Epicurus' argument

[Maxime_Indigent]

“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?

 

[4love2God]

Maxime Indigent quoted an ancient Philosopher :
“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 haven’t heard of this before.
This sounds like First Grade stuff.

Obviously, the second line is the only one it could be** : “Is He able [to prevent evil], but not willing? Then He is malevolent.”**

God is able to prevent Evil.
But, God gives us Free Will, and many of us use our Free Will to do Evil things.

But, accepting that God is Omnipotent, does NOT mean that God MUST force all of mankind to give up its Free Will (including the ability to do Evil things).

There has been Evil in Humankind ever since Abel was Murdered by his brother.

The purpose of giving someone a Choice, is to give that person a Choice.
If not, then I have ONE Path that I must follow, because God wouldn’t allow me to do anything else.

So, calling God malevolent, is a HUGE Jump.
If God had wanted to have a World full of mind-less Robots, then that would be True … but it ain’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This sounds like First Grade stuff.

Your opinion is that the problem of evil is “first grade stuff”?

Clearly God takes it much more seriously, since He gave us the book of Job.

 

[Dave_B]

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?

Maybe we shouldn’t expect to have all the answers to every question, as this we cannot possibly know God’s motives and actions, or see the bigger picture. For example if a parent takes a child for a vaccine, they are doing this for the welfare of the child, but the child may not understand what is going on and the benefit to them.

 

[mgoforth]

“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?

Of course we have an answer. But first look at the argument itself…

Assumptions run rampant in this argument. Perhaps the biggest assumption is that all evil is equal in severity. This is false. Any evil that we experience in this life (including death) is **infinitely less severe **than an eternity of separation from God in Hell. Therefore, getting to Heaven is infinitely more valuable than the cost of any evil we suffer on Earth.

In light of that, we can correct the flawed argument above:

1. God is omnipotent and fully able to prevent any evil, but He gives us free will which He chooses not to violate. That free will, if misused, allows us to choose evil over good. If used correctly, it allows us to choose life with God in Heaven. The potential for good (eternity in Heaven) in that equation infinitely outweighs the potential for evil (suffering in this world).
2. Although God will not violate our free will, even when our choices are evil, He performs a much more amazing feat. He transforms our evil into good within the working of His divine plan for the world. The perfect example of this is Christ’s passion and death, a horrible evil, which made possible His resurrection and the forgiveness of humanity’s sins, an infinitely greater good.
3. “Whence cometh evil?” From us. In a perverted reflection of how God turns evil into good, we take the goodness of God’s gift to us - free will - and turn it into evil. Epicurus pointing the finger at God for humanity’s evil is childish and illogical.
4. God is both able and willing to defeat evil, but in His own way. Evil has already been conquered first and foremost through the sacrifice of Christ, but also when any one of us receives evil from the world and chooses to respond with love, immitating Jesus’ perfect example. Through the grace of God, we can break the cycle of evil by allowing His divine plan to work through us.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Epicurus pointing the finger at God for humanity’s evil is childish and illogical.

No, it’s not. If I allow my 5-year-old to have a gun and he kills someone, it is not childish or illogical to hold me responsible.

Let us not give shallow answers to deep questions. A lot of what you say is strong reasoning toward an answer to Epicurus, mgoforth. But incomplete. The problem Epicurus raises is very real, and very troubling. There are no easy answers here.

A thought, however: Is God concerned with our intellect, or our will?

Suppose we were able to come up with a perfect intellectual response to the problem of evil. Would this bring us even the tiniest step closer to knowing God? Of course not. The primary answer God gives us to the problem of evil is not an intellectual argument, but a person: Jesus Christ. Jesus consciously chose to suffer like we do. God did not hold himself exempt from the pain He allows us to experience.

Either God reveals Himself to us personally through the person of Jesus Christ, or we do not know God. You cannot know God by logically concluding His existence is rational to believe.

 

[empther]

From post 2:

The purpose of giving someone a Choice, is to give that person a Choice.

Close, but no cigar. :dts:

God gives us free will so that we can be persons.

Without free will, we would only be clever animals,
and Heaven wouldn’t be Heaven. We must share in God’s free will to participate in his divine nature.

2 Peter 1
The Power of God’s Promise.*
3
His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of hima who called us by his own glory and power.*
4
Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature :bigyikes: :extrahappy: :bounce: , after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.

 

[mgoforth]

No, it’s not. If I allow my 5-year-old to have a gun and he kills someone, it is not childish or illogical to hold me responsible.

