Epicurean Paradox

[Mímirswell]

Brief History

Epicurus was a 3rd century BCE Athenian philosopher, the founder of Epicureanism, one of the most popular schools of Hellenistic Philosophy. He postulated the an argument that takes the form of Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd), which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim, arrives at an absurd (read: unacceptable) result, and thus concludes that the original premise was incorrect, since it led to this absurd result. This is also known as proof by contradiction. It makes use of the law of non-contradiction—a statement cannot be both true and false. It is logically valid in most cases and was made famous by Aristotle.

The Argument

Epicurus:

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?

Written as a Modus Tollens (denying the Consequent); it could be written thus:

Premise: If God omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then there would be no evil in the world.
Presmise: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: Therefore, God is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent or does not exist.

Criticism of the Argument

Augustine of Hippo demonstrated is considered the most famous defence of the existence of God against the Epicurean paradox. He argued evil was only privatio boni. An evil thing can only be referred to as a negative form of a good thing, such as discord, injustice, and loss of life or liberty. If a being is not totally pure, evil will fill in any gaps in that being's purity. Augustine also argued that Epicurus had ignored the potential benefits of suffering in the world. This belief, called Contrast Theodicy (that evil only exists as a contrast with good) however relies on a metaphysical view of morality which few theologians agree with (that good and evil are not moral judgments but rather states of purity) and thus does not in itself constitute a valid defence. As to the potential benefits of suffering; an omnipotent being could give the world any benefits derived from suffering without those in the world having to suffer, that is the very power of omnipotence.

Another method of refutation argues that asserting the existence of evil would infer a moral standard against which to define good and evil . Therefore, by using this argument one implies the existence of a moral law, which requires a law-maker. If this creator of morality is God, then this carries its own host of issues detailed in another thread: Divine Command Theory

The Final classical refutation comes from the Argument of Free Will. The Free Will argument supposes that God created evil so that humans have freedom of choice, to do good or evil, so that they are whole beings. This however could only be true if everyone was omnipotent. Free Choice cannot exist without omnipotence. Furthermore, they have no relevance to the problem of what is classified as "natural evil" (e.g flash flood, earthquakes, etc).

[I Have a Clever Name]

Lets see what the theists churn out this time round.

[Zenith Darksea]

Erm, why do we have to be omnipotent to have free will? I can make decisions in my mind perfectly easily, despite the fact that I'm not omnipotent. Could you perhaps explain this bizarre assertion?

[Mímirswell]

If it is argued that the free will defense does succeed in accounting for moral evil because it is logically impossible for there to be free creatures such that those creatures freely perform only morally right actions in every possible facet in which they exist, then it follows that free will is incompatible with the other divine properties attributed to God in the previous proofs, and thus if omnipotence is a necessary property of God, then it follows that God does not exist. The only way God can exist and free will be given to man in such a dilemma is for God to have given man omnipotence in such a manner that he can freely perform only morally correct actions yet still have the choice to perform evil; ergo, omnipotence.

[I Have a Clever Name]

Erm, why do we have to be omnipotent to have free will? I can make decisions in my mind perfectly easily, despite the fact that I'm not omnipotent. Could you perhaps explain this bizarre assertion?

Thats like saying a hamster in a cage has free will (wonderful analogy, I know).

[Zenith Darksea]

Well, if it had the mental capability, why shouldn't it? You don't always have to be able to act on free will (though we can act on most of our choices), but you can still make a mental decision. For instance, I can decide that space travel is a good thing. I'm probably never going to get the chance to go into space, but I have just made a choice nonetheless.

[I Have a Clever Name]

Well, if it had the mental capability, why shouldn't it? You don't always have to be able to act on free will (though we can act on most of our choices), but you can still make a mental decision. For instance, I can decide that space travel is a good thing. I'm probably never going to get the chance to go into space, but I have just made a choice nonetheless.

I know but labelling God as an autocratic dictator holding all the cards is a personal hobby of mine. Free will doesn't amount to much when God creates the enviroment in which we pathetically subsist.

free will is incompatible with the other divine properties attributed to God

I love you.

[MoROmeTe]

First of there is a little thing, meaning idea, relating to God and how we think of Him that I really love... A certain (pseudo) Dionysus the Areopagite (more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-...the_Areopagite or http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ps...us-areopagite/) said that man, being limited, cannot comprehend the true nature of God and as such cannot create a positive definition of God. All we can say about God is in the negative as "God is not evil" and "God is not good" or "God is beyong good and evil".

So the Epicurian dillema, viewed from this perspective, is besides the point. We cannot say of God is omnipotent and/or the origin of evil or of good as these human categories only apply to humans and not to God which transcends them. As such the dillema cannot and does not have any meaning.

[Marcus Scaurus]

Ah, the Epicurean paradox - along with evolutionism the main reason why I stopped believing in God.

