Epicurus: Can God be both compassionate and omnipotent?

**StonedApe** · 05-23-2011 11:43 PM

Spoiler for Disclaimer:

Ne-yo and I have gotten into a debate several times regarding whether or not God can be both capable of miracles(or omnipotent) and compassionate. This would mean that God understands human suffering and is capable of preventing and easing it but does not.

The substance of this was summed up by Epicurus thousands of years ago.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Spoiler for Long winded intro you don't really need to read.:

Here is my proof, somewhat similar to Epicurus' thoughts:

There is immense suffering in this world. If God is a compassionate he understands and feels this suffering. If he felt this suffering and could do something about it he would. If God was capable of performing miracles he could easily do something about it. He does not, or this suffering would not persist so prevalently as it does. Therefore God is either not capable performing miracles or is not compassionate.

Atheists, please refrain from saying "or he doesn't exist". I agree, but I don't want to this to be the direction the thread goes.

Spoiler for more proofs, you don't need to read this either.:

Here's a link to thread that spawned this one, feel free to quote relevent posts.

**Maria92** · 05-23-2011 11:49 PM

This should be fun. Lemme just subscribe here. <3 Epicurus.

**Xei** · 05-24-2011 01:31 AM

It's even worse than that, though, stonedape; it's not a case of "if God was capable of performing miracles he could easily do something about it"; this is God we're talking about, the guy who, being omnipotent, was the guy who did it in the first place. This is the guy who caused the electrical spark that burnt a family trapped in their home; the guy who causes droughts and kills people of starvation, and then the next day gets his ironic lulz from drowning thousands of Indonesians in a tsunami; this is the guy who sat on a cloud and designed Black Death so that he could kill half of Europe in an agonising manner. It's not a case of God not being benevolent; it's a case of God being a genocidal, sadistic maniac.

This is one of the main reasons why I consider religious people (of the above type) to be partially insane. Don't expect Ne-Yo to reply, I've been stonewalled or trolled around five times now because of this question.

**stormcrow** · 05-24-2011 03:03 AM

Lets say a man is walking through the woods. He notices a girl drowning in a lake. The man looks around and does not see anyone who can help. It is not his fault that the girl is drowning so how can he be held morally responsible if he does nothing to save the drowning girl?

Analogies aside, in the real world the man who lets a girl drown without assisting will be prosecuted and most likely wind up in prison. Not helping someone when you have the power to do so is sadistic and despicable. Not making a decision is still a decision.

Christian apologists have been trying (in vain) to reconcile these problems since St. Aquinas and are no closer to adequately addressing them, than they were in the feudal period. The religion is not changing but our culture is. The phrase "God works in mysterious ways" is no longer a satisfactory answer to these problems.

You are not likely to get a satisfactory answer from Ne-yo (but then again he responds to your posts not mine) because the concept of an omnipotent god is contradictory to a benevolent god. Expect some language-bending fun in the near future.

**Caden** · 05-24-2011 04:22 AM

For Xmas fun, let's review the bios of some of the gods who came before Jesus - Dec 25 is a popular birthday!

Mithra - born 12/25, 12 disciples, died [then] rose on 3rd day, performed miracles, known as Lamb, "the way the truth the light" 600 yrs before JC.

Krishna: virgin birth, baptized in river, raised dead, carpenter's son, persecuted, crucified, ascended to heaven. 1,000 yrs before u-know-who.

Buddha: 12 disciples, walked on water, fed 500 from 'small basket of cakes’, healed the sick...his mom? A virgin.

Horus: announced by star in east on Dec 25, attended by 3 wise men , died, resurrected, mom a virgin...
do you see a pattern here?

Bill Maher

The bible is no more a creation of heaven than is a cheeseburger. We have created the whole thing to meet our ends (and for a lot of the same reasons we created the cheeseburger). If God has a god, it's man. If this is disturbing, good. God should not be the focus of people but rather people should be the focus of people, then maybe for the first time in human history we can start to get along with each other and get our act together.

**siuol** · 05-24-2011 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Caden

Krishna: virgin birth, baptized in river, raised dead, carpenter's son, persecuted, crucified, ascended to heaven. 1,000 yrs before u-know-who.

Voldemort? (sorry couldnt help it)
anyway this looks like an interesting thread.
ive asked it before since "its good to ask questions about faith, so you can understand it better", however ive never gotten a satisfactory answer (and probably never will). Thats what i hate about my religion teachers, its ok to ask questions but if you dont like the answers it sucks for you.

**Invader** · 05-24-2011 10:11 PM

Time for some ironic devil's advocate.

If there's a God you believe in, and an afterlife, dying is not the big deal you play it out to be. If there's a God that does not interfere with the world, then it is not God who is deliberately causing floods and storms that kill people. That is the consequence of natural processes: If a storm was due to wreck the countryside that you built your house in, you will survive and learn to build better homes, build them in different places, or die. If there is a God, and you believe in the existence of other spiritual entities (malevolent ones) you will surely be sooner to blame this God for engineering a plague than anything else, human beings included (intentional or otherwise). If you believe in God, and that It created you and by extension gave you free will, you will blame God for not interfering with events that you have the responsibility of making aright. Free Will is a responsibility. If you find a religion that has many faults, surely you will associate God with this and use that as justification to claim that there is no God, or that God is malevolent.

