A cool guide to Epicurean paradox
A cool guide to Epicurean paradox
You're viewing a single thread.
This presupposes that "evil" exists as a universal concept that a god is bound, versus a god that exists outside of concepts of morality.
It doesn't. What it simply presupposes that if God participates or allows it, that puts god in the "not all good" category
If God exists withtout morality, god cannot be all good to us
If a god exists, then it could reasonably be believed (without evidence, since there is no evidence for any god at all) that god is defining morality for us, rather than defining morality in regards to themselves. You could likewise argue that if it's the will of god, then it must be good, and if it's not the will of god, then it's not good. So children getting cancer? That's clearly god's will, and is therefore good.
If a god exists, then it could reasonably be believed (without evidence, since there is no evidence for any god at all) that god is defining morality for us, rather than defining morality in regards to themselves.
Absolutely, and this is the frame of reference for the paradox. When, in the paradox parameters, we say "god cannot be all-good" what we are saying is "god cannot be all good as we understand it and as the Church is pitching him"
You could likewise argue that if it’s the will of god, then it must be good, and if it’s not the will of god, then it’s not good. So children getting cancer? That’s clearly god’s will, and is therefore good.
That is not a valid argument IMO, you are now redefining what is good or bad, not on the merits of the act or the consequences it carries, but by who executes it. You are deriving a quality from a source not intended to convey it. Like saying "if Ford made this car, it must be fast"
you are now redefining what is good or bad, not on the merits of the act or the consequences it carries, but by who executes it.
That's a core Christian ideology though. They define god as being the source of everything that is good. Therefore, if god wills it, then regardless of how awful a thing seems, it must definitionally be good. Everything is contextual to the will of god. It's a very simplistic view of morality (as is the idea that morality is universal and unchanging).
That’s a core Christian ideology though
Well considering this is not based on evidence or logic, I think it's safe to dismiss from this argument.
To clarify, not attacking the validity of your point, I am attacking the "solution" presented here by the Church. Basically, "if we say it's good you must take my word for it"... nope
So children getting cancer? That’s clearly god’s will, and is therefore good.
This answer to the Epicurean paradox is nothing but semantics. Let's just rephrase the question:
- Can god be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving by human standards?
--> No. It creates a paradox. So, using human words and human concepts, god cannot possibly be all three things. Therefore, by human standards, we cannot expect love, omniscience, and omnipotence from him. That's all the paradox proves.
It's not a "gotcha" to claim that there might be other standards, which are meaningless to us, but somehow mean something equivalent than the concepts we already have words for. Those foreign concepts have obviously nothing to do with what we humans call power, knowledge, and love. They don't mean anything and there's literally no way to fill them with meaning either, since they are by definition independent of human concepts.
Claiming that god is something, but this something cannot be understood, is in all consequence an empty claim without any meaning. Easy to make, but at the end of the day says and proves nothing.
The god that gave His faithful the ten commandments and has His church promise heaven or hell depending on behavior exists outside of morality ? He literally defines it.
He/it creates and defines concepts of morality, but may not be a part of that system, or bound by those definitions. If we're imagining a being of some kind that is (nominally) omnipotent and omnipresent, the I don't see how we could realistically apply morality based on a mortal existence to it. How could you apply, for instance, a rule that says "don't murder" to a thing that is incapable of death in any way that we would understand it?
I'm absolutely not a theist, but I think that exercises like this are ultimately futile. When I was a believer, this kind of mental exercise wouldn't have made much of a dent in my belief. The nature of evil has been a study point for religious scholars for >2000 years, and mostly people ahve shrugged and said that they don't understand, but they have faith, and that's good enough. OTOH, I'm a sample size of one, so maybe there are people that would see this argument and question how rational their belief was.
The question whether god may understand or be bound by moral standards is irrelevant though. Apparently he doesn't act on it. Either he doesn't care enough to do or he can't.
Of course one can imagine god in a way that's compatible with our world - for example an evil god, a god that doesn't care about humans, a god that has no relationship with the world, or a god that's incapable of interference with it. Epicurus doesn't say god doesn't exist, merely the (formerly prevalent) idea of an all loving, all knowing, omnipotent creator god. That one is apparently impossible and therefore most likely doesn't exist.
