You must log in or register to comment.
Fun fact, if you arrive at this conclusion as an 8 year old in Sunday school at your ultra fundamentalist Baptist Church and proceed to tell the teacher, you get yelled at and spanked by the teacher and your parents! Ask me how I know.
How do you know?
It was a test
It’s me, the Sunday school teacher
Yeah, and the Sunday school teacher failed.
What’s the definition of “all powerful”? Would an all-powerful being need to be able to draw a square without it being a rectangle? Or to build a house without walls?
If the answer is “no”, then I’d argue that the left most arrow/conclusion is logically wrong/misplaced/invalid. Assuming that “free will” is not possible without “evil”.
Agreed.
Evil is also a subjective concept, the same action can be perceived as good or evil depending on the understood context.
When you allow action on the subjective experience of life aka free will, you also allow evil to emerge from those actions as those interaction collide with the subjective experience of others.
Well sure. You could argue that evil is subjective. But even so we could just go with gods definition of “evil” things and use the 10 commandments as what he deems good or bad. In which case he created a world in which people will do the things he told them not to (same with the Apple) which makes him either not good or not all powerful.
Personally God becomes a lot more palettable when he is a non all powerful and non all knowing higher dimensional being that just created us and can’t be fucked dealing with this problem he created. Like avoiding cleaning the dishes in the sink.
I wouldn’t put too much credibility towards the commandments or any established religions for that matter.
The personification of god has always bothered me. The meme is a very effective argument against the all knowing super human god dogma with its cryptic masterplan but it falls flat when you personally relate god more to an intelligent-conscious force of nature.
That’s the thing, it seems too simplistic, though probably is a good start towards something, better understanding I suppose.
Like all planar squares must be rectangles, but curved square nonplanar washers exist… and those neither disprove nor prove the existence of a God (or Gods, or any spiritual beings at all)?:-P
The devil as they say is in the details, like what exactly is evil, in order to go from mere wordplay to true philosophical understanding. imho at least.
One day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I’m sure you’ll agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half submerged log.
As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature’s wonders, gentlemen. Mother and children dining upon mother and children.
And that is when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.
-Sir Terry Pratchett, Unseen Academicals
there is a non terminating loop in this diagram and that is where god is mic drop
A ghost hidden within the finite state automata, you say, dare we call it a Deus ex machina even? :-P
Good and Evil are ultimately relative and subjective terms. They also don’t really explore the mechanisms by which Good/Evil occur or are evaluated.
The argument from Evil really just boils down to “God isn’t real because I’m not happy”. And that doesn’t logically follow.
That’s where christians are stuck, at least
I had a conversation that ended up like this with someone who was genuinely trying to convert me to Christianity once. He eventually argued that god doesn’t need to be all powerful to be worshipped, since he is at least extremely powerful.
Sounds like he was worshipping a mid tier god. At least it’s better than those waste of space reasonably powerful ones.
The French have invented a nice too to deal with such “extremely powerful” scumbags.
There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.
It’s a slightly more complicated version of whether God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it. Can God create a universe where I simultaneously have freewill and also don’t have the ability to do anything outside his will (evil)? Can 0 equal 1? The answer to that question isn’t yes/no, it’s that the question is invalid. Freewill does not equal non-freewill. It’ll confuse some unprepared Sunday School teacher, but that’s it.
There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.
It’s a slightly more complicated version of whether God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it.
It’s a very good argument against god, and your second statement is a great addition to it. Omnipotence in itself is impossible, as proven by the rock paradox. An omnipotent being can therefore not exist.
Your free will idea however has a very easy counter argument: If free will is the problem, then god has nothing to offer us - since in the afterlife the same rules would apply. Either a world without suffering is possible, or it isn’t. Since the afterlife isn’t known to work by taking away our free will, suffering would therefore continue to prevail there as well. If the idea of an afterlife must be possible (as seen in most organized religions) than the idea of a world without suffering must be possible, without taking away something so valuable as our freedom.