Let us not give shallow answers to deep questions. A lot of what you say is strong reasoning toward an answer to Epicurus, mgoforth. But incomplete. The problem Epicurus raises is very real, and very troubling. There are no easy answers here.

A thought, however: Is God concerned with our intellect, or our will?

Suppose we were able to come up with a perfect intellectual response to the problem of evil. Would this bring us even the tiniest step closer to knowing God? Of course not. The primary answer God gives us to the problem of evil is not an intellectual argument, but a person: Jesus Christ. Jesus consciously chose to suffer like we do. God did not hold himself exempt from the pain He allows us to experience.

Either God reveals Himself to us personally through the person of Jesus Christ, or we do not know God. You cannot know God by logically concluding His existence is rational to believe.

Actually, it is childish and illogical to hold God responsible for our sins. He gave us free will but also a conscience to guide our actions. He placed Adam and Eve in proximity to the forbidden Tree, but also gave them a clear warning not to eat of it as it would result in their death. They chose to listen to Satan and their own pride instead of their Creator. Then they did the same that Epicurus did - started passing the buck. “The woman made me eat it.” … “The serpent made me eat it.” Like Epicurus they were attempting to avoid responsibility for their choices.

Giving a 5 year old a gun is an imperfect analogy. A child at that age isn’t capable of choosing between good and evil. Civil law and Church law both agree on that. However, we are able to choose, and we consistently choose evil. Blaming God doesn’t change that fact, it’s only an attempt to confuse the issue so that the truth of our guilt won’t be revealed.

I say that Epicurus’ “problem of evil” is a deeply flawed argument and therefore not a serious challenge to belief in God. Once we take the time to rationally look at the source of evil, it’s clear that the source is ourselves. God gave us a good gift which we misused. He didn’t give us a gun…he gave us free will in His own image. Any of us could stop adding evil to the world today if we chose to, and if we asked for God’s grace to help us. The reason evil continues is because in our fallen state, we like some minor pleasure that it brings us.

And I would say that yes, God is interested in our intellect and will. He gave them to us after all… The ultimate purpuse of every faculty we have - mental, spiritual, physical - is to help us love God fully. He certainly wants us to learn as much as we can about Him, to reason His existence as far as our limited minds can take us and then to take a leap of faith to accept those mysteries we’ll never be able to comprehend. Likewise, He respects our will to such an extent that He allows us to turn away from Him forever if we choose to end our lives in mortal sin.

 

[Maxime_Indigent]

This sounds like First Grade stuff.

Epicurus is actually one of the best known Greek philosophers of all time. This has been argued by theologians and philosophers for many centuries, but somehow not tackled directly by Thomas Aquinas. CARM gave an explanation that didn’t really satisfy me which is why I asked here.

 

[Maxime_Indigent]

Maybe we shouldn’t expect to have all the answers to every question, as this we cannot possibly know God’s motives and actions, or see the bigger picture. For example if a parent takes a child for a vaccine, they are doing this for the welfare of the child, but the child may not understand what is going on and the benefit to them.

But this isn’t just about God’s actions, it’s about his goodness, it’s about his benevolence – the very thing that keeps us to believing in him, which is why I feel this is a very important question.

Of course we have an answer. But first look at the argument itself…

Assumptions run rampant in this argument. Perhaps the biggest assumption is that all evil is equal in severity. This is false. Any evil that we experience in this life (including death) is **infinitely less severe **than an eternity of separation from God in Hell. Therefore, getting to Heaven is infinitely more valuable than the cost of any evil we suffer on Earth.

In light of that, we can correct the flawed argument above:

1. God is omnipotent and fully able to prevent any evil, but He gives us free will which He chooses not to violate. That free will, if misused, allows us to choose evil over good. If used correctly, it allows us to choose life with God in Heaven. The potential for good (eternity in Heaven) in that equation infinitely outweighs the potential for evil (suffering in this world).
2. Although God will not violate our free will, even when our choices are evil, He performs a much more amazing feat. He transforms our evil into good within the working of His divine plan for the world. The perfect example of this is Christ’s passion and death, a horrible evil, which made possible His resurrection and the forgiveness of humanity’s sins, an infinitely greater good.
3. “Whence cometh evil?” From us. In a perverted reflection of how God turns evil into good, we take the goodness of God’s gift to us - free will - and turn it into evil. Epicurus pointing the finger at God for humanity’s evil is childish and illogical.
4. God is both able and willing to defeat evil, but in His own way. Evil has already been conquered first and foremost through the sacrifice of Christ, but also when any one of us receives evil from the world and chooses to respond with love, immitating Jesus’ perfect example. Through the grace of God, we can break the cycle of evil by allowing His divine plan to work through us.

