Epicurean Paradox

>>41605713
As an atheist I would raise a few objections against (some) deists. First of all, the logical consistency of an omniscient/omnipotent being: if you know what you're going to do (omniscient) then you can't change what you're going to do (omnipotent). Essentially, an omniscient being has no free will, meaning it is can not logically be considered omnipotent and omniscient. Another issue with an omnipotent being is it can't create an object too large to move: If it can't create an object too large to move, that goal is outside of its power, and if it can, then that object is now outside of its power; a minor objection, but I'd thought I'd mention it.
Another issue for deists is how could God actually exercise any power. I'm sure there's people who would retort that their concept of God is that he is unknowable (simply, we can only know what he is not, as opposed to what he actually is). We can't measure God scientifically, he has no matter and energy (that I know of). If a being has no matter and energy, it does not exist, and if it "exists outside this universe" that is the very definition of not existing in this one (also, how the hell would anyone know about anything outside the universe, and why would it matter if it doesn't even exist in this one?) My intention is not to strawman all deists, but I'm pretty sure that argument has actually been presented on their behalf (that God exists "outside" of time/the universe or some bullshit). Back to the issue of God exercising any power/existing, if God is all powerful, He should be able to make my pinky turn into a carrot, but since he has no matter and energy and we have no proof that he is capable of altering the laws of physics/universal constants (e.g. pi=3.14...) He has no known means of actually doing this ("He" as in some all powerful being who can't be measured or conceived of.)

>>41605725
Also, people do realize that their consciousness is the result of physical processes, right? Your brain is you. Heard about that guy (Phineas Gage) who had that railroad spike go through his eye and fucked up his amygdala? If I recall correctly, he was a total fucking asshole AFTER being injured (his consciousness, the result of the physical processes in his brain, was altered); if who you are is clearly affected by damage to your brain, I don't see how theists expect their consciousness to be perfectly retained via their soul (probably outside the universe, right?) If you DO expect to retain some sort of consciousness after death, here's a question: say you got into an accident similar to the aforementioned one, when you died would you continue to have the consciousness you had just before death (after you became an asshole due to an injury) or would you have the consciousness of your pre-injury state? If the latter, why would that logically follow?

>>41605713
I didn't read what you wrote, just came to tell you that Taoism immediately opposes the first postulation brought forward by Epicuris and this dissolves the basis of his reasoning and collapsing his argument.

File: 1376109125565.gif (2MB, 508x335px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 508x335px

>>41605861
Care to elaborate?

Evil is not an issue. God allows his creatures to choose what they want to do. Good or evil right or wrong it's their choice. He wants them to do what is right but in the end he'd rather have people who chose to do what is right rather then robots. It's just like being a parent. Parents get upset when their kid does things they don't approve of ( party, smoke, etc) but when they choose the right things in life they feel proud

>>41605953
No. If you know anything about philosophy and religion, you should see how they run contra and then realize that your paradox is dependent on an ancient oversight of the philosophy of morality.

>>41606028
God, if all powerful, could prevent the existence of flesh-eating bacteria/leprosy/viruses. They result in evil, like children dying at a young age (and painfully).

Viruses and prions aren't even living things. In reality, the existence of viruses/harmful bacteria is quite inevitable, but were a benevolent and all-powerful God to exist, their existence could be prevented. God allowing the existence of deadly viruses has nothing to do with allowing humans free will (allowing humans to create lethal viruses is one thing, permitting their existence naturally is a pretty shitty thing to do if you're an omnipotent being).

>>41606083
>>41605861
>the imaginary rules that exist in my mind prove that you're wrong. I won't explain why

have fun being retarded

>>41605713
his original premise is flawed

It's funny how this so called free mind atheist always base their arguments on the christian god conception of "almighty oldman that loves everybody and is powerfull as fuck :,D".

>>41606083
Well, the issue of evil in terms of theism wasn't the only issue I addressed, but after some brief reading about Taoism I'm going to guess that since there is no omnipotent/omniscient/wholly good being in Taosm they avoid that issue entirely.
>>41606117
And like this guy said. You're not actually making any argument, to summarize what you said:
-The first postulation of the paradox does not apply to Taoism
-If you weren't dumb you'd know how religion and philosophy run counter to each other and that the Epicurean paradox is the result of an ancient oversight
-I won't explain that oversight though.

>>41606117
>what is moral relativity hurf durf

you did it, your jackass retort rustled my jimmies enough to reply.

>>41606154
> It's funny that atheists base their arguments around what Christians believe and why it doesn't make sense
What?

>>41606154
I actually did address some issues that would apply to deists (and therefore the vast majority of religions). But I guess you're too lazy to read my post before stereotyping me, 10/10.
>>41606174
Oh, you're saying since there isn't an objective system of morality (i.e. the one, true system of morality) that all evil is in the eye of the beholder so it just doesn't apply as far as you're concerned? Please be more clear.

>>41606218
no, not at all.
You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
Great thread OP, 10/10

>>41606331
>Have a specific position religious/philosophical most people are not well versed in
>Someone makes a general argument(s) against theism/deism
>Be vague as fuck about why the logical issue being pointed out is wrong in its very conception
>The person who you are criticizing makes some guesses as to your meaning after you give them a hint
>Tell them how they're wrong and stupid for not being psychic
10/10 pure faggotry

File: 1409701901594.jpg (1015KB, 1672x1672px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 1672x1672px

>>41606331
And also, you're right, I do have no idea what I'm talking about if the topic is Taoism, which is why I fucking asked you, asshole.

>>41606410
All epicureanism is is hedonism LITE with a little atomic theory thrown in there. He's postulating the existence of a god but he's giving us a fucking condition under which this god can exist, and it can only exist under the presumptions that another non-existent human conception, morality, exists and is met as well.

