A riddle.

Xluna

It was posed by a Greek philosopher,Epicurus. Can anyone solve the riddle?

“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?”

Biggins

It's not a riddle, its a rhetorical question posed by Epicurus.

seraphimvc

hehe JESUS

Xluna

Biggins wrote: »

Not a riddle, its a retorical question.

It's presented a series of rhetorical questions,but it's a riddle in essence.

Yakult

God is just something/one for people to believe it. He didnt do anything for no one. He's a prick.

kev9100

Why call him God? Because one day a man named Patrick came to Ireland and he did'nt like snakes..........................

AckwelFoley

It gave me a headache

WindSock

Why should he? Evil is the work of man, it's up to us to sort it out.

admiralofthefleet

that would be an ecumenical matter

Xluna

WindSock wrote: »

Why should he? Evil is the work of man, it's up to us to sort it out.

Man created earthquakes,tsunamis and death? News to me.

Biggins

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

that would be an ecumenical matter

Yes father.

GLaDOS

Xluna wrote: »

Man created earthquakes,tsunamis and death? News to me.

None of which are evil, just harsh reality.

Xluna

ScienceNerd wrote: »

None of which are evil, just harsh reality.

Many would define evil as that which causes suffering.

Poor Uncle Tom

A fish :cool:

GLaDOS

Xluna wrote: »

Many would define evil as that which causes suffering.

Without death, the planet would be horribly over populated, living conditions would be disastrous and there would not even be close to enough resources.

So either way there will be suffering.

Without suffering, and the means to overcome it, evolution would be stifled, and we'd probably still be single celled organisms.

Suffering sucks, but it's not necessarily evil. Evil requires intent.

mikom

Xluna wrote: »

A riddle.
I decided to put it as my signature. It was posed by a Greek philosopher,Epicurus.
Can anyone solve the riddle?

A riddle.
I decided to put it in my post. It was posed by a English philosopher, Nicholas David Kershaw.
Can anyone solve the riddle?

♫ Near a tree by a river there's a hole in the ground.
Where an old man of aran goes around and around.
And his mind is a beacon in the veil of the night.
For a strange kind of fashion there's a wrong and a right

But he'll never
Never fight over you. ♫

CrazyRabbit

Slightly controversial answer : There is no God.

More controversial answer: Humans are God.

sron

Isn't this the most basic of all religious conundrums? God help AH if someone let a Jesuit loose in here.

The answers are:
Man has free will, and in thus free to commit evil - this accounts for wars, murder etc.
Human perception is limited; divine perception is not. What seems like injustice to us is merely part of God's plan - this accounts for earthquakes and so on. It's not to be taken too far, of course, otherwise you end up with Panglossianism.

Xluna

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Without death, the planet would be horribly over populated, living conditions would be disastrous and there would not even be close to enough resources.

So either way there will be suffering.

Without suffering, and the means to overcome it, evolution would be stifled, and we'd probably still be single celled organisms.

Suffering sucks, but it's not necessarily evil. Evil requires intent.

Well it presupposes the participant is agnostic or believes in God. I take it you're an athiest. Some suffering seems unnecessary. People born with severe mental and physical handicaps/deformities ect. I don't think evil necessarily requires intent,it's just a different definition of evil.

Turtyturd

What's the riddle, I cant be arsed switching signatures on.

Xluna

sron wrote: »

Isn't this the most basic of all religious conundrums? God help AH if someone let a Jesuit loose in here.

The answers are:
Man has free will, and in thus free to commit evil - this accounts for wars, murder etc.
Human perception is limited; divine perception is not. What seems like injustice to us is merely part of God's plan - this accounts for earthquakes and so on. It's not to be taken too far, of course, otherwise you end up with Panglossianism.

So basically we're too dull to truly know the great plan of an entity we've never seen. I find this an unsatisfying answer at best and absurd one at worst.

Xluna

Turtyturd wrote: »

What's the riddle, I cant be arsed switching signatures on.

“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?”

Mr. Incognito

“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?”

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

This is flawed logic. Firstly you are making an assumption, i.e that God is willing to prevent evil and secondly making a deduction based on a unproved assumption.

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?”

The rest is just a variation on this.

An example would be,

A man who I do not know is evil
Because he is evil he is hated
Etc.

The start is an unproved assumption.


It is not a rhetorical question. It is an example of lawed logic and a perfect example of religion and theology.

Theology is a system of philosophy that is based on an unproven assumption- i.e that there is a God.
The Catholic church ascribes saints to various aliaments and yet do saints exist?

In short it's like arguing over the colour of a unicorns fart. The unicorn doesn't exist.

yerayeah

That's not a riddle.

sron

Xluna wrote: »

So basically we're too dull to truly know the great plan of an entity we've never seen. I find this an unsatisfying answer at best and absurd one at worst.

Well then I guess Christianity isn't for you.

Also, I'd like to call into question your attribution of the quote to Epicurus. Back then they had gods, not a God, and they weren't particularly concerned with justice. It was a question which popped up a few times during the Enlightenment so I think it's probably dated to then or a little bit earlier.

Liam Byrne

Xluna wrote: »

Many would define evil as that which causes suffering.

Scenario 1 : You ACCIDENTALLY run someone over and break their leg
Scenario 2 : You DELIBERATELY run someone over and break their leg
Scenario 3 : Someone falls over and breaks their leg

All 3 cause them suffering.