And going one step further we can say: Well okay, maybe god doesn't exist, but apparently not in a way that's relevant to this world. At least not beyond the idea itself. There is no tangible influence of god in this life - he doesn't interfer (for whatever reason). And since the formerly prevalent idea of god is obviously wrong it's hard to say if humans were ever justified in thinking we know something about god at all. (Would be a feat anyway, giving the fact that god apparently doesn't interfer with our reality.) This however leaves very little room to justify or explain the need for religion.
When I was a believer this was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. I understood that we know nothing of god, cannot know anything of god, and cannot claim to say he does exist - and that religion therefore made no sense. Back then I called myself an agnostic, taking into account the possibility that, as unlikely as it might me, god could yet exist in some form. Today I don't even believe that. The term "god" stems from a tradition of groundless and increasingly refuted attributions, and there's just as much reason to assume the existence of such a concept as every other work of fiction out there. If you'd experience the world without the predenomination of religion you wouldn't arrive at anything close to their idea of a god in the first place. This was my conclusion from the Epicurean paradox.
So, n=2, now we have a tie.
(Exercise like this might feel futile to you - I find them immensely interesting.)
How could you apply, for instance, a rule that says "don't murder" to a thing that is incapable of death in any way that we would understand it?
What??!? Murdering is about ending other's lives. If I were immortal, how does that prevent me from killing someone else who is mortal???
It's ok to have faith which literally means you believe in something without a shred of evidence (or worse, evidence to the contrary). But again the epicurean paradox is not about the existence of god, is about defining his character
The actual "answer", which is no answer at all, for this paradox is "god acts in mysterious ways". That has been the cop out all religions have come up with
Murdering is about ending other’s lives.
But murder is also something that really only applies to rough equals; you wouldn't call it murder to squish a mosquito. 'Don't murder' is fundamentally a golden rule issue; you don't want it done to you, so you shouldn't do it to other people. If you can't die, then that principle breaks down. (Unless there are other gods, and 'death' means something different to them? I think that's getting into fantasy even more than religion usually does.)
But murder is also something that really only applies to rough equals;
Why?
you wouldn’t call it murder to squish a mosquito
I wouldn't because killing animals is not in the definition of murder, but certainly PETA people would call me a murdered for simply eating a cow. I get there is nuance in the language but ending a life doesn't really have much to do with me having a life as well.
‘Don’t murder’ is fundamentally a golden rule issue; you don’t want it done to you, so you shouldn’t do it to other people
You are conflating these 2; I see no relationship with these 2 concepts. I have never made a movie yet I have pirated some, do you imply I couldn't possibly have pirated a movie since I do not have my own movie or similar intellectual property to be pirated from me?. The 10 commandments includes: "You shall not commit adultery." If I am single, does that mean I am exempt?
I wouldn’t because killing animals is not in the definition of murder,
The definition of murder also doesn't include a god killing another god.
You are conflating these 2; I see no relationship with these 2 concepts.
You shouldn't pirate because, if you had intellectual property, you would not want it to be stolen. You should not commit adultery because if you were in a relationship, you would not want your partner to cheat on you. If a god can not die at all, then telling a god that killing is bad because they wouldn't want to be killed simply isn't going to be meaningful.
The definition of murder also doesn’t include a god killing another god.
which, nobody mentioned this far?... you can't make a claim and then attack it to justify your point. That is the definition of a strawman argument
If a god can not die at all, then telling a god that killing is bad because they wouldn’t want to be killed simply isn’t going to be meaningful.
So, according to you, this means an immortal god would not even understand why killing is bad? Sorry but I do not see the correlation here. Assuming your point for a moment, then none of the commandments hold any meaning to god since I cannot steal, harm or cheat an all-powerful entity.
In Christianity there are several explicit or implicit definitions of good and evil and how their God judges them based on that. Therefore, concepts of morality exist in that context.
Yes, this. This supposes that either:
A. There is the existence good and evil that supersedes the authority of God ( which means God cannot be sovereign over morality )
B. I define good and evil and then judge "god" based on my definition ( which from a moral standpoint would actually make me god )
I suspect that this really isn't a paradox for most people because they either:
A. Look at the world and see horrible things they don't like and then want to judge God for them ( with what authority ? )
B. They don't believe in God to begin with but like to use this chart to re-enforce their belief that they are logically correct.
