Skip Navigation
Cool Guides @lemmy.ca contentbot @lemmy.ca
BOT

A cool guide to Epicurean paradox

182

You're viewing a single thread.

182 comments

  • There is a few problems with this diagram:

    1. Why should God want only the good? What is the paradox of God wanted to do whatever it want with its creation? The all-powerful, all-knowing God would have create Satan and wanted that he did all bad things he did.
    2. Why should the test be to let God know about us? It could be about letting us know about ourself.

    Also the branch that are not yes/no does not cover all possibility. Therefore, this is not a paradox but rather an incomplet thought. I know that much from UML.

    I don't know much about history but didn't Epicure lived at a time where people believe their was multiple gods? Why is it not mentioned in the scheme? Did he believe that there was only one god?

      1. Why should God want only the good?

      Because otherwise god could not be considered all-god or all benevolent

      1. Why should the test be to let God know about us? It could be about letting us know about ourself.

      Because if his is all powerful, god could have made us with that knowledge already acquired

      Also the branch that are not yes/no does not cover all possibility. Therefore, this is not a paradox but rather an incomplet thought

      Can you add any that would actually not end up conflicting with "not all powerful", "not all knowing" or "not all good"?

      • otherwise god could not be considered all-god or all benevolent

        But that is an assumption that was not proved. And an assumption that's again many religion believe. I assume from his time that Epicure was not Christian so why would he made this assumption?

        Can you add any that would actually not end up conflicting with “not all powerful”, “not all knowing” or “not all good”?

        If you mean without falling back to the paradox, no. But the point is not to find a solution that let us out. It is to observe every option to rule out every things that is illogical and see if there could be one or more logicial possibility.

        Among possibility we are missing and that bring to a solution that is not written on the diagramme :
        When its said "Then why is their evil?", we could add "because God will it". Then God is all-powerful to create everything he want, and of course he knows everything, because it is what he will and he created. This way, God is "all knowing" "all powerfull" has "unstopable will" but is not all-loving". This solution is not in the diagram.

        Still, a good pratice when making any conditional is to cover every cases, the original schema and my addings do not cover every case so the thought is not finish.

        • But that is an assumption that was not proved. And an assumption that’s again many religion believe. I assume from his time that Epicure was not Christian so why would he made this assumption?

          Well no, that is just a logical conclusion. If an entity is OK or even wants "bad things", such entity cannot be considered "all-good". And this is a thought exercise that would follow any "god" that claims to be "all good, all knowing, all powerful" regardless of religion

          If you mean without falling back to the paradox, no

          Then your claim this paradox is just an incomplete thought is voided.

          But the point is not to find a solution that let us out. It is to observe every option to rule out every things that is illogical and see if there could be one or more logicial possibility.

          And you claimed you could not find any, same as countless people since the time of the paradox. Ergo, until we can brake the paradox, it will remain a valid question.

          Among possibility we are missing and that bring to a solution that is not written on the diagramme : When its said “Then why is their evil?”, we could add “because God will it”. Then God is all-powerful to create everything he want, and of course he knows everything, because it is what he will and he created. This way, God is “all knowing” “all powerfull” has “unstopable will” but is not all-loving". This solution is not in the diagram.

          This is not a new "solution", it is simply another way of reaching the "god is not all-good" (all loving, all benevolent), end of the diagram.

          Still, a good pratice when making any conditional is to cover every cases, the original schema and my addings do not cover every case so the thought is not finish.

          Sorry but that one is simply another "god is not all good" ending. Clearly included in the diagram and paradox

          • Hmm... I think I get what you mean. Then I don't understand a thing about what Epicure wanted to do. Well... Life go on.

You've viewed 182 comments.