Two points : A) Your three premises of Epicurus are wrong. The presence of evil is not one of the 3 premises. Evil is already a given, and the three premises are a god that is : - all powerful - all knowing, - all GOOD. (you left this one out) B) in your analogy, the parents, being god, would be able to medically heal the child without the use of needles. So needles (evil) would still not be necessary. Extra credit : Regarding Epicurus' three premises and the problem of evil, I think this is the quote you are addressing that you never really get around to : “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
I'm glad you pointed that out. I came to the comments to see if anyone was going to explain that. It's just not how it works, and the author should know at least that much.
Exactly, comparing medical care for a child and brutality on an innocent animal who is brought into existance just for the purpose of exploitation are incomparable.
More importantly, if the parents were all powerful, all knowing, and all good, then they would never have need to heal the child in the first place because they would inhabit a universe they created in which healing was unnecessary because harm couldn't occur.
You seem to be saying that atheists are saying that pain = evil. That no pain would exist in a world with God, even if the pain is ultimately beneficial. That pain would only happen to people who do evil things. Well, we see that the opposite of that is pretty much true. I can agree with the atheists' premise. Pain *can* be beneficial. It can drive us to act in a way more beneficial to us. But it wouldn't happen in a universe where a loving God exists. Or maybe I just have a very low pain threshold.
Evil, profound immorality and wickedness. If Evil has a greater purpose, it still causes pain and suffering, and if pain and suffering are for a greater good, why call it Evil? In the end, only God knows that it is for the greater good, but not us, it is irrelevant, the greater good continues to be Evil, the end justifies the means, that is your argument... a very weak argument.
I’d argue that he does mention this when he says “then whence cometh evil” if god is already stopping some greater evil and we are suffering this much what is there really to come. And why allow it to exist in the first place
I'm pretty sure that when Christians say that there is greater evil, they're like alluding to Judgement Day. A day that they've been saying is almost here for hundreds of years
So long as it's possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist for a time; Epicurius' over-quoted little piece of cod philosophy is a piece of piss to get around.
What are you talking about? Epicurus' philosophy is incredible that has simple morals. All you do is live life to the fullest by enjoying what this world has to offer. How is that a piss to get around?
@@DeadmanRedux Something has to exist necessarily, i.e. it cannot not exist. We call this "something" God. All other existence depends on God. This is the only reasonable explanation of existence. All other explanations will involve logical fallacies such as the Universe created itself (circular reasoning) or the Universe always existed (infinite causal chain). However, we know from science that the Universe had a beginning, and we know from logic that infinite chains are impossible as they would lead to contradictions and paradoxes.
@@les2997 You don't know what you're talking about. What you call "God" is simply you believing that there has to be a creator or some kind of force that existed before the creation of the universe which is something we haven't discovered yet. If it were true, everyone would believe in God. I myself am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if God exists and I have no reason to. I'm open to the concept that there could be a God but I'm not going to just blindly follow without getting some answers and proof. The only way you can get people like me to believe in God is to show some magic or supernatural things like walking on water or raising the dead, but you can't. Sorry, but you're never gonna convince me to believe in God unless you give me actual proof.
No pain no gain. If there's a painless way to knowledge (no more schools and exams), painless way to gaining muscles (no more gyms and lifting weights), painless way for finding cures to diseases (no more working endless hours in the lab and inflicting pain on lab animals), etc. etc. then we should have done it. It is a fact of life that the best reward for eveything comes only after we put a lot of effort to get it.
This seems to imply: "Evil exists to serve God's love." This implies wars, genocide, murder, riots, rape, etc. are part of God's love and loving plan. If this is the case, why do these terrible acts get the label "evil?" How can there be such a concept of evil if God himself not evil and does all things and allows all things for love? This would mean there is no evil.