The free will thing plays into this the most regarding the OP. For those that consider the existence of the God that gave them free will, the question loses its substance. Compassion can't be judged on how God interferes with human lives, because the very nature of free will means that God will not do so.

/endmode

That was refreshing.

**StonedApe** · 05-24-2011 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Invader

Time for some ironic devil's advocate.

If there's a God you believe in, and an afterlife, dying is not the big deal you play it out to be. If there's a God that does not interfere with the world, then it is not God who is deliberately causing floods and storms that kill people. That is the consequence of natural processes: If a storm was due to wreck the countryside that you built your house in, you will survive and learn to build better homes, build them in different places, or die. If there is a God, and you believe in the existence of other spiritual entities (malevolent ones) you will surely be sooner to blame this God for engineering a plague than anything else, human beings included (intentional or otherwise). If you believe in God, and that It created you and by extension gave you free will, you will blame God for not interfering with events that you have the responsibility of making aright. Free Will is a responsibility. If you find a religion that has many faults, surely you will associate God with this and use that as justification to claim that there is no God, or that God is malevolent.

The free will thing plays into this the most regarding the OP. For those that consider the existence of the God that gave them free will, the question loses its substance. Compassion can't be judged on how God interferes with human lives, because the very nature of free will means that God will not do so.

/endmode

That was refreshing.

The problem with that is that it says in scripture that he does sometimes(interfere/do miracles). And he would also be doing so by sending down his son. So why does he do it sometimes but not all the time?

EDIT: Actually, after thinking it over, the position you stated is that God cannot do miracles because it violates free will.

On top of that it doesn't make it the compassionate thing to do. It's the cold and detached thing to do.

**StonedApe** · 05-24-2011 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Caden

For Xmas fun, let's review the bios of some of the gods who came before Jesus - Dec 25 is a popular birthday!

Mithra - born 12/25, 12 disciples, died [then] rose on 3rd day, performed miracles, known as Lamb, "the way the truth the light" 600 yrs before JC.

Krishna: virgin birth, baptized in river, raised dead, carpenter's son, persecuted, crucified, ascended to heaven. 1,000 yrs before u-know-who.

Buddha: 12 disciples, walked on water, fed 500 from 'small basket of cakes’, healed the sick...his mom? A virgin.

Horus: announced by star in east on Dec 25, attended by 3 wise men , died, resurrected, mom a virgin...
do you see a pattern here?

Bill Maher

The bible is no more a creation of heaven than is a cheeseburger. We have created the whole thing to meet our ends (and for a lot of the same reasons we created the cheeseburger). If God has a god, it's man. If this is disturbing, good. God should not be the focus of people but rather people should be the focus of people, then maybe for the first time in human history we can start to get along with each other and get our act together.

All that stuff about the Buddha is false. Which makes me question if the rest of it is, especially since it sounds like zietgeist.

This thread is about God, not Jesus. It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or metaphorical, the question is still pertinent.

**Xei** · 05-25-2011 12:13 AM

With respects to God not being 'an interfering God'; okay, so he's either not compassionate, or not omnipotent. Both of these are just the conclusions of Epicurus.

With respects to God being in competition with malevolent spirits; again, he just loses omnipotence. This isn't playing devils advocate, it's agreeing with the OP.

With respects to free will: nonsense. It may answer a few circumstances, such as humans killing other humans, but what does creating Black Death have to do free will?

**Invader** · 05-25-2011 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by stonedape

The problem with that is that it says in scripture that he does sometimes(interfere/do miracles). And he would also be doing so by sending down his son. So why does he do it sometimes but not all the time?

EDIT: Actually, after thinking it over, the position you stated is that God cannot do miracles because it violates free will.

Depends on which religion you consult I suppose. Maybe it happens sometimes because God only answers those who both fully believe in It and ask It for aid, and when the person deserves it or if it's not their "time to die," or if and only if they are truly in need of it with a combination of the aforementioned terms. *shrug*

Also, I said "will not," not "cannot." The important thing to note is that interfering with free will doesn't strip people of free will, but makes the notion of free will pointless if one has a baby sitter of sorts to correct mistakes such that one will not learn the proper lessons.

Originally Posted by Xei

With respects to God being in competition with malevolent spirits; again, he just loses omnipotence. This isn't playing devils advocate, it's agreeing with the OP.

With respects to free will: nonsense. It may answer a few circumstances, such as humans killing other humans, but what does creating Black Death have to do free will?

Not in competition with malevolent spirits, no. I just said that one would have to acknowledge that these other spirits exist if they believe in this judeo-christian god, and that they may as well have some capacity to interact with us or our world as independent beings. They can be just as likely a source for a plague as anything else. They'd have free will too. So I'm not agreeing with OP. By devil's advocate I meant with respect to what my actual beliefs or lack thereof are.

