{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by L00:
1/31/2013 8:03:17 PM
6
I think the error in Epicurus' reasoning was in his assumption that if God is able but not willing to prevent evil, he must be malevolent. Eliminating evil would require limiting man's free will. That would be enslavement, which would be evil itself!
English
-
I see two problems with this criticism: Firstly, why would it be limiting man's free will? That both implies that humans are inherently evil and that there is no way to curb it without removing it from our brains entirely. Could he not simply provide minor, indirect interventions in each person's life to guide them away from evil (provided there is a single definition of evil)? After all, he is omniscient, so he knows exactly how a certain event would effect someone. Secondly, God has (purportedly) destroyed evil before. He destroyed cities, peoples, and the [i]entire human race save one[/i] in the name of stopping evil. There's a logical paradox here, and Epicurus's statement still stands.
-
I don't see any reason to believe humans aren't inherently evil. Maybe not in big genocidal ways, but I have yet to see a person who isn't naturally greedy, selfish, and rebellious. As for providing minor, indirect interventions to guide a person away from evil when God already knows what the outcome of those interventions would be, how is that [i]not[/i] limiting free will? That's how you treat small children sometimes with the intent of limiting their free will. In your last paragraph, I'll assume you're talking about the Old Testament stories about God just because that seems to be the one that most closely fits your description. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. In any of those cases, it's never explained anywhere as God destroying all evil, just as God punishing evil, which is a very different thing. Exercising free will never comes without consequences.
-
How is punishing free will not limiting it? If you destroy an entire city for the crime of buttsex, they certainly can't exercise their free will anymore, can they? If any intervention of God is "limiting free will," he's broken his own rule many times over.
-
Clearly, we're okay with [i]some[/i] limits on free will, though. We punish people who do certain bad things. We don't let children have certain types of choices. We have age restrictions on all kinds of things. There's a certain point, though, where we cross a line and when we do, we start thinking of it as slavery. I'm sure there isn't a uniform consensus on where exactly that line is, but if any particular religion's God imposed all of the restrictions necessary to make sure no evil could happen (as defined by that particular religion's holy text, whatever that is) I think we'd call that evil. It'd be over the line.
-
Would we, though? Now that you've conceded that [i]our[/i] limits on free will, which are generally to prevent evil/unfairness (especially with limits on children), are okay, how is it now too much to prevent horrible evils, not even everyday ones? Just... genocide. If God put a prohibition on mass murder, I think very few people would have a problem with it. Though if you're planning to call the Abrahamic God evil because he would "limit our free will" too much, there are plenty of other reasons for which you could call him evil, such as his condoning of mass genocides, of considering women property, of saving the virgins of conquered cities for sexual use, and for demanding your loyalty with the punishment of eternal suffering on the line.
-
If an omnipotent god had created us he'd been able to create a universe with no injustice and a species with natural tendencies to do good. Either god didn't want this or was unable to do it. The Christian god is impossible because of it's own definiton.