Fair point. But in the Bible at least there seems to be an entity or set of Values for lack of a better term called sin for which the wages are death. So to keep with the baby example, the sickness (sin) is something the parents hates or is in opposition to (holy values unholy etc) and therefore they need to go through the long and difficult method (salvation, grace, redemption etc) to cure their beloved child. So the Christian at least had a grounds for something like an all powerful and loving God to exist along side something that is opposite to said God in values and purpose etc. Thus evil and God can coexist.
Epicurus said that the gods dont involve themselves in human affairs since it taints their perfectness. The gods exist in total unimaginable bliss, and so cant be arsed to do anything else basically
The mother/father/child seems to be a weak rebuttal. The parents, unlike the Abrahamic god, while arguably all loving, are not all powerful. They must submit to the best course of action for they have no sovereignty over the health of their child as a omnipotent god would.
I disagree because Mom and Dad are objective and the idea of God is subjective. Mom and Dad are falsifiable and the concept of gods are unfalsifiable. I can prove my parents exist and are real people who exist in the world. You can't do that with a deity. So you can't use objective things as an example for a subjective concept.
Many people have said the same in comments, but I really do think that that analogies to human affairs really breaks down when we are talking about omni-potent beings. Parents taking children to painful but necessary medical intervention is a classic one, and also why Jesus had to be sacrificed for our sins, comparing it to our justice system where someone had to be punished for their crimes. An all powerful God is not bound to the same limitations, "tough but necessary" decisions is only necessary if it is the only way to achieve a greater good, but an omnipotent God has no limitations how to reach a certain goal, and can be reached instantaneously and effortlessly no matter what. Although very small children feel that their parents are very powerful and wise, the difference between being very powerful and all powerful cannot be understated.
But you can't just bring in any premise. Each premise has to be agreed upon. As it is, none of the premises in the Epicurean Paradox are rejected. There are two problems with the premise you want to add. Other than being weak, proposing that "God has a good reason for allowing evil" is not even a premise. It's a conclusion. That isn't how this works. Your argument is syllogistically erroneous.
It's almost as if the author attempted to form a syllogism without knowing what the contents of a syllogism are supposed to be. This argument falls apart at the kindergarten level.
The lover ceases to be human; he becomes transcendent, and possessed of supernatural powers. Love is the true alchemy that turns ordinary mortals into divine beings.
But then we have to ask, could god have created a world where we could get the benefits of the 'evil' without having to face the evil, if the answer is no, he is yet again, no all powerful.
Thanks for asking this in the meantime. Good boy But if you consider the hypothesis of omnipotence you will automatically understand that such a being cannot desire. This constitutes a logical contradiction. A paradox: Almighty God can do everything but he does not want ..? - No. Only one is God's desire: understanding. And the Almighty himself resolved his only will by giving freedom Endrit Vuka, Bologna, Italy
Should be a walk in the park for him. Also, isn't Heaven supposed to be such a universe? If it's logically possible, then there are no justifications for the existence of horrendous suffering if God exists.
@@brandwijkgg If God can do it and he choses to crate instead a universe with suffering, then he is malevolent. But he cannot be malevolent if he is defined as an omnibenevolent being, so here we get a contradiction. Also, the point is not to prove or disprove heaven. Most theists who believe in the maximally great being definition of God are also committed to a belief in a place called Heaven. So, they will have to bite the bullet and say that it is logically possible for God to create a world without suffering. If he can do it but doesn't, he's not all good. If he wants to do it but can't, he's not all powerful. Since God is defined as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, if he exists, there should be no suffering. But there is a lot of horrible suffering. Therefore, God doesn't exist. That's the argument in a nutshell. I find it convincing, so I believe that a perfect being God does not exist, given the horrendous suffering in our world.
@@Nexus-jg7ev 🙂 thanks this is very usefull. Do you know what arguments believers use to get around this? what I also don't understand is the argument that human life only has meaning and purpose with a creator but the creator himself has no creator, does that mean that the existence of the creator has no meaning?
