Theist responses to Epicurus's riddle?

[Formless]

It could just be that god is an idiot. Omnipotence, benevolence, omniscience, high intelligence: pick any three. You can't have all four and still expect to see evil in the world, especially if said god created the universe.

[Serafina]

Well, intelligence is a good point - but omnipotence includes both omnniscience and infinte intelligence/wisdom, since a truly omnipotent being could just make itself having both.

[Formless]

Ah, but you see, the problem is that presumably at that point the Dunning–Kruger effect comes into play: if god is incompetent or stupid, he most likely doesn't know he is incompetent or stupid because... he's incompetent/stupid. SO there is no reason to grant the assumption that he will use his omnipotence to wish himself the needed competence or, for that matter, omniscience (if he doesn't have it already).

I mean, the biblical god already praises gullibility and closed mindedness: could it be that he's an anti-intellectual because he's jealous of people smarter than him?

[Serafina]

Ah, but you see, the problem is that presumably at that point the Dunning–Kruger effect comes into play: if god is incompetent or stupid, he most likely doesn't know he is incompetent or stupid because... he's incompetent/stupid. SO there is no reason to grant the assumption that he will use his omnipotence to wish himself the needed competence or omniscience.

Hmm, that is a point - so if you have a really, REALLY dumb omnipotent being, you can actually account for the universe pretty well

[Rye]

As I noted in another thread, it's better called the Epicurean riddle, as Epicurus himself didn't present it, and in fact, it's arguably anti-Epicurean. Epicurus believed (or at least said, if he was secretly an atheist) the gods were neither malevolent nor benevolent, but idle physical beings in a blissful nirvana-like state in the metakosmia, essentially, the space between stars.

It's a minor nitpicky point relative to the riddle, but it's a little bit of ignorance erased.

If we frame the Epicurean riddle relative to Epicurus' stated theistic beliefs, the answer is that God is amoral and unconcerned, hence he does not interfere. Malevolence isn't required for absence of action, nor is morality required for godhood.

The Epicurean riddle does strike a crippling blow to the Christian god, because it's apparently so nice and concerned it's prepared to die for us, but it's also incredibly inconsistent and will let people be raped to death. All rationalisations for these problems defer to ignorance like we cannot know God's mind, but he still acts morally to us as part of his wider moral plan, or the idea that everything will be vindicated and justified in the afterlife, which every living person will be ignorant of by necessity. Of course, if this applies to children being raped to death, pretty much any moral intervention doesn't make sense, since any of it could've been sorted out in the afterlife.

As a result, the "best" argument I've seen to resolve the above was from some mormon guy, he said, "I don't know why God intervenes some times and not others, but I believe that he does still morally intervene when he doesn't have to." Of course, that sort of viewpoint lends itself to mockery as it could interpret any action or lack of as moral, so long as you have enough faith. This is why I refer to faith in God as a black-hole in one's mind. It nullifies any reasoning going through it and is self-sustaining if the mind is besotted enough with the concept.

[Junghalli]

Would a christian prefer a god without true omnipotence or one who is simply not benevolent?

As an ex-Christian, I considered the possibility of a benevolent but non-omnipotent God and actually thought the whole thing made a lot more sense that way. I never considered the possibility of a malevolent God until I'd stopped believing in it anyway.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Ah, but you see, the problem is that presumably at that point the Dunning–Kruger effect comes into play: if god is incompetent or stupid, he most likely doesn't know he is incompetent or stupid because... he's incompetent/stupid. SO there is no reason to grant the assumption that he will use his omnipotence to wish himself the needed competence or, for that matter, omniscience (if he doesn't have it already).

I mean, the biblical god already praises gullibility and closed mindedness: could it be that he's an anti-intellectual because he's jealous of people smarter than him?

That doesn't leave God in a very good position. I'm a limited human who would consider himself of somewhere around the high end of average intelligence, and I can see the benefit of wishing myself omniscience if I already had omnipotence. Therefore either God is at least stupider than the average human, or delusional to the point it thinks it's omniscient when it isn't, not a good thing either way.

