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?
Of the comments I've read most are greatly bigoted and someone offensive to other and varying opinions. It seems to me like you're grasping for straws and trying to validate something to yourself and/or just trying to "prove" somebody else wrong on an abstract idea. You will find no truth here. You will find no answer to this question that has been around since before all of the posters (myself included). You can convince no man against his will. Your self-righteous certainty is simply appalling. Stop hiding your elementary and ego-centric opinions behind pseudo-intellectualism. It's not becoming and is oddly reminiscent of the speakers for WBC.
Furthermore, don't feed the trolls.
If there we're no evil how would we know good? There is no measurement for how cold something is only how hot it is. We would not know heat if it were not for the lack of heat. Evil is the absence of God. If everyone were loving God then there could be no evil because sin can not be committed while actively loving God.
I believe that there is a very simple explaination for all of this, IT WOULD BE BORING. Why would any god care to construct a world in which no real action takes place? No drama? A world without evil is a world without villans, and that would make a world without heros. If you are watching a movie that you have seen before the lest you can hope for is that it's a compelling and interesting one to observe.
The solution to the riddle is that we have only a finite grasp of good and evil. If God is God, then of course he is going to have a higher and more complete understanding of good and evil.
That established, if God is good, and we His creatures are given free will to do with His creation what we please (either for Him or against Him) then we will be allowed to create good and evil through it. If God were to prevent all evil, even natural evils, we could not truly choose anything. Even natural evils have their purpose in that, hypothetically speaking, even divine omnipotence could not make a sensible world for two or more imperfect creatures to live in without them.
Its not a problem if you were in Persia at the time.. google Zervan
While I haven't read all of the comments on this post, the fact that such as comment as this one is not near the top and that I have yet to see such a response to the post within the first couple pages of comments, I am going to comment.
The comments are not all "pathetically weak", as so eloquently stated by one commenter, but there is, as I understand the problem, a fundamental discrepancy that has yet to be addressed (in so far as I have taken the time to read the previous comments). This discrepancy is one concerning the nature of God. This discrepancy arises only from a misunderstanding of what such a being is.
Yes, I understand the typical definition used in Western philosophy, namely the 5 big characteristics (omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent, omnipresent and necessary eternal existence), and I understand that we are using this definition to engage this problem, but there is a tendency to assume that the nature of such a being is similar to that which we consider our own to be; that of an individual being, consisting of an inside and an outside, a thing as can be separated and even counted amongst other things; a thing that stands outside of the universe, looks in on it and engages it in the same we we engage a creation of our own.
The nature of a being such as God is one that, in itself, challenges our concept of a thing. For one, what kind of thing has eternal existence? Never born, never dying. Surely, not a thing as we typically regard things. What kind of thing is present at all places at once? Again, not one that coincides with typical conceptions of a thing.
I am not posting in order to define God, or describe what such a being is or might be like, but I am intending to point out this problem to those who are willing to consider it. We are trying to talk about something and we all assume personal and shared understanding of that thing. What results is virtually meaningless debate where none of us know what we are talking about. None of us know what God is, yet feel capable of debating it's ability or inability to do something.
There is no means of solving this riddle without, first, determining what God is, in a real and meaningful sense. The same goes for the definition of "evil" and "good". A discussion based on exploring these 3 concepts is more infinitely more constructive than debating whether or not they pose a problem for each other in some circumstances.
A discussion/investigation like that is, in my opinion, true Philosophy and actually produces greater understanding and benefit for the parties involved in it.
I will start: This thing we are talking about can not be of a dualistic nature. It is everywhere and therefore does not possess an inside or outside. It is all-knowing and is therefore not subject to the duality of knowledge and ignorance. I will leave room for the nature of such a being to be deeply paradoxical, ie. it is entirely possible that such a thing is, at once, doing everything and nothing; even, is everything and nothing.
This is how the "problem" is solved.
Ryan Lindgren: "I will leave room for the nature of such a being to be deeply paradoxical, ie. it is entirely possible that such a thing is, at once, doing everything and nothing; even, is everything and nothing."
A basic rule of logic is that ANY conclusion can be drawn from a false-premise. A classic false-premise is accepting the co-existence of two mutually-exclusive entities, e.g., "What happens when an immovable object is met with an unstoppable force?"
