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?
Just set your bible aside for a few minutes and look around you. You CAN make sense of it all by yourself.
Look at the cycles and rhythms of the seasons, of the planet, of the universe, even of your own body. As far as natural disasters and evil? Shit happens. Think about the woman on her knees praying after the tsunami, what is she asking for and who is she asking? Is she asking someone for her son back? Her house back? Is she asking the same guy who allowed the tsunami in the first place? Shit just happens, there is no one out there punishing anyone. And there are not people out there doing things to deserve it. Did the deer I hit on the road the other day do anything to deserve to die?
Mike,
I think you are close on the secret there. But instead of interpreting it as "we are all gods," it is better viewed as "we are all a part of God (or God consciousness)." We all have the ability to think as the "mind of God" which really means that there is some universal framework of ultimate understanding that Humans have a very small spark of, which is evident in our intelligences, and which we continuously strive to better acquaint ourselves with.
I like and agree with your viewpoint, but currently prefer the swagger and visceral punch of "we're all gods" for the sheer shock factor. When I tell people that "we're all divine sparks of the Universal Mind" I fear I come across as some sort of recruitment agent for a squirrely cult, and when I say "I am God (but so are you)" I get strange glances and comments about delusions of grandeur. So then I usually just give up and say something like, "So, what's on TV?"
There is no question of free will. How do we know that what we are experiencing and calling free will is truly free? It was given to us by "God", which translates into, we can make choices within Gods parameters. This is the paradox. How do we define free will?
Caleb,
Perhaps you limit the idea within the framework of our small-dimensional human thinking. We are given free will, but "within God's parameters." What are God's parameters?
Well, since God is infinite, then those parameters are also limitless.
So,where is the paradox?
To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood. – George Santayana
So many foolish comments here because you have too much time on your hands.
Get closer to nature, live a simpler life, and you will be better off. I don't really know but it doesn't really matter.
Perhaps thinking is foolish. Perhaps trying to riddle out existence is folly. But to live life without questioning is a pointless existence.
Socrates said it best.
Though I do agree that it is probably a happier life to live life for the moment and not deduce it away. That is heaven on Earth maybe?
Go back to animal intelligence(ie do not think about time space and existence and just be) and let the universe riddle itself out. Come to think of it, I think I like that idea.
TheThinkingMan: One of my favorite passages in philosophy is David Hume, writing In his Treatise, where he expresses the frustration he often feels grappling with meaning of life issues. He wrote that he takes breaks from it all, one of his favorite break activities being to play backgammon with friends. That works only for awhile, though, until the need to contemplate starts creeping back in. Then off he goes back to study the meaning of life. This is was a recurring cycle for Hume.
Erich and ThinkingMan: 'Meaning of Life' issues are delicious difficulties. Although I might be more comfortable (or comfortably numb per Pink Floyd) not diving deep into the metaphysical, or not pushing to continually peek behind the great curtain, I'm fairly certain that my life would lose much of its spice and sparkle without it. To explore and discuss these often murky alleys is an effort frequently frustrating, yet often enlightening and shocking. It is essentially the search for Beauty and Wisdom, and it lies always under the skin of my existence. I wouldn't have it any other way. Keep thinking ThinkingMan, it's a way to honor your Higher Self and carry on the great tradition of brave seekers, skeptics and mystics who came before you.
Also, backgammon is a fantasic diversion – my wife and I play every weekend (but even then we try to "create" double sixes using mind power and will. It seems to work more often than the odds predict!)
This reasoning only functions if you first assume that it's evil to not try to stop evil. By that logic, we're all terrible people for not giving all of our money to charity.
The answer is paragraph 3.
Meaning of Life and meaning of a life are two different topics. One has little bearing on anything, and the other has much bearing on at least one.
And ThinkingMan, questions are necessary, though some are paradoxically not. Meaning of life is a koan. And as such, can never be resolved to a single "answer". That part of Zen is where I draw the line.
Jim- it seems like you prefer answers, and final conclusions, and arrival points. I, and I suspect many other writers at DI, seem to prefer questions, doubts, and the joys of changeable and inconclusive journeys. For me it's not about geting to the answers, but in the act of seeking, and probing, and contemplating Universals such as Beauty, Truth, Freedom, "God", Love and other "Big Picture" concepts. I disagree with your opinion that Meaning of Life questions have "little bearing on anything". Also, I feel all questions are necessary, especially the ones that have no "answer" such as koans. It is in the contemplation of these that the growth occurs, and the Satori or aha! moment is the great realization that…get ready…there are no Answers (in the final, closed book, fundamental, written in stone sense).
You misunderstand me…I do feel that the pursuit is equally as good as the conclusion, most times more so. I love solving problems. But there are productive pursuits. And there are non-productive pursuits.
I feel I need to explain myself further, because I actually classify myself as a "big picture" thinker – a logical progression for success in a managerial ladder. Getting wrapped around the axle is a recipe for failure. Oh, I can drill into the details when necessary, but organizations need big picture first and directions to solutions after.