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!

I understand your point, I've thought it through myself a long time ago. I have the answer to the old question, "If the Christian God came before you in all His glory and demanded worship, would you accept Him?"

My answer is YES. Of course I would, I would bow and scrape and praise Jesus, Mary, whatever the hell it wants me to. I would do it for essentially the same reason I would praise Zeus if someone held a gun to my head and demanded I did: I value my life and not being tortured for eternity more than I value taking a moral/ethical stand that is ultimately pointless in the face of an all-powerful, yet rather petty deity.

[Formless]

That doesn't leave God in a very good position. I'm a limited human who would consider himself of somewhere around the high end of average intelligence, and I can see the benefit of wishing myself omniscience if I already had omnipotence. Therefore either God is at least stupider than the average human, or delusional to the point it thinks it's omniscient when it isn't, not a good thing either way.

Well, sure. You're a human of above average intelligence. You don't think like a human who isn't. There are people in this world who are not only stupid, but proud of it (anti-intellectuals). There are people who are good at memorization, but suck at problem solving. There are those who think they know everything, but ironically sabotage their own capacity for learning new things due to the same arrogant belief.

Hell, a stupid god might not even realize that his inaction is causing suffering, or make the connection that He can put a stop to it. He might be childlike and selfish-- but not actively malevolent. He may actually buy the theist's crap about "denying free will is a worse crime than allowing men to kill each other." Maybe he's too busy trying to make a mountain so heavy even He cannot lift it. Even though mountains do not work that way.

If god doesn't have the infinite wisdom he claims to have, then we can account for evil due to the fact that he may not understand the full implications of his own existence and abilities. He does not have to be much dumber than the average human for this to be true. Just dumb enough to reject logic and reason-- not an uncommon trait at all among us humans.

[adam_grif]

Ah, but you see, the problem is that presumably at that point the Dunning–Kruger effect comes into play: if god is incompetent or stupid, he most likely doesn't know he is incompetent or stupid because... he's incompetent/stupid. SO there is no reason to grant the assumption that he will use his omnipotence to wish himself the needed competence or, for that matter, omniscience (if he doesn't have it already).

I mean, the biblical god already praises gullibility and closed mindedness: could it be that he's an anti-intellectual because he's jealous of people smarter than him?

If God is omniscient, then he would know if he was stupid and incompetent. The Christian god is ascribed the characteristic of omniscience, and therefore...

[Formless]

If God is omniscient, then he would know if he was stupid and incompetent. The Christian god is ascribed the characteristic of omniscience, and therefore...

Therefor, nothing, because stupid people are notorious for forgetting what they know right when they need that knowledge most. Among many other things, that's the mark of a stupid person. Knowledge does not necessarily correlate to problem solving ability-- nor is all knowledge made equal (such as trivia). Intelligence is not simply about having facts-- otherwise, books would have to be considered intelligent despite their lack of a mind. Is god just a book filled with all the knowledge in the universe?

Man... the more I talk about it, the more I'm coming to think that "god is a retard" is probably the best single answer to the problem of evil I've ever heard (besides atheism, of course).

[adam_grif]

Therefor, nothing, because stupid people are notorious for forgetting what they know right when they need that knowledge most.

No, forgetful people are notorious for forgetting what they know right when they need it most. But this is sort of irrelevant anyway, because if God remembered it at any point in time, he can essentially retroactively modify events as he pleases. He's not required to do things in real time. If he never remembers it at any point in time, it's not omniscience.

Intelligence is not simply about having facts-- otherwise, books would have to be considered intelligent despite their lack of a mind. Is god just a book filled with all the knowledge in the universe?

Books aren't considered to be knowledgeable either, that's a characteristic ascribed to a mind.

Man... the more I talk about it, the more I'm coming to think that "god is a retard" is probably the best single answer to the problem of evil I've ever heard (besides atheism, of course).

