Theist responses to Epicurus's riddle?

[sirocco]

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

But in our eyes, when someone goes through a difficult event and manage to survive it and become a good person, we are moved by his courage and his unfailing heart. We respect those that overcome obstacles. And those that turn evil are still put on trial and sentenced, even though it's not entirely their fault. That's somewhat the same idea behind a god's actions (or inactions).

Saying that "unwilling to prevent a bad thing = necessarily evil" is just some tantrum thrown in the discussion. Because by its very definition god is an otherwordly existence that doesn't follow any law or rule you are following. He is not responsible for my life or for yours.

Something along the line : Bad things happening to you? deal with it!

and about my lack of knowledge about other religions, that's right I still need to study a lot about that. I'm willing to accept your help and guidance.

Note : it really seems to me that the in helenistic, ancient egypt and abrahamic religions, there is a judgment day at some point after death. Could you explain how is that possible if, as you claimed, their god(s) isn't the one defining what is good and what is not?

[Serafina]

But in our eyes, when someone goes through a difficult event and manage to survive it and become a good person, we are moved by his courage and his unfailing heart. We respect those that overcome obstacles. And those that turn evil are still put on trial and sentenced, even though it's not entirely their fault. That's somewhat the same idea behind a god's actions (or inactions).

So you are saying...what exactly?
That god doesn't help anyone so that they can develop by the challenge?

You see, that's the kind of double-speak and twisted thinking i am talking about - you take a concept that is valid in some cases and spread it to everything.

See, if someone has trouble with managing money and trough some personal experience get's better at it (say, by spending some months near broke), that could be called a good thing.
But NOT if his failings with managing money cause harm to thousands of others (see our current financial crisis).
And NOT if his mismanagment (on a personal scale) causes him to be broke for the rest of his life, or to die due to a lack of money.

If a child has an accident and therefore learns to be more carefull since it has hurt itself, then that is a valid learning experience.
But NOT if it dies in the process or is crippled for life.
I am sure you know the saying about a child which has burnt itself will stay away from fire (or somewhat like that).
But what if that event is a pot of boiling water that cripples the right arm for the rest of it's life and also causes a disfiguring scar which leads to endless ridicule during the teenage years? This happened to my mother, by the way.

Your concept is not universal. Sometimes hard times can be beneficial. But quite often they are not.
An omnipotent benevolent god could easily prevent fatalities or long-lasting negative effects from all challenges.
Just the possibilty to gain something is challenge enough, even if you have nothing (or next to) to loose. Going further than that is just cruel.

Saying that "unwilling to prevent a bad thing = necessarily evil" is just some tantrum thrown in the discussion. Because by its very definition god is an otherwordly existence that doesn't follow any law or rule you are following. He is not responsible for my life or for yours.

THIS is also what i am objecting to. Morality should be universal. In most religions, it IS universal. Causing harm to another self-aware being is a BAD THING. It can sometimes be justified (e.g. self-defense), but your god does it for selfish reasons all the time.
You can't just say "he is above the rules". While your concept of god is clearly to powerfull to have to answer to us, we still can and should judge and reject him on the basis of his actions.

Otherwise, by your logic (and it has often be used like that), a ruler is also unaccountable to the people just because he is too powerfull.

Note : it really seems to me that the in helenistic, ancient egypt and abrahamic religions, there is a judgment day at some point after death. Could you explain how is that possible if, as you claimed, their god(s) isn't the one defining what is good and what is not?

Wrong.
While some religons contain an "Armageddon"-szenario, i am not aware of any religion but the abrahamic ones that has something like your "Judgement day".
If you take, as an example, the nordic Ragnarök, then you will see that is is merely the final battle between the gods and their supernatural opponents which results in the destruction of the world - with two (or more?) humans surviving and starting a new world.
Many religions don't have any "end of the world"-szenarios at all.

Furthermore, your version of judgement is not universal either.
While helenistic and egyptian religion contained judges, they were quite different from your version.
Helenistic selection in the afterlife was more about important than good deeds (tough the deeds had to be heroic, IIRC), while the judges in egyptian religon cared only for good and bad deeds (and used scales to determine which weighted heavier) and not for any kind of mindless worship of deities.
Many other afterlifes are based on achievements, too - some even have many different afterlifes depending on the life you lead - e.g. a warrior would go to an afterlife where he would life an eternal life as a warrior, while a farmer would retire as the head of a large farm etc.

I am by no means an actual expert on religions, this is just basic knowledge back from school and some reading on my own.
If you want to get an actual education on religion, ask someone else.

[sirocco]

Your concept is not universal. Sometimes hard times can be beneficial. But quite often they are not.
An omnipotent benevolent god could easily prevent fatalities or long-lasting negative effects from all challenges.
Just the possibilty to gain something is challenge enough, even if you have nothing (or next to) to loose. Going further than that is just cruel.