By defining God in mutually-exclusive terms, you set up a framework in which NOTHING about God can be proved or disproved. I do not know if that was your objective, but that is what you accomplished.
Edgar: Good catch.
Edgar and Ryan, Interesting comments. It's nice to see this debate re-engaged at a higher level. This thread, like religion itself, never seems to die off.
I see a fundamental conceptual error recurring in some of these arguments. The Epicurus Riddle questions a circa 300 B.C.E God entity, such as Zeus or Jehovah. A sentient, watchful, engaged, entangled, personified Creator-Being. I doubt Epicurus was referring to an integrated, all-encompassing God concept such as The All, or Universal Mind, or the Tao.
I think it would clarify things greatly if, when referring to "God", people defined which type of God they're talking about.
Is it God A: a wrathful, jealous and punitive Destroyer God such as the monster found in the Bible…a mythological being invented to provoke fear, similar to the Creature From The Black Lagoon or Godzilla?
Or is it God B: a non-dualistic, ineffable, unified source of All That Is, or Mother of All (MOTHRA)? It basically comes down to Godzilla Vs. Mothra. The starting point, the pre-debate understanding, should be….which God are you referring to? Godzilla or Mothra? And only then we can begin a solid and fruitful discussion.
Mike M: I'd like to know if there is anyone out there who prays to the "non-dualistic, ineffable, unified source of All That Is" version of God. If so, what's a good conversation-starter?
Nice, Edgar.
It does seem like that is what happens… I'm not quite sure how to resolve it, or even if that is the case. The fact is, the nature of God is utterly beyond any concept of a thing that we typically employ to understand things. That is the key point I am making. ie., it is everywhere and eternal.
Being everywhere, it seems to make sense to say that it is everything, as there is no place where it is not, no? And, if we take that premise as logical, then we would conclude that it is the only thing that exists and has ever existed–being eternal. This is a problem for us when trying to understand what that thing is. It doesn't fit in our conceptual framework. Actually, it would be the framework… and that just sounds like nonsense. It would, then, be us, as well.
There is part of the paradox. How could it, at once, be everything and me when I feel that I certainly have individuality and existence, seemingly separate from it? If it is everything, is it not also nothing? If it weren't everything and also nothing, would we still call it God?
This is not to say that it can just be defined as anything, and have that definition be true. That is not the case. But, if we can say anything about it, I think we could say that the nature of its existence defies definition. Whether we like it or not. I will give my reason for saying that:
A definition is what separates one thing from another thing, in our minds. It draws a distinction between one thing (or kind of thing) and all other things. How do we make an appropriate definition for a thing that is, by definition (?), omnipresent? How can we distinguish it from the rest of the things that we define? I want to add here that in reality (physical reality) it doesn't seem possible to draw such clear distinctions between things either. We have working definitions, based on our level of working with the world, but the more you magnify that distinction, the less defined it becomes, until the thing and its environment seem to just mash up together.
But, yet, it really does seem like we can know something of God. Know it. We cannot, though, define it in certain terms.
I think that, though Socrates knew many things, more than most men, he knew above all else that we could not define truth in certain terms, and then have that definition hold as truth. By not being able to define it in certain terms, it only makes sense to say that you don't know, because you can't say for certain. This is where the Socratic ignorance comes from and it characterizes the mind of Socrates' Philosopher. Always questioning, and not making statements of fact outside of the terms of a logical deduction.
Anyway, this is all very interesting and (in my opinion, beautiful) but doesn't do much for solving the problem of evil, perhaps, so… There is no problem with Evil and God. There is a problem in [your] understanding of what those things are.
Man, I feel like a spammer now… that's really not my intention, guys. I'm sorry if this is less than interesting for you, but I love it! 😀 And, the words just keep coming! Yet, I think I've said too much… thanks for the response, Edgar!
Erich: Oh I'd bet they're out there somewhere- the ones praying to "The All". There seems to be no end to the parade of dieties and, if we wish to, we're free to make up our own gods as we go along (God C, D, E…etc). I would like people to at least try and offer up an operational definition of the god they're talking about, right up front, so I know where they're coming from. As in many of these posts, it's unclear if the personal god being discussed is the Old Testament Father God, or Allah, or Poseidon, or Nature's God (science), or Universe. The plasticity (and weight) of the word 'God' leads to no end of slippery confusions, hostilities and miscommunications.
