Epicurean Paradox.

[lightgigantic]

Well the obvious point of rebuttal is how is it possible fo free will to exist without the possability of making the right and wrong decisions - in other words is the ultimate relationship between god and the living entity one where god is the servant and must eternally wrestle hammers out of our hands so that we don't perform the "evil" of hitting ourselves in the head in order to prove that he is good, or is the experience of temporary suffering in the material world sufficient to socialize us around the proper foundations of eternal spiritual life evidence of his goodness?

 

[madanthonywayne]

is the experience of temporary suffering in the material world sufficient to socialize us around the proper foundations of eternal spiritual life evidence of his goodness?

Well said. I made the same argument in a different thread, but didn't say it as well.

 

[Prince_James]

See my "Argument from Winter Jackets" for a point on whether God could reasonably want us to "learn to be good".

Also note: If learning to be good is good, then God lacks a perfection, for he is held to be innately good.

 

[lightgigantic]

See my "Argument from Winter Jackets" for a point on whether God could reasonably want us to "learn to be good".

Also note: If learning to be good is good, then God lacks a perfection, for he is held to be innately good.

Its not so much about teaching us to be good but enabling us to forget being stupid

 

[lightgigantic]

I never saw the point, to worship a god, except to suppose that the god knows better than we do, beyond our present comprehension.

As soon as they presume to second guess the god it is idolatry that they question, not theism.

--- Ron.

I guess it stems from a supriority complex that got us innvolved in the whole thing of material life to begin with "OK we will accept god but only if he just the same or perhaps a little bit better than us"

Who would want to worship a personality who fits such a job description?

 

[baumgarten]

Is good an innate condition of the universe, or can it only be recognized when contrasted with something that is not good?

 

[Prince_James]

perplexity:

"I don't see the problem, nor on what basis one would reasonably presume to judge "perfection"."

The logically highest expression of an attribute that admits, or is purported to admit, of such.

"How else should a god choose to amuse herself?"

Amusement entails a want. A perfect being cannot want.

LightGigantic:

"Its not so much about teaching us to be good but enabling us to forget being stupid"

Then if it is held that learning to be not be stupid is good, then God who has always been not-stupid, lacks the perfection of being made excellent.

Baumgarten:

"Is good an innate condition of the universe, or can it only be recognized when contrasted with something that is not good?"

In so much as we admit of neutral moral states, or "less than opitimal, but still good" moral states, we presume that the scale needn't switch to "absolute evil" in order to be satisfied for morality. The only difference is that good would not be held to be as extremely beneficial, as neutrality is not as offensive as evil.

 

[madanthonywayne]

On a few occasions when extremely depressed I prayed to God for help, and the very next day the Jehovah's Witnesses came to knock at my door.
Seriously, that actually happened.
For the first couple of times I put it down to coincidence but then I saw the joke:
This was God's way, in effect, to tell me to be an atheist, that I should have been old enough to look after myself,
so from then on that is how I played it.
--- Ron.

One day I was on the way to school driving about sixty miles an hour on an expressway. I hit a patch of ice and began spinning around. I somehow managed to stay on the road, despite the fact that this part of the road had a steep curve, I also avoided hitting any other vehicles. I came to rest with a gentle bump against an overpass. Relieved, I turned around to look at the overpass and saw the words right above where my vehicle had made a miraculously gentle stop, "Trust Jesus".

 

[baumgarten]

Baumgarten:

"Is good an innate condition of the universe, or can it only be recognized when contrasted with something that is not good?"

In so much as we admit of neutral moral states, or "less than opitimal, but still good" moral states, we presume that the scale needn't switch to "absolute evil" in order to be satisfied for morality. The only difference is that good would not be held to be as extremely beneficial, as neutrality is not as offensive as evil.

But what is "absolute evil?" If there only existed a relatively "neutral" (as compared to our current concept of evil) level of morality at the extreme below good, then would we still see it as neutral? If we could not conceive of a morality less than this neutral level, would we then not see it as the absolute worst possible? This could be the case now, and we would not know it.

