Has anyone ever competently refuted Epicurus on this?
If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?
Ran into this strain of logic when I was about 12. Have been an atheist since.
bump
Well, God can't do a lot of things.
He can't learn anything.
He can't go somewhere new.
Lots of things God can't do.
Yes many times. Start with St. Augustine.
Can I get a tl;dr
Also, a more accurate iteration of the quote in the OP: 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?
Same
If God can create a new place he could visit a new place
Another strain of logic that destroyed my preconceptions on the nature of God was that a perfect being is incapable of producing imperfection. Existence itself is innately imperfect, and therefore and deity responsible for its creation cannot be perfect.
First you have an idea of what/who God is and what evil is. Epicurus comes from the perspectice that God is a being confined in the universe (read his creation) that desides to be good.
In actuallity "God is good" means just that Gods very nature is what good is. Not simply that God does good things. Now evil on the other hand is the absence or distorion of God/Gods will. Evil is not the opposite of good. For an analogy think of the relationship between light and shadows. Is the shadow opposite of the light or is shadow simply the place where light is not present.
Thats propbably the simplest refutation as it attacks the very premise and understanding of the concepts hes presenting. Now there is much more critques which are better and more indepth involing the nature of suffering and whether its bad or not (hint its not always) but ill leave that to a better theologian. John Paul II wrote on the nature of suffering alot so check his work out.
I think I have an answer for this but first define what you see as imperfections.
But that just leads us to "Is he able, but not willing". A being that is all good, and all capable, is incapable of permitting evil.
And we have an infinite supply of *undue* suffering.
Well, existence by its very nature defies perfection. True perfection can only be achieved by lack of existence, as any other form of existence can be found to be imperfect.
If God is a perfect being, he cannot exist, nor can he produce imperfections himself. The latter of course being the more immediately compelling/pertinent component of that argument, as we live in a wholly, and blatantly imperfect universe.
two points
1) Think about ths you have no transcendent standard of good then then the very question of evil becomes irrelevent. So then what point is there to even be concerned with such question of morality being itself much less the morality of action.
2)Why do you assume that undo suffering is automaticaly evil? Certainly its not enjoyable or desirable but what makes you say evil? Now careful there is a big diffrence between what we like/want vs what is true/Good
You still havent defined your terms "perfect" and "imperfect". Nor have you sorted out how those term apply to existence. Let me help Start here: What is a pefect existence? How does imperfection arise? Is perfect for existence A the same for existence B. (hint: the last question deals with fulfilment of individual nature)
>If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
>If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
>If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?
How did you like them apples, huh?
Now bear the consequences.
I'd say my definition of pure good stems from the intention to produce generative results that harm no one in the process. This is within the capabilities of a benevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent sentient being.
To permit the continued existence of undo suffering is evil, because there are infinite cases of undo suffering that cannot possibly be construed as being productive in any capacity whatsoever, from any perspective. An infant born without skin, for instance, is an unfortunate anomaly. Within the context of there being an omnipotent god however, it is an act of evil.
And perfection, as I mentioned earlier, is a lack of existence. There is no such thing as a perfect existence, because any existence can be perceived as being imperfect.
Another way to look at it, if you're a theist, is that God, a perfect, omnipotent, benevolent, omnipresent being, can only create another God. A perfect entity is incapable of producing an imperfect product.
How about you worry about how to make civilization both lasting and of high quality rather than the nightmare we are headed for.
it's a subjective judgement on the nature of good and evil used in a snarky absolutist manner.
basically the libtard of his day.
>then he is not all-good.
>Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
Earth isn't heaven. You weren't put here just to have a good time.
God is not an entity, god is a concept.
If you want to find god simply manifest hell all around you, look at how jesus acted and then you should be able to find god.
It's all from your perspective.
Let's take our most recent happening. Ultimate good will come from it. How do I know? God wants the best for us. Right now some might not be able to see it, hell we may never see it, but if it happened it is for the ultimate good. That includes children with cancer, nuns being beheaded, and yes all other manner of nastiness.
