|
That and they both are woefully inadequate when it comes to saying anything meaningful about the nature of any deity who isn't defined in very specific ways.
I know what Epicurus is trying to say: if god is good and can do anything he wants, how come bad shit happens? It just seems like a rather elementary question, which fails to take into account any sort complexity with respect to ideas of what constitutes "good". I think anyone who actually believed in god and had a critical mind would use Epicurus as a starting point for refining what their god meant to them. I understand why you'd view it as a period (the punctuation point, that is), though.
Say there was an all powerful god, and this god was good, and this god ended all that was bad, so that there was only good. What would that mean? Can good exist without bad? Maybe a "good" god can't end "bad" because without "bad" there would be no "good" and if there were no "good" there could be no "good" gods? Maybe it's a matter of self preservation. I don't know. You don't have to be a writer for Lost to be able to contrive reasons for forces of good to allow bad things to happen. On the same subject, whoa, have you ever just, looked at your hand, man? Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.
|