But since he was both omnipotent and willing, then he could have definitely found a way to allow free will and at the same time destroy evil, right? In fact, he could have destroyed the idea of evil. If God created free will, and you’re saying evil comes from free will, then consequently, doesn’t evil come from God?

 

[mgoforth]

But since he was both omnipotent and willing, then he could have definitely found a way to allow free will and at the same time destroy evil, right? In fact, he could have destroyed the idea of evil. If God created free will, and you’re saying evil comes from free will, then consequently, doesn’t evil come from God?

Not at all.

1. Evil doesn’t come from free will in the sense that’s it’s an inevitable consequence of free will. Evil is a warping of free will to accomplish something that God doesn’t desire for us. We often perceive evil as good, because we’re worshipping some lesser good, like physical pleasure, in place of God, the ultimate good. Similarly, the first act of evil by our first parents was a misuse of free will. It would have been entirely possible for them to avoid sin if they had chosen to obey God and asked for His help. Instead they attempted to become gods themselves - to figure out for themselves what was good and evil through direct experience. Re-read the story…they don’t even ask God’s opinion when Satan tempts them. They forget all about Him. We do the same each day.
2. You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of “omnipotent”. God can do anything, that’s true. But can He create logical contradictions? A square circle? Dark sunshine? Cold heat? Free will with only one possible outcome? Of course not. God’s unlimited power is completely in harmony with His nature, which is existence itself. Square circles can’t exist in reality, therefore God would not create them. Likewise, God wouldn’t give us “free will” with only one possible outcome to choose from. That would be a mockery. No choice = no ability to choose. Imagine giving someone the choice between A and A. They’d think your were crazy or making fun of them. Free will does carry the possibility that it will be misused. But again, who chooses to misuse it? Not God. We do.

 

[oldcelt]

Epicurus is actually one of the best known Greek philosophers of all time. This has been argued by theologians and philosophers for many centuries, but somehow not tackled directly by Thomas Aquinas. CARM gave an explanation that didn’t really satisfy me which is why I asked here.

The free will fall back is not sufficient. Epicurus made an excellent argument about evil that I personally adhere to.

 

[fred_conty]

“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?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? …

If man were not created, there would be no evil since man is responsible for all evil.
God is able since he could have chosen not to create man.

Is He able to prevent evil, but not willing? …

If man were not created, there would be no evil since man is responsible for all evil.
Obviously he could have prevented evil by not creating man, but freely willed to create man.

Is He both able and willing to prevent evil? …

If man were not created, there would be no evil since man is responsible for all evil.
Creating man means they God allowed them freedom to do good or evil.

Is He neither able nor willing to prevent evil? …

If man were not created, there would be no evil since man is responsible for all evil.

In this argument of Epicurus is the flaw of thinking God cannot or will not eliminate evil, which means he thinks that God is responsible for evil. But we know that man is responsible thru his nature as a rational animal with freedom to do evil. So that all evil is attibuted to man. The only way that God enters into this is by way of creating us, which God did not have to do, in which case, God would have continued to be as happy as ever.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

 

[empther]

oldcelt’s post 12…:hey_bud:

Originally Posted by Maxime Indigent
Epicurus is actually one of the best known Greek philosophers of all time. This has been argued by theologians and philosophers for many centuries, but somehow not tackled directly by Thomas Aquinas. CARM gave an explanation that didn’t really satisfy me which is why I asked here.

The free will fall back is not sufficient. Epicurus made an excellent argument about evil that I personally adhere to.

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.

---

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”.

 

[mgoforth]

"Maxime Indigent:

Epicurus is actually one of the best known Greek philosophers of all time. This has been argued by theologians and philosophers for many centuries, but somehow not tackled directly by Thomas Aquinas. CARM gave an explanation that didn’t really satisfy me which is why I asked here.

The free will fall back is not sufficient. Epicurus made an excellent argument about evil that I personally adhere to.

Many people certainly **like **Epicurus’ argument because if it were true it would let us off the hook for our bad behavior by passing the buck to God. What’s not to like?

Popularity doesn’t make it a good argument though.