(And since you asked, this might be a good conversation starter: "So, if your God is All, then is your God also Nothing?").
If God is All, then God encompasses the person praying too, it would seem. And it would seem that to the extent that Satan exists, that God would be Satan. And God would be grilled cheese. And God would necessarily part of playing the accordion or blowing one's nose.
it is not a problem of evil, but a problem of god. the paradox makes god to be either less powerful or far meaner than we expected. but i would not call god malevolent if he were able to stop the evil but not willing. i see god as a good father who wants to see his children learn from our mistakes and evolve into a species that recognizes the fact that evil deeds lead only to more evil.
Erich and Mike: Excellent! I'm so glad I didn't kill it! hahaha
The idea that everything is God does pose at least one problem for humanity, as I see it. The concept of morality becomes much more difficult to grasp. For example, if everything is God and therefore eternal, what's the problem with killing or doing harm to others? You can't kill God, so what's the problem? There are two levels at play here, I think. On the one hand, we are individuals whose existence affects other individuals (particulars), and on the other hand, there is the absolute. How to reconcile the two?
Hey Luke, that's a pretty cool god you invented. He sounds really nice. I'm sure you realize that this friendly dad god is NOT the God of the Bible, Torah or Koran.. right?
Ryan Lindgren: "The fact is, the nature of God is utterly beyond any concept of a thing that we typically employ to understand things. That is the key point I am making. ie., it is everywhere and eternal."
But this is not a fact, it is either an opinion or a definition. If an opinion, then I reserve the right to disagree. If a definition, then I reserve the right to redefine.
RL: "Being everywhere, it seems to make sense to say that it is everything, as there is no place where it is not, no?"
No. There is a big difference between "being everyWHERE" and "being everyTHING". And that does not even address the validity of the fundamental assumptions that something can "be everywhere" or "be everything".
Yes, I called them what they are: assumptions. Again, we are operating within a framework in which NOTHING can be proved or disproved, because it is based upon a false premise.
RL: "And, if we take that premise as logical …"
I have already shown that it is NOT.
RL: "then we would conclude that it is the only thing that exists and has ever existed–being eternal."
As I said, ANY conclusion can be drawn from a false premise.
RL: "This is a problem for us when trying to understand what that thing is."
You are trying to understand something that you have defined to NOT be understandable. Why?
RL: "There is part of the paradox. How could it, at once, be everything and me when I feel that I certainly have individuality and existence, seemingly separate from it? If it is everything, is it not also nothing? If it weren’t everything and also nothing, would we still call it God?"
The paradox exists because you created it, and called it "God". That is a perfectly logical sequence of events. What is illogical is attempting to draw any conclusions from what is already known to be an existential fallacy.
Edgar, I'm sorry to start this way, but I'm afraid that I thought you were following along with me here…
Yes, there is a definition for God, but, no, you cannot redefine it. What I am talking about, and what I think others are talking about right now, is the meaning of the definition of God. As a thing and as an Idea. It is already defined by a set of characteristics, to which it must subscribe.
If you are not familiar, the definition of God is such that it is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, and has necessary and eternal existence.
I understand this in a few different ways sometimes, but typically, that means it is everywhere, all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, but is such that it must existence eternally and that its existence is necessary for the existence of all things; meaning, if it were to not exist for even a single moment, all of existence would cease to be.
As such, I would say that it is obvious that this "thing" is utterly different from any other "thing" that we would identify as a thing.
But, what would such a thing be like?
if God is everywhere, could you point to something and say that it is not God?
The difference between being everything and being everywhere is an interesting contrast to draw, in itself. I know you said that the difference is big, but I would like for you to elaborate on that difference, please. What do you mean?
Furthermore, if it knows EVERYTHING that I know and EVERYTHING that you know and knows our feelings and sensations, thoughts, etc. so intimately, comprehensively, then I think it's hard to say where It ends and where you or I begin… This would be a difficult line to draw, I believe, but is interesting to look at and attempt.
