A cool guide to Epicurean paradox
A cool guide to Epicurean paradox
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
You don’t need to be omniscient to appear to be to a sufficiently limited observer.
Yeah, but the premise of the abrahamic god says he is, that's the point.
The insistence that nothing should ever be unpleasant at any time for any reason is the mentality of a toddler.
Back to the insults? That's weak. Maybe you've never experiences anything truly horrible in your life. Good for you! Bad for you for forgetting about the rest of us though, really, that's actually pretty rude. You're reinforcing the notion that the only way christians can get out of the paradox is by becoming very, very ignorant.
Imagine a young child that painfully dies of cancer. The parents ask: How could god let that happen? How can he be all powerful and not save our sweet child from all this unnecessary pain?
What would you answer them?
the premise of the abrahamic god says he is
The premise written from the perspective of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds, yes.
Back to the insults?
If you've ever dealt with a toddler before, this is exactly how they behave. A great screaming and stomping and flailing if they can't get what they want right this instant. Is the existence of a loving god refuted by a screaming toddler? Or are humans themselves expected to show any degree of stoicism in moments of adversity?
Does love mean the total absence of discomfort? How is that even possible when love itself is a tumultuous experience?
Imagine a young child that painfully dies of cancer. The parents ask: How could god let that happen? How can he be all powerful and not save our sweet child from all this unnecessary pain?
You could address it biologically. The child could only be born thanks to the mechanisms of life that perpetrated the cancer. This is a cycle of life and we take the good with the bad, because that's how our mortal forms function.
You could address it medically. Yes, the cancer was painful, but the child was lucky enough to be born into a world of opioids and physicians skillful enough to ease them through the worst of it. This proves we have the tools we need even in the face of misfortune.
You could answer by saying this you had this rare happy moment together, that the child's time on this earth was a blessing and the opportunity to be with that child was a blessing. That we all live and die, and to spend your last moments surrounded by loved ones is by far one of the better ways to leave the world. The pain you feel now is just the reflection of the love you had, and that this love is only possible in a world with a loving god at its center.
You could say that this is a call to action to make the world a better place for other children and parents. That everyone should enjoy the kind of love and care you showered upon your sick child. And so you're going to find other sick children in need of care and care for them as you cared for your own.
Lots of ways to approach this tragedy that don't boil down to "God must be evil, because something bad happened to us."
The premise written from the perspective of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds, yes.
Which is precisely what the Epicurean paradox is about.
Mate I'm sorry but if you still don't understand what the paradox says in the first place this is a waste of time. Obviously you want to talk about something that hast nothing to do with the paradox itself. I'll leave you to it.
Which is precisely what the Epicurean paradox is about.
The paradox assumes a much more substantive understanding of philosophy in its axioms.
Mate I’m sorry but if you still don’t understand what the paradox says
Right back at you.
The paradox assumes a much more substantive understanding of philosophy in its axioms.
How is that an counterargument? Epicurus says: Those axioms create a paradox, they must be wrong. You're saying: Yeah well your axioms are too substantive. You are agreeing that the three premises can't be true. Everything else you've talked about was simply missing the point.
The Epicurean paradox does nothing else than to discuss if the premises as phrased can be true. If you talk about an idea outside those premises you've already missed the mark.
How is that an counterargument?
The Epicurian rebuttal to the Bronze Age understanding of omniscience can be resolved by asserting "God is less omniscient than we thought". That's it. And there are plenty of readings of Old Testament that imply the Abrahamic God isn't perfectly omniscient. Hell, the Garden of Eden myth asserts God isn't perfectly omniscient.
The Epicurean paradox does nothing else than to discuss if the premises as phrased can be true.
It asserts a paradox of infinities, rather than a non-existence of God.
It asserts a paradox of infinities, rather than a non-existence of God.
It never attempted to prove non-existence. This is what you misunderstood from the beginning.