And to your free will comment, what do you mean about the creation of the black death? I said that people will likely blame God for this when in reality the blame can be put on any number of other things. I mentioned the plague again with my statement about malevolent beings as an equally or more likely cause of such a sickness, that's all.

**Xei** · 05-25-2011 01:30 AM

I don't understand how that isn't agreeing with the OP. If God creates, or leaves to their own devices, malevolent spirits, then he is either not omnipotent, not benevolent, or both. That's what the OP says.

With the plague, I wasn't referring you your mention of it, sorry for the confusion; I was refuting, with a counterexample, the idea that the free will defence counters Epicurus's argument.

**Invader** · 05-26-2011 03:38 AM

edit: I don't intend for these to be longer reads than necessary, but it happens.

Alright. Then disregarding my mention of it, consider the simple example of the flood I gave. People may perish under rough natural conditions, but death in these events can't be viewed as a tragic end if we're also entertaining the notion of an afterlife or continued existence. For those that survive said harsh conditions there's something to be learned, whether that be how to adapt to future disasters or how one values life after the event.

I think somewhere on the boards here I gave an example wherein I told about my sister's accident. She was hit by a car and has had no control of her lower back, abs and everything below, and no control of her hands (level of injury is C5 - C7). In light of what we're discussing here, we can view this as a horrendous act of God in which It did not intervene to save her. But when we observe the results so far, we see that everything that's resulted from the crash so far (except for the obvious physical limitations) has been positive in comparison to her previous state (emotionally and mentally). Her relationship with the family is closer. We talk and never argue any more. We've become more aware of how worth it it is to have one another. She's raised awareness about spinal cord injury and has been keeping up with all of the modern research. She's the positive, beaming human being that makes other people happy about their less-severe conditions. I haven't kept count with how many times someone has asked how she stays happy all the time. It is what it is. With the amount of things we've learned through this accident, I can't necessarily say that I'd prefer being where I was prior to all of this. My sister and I have discussed this and she feels the same. So would this God have been cruel for not intervening, or was there something more valuable to be obtained from said tragic accident?

I know there's worse. Cases of needless suffering, where a child is kidnapped and abused until dead. The family suffers. Is there something to be gained out of even these situations? Is the suffering remembered after the child dies and passes on? And so on..

So what I'm suggesting here is that God would be omnipotent at least, and right now we're trying to determine by what guidelines we judge compassion.

**Xei** · 05-26-2011 03:55 AM

So why did he make Black Death degrading and agonising? How could this possibly have any positive effects, let alone ones which outweigh the extreme negatives.

**StonedApe** · 05-26-2011 06:19 AM

I actually see he reasoning Xei, though I;m still thinking about my reply.

Basically, God allows terrible things to happen so that humans can learn to deal with terrible things. Through this they become compassionate and virtuous, where as if he didn't we'd all be lazy. It's like the kid whose parent does everything for them vs the kid whose parents leave them on their own to learn how to take care of themselves.

In the case of black death, we can learn from it how to be compassionate to those who are in agonizing pain. But I agree, I think with things like that the negatives outweigh the positives.

I'm trying to figure out how to word my response(every time I do I waste a bunch of time then delete it because I don't like it). But it's basically that a good parent doesn't do either of those but actively works with the child to optimize learning.

It's also possible to have experiences that cause you to value life like that without pain and suffering. Why doesn't God just put LSD in the watersupply[/sarcasm]

**Unelias** · 05-26-2011 06:59 AM

Most religions would make a lot more sense if you just cut out the kind and caring God part. What has happened to the really angry, wrathful, evil gods that require frequent sacrifices and fear from their subjects? Seriously, most of the major deities in the times past were vengeful, bloodthirsty beings that loved to slaughter their worshipers and no one ever thanked them for jack. They were just happy that gods didn't outright destroy them. Now people just blame everything on some supernatural force, when they cannot or want to take in notice who really is responsible.

Ie. in christianity god is portrayed basically with both benevolent and vengeful aspects you'll always run to this very problem. And it is useless to use catch-phrases like "the lord works in mysterious ways".

I like the thought that if god really has to exist he just created all of this and then got bored or stopped caring a long time ago. Why should an omnipotent being actually care about anything? He created us? So what, why should an omnipotent being ( who is above all human jurisdiction and comprehension, so I am told) care about his creations or carry any responsibility?

**Invader** · 05-27-2011 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

So why did he make Black Death degrading and agonising? How could this possibly have any positive effects, let alone ones which outweigh the extreme negatives.

I think I've stated twice now that God can not by default be blamed for the "creation" of the black death, especially if we're taking the "God doesn't interact with the world except under extreme circumstances" stance. We can say that God is a possible cause. But since you're insistent on claiming that the alleged God did create the black plague, I have to ask why your blame falls squarely on this entity and not on the result of other natural or man-made causes, or better yet, why you're blaming anything at all if you can't know from which source it derived? And I ask this because I want to know if your biases are playing into this discussion.