Omnipotence in itself is impossible
The question of God isn’t of perfect omnipotence but relative omnipotence. There’s plenty of room for a “Godlike” being that does not resolve the paradox of omnipotence. Hell, a guy who sits on a cloud and flings lighting bolts has been sufficient to qualify for eons.
Either a world without suffering is possible, or it isn’t
Suffering without purpose. And that’s where things get sticky. Because the argument from Evil needs to assume the recipients of suffering are innocent and undeserving. Otherwise it’s not evil, just karma.
Suffering without purpose. And that’s where things get sticky. Because the argument from Evil needs to assume the recipients of suffering are innocent and undeserving. Otherwise it’s not evil, just karma.
There’s plenty of undeserved suffering in our world, I don’t think we have to debate that. Either evil is the consequence of our free will in some convoluted way - then the same will be true in the afterlife - or a paradise without suffering is possible - then an all-loving and omnipotent god would have been able to create just that. It simply disproves the idea that our suffering was somehow unavoidable to an all-powerful god, because that doesn’t make sense withing the ideological framework of the abrahamic religions. It must be avoidable. Otherwise paradise would be unthinkable.
There’s plenty of undeserved suffering in our world, I don’t think we have to debate that.
Not casually, but as soon as you escalate the scale of the discussion to “X is True Because Evil Exists”, you’re stuck making these much more formalized and stringent responses.
And I absolutely think - particularly in an era of climate change catastrophe and ecological crisis - that you can argue our collective suffering is a collective punishment for the world we have collectively built.
Either evil is the consequence of our free will in some convoluted way
Hardly convoluted. We act upon each other. And we perceive the actions inflicted on one another as “good” and “evil”. If you want to argue a purely deterministic understanding of our behaviors, you can blame God (or the Prime Mover / First Domino / Deist Clockmaker Thing). But once you open up the idea that we own responsibility for our own actions, you abdicate The First Actor from responsibility.
It simply disproves the idea that our suffering was somehow unavoidable to an all-powerful god, because that doesn’t make sense withing the ideological framework of the abrahamic religions.
All it disproves is a particular set of assumptions that not even other Christians generally believe. Like, the idea of the Abrahamic God being cruel or capricious or personally flawed isn’t even a conclusion you can take away from a straight reading of the Bible. You need one of those Evangelical hype artists to punch up the original material in order to get there.
At the point, you’re not arguing against the existence of a deity. You’re arguing against the existence of Buddy Jesus and the big smiling sun baby from Teletubbies.
The Argument From Evil can be reduced down to “I don’t believe a God exists, because if It did I wouldn’t like It.”
Hardly convoluted.
While you’re arguing about all the parts of human suffering that can easily be attributed to humans, other forms of suffering exist as well. Think volcanoes. Think cancer. You’re not making a good argument if you’re conveniently forgetting that not all suffering has to do with our free will at all.
At the point, you’re not arguing against the existence of a deity. You’re arguing against the existence of Buddy Jesus and the big smiling sun baby from Teletubbies.
I think you’re misunderstanding the Epicurean paradox. It specifically argues against a very specific idea of god with the characteristics of being omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving at the same time. Call him “buddy jesus” if you will (some call him “God”), but that’s exactly the thought exercise we’re talking about here. No one is arguing against deities in general. The term is way too broad to have a single conversation about every potential divine entity anyway.
Think volcanoes. Think cancer.
Iceland without volcanoes looks like Greenland. Hawaii without volcanoes doesn’t exist at all. Volcanoes aren’t evil.
Similarly, cancer is result of a flaw in cellular reproduction. But these flaws in replication are also important in the means by which species evolve over time. Cancer is a consequence of an imperfect but necessary process for life to exist.
You’re discounting enormous processes that provide enormous benefits over the order of millennia to marginal discomforts experienced by tiny minorities over the course of months. Why stop at volcanoes and cancer? We could claim that teeth are evil. We could claim that fire and salt are evil. We could claim that emotions are evil.
It specifically argues against a very specific idea of god with the characteristics of being omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving at the same time.
