Why is this god a he?
because at the time of translation there was no gender neutral pronoun in English, so "he" was used as such.
This is why the paradox is not valid due to it being based on what humans think a god is supposed to be rather than a infinite amount of other possibilities
This is Honestly a very weak argument that stems from assumptions Western cultures make about the nature of God ( ie they view god as basically a really large powerful man)
that is the point
The so called paradox assumes that human and divine definitions of evil are the same .The fact is that human definitions of evil are not the same across cultures or individuals for that matter, this means the main assumption really can’t be justified.From a undefined gods point of view It is possible that there might not be such a thing as evil .In that case there would be no paradox.
A divine definitions of evil presupposes the existence of the divine.
The paradox is from a human perspective using human definitions.
Regardless of cultural difference to each individual evil or negativity holds the same negative connotation, regardless of the act being referenced in the individual mind as an illustration.
Therefore the paradox holds and is free from equivocation
@LenHazell53 Your definition of this is an opinion and nothing more .
@richiegtt Very compelling and logical interpretation
God and dog both must wag their tails before their masters
In my experience, studying theology and philosophy of religion, even the modst highly-thought-of theologians can't produce an acceptable answer and have to fall back on 'There are some things which will always remain a mystery'. It doesn't seem to change their beliefs, though.
It's the original statement of what we now call the Problem of Evil (although I prefer to call it the Problem of Suffering, evil being a religiously loaded word and a distraction). And it's one of the most powerful logical conundrums posed to theism.
The have no choice but to either throw one or more of the so-called "tri-omni" attributes of god under the bus to make him compatible with human suffering (most often, omnipotence), or, to rattle on about how god must allow suffering because that would violate Free Will and make us all robots. Despite that this is somehow not a problem in the afterlife, where there is no sin and therefore no ability to sin and therefore everyone conforms and is a robot.
In fact there's a technical term for arguments to address the Problem of Evil (POE), it's called a "theodicy". But constructing a theodicy is impossible, I haven't seen it done yet.
Well, sure....
This was an interesting take on Epicurus. A little slippin' an' a-slidin' goin' on here, dontcha think?
So I'll send for this guy to tell a victim of child rape that it was all just an illusion and not to worry about it.
what a Fecking idiot.
I think it's spot-on.. Then they'll tell you that they "don't worship the God of the Old Testament, Jesus changed everything, blah, blah.. Or some new-age non-sense, like I worship "a higher power, something greater than me.." Well, no shit.. An undertow current is greater than me. Lightning is greater than me. Are they omnicient, loving, want a personal relationship with me, watching over me, and answering my prayers if I'm a good, little, religitard? Yeah, the evidence points to "No."
Isn't this kinda why we are "non-believers"? I'm not able to wrap myself around the idea of a "loving" god that has a scortch earth policy, an "only" god who is jealous of other gods that don't exist, a god that gives humankind "freewill" only to damn everyone who doesn't believe to an eternity of torment, not to mention a god who "has a plan" but lets innocent children suffer & die.
Very true, the only answer most believers can come up with is "don't be so arrogant as to presume to know the will of God, he is so beyond our understanding" which of course is religions long hand for "why don't you just feck off and stop making me think!"
I don't see a paradox, just a statement of fact.
True, it is a and can be read as a statement of fact, the paradox is similar in nature however to the "Can an omnipotent God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?" paradox.
Epicurious in context was referring to a given value of God as all loving, all powerful, all knowing and omnipresent.
I agree.