I bring up Taoism, but you can also bring up Buddhism or Hinduism, to see that there isn't 'good' and 'evil', just positives and negatives with no inherit moral value outside of human ideals of what morality should be.

>>41606609
again, you LITERALLY have no idea what your talking about.

File: 1374014012955.jpg (48KB, 490x490px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 490x490px

>>41606626
>talking to yourself

>>41606639
>>41606440
>And also, you're right, I do have no idea what I'm talking about if the topic is Taoism, which is why I fucking asked you, asshole.

I'm talking to you, you rude ass nigger. there's your fucking answer.

>>41605713
I'm going to try and be as broad as possible, though at the loss of specifics.

If one were to believe in life as a transitional period between one existence and the next, then the quality of life is immaterial or at least less important than the life to come.

Most religions have rules or philosophy that they're governed by dealing in good and evil as committed by the individual and as relating to the nature of the world as a whole.

Generally positive acts (as defined by the religion) are encouraged and negative influences of the world are hurdles to overcome. Keeping that in mind a goal most people develop is to foster good habits and strengthen their resistance to the pains of the world.

In the pursuit to better ourselves in a world of imperfection, we act as swords sharpening against the grindstone of existence. If we are of tempered metal we finish stronger than we started, if weak than we snap or break under the pressure of use.

Evil is something we detest because it is unpleasant, uncomfortable and revolting. However, remove it and what is left? By what measure would we find something to be "good" if we didn't have evil to compare against? Good and evil require one another to exist and to balance one another out.

The Abrahamic God said "Let there be light!" and in that action created shadow right alongside it.

>>41606609
1. I'm aware that Epicureanism is basically hedonism, my aim was not to argue on behalf of his whole philosophy.
2. "He's postulating the existence of a god but he's giving us a fucking condition under which this god can exist, and it can only exist under the presumptions that another non-existent human conception, morality, exists and is met as well."
In simpler terms he's defining God, giving a specific definition of which it is frequently conceived, and this definition is in conjunction with the concept of objective morality.

I can see why this wouldn't apply to some religions, but to others, it does point out logical inconsistencies.

>>41606709
Ah, I just thought it was pretty funny you replied to yourself with "you have no idea what you're talking about."

>>41606088
Not sure why you think children dying young to natural causes is evil. That would require 1. dying 2. suffering or some combination of the two to be evil. They aren't categorically evil- some suffering is self assumed in the name of health and well being (lifting weights, dental work, surgeries...). Dying isn't categorically evil- and the act itself seems necessary for christians- and many other religions- to get the afterlife.

Presumably it takes a moral agent causing pointless suffering and death for there to be evil. So maybe here you're worried the triple O god acting as a moral agent is causing suffering and death- pointlessly. That's the general idea behind the problem of evil.

One way to attempt to block this version of the problem of evil is to present a negative thesis of evil. Meaning, evil is the absence of good- much like a shadow is the absence of light. Shadows aren't in our ontologies- even if it's useful to have a concept of shadows. Likewise- we don't find evil in the world, just a lack of good. And so evil is a useful concept but not in our ontology.

This block to the problem of evil is a bit of sophistry by St. Augustine.

Given this account (1) is contradictory. And thus the rest of your argument falls apart.

You go on to ramble. Nothing to important. In summery pointing out limits/peculiarities/contradictions when thinking about the terms omniscience and omnipotence. It's kinda intro-y. So here's a little above into to think about.

What makes you so sure these contradictory things can't be done by an omnipotent being? Presumably you're taking for granted the common mathematical axiom of non-contradiction. The only problem is, we don't have to hold that axiom as true. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic for instance are built around the removal of non contradiction as an axiom.

The only problem is, it doesn't make sense to us- what showing a contradiction is like. TBC

>>41606816
How do we know that contradictions can't happen in the world? We just assume non contradictions in sets of logic and set theory and mathematics in order to get systems that are consistent.

The problem could be inherent in how we perceive the world. It may be, by our biological make up, we are predisposed to lack perception of contradictory phenomenon. If this view is true, then god can show us all the contradictions he wants- we just won't make sense of them. And presumably he can wave his magic fingers and allow us to perceive the contradictions....

So at least, there is conceptual space for addressing the limits of the terms omnipotence and omniscience. The conversation isn't obviously over when Homer asks "can god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it".

>>41606816
>Not sure why you think children dying young to natural causes is evil. That would require 1. dying 2. suffering or some combination of the two to be evil. They aren't categorically evil- some suffering is self assumed in the name of health and well being (lifting weights, dental work, surgeries...). Dying isn't categorically evil- and the act itself seems necessary for christians- and many other religions- to get the afterlife.
Assuming you're all powerful, allowing children to die young because their immune systems couldn't handle a virus/bacteria is not exactly omnibenevolent.

>Presumably it takes a moral agent causing pointless suffering and death for there to be evil. So maybe here you're worried the triple O god acting as a moral agent is causing suffering and death- pointlessly. That's the general idea behind the problem of evil.
Yeah, the problem of evil is an issue with the "Triple O God," as >>41606609 pointed out it doesn't apply to others.

>Meaning, evil is the absence of good- much like a shadow is the absence of light.
Well, a Triple O God should be able to create a world without an absence of good. That's the most immediate and obvious criticism to the aforementioned sophistry that comes to mind.

>What makes you so sure these contradictory things can't be done by an omnipotent being? Presumably you're taking for granted the common mathematical axiom of non-contradiction. The only problem is, we don't have to hold that axiom as true. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic for instance are built around the removal of non contradiction as an axiom.
Never heard of fuzzy sets, but I think non-contradiction is pretty important. You can't have properties that are mutually exclusive and exist in the real world (e.g. a square circle, or a square triangle)

>>41606977
>How do we know that contradictions can't happen in the world? We just assume non contradictions in sets of logic and set theory and mathematics in order to get systems that are consistent.

