this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Cool Guides

4659 readers
1 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
2
A cool guide to Epicurean paradox (i.redd.it)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
169 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.

It's a slightly more complicated version of whether God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it. Can God create a universe where I simultaneously have freewill and also don't have the ability to do anything outside his will (evil)? Can 0 equal 1? The answer to that question isn't yes/no, it's that the question is invalid. Freewill does not equal non-freewill. It'll confuse some unprepared Sunday School teacher, but that's it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (22 children)

There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.

It’s a slightly more complicated version of whether God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it.

It's a very good argument against god, and your second statement is a great addition to it. Omnipotence in itself is impossible, as proven by the rock paradox. An omnipotent being can therefore not exist.

Your free will idea however has a very easy counter argument: If free will is the problem, then god has nothing to offer us - since in the afterlife the same rules would apply. Either a world without suffering is possible, or it isn't. Since the afterlife isn't known to work by taking away our free will, suffering would therefore continue to prevail there as well. If the idea of an afterlife must be possible (as seen in most organized religions) than the idea of a world without suffering must be possible, without taking away something so valuable as our freedom.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Alright so your argument about free will only really adds up if you are an absolutist about free will. Imagine a perfect utopian paradise of a world. All are free to do whatever they want so long as it is not "evil." Your definition of evil can vary but presumably an omniscient god would have a pretty good idea of what that means. Rhe mwans of prevention xouls be literally anything, because y'know omnipotent and omniscient, including just creating people that simply do not have the capacity for evil. Would the people in that world not have free will? Just because there are some things they cannot do does not mean that in my eye. I can't fly or bite my own finger off or perceive and manipulate the fabric of the universe, does that mean I don't have free will? IMO the only way your position here is logically consistant is if you do take the absolutist position that in order to have free will you must be omnipotent yourself, otherwise there will always be things you cannot do.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think I would say that the people living in that utopia do not have free will. Their will is not their own, it's God's will imposed on them. They can operate within its confines and limits, but it is externally, not internally defined.

I think you have to separate out two things that are often conflated together, freedom of will and freedom of action. The difference is with freedom of will, I can want to fly, and with freedom of action, I can fly if I want to.

It reminds me of the classic Henry Ford quote about having your car in any color you want, as long as it's black. If I want a black car, fine. If I want a white car, that's a problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In what way is this an argument against God? This is an argument against a god that is all-knowing all-powerful and all-benevolent.

Also your idea of free will is coming loaded with some major baggage.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

My bad, that baggage is the capital G God primarily referring to Abrahamic tradition God. Zeus doesn't pass the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent religion check, but Yahweh and Allah definitely have those claimed tied pretty innately to their being.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.

That is because this isn't an argument against god. It is simply a question that resulted in a Paradox about the character of god as described by the Church

Can 0 equal 1? The answer to that question isn’t yes/no, it’s that the question is invalid.

What? the question is not invalid. it is a yes/no, the *implications" of that yes or no however can carry significant correlations

Freewill does not equal non-freewill.

yeah, nobody is making this crazy claim...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, probably would have been better to use dividing by 0 instead of 0=1 as the example, but the point still stands.

Yes/no isn't a valid answer to a paradox. Can God create a universe where there is freewill and there isn't freewill? Can God create a rock so large he can't lift it? Can he shit so big he can't flush it? All interesting, but in the end invalid questions. But shoehorning in a yes/no when the real answer is just undefined is incorrect.

It's good fun for an internet comment section, or irritating some youth group leader, but in the end not a useful question.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I agree, this is not a good argument against the existence of god, but it seems to be a fine argument against certain models of god. To get out of the paradox, one must be willing to give up certain notions about god. Either:

  1. God isn't all knowing, so it's unaware of all the evil in the universe.
  2. God doesn't have infinite power, making god unable to create a universe without evil (perhaps due to limitations of what god can and cannot do.
  3. God is not entirely good or god's definition of good does not align with what us humans have been taught. God doesn't see evil where we see evil so it does not use its infinite power and knowledge to change it.

I think there are a lot of theists who would have trouble accepting one of these notions, which would keep them stuck within this paradox.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What's your logic with 0 = 1?
Can you restate without math?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's similar to the "unstoppable force meets an immovable object" thought experiment.

They can't both exist, just like 0 can't be the same as 1. If you somehow "forced" it to be true because an all powerful deity made it so, the logic breaks, and the answer is effectively useless to us.

