But was forced in religion due to my family. — lice
Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. — Miller
From two years ago:Epicurus was not completely right ... — TheMadFool
Epicurus is not claiming "god doesn't exist", only calling into question that such a malignantly indifferent and/or impotent "god" is not worthy of being worshipped (or called "god"). So what is "not completely right" with this riddle?(a) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
(b) Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
(c) Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
(d) Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
'The Riddle of Epicurus' (~300 BCE) — 180 Proof
indifferent — 180 Proof
impotent — 180 Proof
So what is "not completely right" with this riddle? — 180 Proof
You know me, I'm mad and I'm a fool. — TheMadFool
Problem of evil is a bad argument for atheism, it has been defeated and therefore using it just makes atheism look wrong. So if you want to win debates don't use it. Find better ones.
Why does evil exist? Well there is two kinds of evil: Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. Changing it will just create a new set of goods and bads. — Miller
And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good. — baker
The problem of evil is often given in the form of an inconsistent triad. For example, J. L. Mackie gave the following three propositions:
God is omnipotent
God is omnibenevolent
Evil exists
Mackie argued that these propositions were inconsistent, and thus, that at least one of these propositions must be false. Either:
God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and evil does not exist.God is omnipotent, but not omnibenevolent; thus, evil exists by God's will.God is omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent; thus, evil exists, but it is not within God's power to stop it (at least not instantaneously). — Wikipedia
If she is a negative consequentialist, she knows she's done good by mitigating or eliminating an injustice (without causing more injustice).Taking a consequentialist point of view, given that consequences have consequences (chain of causation), how does a moral consequentialist know s/he's done good? — Agent Smith
"God" could be anything you like because it's imaginary.Could God be a consequentialist?
If she is a negative consequentialist, she knows she's done good by mitigating or eliminating an injustice (without causing more injustice).
Could God be a consequentialist?
"God" could be anything you like because it's imaginary. — 180 Proof
You are right to the extent that I have overcritized them. See, I am a fan of paradoxes, I have a large collection of them, but none about God. According to my personal quality criteria, there are real paradoxes and pseudo-paradoxes. Most of the "paradoxes" that one can find around --Wikipedia alone you can find a lot of them-- are based on fallacies, which I can recognize, easily or after some analysis. That's why I call them "pseudo-paradoxes".Mm, well in my belief these paradoxes aren't ridiculous. — john27
OK, I respect this.It helps flesh out His behaviour in a context that gives certain people hope and thats most definitely not bad. — john27
Certainly!this isn't the best way to assess gods existence — john27
Of course.The existence of God after all, is a choice — john27
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.