My wife also happens to think that philosophy has value and on things like that (psychology, acupuncture, sometimes art) we disagree often. But she's an artist. Just because I happen to think koans a supreme waste of time and intellect means nothing – I am in the minority. Growth may occur through contemplation of meaningless things, but I believe greater growth occurs in contemplating meaningful things. Of course, "meaningful" is defined differently by every person, and what is meaningful to one may be meaningless to another.
And there are always answers. Sometimes the answer is that it is unanswerable. And then you move on. If there are no answers then … gee, I guess there's no meaning to life.
"Evil and suffering exist because of free will" is wrong because: not all forms of evil and suffering are the result of other people; ref. children getting cancer, natural disasters etc.
If god truly existed he'd be locked up in guantanamo!
evil just means bad, or something bad, getting cancer is bad but not caused knowingly by anything we do. even lifestyle doesn't determine who gets cancer some can have bad lifestyles and live to a rip old age some don't.
People do bad things to others too, it is funny to me how people get mad at God when people choose to do bad, but when people choose to do good no one thanks him or gives him credit?
people think since people do bad things and nothing is done about it (not discounting courts system and punishment)from God stopping it, people want to say this is evidence of no God but yet when people do good such as being generous, kind, self sacrificing, helpful, truthful, hopeful, considerant, honest in all things, then no one uses this as evidence of a God.
doesn't this sound contradictory?
suffering is caused in a nutshell, many here won't appreciate or understand it, but I will state it anyway suffering from all causes, is alienation from God. they have not been reconciled to God, they have not taken advantage of his remedy for eventual reversal of sin and death we are all under.
but to say anymore would take alot of posts to much for here.
Sorry Rosa but the way people act toward others does not determine the validity of a god(s) or lack there of so no contradiction there. Plus "bad" is a relative term. Me getting a virus is bad for me but good for the virus. We make what is good and bad in terms of being a human.
It all sounds pretty tidy until God himself becomes matter and submits to the evil and injustice to the point of suffering death… and thus changes it into something that is a divine vehicle for something greater. "Keep your mind in hell, and despair not," St. Silouan the Athonite
So you're saying that if God existed the world would be a paradise- AKA Heaven.
That sounds pretty naive.
If you want to teach your kid to share they will think you suck and don't know anything but in the end it IS good for them- maybe this life is like that but only on a massive scale?
Also, if God comes from eternity then our puny and insignificant lifespans mean NOTHING in the big scheme of things, which means we are pretty much spoilt little brats that don't understand anything besides the crap in our pants doesn't feel good.
God exists- get to know him.
the reason for the bad is so there'd be such thing as good. the existence of both an omniscient god and evil is not at all a contradiction.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
Good and evil are concepts developed to justify human bias. Good and evil are concepts of humans imposed on humans by humans, and these concepts are fully subjective to human bias.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
God is molevolent, indeed. God must be molevolent to be omnipotent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
Evil is subjective to human bias. God did not impose evil on us, we did unto ourselves by conceiving it.
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
God is a means to better understand the system by which everything exists in harmony. Unfortunately, people have this uncanny tendency to misunderstand even the simplest of things and warp them completely out of proportion. The problem is that people see only what they want to see.
This paradox is valid only under the pretense that God is a tangible being rather than such a means as suggested above. This misconception is further perpetuated by the suggestion that God is a "He" which further implies that God is not only a being, but a being of a particular gender.
To describe God is to suggest that God is something less significant than what is omnipotent. To suggest what is good and evil is to defy God's omnipotence. To reiterate, our bias is the issue.
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this. So I thought I would add my own input.
Any idea we have about an existence of a God seems to me to be only that, an idea. Ideas have no proof, they are just abstract thoughts our mind come up with that we try to prove with facts that only make sense to our race. To me, I am my own God. I look within myself for the hope and encouragement that other people look to God for. It's one's way of coping with everything we disagree with in the world and life, nothing more. Whether God exists or not, whether good and evil exist or just our own biases, it means nothing. We are too simple to know what is reality. We are not advanced enough mentally to comprehend even a fraction of what existence means. A fascinating subject to debate over, but in the end it doesn't matter because our ideas of what is real and what isn't are just ideas perceived through our human minds. For example, an animal doesn't think in a language such as English. Therefore, an animal's idea of what reality is totally different from ours. But again ideas are just ideas. I think everyone should believe in some kind of hope for something better, or perfection, beyond this microscopic lifespan of ours (in comparison to our perceived age of the universe). It makes life worth living. Something to strive for. If you believe in God or just your own self, both are respectable things to believe in because they both serve the same personal reason.
Thanks for reading:)
Calvin, 18 yoa.
Jason,
I agree that to try to decribe/discuss/debate "God" is nearly a pointless endeavor because it does rather significantly reveals our own personal biases.
Biases that act to cause willful harm to others are the scarey things about religion or any worldview for that matter.
Biases that blame anyone – including God – for creating good and evil are just trying to rationalize their own biases as being the preferential bias that is acceptable in their own worldview.
ya know man maybe yall don't understand what the !@#$ I'm doing so just shut it
i'm not religious, but hume has his head up his ass on this one. i had the idea that if there is a god, and if there is a hell, then god put pain on earth as a preview of hell. You can't know why you'd want to avoid hell if you don't know what it means for things to suck.