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?
spend a little time reading about C.S Lewis, Francis Chan, and John Mcdowell. See how they turned out when trying to prove everything that is Christianity wrong… It gave me a lot of proof.
There is something that i always find important to mention in the context of Epicurus. Many kids are beginning to use him as a great philosopher to legitimize their atheism, and they quote the above ad nauseum to prove gods non-existence. Remember, that Epicurus was a die-hard theist, in his texts he doesn't even doubt the existence of the gods, he is just exploring paradoxes.
Albert Einstein wrote a book titled 'God vs. Science' in 1921…..
the post I put up earlier didn't include the part that explains what the difference between good and evil is. this however is word for word out of his book.
I hope this citation is credible enough. also as a side note, if you wish to find out more about God and gain proof to prove or disprove his existence read "crazy love" by Francis Chan, "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, and "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell. If you want any more advice hit me up. I'll check this daily. Those books I listed above are all about men who were atheists who sought out to prove God, Jesus, Christianity wrong. If it is not enough proof for you then at least you will have gained more knowledge. Christians and atheists seem to agree on one thing, and that is that knowledge is good.
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. 'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely '
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good…!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues.
'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?' The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
'Is Satan good?' The student doesn't hesitate on this one.. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?' The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.' Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?' The student squirms on his feet.
'Yes.'
'So who created them ?' The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?' The student's voice betrays him and cracks.
'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?' 'No sir. I've never seen Him.' 'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?' 'No, sir, I have not.' 'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?' 'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.' 'Yet you still believe in him?' 'Yes' 'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist… What do you say to that, son?' 'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.' The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.
'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '
' Yes.
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.
You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.' Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer. 'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?' The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.
'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.' The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.
'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'
'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so.. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers….
'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
THE PROFESSOR SAT DOWN…
PS: The student was Albert Einstein.
So, Bobby. Now that Jim has shown that your purported story about Albert Einstein is false, how about admitting that you have never actually seen the book that you are supposedly quoting from? And if you misled us out of carelessness, what lesson(s) have you learned from this experience?
(not) sorry…false
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
That was too easy, Bobby – a few seconds to type "albert einstein g" into google and the first thing that pops up on the autofill is "albert einstein god vs science" and the first article is the snopes one.
It could be that I cheated…I read Walter Isaacson's bio of Einstein. Never came up.
Or it could be that anytime anybody posts a fantastical quote (or in this came a lengthy parable) about anybody remotely famous, I like to check. Some of the best stories never happened. But then, some of the worst stories never happened either. (Think parables…)
And Bobby, here are a couple of others' thoughts on your three resources:
On C.S. Lewis, The Atheist That Never Really Was
On McDowell, Josh McDowell – Atheist Convert to Christianity? (McDowell's Ministries apparently admit that he was never an atheist)
And on Chan, this wiki article leads me to believe that he was always a Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Chan
Please understand, these are not intended to sway you from your opinion. You can believe what you want, but as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and none of the apologetics have ever come close to any proof whatsoever (apologetics…why would the "truth" need so many people trying to justify it??…guess it can't stand on its own). Not even the nonsense Lewis spewed in The Screwtape Letters holds water to any rational analysis. You'll have to do better here if you think you'll change someone's mind.
But if your intent is to illuminate other perspectives, by all means, please continue. Just check your sources first, please.
Bobby really wasn't smart in citing those authors. Especially C.S. Lewis, who was blatanly christian which can be seen in much of his writing. However, that doesn't take away from the arguments in his post. My religion says that we were sent down here to be tested and that free will is how it is set about. God does not stop "evil" because the fact that they have that choice is too important. Free will is free. If some want to do things that have bad consequences for other people then THEY should be blamed for making that choice. Not God for not stopping it and thereby nulling the whole reason we were sent here in the first place. Also, I still don't see why God has to be so mysteriously mythic. I think He simply uses an advanced science that we don't understand yet.
Anon writes:—"My religion says that we were sent down here to be tested and that free will is how it is set about."
Like other apparently simple questions concerning religion, I have one for this:
Tested for what?
