If God exists, than why...

[ShadowLAnce]

By the way your quote is by David Hume, not Epicurus. Epicurus said something along those lines though. I forget exactly what but it ends with "therefore god does not exist"

[The Envenomed Kiss]

Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous


A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence


The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one


I have written on all sorts of subjects . . . yet I have no enemies; except indeed all the Whigs, all the Tories, and all the Christians.


The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy


The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to

David Hume said all these things... but not what is in my signature. ;)

[ASYLUM101]

http://www.google.com/search?q=Is+God+willing+to+prevent+evil+but+not+ab le%3F+Then+he+is+not+omnipotent.+Is+he+able%2C+but +not+willing%3F+Then+he+is+malevolent.+Is+he+both+ able+and+willing%3F+Then+whence+cometh+evil%3F+Is+ he+neither+able+nor+willing%3F+Then+why+call+him+G od%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Google never lies.

[lufe]

Funny is that some people (including philosophers) seems to believe that God is some kind of older brother, ready to step up and fix all the crap that they do.

If that was the case, why should we exist? If you can do whatever crap you want and some kind of benevolent God will come up and fix your sh*t for you, well, you'll learn nothing. Better never be born then.

Second problem on that thought is, if God is everything, that does include evil too. God can't be outside evil - since everything is part from God. Again, there's the wrong understanding that God is some kind of nanny that will come up and fix baby's crap when the diaper is dirty.

God, by definition, MADE good and evil, so God must know what he was doing and why. So basically, Epicurus was just a crying baby, hoping for a nanny God.

Then there's the problem of what is good and what is evil - but I won't even go into that, since it will get complicated.

[ShadowLAnce]

David Hume wrote a translation of what Epicurus, which is your quote. See "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779".

Epicurus has been translated a few different ways, your sig is by David Hume

Epicurus:
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

Another shorter translation (and probably summary):
"God is all-powerful.
God is perfectly good.
Evil exists.
If God exists, there would be no evil.
Therefore God does not exist."

[yerkyerk]

Well; if you cannot choose to do evil, how can you choose to do good? The choice for evil is necessary. God didn't create evil, he created possibilities. I'm not sure if God is ever described in the bible as 'good'. He is at least described as loving and righteous though, which are universally considered as good traits. For love, you need choice.

Sorry, heh, as admin I really shouldn't encourage the off-topic debating.

[yerkyerk]

So, to keep other threads on-topic, I've created this one.

Let's have a debate about some inconsistencies there are when matching a higher being with real life.
Not about religion, not about wether god exists or not, nor proof or evidence of a higher power, but rather a theoretical discussion. So, no relibashing or preaching in this topic.

The questions that we'll discuss can be formulated as follows;
If God exist, than why...?

In this case:
If God is all-powerful and loving, than why is there evil?

[ward_rb]

the way i look at it is, if you have the power to stop evil but choose not to, then you are evil yourself.

if there is a sentient higher power that can stop evil, but chooses not to, then it is evil and not worthy of worship.

baby murderers, child rapists, nazi death camps, etc.... is something that allows these to exist (for any reason) worthy of worship in your opinion? if so i think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and evaluate your "faith".

[yerkyerk]

Can good exist without the possibility of choosing evil?
Can love exist without having a choice?
If God would intervene each time evil was done (or contemplated) - would there really be a choice?

[ward_rb]

good can exist as long as there is bad. evil is not necessary for good.

im not saying that a god should force the world to be all sunshine and butterflies, but yknow....stop the mom suffering from postpartum from drowning her children, stop hitler from nearly wiping out an entire race of people. i dont think thats too much to ask from someone who has the power to create the entire universe.

and if it exists and is willing to let such horrendous acts happen, then it does not even deserve respect let alone worship.

[kabooz]

can good exist without the counterpart "evil" ?

A: yes and no , good as we percieve it is weighted as the opposite of evil but that is not entirely true.

if you look at it mathematical 0 would be neutral +100 would be considered "good" and -100 would be evil
so more good would just be less evil.. or more "empathy" but it works like that in theory alone

if you would not help if someone is in relative need of help you would be neither evil nor good (0) neutral moraly questionable but neutral

if you witness "evil" on the other hand and choose not to go up against it you would be considered evil, since ignorance is effectively the same as passive approval and approving evil is evil in it self
for good to be a distinct alignment the doesn't need to be evil just any other alignment so good and neutral would be enough

good would be considered helping
essential one can see good or bad as the relation between what you can gain and what the other parties gain through your actions
if you gain and nobody looses it would be considered neutral but if you gain and others loose something in return for your action then the action in it self would be evil
if you gain nothing but others gain from your action then the action in it self is good even more so if you loose and others gain

this all is very much true but very theoretical since :

