Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2014, 01:40 PM
Epicurean paradox defeated.
This was a good question asked and answered in that "other web site"

some long forgotten atheist. Wrote:I'm often trolled by atheists who ask me this, what do you guys think?

I usually defend it in that it's not in God's nature to act in that way, but I'm not sure how good of an argument that is.

For those of you who don't know what the Epicurean Paradox is, it is as follows:

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?
Taken from the last time I answer this question:

My response:
We answer this like we do with any other question.

first we define the parameters of the question. Meaning we take into account the circumstances of the who or when the question was asked, and then we look at what is asked.

Second we help the one asking the question to redefine any misconceptions they may have in the questions asked, leading to a false assumption, then we address the question according to the bible.

Finally we draw together all of the points i have outlined so they can come to a biblically based conclusion.

For example we know that this Greek philosopher lived about 2300 years ago and was not privy the revelation of Christ and the teachings of the NT. at best He was living in a truly dark age which saw no light of salvation. Epicurus' query was directed to his gods. If someone is using his words in the context He wrote them, then a simple explanation of the Gospel should answer each and every question Epicurus had.

But I know the general popularity this set of questions has found in recent days is not because of the original intent this philosopher had when He wrote this query. Our modern want-to-be's have taken this question and married it with a pop culture understanding of the words, sin, evil and a loose understanding omni aspects of God.

So what we must do now is re-educate and give a biblical account of these words and how they relate to the popular culture's understanding of these questions. We do this by deconstructing the question line by line.
(I took the liberty of looking up the actual quote)

We start with the basics by giving a biblical definition of Sin, Evil and Freewill.

Sin, is anything not in the expressed will of God.

Evil is a malicious intent to be outside the expressed will of God.

Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.

Free Will Is a Greek philosophy and not taught by the bible. The bible teaches we are all slaves to sin. As slaves we have no will of our own. Rather we have been permitted to make a choice. Whether or not we want redemption for our sins.

We have been given this ability so we may choose where we wish to spend eternity, but as with any real choice comes a price and consequence.

*Side note; Apparently Epicurus did not have a complete understanding of God's word or His plan as outlined here. nor would anyone of that time period, but to those who would twist this effort to suit their own agenda there will be little excuse.

On to the actual quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Evil is the ultimate expression of sin. It is the proof that we indeed are outside the will of God's expressed will. In other words Evil is the proof or ultimate result of our sin status. Rather than prevent sin God offers attonement for all those who seek it.



Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

If we were not given the choice this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell. This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter) As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil. It is a choice made in a man's heart apart from the expressed Will of God. Because we have been given a true choice we have to all live with the consequences. Remember what it cost God to give us this choice. A malevolent being would not have paid such a high price.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Again, Evil is the proof of Our bondage the consequences of that choice is the point and purpose of this life. We are to choose where we wish to spend eternity. Without "Sin and Evil" there is not point of been given this existence as the only choice we have would be to simply endure whatever was decided for us.



Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Because the Title "God" has absolutely nothing to do with how Epicurus nor the person using this quote defines it.
And keep in mind Epicurus was not speaking of Christianity (because he lived 300 years before Christ.) nor is he even speaking to the God of Judaism (as Yahweh does not make the claim Epicurus makes for Him.) Rather here he was speaking to the only godS he knew. His supposed paradox is out of context and out of place. This is more than apparent when it falls on its face when compared to the light of the gospel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

That is why this supposed paradox fails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
I'm thinking this might need to be moved to the philosphy section.

But I'm going to wait to see how this thread proceeds.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 01:53 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2014 02:18 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Point taken.

Let us instead assume that Epicurus did not say it.

Let us assume that I said it of your god.

Now answer it.

Wink

That was too easy.

Girl_nails

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like DLJ's post
09-02-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Goalpost shifting does not eliminate the paradox. You don't get to redefine words to mean what you want.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like natachan's post
09-02-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:55 PM)natachan Wrote:  Goalpost shifting does not eliminate the paradox. You don't get to redefine words to mean what you want.

Do you not understand by taking Epicurus' work out of it's orginally stated context and then applying it to the God of Christianity IS IN ITS VERY ESSENCE GOAL POST SHIFTING???
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:53 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Point taken.

Let us instead assume that Epicurus did not say it.

Let us assume that I said of your god.

Now answer it.

Wink

That was too easy.

Girl_nails

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?

If you said the above I would point you to the OP and tell you to ignore what was said about epicurus, all the same stuff still applies.

(I defeated the modern use of the paradox by applying it's questions and pairing them with the message of the gospel, and then I took out ole epie himself by pointing out he wasn't even talking about the God of the bible.) If you take out epie and want to stand on his words, then you still have to contend with the explaination I provided that answers the paradox with the gospel.

Consider did you get all of that or do you need to break it down and go line by line?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 02:22 PM)Drich Wrote:  ...
Consider did you get all of that or do you need to break it down and go line by line?

No need. I didn't bother reading that part as it is erroneous by default.

The questions still stand.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
09-02-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

If we were not given the choice this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell. This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter) As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil. It is a choice made in a man's heart apart from the expressed Will of God. Because we have been given a true choice we have to all live with the consequences. Remember what it cost God to give us this choice. A malevolent being would not have paid such a high price.

Or he could just, you know, create people to spend an eternity in Heaven and destroy Hell. Everyone's happy.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes undergroundp's post
09-02-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
I have made a very long post in why sin as you are using it is a disgusting an unjust concept. I will not repost it,

And your redefining evil is shifting the goalpost. Evil is defined as "causing harm or injury" by meriam-Webster. Lets stick with that definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
09-02-2014, 02:37 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 02:25 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 02:22 PM)Drich Wrote:  ...
Consider did you get all of that or do you need to break it down and go line by line?

No need. I didn't bother reading that part as it is erroneous by default.

The questions still stand.

Thumbsup
Laugh out load how can it if you will not open your mind to an answer?Laughat you guys are so funny sometimes.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: