Epicurus' riddle about evil and God - please solve it

[Pergamum]

Is God "Wholly Other"?

Yes.

Allow me to play the skeptic:

God, being God, gets to do whatever he so wills, and gets to define it however he wills. Send a storm to kill thousands of people? That was good! Allow his children to suffer and die in the most horrific manner? That's nothing but pure love!
Hence, everything God does is decreed to be "good" -no matter how atrocious it may seem to us, who supposedly have been given from God the very sense of justice that makes us cry out, "That isn't fair!" - because God says so. And you'd better agree with him or he'll fling your soul into hell. You'd BETTER go around singing his praises and declaring him to be love... or else!

And this would be a typical response. Even as I read in Romans 1 that the unbelievers are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. So they paint a picture of God in their perceived unfashionable light so they can "prove" He doesn't exist. Which is precisely why the Scriptures say that only a "fool [would say] in his heart 'There is no God.' "

How would you talk to such a person?

I wouldn't answer a fool according to his folly, nor would I continue to cast pearls before swine.

Josh, while your comment may be true, it sure comes across to those on the outside like we've got blinders on.

And that's okay with me. Let God be true and every man a liar.

I know this is probably perceived as simplistic, but I don't have to explain why God does what He does. It's not my responsibility. It's my responsibility to be ready to give an answer for the hope I have and how any many who so desires may have the same. With the skeptic/atheist/unbeliever, all the "evidence" or arguing in the world will not change a thing so long as the Spirit of God regenerates them not and they persist in their suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.

But, then again, I'm quite a novice to apologetics and anytime philosophy, etc. starts rearing its head (read: clarkian, van tillian, scottish realism, foundationalism, etc. etc.) I grow incredibly confused and thank God that it's not understanding of such things that will effect the sinner, but His simple "foolish" gospel.

(that last paragraph was not a slight against those who are passionate about such things; rather, a recognition that I will never have a great understanding of the intracacies of said systems of thought)

You wouldn't answer a seeking agnostic or atheist about God and the problem of evil due to the verse about throwing pearls to swine?

 

[Pergamum]

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;

or he can, but does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.

If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.

If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

Sit back. Relax. Grab some popcorn. This is a long post.

I'm not an expert in apologetics, but I recently heard a message by
R.C. Sproul called "The Problem of Evil" that dealt with this very issue, so of this I borrowed from Dr. Sproul.

First off, God is omnipotent. There is no lack of capability in God. If God is not able to do what He wants, then He is not God, and this discussion doesn't really matter anyway.

Then we need to take a look at the second statement, "If he (God) can, but does not want to (get rid off evil), he is wicked." (This is often phrased, If God can get rid off evil, but doesn't, then He is not loving.) To this I would respond, "Why?" Why is God wicked if He does not get rid off evil? Is there some cosmic rule that states that God cannot allow evil to exist? Is God evil? By no means! Yet, in a very real sense, evil is present in this world. Where did evil come from? I don't know, and Scripture doesn't say, other than that we are all completely sinful because of the Fall, and this world and everything in it is in rebellion against God because of that.

Okay, since evil is present, God must allow it to exist. Why? An excellent answer to this is the life of Job. God asks Satan if he had considered Job, "a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil" (Job 1:8). Satan responds by saying that Job fears God only because God has hedged him in and blessed him richly. To prove that this (Job fearing God because God had blessed him) was not the case, God allowed Satan to do all kinds of horrible things to Job: destroy all his possessions, kill his children, and inflict him with an excruciating disease.

Now, God could have kept that hedge around Job and prevented Satan from harming him, but what was gained through the suffering and pain and evil that assaulted Job? What did Job learn? Not to call to God unjust (which Job did in chpt. 10 verses 2 & 3) for making him suffer. Job repented in ashes and dust, declaring that God's ways were too lofty for him to criticize unthinkingly (see Job 42:1-6).

What did God prove through this episode? That He has a reason for suffering, and that He will even work through the wickedness of others to accomplish His goals. Does God endorse evil? No, He hates it. But He does cause all things, including evil, to work together for good to those called according to His purpose. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good."