I once proposed that God got bored because of his omniscience (had explicit knowledge of not only everything he would do, but everything he could do as well), so he handicapped himself, dumbing down to a level where he could get entertainment value from creating a bunch of humans on a planet and fucking with them.

[Formless]

No, forgetful people are notorious for forgetting what they know right when they need it most.

How do you explain the "I didn't think of it at the time" phenomenon then if only "forgetful" people do it? That's what I'm getting at.

If he never remembers it at any point in time, it's not omniscience.

So according to you memories never have to be retrieved from the storage medium they are contained in?

Books aren't considered to be knowledgeable either, that's a characteristic ascribed to a mind.

True, but knowledge is merely about collecting facts that are true. In theory, there is no difference between information stored in a book and the same information stored in a mind except that the mind can, in theory, act on that information.

What I'm getting at is that said mind does not have to behave rationally on that knowledge, which is the most general definition of stupidity I can think of.

[adam_grif]

Your argument is a slight variation on the classic "omniscience means that god could know anything he wanted, not that he does", used to rebut the "omniscience is incompatible with free will" argument. It also adequately explains what you're trying to get at without resorting to making god a fucking idiot.

[Formless]

Except that that makes god a de fact idiot for behaving so inconsistently. Its an inescapable conclusion of having a god that's omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent, but still lets evil reside in the world.

[Darth Wong]

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.

Looking at all of the responses in this thread, I think that a smart fundie could probably short-circuit most of them (at least to his own satisfaction, and that of fellow fundies) by simply pointing out that Epicurus' riddle implies that we mere mortals are capable of judging God. Virtually all of the responses incorporate that assumption, which is not an unreasonable assumption since moral judgement does not flow from power, but which can be treated as an assumption nonetheless.

In other words, the fundie can respond to this by simply saying "God moves in mysterious ways" and then ignoring any demands for explanations of why God does or doesn't do or allow this or that. It's an incredibly half-assed response, and does not justify the belief system at all, but in the eyes of a fundie, it's a slam-dunk.

[Darth Hoth]

As an ex-Christian, I considered the possibility of a benevolent but non-omnipotent God and actually thought the whole thing made a lot more sense that way. I never considered the possibility of a malevolent God until I'd stopped believing in it anyway.

Which brings up a question I have pondered while studying the Bible: Does the book itself actually affirm that God is completely omnipotent and omniscient? I do not know it well enough to say with any certainty that it does not, but passages such as Genesis 22 at the very least make me question it - the whole point there being, essentially, that God had to make Abraham almost but not quite sacrifice Isaac before He could know that his faith was true and that he would do literally anything for Him. (Even after making him trek over half the world and circumcise himself just because God told him to.)

Judaism and Islam make a major point of God being supreme and the cause of everything that happens, whether it is good or evil, but Christians, to my knowledge, appear somewhat less strict with this. It seems to me that a lot of the "Problem of Evil" would go away if the Christians embraced the implicit dualism in the New Testament in particular: There is an evil power at work in the world to blame the evil on - they have this already, namely "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" (Rev 12:9), and he is even called "the god of this world" in the very Bible (2 Cor 4:4). While God (who is good) is obviously more powerful than the evil and will destroy it eventually to make the world perfect for the believers (and righteously smite the wicked with fire and worms that do not die, of course), He is not so omnipotent that it does not require actual effort on His part to bring this about, and thus He waits for an opportune moment.

Or, He cannot do so right away because the Devil is strong enough to resist Him for the moment: He must build up His divine arsenal first. So history would be like the Cold War: We believers are the best and will win if when the Hot War comes, but in the meantime we must suffer privations while we win the arms race. God must build NIKE missiles and HIBEXes to protect His good American citizens from the Soviet Devil's dastardly ICBMs before He sends down fiery nuclear Hell on the unbelievers, to use a characteristically irreverent Shroomism.