Do you really view scenario 1 & 3 as "evil" ?

sron

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

This is flawed logic. Firstly you are making an assumption, i.e that God is willing to prevent evil and secondly making a deduction based on a unproved assumption.

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?”

The rest is just a variation on this.

An example would be,

A man who I do not know is evil
Because he is evil he is hated
Etc.

The start is an unproved assumption.


It is not a rhetorical question. It is an example of lawed logic and a perfect example of religion and theology.

Theology is a system of philosophy that is based on an unproven assumption- i.e that there is a God.
The Catholic church ascribes saints to various aliaments and yet do saints exist?

In short it's like arguing over the colour of a unicorns fart. The unicorn doesn't exist.

Not all proofs for God presuppose his existence. Check out Tommy's Quinque Viae. They haven't exactly stood the test of time, but for a man living before the days of Newton it's a decent effort at proving the existence of God from first principles.

Xluna

sron wrote: »

Well then I guess Christianity isn't for you.

The new testament has some good moral lessons,which can also be found in Buddhism,which is alot older than Christianity ,but anything which makes incrediable assumptions without any evidence ain't for me.

sron wrote: »

Also, I'd like to call into question your attribution of the quote to Epicurus. Back then they had gods, not a God, and they weren't particularly concern with justice. It was a question which popped up a few times during the Enlightenment so I think it's probably dated to then or a little bit earlier.

It's widely accepted that the quote was made by Epicurus. Good point on the Polytheism though, there might be an explanation for this.

Xluna

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Scenario 1 : You ACCIDENTALLY run someone over and break their leg
Scenario 2 : You DELIBERATELY run someone over and break their leg
Scenario 3 : Someone falls over and breaks their leg

All 3 cause them suffering.

Do you really view scenario 1 & 3 as "evil" ?

If it hurts me,it's evil. There's different degrees of evil. I'm not big on debating on semantics though.

sron

Xluna wrote: »

It's widely accepted that the quote was made by Epicurus. Good point on the Polytheism though, there might be an explanation for this.

I've done a quick bit of researching and the quote seems to come from a work of Hume which cites Epicurus. I imagine Hume altered it a bit for his own purposes.

Another point to be made regarding the 'gods' that Epicurus was likely referring to is that they were not omnipotent. They frequently interfered with each other's designs and all were subservient to Fate.

Turtyturd

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Scenario 1 : You ACCIDENTALLY run someone over and break their leg
Scenario 2 : You DELIBERATELY run someone over and break their leg
Scenario 3 : Someone falls over and breaks their leg

All 3 cause them suffering.

Do you really view scenario 1 & 3 as "evil" ?

In my opinion 1 and 3 don't cause suffering. They cause pain, 2 on the otherhand causes suffering because you made a deliberate choice to inflict the pain on someone to elicit a certain emotion in yourself.

Xluna

I personally think of pain and suffering being one and the same-unless you're into S&M.:pac:

PK2008

I was super religious until I read that riddle, now I dont believe in god at all

You're work here is done OP, well done, goodnight

Des Carter

I have your answer right here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvhGeNzdRZA

Case closed.

Son Of A Vidic

Just ask me nicely and I'll give you the answer OP.

* struggles with God complex *

orourkeda

Xluna wrote: »

Man created earthquakes,tsunamis and death? News to me.

Tsunamis and the like arent evil.

Destructive but not evil

lil_lisa

Xluna wrote: »

If it hurts me,it's evil. There's different degrees of evil. I'm not big on debating on semantics though.

Don't confuse evil with karma!

stovelid

Xluna wrote: »

If it hurts me,it's evil. There's different degrees of evil. .

The way I see it: for a strange kind of fashion, there's a wrong and a right?

pickarooney

Maybe God is omnipotent and willing but just has an incredibly long ToDo list?

Stercus Accidit

Magic doesn't exist is the answer.

Doc

Xluna wrote: »

I personally think of pain and suffering being one and the same-unless you're into S&M.:pac:

All pain may be suffering but all suffering doesn’t necessarily involve pain.

pickarooney wrote:

Maybe God is omnipotent and willing but just has an incredibly long ToDo list?

If he was truly omnipotent it would not matter how long the list was.

landsleaving

Des Carter wrote: »

I have your answer right here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvhGeNzdRZA

Case closed.

End of the video says: Religion is knowledge too, bringing religion back to schools.

To this I say:

"A prayer, a prayer in a public school. GOD HAS NO PLACE WITHIN THESE WALLS."

Saganist

To answer this you need to start with the assumption that "God" exists..

Having said that the answer is. It's not a riddle !

starbelgrade

42.

vodafoneproblem

It's been answered with perfect logic, OP, and shown to be a fallacious conundrum. But, hey, thanks for reminding me how little Richard Dawkins knows about philosophy and theology and logic and how little effort he put into getting to know the other side's arguments!

Lost in a riddle that saturday night
Far away on the other side.
He was caught in the middle of a desperate fight
And she couldn't find how to push through

thebullkf

hold onto the shore.....;)



if there was no God.



there wouldn't be Atheists.

xoxyx

Ha - seven.

*Stands back; folds arms smugly*

franklyon

Evil can best be described as a lack of empathy for others

caseyann

If there was no evil how would we know when there was good,lesson to be learned there

anniehoo

*checks this is still AH ive clicked into*

Ok...carryon.