I mean, if at the end of the test you are basically taken out of the game and put on a shelf for eternity, doing nothing but supposedly basking in the wonderfulness of an afterlife that has no features, or, conversely, thrown into a cosmic scrapheap, the question that never seems to be addressed is, for what? What does this "test" show we are suited to do?
Or is that part of the whole "it's a mystery" thing that just kicks the can down the road a bit farther and answers nothing?
Bobby, Josh McDowell!? Many years ago, when I was still undecided about the "authority" of the bible I read his book, Daniel in the Critic's Den. Fundamentalists claim the book of Daniel was written in the 6th century B.C. But scholars point out that its "prophesies" are historically accurate until Antiochus IV in the middle of the 2nd century B.C. From then on it gets everything wrong – strongly suggesting the conclusion that it was actually written in the 2nd century.
Aside from other clues, such as its literary style which clearly follows other known apocalyptic literature of the 2nd Century B.C., those without an ax to grind (i.e., those who don't need to believe otherwise) mostly acknowledge it as the work of a 2nd Century B.C. author.
I read his book desperately searching for evidence that the "experts" were wrong. But his arguments were so lame that I came away convinced that the historians were right all along.
Try this simple test. Walk into any Christian book store and randomly pull a book purporting to offer a scholarly analysis of a topic. LOOK FOR FOOTNOTES. If the only footnotes are of guys in the choir like C.S. Lewis or Josh McDowell or even the author's own works, don't waste your time. In most cases you will find no footnotes at all. Don't take my word for it. Check it out. I never have been and never will be a Catholic. But I have to admit the only consistent exception to this rule I ever found in Christian literature was of Catholic scholars. They do their homework. But fundamentalists (such as Lewis and McDowell) pretty much make it up as they go along. True scholars study and consider all of the evidence, thoughtfully weigh the merits of the various claims, and publish their conclusions. They back up their thesis with evidence of their research.
I forget who said it, but the saying is that: Theology is like playing tennis without a net.
Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat. Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there. Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there and shouting “I found it!”
I'd love to give the author credit for that, but don't know who came up with it…it's quite fun.
And Mark, thanks…I can't hear "it's a mystery" without thinking of George Carlin.
As I read the faux Einstein parable, I spotted one glaring error. It may have fooled a freshman philosophy student, but not (for example) a scientist. This is the distinction between levels of abstraction. One cannot directly see anything. One's senses are all subject to levels of abstraction as they process through the mind. Most of what we know is through external induction of indirectly observed things.
Any astronomer (for example) knows that distant galaxies are there because they trust the (thoroughly and continuously verified) chain of abstraction.
That is, the stars in the galaxy emit photons that eventually reflect from a mirror into a sensor (film, CCD, etc) convert into a signal that is processed (chemically or electronically) and eventually converted into the format necessary for our personal receptors to then repeat the process of converting a picture into an image in our minds.
No one has ever directly smelled, touched, tasted, heard, or even directly seen a galaxy (except as a dim dot). But we have no doubt they exist, nor doubt the reality and magnitude of space between it and us.
My point is that all stages of the abstraction are confirmable. Whereas God is only evident by the total lack of any evidence.
The "student" who uses binary distinction and then claims that each case is of an actual thing (like heat) versus its absence (cold) is basically claiming that one can add, but not subtract. There is no such thing as a -1 apple, for which we don't even have a word. Yet grocers must calculate with them as if they were real. It is a false dichotomy in every case.
BTW: Evolution has been directly observed. Although it hadn't yet a century ago. This is because we've only kept good enough records to see it since around 150 years ago, when people started trying to disprove Darwin.
Just to help with settling the Einstein's religion thing.
"Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.""
