Epicurus 300 BC

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?

Originally posted by 667joe
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?

Does the questioner ask questions in such a way that an answer is not possible? Then said questions are not honest.
Does the questioner know an answer is not possible? Then the questioner is not to be trusted.
Does the questioner hear the answer, but reject it? Then the questioner is to be pitied.
Does the questioner know the answer, but suppress it? Then the questioner is to be shunned.

Originally posted by 667joe
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, Yes.

but not able? He is able.

Then he is not omnipotent. Irrational conclussion.


Is he able but not willing? He is able and willing.

Then he is malevolent. An insolent conclussion.


Is he both able and willing? Why wouldn't He be?

Then whence cometh evil? From those who do evil. 🙄


Is he neither able nor willing? Moot point.

Then why call him God? Because He is. 🙂

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Does the questioner ask questions in such a way that an answer is not possible? Then said questions are not honest.
Does the questioner know an answer is not possible? Then the questioner is not to be trusted.
Does the questioner hear the answer, but reject it? Then the questioner is to be pitied.
Does the questioner know the answer, but suppress it? Then the questioner is to be shunned.

Does the believer ascribe attributes to a being who is by definition formally beyond the bounds of possible human knowledge? Then said believer wants it both ways.

If theologians posit an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god (OOO), you can hardly blame Epicurus for asking sensible questions. Oh, wait it seems you did anyway...doh

Originally posted by josephw
Is god willing to prevent evil, [b]Yes.

but not able? He is able.

Then he is not omnipotent. Irrational conclussion.


Is he able but not willing? He is able and willing.

Then he is malevolent. An insolent conclussion.


Is he both able and willing? Why wouldn't He be?

Then whence cometh evil? [ ...[text shortened]... ither able nor willing? Moot point.

Then why call him God? Because He is. 🙂[/b]

premise 1: God is willing to prevent evil
premise 2: God is not able

therefore

3: God is not omnipotent (from 2)

So this is not an irrational conclusion given the premises of the question.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Does the believer ascribe attributes to a being who is by definition formally beyond the bounds of possible human knowledge? Then said believer wants it both ways.

If theologians posit an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god (OOO), you can hardly blame Epicurus for asking sensible questions. Oh, wait it seems you did anyway...doh

By your achingly selective and narrow reasoning, anything beyond our ability to comprehend fully is 'wanting it both ways.'

Or, in other words, nonsense. Anything we ascribe as being beyond our descriptive abilities, e.g., pi, infinity, how the universe began, or etc., becomes a black hole of circular reasoning lacking both beginning or end and eventually dissolves into absurdity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
By your achingly selective and narrow reasoning, anything beyond our ability to comprehend fully is 'wanting it both ways.'

Or, in other words, nonsense. Anything we ascribe as being beyond our descriptive abilities, e.g., pi, infinity, how the universe began, or etc., becomes a black hole of circular reasoning lacking both beginning or end and eventually dissolves into absurdity.

Well you have a point there. When our speculations so far outstrip our capabilities to test our assertions, we do dissolve into absurdity. So that is the difference between reasoning about, say pi, on the one hand and postulating something incoherent like the OOO god on the other. The former is not absurd, the latter is.

Originally posted by 667joe
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?

As you can clearly see from the answers you have received so far: you'll not find an honest discussion around here. Just apes of passed-down opinions and hostility towards any who question them. If you were in throwing distance of their cage I'd suggest that you duck! Most of them don't even have the intellectual equipment to engage in any other kind of battle.

As for your post - the answer is obvious (therefore it will not elicit reasoned responses.)

Originally posted by TerrierJack
As you can clearly see from the answers you have received so far: you'll not find an honest discussion around here. Just apes of passed-down opinions and hostility towards any who question them. If you were in throwing distance of their cage I'd suggest that you duck! Most of them don't even have the intellectual equipment to engage in any other kind of ...[text shortened]...
As for your post - the answer is obvious (therefore it will not elicit reasoned responses.)

have a dram on me Jack! we love yah never the less!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have a dram on me Jack! we love yah never the less!

I plan to be a total apostate tonite and imbibe a generous portion of 10 year-old Bushmill's Irish Whiskey to ring in the new year! (Since I am both Scot and Irish and Native American I claim all rights related to any form of the true water-of-life!)

Originally posted by TerrierJack
I plan to be a total apostate tonite and imbibe a generous portion of 10 year-old Bushmill's Irish Whiskey to ring in the new year! (Since I am both Scot and Irish and Native American I claim all rights related to any form of the true water-of-life!)

it is a perfect mixture, Scots, Irish, Native American a wee dram and some ice cubes! i wish you all the best Jack 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it is a perfect mixture, Scots, Irish, Native American a wee dram and some ice cubes! i wish you all the best Jack 🙂

Happy New Year to all within hearing! We need a better one than the last.

Originally posted by 667joe
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?

Must God be omnipotent? What's the problem if God isn't?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Must God be omnipotent? What's the problem if God isn't?

Then he's a douchebag and what's the point.

Originally posted by ua41
Then he's a douchebag and what's the point.

Evidently you're no Epicurus. Not even fit to have carried his sandals.