Also, Aquinas did address the problem of evil, and naturally his answer fits with the rest of Catholic belief:
Wikipedia - "Problem of Evil":

Saint Thomas systematized the Augustinian conception of evil, supplementing it with his own musings. Evil, according to St. Thomas, is a privation, or the absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of the creature. There is therefore no positive source of evil, corresponding to the greater good, which is God; evil being not real but rational—i.e. it exists not as an objective fact, but as a subjective conception; things are evil not in themselves, but by reason of their relation to other things or persons. All realities are in themselves good; they produce bad results only incidentally; and consequently the ultimate cause of evil is fundamentally good, as well as the objects in which evil is found.

So the things that God created, including human free will, are entirely good. But through our misuse of creation, we deprive each other of different created goods. Once again, we are the “cause” of evil, not God. He is only the cause of good things which are misused.

 

[mikekle]

Maxime Indigent quoted an ancient Philosopher :
“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 haven’t heard of this before.
This sounds like First Grade stuff.

Obviously, the second line is the only one it could be** : “Is He able [to prevent evil], but not willing? Then He is malevolent.”**

God is able to prevent Evil.
But, God gives us Free Will, and many of us use our Free Will to do Evil things.

But, accepting that God is Omnipotent, does NOT mean that God MUST force all of mankind to give up its Free Will (including the ability to do Evil things).

There has been Evil in Humankind ever since Abel was Murdered by his brother.

The purpose of giving someone a Choice, is to give that person a Choice.
If not, then I have ONE Path that I must follow, because God wouldn’t allow me to do anything else.

So, calling God malevolent, is a HUGE Jump.
If God had wanted to have a World full of mind-less Robots, then that would be True … but it ain’t.

Good points, but the world we live in is very short versus the afterlife, and many say we only have this free will when we are alive and on earth, so this means we dont have mindless robots, but in the afterlife, if free will ends at death, then is Heaven full of mindless robots?

 

[mgoforth]

Good points, but the world we live in is very short versus the afterlife, and many say we only have this free will when we are alive and on earth, so this means we dont have mindless robots, but in the afterlife, if free will ends at death, then is Heaven full of mindless robots?

I wouldn’t say that the saints are mindless robots, however none of them would ever consider leaving Heaven. This really just illustrates the importance of free will in this life. If we were created directly in Heaven (as some suggest would be the ideal situation) then we would have no choice to love God…we would automatically love Him. God is so glorious and wonderful that it’s impossible not to love Him once He’s seen “face to face”.

In effect, God had to back up and give us a little space in order for us to have the opportunity to make a fair decision. He would overwhelm us otherwise and make our choice less free or not free at all, and that’s not His intention. The same can be said about Hell. If we experienced the full misery of Hell, we would do anything possible to avoid it. However, that’s not the way God wants us to choose either.

Why doesn’t God want us to have “all the facts”, as some would say? Only here in this life, between the extremes of infinite joy and infinite sorrow can we make a choice that’s not selfish. Choosing Heaven because it sounds fun, or avoiding Hell because it sounds terrible isn’t really the point of free will. What God ultimately wants is our selfless love. He desires for us to surrender our will to His will in the same way Christ always spoke of submitting to the will of the Father. So creation and revelation give us ** just enough **data about God, Heaven and Hell to make an informed choice, but still leaves enough ambiguity about the details that we can make the choice that we know God wants us to make, and make it because we want to please Him, not just the choice we want for our own pleasure.

Hope that is helpful.

 

[4love2God]

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

Well, what people forget is that THIS world is a world which is subject to the devil, not to God. So we are in the thrall of the devil here. But heaven is freedom from that thrall.

In heaven we will be free of concupiscence, which is the force that (in the thrall of Satan) inclines us to sin. So our free will there will not be subject to temptation.

 

[Maxime_Indigent]

You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of “omnipotent”. God can do anything, that’s true. But can He create logical contradictions? A square circle? Dark sunshine? Cold heat? Free will with only one possible outcome? Of course not. God’s unlimited power is completely in harmony with His nature, which is existence itself. Square circles can’t exist in reality, therefore God would not create them. Likewise, God wouldn’t give us “free will” with only one possible outcome to choose from. That would be a mockery. No choice = no ability to choose. Imagine giving someone the choice between A and A. They’d think your were crazy or making fun of them. Free will does carry the possibility that it will be misused. But again, who chooses to misuse it? Not God. We do.

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.