Try thinking this way for a while. It's really quite peaceful.
Take the Deist pill user, the patrician's choice of the Founding Fathers. God created the world because he was bored, but does not give a fuck what happens in it. Any non-delusional scientist knows this to be the case
Dude, we need a philosofy board rn
Btw, if you have questions about that, a priest will answer you much better than all of us together
I'll do it in 2 words.
You subhuman little shit have no idea what good or bad is, just like faggot liberals think that the holokaust ist the worst thing that happened you know better you know the truth that it never even happened
So where the fuck is your good and bad now bitch boi!?
Fucking kill your self that would be something good for example faggot
How many weeds are you on rn
A baby being born without skin, and then dying, is not for the ultimate good. If you actually believe this, you're a sociopath.
Evil exists so that we may learn lessons about ourselves and the world. There is no virtue without vice. You developing yourself as a human being and learning anything about the world all has to do with understanding evil and how to transcend it. Evil is a necessary device for learning.
And again I label this post as good
And the fact that you haven't killed yourself an evil
You see where going bitch?
I'll fuck you up if you try to refute this you damn cock dock
Is it better that you have free will or that you are free from suffering no matter what you do?
Without suffering of any kind we cannot be good or bad in any real sense.
Most of the most celebrated heroes of humanity are such because they overcame suffering rather than just did good things.
Gook Moot allowed humanism discussion in /lit/, philosophy inclued. Now, if it's a good idea to include humanism in a board based purely on literature is debatable.
>philosophy
I meant 'philosofy'.
God, good, and evil all don't exist, and are all only abstract concepts fabricated by humans.
That's a defense of suffering, but not undo, pointless suffering which has no conceivable benefits. Animals and infants harmed come to mind.
And in any event, I'd ask that people who try to refute the op refer to my other comments. The argument I've presented is multi-faceted, and you have to start from the ground up (i.e. why not just create innately good people to begin with).
God gave you free will for a reason you dumb fag. It's your choice if you want God or Devil. why is he suppose to save you if you don't give a shit yourself...
fucking dummie
"God" is a single solipsistic entity that is all conscious beings simultaneously. Suffering exists because "God" cannot create an infinitely good existence for itself - If the universe could exist in the state of infinite joy and good, it would beg the existence of a universe of infinite pain and evil, hence why the universe does not exist in either state, but in a balanced and moderated mix between the two. Everyone posting in this thread will eventually live the lives of every conscious being that ever has or ever will exist in this or any universe (living as some beings, such as humans, more repeatedly than others, such as mosquitoes), and has done so and will do so an infinite number of times in the past and future. The entire totality balances out to a neutral state of both positive and negative experience.
I think I see the issue youre having. Youre basing your reasoning on how you think things should be defined vs how things actually are. The hangup is speficaly on "undo" suffering in your mind being evil. While Id argue that undo suffering is itself a factor of life and therefore is neither good nor evil but can be used for purposes of both but its up to how we act when encountering it that is important.
Now you say that because reality is imperfect that God could not have created it because he is suposed to be perfect therefore only nonexistence is perfect. If thats the case does it matter? Perfect and imperfect become subjective terms. Id say that creation is acting as it is intened too therefore is "perfect" in that sense. However part of creation is necessity of free will for the existence of love. Make no mistake love is the purpose of existence. So any evil or "imperfection" produced from creation is a consequence of our own will not of God's. Christian theology has always held that suffering is a reality of existence (for various reasons) and that it can not be avoided. Christ is said to be perfect yet he is held to have suffered physically and spiritually more than any other man.
I must admit my knowelege is only basic and I dont do these arguments justice so if you what to look more into this I would suggest John Paul II writings on suffering.
I don't think perfect becomes a subjective term, though. Again, by the very definition of perfection, something that is perfect cannot be flawed, nor can it produce that which is flawed (which is anything capable of producing a flawed product, a la humans).
And if we're not going by the logical and textbook interpretation of perfection, *then* we're delving into subjectivity. But I don't see why we'd do that.
I'd address other components of your argument, but that reality remains as such.