A God that literally defines good and evil by his existence ( I AM ) breaks this chart.
A God that literally defines good and evil by his existence ( I AM ) breaks this chart.
Pretending the epicurean paradox is about the existence of god is a strawman
The entire thing is about the qualities in the character of god. Is god all knowing, all powerful and all god as he is sold to us by the Church?
Also, an even bigger strawman and circular logic to boot is your argument about being unable to "judge" god (or the expectation of his behaviour)
The concept of judging you are using seems to be that or passing sentencing. Anyone can evaluate with simple logic without being a figure of authority.
If I see a person kicking a freightened dog, I don't need to be any authority over that person to reach the conclusion, aka "judge", they are doing something wrong
see horrible things they don’t like and then want to judge God for them
I wonder if there are things you'd judge god for. Is there suffering so great that you would ask "how can he let that happen"? Or is your god compatible with even the worst realities imaginable?
If the former, all we're debating is if the suffering prevalent in our world is great enough to justify the question. And I'd personally argue if you're not entirely ignorant to the suffering of your fellow human beings it definitely is.
If the latter, the categories of "good" and "bad" become completely meaningless. The term "god" becomes meaningless. At this point there's no connection between our reality and whatever idea we might have of a divine power, since the two do not interfere. He is just an idea with no tangible effect on this world, I am irrelevant to him, he is irrelevant to me. The question of his existence becomes pointless.
I wonder if there are things you’d judge god for.
I often catch myself trying to do just that, and I have to humble myself and remember that I don't even have the authority to judge other humans let alone God. It is my observation that human beings are incredibly arrogant, myself included. We are tiny specks of dust on a tiny planet that we have barely explored outside of, and we want to declare ourselves masters of the universe and holders of truth. This is a characteristic that I have observed in myself and in others that I believe goes all the way back to the temptation in Genesis 3: "ye shall be as gods". It is in my nature to want to call the shots and decide what is right and wrong and I see myself unconsciously try to slide into that mindset on a regular basis.
Is there suffering so great that you would ask “how can he let that happen”?
This is a separate question. There is a big difference between judging God in my heart and deciding that He is wrong for allowing the suffering I am experiencing or observing, and asking why he is allowing it; Asking: "how can you let things like this happen?" "This seems to be against what I understand your nature to be?" "How can you be who you say you are and allow this?" is very different from saying, "You are wrong and I hate you for it.". The former are genuine questions spurred by a conflict between what I understand about his nature and what I perceive from my experience. The entire book of Job revolves around these very questions and offers some interesting insights.
Or is your god compatible with even the worst realities imaginable?
God isn't my god. He isn't whatever I want him to be, if that were the case, I would never find myself in conflict with him. He is what he is. He is I AM.
Asking: “how can you let things like this happen?” “This seems to be against what I understand your nature to be?” “How can you be who you say you are and allow this?” is very different from saying, “You are wrong and I hate you for it.”.
The Epicurean paradox asks neither. It asks: Wait a minute - if what I think to know about you makes no sense given my reality, how can what I know about you be true?
God isn’t my god. He isn’t whatever I want him to be, if that were the case, I would never find myself in conflict with him. He is what he is. He is I AM.
If god is indeed compatible with even the worst realities imaginable, what reason do we have to believe in him in the first place? His existence (or non existence) doesn't seem to make any difference then. Of course I understand that if you simply believe he exists nothing will ever convince you otherwise (and I wouldn't want to convince you either), but coming from my perspective (someone who once was christian, is today atheist) this means that god has no explanatory value whatsoever. Even if he existed, I wouldn't have to (and indeed don't) care for him. Even if he existed, his idea of what's wrong and what's right apparently has nothing to do with what I think. He could just as well be an immortal alien on mars counting the grains of sand, because that's what he deems good, and he'd be equally relevant to me. If we cannot know anything about him, there's no reason to assume anything either. Then he is, in all effect, nothing.
From a religious perspective: Sure, logic will never disprove your faith, I get that. But in any other case, unless we start the thinking exercise on the premise that god exists, all the logical indicators point to the opposite.