What is the solution to the riddle of Epicurus?

I

i ? seals

New member
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?

I'm looking forward to the answers, thank you.

...
No TDs from me, 'cept the Corinthians guy.
@ Taz - the riddle clearly covers that aspect ; "Then he is malevolent"

...
 
You have to factor in theistic double think, all things bad our fault, all things good are done by God.
It doesn't make sense, but faith doesn't bother with logic
 
God is just an excuse for adults to have an 'imaginary friend' to talk too without appearing to be mentally unstable.
Therefore the definitions of good and evil are human, making 'god' irrelevant.
 
God is just an excuse for adults to have an 'imaginary friend' to talk too without appearing to be mentally unstable.
Therefore the definitions of good and evil are human, making 'god' irrelevant.
 
You have to be careful with conditional statements (If... then...). You can't place an antecedent and a consequent together without warrant.

"If Bill Gates is rich, then he should give me a million dollars."
"Bill Gates refuses to give me a million dollars."
"Therefore, Bill Gates is not rich."

The Bible explains evil and its origins. It also explains how God feels about it, what he considers evil, and deals with it. Many atheists simply don't like the way God does things.

Atheists expect God to act like Superman and save the innocents before they are victimized by the bad guys. God doesn't always act in this manner, so atheists assume that God doesn't exist.

If God zapped everyone every time they did something evil, it would infringe upon free will. Free will not only means making your own decisions, but also dealing with the consequences of those decisions. If God moved innocent people out of the way of a drunk driver, would people take care not to drink and drive?
 
Failing to account for the actions of man. This riddle is the faithless equivalent of Pascals wager, cute but incomplete.

We are willing and active participants in this drama and this riddle does not account for our actions or the consequences of those actions.

Solution: you have to account for all of the parties in the equation.

Good question, thanks for asking.
 
Back
Top