Now this is an interesting riddle and it is commonly claimed that “freewill” is the answer, but isn’t God’s allowance and implication of freewill just an extension of the riddle rather than an answer?
I considered putting this in the freewill thread, but wanted to maintain emphasis towards the riddle itself.
If you take away evil from freewill, then it is no longer freewill. Therefore acceptance of freewill (which has the capacity of evil) is essentially the acceptance of evil. If God accepts freewill, then God accepts the capacity of evil contained within freewill. If God created freewill, then God created the capacity for evil. If God did not create freewill, then God is not omnipotent and we are falling right back into the riddle.
It seems to me that Epicurus’ riddle has yet to be answered. Freewill is not an answer, but merely an extension due to freewill containing the capacity for evil.
It is a good question but assumes very much. And free will is obviously one answer. But the true answer lies in the fact that there is existence or none. Either you exist with a range of choices - one of them to turn good to bad = evil - or you exist without the options.
When my son grew up, I was able and willing to protect him from all dangers, but it is clear that he would then have been dependant upon me. What kind of life would he have led if I had done that ?
Interesting answer Bob, Tolstoy alluded to something similiar in one of his novels. The problem of evil is one of the great problems plaguing the conventional notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. For as Epicurus points out, how could a God who knows about evil, is able to stop evil, and doesn’t want evil to occur, allow it to happen? I don’t think the concept of free will avoids the contradiction, i suspect that most theists will simply redefine their notion of God, possibly along lines aforementioned here.
I don’t think the riddle is assuming anything more than explanations for God which are assumptions in themselves.
As for “freewill,” I mentioned earlier that by God allowing freewill, then God is giving consent for evil because evil constitutes freewill. If you take evil out of freewill, then it is no longer freewill. Freewill is evil and good (or the capacity thereof). Once God accepts freewill, then God accepts the capacity for evil and good because that is the basis of freewill. To claim that God dispises evil, but accepts freewill is a contradiction because evil or the capacity for evil is contained within freewill itself.
We eventually find ourselves right back into the riddle.
i think that boethius solved this problem, and spinoza took it to new heights. here’s the thing, imagine you watch, from a distance, a man get up and begin walking on a path, while the sun goes up. you can tell that the sun will rise, this is because of the fixed laws of nature, and can also tell that the man will reach the end of the path. the sun is determinate, the man walking is not. you observing the man doesn’t mean you are controlling him, but you can tell where he will end up.
spinoza’s twist is that while all humans have this form of ‘free will’ there is no such thing as evil to god. it is what we term for events, people, objects that we percieve are unagreeable to us. but to god, we are clearly walking on a path, and to him nothing is bad.
so i think that epicurus’ problem can be solved by the realization that evil is relative, and to god it is non-existent. it doesn’t mean we have less free will, just that from the options presented to us there is none that god would consider as evil (b/c he isn’t).
i don’t see how the conflict remains. let me know if you do.
By saying that “there is no such thing as evil to god”, you are effectively rendering the ordinary adjectives that we are accustomed to employ in regard to god unintelligable, & which, among other things, are taken to render him “worthy of reverance”, & so on.
I understand your point that God is relative and I appreciate your opinion on this.
As I have pointed out in another thread, the notion that God is the ultimate creator and starting point of all then we have to consider where evil came into the picture which is what the riddle tries to consider. This is of course relative, but relative to common understandings about God in which claim God is the ultimate creator. The explanations relative to this ideal claim that God has nothing to do with evil at all and that cannot be. For us to even have the capacity for evil or to deviate from good (which is still “evil”), God had to give consent for it. We cannot claim that God doesn’t want evil then turn around and claim that God has nothing to do with evil at all. God had to at some point allow for us to deviate from good which God does with freewill. At this moment, evil was born. It would be impossible for evil to be unless God gave us the capacity to deviate from good. Allowing this capacity to deviate from good IS evil. To claim otherwise is just a continuation of the riddle which refutes itself.
To simplify my thought and perspective:
God is the ultimate origin of everything.
God can only create good.
Therefore God cannot create evil.
This is clearly a fallacy. If God can only create what is good, then evil should never be. For God to create the capacity to deviate from good is not GOOD. This is evil. People commonly disagree and start claiming “freewill,” but freewill in itself allows for the capacity to deviate from what is good. This is evil. If God created freewill, then God created evil because freewill is the capacity to deviate from good which is evil in itself.
do you know god? do you know the path, or the way that he absolutly intended for us? of course there are speculations, (i.e. be good, don’t steal, try to limit the amount of porn sites you visit on the Net, etc) but i would argue that one CANNOT possibly know exactly god’s plan. to deviate then, is further unknown to us. while we can assume that god certainly had no intention of letting the Holocaust occur, this is ultimatly only an assumption. this must be recognized and lead to the distinction that what we PERCIEVE as evil, because it deviates off the path of god, can only be our perception. it is not an absolute fact.
please note the assumption’s that i’m making; god exists, god intends us to do certain things. even given these, i think the above arguement still holds.
pascal’s wager,
i’m not sure what you are trying to say. please clarify.