If God did initiate the Black Plague, I can only wonder. The possible answers can range anywhere from a massive learning experience to a form of punishment, even one in which the plague effected and killed the "good" people and left the ones being punished behind to suffer the loss of their loved ones. Did the people of the region instigate some kind of war or fund a lot of conflicts or were they involved in anything in which they caused suffering to some neighboring land around the same period? Again, numerous possible causes. If you want to come up with some ideas too you're more than welcome to. Here I'm saying that God's involvement is not necessarily malicious. It can be, and perhaps Epicurus is right. I am offering the alternative.

**Xei** · 05-27-2011 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Invader

I think I've stated twice now that God can not by default be blamed for the "creation" of the black death, especially if we're taking the "God doesn't interact with the world except under extreme circumstances" stance. We can say that God is a possible cause. But since you're insistent on claiming that the alleged God did create the black plague, I have to ask why your blame falls squarely on this entity and not on the result of other natural or man-made causes, or better yet, why you're blaming anything at all if you can't know from which source it derived? And I ask this because I want to know if your biases are playing into this discussion.

Again you don't seem to get the fact that this is contingent. I'm not actually saying God did it; I don't believe that God exists. I'm saying, like Epicurus, if God does exist, and if God is omnipotent and benevolent, then there is a contradiction. I'm NOT saying that God isn't benevolent, and I'm NOT saying that he isn't omnipotent. It's CONDITIONAL.

I'm going to disregard what you said about man creating black death because that's bizarre.

If nature created black death: if we're talking about a creator God, God created nature, and God is omnipotent so cannot have not known that his creation would have caused it. If we're not talking about a creator God: the fact that he didn't destroy it is, again, proof that he is either powerless to do so, or doesn't care. This is insurmountable. You keep saying, 'oh, what if he doesn't like to interfere'; fine, but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand: a non-interfering God is still either powerless to interfere or does not care about interfering.

If God did initiate the Black Plague, I can only wonder. The possible answers can range anywhere from a massive learning experience to a form of punishment, even one in which the plague effected and killed the "good" people and left the ones being punished behind to suffer the loss of their loved ones. Did the people of the region instigate some kind of war or fund a lot of conflicts or were they involved in anything in which they caused suffering to some neighboring land around the same period? Again, numerous possible causes. If you want to come up with some ideas too you're more than welcome to. Here I'm saying that God's involvement is not necessarily malicious. It can be, and perhaps Epicurus is right. I am offering the alternative.

So you're potentially defending the painful killing of infants because they are sinners? I'd strike that firmly off the 'benevolence' short list.

If it's a learning experience, why is it such a barbaric one? Why is causing all of this pain necessary? Of course, you can always start arguing that the people who got Black Death were actually just mirages created to teach us a lesson: right, but if you're going to start denying what you see before your very eyes then there is no point in any argument about anything. Epicurus's argument is conditional upon our acceptance that pointless harm does indeed occur. If you want to say the entire universe is fake: fine, and that's logically tenable, but it's also useless and irrelevant to Epicurus.

**Erii** · 05-27-2011 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

It's even worse than that, though, stonedape; it's not a case of "if God was capable of performing miracles he could easily do something about it"; this is God we're talking about, the guy who, being omnipotent, was the guy who did it in the first place. This is the guy who caused the electrical spark that burnt a family trapped in their home; the guy who causes droughts and kills people of starvation, and then the next day gets his ironic lulz from drowning thousands of Indonesians in a tsunami; this is the guy who sat on a cloud and designed Black Death so that he could kill half of Europe in an agonising manner. It's not a case of God not being benevolent; it's a case of God being a genocidal, sadistic maniac.

This is one of the main reasons why I consider religious people (of the above type) to be partially insane. Don't expect Ne-Yo to reply, I've been stonewalled or trolled around five times now because of this question.

this is just a comment towards this reply, what if its not God/a god who did this? it is us, the people
I personally am more of a deist, I don't see a god as being malevolent but letting us do our thing, its our choice what we do/say/believe, etc in this world.
I don't think god is " here" "intervening" anymore, or a trinity, because that brings another point, if God is all powerful, why did he have to "send Jesus on the cross to die for our sins" if he is all powerful/loving/care/etc thats not possible because he wouldn't want to cause suffering (let alone, unnecessary suffering), so I do see where you are coming from...
anyways, I don't condone the act of calling others "partially insane" (really now) just because they don't believe what you do.
Someone who doesn't believe in the big bang could say the same thing about someone who does believe in that theory, "Oh someone believing random particles in space collided and created what we call everything, oh they are soooooo crazy and insane" (oversimplification of that theory, I know.) Anywho, I have mixed beliefs, but in the end, anyone can believe whatever the fuck they want and it still shouldn't matter...they shouldn't be called insane.
we the people, of this earth, living right now this very moment, cause the problems. regardless of religion, we have fabricated in our mind that we are flawless and we need to blame others for the problems of this earth

**StonedApe** · 05-27-2011 08:47 PM

Just have to point out, the big bang does not mean things are random. The idea that because there is no God there is no point to life and everything is just random is one that I wish could somehow go extinct. There is no inherent point or meaning to life, but we create these things ourselves as we go. Lifes not random, that much is obvious, but that doesn't mean there some God and that the purpose of life is to worship it. Sorry I just can't let people misuse the word random, it's one of my favorite words.

