Quote# 45745

Question [which was stolen from Epicurus]:

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.

[The fundy answer]

No, he allows evil and he is capable to do anything. Judgement day will come.

strats!!, Yahoo!Answers 35 Comments [8/24/2008 8:06:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Malkavian Jeff

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Tom S. Fox

Thank you for this non-answer.

8/24/2008 8:09:20 PM

anonymous_troy

Eh allows evil and doesn't incapable of anything.

"Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."

8/24/2008 8:12:22 PM

dpareja

So he's able but not willing? Thanks for verifying what we've been saying all along in various forms: Your God is malevolent.

8/24/2008 8:13:04 PM

Smith

Sooooooo...he's malevolent. Thanks.

8/24/2008 8:15:00 PM

RavenWood

Malevolent. We thought so.

8/24/2008 8:20:42 PM

Pato2747

Epicurus. It has epic on his name. Why the hell would you fight against somebody who has EPIC on his name?

8/24/2008 8:29:30 PM



Dwarf: Damnit! Well-thought out atheist argument to port!
Pirk: Perkele! Initiate cop-out maneuver Pirk-7!
The Leather-Clad girl: Evasive maneuver Pirk-7 :ship does a couple rolls without changing speed or heading:

8/24/2008 8:29:32 PM

Grigadil

"...he is capable to do anything."

When was the last time he delivered anything? Really.

8/24/2008 8:30:01 PM

anevilmeme

So the correct answer then is malevolent.

8/24/2008 8:35:07 PM



I find that most people who make an honest attempt to dismantle this Argument from Evil usually attempt to deny the malevolent bit. But the problem is that this is a very short summary of a much longer, more detailed argument where "malevolent" doesn't mean "out right Evil", just that God isn't the shining beacon of "Perfect Benevolence", one of the common characteristics attributed to him.

The goal of this argument is NOT to disprove God directly, but rather to force you to admit that he is either:
1) Not Omnipotent (with a capital 'O').
2) Not Benevolent (with a capital 'B').
or 3) Both of the above.

The argument is meant to be one in a string of arguments that systematically decimate one's personal belief in God by forcing them to make successive detrimental compromises and rationalizations.

But yeah, people like this who try to have it both ways are lost causes. Our only hope as a species is that we continue to spark critical thinking in their children before the fundie indoctrination closes their minds completely. That way, we can eventually weed out Religion and start making some significant progress as a society.

8/24/2008 8:42:41 PM

Bored One-time Poster

This pretty much speaks for itself.

Fish, barrel, shot, anyone?

8/24/2008 8:43:44 PM

Jay-Sus

Now if you'd be so kindly as to answer the question!

8/24/2008 8:48:47 PM

ArmandT

You just called your called a malevolent God. Now stop claiming that He loves us all.

8/24/2008 8:59:11 PM

Horsefeathers

"No, he allows evil and he is capable to do anything. Judgement day will come."

I picture strats here plugging his ears with his fingers while screaming "LALALALALALA!!! I can't hear you!!!" and running madly from a valid question.

8/24/2008 9:32:31 PM

alex77

The answer is typical Fundie, no doubt about that.

But I have one problem with the question by Epicurus: The conclusion to malevolent is not coherent to me, when you bring the proclaimed free will of mortals to the equitation. There are no demons which make you evil in the world. People themselfs decide out of reasons like fear, ignorance etc. to do bad things. If God (if he would exist!) would supress the free will to prevent evil deeds, then we would only be his puppets. So there might be evil in the world, because we (humans) decide to bring it here. This is by no means a try to prove God by disabeling the quote by Epicurus. It's just a thought, that troubles me since I first read it.

I don't know if anyboddy understands what I mean, but it would be nice, if someone could help me here. And I appologize again for my bad grammar and possible spelling errors, but Englih is not my first language.

8/24/2008 10:04:05 PM

Old Viking

Hah! I was right all along.

8/25/2008 12:31:54 AM

DayGlow

Alex77: The malevolent idea also comes from the fact that God can stop bad things from happening that people have no control over, like natural disasters. If he is able to do so but refuses to, that would make him malevolent.

8/25/2008 2:03:26 AM

TSS

Hi Alex77,

I'd also add the case of diseases. Many people get horrible diseases that were not caused by humans. How could a loving god allow that? How could a loving and just god allow some to suffer more than others through no fault of their own? The argument becomes especially troubling when you add children into the mix. What kind of a god would allow innocent children to suffer? I think if god exists he has alot of explaining to do.

8/25/2008 2:23:09 AM

Sasha

Amazing. He doesn't even realize he answered the question.

8/25/2008 4:18:45 AM

WTF?

I think strats!! is a pretty cool guy. eh gives non-answers and doesn't afraid of anything.

8/25/2008 5:32:18 AM

Mathew

And therefore is malevolent.

Oh, wait - I forgot. "God works in Mysterious ways." Otherwise known as the Fundie Get Out of Logic Free Card.

8/25/2008 7:36:05 AM

Christopher

Hi DayGlow & TSS

I think your questions were answered by Moses Maimonides.
He argued that only things which one intelligent being does to another can be defined as morally good or evil. So being infected by a disease or a natural disaster occuring is not [by Maimonides' definition] an evil merely bad fortune. Since bad fortune can be used for good or ill by the person on the receiving end God could not, rationally, merely stop people from suffering bad fortune. So therefore Epicurus' argument would not apply.
By the way I always thought it was Hume who used this argument.

Not saying I agree with old Maimonides by the way but it is an answer.

8/25/2008 9:11:58 AM

alex77

@DayGlow, TSS and Christopher: Thanks alot for the answers.

8/25/2008 10:01:44 AM

aaa

Malevolent, check.

8/25/2008 10:20:37 AM

Christopher

you're welcome Alex77

8/25/2008 10:28:10 AM

1 2 | top: comments page