[Halie Satanus]

A religous man will say we do not question the divine, an atheist will say there is no evil only evil men. a satanist will say O rly! that's what we've been saying all along. i think that pretty much sum's it up, but to add that the paradox is BCE, and so precedes redemption though christ as a solution, something i doubt any modern christian can exclude from discussion.so i think i sort of agree with the it's irelevant idea, maybe, sorry i'll try to be a little more evasive on the next one.

god didn't give man free will man took it when he felt shame in the garden of eden and ....oh see we're back to jesus and redemption. great post though(it took me all day to read it but great post :wink: )

[Ummon]

This stems from the patristic mistake that says evil doesn't exist on its own, and has no independent nature. Evil exists, and it is necessary to have good, as such God can be good and omnibenevolent without excluding evil.

Evil is derived from our limited perception of God and reality, an the Devil serves infact God, as a guardian as much as a thief.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Why does God allow evil to exist? Because God wants to test human-kind.

God can eliminate all evil if he so desired, but he wants to test the faith, morals, etc. of human-kind.

In order to gain salvation and enterance into paradise/heaven, one must be tested first, and one must prove oneself to be worthy.

Simple enough.

[Reidy]

Don't we need to bring omniscience into this? If God does not know about people suffering then that too could cause it.

[Darth Wong]

Don't we need to bring omniscience into this? If God does not know about people suffering then that too could cause it.

Ah yes, good point. It is assumed that God is omniscient in these discussions. So a third option is that God doesn't know what's going on, is blind, etc. Or maybe he's dead, having eaten too many cosmic Twinkies and not gotten enough divine exercise lately.

[Ummon]

Too simple, infact arguably wrong.

Evil doesn't test, it does though eliminate what's unworthy. If God is just as well and benevolent, must he be more just, or more benevolent?

Ancient Jewish prayers do exist, in which it is wished that God's benevolence prevails on His justice. This is a sign of the problem of perception, along with many other things which cannot be discussed here. Benevolence and justice are not separated, we just cannot see this.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Too simple, infact arguably wrong.

Evil doesn't test, it does though eliminate what's unworthy. If God is just as well and benevolent, must he be more just, or more benevolent?

Ancient Jewish prayers do exist, in which it is wished that God's benevolence prevails on His justice. This is a sign of the problem of perception, along with many other things which cannot be discussed here. Benevolence and justice are not separated, we just cannot see this.

But God created evil for the purpose of testing mankind's faith. Evil is caused by the existence of Lucifer/Satan. Lucifer was a fallen angel. God has allowed Lucifer to exist during the lenght of man-kind's existence for the purpose of testing man-kind's faith and worthiness.

God sets rules and man-kind must follow them. Evil attempts to prevent people from following the rules set by God.

[Darth Wong]

I haven't seen anyone actually addressing the original argument, which is that God cannot be benevolent if he doesn't act. Either he can act, and chooses not to, in which case he doesn't care about the suffering that results, or he cannot act, in which case he is not omnipotent. The "free will" defense does not preclude an omnipotent God preventing suffering; he could intervene to stop a murderer by vapourizing the bullet as it comes out of the barrel and then removing the murderer from this plane of existence. This allows the murderer to make his own decisions and be punished for them, while also preventing suffering.

[Ummon]

I haven't seen anyone actually addressing the original argument, which is that God cannot be benevolent if he doesn't act. Either he can act, and chooses not to, in which case he doesn't care about the suffering that results, or he cannot act, in which case he is not omnipotent. The "free will" defense does not preclude an omnipotent God preventing suffering; he could intervene to stop a murderer by vapourizing the bullet as it comes out of the barrel and then removing the murderer from this plane of existence. This allows the murderer to make his own decisions and be punished for them, while also preventing suffering.

In truth, acting would not be benevolent, as good exists only by virtue of evil. If good cannot be chosen, instead of an easier, more profitable (in the short term) evil, what point there is in wisdom, hard work, and discipline? All these things would not exist without rashness, lazyness, and unruliness.

But God created evil for the purpose of testing mankind's faith. Evil is caused by the existence of Lucifer/Satan. Lucifer was a fallen angel. God has allowed Lucifer to exist during the lenght of man-kind's existence for the purpose of testing man-kind's faith and worthiness.

God sets rules and man-kind must follow them. Evil attempts to prevent people from following the rules set by God.

If Adam had been better without original sin, God wouldn't have allowed sin. But sin made Adam conscious of choice, and his descendants able to achieve knowledge. While innocence is positive, it is monolythic and has no alternative, and conscious good is surely better.

[Darth Wong]

In truth, acting would not be benevolent, as good exists only by virtue of evil. If good cannot be chosen, instead of an easier, more profitable (in the short term) evil, what point there is in wisdom, hard work, and discipline? All these things would not exist without rashness, lazyness, and unruliness.

Nonsense. Between good and evil are amoral or apathetic actions. It is absurd to say that good would cease to have meaning if the extremes of evil were prevented.

[Ummon]

Nonsense. Between good and evil are amoral or apathetic actions. It is absurd to say that good would cease to have meaning if the extremes of evil were prevented.

But amoral apathetic actions are evil, as well. Only perfection is good. There are thus infinite degrees of betterment.