God flooded the entire Earth, killing everyone except for a few people on a boat. Yes, that's the exact same thing as getting a shot from the doctor. Bravo. Great analogy
God not only as good reason for "allowing" evil to exist IT also has a "good" reason for telling Jews and Christians and even Muslims to punish people who deserve, i.e. sinned. If it does it, like the flood, it is not a sin. If it's followers do it on IT's command for example to the Caininites it is not evil. Yahweh allowed the Holocaust because the Jews deserved it. Then there is the evil committed on animals by humans! Ley.alone all the mass extinctions of species before humans were created ! IT put them into the world, so IT can take them out. IT created them, therefore it has the right to destroy them. Just as parents have created them, they can beat them in order to punish them, guide them back to the straight path.
People like you saying that God or Yahweh is allowed to punish people just because it created the universe are the reason why we humans haven't entered into a peaceful world yet. You people cannot think for yourselves and you let some invisible God do whatever it wants without questioning its actions.
Ah yes baby leukemia the same as getting a shot
Two points :
A) Your three premises of Epicurus are wrong.
The presence of evil is not one of the 3 premises.
Evil is already a given,
and the three premises are a god that is :
- all powerful
- all knowing,
- all GOOD. (you left this one out)
B) in your analogy, the parents, being god, would be able to medically heal the child without the use of needles. So needles (evil) would still not be necessary.
Extra credit :
Regarding Epicurus' three premises and the problem of evil,
I think this is the quote you are addressing that
you never really get around to :
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
I'm glad you pointed that out. I came to the comments to see if anyone was going to explain that. It's just not how it works, and the author should know at least that much.
Exactly, comparing medical care for a child and brutality on an innocent animal who is brought into existance just for the purpose of exploitation are incomparable.
wr
More importantly, if the parents were all powerful, all knowing, and all good, then they would never have need to heal the child in the first place because they would inhabit a universe they created in which healing was unnecessary because harm couldn't occur.
You seem to be saying that atheists are saying that pain = evil. That no pain would exist in a world with God, even if the pain is ultimately beneficial. That pain would only happen to people who do evil things. Well, we see that the opposite of that is pretty much true. I can agree with the atheists' premise. Pain *can* be beneficial. It can drive us to act in a way more beneficial to us. But it wouldn't happen in a universe where a loving God exists. Or maybe I just have a very low pain threshold.
The parents are not all powerful if they were they would create a reality were there child didn't need to get that injection.. that's the difference..
Evil, profound immorality and wickedness. If Evil has a greater purpose, it still causes pain and suffering, and if pain and suffering are for a greater good, why call it Evil? In the end, only God knows that it is for the greater good, but not us, it is irrelevant, the greater good continues to be Evil, the end justifies the means, that is your argument... a very weak argument.
I’d argue that he does mention this when he says “then whence cometh evil” if god is already stopping some greater evil and we are suffering this much what is there really to come. And why allow it to exist in the first place
I'm pretty sure that when Christians say that there is greater evil, they're like alluding to Judgement Day. A day that they've been saying is almost here for hundreds of years
So long as it's possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist for a time; Epicurius' over-quoted little piece of cod philosophy is a piece of piss to get around.
What are you talking about? Epicurus' philosophy is incredible that has simple morals. All you do is live life to the fullest by enjoying what this world has to offer. How is that a piss to get around?
@@DeadmanRedux There could be many reasons why evil exists. Evil points to the existence of God.
@@les2997 How do you know God exists?
@@DeadmanRedux Something has to exist necessarily, i.e. it cannot not exist. We call this "something" God. All other existence depends on God.
This is the only reasonable explanation of existence.
All other explanations will involve logical fallacies such as the Universe created itself (circular reasoning) or the Universe always existed (infinite causal chain).
However, we know from science that the Universe had a beginning, and we know from logic that infinite chains are impossible as they would lead to contradictions and paradoxes.
@@les2997 You don't know what you're talking about. What you call "God" is simply you believing that there has to be a creator or some kind of force that existed before the creation of the universe which is something we haven't discovered yet. If it were true, everyone would believe in God. I myself am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if God exists and I have no reason to. I'm open to the concept that there could be a God but I'm not going to just blindly follow without getting some answers and proof. The only way you can get people like me to believe in God is to show some magic or supernatural things like walking on water or raising the dead, but you can't. Sorry, but you're never gonna convince me to believe in God unless you give me actual proof.