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencef…
One of the first sites that come up on google, and definitely better than wikipedia.
oh I don't mind the argument of faith as it applies to both religion and science. I have never done my own research into the speed of light, or evolution, or auto mechanics. I have 'faith' that each of these are 'true' (or at least true for our immediate purposes). So I simply apply a form of Occam's Razor. Which is more likely to be 'true'? The accumulated knowledge of the greatest scientific minds of our day? Or a collection of scribblings from a primitive desert culture 2000 years ago?
hey, all of you guys are ridiculously ignorant, and biased in your facts especially the atheist on this thread.
first off, many non-believers use the absence of God's immediate presence to be irrefutable proof of his non-existence, when instead, you guys with your "open-minds" and ability to "comprehend the options which religion blocks", neglect to realize that if there is an omnipotent being, the creation is work of the creator, God is not our creation, just because we as humans feel like as our creator he should step in and intervene all the time, doesn't mean he has too.
also, a lot of peoples alternate theories on the existence of God, rely on some form of modern philosophy,
hey, news flash…Philosophy in itself is a paradox.
how do you know that the world which you perceive and that you as a person, your body, and mind even exist? Basically scientist are still baffled about our own sentient thought, and the absence of the area in the brain which allows us the process of reason, some argue that it resides in the brain, with dualist say that it is connected but separated, but I've definitely never seen a mind, could this not, by your theory mean in fact that the existence of the mind is a fallacy?
If that question is too broad also realize that a lot of the laws and rules of the world have yet the be proved, and we rely on axiom systems to justify the theories and laws we hold as truth, when their foundation hasn't been proved.
but because it's something we can understand, we have faith in the thoughts of another man. I could see if you had come to these conclusions on your own,through lifetimes of gained knowledge, through many trips into surrounding galaxies, somehow proved that, nowhere within the furthest reaches of the solar system lies another, even if only, life form, but many of the arguments presented here, are basically the same that I have seen elsewhere, I am a firm believer in God, not necessarily in the way many of my religion do, but most definitely, in the light that as a species so young, it would be foolish, and incredibly arrogant, for a group of beings who have yet to find out to venture out of their own haven and prosper elsewhere, to think that we know enough about the universe, something that not one person can explain how it came to existence, who themselves can not yet figure the components of life, who in all actuality have yet to become intelligent enough, to see another mans viewpoint, no matter how flawed and ridiculous, and allow that man to pursue his own fulfillment, in his own endeavors without ensuing war, social prosecution, or some kind of ridicule.
understand this, please, technology will always change, and will always eventually be outdated, the same way in the past the arrogance of our elders, prevented humans from common truth, and prolonged the advancement of civilization because of small prejudice, fear of change, or unwillingness to learn something that is different from what was accepted the majority of their lifetimes. We have not improved upon out own states in a few hundred years because we are too concerned with perfecting another man's idea, rather than daring to think of, and prove an idea better.
Hey Trololol: You must think you are such a know-it-all to write the way you do. I'd recommend that you go learn some philosophy, some grammar, and even some theology. Do you really think you're the only guy in the world who has put some serious thought into these issues?
A bawdy (okay, quite vulgar) bar singer in New England/New York named John Valby wrote a song with lyrics that oddly and unfortunately stuck in my head though I haven't heard it in 30 years – it's called "Philosophical Bull***t". When I hear/see/read stuff like the callout above, the phrase "philosophical BS" screams. (And last week for the first time in these 30 years, I discovered that the lyrics still float around in the mind that exists as mine, baffling scientists, family and friends alike.)
"What if nothing is real?" "What if everything is an illusion?" (then Woody Allen did pay too much for his carpet) "How do we know anything is real?" "Can we trust our perceptions?"
If I tap your sternum and you feel me tap your sternum, guess what? It's real! Even if your entire 'verse is contained in the sci-fi world of The Matrix and you never know, then that is your reality. (If you eat whichever color jellybean gets you out, then you have a new reality.) If you bounce and wake up from a dream and think it wasn't real and the Inception didn't work, then it was a dream (or a poorly conceived and executed movie plot that tried to pass itself off as something "deep") anyway so go back to whatever you think is real and stop wasting your time with Philosophical BS – it's a redundant phrase anyway.
My word, Valby! I haven't heard anything by him in 25 years. He is to Tom Lehrer what Richard Pryor is to Bill Cosby. Loved his stuff. And boy will it ground you in what's Real!
