Epicurean Paradox

[bazackward]

I just found out about this today and I searched Catholic Answers to see if this was answered somewhere, but my search came up empty. How do you respond to this?

Epicurus' 3 assumptions:

1) God is omnipotent
2) God is good
3) Evil exists

With regard to the third point, he concludes:

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?

[victorbuhagiar]

Originally Posted by bazackward

I just found out about this today and I searched Catholic Answers to see if this was answered somewhere, but my search came up empty. How do you respond to this?

Epicurus' 3 assumptions:

1) God is omnipotent
2) God is good
3) Evil exists

With regard to the third point, he concludes:

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?

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher 341 BCE – 270 BCE. As such he was not a Christian. "Epicurus is a key figure in the development of science and the scientific method because of his insistence that nothing should be believed, except that which was tested through direct observation and logical deduction." Wiki Encyclopaedia.

His philosophy denied after life. His beliefs are not Christian. The questions above ignore the most fundamental concept of God. GOD IS LOVE. He created everything perfect: angels and man. It was a group of angels that disobeyed God. God must allow freedom of choice otherwise He would be a dictator and have no merit. Man too decided to follow the fallen angels. It was man's choice. But God loved man to such an extent that He sent His Son, so that whoever believes in Him will be saved.

So we have free choice. Everyone must use it wisely.

May the Divine Mercy help us in our choices.

Victor

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by bazackward

I just found out about this today and I searched Catholic Answers to see if this was answered somewhere, but my search came up empty. How do you respond to this?

Epicurus' 3 assumptions:

1) God is omnipotent
2) God is good
3) Evil exists

With regard to the third point, he concludes:

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?

Are you malevolent for innoculating your children, or taking them to the dentist?

[Aelred Minor]

I never knew it was Epicurus who came up with this argument, but it's so common I can't help but suspect it's been treated here several times before. It may be that it's been buried though, or deleted for drawing too near the forbidden topic of atheism.

Ultimately, the answer to the riddle is quite simple.

We know that God exists.

We know that God is omnipotent (properly understood, which means it does not include the ability to do what is logically impossible).

We know that God is good.

We know that God permits evil to occur in Creation.

If God is good and omnipotent, we know that He will run the universe in whatever the best manner to run a universe is. Since He does permit evil to occur, the best way to run a universe must not, in fact, be to prevent any evils from occurring.

In what case would allowing an evil to occur actually be the best way to run a universe? It would be best only if there were some good that was greater than the evil but which would have no logical way of coming into existence if the evil were prevented.

Thus the omnipotent, good God permits any given evil so that an otherwise logically impossible greater good may come about because of it.

Edit: As far as the questions at the end of the "paradox" go, the problems with their conclusions are that, first, omnipotence does not imply the ability to do the logically impossible, and second, if allowing an evil to occur were in fact the best policy in a certain case then doing so would not make God malevolent.

[bazackward]

Originally Posted by snarflemike

Are you malevolent for innoculating your children, or taking them to the dentist?

The Merriam-Webster definition of malevolent is "having, showing, or arising from intense often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred." Taking a child to the doctor or dentist is not harmful to the child and shows good will and love, not ill will and hate. So, no, you are not malevolent for taking a child to the doctor or dentist.

However, playing devil's advocate, I guess I don't see how your question affects the assumptions or conclusions of the paradox, which address whether God is able and/or willing to eliminate evil. Taking a child for medical care is not evil and thus does not concern the paradox. Can you elaborate? Are you saying that evil existing is proof that God is good?

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by victorbuhagiar

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher 341 BCE – 270 BCE. As such he was not a Christian. "Epicurus is a key figure in the development of science and the scientific method because of his insistence that nothing should be believed, except that which was tested through direct observation and logical deduction." Wiki Encyclopaedia.

His philosophy denied after life. His beliefs are not Christian. The questions above ignore the most fundamental concept of God. GOD IS LOVE. He created everything perfect: angels and man. It was a group of angels that disobeyed God. God must allow freedom of choice otherwise He would be a dictator and have no merit. Man too decided to follow the fallen angels. It was man's choice. But God loved man to such an extent that He sent His Son, so that whoever believes in Him will be saved.

So we have free choice. Everyone must use it wisely.

May the Divine Mercy help us in our choices.

Victor

Your faith is admirable, but free will alone at most explains why God allows moral evil (though there may be problems even with that, depending on how free will is conceived), but it cannot explain why God does not prevent physical evils, since this could be done without limiting the free will of any creatures. Thus we do need to look to an even more fundamental answer. I believe that answer is what I've posted, that God permits evils for the sake of greater goods which it would otherwise be logically impossible to bring about or to maintain.