And this is what I was saying earlier. It seems to me that you want god to prevent any fatalities or long-lasting negative effects while I accept the fact that they are bound to happen. They can be consequences of human actions or just natural disasters but he just can't erase them everytime. The events must follow their natural courses.

Sometimes people do pray and have their wishes realized. Those are the exceptions. a god that create a world, input some rules for it to work properly then goes around them to help some people may not be considered entirely malevolent.

Saying that "unwilling to prevent a bad thing = necessarily evil" is just some tantrum thrown in the discussion. Because by its very definition god is an otherwordly existence that doesn't follow any law or rule you are following. He is not responsible for my life or for yours.

THIS is also what i am objecting to. Morality should be universal. In most religions, it IS universal. Causing harm to another self-aware being is a BAD THING. It can sometimes be justified (e.g. self-defense), but your god does it for selfish reasons all the time.
You can't just say "he is above the rules". While your concept of god is clearly to powerfull to have to answer to us, we still can and should judge and reject him on the basis of his actions.

Otherwise, by your logic (and it has often be used like that), a ruler is also unaccountable to the people just because he is too powerfull.

You have the right to believe or not in a particular god. I have never denied that. You can reject whatever you want.

Note : what are those selfish reasons again?

Note : it really seems to me that the in helenistic, ancient egypt and abrahamic religions, there is a judgment day at some point after death. Could you explain how is that possible if, as you claimed, their god(s) isn't the one defining what is good and what is not?

Wrong.
While some religons contain an "Armageddon"-szenario, i am not aware of any religion but the abrahamic ones that has something like your "Judgement day".
If you take, as an example, the nordic Ragnarök, then you will see that is is merely the final battle between the gods and their supernatural opponents which results in the destruction of the world - with two (or more?) humans surviving and starting a new world.
Many religions don't have any "end of the world"-szenarios at all.

Furthermore, your version of judgement is not universal either.
While helenistic and egyptian religion contained judges, they were quite different from your version.
Helenistic selection in the afterlife was more about important than good deeds (tough the deeds had to be heroic, IIRC), while the judges in egyptian religon cared only for good and bad deeds (and used scales to determine which weighted heavier) and not for any kind of mindless worship of deities.
Many other afterlifes are based on achievements, too - some even have many different afterlifes depending on the life you lead - e.g. a warrior would go to an afterlife where he would life an eternal life as a warrior, while a farmer would retire as the head of a large farm etc.

I am by no means an actual expert on religions, this is just basic knowledge back from school and some reading on my own.
If you want to get an actual education on religion, ask someone else.

Sorry but I was talking about a personal judgement day like the particular day when one person's actions are judged. I sincerely hope humankind to survive any end-of-world event.

Back to the topic, who is defining what is a good deed or a worthy achievement in those religions?
Because except on budhism all those religions have priests that are supposed to tell people what to do and what not. And they are the voice of their gods.

[Serafina]

And this is what I was saying earlier. It seems to me that you want god to prevent any fatalities or long-lasting negative effects while I accept the fact that they are bound to happen. They can be consequences of human actions or just natural disasters but he just can't erase them everytime. The events must follow their natural courses.

I do not "want god to prevent them", simply because i realize that there is no god.

And you STILL fail to get what i am saying, evidently:
A truly omnipotent AND benevolent god would have created a universe where such things would be impossible in the first place. Omnipotence can not be expected to deliver any less if it's creator wishes so - and a benevolent one would not create a world which includes suffering of any kind.

While you can somewhat argue that some suffering raises the quality of life by contrast (which again is only true for our imperfect universe and would not be true for a perfect one created by an omnipotent benevolent being), this is most certainly NOT true for most of the suffering in the world.
Worms that procreate by burrowing trough your eyeball and laying eggs in your brain do not add to anyones quality of life.

Note : what are those selfish reasons again?

Ask and you shall receive.
I call the abrahamic god selfish because he evidently craves worship. Five (or four, depending on the version of the bible you use) of his ten commandments revolve around his worships. He personally kills people who fail to worship him and he encourages followers to do so. Moses himself (with a bit help by his followers) kills 3000 people just because they danced around a golden statue, and god sent a plaque for good measure too (tough that might have something to doo with all those rotting corpses).

Sorry but I was talking about a personal judgement day like the particular day when one person's actions are judged. I sincerely hope humankind to survive any end-of-world event.

Which is not how christians normally use the phrase (if they use it at all). Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Either way, some religions simply do not have any personal judging. Some have gods being the judges, other have impersonal forces of nature that simply sort the people out. Some even have no different form of afterlife - everyone goes to the same place!

There is, however, nothing wrong with having a personal judge to sourt out the afterlife. What i am critizing that the abrahamic god is AGAIN selfish and judges nearly solely on the basis of worship!
You can argue that that's not that important after all, but it's simply too big a part of your religion to deny it! In the eyes of your god, being moral means following his rules. This is largely unique to your religion - others simply determined moral behaviour much like i do, based on more or less humanist principles (is it good for society? then it's moral).

The way how abrahamic religions are centering their morals around worship puts me off.
Worship certainly plays a big role in any religion, but it certainly is worse in abrahamic religions than everywhere else.

Back to the topic, who is defining what is a good deed or a worthy achievement in those religions?

Their morals are NOT made by their gods. It may seem odd (to christians), but most religions actually see morals as self-evident things, just like it is in real life.
Their gods might act as judges, but they are NOT the "law givers". They are NOT the origin of morality.
Indeed, helenic religion often acknoledged that their gods were often less moral than humans, simply because they had fewer reasons to behave.

[Darth Hoth]

One Christian argument that I have often seen is that the world is imperfect so that people will better appreciate Heaven when they come to it. (Conversely, it also has good in it so that the people in Hell will feel the loss of it when they go there; this latter bit is not emphasised very much, nowadays, but underlies the increasingly popular idea that Hell lacks unquenched fires and undying worms but is really just a state of separation from God - i.e., separation from God also means separation from all the good things in this life.) While this requires that one accepts the assumption of an afterlife, it seems to make sense within Christianity's own internal logic.

[Darth Hoth]

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.

I never understood this argument when I read about it, so I cannot really say whether this is wrong or right (I have no formal schooling in logic of philosophy beyond the high school level), but here is a common Christian rebuttal to it. In effect it goes, "If God is omnipotent, of course He cannot do anything that He cannot also undo. Of course he cannot make something that is more powerful than He Himself (i.e., what the immovable object would have to be to defy His will and stay immovable when He tried to move it) when He is omnipotent already."

Another one is to declare such arguments useless and theoretical; it is enough that God is omnipotent for any and all practical intents and purposes. This latter one, at least, seems to make sense in my eyes.

[Serafina]

I never understood this argument when I read about it, so I cannot really say whether this is wrong or right (I have no formal schooling in logic of philosophy beyond the high school level), but here is a common Christian rebuttal to it. In effect it goes, "If God is omnipotent, of course He cannot do anything that He cannot also undo. Of course he cannot make something that is more powerful than He Himself (i.e., what the immovable object would have to be to defy His will and stay immovable when He tried to move it) when He is omnipotent already."

Another one is to declare such arguments useless and theoretical; it is enough that God is omnipotent for any and all practical intents and purposes. This latter one, at least, seems to make sense in my eyes.

Well, that is certainly an interesting idea.
But that's only because omnipotence is logically impossible. That's the whole point, and this merely illustrates the fact: It's logically impossible to be omnipotent. There are always limits, there have to be limits.

[Samuel]

One Christian argument that I have often seen is that the world is imperfect so that people will better appreciate Heaven when they come to it. (Conversely, it also has good in it so that the people in Hell will feel the loss of it when they go there; this latter bit is not emphasised very much, nowadays, but underlies the increasingly popular idea that Hell lacks unquenched fires and undying worms but is really just a state of separation from God - i.e., separation from God also means separation from all the good things in this life.) While this requires that one accepts the assumption of an afterlife, it seems to make sense within Christianity's own internal logic.

That implies that people are incapable of moral action on their own and ironically not responsible for the good or evil they do.

[Terralthra]

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...)

Wait, what? Since when? I don't see any clause in the definitions of the word "omnipotent" that say "without any expenditure of effort." It seems to be quite an unwarranted leap to go from "can do anything" to "can will anything to happen with no effort." The mere fact that Genesis has God resting on the seventh day would seem to imply the opposite, in fact.

[Darth Hoth]

That implies that people are incapable of moral action on their own and ironically not responsible for the good or evil they do.

I thought that was implicit in Christian theology - the "total depravity" that Zuul mentioned earlier. All humans are evil by default and can be made good only through God's grace. Or did I miss something?

[Samuel]

That implies that people are incapable of moral action on their own and ironically not responsible for the good or evil they do.

I thought that was implicit in Christian theology - the "total depravity" that Zuul mentioned earlier. All humans are evil by default and can be made good only through God's grace. Or did I miss something?

The fact that humans are judged either according to their conduct (good or evil) or according to wheter they accept God (which would also count). It only makes sense under Calvanism with its elect.