With the conclusion that such a deity does not deserve to be worshiped, presumably because an immensely powerful but flawed being is not worthy of reciprocal love and devotion. But that’s not an argument against God, its an argument against Parents.
Even then, it makes enormous presumptions about the nature of Good and Evil. Volcanoes are Evil Because They Make Me Sad. Cancer is Evil Because It Makes Me Sad. A Perfectly Knowing And Loving God Would Have Done It Better.
It’s not a paradox so much as it is a child’s whining.
No one is arguing against deities in general.
Well, I mean… there’s the Atheists.
You’re discounting enormous processes that provide enormous benefits over the order of millennia to marginal discomforts experienced by tiny minorities over the course of months. Why stop at volcanoes and cancer? We could claim that teeth are evil. We could claim that fire and salt are evil. We could claim that emotions are evil.
If you’re seriously arguing that there is no unavoidable suffering in this world you’re very ignorant towards your fellow human beings. An omnipotent god could create a world without volcanoes and without sickness. Yet he didn’t. You’re sill not understanding even the starting point of the Epicurean paradox if you don’t get that.
With the conclusion that such a deity does not deserve to be worshiped, presumably because an immensely powerful but flawed being is not worthy of reciprocal love and devotion. But that’s not an argument against God, its an argument against Parents.
Again, you’re misunderstanding the conversation. It’s not about judgment or whining, it’s not about arguing if it’s okay for god to be how he is, it’s not about any conclusions from gods nature to anything. It’s a logical thinking exercise about the premises of the abrahamic idea of god’s characteristics and whether they make sense or not.
If the premises are: god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, the existence of human suffering creates a paradox. (And if you’re unsure why just look at the guide above.) What you’re saying has nothing to do with that. You don’t resolve the paradox by insulting those who find it interesting to think about, you’re disqualifying from the conversation. If you believe in a god without those characteristics the Epicurean paradox says nothing about your faith at all.
I agree, this is not a good argument against the existence of god, but it seems to be a fine argument against certain models of god. To get out of the paradox, one must be willing to give up certain notions about god. Either:
- God isn’t all knowing, so it’s unaware of all the evil in the universe.
- God doesn’t have infinite power, making god unable to create a universe without evil (perhaps due to limitations of what god can and cannot do.
- God is not entirely good or god’s definition of good does not align with what us humans have been taught. God doesn’t see evil where we see evil so it does not use its infinite power and knowledge to change it.
I think there are a lot of theists who would have trouble accepting one of these notions, which would keep them stuck within this paradox.
There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.
That is because this isn’t an argument against god. It is simply a question that resulted in a Paradox about the character of god as described by the Church
Can 0 equal 1? The answer to that question isn’t yes/no, it’s that the question is invalid.
What? the question is not invalid. it is a yes/no, the *implications" of that yes or no however can carry significant correlations
Freewill does not equal non-freewill.
yeah, nobody is making this crazy claim…
Yeah, probably would have been better to use dividing by 0 instead of 0=1 as the example, but the point still stands.
Yes/no isn’t a valid answer to a paradox. Can God create a universe where there is freewill and there isn’t freewill? Can God create a rock so large he can’t lift it? Can he shit so big he can’t flush it? All interesting, but in the end invalid questions. But shoehorning in a yes/no when the real answer is just undefined is incorrect.
It’s good fun for an internet comment section, or irritating some youth group leader, but in the end not a useful question.
I don’t get why you say they are not valid questions? I see nothing invalid in them. Instead it seems to me you seem to disagree with the consequences such “yes/no” answers carry and are preemptively dismissing them
Overall this paradox is a thought experiment, as such, even in the absence of a concrete answer, it is still a very valid and valuable question
In what way is this an argument against God? This is an argument against a god that is all-knowing all-powerful and all-benevolent.
Also your idea of free will is coming loaded with some major baggage.
My bad, that baggage is the capital G God primarily referring to Abrahamic tradition God. Zeus doesn’t pass the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent religion check, but Yahweh and Allah definitely have those claimed tied pretty innately to their being.