But if the parents were infinitely powerful and loving, then they would've done the proccess without pain.
Edit: Spelling
Excellent point. I was about to say the same thing.
So God should give us abs without having to workout and go through the pain?
@@josuebravo1639 this was 2 years ago but yeah. do you think scientists should stop working on the cure for cancer if god won't do it?
No pain no gain. If there's a painless way to knowledge (no more schools and exams), painless way to gaining muscles (no more gyms and lifting weights), painless way for finding cures to diseases (no more working endless hours in the lab and inflicting pain on lab animals), etc. etc. then we should have done it. It is a fact of life that the best reward for eveything comes only after we put a lot of effort to get it.
This seems to imply: "Evil exists to serve God's love."
This implies wars, genocide, murder, riots, rape, etc. are part of God's love and loving plan.
If this is the case, why do these terrible acts get the label "evil?" How can there be such a concept of evil if God himself not evil and does all things and allows all things for love? This would mean there is no evil.
right, but all those things exist, therefore god doesn't.
Right on, dude. (Richard C)
Down that path lies Nietzsche and The Will to Power.
Fair point. But in the Bible at least there seems to be an entity or set of Values for lack of a better term called sin for which the wages are death. So to keep with the baby example, the sickness (sin) is something the parents hates or is in opposition to (holy values unholy etc) and therefore they need to go through the long and difficult method (salvation, grace, redemption etc) to cure their beloved child.
So the Christian at least had a grounds for something like an all powerful and loving God to exist along side something that is opposite to said God in values and purpose etc. Thus evil and God can coexist.
wr
Epicurus said that the gods dont involve themselves in human affairs since it taints their perfectness. The gods exist in total unimaginable bliss, and so cant be arsed to do anything else basically
The mother/father/child seems to be a weak rebuttal. The parents, unlike the Abrahamic god, while arguably all loving, are not all powerful. They must submit to the best course of action for they have no sovereignty over the health of their child as a omnipotent god would.
@Greg LeJacques How did you determine this? Describe the methodolgies you employed to reach such a conclusion.
Exactly 💯👍
Another issue with the argument is that the parents didn't create the vaccine. Nor did they injecting their child.
But if the parents were all knowing and knew the child wasn't going to get the disease, they wouldn't need to have him vaccinated.
I disagree because Mom and Dad are objective and the idea of God is subjective. Mom and Dad are falsifiable and the concept of gods are unfalsifiable. I can prove my parents exist and are real people who exist in the world. You can't do that with a deity. So you can't use objective things as an example for a subjective concept.
He was not a monotheist. He was not a Christian or a Jew, He was not an "orthodox" polytheist. .
very weak argument, really he let evil for good? Lol
I was gonna respond to this flagrant idiocy but then I saw the comments.... They are heart warming
Many people have said the same in comments, but I really do think that that analogies to human affairs really breaks down when we are talking about omni-potent beings. Parents taking children to painful but necessary medical intervention is a classic one, and also why Jesus had to be sacrificed for our sins, comparing it to our justice system where someone had to be punished for their crimes.
An all powerful God is not bound to the same limitations, "tough but necessary" decisions is only necessary if it is the only way to achieve a greater good, but an omnipotent God has no limitations how to reach a certain goal, and can be reached instantaneously and effortlessly no matter what.
Although very small children feel that their parents are very powerful and wise, the difference between being very powerful and all powerful cannot be understated.
But you can't just bring in any premise. Each premise has to be agreed upon. As it is, none of the premises in the Epicurean Paradox are rejected. There are two problems with the premise you want to add. Other than being weak, proposing that "God has a good reason for allowing evil" is not even a premise. It's a conclusion. That isn't how this works. Your argument is syllogistically erroneous.