1.to make the math work you would need to know exactly what the other parties consider as "loss" or "gain"

2. in reality there are many factors in the equation not just one and every factor is weighted different by every party

evil doesn't need to be !

in this case if "god" would exist (christian for this example) and he/she/it is all powerful then this "god" would be EVIL!
since there is evil when there doesn't need to be and god as he/she/it is all powerful would have the power to extinct evil (not the actions, the will to do evil)

with love it's the same as with "good" since you don't need to hate you can just not feel love (for one person)

[ikpt]

He is at least described as loving and righteous though, which are universally considered as good traits. For love, you need choice.

How do you define 'love'? I've always heard love described as an emotion, and you don't get to choose your emotions. You can choose your actions based on those emotions, but who chooses to be angry? Or to feel betrayed? Or to feel sadness? Emotions are triggered, not chosen.

At least by my understanding of the term 'love', that is.

[kabooz]

love is an emotion.

however emotions and reflexes controlling and understanding is what we call to grow up

that and the physical "growing up" is becoming an adult in a "nutshell"

so while you could technically "control" you emotions like anger and love completely it would be very stressful and harmful to body and mind.

also you are thinking "in the box" when you apply the thought of a hypothetical "world" you can ask yourself if there could be a world without "hate" in general .

(you could also think about worlds without love in general which would maybe make some good movies^^, in Lexx (the Darkzone) season 3 there are twin planets Water & Fire which are to some extent ideas in this direction^^)

[yerkyerk]

How do you define 'love'? I've always heard love described as an emotion, and you don't get to choose your emotions. You can choose your actions based on those emotions, but who chooses to be angry? Or to feel betrayed? Or to feel sadness? Emotions are triggered, not chosen.
Love, as in the bible, is defined as something you can actively persuade. It's a proverb. You can choose to love people and by your acts, you express this love.

I believe this is the kind of love we're speaking about when referrring to 'god is loving'. Not the chemical based sticky, squishy one we always see in the movies, nor the love for chocolate or that kind of thing.

It's probably because the world love has several meanings. If you say you love your friend, I assume it's quite something different than when you say I love pie.


for good to be a distinct alignment the doesn't need to be evil just any other alignment so good and neutral would be enough
Paradise, as in the bible, could be considered as neutral I guess. Afaik, there was no knowledge of good and bad before that. But, the choice was made to go against god (e.g. ignore his one restriction by eating from the tree) and thus evil was born into humanity. By men, nonetheless.

Whereas you could use a weighing model to show that your good deeds exceed your evil deeds, it should be clear that evil can only exist because we allow it.


im not saying that a god should force the world to be all sunshine and butterflies, but yknow....stop the mom suffering from postpartum from drowning her children, stop hitler from nearly wiping out an entire race of people. i dont think thats too much to ask from someone who has the power to create the entire universe.
Well, it's really harsh to say, but where should the line be drawn than?

We have the ability to give a lot of love; in turn, we have the ability to give a lot of hate. There are also the theresa's and ghandi's. Without risking the hitlers and stalins, I can't see how this would be possible.

[ShadowLAnce]

Wasn't going to get in on this since I was just clarifying a quote, but it turned out to be a good discussion :) Wanted to contribute a bit with what started the discussion in mind.

While it's true that evil and suffering can inspire good in people, it sounds like this is more about free will. There is a whole line of thinking that evil can and should be used to inspire good in people, but I'm hoping that's not what you're talking about.

It's kind of a ridiculous question to pose "where should the line be drawn?" when any kind of line would be better than no line. A line that stopped genocide would be perfectly acceptable.

But the issue of free will is a tougher one, since it's so hard to pin down. I think everyone would agree that free will is a good thing, and then disagree on how much its worth. Many people would say, as you seem to be implying, that free will is worth anything, even the "Hitlers and Stalins". That's a different argument.

It's important, because if God really is all-powerful, He could snap his fingers and erase all evil from men's hearts. No desire to rape and dismember children, no desire to use starvation as a weapon against their own population, no desire to commit cruelty and evil. Which is the issue the first quote mentions. If God has the power to do that, and doesn't, then why not? How is He not wicked? If God doesn't have the power to do that, then you're admitting he is not all-powerful and it's hard to believe He created the universe, if he can't influence the hearts and minds of a tiny speck of organic mater called Mankind.

