“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?”
6 Likes
That is such a great “riddle”, by a great thinker!
3 Likes
Thank you for that, Cogito.
The wonderful Epicureans were truly atheists. This nice piece of logic about “God” demonstrates the fact.
They placated their polytheist critics by covering their atheism with a verbal fig leaf: declaring that there were some gods somewhere far off, but they didn’t do anything.
3 Likes
Further more, David Hume two millennia later relied on Epicurus and he reminds theists that:
“Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” (David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
An excellent example of the dependence of so much Enlightenment thought on the ancient Greeks.
3 Likes
A short and unanswerable argument for atheism.
An Atheist Motto could be:
“In Epicurus And David Hume We Trust”
Though of course we never stop our critical examination of every proposition we choose.
2 Likes
Yes. To the old Greeks - especially the Epicureans - and to the Enlightenment we owe our values.
Not to some tediously alluded to but entirely imaginary - and never itemized - “Judeo-Christian” sources.
2 Likes
Yes, they should at the very least add “Greek” to that word compound. The Founding Fathers would have- they were very well educated in Greek philosophy, which is why they did such a great job founding the country.
2 Likes
Yes I agree. Your Founding Fathers were well versed in Greco-Roman history and English history.
3 Likes
Thanks. It’s a valuable reminder of what’s been said about this “problem of evil” (theodicy) in ancient times. But on the other hand, it’s not something that anyone thinking about the issue with any degree of careful thought or common sense could not come up with. So, it’s kind of like, “Duh!” But formalized as a philosophical objection. And after all this time, it doesn’t seem to have made a dent in Faith. Go figure. Maybe there are, not better, but more effective arguments against Faith.
2 Likes
I like it!
3 Likes
It may seem self-evident to us. But remember it took Epicurus and Hume to state the theist’s quadrilemma compellingly and indisputably.
3 Likes
I like it too. What more is needed, Zerothruster, against the deity imagined by the writers of the bible?
Sure there are other arguments against belief - especially the lack of reason to hold that there’s a Being presiding over the universe, or to posit the supernatural at all. But to point out to believers that the idea of this “omnipotent omniscient benevolent God” makes no sense in the light of human experience is surely necessary.
Or should dogmatic nonsense that affects the lives of billions and the course of history be allowed to pass forever without comment? Without its being called by its name?
2 Likes
Here’s another Epicurus quote:
“If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another.”
2 Likes
Ha, that’s a good point! His reasoning was as sound and logical as it will ever get, but the problem remains the same - “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.
2 Likes