What do we learn from this? Check out Job 34:10-15 and see for yourself.

Another thing to think about: do we deserve God to be good to us? Hmm? Do we deserve His hedge of protection from evil?

Also, God will abolish evil from this world. Rom. 8:18-23, "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."

God did not create this world to be sinful. Sin is the result of the Fall. God did not sit idly by, helplessly wringing His hands..."Oh what am I going to do!? Those stupid people wrecked My creation!" God actively engaged Himself in redeeming His Creation from evil. Not only did He set apart for Himself a people to be undefiled, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, but also will totally obliterate evil in the world in the New Heaven and the New Earth. Listen to what Peter says, "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." (2 Pet. 3:13)

So why is there evil in the world? There is evil in the world because an omnipotent, sovereign, holy, holy, holy God ordained it to suit His purpose. What is that purpose? Redeeming for Himself "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9).

What better reason is there than that?

So why is there evil in the world? There is evil in the world because an omnipotent, sovereign, holy, holy, holy God ordained it to suit His purpose. What is that purpose? Redeeming for Himself "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9).

This purpose makes our salvation first and foremost instead of God's glory.

 

[Pergamum]

Good distinction Josh.

 

[biggandyy]

Methinks thoust all overthinkth the issue.

Evil is nothing. There is no thing that exists called "evil". Evil is merely a shorthand term that refers to a much broader concept, the ABSENCE of GOOD.

There is only Good in the universe since God is wholly Good He could not create anything evil. Evil is the absence of good just as dark is the absence of light.

So the original question is in error since "evil" does not exist, only varying levels of a lack of goodness or obedience to God.

As to the question, "Why is there evil in the world?" It now becomes simple. Since God is loath to force anyone to commit Good against their will He allows Mankind the option to disobey His righteous commands and precepts and hence "evil" results. There is, in essence, no evil, only the lack of good.

 

[a mere housewife]

Then the devil would be merely the lack of God? I don't find that position convincing.

 

[biggandyy]

The devil is not the embodiment of evil but the embodiment of disobedience towards God.

 

[a mere housewife]

isn't disobedience towards God evil?

 

[biggandyy]

That is just another name for disobedience... evil is the absence of good (construed as a verb in this sense), not God.

 

[a mere housewife]

But there is no good that exists independently of God. I'm not sure I understand what you have just said.

 

[biggandyy]

That is spiritual good, a good that is pleasing to God through faith in Christ.

What are the things done in Good apart from God? They are called filthy rags.

What then are the things done against the Will of God? We call it "evil", but it is a lack of Goodness, so yes, all Good can not be separated from God and comes from God. So performing works of unGodliness and wickedness, are they not lacking goodness?

 

[a mere housewife]

Andy (?) I'm not sure I understand what you are advocating; but I'm sure that greater minds than mine will not fail . So I'll leave it to them. Personally I find Lewis' illustration of evil as a parasite more helpful to me than the idea of it being 'nothing', as if things that have fallen into rebellion are now simply uncreated. All the best.

 

[JM]

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124

Digging a Hole in Goodness

Central to Augustine's idea of goodness (and, consequently, evil) was the notion of being. To Augustine, anything that had being was good. God as the ground of being was perfectly good, along with everything he brought into being. This goodness was a property that came in varying degrees.

With this foundation Augustine was now prepared to answer the key issue: "Where is evil then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what its seed? Or hath it no being?" To this Augustine answered: "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"[ii]

Augustine observed that evil always injures, and such injury is a deprivation of good. If there were no deprivation, there would be no injury. Since all things were made with goodness, evil must be the privation of goodness: "All which is corrupted is deprived of good."[iii]

The diminution of the property of goodness is what's called evil. Good has substantial being; evil does not. It is like a moral hole, a nothingness that results when goodness is removed. Just as a shadow is no more than a "hole" in light, evil is a hole in goodness.

To say that something is evil, then, is a shorthand way of saying it either lacks goodness, or is a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been. But the question remains: "Whence and how crept it in hither?"