How do we know that there aren't exceptions to the law of gravity? Well, because we haven't been proved wrong I suppose?

>>41606816
yes, BUT
we value worldviews and methodologies on their basis of being able to produce reliable predictions.

Not all of them have to be absolutely accurate to be useful;
An example of this would be a weatherman.

If the forecast is rain, should I bring a raincoat?
Statistics imply yes.

The law of non-contradiction no longer applies, and the absolutely illogical, impossible outcomes are, in essence, possible?

Then it could rain fire, or monguls, or meteors that are sentient! THERES JUST NO WAY TO KNOW! UP IS DOWN AND BLACK CAN ALSO BE WHITE.

This is the worldview presented by someone willing to claim that the law of logical non-contradiction does not have to be observed in some cases.

I wish I was making a strawman, but its -just- logic. If non-contradiction can apply, logic does not.

>>41606727
>Evil is something we detest because it is unpleasant, uncomfortable and revolting. However, remove it and what is left? By what measure would we find something to be "good" if we didn't have evil to compare against? Good and evil require one another to exist and to balance one another out.
So, not trying to strawman you, but your argument is basically that evil must exist so that there is a measure for good? And so that they balance each other out? First of all, I don't see how it logically follows that there must be a measure whereby we can measure "goodness."
Further, even if you did prove to me that evil must exist, that wouldn't violate the first part of Epicurus's paradox. It seems to me that even if everything you're saying is true that it doesn't solve/disprove any of the issues Epicurus raised?

File: 1420160244742.jpg (201KB, 1100x914px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1100x914px

>>41607028
>Then it could rain fire, or monguls, or meteors that are sentient! THERES JUST NO WAY TO KNOW! UP IS DOWN AND BLACK CAN ALSO BE WHITE.

>>41606205
that's what uneducated and unintelligent laypeople believe, that is not and never has been the conception of god actually taught by the church. if anything, the skydaddy thing is a holdover from europe's pagan past. YHVH has never been anthropomorphic and it'd be neat if you had something aside from the naive interpretation of "man was made in god's image" to support the notion that that's how the church portrays him.

>>41607088
What I was getting at was that evil's relation to good is similar to that of light and shadow. If you were in a pitch black room and had never been outside it, it would just be a room to you. You would have no concept of actually being able to see something. On the flipside, in a world without darkness we would be blinded by the light. We'd have no concept of illumination or that some things can be brighter than others. Either way, things would just "be."

Let me try putting this another way, synonyms for good and evil are moral and immoral respectively. For something to be immoral, it would need to against a moral code, and to have a moral code you need to define what is allowed and what is be avoided. It isn't exactly that they balance each other out to form some universal neutrality, but the concept of one is needed to form an idea of the other. They're the antithesis of one another.

My overall point that a benevolent God could exist along with a universe that contains evil, since overcoming evil can promote growth and has the potential to result in a net positive.

>>41607484
I agree that a benevolent God could exist in a universe that contains evil.

But not a God that is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. It is true good would have no antithesis were an all-powerful/knowing/good God to eradicate evil, so what? That doesn't give said God justification for permitting evil.

So basically, if your conception of God and evil fits into the box that Epicurs made, Epicurus pointed out why said conception is wrong. This is basically a narrow criticism of theism. Basically, the way around the paradox is to just argue that God doesn't fit the definition >>41606083 like that guy did.

>>41607606
>basically
>basically
Redundant. Proofreading is hard.

>>41606978

>Assuming you're all powerful, allowing children to die young because their immune systems couldn't handle a virus/bacteria is not exactly omnibenevolent.

So maybe there is a way for the omni benevolence to remain in tact. One way is to simply deny that the phenomenon you've described is a violation. Is it good to allow children to die? In order for us to answer in the affirmative, we have to assume living is- categorically good. But the whole goal of christian life is to die. Christians have a nihilistic denial of the body which they see as delaying their soul from getting to heaven. The sooner they die, the sooner they get to heaven. The less time they live in this mortal coil, the better. Which leads to questions about why god doesn't just kill all the christians when they're children so they don't have to linger around longer than they have. Or why don't christians just commit suicide- nothing in the bible says you can't. The short answer is psst it's all bullshit. The long answer is some convoluted way of packing the definition of omnibenevolence so that triple O is still good- no matter what evils occur in the world.

Maybe the simple solution is to say- caring about children dying of cancer is a human value and our misguided ideas about what is really good and what is really of value lead us to this incorrect sort of reasoning. If only we had the context that triple O has, we'd be able to see how wrong we are and how right he is. Fallacious argument from ignorance, or highlighting a consistent metaphysical possibility? You can be the judge.

>>41607626
>Is it good to allow children to die? In order for us to answer in the affirmative, we have to assume living is- categorically good
Huh? Did I miss something here?

>>41605713
>>41605725
>>41605733
>>41606028
>>41606088
>>41606727
>>41606792
>>41606816
>>41606977
>>41606978
>>41607028
>>41607088
>>41607484
>>41607626
what the fuck? thoughtful and polite discussion going on in /pol/? not on my watch

GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW

>>41607606
Looking at it in the long view, including an afterlife, I don't see a contradiction. Assuming this universe is the extent of God's creation ignores the concepts of Heaven and Hell (or the analogs of other religions). One is an all good, eternal paradise where God himself supposedly resides. The other is a state of perpetual separation from him, generally perceived as undesirable. A belief in God generally includes the concept that life doesn't end here, and we all end up in one of those two options, resulting on our own choices. Since we're judged only the fruit we produce, the world itself could be in an absolutely dire condition, famine, disease, war, but so long as you handle the one thing you can control (yourself) you'll end up in Heaven. Evil can be constructive in shaping people throughout their life to achieve such a state.

>>41607991
*only by the fruit

>>41605725
No deist ever called God omnipotent, nor do most of us claim God exercises power.