Nothing is an “absolute fact” in relation to God. It is all assumption!
However, I am noting common religious themes which consider that God is all good and has nothing to do with evil. I am making my case within the structure of the argument that God cannot be evil, but is the ultimate origin. This, to me, is not possible. So the argument, to me, refutes itself.
I agree that one cannot possibly “know” God’s plan, however I am presenting the argument for those who “do know” and expanding it rather than just ignoring the flaws within such applications. Here are the flaws with the argument: Take them or leave them. If one wants to argue that God is the ultimate origin and is innocent of evil, then evil has to be accounted for at some point. To claim that God created freewill (which holds the capacity to deviate from good) is essentially the creation of evil, but you will notice how we ignore freewill and play with it trying to deemphasize that this is a creation of God. Evil was created with freewill. God created evil within the structure of the argument stating that God didn’t create evil. Evil is accounted for in freewill: a creation of God.
you’re right, it does refute itself. but there is one more distiction that i want to make. i think this arguement could have been refuted much earlier, and on a different level, if it was pointed out that for god to exist and to create things (i.e. humans) to act on account of an end, then god lacks perfection. this is because to act on account of an end means that you are striving to achieve something that you lack, or have an insufficient amount of. epicurius here is borrowing aristotle’s use of external causation. this assumption is the ultimate rout of the problem. which is why i think spinoza solves it
also, i recognize that you are assuming certain tennats of most major religions. i was just wondering if you think that perhaps it might be more philosophically fruitful to focus instead on rationalism rather than theology?
But I felt I was considering both theology AND rationalism. Is not the thesis of rationalism the origin of the idea? When we consider God, why should we not consider the origin of God ideas upon us? One of those ideas being that of “evil.”
I realize that I am intermingling the two, but I do that to point out that it is irrational to consider that God created the capacity of evil only to dispise it. Without theology, perhaps we would not even consider God. Now that we do consider God through theology, why consider God as an irrational madness that creates the capacity for evil only to reject it and punish it?
I do not have a problem with God being evil or even humankind creating evil; I do however see a huge flaw in claiming that we have no reason to credit the ultimate origin of all has no influence on the origin of evil. This origin had to begin somewhere. It is not simply “satan” because Satan had an origin. Only the one without an origin absorbs the blame. Surely if God can absorb the blame for all that is good, then it is certainly realistic to credit God with all that is evil. We are told we cannot do this, but there is no justification or rational argument to say we cannot. Everything has an origin except God according to the argument, then therefore all has to go through God to originate. Freewill is not a scapegoat, it is a poor excuse that still credits God with the origin of evil since God divised freewill with the capacity of evil.
no, i think philosophy came before theology – for the western tradition, at least. remember that prior to the presocratics, religion was dominated by the poets – greek mythology largely formed by homer and hesiod. it was the presocratics, who renounced these writings, that shifted the focus to the idea of monoism, etc. (see especially xenophanes, but even anaximander severly critisized the greek gods at the time). this in turn lead to plato and aristotle, whose ideas would be adopted in one form or another by most of the jeudeo-christian tradition (recall that the dark ages islam scholars had access to aristotle). so no, i think that by limiting the debate on theology by no way are you also tackling rationalism. especailly since early modern rationalism (i.e. 17& 18th cent) goes far beyond these early beginnings.
my point in previous posts is that most modern rationalism, that i’m awear of, would claim that the origin of ideas can be simply perceptions – idealism would spring out of this theory. so, while god is argued to be good, realize also that it is good only to our mind’s understanding, it is not a concrete fact. this can never be attained. while god, it is claimed, does exist, we can never be able to grasp the existence or what’s invovled in it. thus, we are in never a position to judge right or wrong – they are our labels that we devise. if they exist outside of ourselves, we cannot speculate that because we have yet to go beyond ourselves. like i said, i think the riddle only holds in theology which has a static view of god and metaphysics.