Augustine observed that evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. One can only turn away from the good, that is from a greater good to a lesser good (in Augustine's hierarchy) since all things are good. "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked."[iv]

Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."[v] Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things.[vi]

 

[Christusregnat]

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;

or he can, but does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.

If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.

If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

Epicurius needed to repent of his idolatry and believe the truth. Satan has 36 flavors, but they all amount to rebellion against God. God is not obliged to answer to man, and any form of apologetics that suggests as much is (I believe) misguided. Man must answer to God. Since this is the case, an entirely different set of questions is in order:

Why don't you repent of the assumptions of this riddle?

Why would you fight against what you cannot defeat?

How can a wicked mind seek to understand a Holy God without God explaining Himself?


Anywho, you get the idea. God Word is the critic; man is not.

Cheers,

 

[Calvinist Cowboy]

So why is there evil in the world? There is evil in the world because an omnipotent, sovereign, holy, holy, holy God ordained it to suit His purpose. What is that purpose? Redeeming for Himself "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). [/I]

This purpose makes our salvation first and foremost instead of God's glory.

No, it does not, because why has God redeemed us? "that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" It is ridiculous to think that our salvation is the chief end of God! The purpose of redemption itself is to glorify the wondrous name of God! The Gospel calls all sinners to proclaim, "Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name; deliver us, and forgive our sins, for Your name's sake!" (Ps. 79:9)

 

[Pergamum]

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;

or he can, but does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.

If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.

If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

Epicurius needed to repent of his idolatry and believe the truth. Satan has 36 flavors, but they all amount to rebellion against God. God is not obliged to answer to man, and any form of apologetics that suggests as much is (I believe) misguided. Man must answer to God. Since this is the case, an entirely different set of questions is in order:

Why don't you repent of the assumptions of this riddle?

Why would you fight against what you cannot defeat?

How can a wicked mind seek to understand a Holy God without God explaining Himself?


Anywho, you get the idea. God Word is the critic; man is not.

Cheers,

These questions are valid and there should be good answers to them that would take us deeper into the very nature of God (see Jay Adam's, Grand Demonstration). Calling people to repetance over curiosity is a bad way to teach people the truth.

 

[Zenas]

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;

or he can, but does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.

If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.

If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

You cannot assume God is wicked for refusing to abolish evil because you're applying a higher standard than God and are therefore no longer talking about God.

Moreover, God has abolished evil. His Son died on the cross for His people. While evil still exists, the sons of the prince of this world and their ruler are defeated enemies who await their final judgment.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became as fools.

 

[Calvinist Cowboy]

Pergamum, forgive me if this seems harsh, but what do you want? Do you want God Himself to come down and speak to you on this matter? Many fine men have tried to answer you using Scripture, but ultimately there is no plain and simple answer. If becoming a Christian is dependent upon fully understanding the answer to Epicurus' riddle, then no one would be saved!This is why we ourselves cannot convince people to become Christians; it is God who must change the heart and draw people unto Himself. We can take comfort in the fact that none whom the Father gave to the Son will be lost because all who have been elected will be saved.

 

[Pergamum]

So why is there evil in the world? There is evil in the world because an omnipotent, sovereign, holy, holy, holy God ordained it to suit His purpose. What is that purpose? Redeeming for Himself "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). [/I]

This purpose makes our salvation first and foremost instead of God's glory.

No, it does not, because why has God redeemed us? "that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" It is ridiculous to think that our salvation is the chief end of God! The purpose of redemption itself is to glorify the wondrous name of God! The Gospel calls all sinners to proclaim, "Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name; deliver us, and forgive our sins, for Your name's sake!" (Ps. 79:9)

You appeared to put our salvation first, "What is that purpose? Redeeming for Himself "a chosen generation..."

 

[Pergamum]

Pergamum, forgive me if this seems harsh, but what do you want? Do you want God Himself to come down and speak to you on this matter? Many fine men have tried to answer you using Scripture, but ultimately there is no plain and simple answer. If becoming a Christian is dependent upon fully understanding the answer to Epicurus' riddle, then no one would be saved!This is why we ourselves cannot convince people to become Christians; it is God who must change the heart and draw people unto Himself. We can take comfort in the fact that none whom the Father gave to the Son will be lost because all who have been elected will be saved.

