Riddle of Epicurus

[Drychnath]

"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?"

In the circles I move in, this is the favorite resort of Atheists for the disproval of the existence of God, insofar as the primary faiths (Judeaism, Christianity, Islam) conceive of him. These four questions and answers supposedly prove that there cannot be an all-powerful, perfectly good God. Despite the fact that I myself do not hold to any of the above faiths, or even with their conception of God, I will present a few deficiencies with the above 'proof' that have occured to me (these are not necessarily consistent with one another, and some have overlapping concepts).

The ideas I shall now posit revolve around a central theme. The only question worth addressing in the riddle is the second; the defining characteristic of God is, after all, His limitless power. The question then revolves around the nature of God. God is able to abolish all evil; God is unwilling to abolish all evil; but this does not make Him malevolent.

Posit #1: God does not consider Evil all those things we consider evil. For example, most of us would consider a family member being gunned down in a robbery an evil thing. Our family members' lives are precious to us: that which steals them away is evil. However, in the eyes of God, death is a very good thing - for only when we die do we go to live with Him or suffer our just punishments.

Posit #2: The existence of evil is necessary for the complete exercise of good. While God might have created the world with no sorrow or pain, where all lived in comfort and love, there would be many good things that could not be in such a world. For example, it is not possible to be generous in a world where everyone wants for nothing. Nor is it possible to sacrifice for another in a world where no harm befalls anyone.

Posit #3: The existence of evil is necessary to provide and/or amplify the meaning of good. Like above, God could have created a world where all people live in comfort and love, unconditionally, all the time. But such love has no meaning, because it is not possible to do otherwise within the sphere of that creation. Love has meaning only when the possibility of not loving exists. And more meaning still in a world where it is possible to hate instead of love.

I'll present a few more as they occur to me, or as I determine an appropriate way to phrase them, all provided that there is some interest in the thread.

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

Well, first I’ll start with posit #2, because that's the first refutation that comes to my mind.

In this posit, you claim that there are some things good that would not be required in an all good world. Perhaps that, in itself, is a good thing, the two you listed for your example, sacrifice and generosity, do not both of those require a second party who is found lacking? Is that not undesirable or 'evil'? Why create a world that has evil in it merely so that MORE good things can exist.

Posit #1: the bible is a set of moral codes, they are not relative to god or to humans only, they are 'that which is good’ I can only assume (having not read the quran) from what I’ve learned through experience and heard in random places that in Islam (and Judaism...they're the old testament right?) their moral codes of good and evil are also objective, not relative. God says this is good, therefore, it is good. So, my point would be, god says 'don't murder' and yet, he allows murder to thrive, wouldn't this be, though indirectly, God working the murders himself, simply through inaction when action would prevent them?

Posit #3: I have heard this one before, "love and hate come hand in hand” lovely. Why do we have to understand love? if it would alleviate human suffering altogether, no more AIDs pandemic, no more hunger, no more murder, nothing more than the random fly looking hungrily at you, why would you trade that little extra understanding of love for all the death that comes hand in hand? Also, it seems to me hate is more a circular emotion than one with two sides (love/hate). Watching the turmoil Africa is in it seems to me that after so many genocides sweeping populace after populace, they would learn to love pretty damn well, and yet, all they seem to do is return with another genocide...more hate.

My own little retort to, well, religion in general.
We’ll call it ‘Posit #a: Every single religion on this planet believes whole heartedly that they are the true believers. I believe I can say this without much punishment, because, if they did not believe they were right, there wouldn't be much sense in following their religion, imagine, for example a priest "hey! We’re not sure if we're right, actually we're probably wrong and those guys over there seem more right, but we have our own ideas here and there as well! Come believe in us!"
anyway, to the point, how could any god(or gods) even think for a moment they are being fair and just when they say "you follow this religion, you worship this way, or you are punished" to only a handful of people...in Christ’s time, there were people on 6 of the 7 continents of the world, however, not until recently(in the perspective of human history recent, maybe 1500 years ago?) did Christianity spread from Europe, the middle east and north Africa. why is it God would say "these people are allowed to be considered for heaven, the rest of the whole of the human population on earth(at least a good hundred million dead people or so...probably about 10,000 to 100,000 deaths of old age every year(these are light figures), since Christ, were doomed to hell, simply because they had no idea of his existence...I do not for one second believe a god could possibly be good to do something like that to so many people. Or, if he actually thinks that he's reached all the people on the earth, he's certainly not omniscient...or perhaps he just didn't have the ability to reach them all? Not omnipotent. I've yet to be pointed at a religion that confronts this problem satisfactorily, I think I’ve mentioned it here a couple times, without much success...anyway, every religion I have any sort of knowledge about fails under this sort of scrutiny...please help?

[Drychnath]

Support for Posit #1: Yes, the Bible contains a series of moral codes that we are to obey, as does the Qu'ran and Jewish holy works and traditions (of which the Old Testament is the original scripture, and not the consigned to writing oral traditions of the Rabbis). However, all three religions (barring certain sects of each) are predicated on the principle of freely choosing to obey His will. There are, of course, penalties for not doing so, but the entire value of obedience is that we have the option not to. Yes, God could have created us without the capacity for inflicting pain or suffering, but then there would have been no point to creating us in the first place. That is why we are so valued in His eyes. These are all fundamental aspects of most monotheistic faiths. This is why God would not compel us to commit no evil.

Also, as a general rule suffering is not frowned upon, and is even encouraged as something that improves you. It's a fairly common trend that no level of interference beyond that which is completely passive and peacable is encouraged ("Thou shalt not kill").

Support for Posit #2: Yes, precisely. Many good things could not exist without evil things to provide opportunity for them. This is rapidly becoming my preferred criticism of the riddle, and here's why: Good and Evil, while opposite, are nevertheless independant of one another. Further, I would go so far as to state that the amount of one is not dependant on the amount of the other. Therefore, a world with evil but has all good available is by far more good than a world devoid of evil but likewise limited in its good. It is similarly less evil, perhaps, nevertheless more good. Additionally, I would contend that since the argument is for the existence of a perfectly good God, it would be his nature to create a world with as much good in it as possible - and if evil is necessary for the increase of good, so be it. This is, ultimately, the process underlying the concept of "the greater good."

Support for Posit #3: It's not about understanding love. It's about the value and appreciation of it. Suppose your perfect world: everyone loves everyone else. All the time. No exceptions. It's perfectly sunny, a beautifully temperate 72 degrees, all day, every day. There is ought but joy and satisfaction. Instant gratification, always. What a meaningless, dreary existence. It has all the significance of a computer program designed to spit out the same number over and over again. Since that's all we'd be, is automatons with very narrow programming.

Additionally, hatred isn't any more circular than love; the same feeding-frenzy ignorance that produces nationalist furor generates compliance with and support of genocidal campaigns. Nationalism is as much love as systematic racial extermination is hate.

Besides, I daresay understanding is absolutely vital to the concept of a God to be worshipped. We may not be required to understand His plan or will, but appreciation of the gifts we are given is central to ongoing gratitude and love of our creator.

Response to Posit #a: For the most part, I agree with that. It is my principal objection to the concept of eternal punishment. I believe we are all judged by certain standards, but I am similarly certain that acknowledgement of those standards and the judge isn't part of the required package. Similar to a system of laws; ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it, but it isn't against the law to be ignorant of it.