Epicurus' argument

[oldcelt]

oldcelt’s post 12…:hey_bud:

As always you ignore points already made.

In post 7, I pointed out that we can’t be persons without having free will,
and that Heaven would not be Heaven if we weren’t persons.

If I ignore a point it is because no backing evidence is given. In cases such as that, I find discussion to be futile.

---

By the way, Maxine, Aquinas wrote tons on the subject.
I’m busy now and don’t have time to look his stuff up,
but maybe somebody else on this forum has the day off?
Hint: try his articles on God’s goodness and omnipotence and look at the “objections”.

 

[Maxime_Indigent]

Cool, I get it now, thanks. God bless to all!

 

[mgoforth]

He can! If not, then he really isn’t omnipotent. He can find a way to make a dark sunshine or a cold heat because He is God. In the same way He could find a way to not violate our free will, but destroy the concept of evil at the same time.

God already has destroyed the concept of evil, through Christ, for those who choose to follow Him. If someone turns to God with repentance each day, then evil will have no power over them. What you seem to be suggesting instead is that you would like the reward, without having to do any hard work or even ask for it.

Also it seems a bit silly for finite beings such as ourselves to presume to question the designs of an infinite intelligence. If there was a better way for God to create the world and still achieve His plans, He surely would have done so.

Again, omnipotent doesn’t mean what you obviously think it means. God is bound by His own nature, which is pure goodness, love, existence, logic, freedom, etc. Therefore, He can’t create evil, hatred, non-existence, illogical things…but He can and did create beings with free will. Since our nature isn’t infinitely perfect and good like His, but we share in His freedom, we are able to choose evil (or the incorrect choice of a lesser good over a greater good, as St Thomas puts it).

 

[empther]

From oldcelt’s post 21 ( buried in the quotes )

I ignore a point it is because no backing evidence is given. In cases such as that, I find discussion to be futile.

I see.
In that case,
you should never make any points since nothing you say has any evidence.

This is like the kind of arguments I got on that atheist’s forum I joined last year. To any of my logical arguments for God they’d say, “Where’s the evidence, where’s the evidence?”
although they never gave any evidence for their argument.
Finally, I said, “The universe itself is the evidence, you #@&^(%.”
At that point I was banned. They just can’t stand the truth.

They also moved my thread to the “Into The Darkness” section which you can’t see unless you’re a forum member and logged in. They just can’t stand the truth.

 

[mikekle]

Mikekle asks me : **
[1]" the world we live in is very short, versus the afterlife, and
[2] many say we only have this Free Will when we are alive and on earth, so this means
[3] we don’t have mindless robots [roaming around here on Earth], but in the AFTERLIFE,
[4] if Free Will ends at death, then is Heaven full of mindless robots?"**

[1] Yes it is. Here we live as long as 100 years, but Early Christians have ALREADY spent 1900 years having Fun with Jesus Christ (with an Option for MANY MORE years into the Future). I like those odds.
So (to a person NOT interested in living a Spiritual Life), this can leave an Equally-long time, but in a VERY Un-Fun environment.
Because of this, I can’t understand a person actively seeking for a Home in Hades.

[4] I haven’t heard anyone say before that Souls (and, maybe Angels?) living in Heaven have NO Free Will.
Certainly, there is nothing in the Bible that says that, so I imagine that whoever Dreamed that Theory up, had decided that it makes sense that God would force every Heavenly Creature to be part of a Dance that God calls.
It DOES sound possible.

But, I don’t QUITE think about things that way.
I see it as … I am in HEAVEN ( WOW ) … I love Jesus Christ … I Love being with Jesus Christ.
Because I love Jesus SO MUCH, I want to do what Jesus would like me to, as part of my Gratitude.

So, I would HAVE Free Will, and I will Choose to do what I want in Heaven.
But, what I will Choose is, to do what my Savior wants me to do.

Or, the scenario is** : **(almost by Miracle) what I WANT to do anyway, is what God would like me to do.
This would NEED some Empathy. I feel what God feels. I think (somewhat) like God thinks.
But, even THEN, I have Free Will (in the same way as Lucifer had Free Will, and so he checked out of Heaven, and to a warmer Climate).
Anyway, maybe it’s something like that.

If the souls in Heaven have the same free will as living people do, then it is ultimately possible one or more MAY have chosen to leave at some point…Ive never really thought about this in depth, but if free will exists, then it is possible some may make the choice to leave, however unlikely it may seem…point is, none of us know for sure (not yet anyway).

 

[empther]

All right. I had time to look up one of Aquinas articles.