There's nothing to say that by reducing our desire to commit evil that would also reduce our desire to do good, especially if God is as powerful as said. But there's no doubt that that kind of meddling would erase our free will, right?

Sort of. There's nothing that says God would have to step in and force us to not commit evil, removing sadistic and merciless urges would be enough to make all "evil" occurances become of circumstance; such as starvation, sickness, homelessness, etc., of which there still could be good people rising up (Theresas and Gandhis) to help. We would still have a choice to commit good or evil (free will), but not the desire to commit atrocities as Somalia, Darfur, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Sudan, Bosnia, etc. etc. etc.

If that's not possible to do, if God doesn't have the power to erase the desire to commit evil because we created that ourselves (even though we were created in His image, so the tendency to create that desire is allowed and even intentional), then the next question is what does He have the power to do?

If He doesn't want to, because we "need to learn how to not desire evil on our own", or because "forcing us to not think about evil deeds means there would be no good people rising above the rest", the obvious next question is: why? If He has the power, but doesn't, is He not just as evil as a man who did the same thing? If a child is about to drown, and a man stands by and watches, because "the child should learn to swim on its own", he would be universally seen as evil, no matter how loud his cries of "protecting free will" and "the child should learn for itself, I shouldn't step in", the bottom line would be that he stood by watching the child drown when it was in his power to save it. It’s irrelevant if the child ended up saving itself.

I think most people's desire to see God as standing by with His own plan and wanting us to "sort it out ourselves" don't want to think about the possibility that God could make things better, because it immediately raises the question: then why doesn't He? Which is Epicurus' point.

On the other hand, if free will is so important that it is worth anything, that raises a different discussion on why free will is so important.

[The Envenomed Kiss]

The failure of logic here is that (God) didn't invent good and evil.

Man did.


Also ShadowLance: Your supposed "Original" contains a word that did not exist in Hellenistic Greece. Are you sure you don't have the two mixed up? ;)

[ShadowLAnce]

It's just a different translation. Obviously the original would be a bunch of Greek.

And God invented us.

[Impulsand]

Well, TEK, you beat me to it.

I'd word it a bit differently, something like: Man defined what "good" and "evil" are from his position. Words attached to an impression of how something affects a person.

[ShadowLAnce]

So you're saying that our idea of evil, such as murdering thousands of children, is not god's idea of evil, because we defined evil? God's definition of evil doesn't exist or is different?

And even so, God created us. To say that our definition of evil is "out of his hands" is the same as saying he's not powerful enough to change it

[Impulsand]

The only thing I disagree with of your post is that "god created us."

The rest, I can live with; and as a qualifier - Given this line of thought, god's definition of evil does not exist. In my context, that is.

[ShadowLAnce]

Well if God didn't create us, and we cause "evil", which is evil only to our own definition, then there's no reason for God to stop us from doing "evil" other than we wish He would. Since suffering and pain are just in our definition, not His.

Possible, and lines up well with empirical evidence. Is this the "clockwork universe" idea? Deism I think?

[Impulsand]

Well it certainly lets the purported "supreme being" off the hook for things; and it's about as easily justified for reasoning and answers as the application of the biblical "free will" is.

Something odd about looking up "Clockwork Universe" and "Deism" is that Deism does not mention the Clockwork Universe but the Clockwork Universe mentions Deism.

Anyhow, the understanding of what your own beliefs are with regards to god existing and in what form leads to a few possible conclusions (at least I think so):

A - God does not exist
B - God exists but not as previously envisioned or believed in the face of logical reasoning. (Not a dig, I just could't think of another more appropriate way of putting this).
C - God exists as I understand my beliefs and this logic is wrong. (which is a kind of underlying basis for faith, as in "I believe this, why can't that be correct for me?")


Possibly more to come, but not at the moment...

[ShadowLAnce]

That is odd, I get those two mixed up. Thought Deists believed in a clockwork universe. Never looked into it enough

To be clear, I never mentioned my own beliefs, just the Epicurus Paradox. Not sure if that's what you meant by "your own beliefs" or if you were speaking generally.

And could you clarify C? Is that the faith argument where you should believe without evidence? Not trying to attack it, it's a fair option if that's what you meant.

[Impulsand]

Yes, just substitute "ones" for "your".

Billy Connolly once said, during a show, 'If a man believes in god, then who am I to tell him he's wrong?' or something similar. I can think of a few contexts to apply this to. That's my clarification for point C.

The clockwork universe, as I understand it from limited reading, is the basis for Deism. At least that's what I got.

[ShadowLAnce]

Love Billy Connolly, so even if I wanted to I couldn't bring myself to disagree with that :)