[Ohana]

Test your assumptions.

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by bazackward

The Merriam-Webster definition of malevolent is "having, showing, or arising from intense often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred." Taking a child to the doctor or dentist is not harmful to the child and shows good will and love, not ill will and hate. So, no, you are not malevolent for taking a child to the doctor or dentist.

However, playing devil's advocate, I guess I don't see how your question affects the assumptions or conclusions of the paradox, which address whether God is able and/or willing to eliminate evil. Taking a child for medical care is not evil and thus does not concern the paradox. Can you elaborate? Are you saying that evil existing is proof that God is good?

You don't think suffering falls in the category of evil? If you were God, you would allow suffering? What about fear, is it not evil that a child should feel great fear?

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by bazackward

The Merriam-Webster definition of malevolent is "having, showing, or arising from intense often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred." Taking a child to the doctor or dentist is not harmful to the child and shows good will and love, not ill will and hate. So, no, you are not malevolent for taking a child to the doctor or dentist.

However, playing devil's advocate, I guess I don't see how your question affects the assumptions or conclusions of the paradox, which address whether God is able and/or willing to eliminate evil. Taking a child for medical care is not evil and thus does not concern the paradox. Can you elaborate? Are you saying that evil existing is proof that God is good?

The distinction is between permission and ordination. A parent does not will for its own sake that their child undergo the pain or discomfort of, say, a vaccination or a dental procedure, but they allow the child to go through the experience for the sake of a greater good, one which the child may or may not be able to fully understand, though the parent does.

It's only an analogy of course. God, unlike the parent, has the power to bring about this particular kind of greater good without the pain. The kind of impossibility that would apply to God would be something on the order of the impossibility of creating a square circle or a rock to heavy for Himself to lift.

[bazackward]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

I never knew it was Epicurus who came up with this argument, but it's so common I can't help but suspect it's been treated here several times before. It may be that it's been buried though, or deleted for drawing too near the forbidden topic of atheism.

Ultimately, the answer to the riddle is quite simple.

We know that God exists.

We know that God is omnipotent (properly understood, which means it does not include the ability to do what is logically impossible).

We know that God is good.

We know that God permits evil to occur in Creation.

If God is good and omnipotent, we know that He will run the universe in whatever the best manner to run a universe is. Since He does permit evil to occur, the best way to run a universe must not, in fact, be to prevent any evils from occurring.

In what case would allowing an evil to occur actually be the best way to run a universe? It would be best only if there were some good that was greater than the evil but which would have no logical way of coming into existence if the evil were prevented.

Thus the omnipotent, good God permits any given evil so that an otherwise logically impossible greater good may come about because of it.

Edit: As far as the questions at the end of the "paradox" go, the problems with their conclusions are that, first, omnipotence does not imply the ability to do the logically impossible, and second, if allowing an evil to occur were in fact the best policy in a certain case then doing so would not make God malevolent.

Thanks, that's helpful! I didn't realize I was bringing up a forbidden question and think it would be a shame to eliminate these types of questions from this site since we can all learn from the answers and I don't have to rehash something that was already settled lol

Hopefully I'm properly characterizing your answer, but if I am to sum up what I think you're saying, it's that there is a false premise in that assuming omnipotence allows God to do anything when, in fact, He is limited to being able to do anything that is not logically impossible. That would invalidate the first conclusion that because He is willing but not able does not mean he is not omnipotent due to a faulty understanding of omnipotence. Am I on the right track?

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by bazackward

Thanks, that's helpful! I didn't realize I was bringing up a forbidden question and think it would be a shame to eliminate these types of questions from this site since we can all learn from the answers and I don't have to rehash something that was already settled lol

I don't think your question is about atheism, but about the "problem of evil." Catholics, and all theists, need to be able to address that question.

Hopefully I'm properly characterizing your answer, but if I am to sum up what I think you're saying, it's that there is a false premise in that assuming omnipotence allows God to do anything when, in fact, He is limited to being able to do anything that is not logically impossible. That would invalidate the first conclusion that because He is willing but not able does not mean he is not omnipotent due to a faulty understanding of omnipotence. Am I on the right track?

I didn't write the post you're responding to, but I think you are on the right track. If God is omnipotent, can he both fully control you, and grant you free will?