We see God as a watchmaker and nothing more.

>>41607991
>Evil can be constructive in shaping people throughout their life to achieve such a state.
see
>>41607626
>Maybe the simple solution is to say- caring about children dying of cancer is a human value and our misguided ideas about what is really good and what is really of value lead us to this incorrect sort of reasoning. If only we had the context that triple O has, we'd be able to see how wrong we are and how right he is. Fallacious argument from ignorance, or highlighting a consistent metaphysical possibility? You can be the judge.

Basically, if you believe in "an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god" you're either going to have to 1. Admit that what you believe in does not qualify as all-powerful/benevolent/knowing 2. Define evil as something that would permit an all powerful being to allow a child to die a painful death even though it would be easy to prevent
3. Stop believing in a omnio/whatever God.

>Claim it is impossible to create a world without evil because no comparison between good and evil.

Will heaven have evil? Did Eden have evil?

>>41606978
>Never heard of fuzzy sets, but I think non-contradiction is pretty important. You can't have properties that are mutually exclusive and exist in the real world (e.g. a square circle, or a square triangle)

"I think non contradiction is pretty important". Yeah that's the problem I'm pointing out. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic, and to a greater extent work on fuzzy concepts arise out of not accepting the axiom of non contradiction. Essentially it turns truth conditions from binary- on/off true/false- to a spectrum or array of truth wherein you get degrees of truth.

Quite a few giants in the fields of psychology and linguistics (Lakoff,Johnson, Rosch...) use the idea that truth isn't binary in their models of concepts and natural languages.

That aside...

What my remarks rob you of is simply asserting that the law of contradiction can't exist in the world.

It might be that you're using induction. Inductive reasoning from instance 1,2,and 3 show us we're justified in believing non-contradiction. But that isn't a philosophical argument. It's rational, yes. But it's weak in that it doesn't rule out future or potential occurrences of non-contradiction. And to drive home my point, theoretical mathematicians have already been playing with the maths of inconsistent sets. Axioms, to mathematicians, are just rules they can choose to use. So it isn't simply that there's a problem with square circles or circular triangles... there is at least conceivably mathematical models which highly distort your simple Pythagorean idea of circles, squares and triangles.; You might want to armchair what circles look like on mangled space- that is on a surface this isn't a simple rectangular plane.

Despite your answer, it simply remains to be seen whether we can model the world without non-contradiction. But it is still a metaphysical possibility that there are worlds which violate non contradiction. And that is the interesting bit, I think.

>>41607011
Yep, inductive reasoning. Valuable as a rational tool. But not a philosophical argument against non-contradictory violations in the world.

>>41607028
see
>>41608203
If the law of contradiction does not have to be observed in what instances would it not have to be observed? Just the ones that conveniently fit in with certain world views?

I mean, the whole planet could turn into a giant ball of steamed carrots tomorrow, but given billions of years to gauge the likelihood of that it's basically a moot point.
>>41608286
Inductive reasoning again, fair enough.


In a universe where non-contradiction does not have to be observed non-contradiction also has to be observed (because to never observe the law of not-contradiction would actually be a stunning display of non-contradiction). Does that even make any sense?

File: 1366662374577.png (63KB, 149x196px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 149x196px

>struggling with the epicurean paradox
You fucking niggas, this is high school theology.

File: 1409704854073.jpg (5KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 125x125px

>>41608372

Fucking spiders, man

>>41608109
If what you're getting at is that God's view of good and evil would be radically different from the human perspective, I agree with you. Our innate notions of the two concepts originate from living the human experience. It's entirely subjective and dependent on the individual. One might argue that's the whole point of God sending prophets or a messiah in the first place, instruction to fix our flawed thinking.

In the Torah/Old Testament, the Hebrews carried out total war at God's behest. Entire cities wiped out, not just the soldiers. Theologians and the layman alike have struggled to reconcile the violence in their religion with their own thoughts of what is good and evil.

I'd posit that God's benevolence is based on his own axiom, not our own. Therefore what seems to us as evil would not appear in the same way to him. An empathetic person abhors the notion of a child dying of cancer, yet perhaps to God death IS saving the child from the suffering, something they never have to experience again.

There's a reason people refer to God as "father." Think of the relationship between a parent and a child, a father would request things of the child that would seem agonizing and cruel at a young age, but are necessary from the perspective of the parent. Learning to ride a bike, or certain chores will absolutely frustrate the child because they see no value in it. Compared to an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, we are children.

>>41608517
>In the Torah/Old Testament, the Hebrews carried out total war at God's behest. Entire cities wiped out, not just the soldiers. Theologians and the layman alike have struggled to reconcile the violence in their religion with their own thoughts of what is good and evil.
>I'd posit that God's benevolence is based on his own axiom, not our own. Therefore what seems to us as evil would not appear in the same way to him. An empathetic person abhors the notion of a child dying of cancer, yet perhaps to God death IS saving the child from the suffering, something they never have to experience again.

When I know I have a good reason for doing something, and that people will question my reasoning, I explain myself. If I had a child who wanted to eat unhealthy food I'd provide as much information as possible to my child at as young an age as possible; my goal would be to encourage them to make responsible/wise decisions and not merely to defer to my will.

The parental relationship you're describing is one of where the parent refuses to provide the "objective" reasoning behind decisions.

You're throwing all things sanctioned and permitted by the Christian God under the banner of "good because he everything he does is good." It's sort of like saying God is benevolent because even the shit that he sanctions for that is obviously evil to the vast majority of people on Earth (liking killing women and children) is somehow okay because... he knows more than we do.

So again I'll redirect you:
>>41607626
"Maybe the simple solution is to say- caring about children dying of cancer is a human value and our misguided ideas about what is really good and what is really of value lead us to this incorrect sort of reasoning. If only we had the context that triple O has, we'd be able to see how wrong we are and how right he is. Fallacious argument from ignorance, or highlighting a consistent metaphysical possibility? You can be the judge."