Article 3. Whether God is omnipotent?
newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article3

Objection 2. Further, sin is an act of some kind. But God cannot sin, nor “deny Himself” as it is said in 2 Timothy 2:13. Therefore He is not omnipotent.

Reply to Objection 2. To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence. Nevertheless, the Philosopher says (Topic. iv, 3) that God can deliberately do what is evil. But this must be understood either on a condition, the antecedent of which is impossible–as, for instance, if we were to say that God can do evil things if He will. For there is no reason why a conditional proposition should not be true, though both the antecedent and consequent are impossible: as if one were to say: “If man is a donkey, he has four feet.” Or he may be understood to mean that God can do some things which now seem to be evil: which, however, if He did them, would then be good. Or he is, perhaps, speaking after the common manner of the heathen, who thought that men became gods, like Jupiter or Mercury.

 

[empther]

Here’s another good one,
which really slams Epicurus

Article 2. Whether everything is subject to the providence of God?
newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm#article2

Objection 2. Further, a wise provider excludes any defect or evil, as far as he can, from those over whom he has a care. But we see many evils existing. Either, then, God cannot hinder these, and thus is not omnipotent; or else He does not have care for everything.

Reply to Objection 2. It is otherwise with one who has care of a particular thing, and one whose providence is universal, because a particular provider excludes all defects from what is subject to his care as far as he can; whereas, one who provides universally allows some little defect to remain, lest the good of the whole should be hindered. Hence, corruption and defects in natural things are said to be contrary to some particular nature; yet they are in keeping with the plan of universal nature; inasmuch as the defect in one thing yields to the good of another, or even to the universal good: for the corruption of one is the generation of another, and through this it is that a species is kept in existence. Since God, then, provides universally for all being, it belongs to His providence to permit certain defects in particular effects, that the perfect good of the universe may not be hindered, for if all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe. A lion would cease to live, if there were no slaying of animals; and there would be no patience of martyrs if there were no tyrannical persecution. Thus Augustine says (Enchiridion 2): “Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil.” It would appear that it was on account of these two arguments to which we have just replied, that some were persuaded to consider corruptible things–e.g. casual and evil things–as removed from the care of divine providence.

and from the same page…

Objection 4. Further, whatsoever is left to itself cannot be subject to the providence of a governor. But men are left to themselves by God in accordance with the words: “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel” (Sirach 15:14). And particularly in reference to the wicked: “I let them go according to the desires of their heart” (Psalm 80:13). Everything, therefore, cannot be subject to divine providence.

Reply to Objection 4. When it is said that God left man to himself, this does not mean that man is exempt from divine providence; but merely that he has not a prefixed operating force determined to only the one effect; as in the case of natural things, which are only acted upon as though directed by another towards an end; and do not act of themselves, as if they directed themselves towards an end, like rational creatures, through the possession of free will, by which these are able to take counsel and make a choice. Hence it is significantly said: “In the hand of his own counsel.” But since the very act of free will is traced to God as to a cause, it necessarily follows that everything happening from the exercise of free will must be subject to divine providence. For human providence is included under the providence of God, as a particular under a universal cause. God, however, extends His providence over the just in a certain more excellent way than over the wicked; inasmuch as He prevents anything happening which would impede their final salvation. For “to them that love God, all things work together unto good” (Romans 8:28). But from the fact that He does not restrain the wicked from the evil of sin, He is said to abandon them: not that He altogether withdraws His providence from them; otherwise they would return to nothing, if they were not preserved in existence by His providence. This was the reason that had weight with Tully, who withdrew from the care of divine providence human affairs concerning which we take counsel.

 

[mgoforth]

If the souls in Heaven have the same free will as living people do, then it is ultimately possible one or more MAY have chosen to leave at some point…Ive never really thought about this in depth, but if free will exists, then it is possible some may make the choice to leave, however unlikely it may seem…point is, none of us know for sure (not yet anyway).

I don’t think anyone would ever choose to leave Heaven, even though technically they might be able to. Considering that the Beatific Vision will be the summation of every pleasure imaginable (and infinitely more that we can’t imagine), it’s illogical that anyone would ever want to leave.

That doesn’t necessarily mean we won’t have free will though…it would just have to be a different kind of free will. Since God is infinite, we’ll never run out of new and exciting things to learn and discover about His nature, and it’s possible that we’ll always be able to choose which aspect of God to explore next.