Alright so your argument about free will only really adds up if you are an absolutist about free will. Imagine a perfect utopian paradise of a world. All are free to do whatever they want so long as it is not “evil.” Your definition of evil can vary but presumably an omniscient god would have a pretty good idea of what that means. Rhe mwans of prevention xouls be literally anything, because y’know omnipotent and omniscient, including just creating people that simply do not have the capacity for evil. Would the people in that world not have free will? Just because there are some things they cannot do does not mean that in my eye. I can’t fly or bite my own finger off or perceive and manipulate the fabric of the universe, does that mean I don’t have free will? IMO the only way your position here is logically consistant is if you do take the absolutist position that in order to have free will you must be omnipotent yourself, otherwise there will always be things you cannot do.
I think I would say that the people living in that utopia do not have free will. Their will is not their own, it’s God’s will imposed on them. They can operate within its confines and limits, but it is externally, not internally defined.
I think you have to separate out two things that are often conflated together, freedom of will and freedom of action. The difference is with freedom of will, I can want to fly, and with freedom of action, I can fly if I want to.
It reminds me of the classic Henry Ford quote about having your car in any color you want, as long as it’s black. If I want a black car, fine. If I want a white car, that’s a problem.
That’s already the case with humans. There are things that a human CAN do that I would never do. The same goes for you and every other human. Are you saying I don’t have free will because there are actions that I COULD do but never would? Because the same goes for evil. God could have made a world where people COULD do evil things but never chose to. Therefore the only reason to have made not only people who COULD choose evil, but also people who DO choose evil, is because he wanted some people to be punished for being made in a way that they would do things he already knew they would do and chose to make them anyways.
We live in a world right now where people can do good things but don’t, and they can also do evil things, but they don’t. That’s free will.
What I am saying that free will is an internal condition, it’s yours. If an external force is placing hard limits and boundaries on your will, it fundamentally cannot be free. Best case, it’s limited. Worst case, it’s nonexistent.
The traditional definition of evil for many religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones, is anything that runs contrary to the laws/decrees of God is evil. Forced conformation to that, regardless of how it’s done, cannot leave people with free will. God creates laws. God creates a law that forces compliance to his laws. By forcing me to choose to comply, there is no real choice (another paradox), and that fundamentally is not free.
I don’t think that God in this case needs people to choose evil to punish them, but there are billions of people who think Hell is super real and probably want for both of us to burn there, and they’d probably disagree. I think it is an safer assumption to simply say if that people who make a choice, whether it’s good or evil, are better in aggregate than people who can make no choice at all.
What’s your logic with 0 = 1?
Can you restate without math?It’s similar to the “unstoppable force meets an immovable object” thought experiment.
They can’t both exist, just like 0 can’t be the same as 1. If you somehow “forced” it to be true because an all powerful deity made it so, the logic breaks, and the answer is effectively useless to us.
So then if a deity made freewill, there MUST be evil, or at least the capability of it. My metaphor is sorta inverted, but hopefully it makes sense.
It very quickly gets into philosophy. We consider the ability to do evil to be part of our free will, but we don’t consider the ability for us to do djskwjejrj to be part of our free will. We still have free will, even though we cannot djskwjejrj.
Likewise, if we lived in a world that God created without the ability to do evil, but otherwise we had free will, we wouldn’t know of the limitations to our free will - therefore we’d believe we still had it. And in that world, we may also be able to djskwjejrj.
(I just keyboard-smashed to come up with that term, hopefully the metaphor carries.)
Seem confusing?
That’s right - because anything that’s made up and subject to interpretation IS!
One of the funniest things humanity has done is to invent the concept of God as a super entity and then reduce him/them/it to their level.
Why would a super entity be bound by “love” which only humans understand ? Why would “it” have the concept of “evil”, something that humans invented out of fear.
As a species we just need to accept we are just stupid.
And that is why religion is effectively meaningless. We have invented a being full of contradictions, much like ourselves, but declared [it|whatever] perfect besides that. The answer to the paradox is that there is no God.
People should learn to strive for good without the threat of eternal punishment from a being of their invention, otherwise those individuals were never good to begin with, and their imaginary all powerful, all knowing and judgemental god would punish them regardless.