I like Kierkegaards concept of negative freedom. He said that freedom is experienced through anxiety(angst) in the face of extreme possibilities. For him, to stand at the ledge of a mountain and choose to jump if you wanted, was enough for him. Or to believe that God has taken up a physical human form, lived a life, and died on a cross, was utterly rediculous and absolutely absurd. I think what Kierkegaard wanted was certainty, and for that he would have traded his freewill. But at the same time, without freewill there is no passion or sacrifice, and belief in God in such a case is neither absurd nor rational…it is meaningless. Kierkegaard knew this very well.
To argue that a God exists, and then begin with these discussions and debates about the anthropocentric interpretations of what attributes a God and/or created universe might have; his/the moral inclinations or the possibility of freewill, for example, is really a waste of time.
What we really want to know is not whether or not God is all powerful and good, but how and why he would do it the way he has. I would quicker accept the existence of a God who was angry and vengeful, if I KNEW it, than accept the existence of a God whom could never be accepted by being KNOWN, was aware of this rule that he created, and expected humans to believe in his existence by way of faith regardless of how he has set the stage.
The only real belief in God is an act of absurdity, and if “He” exists, he knows this. Humans have a kind of spiritual immunity, I like to think. The irony is that God is at our mercy because he screwed up royally. He was, as Nietzsche suggested, drunk and clumsy.
yes, this is about right. very good de’trop. while to perfer the former to that latter, i see not how this determines the reality of the situation. that is, all we have is that leap, and this is certainly the closest we’ll come to god.
i think this implication does eliminate love and hate, or good and evil, as absolute forces either man-made or divine. does it exclude the existence of god? certainly excludes the existence of a personal one, doesn’t it? but i shouldn’t need to remind you that to abolsutly prove athesim is as absurd as prooving any other religion absolutly.
I will simplify my argument because I think using your example claiming that “evil” is relative, then we have to assume that “good” is just as relative. In my opinion, you cannot just seperate evil from good and put it on humanity without reason, then redefine good only for the sake and benefit of God.
Here is an analogy of my argument:
You make an apple pie from scratch, the apple pie ends up having sugar in it and this irritates you. Is it the apple pie’s fault or your fault that there is sugar in the pie (which YOU made from scratch) which goes against your preference?
God makes a universe from scratch, the universe ends up having evil in it and this irritates God. Is it the universe’s fault or God’s fault there is evil in the universe (which GOD made from scratch) which goes against God’s preference?
I don’t think the analogy will work, Enigma. You cannot equate the evil with the sugar here.
We could blame the sugary pie on bad directions, incorrect ingredient measurements, both of which would be out of your control. God, however, cannot create EVERYTHING and then create a particular thing with faults that are out of his control. Think about it, if there is such a thing as “evil” then it isn’t the universes fault, is it? It was God that allowed the possibility, therefore he takes full responsibility for every event that could ever possibly be. Or else he is not omnipotent, and he won’t qualify as a God.
Sure you can. If there are bad directions or incorrect ingredient measurements, can you still say that the PIE is to blame for it’s sugar content? LOL That’s silly, but that is what is done with evil in the universe. God created the universe from scratch, but the evil that is in this universe (which again GOD created from scratch) is only the universe’s fault.
It could be bad directions or incorrect ingredients, but the PIE and the UNIVERSE themselves are completely innocent of it’s ingredients. “WHO” followed bad directions? “WHO” put in the incorrect ingredients? This is God. Yet we blame the universe? God had to put the sugar (evil) in the pie (universe), yet we only blame the pie (universe) for having sugar (evil).
Enigma, I agree with you, God made a big mistake if he made the Universe as it is. I find it terribly irritating myself.
De’trop, you’re right, it’s fucking stupid to blame the pie for the irritation. If God was a better cook, he’d have tried the filling before he put it in the crust.
This is how I know God must be a man. He can’t bake for shit. God should have stuck to steaks and hot dogs.
I never stated that God made a “mistake.” I am merely applying a more logical option for evil being in the universe than it being a “mistake” of God or mankind. Perhaps evil isn’t a “mistake” at all and is part of the plan. It is my belief that for there to be evil, then it had to derive from what preceeded it. This shouldn’t come as a shock. Everything we witness (with the exception of God or the Universe perhaps) had something before it, but when we start discussing “evil” the discussion gets wishy-washy. Is “evil” a mistake? Then whose to blame? Why does evil have to be a mistake?
Commonly humankind is blamed, but that argument is flawed because through the first cause God has to impose evil or the capacity for evil for it to ever be. Using the first cause, God is to blame for the “mistake” of evil. I really don’t think it is a “mistake” either way. I think when people apply that it is a mistake of mankind and hold beliefs in a only good God as the first cause, then they make evil God’s “mistake.” That’s all I am pointing out.