Just curious how PBers would answer.

The problem of evil is one of the biggest obstacles to belief.

 

[MW]

Just curious how PBers would answer.

The problem of evil is one of the biggest obstacles to belief.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but the Holy Spirit convicted me of my evil as a part of bringing me to faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Christusregnat]

These questions are valid and there should be good answers to them that would take us deeper into the very nature of God (see Jay Adam's, Grand Demonstration). Calling people to repetance over curiosity is a bad way to teach people the truth.

I'm in good company; a Jewish man wrote a letter to some saints in Rome that uses the same technique.

 

[Christusregnat]

Just curious how PBers would answer.

The problem of evil is one of the biggest obstacles to belief.

The problem of evil is the only obstacle to belief. Man is so desperately wicked, and evil, that he chooses not to believe.

 

[Zenas]

I find the problem of evil to be one of the simplest arguments against God. You have to assume that God is not God in order for there to be a problem.

If you assume that God is subject to no moral code but Himself, then He Himself decides whether or not it is good to allow evil to continue; something we recognize as naturally true, flowing from His inherent nature. Something that is ultimately Supreme naturally has nothing supreme over it.

We see this illustrated in the stories of Joseph, Job, and when we are told that all things work for the good of those who love him; things we know in light of Scripture must be evil per the intentions of the actors, but not God.

 

[Grymir]

Biggandyy hits it on the head with a winner!! So that people can understand, it's like a thermometer. We look outside and say it's cold out there! But cold isn't the 'real' measurement. A thermometer measures heat. Cold is the absence of heat. A thermometer doesn't measure 'cold'. Cold is the relative term. Heat is the absolute that we can measure. Satan is not the embodyment of evil either.

I sometimes turn this question back on those who ask. I will tell them something like below -

""What about the evil that mankind does to each other? Isn't this 'evil' you are complaining about really cause by mankind?? And why do you keep bringing up this evil question as if it is a real argument? If God is all good and powerfull, how come my Mazda RX-7 breaks down? If God is all good and powerfull, how come I don't have a million dollars in my bank account since I became a Christian? If God is all good and powerfull, then how come I'm working in a place like this?? If God is all good and powerfull, how come there are poodles? Are you buying any of this? Then why ask the question? Is there not a better question to ask?""

I then dump that into their lap. They either walk away because they didn't really care in the first place, or they will probe themselves a little deeper and ask/tell the real reason (besides being unregenerated), or they will crack up and say that's the best answer they have ever heard a Christian say to that question. I wouldn't recomend it to all, but it has worked.

 

[Pergamum]

These questions are valid and there should be good answers to them that would take us deeper into the very nature of God (see Jay Adam's, Grand Demonstration). Calling people to repetance over curiosity is a bad way to teach people the truth.

I'm in good company; a Jewish man wrote a letter to some saints in Rome that uses the same technique.

Good response, Paul does stop the mouth of the scoffers and only says "God Forbid". Is there no theodicy found in Paul or the NT, however? And what about the legitimate seeker who is searching for the truth and really wants an answer besides "That's just how it is..." (granting that you believe that there are seekers...maybe another thread can handle this)

After all many of the Reformed use the TAG to show God's existence, something that the Bible also takes for granted....are they too being foolish for trying to see the best method to defend something that doesn't need defending? If we are allowed to formulate answers in the form of TAG then we are allowed to think through and develop good arguments against Epicurus' clever little sayings.

 

[Christusregnat]

These questions are valid and there should be good answers to them that would take us deeper into the very nature of God (see Jay Adam's, Grand Demonstration). Calling people to repetance over curiosity is a bad way to teach people the truth.

I'm in good company; a Jewish man wrote a letter to some saints in Rome that uses the same technique.