So then if a deity made freewill, there MUST be evil, or at least the capability of it. My metaphor is sorta inverted, but hopefully it makes sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

0 and 1 are not the same thing. Can an all powerful being make them the same thing? Yes, but doing so would destroy the very concept of logic and render this whole exercise that is existence pointless. The theoretical world in which 0 and 1 are the same thing (or true and false, or hot and cold) does not rely on the rules of logic that underpin all human thought. You are looking at a return to the Ginnungagap; the void before reality. The darkness that existed before the first day.

Of course, the "free will" thingy doesn't explain away all the bad stuff in the world. It explains why we have adultery and murder and nazis. But it doesn't explain why babies get cancer. And the reason that babies get cancer is that the gods do not know everything, they can't fix everything, and besides, they wouldn't if they could because they don't care. The paradox of baby cancer only works on monotheistic religions, and even then only a tiny percentage of them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is a few problems with this diagram:

  1. Why should God want only the good? What is the paradox of God wanted to do whatever it want with its creation? The all-powerful, all-knowing God would have create Satan and wanted that he did all bad things he did.
  2. Why should the test be to let God know about us? It could be about letting us know about ourself.

Also the branch that are not yes/no does not cover all possibility. Therefore, this is not a paradox but rather an incomplet thought. I know that much from UML.

I don't know much about history but didn't Epicure lived at a time where people believe their was multiple gods? Why is it not mentioned in the scheme? Did he believe that there was only one god?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
  1. Why should God want only the good?

Because otherwise god could not be considered all-god or all benevolent

  1. Why should the test be to let God know about us? It could be about letting us know about ourself.

Because if his is all powerful, god could have made us with that knowledge already acquired

Also the branch that are not yes/no does not cover all possibility. Therefore, this is not a paradox but rather an incomplet thought

Can you add any that would actually not end up conflicting with "not all powerful", "not all knowing" or "not all good"?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

otherwise god could not be considered all-god or all benevolent

But that is an assumption that was not proved. And an assumption that's again many religion believe. I assume from his time that Epicure was not Christian so why would he made this assumption?

Can you add any that would actually not end up conflicting with “not all powerful”, “not all knowing” or “not all good”?

If you mean without falling back to the paradox, no. But the point is not to find a solution that let us out. It is to observe every option to rule out every things that is illogical and see if there could be one or more logicial possibility.

Among possibility we are missing and that bring to a solution that is not written on the diagramme :
When its said "Then why is their evil?", we could add "because God will it". Then God is all-powerful to create everything he want, and of course he knows everything, because it is what he will and he created. This way, God is "all knowing" "all powerfull" has "unstopable will" but is not all-loving". This solution is not in the diagram.

Still, a good pratice when making any conditional is to cover every cases, the original schema and my addings do not cover every case so the thought is not finish.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But that is an assumption that was not proved. And an assumption that’s again many religion believe. I assume from his time that Epicure was not Christian so why would he made this assumption?

Well no, that is just a logical conclusion. If an entity is OK or even wants "bad things", such entity cannot be considered "all-good". And this is a thought exercise that would follow any "god" that claims to be "all good, all knowing, all powerful" regardless of religion

If you mean without falling back to the paradox, no

Then your claim this paradox is just an incomplete thought is voided.

But the point is not to find a solution that let us out. It is to observe every option to rule out every things that is illogical and see if there could be one or more logicial possibility.

And you claimed you could not find any, same as countless people since the time of the paradox. Ergo, until we can brake the paradox, it will remain a valid question.

Among possibility we are missing and that bring to a solution that is not written on the diagramme : When its said “Then why is their evil?”, we could add “because God will it”. Then God is all-powerful to create everything he want, and of course he knows everything, because it is what he will and he created. This way, God is “all knowing” “all powerfull” has “unstopable will” but is not all-loving". This solution is not in the diagram.

This is not a new "solution", it is simply another way of reaching the "god is not all-good" (all loving, all benevolent), end of the diagram.

Still, a good pratice when making any conditional is to cover every cases, the original schema and my addings do not cover every case so the thought is not finish.

Sorry but that one is simply another "god is not all good" ending. Clearly included in the diagram and paradox

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Hmm... I think I get what you mean. Then I don't understand a thing about what Epicure wanted to do. Well... Life go on.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

there is a non terminating loop in this diagram and that is where god is mic drop

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

That's where christians are stuck, at least

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›