Of course, the obvious problem with a straight dualism is that you have then basically called the Devil a god and placed him, if not equal to God, then at least on the same tier. Thus your religion is no longer genuinely monotheistic. (Although going into that one could talk about hair-splitting Trinities, demons, and angels, but whatever.) The Jewish apocalyptic and many of the early Christian writings touch on dualism by granting the Devil relative independence of God and giving him power over people (his kingdom of demons, his rule over the fallen world of men, which he himself corrupted from its basic state of goodness, &c) but never actually go into it, being restrained by the powerful Jewish heritage of YHVH being the all-powerful originator of both good and evil. Instead, they have to hand-wave it that Satan rules the world and God lets him do so for the time being because He is inscrutable and it is all part of His master plan - or essentially, the explanation already presented here.

[Darth Wong]

God sends out angels as scouts on occasion. For example, at Sodom and Gomorrah he sends two angels to ascertain whether these cities are as sinful as he's heard. That does not sound like the behaviour of an omniscient being. Even if one presumes that the scouting operation is just to test their behaviour even though he can see into the town, it still eliminates the possibility that he knows the townspeoples' hearts and minds in advance, which he should if he's omniscient.

[Patrick Degan]

God sends out angels as scouts on occasion. For example, at Sodom and Gomorrah he sends two angels to ascertain whether these cities are as sinful as he's heard. That does not sound like the behaviour of an omniscient being. Even if one presumes that the scouting operation is just to test their behaviour even though he can see into the town, it still eliminates the possibility that he knows the townspeoples' hearts and minds in advance, which he should if he's omniscient.

Unless the angels weren't there to scout Sodom & Gomorrah but to warn/test Lot, which possibly puts omnicience back on the table but definitely takes ominbenevolence off of it and we're right back to that pesky Epicurian dilemma same as if the angels are on a scouting run.

[Invictus ChiKen]

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.

The polytheistic response is the gods are neither all good nor all powerful. They have failings just as we do, in our rites we seek to work with them as it is believed to be beneficial to both parties. Offerings traveling one way (from us to the gods) and blessings traveling the other (gods to us). Generally all that they ask is keep any promises we make and if we wish to form a relationship simple give the offerings at regular times in an appropriate ritual.

[Darth Wong]

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.

The polytheistic response is the gods are neither all good nor all powerful. They have failings just as we do, in our rites we seek to work with them as it is believed to be beneficial to both parties. Offerings traveling one way (from us to the gods) and blessings traveling the other (gods to us). Generally all that they ask is keep any promises we make and if we wish to form a relationship simple give the offerings at regular times in an appropriate ritual.

Polytheists really have a leg up in terms of logically defending their beliefs. My proof of the probabilistic near-impossibility of a monotheistic deity is totally inapplicable to polytheists.

[Serafina]

It's literary impossible for Polytheists to justify multiple omnipotent gods, too.
Because you can't have two omnipotent beings at once:

Omnipotence means "can do everything". Doing something also includes preventing something.
Therefore, one of the two onmipotent beings would have to be able to prevent whatever the other wants to do to be omnipotent - if he can't prevent it, he is not omnipotent.
However, that means that the other god is now NOT omnipotent, since he now can't do something (since it has been prevented).


You can also extend this to a single omnipotent being:
An omnipotent being would be able to create an immovable/indesctructible/unchangable (etc.) object.
But he must also be able to move/destroy/change that very object - which means that it is NOT immovable/indesctructible/unchangable. Therefore, the being was not able to create such a thing after all and is therefore not omnipotent.

Ommipotence is simply logically impossible. If there is an omnipotent being out there (be it god, an invisible pink unicorn or a flying teapot) then logic doesn't work.
Fortunately, the world seems to be logical so far (if not always intuitive).

[sirocco]

I like this one though not coming from a theist : "Because evil hurts so much. When something bad happens to you, it swallows your whole existence and you just forget all this days when you only had good things happening to you."