I believe that it is the year 1493. My name is christopher columbus, I recently discoverd this place and am soon gonna kill all the indians and take this land for myself. Tomorrow I will go to the store and take every box of cereal and pour it on the ground. I believe this will save that ants from going extinct. I also beleive that the moon is made of cheese and the ocean is berry blue kool aid.

Do you see how belief can be a basis for calling someone insane now? Whether or not anyone on this forum holds beliefs that warrent calling them insane, I don't know. BUt Fred Phelps, the God hates fags guy, he's definetly insane and I say that because of his beliefs as well as his actions.

I agree that we might have fucked shit up, but that doesn't mean that a compassionate person or deity would stand by and do nothing to help fix it.

**Invader** · 05-27-2011 09:43 PM

You can read the last 5 lines if you want to cut straight to the point.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm going to disregard what you said about man creating black death because that's bizarre.

I meant indirectly. Disease from improper disposal of something rotten or toxic. Think Influenza.

Originally Posted by Xei

If nature created black death: if we're talking about a creator God, God created nature, and God is omnipotent so cannot have not known that his creation would have caused it. If we're not talking about a creator God: the fact that he didn't destroy it is, again, proof that he is either powerless to do so, or doesn't care. This is insurmountable. You keep saying, 'oh, what if he doesn't like to interfere'; fine, but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand: a non-interfering God is still either powerless to interfere or does not care about interfering.

The decision to not interfere is what you equate with lack of benevolence. That either means that: a) You believe there are no circumstances under which hardship is allowable even if it's for the long term benefit of an organism or its society, or b) There are some instances of hardship that cannot possibly have any outweighing good to come from it.

I'm assuming it's the latter. Epicurus's argument, if we're assuming that God is at least omnipotent, hinges entirely on whether or not some instances of suffering or its consequences can ever be justified or looked at in a positive light. But that's where I'm at a dead end, because I don't know how many consequences can stem from someone's suffering. I still think it boils down to learning something valuable or beginning some movement or revolution in the human psyche when things get really bad. Again though, I don't know. The little girl who gets raped and murdered with her captor free and never found or put on trial, those things I cannot ever justify or see the turnaround to.

Originally Posted by Xei

So you're potentially defending the painful killing of infants because they are sinners? I'd strike that firmly off the 'benevolence' short list.

I can't tell if you just misread what I said or if you're deliberately trying to put words in my mouth. Here:
"even one in which the plague effected and killed the "good" people"
I said nothing about killing sinners. In the one of many examples that can be given I suggested that the good people can be removed. Remember that death here is not the dead-end tragedy if we're entertaining the notion of continued existence, nor was I defending the killing of anything. It was a suggestion for a plausible scenario in which, possibly, the intentions were not without merit. Just a suggestion.

Originally Posted by Xei

If it's a learning experience, why is it such a barbaric one? Why is causing all of this pain necessary? Of course, you can always start arguing that the people who got Black Death were actually just mirages created to teach us a lesson: right, but if you're going to start denying what you see before your very eyes then there is no point in any argument about anything. Epicurus's argument is conditional upon our acceptance that pointless harm does indeed occur. If you want to say the entire universe is fake: fine, and that's logically tenable, but it's also useless and irrelevant to Epicurus.

I wasn't suggesting that anything is a mirage or that anything is fake. I remember now that we did have this conversation before, and I think it ended somewhere around one of two possible conclusions.. That either suffering is not remembered, or that God experiences all of the suffering we experience as well due to omniscience (if that's a quality we accept as possible in this discussion), which might suggest that there may be something of value in the experience of suffering by itself. Not that I can imagine what that would be.

But to get back down to the core of this, and bring this to a close,
"Epicurus's argument is conditional upon our acceptance that pointless harm does indeed occur."

If pointless harm does occur, I'll side with the lack-of-benevolence view.
If all harm does have some purpose, or something to be gained from it on the other hand, I'll think otherwise.

Do we have consensus?

**Ne-yo** · 05-27-2011 10:11 PM

Sorry I'm late to the party.

Spoiler for Disclaimer:

Originally Posted by stonedape

Ne-yo and I have gotten into a debate several times regarding whether or not God can be both capable of miracles(or omnipotent) and compassionate. This would mean that God understands human suffering and is capable of preventing and easing it but does not.

Originally Posted by Epicurus

The substance of this was summed up by Epicurus thousands of years ago.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Although I highly agree with Invader's DA analysis, I'm going to approach this from a different perspective. Before I deliver my counter-argument to this quote by Epicurus, I would like to make sure I'm on the right page with your concerns here. So my question to you is, What is your issue exactly with regards to evil?

Also, do you think this world is consumed with more evil than good?

