so far above us, would not letting humanity suffer be no different from how we let animals like frogs and kittens suffer as we dissect them with scalpels in our science classes? What if a hypothetical omnipotent god was just like that, performing an experiment on his creations? Why would any higher being put value on the lives of lower beings? Won't we be just like animals to them?

Nitpick: Every science class I've ever been in, the animals had been dead for quite some time before we took the scalpels to them, so I very much doubt they were suffering from that.

Other people have already covered the problems with it. We don't claim to be all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent, or demand worship for what we do (at least most of us don't).

[Liberty]

The response I hate the most is this:

"We are only human, we can't understand the mind of god, and nor can we judge him."

I mean, how do you argue against that? There is no way to convince a True Believer he might be wrong.

[Shroom Man 777]

If the frogs were smart, they should. Their kowtowing and abasement before us could, conceivably, make us consider sparing their amphibious lives. Which is what Christians would do, in the face of a cold, uncaring god with a cosmic soul-cutting scalpel. Two fates await them, existence in a bottled-up terrarium that lies at the end of their path of worship and self-abasement, or existential dissection should they not appropriately appease the god with a scalpel. Hey, it makes sense.

If you behave appropriately, you become a pet and you worship your master and do tricks to appease him. If you do not follow this, then you are food. The Christians are the dogs that god keeps as pets, and the unbelievers are the livestock that god kills and eats to slake his hunger!

[Srelex]

The response I hate the most is this:

"We are only human, we can't understand the mind of god, and nor can we judge him."

I mean, how do you argue against that? There is no way to convince a True Believer he might be wrong.

Well, surely odds are that at least a few True Believers for anything may have been turned? I would imagine that at least the 'lesser' fundies could be chipped away, so to speak.

[Narkis]

Strangely enough, most (christian) friends and relatives that I've asked had no trouble admitting that the god they believed in was not benevolent. They had trouble, however, with making the step from "not benevolent" to "malevolent". And not one of them had a problem with worshipping such a being, due to fear, essentially. Hell, demons, and the like are one hell of an incentive to stay faithful

edit: , if you believe in fairies, I wanted to add.

If one is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then one is malevolent. Even without violating any free will or some such things, God is easily to prevent suffering, stop people from starving, ease people's pain, and so on. He could have intervened to stop wars and genocides. He could intervene to stop rape and people beating their wives. But he doesn't. Calling it the "problem of evil" is almost misleading, because this is an antiquated way of looking at it. It's the problem of suffering.

All of these things and more are unfathomably trivial for an omnipotent entity, it needs only to wish it to make it so. But it does not, if it exists. Hence, malevolence.

The "Free Will" defense is a philosophical train wreck for Christianity, Judaism and Islam as well. It essentially posits that God intervening with the world in detectable ways is tantamount to violations of "Free Will". This is wildly inconsistent with the God of the Torah, Bible and Qur'an, who routinely intervenes, talks to people, sends visions and undertakes all manner of horrific things (Old Testament primarily). Jesus literally using the power of God to perform miracles is the core of Christianity, and if you're non-literally interpreting the new testament, the game is up and you're not a Christian anymore. So you have to conclude that either God didn't have a problem violating the Free Will of millions of individuals (great flood et al.) over the course of history, or intervening to make things happen is not a violation of Free Will. So either nothing in the bible happened, or God is malevolent, period. There is no escape.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I told them pretty much the same things, but it's hard to change a lifetime of beliefs based on the sayings of some godless guy, who may or may not be an agent of Satan. I'm working on it, but it's very difficult to deconvert someone who doesn't want to be deconverted.

[Serafina]

The response I hate the most is this:

"We are only human, we can't understand the mind of god, and nor can we judge him."

I mean, how do you argue against that? There is no way to convince a True Believer he might be wrong.

Well, i guess it's always worth a try...

But Epicurus riddle does not actually disproove the christian god (or any others).
While an benevolent and omnipotent and/or omniscient god is impossible (since then there would be no suffering in the world), it still allows for the following:
-A benevolent powerfull creator god. Creating the universe does not require absolute omnipotence after all.
-An omnipotent/omnisicient god that is not benevolent - and the christian god never said he was
-an omniscient benevolent creator who is not omnipotent and did the best he could

You only have to sacrifice the benevolence OR the omnipotence, and you can still craft a pretty good god from it.
Which leads to an interesting question:
Would a christian prefer a god without true omnipotence or one who is simply not benevolent?