Looking at the nature of consciousness… Us being conscious, but not really certain what that is or how it came to be. Looking at what it even means to be "me" or "I"…
I say there is a paradox inherent in the nature of God, but only because it seems obvious to me. It's not a thing like we normally call a thing. If it is everywhere, then what form would such a thing have? Is it formless? Does it take the form of the sum of all forms? Is there a difference in being formless and having the form of the sum of all forms? Where do "things" end and God begin?
I'd be happy to talk with you at greater length via email if you'd like, so we don't hog up this space here. But, it's more fun to involve more people, so let's do it here until Erich says, "enough, guys! move along already!" hahaha
Ryan Lindgren: "Edgar, I’m sorry to start this way, but I’m afraid that I thought you were following along with me here…"
Oh, I was. Trust me; I was.
RL: "Yes, there is a definition for God, but, no, you cannot redefine it."
Seems rather arrogant to me. Every person has their unique definition of God; yours counts but mine doesn't?
RL: "If you are not familiar, the definition of God is such that it is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, and has necessary and eternal existence."
Very well. But a definition does not imply an existence. I can define Pi (3.14159265358979…) to equal 3, but that doesn't make it so.
RL: "As such, I would say that it is obvious that this “thing” is utterly different from any other “thing” that we would identify as a thing."
Sure. I can imagine six-legged pink and purple flying elephant aliens that are utterly different from any other thing, too. Fantasy is a wonderful thing; lack of ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is an illness.
RL: "But, what would such a thing be like?"
Even you admit that this is conjecture.
RL: "The difference between being everything and being everywhere is an interesting contrast to draw, in itself. I know you said that the difference is big, but I would like for you to elaborate on that difference, please. What do you mean?"
For a really crude logic example, imagine that you are swimming in the ocean. The ocean is made of water; you are made of water; water is everywhere. But the ocean is more than water, and so are you. So while the ocean is water, water is not the ocean. And you are water, but water is not you.
RL: "I say there is a paradox inherent in the nature of God, but only because it seems obvious to me."
And I say there is a paradox because you created it by defining God with mutually-exclusive premises.
RL: "It’s not a thing like we normally call a thing. If it is everywhere, then what form would such a thing have? Is it formless? Does it take the form of the sum of all forms? Is there a difference in being formless and having the form of the sum of all forms? Where do “things” end and God begin?"
All of these are rhetorical questions brought about by the "what if" nature of your conjecture. Logically speaking, you are NOT saying, "God is (all of the fantastic attributes you mentioned)." You are saying, "Imagine that something existed with all of these fantastic attributes. Call it God. What would be the nature of this thing called God?"
A final note about "understanding" God, which you did not address in your most recent message: If God is something that cannot be understood, then attempting to understand God is heresy. Here is the logic behind that:
Premise 1 – God cannot be understood.
Premise 2 – I understand God.
Conclusion – Either God is not God, or God CAN be understood.
If God is not God, then you have just proved that He does not exist. On the other hand, if God CAN be understood, then He is hardly a god, since I'll assert that anything that can be understood by Man can be conquered by Man. And anything that can be conquered by Man is not omnipotent.
Here's a similar logical construct, for clarity:
Premise 1 – Tom cannot drive a car.
Premise 2 – I saw Tom driving a car.
Conclusion – Either the person that you saw was not Tom, or Tom CAN drive a car.
And with that, I wish you peace.
Edgar, please stick around and indulge me here, for a bit longer. You replied the way that I thought you might before reading my last response, but after having read it, I felt that you must have seen what I am saying. I don't know if I can speak more clearly.
For example, you said that I swim in the ocean, and that the water is everywhere. But, is the water REALLY everywhere? EVERYWHERE. You are likening the nature of God to that of water, but you are really failing to grasp the magnitude of this idea.
Sure, I am made of SOME water, and I am surrounded by water, but water is not present in EVERY place. For example, there is salt. Is there water in the salt molecules as well? If not, then your example is still insufficient for describing this idea. Does the water permeate everywhere throughout? From the crudest level to the most subtle levels? subatomic, quantum and beyond? If not, then we can not say that it is everywhere. If you cannot comprehend the magnitude of such an absolute concept, we will not be able to talk about God meaningfully.
"Sure. I can imagine six-legged pink and purple flying elephant aliens that are utterly different from any other thing, too. Fantasy is a wonderful thing; lack of ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is an illness."
But is it utterly different? It's actually very easy to imagine such a thing. I could even draw it for you, based on other things I've seen. While imaginary, this thing that you have given as an example is exactly like other things, in terms of the idea of a thing. It's existence would be finite; taking up SOME space and time. if it were to exist, we could measure how tall it is, how much it weighs, etc. and we could do it with finite numbers. What if this purple elephant was EVERYWHERE? Look into an electron microscope and what u see is it; look into a telescope, there it is; look into the eye of your friend, there it is; look underneath your keyboard, there it is; look inside of the sun, there it is.
The difference between being everywhere and being somewhere is great.
What would a thing that IS EVERYWHERE look like? could you draw a picture of it?
Also, Edgar, the definition we are working with, for the sake of addressing this problem of evil, is the standard definition. This way we're all on the same page and can, therefore, have a meaningful discussion about it. This definition defines the necessary characteristics of God, in order for it to be considered God. It's not a matter of arrogance on my part. I will look at any definition of it that you provide, but for the sake of the discussion, let's choose one and stick with it.
I saw this philosophy that was presented and felt compelled to reply although I haven't looked in depth at the previous responses. I believe it is easiest to work backwards on this philosophy, because it applies the either/or technique.
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
The universe calls for a intelligent designer and Creator(Cosmological Argument/ Teleological Argument). If we are defining God, we must at least start with a basic foundation. We call Him God because of his creation.
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?
It seems as though we are trying to shove a human morality onto the Creator of the heavens and the earth, but you have to ask the question. If there isn't a God, there is no universal definition of Good and Evil. How do you come to the conclusion then that he is either ignorant or malevolent when without God, there would be no such thing as objective moral values?
I felt as though a logical answer was in order, now I will describe the God of the Bible. The problem of evil and suffering has haunted the believers mind since the beginning, but I believe it is easiest explained as we look into the book of Genesis. God created the heavens and the earth, all living things, and afterwards he rested and believed his creation to be "GOOD", this is key. What changed this? Human free will. Evil was introduced into the world when God gave us a free will. With this, we can answer the following questions of this philosophy.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
The fact is, God didn't want us to be forced to love Him, which is why he gave us a free will in the first place. With this, we must realize that it is a CHOICE to participate in evil/sin. What kind of loving God would prevent you from evil thus forcing you to turn to him and what he wants of you? We don't have that kind of God thankfully.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
He is able and willing, but the evil-doer/sinner has to ask for his help, for the Bible says Draw near to God and he will Draw near to you. Those who willingly seek the Lord will find him.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If God were to eliminate evil in the world, he would have to eliminate the entire human race. If anything, I believe that this shows his mercy and grace. We don't deserve it, yet he lets us live, he lets us hurt, we learn from our mistakes. We can make a choice to accept his offer in his son, Jesus Christ, or we can reject and mingle in the evil we tend to define in anger.
Man. Nothing like a tasty false dilemma!! If you don't know what the false dilemma is (or the false dichotomy), then you should look it up.
Just because an ancient philosopher could only comprehend these possibilities does not make them the only possibilities.
Lol, the couch-philosophy in these comments is lulz-worthy.
When I founds this and read over some of the comments it just reminded me of this short story that I read that has a great way of like at life, god and reality all at once, "The Egg," by Andy Weir.
. "i see god as a good father who wants to see his children learn from our mistakes and evolve into a species that recognizes the fact that evil deeds lead only to more evil"
What type of father would send you to suffer for eternity for not believing in him? that would be child abuse would it not?
There is a huge logical flaw in Epicurean's paradox in that it does not even consider that suffering can be necessary and/or good. According to binary theory, without evil and suffering, there cannot be goodness or compassion and most importantly, neither can there be true free will without consequences for our actions. It's a toss up. Would you rather be a mindless automaton, or live in a world with both incredible pain and indescribable joy?
And as for the idea of God being the completely merciless for sending us to hell for not believing in Him, that is a case of illogical and misguided proportioning of responsibility. It is like saying that if you were drowning and a man offered you a hand out of the water, but you refused to take it and drowned, that the man is to blame for your death. It all comes down to a little thing called 'free choice'.
Because Evil HAS to happen. Stupid