Spoiler for Long winded intro you don't really need to read.:

Originally Posted by stonedape

Here is my proof, somewhat similar to Epicurus' thoughts:

There is immense suffering in this world. If God is a compassionate he understands and feels this suffering. If he felt this suffering and could do something about it he would. If God was capable of performing miracles he could easily do something about it. He does not, or this suffering would not persist so prevalently as it does. Therefore God is either not capable performing miracles or is not compassionate.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Here's another I came up with while writing this, I don't like it as much:
God cannot be both compassionate and capable of performing miracles*. If God is compassionate this means that he understands and feels the suffering of humans. If God understood the suffering a starving child and had the ability to perform miracles he would prevent this kind of suffering in every situation it might occur. This kind of suffering occurs around the globe, every day, it is a massive problem that our society faces. Therefore God is either not compassionate or not capable of performing miracles.

*In this context I'm refering to mainly healing and food miracles, miracles that are backed up by scripture. The word omnipotent could be substituted but since Ne-yo uses a different definition of the word I'm avoiding it.

So here lies the issue of variance:

If God exist and is a benevolent being then it is fact that does not want God's creatures to suffer.
It is significantly apparent considering that dying, and the idea of death cause creatures to suffer.

On the other hand,

God respects free will. Creatures do not desire to die, but they do.

Thus, if God does not want His creatures to suffer, then God must not permit suffering amongst His creatures.

Thus, if we suffer under the presupposition of God not wanting His creatures to suffer we can conclude that God does not exist as the mode is contradictory toward God's essence.

This is what I’m gathering from you, but correct me if I'm wrong in this assertion. However I would like to analyze the suffering part of your argument.

Before I continue forward with the analysis of this argument I would like to call attention to a particular point of confusion I have. So that I'm on the same page with you once again. I want to make sure I understand what the "suffering" you've mention actually pertains to in this particular case. It seems what you are describing is different than an experienced suffering of let's say, predation within an animal. I can understand your argument in one of two radically different ways.

Number One: The agent actually experiences a significant amount of emotional distress, pain, suffering, anguish as a result of deprivation of some natural want. This emotional type of agony, suffering would be the same kind of affliction experienced by the agent at death, but be due not to deprivation of air (as in asphyxiation), which is the prevalent suffering of predation, but rather to some kind of deprivation of "wanted existence" (like perhaps disappointment or dissatisfaction or acute agony). That is, the suffering is a conscious aftermath of the awareness of deprivation of some higher-order that is conceptualized e.g. ('existence').

The above if true begs the question; do all creatures have some kind of deserved privileged or right to exist forever?

Number Two: The agent does not actually 'feel' any sort of suffering due to this second type of deprivation i.e., no physiological or mental grief due particularly to desired wants unfulfilled, but somehow is nonetheless 'suffering' as a disappointment to some lack that it was anticipating. That is, this in this instance “suffering” is defined as a condition of deprivation.

Just so that I'm on point with you, can you just briefly sum up what "suffering" you are referencing in your argument.

**StonedApe** · 05-28-2011 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So my question to you is, What is your issue exactly with regards to evil?

Also, do you think this world is consumed with more evil than good?

It causes unnecessary pain and suffering to humans and other creatures.

No, but this is coming from my perspective. What is good is sometimes if not always subjective, though that's another subject entirely. I generally don't even break things down into good and evil, I just try to focus on suffering and what is the way to alleviate it or avoid causing it when it comes to moral issues. If something causes other creatures suffering and I don't have to do it I won't. If I can ease someones suffering without going completely out of my way(which would end up causing me suffering) I will.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So here lies the issue of variance:

If God exist and is a benevolent being then it is fact that does not want God's creatures to suffer.
It is significantly apparent considering that dying, and the idea of death cause creatures to suffer.

Dying and death do not cause creatures to suffer, resisitance to dying and death causes creatures to suffer

On the other hand,

God respects free will. Creatures do not desire to die, but they do.

Thus, if God does not want His creatures to suffer, then God must not permit suffering amongst His creatures.

Thus, if we suffer under the presupposition of God not wanting His creatures to suffer we can conclude that God does not exist as the mode is contradictory toward God's essence.

This is what I’m gathering from you, but correct me if I'm wrong in this assertion. However I would like to analyze the suffering part of your argument.

Before I continue forward with the analysis of this argument I would like to call attention to a particular point of confusion I have. So that I'm on the same page with you once again. I want to make sure I understand what the "suffering" you've mention actually pertains to in this particular case. It seems what you are describing is different than an experienced suffering of let's say, predation within an animal. I can understand your argument in one of two radically different ways.

Number One: The agent actually experiences a significant amount of emotional distress, pain, suffering, anguish as a result of deprivation of some natural want. This emotional type of agony, suffering would be the same kind of affliction experienced by the agent at death, but be due not to deprivation of air (as in asphyxiation), which is the prevalent suffering of predation, but rather to some kind of deprivation of "wanted existence" (like perhaps disappointment or dissatisfaction or acute agony). That is, the suffering is a conscious aftermath of the awareness of deprivation of some higher-order that is conceptualized e.g. ('existence').

The above if true begs the question; do all creatures have some kind of deserved privileged or right to exist forever?