 

[swivel]

Oh, and to show that free-will and God are not incompatible:

1. God is perfectly good.
2. God is perfectly free.
3. Thus perfect goodness and perfect freedom are not incompatible.

That has to be the weakest argument of all time. Nothing follows from your givens, except that you have given them.

How about:

1. God loves pigs.
2. God loves things that can fly.
3. Thus pigs can fly.

You have no middle term, and yet you are treating your formulation as if it is a syllogism of sorts. It isn't. It is two facts that you made up, followed by another statement that combines and sums of those facts, with no clue as to how you logically got from the former to the latter.

Why don't you solve another conundrum by saying:

1. God can do all things
2. God is not evil
3. Thus there is no paradox, God is omnipotent AND benevolent.

Paradox solved, eh? :bugeye:

 

[S.A.M.]

On a few occasions when extremely depressed I prayed to God for help, and the very next day the Jehovah's Witnesses came to knock at my door.
Seriously, that actually happened.
For the first couple of times I put it down to coincidence but then I saw the joke:
This was God's way, in effect, to tell me to be an atheist, that I should have been old enough to look after myself,
so from then on that is how I played it.

--- Ron.

That is how I see it too.

I fail to see why we cannot, as rational humans be responsible for our own actions, without looking for someone else to take responsibility and magically solve all the problems we create or ignore.

 

[lightgigantic]

"Its not so much about teaching us to be good but enabling us to forget being stupid"

Then if it is held that learning to be not be stupid is good, then God who has always been not-stupid, lacks the perfection of being made excellent.

But its not god that needs to learn it

SB 10.88.5: Lord Hari, however, has no connection with the material modes. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the all-seeing eternal witness, who is transcendental to material nature. One who worships Him becomes similarly free from the material modes.

The qualities of god (ie freedom from ignorance, or as said here, the modes of nature) are exhibited by the persons who take shelter of him -

Once again it is not so much about acquiring something through learning but of relinquishing something (a stupid outlook on life)

 

[lightgigantic]

That is how I see it too.

I fail to see why we cannot, as rational humans be responsible for our own actions, without looking for someone else to take responsibility and magically solve all the problems we create or ignore.

No matter how much we try and pretend that we are dull matter it never seems to be quite the case

 

[Prince_James]

baumgarten:

"But what is "absolute evil?" If there only existed a relatively "neutral" (as compared to our current concept of evil) level of morality at the extreme below good, then would we still see it as neutral? If we could not conceive of a morality less than this neutral level, would we then not see it as the absolute worst possible? This could be the case now, and we would not know it."

That is an intriguing point, actually. However, I would counter it through this consideration: Evil always has an aspect of making things worse than they would be, whereas neutrality is simply without it being particularly good and bad. If the character of the neutral moral object in question did not change, then its "not particularly good or bad" aspect would be retained.

swivel:

"That has to be the weakest argument of all time. Nothing follows from your givens, except that you have given them."

You did not realize that I took those ideas as axioms because they are used in the arguments of omnibenevolent theists. In essence: If God can have those things, then it stands to reason that freedom is not against pure good or the "argument from free will" to keep omnibenevolence is erroneous.

LightGigantic:

"But its not god that needs to learn it"

Then if such is good, then God is depriving something else of something good, which is evil.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"But its not god that needs to learn it"

Then if such is good, then God is depriving something else of something good, which is evil.

Your saying that you feel deprived of the opportunity to practice spiritual life -lol - on the contrary most atheists seem to complain that there is too much canvasing going on

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

"Your saying that you feel deprived of the opportunity to practice spiritual life -lol - on the contrary most atheists seem to complain that there is too much canvasing going on "

An amusing comment, actually, but yes, if it is supposed to be good, a perfectly good being must force one to participate in it, lest it not value goodness above all else.

perplexity:

"Do you think it is therefore reasonable to construe that proud people,
those who make a point of not wanting, would thereby attempt to be perfect?"