On the other hand, maybe we do lose our free will. Even if we do, that’s hardly unfair, because we had free will in this life and made a choice to go to Heaven. As one author put it (I think maybe Peter Kreeft?), you have a choice whether or not to jump off a cliff. However, once you’ve jumped the time for choosing is over and you will experience the consequence of that decision, even if you “change your mind” in mid-air. Heaven and Hell are the same. Now is the time to choose, and after death we live or die eternally with the consequences.

As for the fallen angels, it’s quite likely they were never in Heaven at all. I believe Aquinas said that they must have had a brief period of choice before they were admitted to Heaven or cast down to Hell/Earth. In that case they didn’t choose to leave, but just chose not to enter…really the same option we have.

 

[oldcelt]

From oldcelt’s post 21 ( buried in the quotes )

**I see.
In that case,
you should never make any points since nothing you say has any evidence.
**
This is like the kind of arguments I got on that atheist’s forum I joined last year. To any of my logical arguments for God they’d say, “Where’s the evidence, where’s the evidence?”
although they never gave any evidence for their argument.
Finally, I said, “The universe itself is the evidence, you #@&^(%.”
At that point I was banned. They just can’t stand the truth.

They also moved my thread to the “Into The Darkness” section which you can’t see unless you’re a forum member and logged in. They just can’t stand the truth.

There is a major difference, I do not list my beliefs as fact. The universe is proof that the universe exists, anything else is faith.
I do not believe in an interventionist God since I see no evidence that would support divine intervention by a friend of humanity. That I even put God in the equation is faith on my part and I state it as such.

That atheists want evidence for statements relating to God is no surprise, and no character flaw on their part. You joined an atheist forum for what purpose? To prove the existence of God? If so you entered the field of battle unarmed save for faith.

You even end your final line of this point with, “They just can’t stand the truth.” Which “truth?”

 

[oldcelt]

Here’s another good one,
which really slams Epicurus

Article 2. Whether everything is subject to the providence of God?
newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm#article2

Objection 2. Further, a wise provider excludes any defect or evil, as far as he can, from those over whom he has a care. But we see many evils existing. Either, then, God cannot hinder these, and thus is not omnipotent; or else He does not have care for everything.

Reply to Objection 2. It is otherwise with one who has care of a particular thing, and one whose providence is universal, because a particular provider excludes all defects from what is subject to his care as far as he can; whereas, one who provides universally allows some little defect to remain, lest the good of the whole should be hindered. Hence, corruption and defects in natural things are said to be contrary to some particular nature; yet they are in keeping with the plan of universal nature; inasmuch as the defect in one thing yields to the good of another, or even to the universal good: for the corruption of one is the generation of another, and through this it is that a species is kept in existence. Since God, then, provides universally for all being, it belongs to His providence to permit certain defects in particular effects, that the perfect good of the universe may not be hindered, for if all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe. A lion would cease to live, if there were no slaying of animals; and there would be no patience of martyrs if there were no tyrannical persecution. Thus Augustine says (Enchiridion 2): “Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil.” It would appear that it was on account of these two arguments to which we have just replied, that some were persuaded to consider corruptible things–e.g. casual and evil things–as removed from the care of divine providence.

and from the same page…

Objection 4. Further, whatsoever is left to itself cannot be subject to the providence of a governor. But men are left to themselves by God in accordance with the words: “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel” (Sirach 15:14). And particularly in reference to the wicked: “I let them go according to the desires of their heart” (Psalm 80:13). Everything, therefore, cannot be subject to divine providence.

Reply to Objection 4. When it is said that God left man to himself, this does not mean that man is exempt from divine providence; but merely that he has not a prefixed operating force determined to only the one effect; as in the case of natural things, which are only acted upon as though directed by another towards an end; and do not act of themselves, as if they directed themselves towards an end, like rational creatures, through the possession of free will, by which these are able to take counsel and make a choice. Hence it is significantly said: “In the hand of his own counsel.” But since the very act of free will is traced to God as to a cause, it necessarily follows that everything happening from the exercise of free will must be subject to divine providence. For human providence is included under the providence of God, as a particular under a universal cause. God, however, extends His providence over the just in a certain more excellent way than over the wicked; inasmuch as He prevents anything happening which would impede their final salvation. For “to them that love God, all things work together unto good” (Romans 8:28). But from the fact that He does not restrain the wicked from the evil of sin, He is said to abandon them: not that He altogether withdraws His providence from them; otherwise they would return to nothing, if they were not preserved in existence by His providence. This was the reason that had weight with Tully, who withdrew from the care of divine providence human affairs concerning which we take counsel.

