By Erich Vieth on April 17th, 2008
The problem of evil, as described circa 300 B.C.
In about 300 B.C., Epicurus eloquently summed up the problem of the existence of evil. It has come to be known as the Riddle of Epicurus or the Epicurean paradox. It was translated by David Hume in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
1. Hypothesize a model God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator and preserver of the physical universe, including the solar system and all other planets and stars, in all the galaxies that we can see with our instruments and everything that might lie beyond.
2. We can reasonably expect that empirical evidence should exist for a purposeful and supernatural creation of this cosmos, such as the observed violation of one or more laws of physics.
3. We can also reasonably expect that empirical evidence should exist for supernatural actions in the operation of this cosmos, such as the observation of events somewhere in the cosmos that cannot be explained by any known natural process.
4. No empirical evidence for a purposeful creation of the cosmos can be found. No universal laws of physics were violated at the origin of the universe in which we reside.
5. No empirical evidence for supernatural actions in the operation of the cosmos can be found. No events have been observed anywhere in the cosmos that cannot be explained by known natural process.
6. Modern cosmology indicates that the initial state of our universe was one of maximum chaos so that it contains no memory of a creator.
7. Scientists can provide plausible, purely natural scenarios based in well-established cosmological theories that shown how our universe may have arisen out of an initial state of nothingness.
8. Observations in cosmology look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.
9. We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God such as the model God, who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator and preserver of the physical universe, including the solar system and all other planets and stars, in all the galaxies that we can see with our instruments and everything that might lie beyond does not exist.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm
Good going, Erich. You criticize God near midnight, and shortly before dawn he wakes us up with an earthquake!
I had to respond when I felt the aftershock a couple of minutes ago.
I know the earthquake was aimed at you, because it centered just on the far side of Illinois. By biblical standards, that’s a close shot.
Or a USGS map is here.
Dan: It wasn’t a big quake, only a little shake, a cosmic “hug,” God’s way of saying “Hey, glad you’re thinking of Me down there!”
It seems to me that the real problem with evil is that some people imagine-into-existence a god of evil — a spirit-being who becomes the scapegoat for everything “bad” (whatever that means) that happens to humans. This “bad” spirit-being provides not only an easy way to avoid blaming the “good” god for “bad” things that happen, but also creates the premise that all human actions are caused by either the “good” god or the “bad” god, without any grey in between. This leads to believers in the “good” god demonizing anyone who behaves contrary to their doctrine, because such actions are obviously not caused by their “good” god, so they must be caused by the “bad” god. Likewise, other believers in the same “good” god who, nevertheless, happen to follow different religious dogma, also become accused of following the “bad” god, the result being two (or more) groups each claiming to follow the same “good” god while accusing their counterparts of following the “bad” god. This results in widespread confusion among people outside the various warring groups, who see the groups claiming to follow the same omnipotent “good” god, yet obviously contradicting each other — making the claim of each of the groups highly questionable. Amazingly, despite this problem, each group stubbornly clings to its imaginary “evil” god, because the “evil” deity serves such a valuable role; i.e., a vehicle for explaining away the “bad” things that happen to “good” people without tarnishing the reputation of the imaginary “good” god.
People have been debating calamity for thousands of years. All religions must deal with this question. Each religion’s solution to these age-old problems gives character to its own version {idol} of god {rule maker}. Paul questioned God’s righteousness in dealing with Pharaoh. Every time we talk about those who seem to have been treated unjustly, we raise the level of tension that must be resolved. Many have given up completely because none of it seems “rational” to them. The real underlying question is the liability for sin {law - less - ness 1John3:4}. How liable is man for his sin? How liable is God for His actions in subjecting the creation to the bondage of corruption? God always assumes full responsibility for all of His actions, and, of course, creation must follow His example. Man always resists God’s will {thelema}, but Paul says that no man can resist God’s plan {boulema}. The Creator is responsible for all he has created.
Larry - sounds like you would vote for the third option of epicurus, but you haven’t answered “Whence cometh evil?”
God is still interested in this debate, based on the recent earthquake aftershocks in the Midwest. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/strong-midwest-earthquake_n_97723.html
“Whence cometh evil?” “I {YHWH} make peace , and create evil” Isa. 45:7 Next you must define “evil”.
Larry asks, “How liable is man for his sin?”
Larry, maybe you can take a look at this post and give us your thoughts: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=166/.