Human intellect is usually a stumbling block in understanding God, if humility is not pursued with equal vigor. Often it leads to conceit and vanity, which is a dark cloud between man and the light of God. plus Human intellectual capacity is so utterly minute compared to the grand scheme of things, a reliance solely human intellect, individual or collective, is an obvious limitation.

this is why faith is necessary to understand God, because the nature of his activities are so completely unfathomable to human minds

File: 2401.jpg (39KB, 283x269px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 283x269px

>>41608443
kek

>captcha: isaslave
>mfw

>>41608726
>this is why faith is necessary to understand God, because the nature of his activities are so completely unfathomable to human minds
>>41605713
Atheist's wager, more or less quoting myself:
Basically, if you're a good person, faith is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation- so why bother (assuming a benevolent God exists)


No understanding is necessary. In absence of a logical necessity for God or irrefutable proof for God belief/faith in God/gods is unnecessary and most probably a waste of time.

>>41608109
Yep. I think 2 is probably the best conceptual space to explore.

For instance, in the Ramayana a soldier is questioning whether it's okay to kill an enemy when all of a sudden a Hindu god appears and says "of course it is okay to kill, after all, the soul is immortal and indestructible. You aren't really killing anyone because people are essentially souls and killing a soul- well that would be impossible."

And for the most part Christians are more virtue theory oriented as opposed to being consequentialists. So examining consequences without a context of motivation and intention isn't particularly telling about what an omnibenevolent god would be like in terms of virtue theory.. That's why you'll find apologists setting the motivational and intentional context of Triple O in order to justify seemingly awful consequences. But strangely, you also find an appeal to greater consequences in an expanded context- the context of free will and evil being necessary in all worlds containing free will.

File: 1363161468073.jpg (271KB, 1000x855px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1000x855px

>>41605713

Perhaps evil is a necessary part of the universe and God has no power or will to remove it, or perhaps it's about the journey of self-improvement, reincarnation, etc.

>>41605725
> if you know what you're going to do (omniscient) then you can't change what you're going to do (omnipotent)

stopped reading right there, you're a retard try r/atheism

>>41608855
I'm not a consequentialist, however I've trying to point out the logical conclusion of a belief... I can't remembered what that's called (ad something or another).

If the logical conclusion of your system of ethics is that rape or murder is okay... then you should reevaluate.
>>41608988
>No power
Then he's not omnipotent
>No will
Then he's not omnibenevolent
>Journey of self-improvement
Some kid getting a terminal illness isn't about self improvement. I guess having your child die young really builds character.

>>41609019
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion, it has been duly noted.

>1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.

Stopped reading there. Free will means you can choose to be evil, and if God forced you to stop being evil with his magic powers, it wouldn't be free will anymore.

>atheists

>>41609056
its been*
I am bad at proofreading, as always.

>>41609069
For the sake of argument I'll concede that "evil" that's the obvious result of human action (for the sake of defining this paradox) is not evil in terms of God. However, God allowing children to die young and suffer in the process I would argue is evil. To argue otherwise is to reason some from pretty bizarre first principles (namely, that anything God does is A-okay.)

Also the concept of free will is opposed to the idea of omniscience, and also omnipotence, but whatever :O.

File: 1369661033052.jpg (68KB, 250x353px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 250x353px

>>41609056

>Then he's not omnipotent
>Then he's not omnibenevolent

Now you're getting it.

>>41609150
The Epicurean paradox is directed at theists, I wasn't under the pretense that I was shattering the world views of every deist on /pol/.

>>41608638
Providing objective reasoning to somebody with less understanding isn't always met with success. You'll be met with "why?" Take the time to explain it and you'll be met with another "why?" I wouldn't even begin to understand the full machinations of an omnipotent being, would you? The bible and the works of various apologists does touch on some of this though, and I'll try to answer possible questions as well as I can.

As for the Epicurean Paradox as a whole:
> 1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
This is a false dilemma. Generally elaborated as God either:
1. wants to abolish evil and not being able to.
2. can abolish evil, but does not.
A false dilemma is when two contrasting options are presented as the only solutions for a problem, in this case the above. It doesn't take into account the possibility that there might be a higher purpose for the evil other than for it's own sake. If he is all knowing, then his condoning evil here isn't a mistake, and there is a reason behind it.
> 2. There is evil in the world.
He doesn't go on to define evil (which would be helpful for his argument) and this completely disregards human free will. If God is capable of anything, but is benevolent, then the evil doesn't stem from him but rather from us.
> 3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
God not existing because there is evil sounds like we're passing the buck here, as a species we aren't owning our own propensity for evil, which we exercise through our own agency as free-willed beings.

The paradox only accounts for God and evil, it doesn't take man into consideration. If you believe in the Old Testament then humanity, after being created as a reflection of God complete with free will, brought sin and death into the world.

Respecting our agency, God won't interfere with our free will and by association the evil that can stem from it.

>>41609244
A better analogy would be if Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking had just calculated something blah blah and I had to do "x" or the universe would end. While they might not provide me the minutiae of why I'm helping, any suffering I incurred I would do willingly because:
-I know that the person who is treating me essentially like a child is actually real.
-I have some objective proof that they know what they're doing (like their acclaim in the scientific community, etc.)
Basically, I'd be far more willing to accept that I have to accept someone's reasoning on faith if
1. I know that person is real
2. I know they're qualified/smarter than I am

>It doesn't take into account the possibility that there might be a higher purpose for the evil other than for it's own sake
Not really, what you're saying could be accounted for by redefining what most people think as evil as actually good in objective/God's terms. Not that that's actually the case (I mean, not that the evil in the world is actually justified in objective terms.)
>He doesn't go on to define evil (which would be helpful for his argument) and this completely disregards human free will.
Well, the paradox was directed at theists like modern day fundamentalist Christians, so I believe it was intended that they would apply their own theology's qualifications for good and evil (e.g. murder is a sin).
>then the evil doesn't stem from him but rather from us.
There's lots of evil that isn't a result of human free well, as I've mentioned, children with terminal illnesses, either that's somehow justified (which is a ridiculous proposition) or God isn't a "triple O."