Again, you are using quotes from people who share your belief system as proof that the system exists. I have to tell you that such an approach would bring about a failing grade in any basic philosophy course. The people you quote are obviously attempting to promote their and your beliefs. For you and them they are truth, for those with other beliefs they are neither truth or fact.
I am a historian and archaeologist. That would be like me writing a book while using only the accounts I like…I would be rightfully ripped to shreds by the critics and my peers.

 

[mikekle]

I don’t think anyone would ever choose to leave Heaven, even though technically they might be able to. Considering that the Beatific Vision will be the summation of every pleasure imaginable (and infinitely more that we can’t imagine), it’s illogical that anyone would ever want to leave.

That doesn’t necessarily mean we won’t have free will though…it would just have to be a different kind of free will. Since God is infinite, we’ll never run out of new and exciting things to learn and discover about His nature, and it’s possible that we’ll always be able to choose which aspect of God to explore next.

On the other hand, maybe we do lose our free will. Even if we do, that’s hardly unfair, because we had free will in this life and made a choice to go to Heaven. As one author put it (I think maybe Peter Kreeft?), you have a choice whether or not to jump off a cliff. However, once you’ve jumped the time for choosing is over and you will experience the consequence of that decision, even if you “change your mind” in mid-air. Heaven and Hell are the same. Now is the time to choose, and after death we live or die eternally with the consequences.

As for the fallen angels, it’s quite likely they were never in Heaven at all. I believe Aquinas said that they must have had a brief period of choice before they were admitted to Heaven or cast down to Hell/Earth. In that case they didn’t choose to leave, but just chose not to enter…really the same option we have.

So literal ETERNITY and how one will experience it is 100% based on what we do in a very short 70-100 yrs (compared to eternity anyway)?

Im not entirely convinced that is accurate, does not seem logical.

If we are truly eternal, immortal beings once God breathes life into us upon our creation, then I have a problem believing what we do in such a short time frame would matter that much.If God created us to be eternal entities, why would it matter if we were living or dead, or what we did during this time? I would think if we were truly eternal, and had Gods love for that entire time, it would not matter when or where.

what is so important about being in a ‘earthly meat suit’ when we are really immortal beings whose souls will be around forever once they are existed?It makes no sense for a being like God, who has ALWAYS BEEN around, to create more immortal beings, and for him to base the large majority of their existence on such a small amount of time.

I think it is probable we are not given all the pieces of this puzzle, and simply cannot begin to understand.Even the bible claims we are only given a small portion of the ‘big picture’, so why should this aspect be any different?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

“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

It’s a 2400 year old argument but it still bothers me that we don’t really have a straight answer to it. Do we?

Whence cometh evil is the real question here. I believe God is omnipotent and all good.
Evil definitely exists in the form of Satan and his followers, but God is ultimately more powerful than evil. There definitely is an element of free will and choice, but why evil ones hurt the innocent and good is very hard to understand, as is why God doesn’t protect them from evil.

 

[ynotzap]

Every thing God creates is good, God is Goodness, even Satan who is an angel in nature. Only intellectual beings can choose to do evil, by free will, and intelligence. When one disobeys moral law, the law that God originated for man’s good ,then that becomes a moral evil, or absence of a moral good. God does not will evil (for man to counter His divine law) God can not will evil, to contradict Himself. It is impossible. He does allow man to choose, and its because of this freedom to choose, and ignorance and the power Satan has as an angel, superior to human nature has over humans who lack the grace of God that evil exists Jesus Christs’ very mission by our Father Creator was to redeem us from the power of Satan over humanity. Humanity can not redeem itself although through human secularism it tries to be its own redeemer. To allow so much suffering can only be answered through our Faith. Human reason will never fathom the mystery of human suffering without this Faith. And human reasoning without the guarantee of infallibility in its thinking will always fail in understanding.this mystery of suffering. Those of the Faith see it in divine light, the light of Christ Himself and come to understand its meaning. Christ making up in His mystical body what is lacking in His human body, Christ is all in all, even in His suffering in the souls and bodies of His followers. This suffering is a sanctifying and redemptive suffering. It is better to suffer for a good thing, than to suffer for a bad thing.

 

[ynotzap]

God does protect those who turn to Him, He will either take the suffering away or give Them the grace to endure, as St. Paul states what Jesus said to him “my grace is sufficient.for thee…” Paul finished the race for the Heavenly Crown…union with his God for ever. and he encourages us to do the same. We are a Resurrection People, everything passes away here on earth. Billions went before us, and billions will go after us, but God remains the same. Keep the Faith!!