Considering the prideful consider themselves perfect and indeed, pride's aim is to be perfect, then the desire to have no wanting is indeed somewhat connected to this idea of perfection. Prideful people, of course, are evidently -not- perfect, but in so much as they are prideful, they both think they are, and attempt to be so. So yes, self-sufficiency does indeed seem to be an aspect of perfection. For does not all want imply a lack? And all lack an imperfection?

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"Your saying that you feel deprived of the opportunity to practice spiritual life -lol - on the contrary most atheists seem to complain that there is too much canvasing going on "

An amusing comment, actually, but yes, if it is supposed to be good, a perfectly good being must force one to participate in it, lest it not value goodness above all else.

well in one sense you are forced - like you are forced to suffer insatiable desires and die in the process of fulfilling them in the material world for as long as you don't participate in spiritual "goodness" - if that is not beating us with a stick to force us to do something I don't know what is - of course the level of force depends on the party being innvolved (namely their intelligence)- for instance a school teacher can achieve on e result merely by raising their eyebrows that a buffalo herdsman cannot achieve with a large stick and clods of dirt

 

[Kerry Dorsey]

Your translation of the quote is a newer one, and i think it's a bit skewed.
Here is an older translation, which I feel is closer to the original:

If god is willing to prevent evil but is not able, he is NOT omnipotent.
If he is able but not willing, he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing, then why does evil exist?
If he is neither able nor willing, then why should we call him God?

I'LL TAKE THEM IN REVERSE - because the last has the shortest reply:

#4) If "neither" able or willing? Answer: we should not call him god.

#3) If both? Answer: someone addressed why evil exists assuming you believe god is good; i disagree because I disbelieve in most versions of god. I believe if that type of God existed then evil would not exist. Therefore that sort of God does not exist.

Which leaves some implied questions:
#2) If he is able to prevent evil but not willing, he is malevolent.
Q: is this a false assumtion. Maybe god is indifferent. Maybe God enjoys seeing what we do with free will. (Many points can be argued on "maybe" issues.)
which leads to Q: SO WHY SHOULD WE WORSHIP HIM? Answer: we should not! Or if we do worship "it", we should not assume God is always a Benevolent being, or that it's always omnipotent, or even assume that it is a "him".

#1) If he is willing but is not able, he is NOT omnipotent.
Q: So why do most religions insist God is omnipotent, and demand obedience to the point of putting everyone in religious bondage. If it is wrong for a man to have slaves then it is wrong for a god (or a church). When religions insist "God can do no wrong",(and by implication their Church can do no wrong) maybe it's because THEY want power, and THEY want slaves. Why do religious leaders howl about their authority so long and loud, and demand that everyone pretends the church knows what God is thinking.
THE ANSWER IS: they have no right, and we should not buy into it. (For those who are Christian -somewhere in your bible it says something about hiding in a closet to pray rather than making a public spectacle of yourself.) A good idea in those writings does not prove the Church is omnipotent, nor does it prove God is.
Most religous problems come from those who use GOD as a bogeyman - to gain earthly power. Solution: deny them the power.
I will leave you with another quote:

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind,
making it unfit for any noble enterprise or expanded prospect.
– James Madison

 

[SnakeLord]

how is it possible fo free will to exist without the possability of making the right and wrong decisions

Very easily lg, although it seems god just wasn't smart enough to figure it out.

There are some people right now that choose only to do good, to worship gods and to do all the things that please these beings. These people are using their free will.

There are some other people right now that choose to do bad, to ignore gods and to do whatever displeases these beings. These people are using their free will.


Solution: Just create the former people. You can't argue that they don't have free will, we've already established that they do - they used it to do good.

Don't create the latter people and you have a planet full of people with free will that choose to do good.

Problem solved. Free will exists, nobody does bad.

 

[Adstar]

"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"--Epicurus

Discuss.

This whole reasoning is dependant on the assumption that if God wanted to put an end to bad things He would do it immediately.

But what if for the greater good God was prepared to put up with bad things for a time until the greater Good would be fulfilled.

Where God is concerned the End does Justify the means.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days