>The paradox only accounts for God and evil, it doesn't take man into consideration
The whole point is that God is a triple O, so he should be able to take everything into consideration (God doesn't actually need to "test" your faith/character by free will of he's actually omniscient, btw)

File: 1405531885531.gif (1MB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 264x264px

>good&evil
>real

>>41609244
Here's basically what the Epicurean paradox is driving at.
1 Gratuitous evils exist.
2 The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
3 Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.

File: 1366608897514.png (53KB, 438x469px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 438x469px

For goodness sake, I haven't seen anyone actually answer the dilemma.
The solution to the Epicurean Paradox is that evil could exist to strengthen good. Simply because evil is allowed does not mean it's controlled. To say he allows evil means he's malevolent is shallow thinking.

>>41609486
see
>>41609481

>>41609503
I'll elaborate on
>>41609481
Paul Draper's reasoning.

The theists' justifications for the problem of evil require either a redefinition of evil (so that all evil is actually objectively good, God is allowing free will or some bullshit so all evil is either not his fault or necessary) or a redefinition of God (so that he is no longer all-powerful/knowing/benevolent.)

Occam's razor leads us to the conclusion that, if any supernatural beings do exist, they don't care to do anything about the evil, as opposed to knowing every detail about said evils.

File: 1366269261074.jpg (94KB, 884x791px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 884x791px

>>41609481
>indifference is a better explanation
How? There is no justification to say it's a better explanation and to make the judgment. To say any claim of a deity's disposition on evil is equal to another without separate evidence.

You're making a logical jump arbitrarily.

>>41609577
see
>>41609557
The justification is Occam's razor.

>>41609604
Again, this is bullshit, as saying any claim of a deity's disposition on evil is equal to another without separate evidence. There is no more or less assumptions made if the god was indifferent or not.

>>41609627
No, the conclusion was not that god is merely indifferent, the conclusion was that:
"no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists."
Meaning an aforementioned triple O god (omniscient, omnipotent, omnnibenevolent)

And here's another formulation of the problem of evil that's basically the same as
>>41609481
There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being

File: 1311082085162.jpg (120KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 750x600px

Theists #rekt again!

>>41605733

That's implying you keep your personality. Are you still conscious after death? Is consciousness altered by being fixed in a physical body, or is it completely made by the brain? If it exists separately from the brain, where does it go and what does it do? These are all metaphysical questions science hasn't quite scratched the surface of, understandably taboo.

>>41609069

Free will is a good argument when it comes to evil caused by conscious choice. But it still does not address why God allows evil caused by nature or honest human mistakes. Eliminating such evils wont affect human free will.

>>41609718
Hue great minds think alike
>>41609135

>>41605713
im not even religious but i am going to have to stop you at #1. Its dead wrong.

If god gives humans free will then humans are capable of creating "evil". name one thing that is evil that is not the fault of humankind.

>>41609679
I was driving at the absurdity of life after death. We have no empirical evidence that leads us to believe that the essence of who you are (personality, experiences, intellect) is anything but the result of physical processes; if this is true, it would not be reasonable to expect life after death in the way most theists conceive it.

>>41609769
see
>>41609718
>>41609135

>>41606978

Without each other, good and evil have no meaning. Somebody who lived in a world devoid of evil wouldn't understand that what they were doing was good, and somebody living in a world devoid of good wouldn't understand that what they were doing was evil.

>>41609777
so i need to deconstruct both those posts to show how their mental gymnastics are wrong?

name one thing that is evil that is not the fault of humankind.

>>41609665
>wasn't stating a position on God's disposition but his existence
Then please don't say "indifferent" then.
Further, Occam's Razor proves literally nothing. It's a problem solving method, telling people that between two competing theories to choose the one with the least assumptions to be the safer answer. However, the simplicity does not prove it to be true.

To say "The justification is Occam's razor" is bullshit. To say "no god exists is the safer answer" would be much more accurate, but that relies heavily on our understanding of the natural world.

>>41609819

>name one thing that is evil that is not the fault of humankind.

Diseases.

>>41609676
see
>>41609486

>>41609819
Flesh eating bacteria/viruses that affect young children.

They are the inevitable result of random mutations in bacteria and cells in general, but an omnipotent being could prevent their existence.

>>41609834
how are diseases evil? they make you feel sad?

>>41609793
>good and evil have no meaning.
So what? That's like the third time that's been said in this thread.
>>41606727

>>41609863
see
>>41609838

If you're arguing diseases affecting innocent people aren't "evil" (as in, allowing their existence when you could stop them) does that mean it's okay for me to start flying a bi-plane while spraying ebola over schools (even though it would be easier for me not to do so?)

>>41609865

No, good without evil has no meaning and conversely, evil without good has no meaning. It is the presence of both elements which lends meaning to the terms.

>if god existed and was a nice dude then no one would ever have to feel bad
>people do fel bad though
>therefore god is either not a nice dude or doesnt exist!

Whoa you guys figured it all out. Someone should tell the organized religions this so they can stop wasting their time!

>>41609863

Yup.

You can of course get around the paradox by absurd redefinions of evil (such as diseases not being evil), but thats a cop out.

>>41609827
>>41609827
The 2 theories I presented were with the evidential problem of evil. From Wikipedia:
"The evidential version of the problem of evil (also referred to as the probabilistic or inductive version), seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism."

The whole point is that the existence of evil further discounts the rationale/likelihood of theism.