 

[empther]

oldcelt’s post 30

Again, you are using quotes from people who share your belief system as proof that the system exists. I have to tell you that such an approach would bring about a failing grade in any basic philosophy course. The people you quote are obviously attempting to promote their and your beliefs. For you and them they are truth, for those with other beliefs they are neither truth or fact.
I am a historian and archaeologist. That would be like me writing a book while using only the accounts I like…I would be rightfully ripped to shreds by the critics and my peers.

This is a classic case of a non-believer’s obfuscation. It’s a gem. It should be included in a textbook called, “How to confuse people with incomprehensible obfuscations”.

What does it mean?
It means that if you don’t understand it you’re a dummy and should be ready to submit to its wisdom. That, of course, is its purpose.

Now other people will try to explain it, and no matter what they say, the poster will say, “Yeah. That’s what I meant.”
:banghead: :takethat:

 

[Nogginer]

“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

It’s a 2400 year old argument but it still bothers me that we don’t really have a straight answer to it. Do we?

We do have a straight answer for it. This answer is Free Will. God allows evil in the world because we have free will. Why do we have free will? Because we could not truly love God without it. God did not want to create robots who just did what he wanted because they had no other choice. God made us so that we could love Him, so we must also have free will. Unfortunately, since Adam and Eve chose not to obey God, physical and moral evil have entered the world and abounded. Of course we know the Good News, however, that God has sent His Son, to suffer for us and to save us from the sin and death that we have brought upon ourselves. WE caused the problem. The MERCY and LOVE of GOD is why we are not all heading down the destructive path that WE originally chose (towards Hell) and now may enter heaven if we only accept God’s offer of salvation by keeping his commandments.

 

[oldcelt]

oldcelt’s post 30

This is a classic case of a non-believer’s obfuscation. It’s a gem. It should be included in a textbook called, “How to confuse people with incomprehensible obfuscations”.

What does it mean?
It means that if you don’t understand it you’re a dummy and should be ready to submit to its wisdom. That, of course, is its purpose.

Now other people will try to explain it, and no matter what they say, the poster will say, “Yeah. That’s what I meant.”
:banghead: :takethat:

I’m gratified that you gained so much from my response.

 

[mgoforth]

So literal ETERNITY and how one will experience it is 100% based on what we do in a very short 70-100 yrs (compared to eternity anyway)?

Im not entirely convinced that is accurate, does not seem logical.

If we are truly eternal, immortal beings once God breathes life into us upon our creation, then I have a problem believing what we do in such a short time frame would matter that much.If God created us to be eternal entities, why would it matter if we were living or dead, or what we did during this time? I would think if we were truly eternal, and had Gods love for that entire time, it would not matter when or where.

what is so important about being in a ‘earthly meat suit’ when we are really immortal beings whose souls will be around forever once they are existed?It makes no sense for a being like God, who has ALWAYS BEEN around, to create more immortal beings, and for him to base the large majority of their existence on such a small amount of time.

I think it is probable we are not given all the pieces of this puzzle, and simply cannot begin to understand.Even the bible claims we are only given a small portion of the ‘big picture’, so why should this aspect be any different?

It makes sense to me and to many other people. I would humbly suggest that you’re just not understanding it yet. I hope you’ll continue to pray and meditate on this mystery.

*"The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’"* Matthew 25: 20-21 (The Parable of the Talents)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Again, you are using quotes from people who share your belief system as proof that the system exists. I have to tell you that such an approach would bring about a failing grade in any basic philosophy course. The people you quote are obviously attempting to promote their and your beliefs. For you and them they are truth, for those with other beliefs they are neither truth or fact.
I am a historian and archaeologist. That would be like me writing a book while using only the accounts I like…I would be rightfully ripped to shreds by the critics and my peers.

Hi oldcelt,

You are a historian and an archaeologist. I am a philosopher, and I’ve taught many a basic philosophy course.

So let me tell you this: what matters to philosophers is not the source of the idea, but the truth of the idea. I don’t care if a student quotes an argument from Augustine or from Dawkins or from Hume – if the argument is a good one, I approve of the student’s using it. The quotation from Aquinas did not rely on any specifically Christian assumptions, nor does Aquinas ever tend to beg the question like that.

Philosophers don’t care if you “only use arguments you like”. We just care if those arguments are sound. Philosophy is not democratic.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

“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

It’s a 2400 year old argument but it still bothers me that we don’t really have a straight answer to it. Do we?

At times God can use the fire of evil to make us vessels solid.
At other times God can use the results of evil to soften our hearts towards our fellow man.

It boils down to, can God use all things for our good?

John 9, a person was born blind so that …