“Either God wants to get rid of evil, but he can’t; or God can, but he doesn’t want to; or God neither wants to nor can, or he both wants to and can. If God wants to, but can’t, then he’s not all powerful. If he can, but doesn’t want to, he’s not all-loving. If he neither can nor wants to, he’s neither all powerful nor all-loving. And if he wants to and can — then why doesn’t he remove the evils?”
— Epicurus
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
The most common "omni" attribute that gets thrown under the bus is omnipotence. This is the approach of the best selling book (many years ago), When Bad Things Happen To Good People. God weeps for us, but cannot help us. I forget the reason the author (a prominent Rabbi) thought so. I would not recommend anyone read the book to find out. It might cause brain damage.
Usually though fundamentalists can't worship a deity who is not all three of those "omnis": all powerful, all knowing, all loving. So they concoct a lame argument from free will, which effectively throws omnipotence under the bus anyway. God can't violate human free will, or we would be "robots" who wouldn't love him of our own volition. Somehow that's not a problem in the afterlife, where sin is magically no longer something anyone could do if they tried; it's only a problem here and now. God can violate free will in the next life, but not this one.
Yeah, I know ... it is an incoherent argument.
mordant
Level 8
Sep 16, 2018
0
I don't see this as proof or disproof of a god's existence. I see it as a refutation of the existence of a god that is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. A dirty rotten bastard god could still exist, according to the argument above.
schwinnrider
Level 6
Sep 16, 2018
0
Evil has nothing to do with God. Evil is just stuff we don’t like to see happen—a very human concept.
Things we don’t like might very well be good and necessary from a cosmic perspective.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Sep 16, 2018
2
this has been posted here many times and it proves nothing. there is no god but this isn't what proves it. all this proves is that those who believe in a god need to make their definitions clearer. there is no proof that there is no god. there doesn't need to be proof; you can't prove a negative. however, you can perceive what is possible, and god appears to be impossible. at any rate, my saying this doesn't prove there is no god has not bearing on whether or not i believe there is one. i believe there is no such thing as a god.
g
genessa
Level 8
Sep 16, 2018
1
Good reply, and I basically agree, except that proving a negative is no problem at all.
@WilliamFleming if you see the tooth fairy please tell her she owes me a quarter, plus a lot of interest.
g
Proving a Negative:
@WilliamFleming i don't need to read an article about proving a negative, but thanks.
g
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.