>>41609913

>diseases being evil

Diseases simply are. They might be cruel, especially if a loved one gets sick, but you'd never call it evil.

>>41609912

Organized religions are after power and money, so even if god does not exist, they are not wasting time.

File: 1366757734510.jpg (46KB, 712x472px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 712x472px

>moral relativists
Please, just go, you're not helping this discussion at all.

>>41609933
You're really not getting it.

If you're omnipotent, you can stop viruses from ever reproducing, spreading, etc.

If you choose not to, and let people suffer and die because of your inaction (which would require basically no effort) that is evil.

If I had to press a button right next to me to stop 10,000 people from dying and was like "meh," that would be evil.

>>41609933

cruel = evil.

>>41609777

Life itself is absurd, but here we are. Absurdity does not mean impossible. If you are looking for evidence, I believe there was a test done some time ago and I can't recall who did it, but they had an object hidden in the ER incase of any patients who had NDEs. I remember he said they did not get any hits, but the data is very intriguing and would require more testing to figure out what is going on. He might wish to change where he puts the object if he has another go at it. I wish I could remember what it was called. DREAM?

>>41609425
>Not really, what you're saying could be accounted for by redefining what most people think as evil as actually good in objective/God's terms. Not that that's actually the case (I mean, not that the evil in the world is actually justified in objective terms.)
Epicurus's argument relies on evil existing in objective terms. Not simply the cultural or social norms for what was considered good or evil in any respective civilization. His argument is that objective evil and God cannot co-exist, but the only way we'd know of an objective evil would be THROUGH God.
>Well, the paradox was directed at theists like modern day fundamentalist Christians, so I believe it was intended that they would apply their own theology's qualifications for good and evil (e.g. murder is a sin).
Murder IS a sin, comitted by a human being. An agent acting of their own free will. The price of sin is death, eternal damnation. So it certainly seems God isn't in favor of sins nor evil, but respects his creation's ability to defy him.
>There's lots of evil that isn't a result of human free well, as I've mentioned, children with terminal illnesses, either that's somehow justified (which is a ridiculous proposition) or God isn't a "triple O."
Is nature evil? Is a snake eating a baby bunny evil? Why is dying of disease alarming but of natural causes or old age okay? Wouldn't evil not only rely on something bad happening, but also upon a conscious moral agent committing it? You said above that the paradox is aimed at a theist's idea of an objective morality, yet you then intercede with your own subjective idea of evil as a child dying of morality and treat it as though you've won the argument. A Christian idea of evil is sin, something only a sentient being is capable of. According to Christian theology, we only have death and disease due to the fall of man when sin was brought into the world.

>>41609950

If viruses never spread or reproduce, humans never develop a functional immune system and die when one of the schmucks eats dirt, which he can't stop because humans have free will.

The bigger picture is that viruses are good for humans as a whole, even though they are bad for individual people and I would expect someone who is omniscient and omnipotent to be a big-picture kind of guy.

>>41609950
So god is evil because he doesnt swoop down from the sky and solve all your problems for you?

>>41609988
child dying of disease
(wires got crossed there, plenty to write and I didn't proofread, I apologize)

File: 1366842990977.jpg (44KB, 712x472px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 712x472px

>>41609827
I'll expand on this and tell you the solution to the Epicurean Paradox again.

>There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
>An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
>(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being

Unless there was greater good to be gained from the suffering existing, then intense suffering could be justifiably used. To say that suffering exists so he's not all-loving is shallow thinking.

Catholic theology does go into the value of suffering too and it is, as I'm sure you know, a very complex subject.

>>41609967
I should have said the impossibility of life after death. I am the result of everything going on in my brain, there is no logical reason to conclude that who I am (my personality, memories, etc.) will be retained when my brain decays and the processes permitting my consciousness cease.

>>41609988
>but respects his creation's ability to defy him.
"Circumstantial freedom" is "freedom from coercion or restraint" that prevents acting as one wills.[33]
"Natural freedom" is freedom to will what one desires. This natural free will is inherent in all people.[34]
"Acquired freedom" is freedom "to live as [one] ought." To possess acquired free will requires a change by which a person acquires a desire to live a life marked by qualities such as goodness and wisdom.

You could allow someone to defy you (natural freedom) but not allow them to actually kill another human being (circumstantial). As in, you'd let someone wish to kill someone else, but you'd block the victim from bullets with a magical shield or something. Basically, free will =/= free to be evil.

(continuing)

>>41610023
God preventing young children from dying painful deaths =/= being my personal maid.

>>41610049

> I am the result of everything going on in my brain, there is no logical reason to conclude that who I am (my personality, memories, etc.) will be retained when my brain decays and the processes permitting my consciousness cease.

So are you one of those people who think they're a brand new individual each time they wake up?

>>41610021
Over 900,000 people tied from tuberculosis in 2012 so a couple people wouldn't die of eating dirt (which wouldn't be dangerous if viruses and bacteria didn't exist?)

You're an idiot, holy shit.

>>41610023
Yes if he has the power to stop evils and doesn't so god is evil or does not have that power. If he doesn't have that power then he is not god. The Bible certainly claims he has the power to do such things. Hell he even interfered in actual battles and destroyed entire cities in the Bible. Jesus healed people and cast out demons. However in real life (aka not the fanfic that is the Bible) when it time to put up or shut up god always shuts up. Thus making him indistinguishable from not existing.

>>41610071
Every second you're a very, very slightly different person. Your body is undergoing (in practical terms) irreversible processes constantly. I am not 100% the same as when I woke up, but of course I am quite similar.

>>41610049

But that's merely opinion, neither of us actually know for certain. Improbable yes, but not yet impossible. You are free to believe as you wish just as I am, I suppose until some hard data is had.

>>41610064
well if he did stop that you would be on here 12 hours later complaining about how god is evil because he isnt recharging the batteries of your dragon dildo.