Erich, you discrediting yourself when you make statements such as:
"Hey Trololol: You must think you are such a know-it-all to write the way you do. I’d recommend that you go learn some philosophy, some grammar, and even some theology."
and in fact, you are supporting Trololol's post.
Trololol is the only one that had a non bias, rational thing to say in this whole thread.
The only thing we truly understand (or should understand) is that we don't really understand a damn thing about anything. We can simply observe and remember. This is not true knowledge, this is observational knowledge. And with observational knowledge does not come understanding.
I can ask the most brilliant minds in the world the question 'Why' over and over until it reaches the inevitable response of, "I don't know, it just does." Or "That is just the way it is."
The best part in Trololol's post was:
"who themselves can not yet figure the components of life, who in all actuality have yet to become intelligent enough, to see another mans viewpoint, no matter how flawed and ridiculous, and allow that man to pursue his own fulfillment, in his own endeavors without ensuing war, social prosecution, or some kind of ridicule."
I will continue to say until the say I die, the human race is infantile and primitive. But has convinced itself it is the most intelligent being in the universe, and thinks itself to be all grown up and self sufficient.
Lance states, "Trololol is the only one that had a non bias, rational thing to say in this whole thread."
Really, Lance? Out of all 179 posts to this thread, you truly believe "Trololol"(?) is the only one who said anything rational? That seems like a most irrational and false statement. Your ignorance shines brightly.
Mark – I googled him and he's still performing. I got rid of a lot of vinyl many years ago, but I've still got three of his. And I was very surprised that I still remembered, "…the true nature of man…is found in the spiritual essences…which science and technology have neglected to explore…" and I'm sure you know the rest. Philosophical BS, Ya-Ya-Ya-Ya, Barnacle Bill, Roll Your Leg Over….move over Mr. Peobody and crank up that wayback machine.
To: Mike
"Really, Lance? Out of all 179 posts to this thread, you truly believe “Trololol”(?) is the only one who said anything rational? That seems like a most irrational and false statement. Your ignorance shines brightly."
I made an error of observation and only based my post on the previous 18 posts or so. Did not read prior to that. So when I said 'this entire thread' I was referring to this page of posts.
My error but with that correction of perception my post remains unchanged.
What about cosmic balance If there exists an ultimate good then so to must there exist an ultimate evil.
"the brighter the light the longer the shadows"
Like the eternal yin and yang one cannot exist without the other.
Evil's existence does not in any kind of way negate God's, why ? Because in order for good to exist evil must coexist. In order for me to be generous there must be poverty, suffering and pain otherwise doctors ( like me ) will have to find another job. In order for a civilization to survive we must rely on each other we must seek help from doctors, engineers, teachers … Etc . I don't know why these ideas are still discussed ???
The circular binary fallacy: Presuming that two relative states are absolute and each requiring the other, and therefore each prove the existence of the other.
Was David killing Goliath good or evil? On one side, you have a hero of the people, a man of pride and strength defending the borders of the empire. On the other, you have a scruffy punk representing the rebels who, instead of honorably taking up manly arms, used a sneaky projectile weapon that no honorable soldier would have touched. The empire then honors the rules of the engagement, leaving the rebels to expand malignantly until they destroy their host nation.
Which was absolute good, and which absolute evil?
All of these arguments have been pathetically weak. Bottom line is this: Who defines what is good and what is evil? Is there really the existence of either (both?). Christians argue from the standpoint of the Bible, which is admittedly a tenuous position at most, the rest of us are just trying to figure it out. To me, the eastern religions had it right with the yin and yang. Without negative energy there would be no positive, and without positive energy there would be no negative. Notice the absence of "good" and "evil". These are purely semetic interpretations of the forces at work in the cosmos.
AceofHartes states, "All of these arguments have been pathetically weak." AoH–Do you really believe ALL 186 arguments posted on this topic were pathetically weak? Had you read all the posts and then determined that all comments but yours belong in the bucket market "Pathetically Weak"? And only YOU out of 186 others have figured out the problem of Good vs. Evil? Your "semantic interpretation" was the only intellectually strong one? What hubris.
(By the way, your "bottom line" was two more questions. So maybe you don't have it all figured out?)