Or to just put it simply : god permits bad things because he permits good things. Good or evil just depends on the situation and the person experiencing it.

But well I am somewhat a anti-theist and anti-anti-theist kind of guy. I just hate it when people want to argue over the existnece of god. I am believer therefore I believe. Why the frak would I need a proof !?

[Serafina]

So dieing, pain, disease, death are good things now? Where CAN they be good things?

While your argument can be applied to many things (e.g. most (all?) emotions), there are clearly tons of things in the natural world that are clearly detremential to our happiness regardless of circumstances.

Furthermore, you simply lack imagination - an omnipotent god could arbitrarily all emotions (and anything else) so that it becomes impossible to be hurt by them.

In fact, many (most?) christians believe that there is such a place, called heaven. But if he is capable of creating a place, why not just do it on earth? Why the suffering?

An powerfull yet not omnipotent god could circumvent that, but there are still a lot of cases where divine intervention would be incredibly usefull and yet doesn't happen. Either god is incapable or unwilling to prevent evil.

[sirocco]

So dieing, pain, disease, death are good things now? Where CAN they be good things?

While your argument can be applied to many things (e.g. most (all?) emotions), there are clearly tons of things in the natural world that are clearly detremential to our happiness regardless of circumstances.

I agree with this. Just forgot to put that in my previous post. Though it seems to me that in other religions Good and Evil only matters to mortal beings and not to immortal souls which can't really suffer from any of them. I'd have to make some research on that.

Furthermore, you simply lack imagination - an omnipotent god could arbitrarily all emotions (and anything else) so that it becomes impossible to be hurt by them.

In fact, many (most?) christians believe that there is such a place, called heaven. But if he is capable of creating a place, why not just do it on earth? Why the suffering?

May you believe it or not, when I was younger I consider that depiction of heaven as being the most boring place ever. I just find it weird to be always happy and have everything you want. It's like wanting God to make us spoilt kids. I don't know if He is actually able to prevent any evil happening to me but were He to do this I'd just feel totally useless.

I do understand that pain, disease, death are bad things but I personally need them as some kind of fuel for improving myself. They are obstacles to overcome. Well with death that could be a little difficult but I fancy thinking that :

1- I will influence the generations to come and achieve some kind of artificial immortality.
2- the people I lost wouldn't want me to waste my life in grieving for them.

But that's just personal. I am responsible for my life and I don't want to blame God or any supernatural being for everything. I want to kick the crap out of life.

An powerfull yet not omnipotent god could circumvent that, but there are still a lot of cases where divine intervention would be incredibly usefull and yet doesn't happen. Either god is incapable or unwilling to prevent evil.

Unwilling! Thank God!

[Serafina]

If someone is capable but unwilling to prevent a bad thing, we call that evil.
Therefore, by your own admission, your god is evil.

Though it seems to me that in other religions Good and Evil only matters to mortal beings and not to immortal souls which can't really suffer from any of them. I'd have to make some research on that.

You know nothing about other religions, do you?

Let's look at helenistic religion (the greek pantheon - you know, Zeus).
It clearly differentiates between good and evil deeds by the gods, and gods are clearly able to suffer. Their gods are just as imperfect as human beings - they are jealous, angry, short-sighted, stupid and so on - and they admit it.
Of course, the abrahamic (jewish/christian/muslim) god is also all of these things - but for some reason that is either ignored or praised as a good thing.

Most religions don't have gods that are said to be perfect. In fact, abrahamic religions are the exception in that (and other) matter.

You could also look at Buddhism, where gods (if they are believed in, which is not universal for buddhists) are just as much subject to Karma (an impersonal, non-sentient universal force, not a god) as everyone and everything else.

So yes, for many other religons, good and evil DOES matter to everyone. YOUR religion claims that good and evil don't matter to your god - that your god is outside of morality and in fact defines morality - that whatever he does is good and everything against his will is bad. You will find that in virtually no other religion.