Why would a super entity be bound by “love” which only humans understand ? Why would “it” have the concept of “evil”, something that humans invented out of fear.
It doesn’t. That’s the point. The Epicurean paradox doesn’t say god doesn’t exist in some way or form, but the idea of god as someone with a relationship to humanity based on love, omnipotence and omniscience (in any way that’s meaningful to us) is apparently false.
Or from your perspective: God loves us in his way; he doesn’t love us in our way, which means we can’t expect the same mercy, the same support, the same commitment from him as we humans are capable of.
Epicurus refuted one very specific idea of god, which was prevalent at one point in time, but is today only believed by very devout evangelicals. What we today conclude from the fact that apparently no god will alleviate the suffering in this life is up to each individual.
As a species we just need to accept we are just stupid.
Or in the words of Socrates: “I know that I know nothing.”
Or in the words of (possibly or possibly not) Einstein: “Two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”I agree. It is better not to assume anything and take it for a truth, but to find the truth through reliable and provable methods.
“why can’t god create a boulder so heavy that even the can’t carry it?” even as a child trying to trick god with basic paradoxes sounded funny to me.
The existence of those paradoxes could also mean that omnipotence in itself is simply impossible.
Or logic is a blasphemy against god.
Then why would god create our minds and logic in the first place? Seems like he’d be setting us up for failure if he gives us tools to determine the truth which in turn seem to disprove his existence. Also not something you’d expect from an all-loving deity.
If the story of the garden of Eden is anything to go by I’d say that the creator definitely both made those things and very clearly instructed us not to use them. Either way if logic itself is evil then any logical argument cannot possibly apply to a purely good being.
Of course I’m in camp snake, I’m just playing divinity’s advocate.
I think it’s a fair assumption, it just would made god a psychopath.
Just being the devil advocate here: I disagree with the “destroy Satan” part, Satan isn’t the definition of evil, he is only the HR department that deal with the evil people, and the part of God not stopping evil, maybe he don’t because it go against free will? About the not loving, he promises a perfect infinity world after all of this, after a few centuries of perfection you don’t care/remember I guess
Good advocate. Anyway, “God not stopping evil, maybe he don’t because it go against free will” - That enters the loop at the bottom. Could God create a universe where free will exists, but evil does not exist? If yes, then why didn’t He? If He could not create such a universe, then he’s not all powerful and/or not all loving and good.
“About the not loving, he promises a perfect infinity world after all of this” - Then why do we have to go through this initial, temporary and imperfect part?
Maybe free will requires the infinite complexity of this world and hence must also contain “evil” in some way.
Then god is not all powerful
That’s trying to sidestep the answer, but it just loops back: could God create an “infinitely complex” world with free will where evil does not need to exist? I’m effectively asking the same question, “could God create a universe with free will and without evil”?
Assuming that your assertion is true, that the infinite complexity of this world must contain evil, then God is not all powerful nor all loving.
I dunno. To be all powerful does God need to be able to create paradoxes? Things that are and aren’t? I think that by limiting choices, free will is no longer fully free.
The all loving part I think gets resolved by the free will idea, too — he’s not going to step in and be a nanny.
I’m not really advocating for some biblical God, btw. Though, admittedly, I am spiritual in different senses which might overlap with the biblical God in some ways.
To be all powerful does God need to be able to create paradoxes?
To be all powerful means you literally create all the rules, including any that might lead to paradoxes, or being able to create a set of rules that lead to no paradoxes, ever.
The all loving part I think gets resolved by the free will idea, too — he’s not going to step in and be a nanny.
Again, he creates the rules, the “state machine”. If we humans can reach a “failed” (evil) state, it’s only because it’s an option that has been created.
Also, free will automatically breaks either god’s omniscience (and omnipotence) or being all-loving. If god knows everything that will ever happen, free will cannot exist except as an illusion, for everything is already predetermined. If free will exists, well, then we can safely imply that god is not all powerful, for god cannot predict our decisions.