>>41609988
>Wouldn't evil not only rely on something bad happening, but also upon a conscious moral agent committing it?
I would argue that if I had the power to stop people from dying horrible, painful, and slow deaths (much to the dismay of their family and friends), and the effort on my part would be extremely minimal, my not making the effort would be evil. This is the equivalent to an all-powerful god permitting evil, negligence.
>>41610126
Are you like 14 years old? I think it's past your bed time bud.

File: The Mother.jpg (370KB, 900x1203px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 900x1203px

Let me state it again, for those who don't get the answer to the paradox:

>evil exists
>If God is willing to get rid of evil but not able he's not omnipotent
>If God is not willing to get rid of evil but able he is malevolent

The issue exists in the last part. If by chance evil can exist in a way to strengthen good towards a greater end, then there is no reason to say that God is malevolent and thus the paradox is solved.

>>41610110

But you still retain the same conscious. You didn't go to sleep and your conscious died.

>>41610101
Free will.

Humans are free to cause evil or make bad decisions that lead to bad things happening.

>>41610092

You as a child ate dirt. In fact, children have a tendency to eat dirt during their first and second years because 1 and 2 year-olds are little derp blobs.

>>41610151
It's not the same. It's slightly different. I am a different person (very, very slightly) than I was at the beginning of this sentence.


>>41610157
see
>>41610049
"
You could allow someone to defy you (natural freedom) but not allow them to actually kill another human being (circumstantial). As in, you'd let someone wish to kill someone else, but you'd block the victim from bullets with a magical shield or something. Basically, free will =/= free to be evil. "

>>41610182
what would be the purpose of free will if it did not have consequences?

>>41610175
Yes, except, the reason your immune system exists is to fight off bacteria, viruses, and pathogens. If God eradicated all pathogens dirt wouldn't really be a health risk.
FURTHER MORE: There are 3 kinds of will, didn't I already go over this?
>>41610193
>muh "test"
Basically giving people a chance to fuck up. It's like giving people a chance to cheat on a test but in reality as soon as they do you're going to fail them instantly. Hell (heh), you could even let the consequences of their free well have consequences, just not in circumstances where it would harm innocents (like killing babies?)

>>41610231
free will*

>>41610231

Bacteria, pathogens, and viruses all serve other purposes as well and have important roles in the ecosystem over which man rules.

>>41610270
IF you were all powerful you would be capable of eliminating harmful pathogens exclusively.

Use your imagination.

>>41610285

Probably not, most microbial life and viruses serve dual purposes and harm/lethality is almost always inextricably linked between the purposes.

>>41610309
1 There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2 An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3 (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being

>ould prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
>ould prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
>ould prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

>>41610231
That's the thing though, according to religious people god gave humans free will so they could live their own lives. at first humans were disease free and living for eternity then they started using their free will to defy god. By defying god they got more and more problems. but god still allowed them to make their own decisions. That is the whole idea of free will, it is the struggle of human kind to create heaven on earth.

>>41610049
>>41610144
Allowing free will of thought without the follow through is denying the full expression of one's agency. You need to be able to express yourself to the full extent physically as well as mentally. And wouldn't his constant interference cause ripple effects that change the course of the world? Joseph's brothers tried to kill him by throwing him in a pit to die since he was their father's favorite, then thought better of it and sold him into slavery. However, because God didn't interfere and allowed them to do so, Joseph's gift of divination ended up earning him a seat as Pharaoh's right hand man, and he saved countless lives by helping the Egyptians avoid starvation. Wronging one person, or even killing them can net a positive gain.

Your argument is that you, as you are, possess better judgement than you would have as an omniscient being, that you're more caring than a benevolent one, and that all you're lacking is the omnipotent power to back it up. Going off all that alone, I daresay you seem full of yourself and/or self-absorbed.

And again, you said that Epicurus was writing to theists, criticizing their faith's idea of an objective evil existing alongside God. I'm not sure he wrote it with one (I'm assuming irreligious) 4chan poster's subjective interpretation of right and wrong in mind.

>often erroneously attributed to Marcus Aurelius

How so? That quote is directly from Marcus Aurelius' Meditations.

>>41610328

"miraculous" idiopathic recovery happens a lot in hospitals. Cancer remissions, viruses going away, etc.

>>41610309
>>41610328
In layman's terms, if God can't eliminate the harmful aspects of pathogens while preserving a greater good he is not all powerful.
>>41610334
>at first humans were disease free and living for eternity
Objectively false, stopped reading
>>41610344
>Allowing free will of thought without the follow through is denying the full expression of one's agency.
If your full agency results in the death of a child, fuck your agency.
>And wouldn't his constant interference cause ripple effects that change the course of the world?
>Wouldn't God constantly forcing people to not ruin each other's lives be terrible?
I am positive that the net effect would be better. A world with no disease and murder and crime > A world where we can kill a few dickbags (while millions die from communicated diseases, etc.)

>Your argument is that you, as you are, possess better judgement than you would have as an omniscient being, that you're more caring than a benevolent one, and that all you're lacking is the omnipotent power to back it up. Going off all that alone, I daresay you seem full of yourself and/or self-absorbed.
10/10 strawman there buddy

>I'm not sure he wrote it with one (I'm assuming irreligious) 4chan poster's subjective interpretation of right and wrong in mind.
Well, good thing you aren't sure, I was worried there.
>>41610404
My point was that if you're fucking omnipotent you could figure out a way to have bacteria exist without eating peoples' flesh. Come on now, that's a very simple proposition.

>>41610370
http://undeniably-atheist.blogspot.co
m/2011/10/fabricated-marcus-aurelius-quote.html

>>41609425
OH, and a very relevant quote of why I'm not willing to "take God's word for something"
"a god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intentions — could that be a god of goodness?" AKA Argument from reasonable non belief.