Number Two: The agent does not actually 'feel' any sort of suffering due to this second type of deprivation i.e., no physiological or mental grief due particularly to desired wants unfulfilled, but somehow is nonetheless 'suffering' as a disappointment to some lack that it was anticipating. That is, this in this instance “suffering” is defined as a condition of deprivation.

Just so that I'm on point with you, can you just briefly sum up what "suffering" you are referencing in your argument.

I'm not actually talking about suffering as in mental resistance to what is, I should have used the word pain but the two words are often used to mean each other. I'm talking about physical lack in my expample.

I'm talking about extreme physical pain for the most part.

And there is nothing wrong with pain itself, it is a form of comunication. But why would God not stop horrible atrocities like Hiroshima? Why would he not stop others from doing insane things like fighting wars? We have nothing to learn from wars other than that wars are terrible. If people need to learn how to be compassionate around death they could get this from working at a hospital.

There are certainly situations where people go through unnecessary pain, if God is compassionate why not prevent it in those situationS?

I may not respond for a few days, I;ll be out of town this weekend.

**Erii** · 05-28-2011 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by stonedape

Just have to point out, the big bang does not mean things are random. The idea that because there is no God there is no point to life and everything is just random is one that I wish could somehow go extinct. There is no inherent point or meaning to life, but we create these things ourselves as we go. Lifes not random, that much is obvious, but that doesn't mean there some God and that the purpose of life is to worship it. Sorry I just can't let people misuse the word random, it's one of my favorite words.

I believe that it is the year 1493. My name is christopher columbus, I recently discoverd this place and am soon gonna kill all the indians and take this land for myself. Tomorrow I will go to the store and take every box of cereal and pour it on the ground. I believe this will save that ants from going extinct. I also beleive that the moon is made of cheese and the ocean is berry blue kool aid.

Do you see how belief can be a basis for calling someone insane now? Whether or not anyone on this forum holds beliefs that warrent calling them insane, I don't know. BUt Fred Phelps, the God hates fags guy, he's definetly insane and I say that because of his beliefs as well as his actions.

I agree that we might have fucked shit up, but that doesn't mean that a compassionate person or deity would stand by and do nothing to help fix it.

I get what you're saying about how the big bang was not random, I just needed a quick example
and yes, I do agree the Fred Phelps thing (westboro baptist) is a bit crazy, but he is still a person...he shouldn't be ridiculed but helped >.> I think its more of his actions, holding up the signs saying "God hates you" "you're going to hell" etc, what does that accomplish? I don't know...
I do actually agree, that is why I am more of a Deist, i don't think a "compassionate" God would allow all of this suffering and do nothing. I'm with you on this.
I don't really know what I believe anymore, I believe in some sort of higher power, I believe some things in Panetheism, Pantheism, Deism, etc....I don't know right now, just trying to figure things out I guess

**Ne-yo** · 05-28-2011 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by stonedape

I may not respond for a few days, I;ll be out of town this weekend.

No rush, I'll be in and out a bit myself for this Holiday weekend. I don't want us to rush through this argument by no means, I'll be taking longer to respond to this particular thread. so feel free to take your time in your responses and have a safe trip.

Originally Posted by stonedape

It causes unnecessary pain and suffering to humans and other creatures.

I can kind of see where you're getting at. On the other hand not all acts of evil causes pain and suffering. So how would you differentiate good acts from evil acts?

Originally Posted by stonedape

No, but this is coming from my perspective. What is good is sometimes if not always subjective, though that's another subject entirely. I generally don't even break things down into good and evil, I just try to focus on suffering and what is the way to alleviate it or avoid causing it when it comes to moral issues. If something causes other creatures suffering and I don't have to do it I won't. If I can ease someones suffering without going completely out of my way(which would end up causing me suffering) I will.

This is one of the most sensitive subjects I argue about so I don't plan on sugar-coating any of this. It is normally often assumed by those in objection that the world is full of evil and suffering, that life is more torture than not, and that the evil present world order is not "good enough" to have warranted being created itself. However, I do not believe this is the case, although it might be difficult to defend the position that this world is the 'best of all possible worlds', I consider it very defensible to maintain that this world is much, much better than the 'worst of all possible worlds', and indeed, that it would fall into the top half of possible worlds, based upon simple world and life statistics.

Lets look at evil in Human experience. Even at a non-rigorous level it is very apparent that more torture and evil is simply not the case in our lives. (please note that I am in no way insensitive toward these statistics but I feel this data does warrant observance regarding my argument.)