Choices are already limited… by our brains. Some people choose to stick objects up their urethra. Based on statistical probability, I would guess you do not. Does the fact that your brain limits you from making that choice mean your will is not free? You didn’t choose which brain you would get. Or are you going to go stick something up there to prove how free you are?
Don’t appreciate (i) your disgusting example and (ii) your attitude. Most of this is obviously amounting to different interpretations of “free will” and even “omnipotence.” Ok, if it’s free with no limitations, you win, buddy. If it’s free will in the sense that, well, obviously, there are constraints, but it is precisely those constraints that give rise to different wants, desires, actions, and pursuits, and there is freedom to choose them, then ok, there might be free will. In any case, free will is vague and not precisely defined. Similarly, does omnipotence entail the ability of creating something outside of yourself? If no, then ok, the paradox stands. If not, then the paradox doesn’t.
Then in paradise there won’t be free will either, or evil will prevail there as well.
Literally advocating for the devil.
Kind of falls apart if rejecting the idea of objective good and evil and interpreting the parable of the fruit of knowledge in Eden as the inheritance of a relative knowledge of good and evil for oneself which inherently makes any shared consensus utopia an impossibility.
In general, we have very bizarre constraints on what we imagine for the divine, such as it always being a dominant personality.
Is God allowed to be a sub? Where’s the world religion built around that idea?
What about the notion that the variety of life is not a test for us to pass/fail, but more like a Rorsarch test where it allows us to determine for ourselves what is good or not?
Yes, antiquated inflexible ideas don’t hold up well to scrutiny. But adopting those as the only idea to contrast with equally inflexible consideration just seems like a waste of time for everyone involved, no?
I’ve always thought the better argument was to replace ‘good and evil’ with ‘happiness and sadness’. Everything you said makes sense because good and evil are subjective, but at least everyone agrees that happiness is a goal in itself that we all strive for, regardless of what it takes to get you there personally.
If you go through this chart and use the word ‘happiness’ instead, it becomes pretty clear that god is not omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent, or we would only ever feel happiness.
evil exists -> no
Honestly that’s probably the only way out of the problem of evil.
That said you are on a path of ethical relativism, and from a practical standpoint it’s fucked up beyond belief.
Also so much of religion is founded on the good/ evil dynamic that if this was removed, everything else would crumble.
What if an almighty God created the universe without evil, but with free-will, and then one angel decided to challange the way God rules, so that God has to let him rules to show everyone whose way of rule is the best?
Simply killing that angel would not answer the challenge, on the contrary, killing that angel would demonstrate that God is a dictator.
Pasted from a reply to another user.
God created angels. If God created an angel which challenges them and is “evil” (saying that about some angel dude who isn’t a mass murderer like their creator according to bible records https://www.wired.com/2007/04/old-testament-m/ https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html ) then we arrive again at the Epicurean paradox.
God is already a dictator by choosing the state of everything. Designing a chaotic system and letting it run also supports being a dictator. He designed the system. An omnipotent God is unable to escape His own designs. The rebellious angel was by design. His planning thereby is guile.
If the rebellious angel was evil by design, then there is no free-will.
Prove there is free will anyways. All modern studies of the brain and consciousness indicate our free will only exists in a compatibalist way, in other words we can be free to act without another actor forcing us. But libertarian free will, such as would be required for any being to act against their “design” has no evidence whatsoever.
Omniscience is knowing all that will happen. The rebellious angel’s free-will creates a smaller God.
Still wouldn’t answer why god doesn’t interfer with evil. Why doesn’t he help us against this angel? Heals sicknesses? Stops wars? Saves victims of murder and rape?
I once heard omnipotent doesn’t mean they can overturn logic itself, which seems a little unintuitve to me, but hey why not.
Being unbound by logic / information theory would make it impossible to reason about anything at all
Thereby implying that everything becomes meaningless and there is no point in believing anything.
Are you 16 and this is deep?
It’s actually a really important subject and very deep if you actually think about it. The problem of evil has challenged philosophers for centuries, and apologists have not been able to square the circle of evil, all knowing, all powerful and all loving.
