A cool guide to Epicurean paradox
A cool guide to Epicurean paradox
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
If you’re seriously arguing that there is no unavoidable suffering in this world you’re very ignorant towards your fellow human beings.
You're arguing the process of plate tectonics is ontologically wicked. Even then, what so much of this boils down to isn't an objection to suffering so much as a fear of it. The Problem of Evil becomes the Fear of Pain. And I suppose we could argue that the solution to this problem is to simply numb ourselves to the world. But then we're left with the prospect of an opioid induced fugue state is... what? Divine?
An omnipotent god could create a world without volcanoes and without sickness.
To what end? You imagine a world absent changes in the shape of the earth or changes in the human condition. You assert that an omnipotent god could create a vast sea of gray goo where nothing happens. And this would be a Utopia, because it is devoid of anything or anyone that might be discomforting in any conceivable way.
But this sounds like Perdition. Absolutely nightmarish. An eternal hellscape I would wish to escape at any cost.
If the premises are: god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, the existence of human suffering creates a paradox.
If god is all-powerful, and all-knowing, and all-loving, I am forced to assume that the suffering he creates isn't evil. And while I cannot understand exactly how or why all these little bits and pieces are necessary, I can confidently assert that they are worthy of praise and admiration.
But it is also perfectly possible that all of this exists without a Singular Perfect Entity at its origin. We are functions of our material conditions and what we perceive as suffering is simply our biological urge to change the world around us. Our dissatisfaction is a motivating force, in the same way that the inner heat from the earth's core is a motivating force for the plates floating on the magma sea above it.
If we don't live in an ideal space, it is only because we have not yet carved it out for ourselves and for our progeny. And that we never will create a perfect Utopia, because a frictionless world wouldn't be one we'd want to live in anyway.
You’re arguing the process of plate tectonics is ontologically wicked.
Not at all. You're still fighting a strawman. The existence of volcanoes and cancer isn't evil. If it was however consciously created by an omnipotent and omniscient being, that would be evil. The paradox doesn't relate to our reality itself, only to the claim of said characteristics in a god in relation to said reality. You still seem confused about that part.
But this sounds like Perdition. Absolutely nightmarish. An eternal hellscape I would wish to escape at any cost.
If you truly cannot a reality with less suffering than ours you are truly unimaginative, mate. Or completely ignorant to the suffering that exists in this world. Or maybe both.
But it is also perfectly possible that all of this exists without a Singular Perfect Entity at its origin.
Right, which is why this is the most obvious answer to the Epicurean paradox: This singular perfect entity doesn't exist. Congratulation, you've now arrived at the same conclusion as Epicurus 2.5 thousand years ago.
Not at all. You’re still fighting a strawman. The existence of volcanoes and cancer isn’t evil. If it was however consciously created by an omnipotent and omniscient being, that would be evil.
That doesn't follow
If I suddenly acquired a million dollars and your home address and use them to bulldoze your living room, would that be evil?
Mean spirited, certainly. But the volcano's going to be here long before you are. This is more akin to you building your house on a bulldozer and then claiming I'm evil if I try to use it.
We're talking about a concept of god who's omnicscient, don't forget that. In your metaphor I knew perfetcly well beforehand were you would build your house and consciously put my bulldozer there, knowing it would one day destroy your home.
Using my power and knowledge to so something that will harm you is mean spirited. The same must be said for god. Exceptions would be if god didn't have another choice or didn't know better. Both of those are addressed in the Epicurean paradox.
An omnipotent god would have been able to build a world without suffering. His volcanoes would maybe spray rainbows.
God didn't build a world without suffering. Therefore we can conclude: It is not possible for him to be at the same time fully able and willing to do so. Or to put it more formally: A omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving god is incompatible with a world that includes suffering.
We’re talking about a concept of god who’s omnicscient
Within the context of Free Will, which sets up another paradox. "How can you be omniscient if I've got the ability to behave unexpectedly?"
And that's where you get into questions of degree. I can be a mechanic who knows how a car engine works without accounting for every particle within the engine block. To a novice, I might look omniscient simply because I've got experience and familiarity with a particular problem. But then you come back and insist "If you were a real automotive mechanic, the engine would never break!" What even are we arguing, at that point?
Using my power and knowledge to so something that will harm you is mean spirited.
I'm walking across a yard. Under my feet, there are thousands of tiny creatures crawling about. I have the capacity and the information necessary to see these creatures, if I spend the time and energy. But instead of checking under every footfall for an ant, I wander carelessly through the yard.
Does this mean I am ontologically evil, or simply in a hurry?
God didn’t build a world without suffering.
Suffering is a consequence of our human condition. We experience discomfort and pain as a motivating force, extorting us to change. To build a world - at least, to build a modern world - some degree of suffering is necessary.
A omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving god is incompatible with a world that includes suffering.
I would not consider a world devoid of feeling one that was compatible with an all-loving god. Numbness is not a virtue.
And that’s where you get into questions of degree.
Not at all. The premise is "all-knowing". That is in fact a mechanic who's able to account for every particle within the engine block.
I wander carelessly through the yard.
You are not all-powerful. The premise says: god is. If you were easily able to spare all those small insects, deciding to kill them anyway would make you a psychopath.
Suffering is a consequence of our human condition.
Our human condition, within the scenario of the thinking exercise, was very consciously created that way by god.
I would not consider a world devoid of feeling one that was compatible with an all-loving god.
An all-powerful god would have been able to create a reality with feeling, but without suffering. And religion already claims that he can - that's the idea of heaven or paradise.
The premise is “all-knowing”.
You don't need to be omniscient to appear to be to a sufficiently limited observer.
You are not all-powerful.
Compared to an ant, I am like unto the Titans of ancient Greek Mythology. I don't need to be omnipotent for an ant to assume I am.
Our human condition, within the scenario of the thinking exercise, was very consciously created that way by god.
A condition which drives us to Go Forth and Multiply. Not to languish in Eden for eternity.
An all-powerful god would have been able to create a reality with feeling, but without suffering.
The insistence that nothing should ever be unpleasant at any time for any reason is the mentality of a toddler.
Of course it does, unless you ignore the avoidable (as in: avoidable to an omnipotent being) suffering that arises from the scenario. Imagine parents that just lost their little child to cancer. What explanation do you have for them in their grief? Because so far what you brought is:
Our collective suffering is a collective punishment for the world we have collectively built.
Cancer is a consequence of an imperfect but necessary process for life to exist.
...marginal discomforts experienced by tiny minorities over the course of months.
Cancer is Evil Because It Makes Me Sad. (...) It’s not a paradox so much as it is a child’s whining.
While I cannot understand exactly how or why all these little bits and pieces are necessary, I can confidently assert that they are worthy of praise and admiration.
Just answer me this please: Could god have avoided the child's death? And if he could've; why didn't he?