If the Earth were consumed with more evil than good, we would experience violent crimes on orders of magnitude exceptionally higher than they are in the world. Violent crimes is measured in single and double digits, within population bases of 100,000 people. Of the approximately 57 million people who died worldwide in 2009 as indicated by The World Health Organization. This is also cross-referenced by the C.I.A. World Factbook This would be approximately eight-tenths of one percent of the world population, only 1.4% of those were from intentional, violent crimes. Even checking the statistics within the United States in 2009, violent personal crimes affected only 4.294 per 100,000 inhabitants of the overall 10yr population as referenced by U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation. These numbers should be immensely higher in a immensely evil world.
If we were to take a glance at basic vital statistics, it would suggest that "evil suffering" is not the major part of our lives. Life expectancy: of all the major countries of the world, only three have life expectancies of less than 60 years i.e., (developed countries, Near East & North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin Americas & The Caribbean, Asia & The Pacific). Refugee counts: even with the widest definitions, only two-hundredths of one percent (.02%) of the world population is classified as refugees. Nutritional mortality: Referencing those that are in cases of starvation/malnutrition which is essentially the 'real case' of starving people as statistics indicate within The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization displays 2010 data of undernourished people to account for approximately 13% of the overall worldwide population. In spite of the fact that perhaps as many as one-third of the world does not eat an 'adequate diet,' deaths from nutrition-related causes only accounts for less than 1 percent of all overall deaths. Note: also the data shows a decline over a 30 year time period where the percentages of undernourished people have vastly decreased. These figures should be much, much higher in a world of "more evil than good".
If the Earth really were consumed with more evil than good, then humanity would have killed itself off long ago, by a combination of genocide, suicide, homicide and xenocide. But somehow, life seems to elude self-destruction within our history.
If the Earth were consumed with more evil than good, then the headlines of prominent news streams over the internet or on television would not captivate us very well. Major unstable atmospheric activity throughout the southern states. Plane crashes of hundreds of fatalities, The Japan earthquake or earthquakes in general with similar body counts, diverse wars on a world wide scale, serial killers of dozens of people would all be virtually trivialized by the daily experience in each life on Earth of "majority evil". If evil were the majority i.e., more “bad” than “good”, news of it would not be "news" nevertheless receiving enough attention for front page news in the least, and the horrors of concentrated points of evil in history (e.g. the Holocaust, Hiroshima, western Slave Trade) would not provoke such moral outrage or pessimism over human nature as it does.

It has been previously stated through a very interesting philosophical argument that I recall, which is, that evil, as blood-thirsting on good, cannot exist within the preponderance or it would cease itself existence, sort of speak. In short, you simply cannot have immensely more vampires than you have human lives.

Now, analyzing this from the overall perspective level, the actual numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of acknowledging that the Earth overall, consists of more good than bad for us humans relative to life. This point needs to be taken quite seriously. One moment of pain is unbearable and full of dismay, when it occurs in a life of uninterrupted bliss. But in a life that is characterized by chronic pain, the simple moment doesn't even get noticed. Evil gets noticed by us and is used in a "point of execution" simply because it stands in such contrast to ordinary lives of non-evil. The statistics of deaths by violence and actual deaths by hunger, as reference examples I've submitted, show these to be very, very non-majority in human life on this planet as a whole.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I'm not actually talking about suffering as in mental resistance to what is, I should have used the word pain but the two words are often used to mean each other. I'm talking about physical lack in my expample.

I'm talking about extreme physical pain for the most part.

Since my argument stands for the concept of "God doesn't want suffering" is almost always dealing with real experiences of pain, agony, dismay and anguish, So in light of what you stated here I will assert for the purposes of my response that you mean understanding point number #1 of "suffering" i.e., extreme physical pain correlating to what I've submitted in the previous post regarding "real suffering." Understanding point number #2, btw, is virtually indistinguishable from the 'rights' position (suffers violation of the agents semi-legitimate expectation or semi-legitimate anticipation), which you affirm is NOT what you're actually talking about at all. So although I will show emphasis on point number #2 within this argument my main point of execution is related to point number #1 in the case of "real suffering".

Originally Posted by stonedape

And there is nothing wrong with pain itself, it is a form of comunication. But why would God not stop horrible atrocities like Hiroshima? Why would he not stop others from doing insane things like fighting wars? We have nothing to learn from wars other than that wars are terrible. If people need to learn how to be compassionate around death they could get this from working at a hospital.

I believe God doesn't intervene with evil acts on high order magnitudes i.e., (Hiroshima, The Holocaust or the Western Slave Trade etc.) because the population as a whole is not threatened and deemed possible extinction. That's just my theory.

However, for us to assume that God's highest priority is to cancel out suffering in the most absolute sense is without warrant whatsoever. God has a number of goals for humanity to take advantage of and experience (God wants His creation to enjoy eating, God wants His creation to experience conspecific interactions of give/take, God wants the higher animals to experience community by sharing, etc.), and any attempts to prioritize a specific goal (i.e., absence of suffering) to an absolute is exceptionally difficult to defend and would deem a world of what I would consider determined, essentially annihilating the free-will of Gods creatures.

Originally Posted by stonedape

There are certainly situations where people go through unnecessary pain, if God is compassionate why not prevent it in those situationS?

Unnecessary violence is not a prominent part of our lives and as I've pointed out above, is definitely not a mode of extreme presence in normal human lives. As you even pointed out in the above post we are aware, that physical pain is constructive for creatures as an 'early warning' mechanism, in the vast majority of cases, and the health of the creature is more important (in that particular case) than the suffering associated with the pain/suffering. This would actually coincide as a logical fallacy encompassing the thinking of a false dichotomy, so the argument on the basis of suffering vs the existence of God would actually fail. God is free to create conscious beings capable of experiencing suffering.