Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Epicurus is only irrelevant if all logic is irrelevant.
|
You're welcome to think that, but that doesn't make it true. Epicurus argument is essentially this:
Bad things happen, so god can't be both good and all powerful.
The definition of all powerful is pretty straightforward.
The definition of good? Not so much. Different people have different definitions of good, and even if you were to narrow it down to one specific definition, isn't good only really defined when juxtaposed with bad? If god is good, and good can only exist in contrast to bad, must an existence which has goodness also have badness?
Wouldn't a perfectly ideal world, one where Epicurus could believe in god, cease to be good? Maybe an existence where the word "good" has meaning is better than an existence where it doesn't. I don't know, Epicurus seems a little half-baked to me.
Epicurus's statement is logically valid, in that it takes a simple premise to its conclusion, but it's simplicity also means it doesn't apply all that well when simplicity isn't assumed from the get-go.
Quote:
|
It absolutely is the point as to why your analogy doesn't fit. God being considered omnipotent is a key part of the riddle. If you can do anything, ANYTHING, then what keeps one from preventing suffering and destruction? Apathy or ill will.
|
Well, there could be things that you don't understand going on with respect to the deity's interactions with humanity. The fact that this is an explanation you don't want to hear doesn't mean that it fails as an explanation.
Quote:
|
Yes, Epicurus skipped apathy, but it's clearly implied. The point of mentioning malevolence is about proving that god isn't the ultimate force for good people think him to be. "Why would one worship a malevolent god?" can be translated also to " why would one worship an apathetic god?" The effect is the same.
|
All Epicurus does is point out that it is logically inconsistent to define a god in the way that he defines it. As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with asking why one would worship a malevolent god since it doesn't take a very astute student of human behavior to understand why people might worship malevolent authority figures. Perhaps there are explanations that went with it when he wrote it that describe his intentions, if you have them, send me a link, I am genuinely curious.
In any case, the idea that god isn't an absolute force of good isn't exactly revelatory: I know of at least one good sized christian denomination that believes miscarried children go to hell, which isn't the type of thing you can really believe at the same time that you believe that god never lets anything bad happen.
Quote:
|
How about the top 5 definitions of god?
|
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.
There's six. I don't see anything about goodness, apathy, or malevolence.
Quote:
|
I asked my dad about Epicurus yesterday and he gave me the "We aren't meant to understand" kind of response. I suspect that's the only way to explain it away, and it's a cop-out.
|
I could see how you would think that it's a cop out. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid explanation. Were you expecting a peer reviewed study?
Quote:
There's more than one way, but there are limits.
Supernatural. Creator. Good. These fit basically all modern incarnations of the one god or head of many gods. Aside from pantheists (which really aren't talking about religion, but rather philosophy), that covers pretty much everyone. It covers all Hindus, Jews, Christians, Baha'is, and Muslims right off the bat. That's almost everyone.
|
The more you know about these groups, the less similar they appear.