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by bazackward

Thanks, that's helpful! I didn't realize I was bringing up a forbidden question and think it would be a shame to eliminate these types of questions from this site since we can all learn from the answers and I don't have to rehash something that was already settled lol

Hopefully I'm properly characterizing your answer, but if I am to sum up what I think you're saying, it's that there is a false premise in that assuming omnipotence allows God to do anything when, in fact, He is limited to being able to do anything that is not logically impossible. That would invalidate the first conclusion that because He is willing but not able does not mean he is not omnipotent due to a faulty understanding of omnipotence. Am I on the right track?

It's atheism itself that we cannot discuss directly (with the exception, I assume, of discussing the fact that we can't discuss it.) We also can't criticize the actions of the moderators, such as a decision to ban a given topic.

But we can discuss related issues, like the problem of evil.

And yes, the faulty understanding of omnipotence is key to this. So is the faulty understanding of goodness, or of the implications of goodness. Admit either error, that omnipotence means not having even logical limitations or that goodness requires that no evil be permitted for any reason whatsoever, and then the existence of evil would disprove the existence of a good, omnipotent God.

[Blue Horizon]

Originally Posted by bazackward

Hopefully I'm properly characterizing your answer, but if I am to sum up what I think you're saying, it's that there is a false premise in that assuming omnipotence allows God to do anything when, in fact, He is limited to being able to do anything that is not logically impossible. That would invalidate the first conclusion that because He is willing but not able does not mean he is not omnipotent due to a faulty understanding of omnipotence. Am I on the right track?

bazackward
We have to remember that words are symbols of a reality and not reality itself. Hence logic/philosophy can do all sorts of tricks with the words but that doesn't necessarily "force" the reaility behind the words to follow suit. In "logical arguments" the meaning of a word, when repeated elsewhere, often changes subtly, rendering the beautiful conclusions irrelevant.

Anyhow, another problem with Epicurious not yet mentioned (though indirectly when "free choice" was mentioned") is that an All-Powerful God may decide to self-limit his Potency.

So I suppose that yes, this means that, in a certain sense, he is not "All Powerful." Catholic understanding of Creation/Reedemption seems to involve such a loving, self-limiting (self-giving) on God's part.

When someone above said God made all things perfect that is not quite true in a certain sense.

That is, God created human nature, by nature, to be incomplete. In a certain sense our nature's are imperfect as they cry out for something they do not have. So we must actively complete God's creation and stewardship of the world and our very selves. We have the freedom to choose or not to choose whether we complete ourselves in the right or wrong way. That is what makes us human. If we choose to complete our humanity in the wrong way we hurt ourselves, others and the world. Karma.

By definition, in the act of Creation God chose to let us finish off what he started, he lovingly passed some of His Power to us. For Him to go back on this loving, self-limiting is to deny us our very human nature.

God is loyal and consistent, that is why evil exists. Evil proves he lovingly (but painfully)respect's our autonomy (if that is what we decide). Evil therefore comes from us abusing the Power God "lent" us.

Epicurious's dry, sterile logic and words comes nowhere near understanding these deep and meaningful realities of Christian wisdom.

[Church Militant]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

It's atheism itself that we cannot discuss directly (with the exception, I assume, of discussing the fact that we can't discuss it.) We also can't criticize the actions of the moderators, such as a decision to ban a given topic.

But we can discuss related issues, like the problem of evil.

And yes, the faulty understanding of omnipotence is key to this. So is the faulty understanding of goodness, or of the implications of goodness. Admit either error, that omnipotence means not having even logical limitations or that goodness requires that no evil be permitted for any reason whatsoever, and then the existence of evil would disprove the existence of a good, omnipotent God.

Correctly stated. Thank you!
Just FYI for clarity sake. Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

[victorbuhagiar]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

Your faith is admirable, but free will alone at most explains why God allows moral evil (though there may be problems even with that, depending on how free will is conceived), but , since this could be done without limiting the free will of any creatures. Thus we do need to look to an even more fundamental answer. I believe that answer is what I've posted, that God permits evils for the sake of greater goods which it would otherwise be logically impossible to bring about or to maintain.

You write: "it cannot explain why God does not prevent physical evils". Surely you must have at some time read the opening chapters of the Genesis. Adam and Eve sinned because they wanted to be God. They deserved punishment. This was the beginning of the original sin. Man suffers physically and spiritually. A Greek philosopher could never explain this since the bible is not part of his studies. But any Christian can explain this and know that Jesus died for us for our spiritual salvation. Our original sin is forgiven in baptism, but we still retain its effects. The problem of good and evil and of suffering cannot be explained away by philosophy but by faith. In the end we must have faith, hope and charity. That is the way to salvation.

God bless

Victor