It's almost as if the author attempted to form a syllogism without knowing what the contents of a syllogism are supposed to be. This argument falls apart at the kindergarten level.
Bhakti Yoga as taught by a True Living Master is the whole thing brother. Path of the Masters Julian Johnston explains.
The lover ceases to be human; he becomes transcendent, and possessed of supernatural powers. Love is the true alchemy that turns ordinary mortals into divine beings.
there was no great god in greek paganism. This argument DOES NOT COME FROM EPICURUS.
But then we have to ask, could god have created a world where we could get the benefits of the 'evil' without having to face the evil, if the answer is no, he is yet again, no all powerful.
your agrue is weak how mom and dad is that powerful and this loving you so wrong
But the fact is that the Nurse is not evil. In reality, she is doing good to the baby.
There is no evil in Heaven.
There is still free will in Heaven.
Why does evil exist on Earth?
Thanks for asking this in the meantime. Good boy But if you consider the hypothesis of omnipotence you will automatically understand that such a being cannot desire. This constitutes a logical contradiction. A paradox: Almighty God can do everything but he does not want ..? - No. Only one is God's desire: understanding. And the Almighty himself resolved his only will by giving freedom
Endrit Vuka, Bologna, Italy
I’d like to point out that God gave humans free will
nah, bs
Smh
God created what was not. In order to know what he was. In some cases you have to inflect pain on people down here so the can heal.
Tell that to dead babies.
@@MostlyPonies1 if atheist where worried about the kids they would have never created North Korea. Atheist utopian society.
Can God make an univers without suffering?
Excellent point.
Should be a walk in the park for him. Also, isn't Heaven supposed to be such a universe? If it's logically possible, then there are no justifications for the existence of horrendous suffering if God exists.
@@Nexus-jg7ev
If god can do that, has he t consciously chosen a universe with suffering?
Do we know heaven exists?
@@brandwijkgg If God can do it and he choses to crate instead a universe with suffering, then he is malevolent. But he cannot be malevolent if he is defined as an omnibenevolent being, so here we get a contradiction. Also, the point is not to prove or disprove heaven. Most theists who believe in the maximally great being definition of God are also committed to a belief in a place called Heaven. So, they will have to bite the bullet and say that it is logically possible for God to create a world without suffering.
If he can do it but doesn't, he's not all good.
If he wants to do it but can't, he's not all powerful.
Since God is defined as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, if he exists, there should be no suffering.
But there is a lot of horrible suffering.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
That's the argument in a nutshell. I find it convincing, so I believe that a perfect being God does not exist, given the horrendous suffering in our world.
@@Nexus-jg7ev 🙂 thanks this is very usefull. Do you know what arguments believers use to get around this?
what I also don't understand is the argument that human life only has meaning and purpose with a creator but the creator himself has no creator, does that mean that the existence of the creator has no meaning?
you clearly didnt epicurs argument. also you left out half of it
God flooded the entire Earth, killing everyone except for a few people on a boat. Yes, that's the exact same thing as getting a shot from the doctor. Bravo. Great analogy
God not only as good reason for "allowing" evil to exist IT also has a "good" reason for telling Jews and Christians and even Muslims to punish people who deserve, i.e. sinned. If it does it, like the flood, it is not a sin. If it's followers do it on IT's command for example to the Caininites it is not evil. Yahweh allowed the Holocaust because the Jews deserved it. Then there is the evil committed on animals by humans! Ley.alone all the mass extinctions of species before humans were created ! IT put them into the world, so IT can take them out. IT created them, therefore it has the right to destroy them. Just as parents have created them, they can beat them in order to punish them, guide them back to the straight path.
People like you saying that God or Yahweh is allowed to punish people just because it created the universe are the reason why we humans haven't entered into a peaceful world yet. You people cannot think for yourselves and you let some invisible God do whatever it wants without questioning its actions.
"People like me". I am an Atheist.
@@owlnyc666 Then why did you make that comment?
fascinating argument. Thank you for the eye opening exploration of this possiblity.
nope his agument is weak