Good response, Paul does stop the mouth of the scoffers and only says "God Forbid". Is there no theodicy found in Paul or the NT, however? And what about the legitimate seeker who is searching for the truth and really wants an answer besides "That's just how it is..." (granting that you believe that there are seekers...maybe another thread can handle this)

After all many of the Reformed use the TAG to show God's existence, something that the Bible also takes for granted....are they too being foolish for trying to see the best method to defend something that doesn't need defending? If we are allowed to formulate answers in the form of TAG then we are allowed to think through and develop good arguments against Epicurus' clever little sayings.

Pergs,

I think that no one seeks God. When someone seeks God, it is because God is calling such a one by His Word. Epicurius was a scoffer, not a seeker. Using God's word is what will create seekers; answering autonomous man's criticisms of God only serves to keep his illusion intact that he may sit on judgment of God.

Cheers,

 

[Pergamum]

I'm in good company; a Jewish man wrote a letter to some saints in Rome that uses the same technique.

Good response, Paul does stop the mouth of the scoffers and only says "God Forbid". Is there no theodicy found in Paul or the NT, however? And what about the legitimate seeker who is searching for the truth and really wants an answer besides "That's just how it is..." (granting that you believe that there are seekers...maybe another thread can handle this)

After all many of the Reformed use the TAG to show God's existence, something that the Bible also takes for granted....are they too being foolish for trying to see the best method to defend something that doesn't need defending? If we are allowed to formulate answers in the form of TAG then we are allowed to think through and develop good arguments against Epicurus' clever little sayings.

Pergs,

I think that no one seeks God. When someone seeks God, it is because God is calling such a one by His Word. Epicurius was a scoffer, not a seeker. Using God's word is what will create seekers; answering autonomous man's criticisms of God only serves to keep his illusion intact that he may sit on judgment of God.

Cheers,

Okay, Epicurus was a tuth seeker and a scoffer at the same time...fair'nuff....

I can't speak for Epicurus, but I can sure speak for the many people who have paraphrased this riddle to men and most of them were seriously (seemingly so) looking for answers.... should I have answered them?


Why is there TAG out there and a whole lotta reformed apologists if we're not to answer autonomous man's critcisms of God?


Also, on this whole subject of seeking, there is another thread out there floating somewhere (maybe next to some weird thread about Preparation H perhaps) about Seeking. Jonathan Edwards preached about the manner in which the unsaved should seek God.

Here's a few thoughts:

Seeking God

The Manner of Seeking Salvation

Seek the Lord while he may be found...



Yes, there is none that seeks God apart from Grace but God does awaken sinners to their need and the Holy Spirit does do some pre-conversion work in the soul (ploughing the soil)....

 

[py3ak]

I think this thread is coming to the end of its time of usefulness and should shortly be retired. It begins to repeat itself like a person who can no longer remember what he has said.

Here is C.S. Lewis

"I still think the argument from design the weakest possible ground for Theism, and what may be called the argument from un-design the strongest for Atheism.
"Of course my error was in asking how I knew the universe to be so bad: whence came the light wh. discovered this darkness, the straight by which I judged this crookedness?"

Unbelievers assume a standard other than God, which begs the question.

Defining evil as the absence of good does not pass muster: it renders incoherent the concept of "great evil" because since existence is itself a good, a "great evil" would have to be very nearly non-existent. Perversion comes closer to the mark.

Anyway, let's wrap it up.

 

[TheFleshProfitethNothing]

God has not destroyed evil yet, because of the Elect...He decreed that He will destroy it, and has not yet done so, because all (the elect) must come to the Knowledge of Christ first. It is quite simple. When the last of the elect is saved, then God will destroy with fire the elements and wipe wickedness from the face of the earth.

Nice riddle though.

 

[Pergamum]

Thaks all! This thread was based on questions to me by "seeking" unbelievers. I am searching for the best point and counterpoint regarding this argument against the existence of God. My way of presenting all this may have muddied the process, but thanks for the interactions.....I've been dealing with a lot of unbelievers lately who doubt God, dislike the church and don't see a difference in the goodness of His People and the world....and I am rattled, which might explain my oddness of late (even more than normal).....