[Darth Hoth]

I thought all fundies believed that God chose the righteous and made them believe so that they would be saved, while he made the evildoers not believe in Jesus so that they all go to Hell? The Bible seems to affirm that position:

11 And for this cause God shall send them [i.e., the unbelievers] strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Although given its nature, one probably could find a "free will" quote there as well, somewhere. But anyway, most fundies make a huge deal about how they are saved "through grace alone".

[Samuel]

That contradicts their repeated insistance on the importance of conversions and missionaries.

[Einzige]

sirocco, your arguments are literally fucking moronic:

And this is what I was saying earlier. It seems to me that you want god to prevent any fatalities or long-lasting negative effects while I accept the fact that they are bound to happen. They can be consequences of human actions or just natural disasters but he just can't erase them everytime. The events must follow their natural courses.

Why would God need to prevent anything? Why not simply design a world in which evil is impossible? Is He not powerful enough to do that? Not smart enough? Not good enough? The problem isn't that evil happens; it's that the world, as it is constructed, allows for the possibility of evil. An imperfect world necessitates an imperfect Creator under a theistic paradigm.

[Iosef Cross]

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.

He may say:
Evil is an human concept.

if the fundies define god as a being that works agaisnt evil (and that the human conception of evil was given by god) and is omnipotent and omniscient, well, that is an logical inconsistency in their beliefs.

[Einzige]

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.

He may say:
Evil is an human concept.

if the fundies define god as a being that works agaisnt evil (and that the human conception of evil was given by god) and is omnipotent and omniscient, well, that is an logical inconsistency in their beliefs.

If "evil" is a purely human concept in a universe ruled by the Christian Deity, then why does He spend so much of His time inveighing against it as if it had actual substance?

Wait -- you seem to have caught that too, albeit not in so many words.

[sirocco]

sirocco, your arguments are literally fucking moronic:

And this is what I was saying earlier. It seems to me that you want god to prevent any fatalities or long-lasting negative effects while I accept the fact that they are bound to happen. They can be consequences of human actions or just natural disasters but he just can't erase them everytime. The events must follow their natural courses.

Why would God need to prevent anything? Why not simply design a world in which evil is impossible? Is He not powerful enough to do that? Not smart enough? Not good enough? The problem isn't that evil happens; it's that the world, as it is constructed, allows for the possibility of evil. An imperfect world necessitates an imperfect Creator under a theistic paradigm.

uh? I don't understand why a perfect creator can't make an imperfect creation.

Wouldn't such a creation result in unforeseen events? And since Life is deeply connected to Evolution, it allows for a variety of paths for each one of us.

If you look at this from another point of view, angels are practically 'designed' for a specific function while humans can virtually be whatever they want.

[ray245]

sirocco, your arguments are literally fucking moronic:

And this is what I was saying earlier. It seems to me that you want god to prevent any fatalities or long-lasting negative effects while I accept the fact that they are bound to happen. They can be consequences of human actions or just natural disasters but he just can't erase them everytime. The events must follow their natural courses.

Why would God need to prevent anything? Why not simply design a world in which evil is impossible? Is He not powerful enough to do that? Not smart enough? Not good enough? The problem isn't that evil happens; it's that the world, as it is constructed, allows for the possibility of evil. An imperfect world necessitates an imperfect Creator under a theistic paradigm.

uh? I don't understand why a perfect creator can't make an imperfect creation.

Wouldn't such a creation result in unforeseen events? And since Life is deeply connected to Evolution, it allows for a variety of paths for each one of us.

If you look at this from another point of view, angels are practically 'designed' for a specific function while humans can virtually be whatever they want.

Because he would not be perfect any more.

[Serafina]

uh? I don't understand why a perfect creator can't make an imperfect creation.

Of course he CAN. But he would have to choose to do so. Therefore, any imperfection would result from his choice, making him fully accountable for it.

Look, the concept of omnipotence is illogical.
An omnipotent being has, by definiton, to be able to do anything without any effort.
An omnipotent could literary create an infinte number of flawless universes with an unlimited amount of variation.

We clearly see that our universe is not perfect (simply because living beings are suffering).
It may be perfect from the point of view of the creator, but that would mean that the choose to include all the things that are wrong with our universe. Which makes him accountable for them.

The whole point of Epicurus riddle is that you can have either a non-omnipotent creator or a malevolent (or non-caring) omnipotent one.
You can't have both.

[Formless]

Here is a paradox for all those who believe in an omnipotent god: can god bake a potato so hot, not even he can eat it?

In more serious terms, can god use his creative powers to make an object that cannot coexist in the same universe as Him? OR which limits his own powers? For example, can he create another being as powerful as himself? But if he can, how would such a being interact with him? What would happen if two such beings started interfering with one another, or tried to destroy one another?

This is why all things must have limits. There is no such thing as an immovable object, nor an unstoppable force. No such thing as an omnipotent god.