God and the Epicurus Paradox

Código VC1-E299-I

VIEW:472 DATA:2020-03-20

As in many accounts about ancient Greeks, we have difficulty in saying whether something was really said by a Greek philosopher, or even if it existed. But some questions are determined to be said by Epicurus. Forming the so-called Epicurus paradox. They represent some questions that generate the dichotomy between good and evil, and whether God would be evil or good.

We can read Epicurus' three points about God:

  • As omniscient and omnipotent, he has knowledge of all evil and the power to end it. But it doesn't. So it's not omnibenevolent.
  • While omnipotent and omnipotent, then it has the power to extinguish the evil and wants to do it, because it is good. But he doesn't, because he doesn't know how much evil there is and where the evil is. So he is not omniscient.
  • As omniscient and omnibenevolent, then he knows all the evil that exists and wants to change it. But it does not, because it is not capable. So he is not omnipotent.

The big problem at these points is what would be an omnibenevolent being. Benevolent comes from the etymological meaning of having good intentions, and omnibenevolent, it involves having good intentions with everyone. What would be good divine intentions in practice?

An individual wants to use drugs, and these are bad for health, so what should God do? Let's suppose that God forbids, in this case the individual tries in every way to look for ways to use the drug, but as God is omnipotent, and omnipotent, and omnipresent, then it is impossible for that individual to use. In that case he becomes sad, and goes into depression for not getting what he wants, and he wants to kill himself, but God does not allow such an individual to kill himself, so that individual becomes an eternal depressed being.

Would that be benevolent? So let's do the following, God frees the individual to use drugs, and whenever they are bad for health, God heals, and the individual now wants to ride in a car, but God knows he can kill someone, and he doesn't allow it, and again such an individual becomes an eternal depressed being. So God allows, and such a person takes the car and speeding on being at great speed, kills someone. And now, was God kind to this one and let the other die? So God makes no one feel pain, and no one can kill anyone. But if the individual who was run over, and did not die, nor did he feel pain, did he not want him to be run over? What if what he ran over wanted the run over to die?

See that no matter what God does, he will never be benevolent when an individual wishes to go against the good. And what is well? And good is good for whom? Whose good is relative to being subject to the will? From Epicurus we can see the emergence of Epicureanism, a concept in which looking for simple pleasures and in a materialistic way, this would generate a state of tranquility called ataraxia, which is the absence of restlessness or concern. Suppose an Epicurean individual, with ataraxia, and his son slip and hit his head, in that case the individual would have control over the adrenaline of his body, and with all tranquility and without worry, he would help his son. In fact, the hormonal system and concerns are inherent to the individual system to quickly resolve a particular problem.

Beforehand we have, that Epicurism should be mandatory? For suppose individuals who have exacerbated pleasures, and seek great violence, Epicureans would be easy prey for these types of individuals, who could be defined as barbarians. But suppose that Epicureans became people of great technology, with the power to destroy barbaric peoples. Could Epicureans consider this benevolent, and define that God should have that benevolence?

So what we have is that Epicurus' paradox is not a paradox, because Epicurus would not know how to define what is good, to define what is omnibenevolent. In fact, rationally speaking, as long as the good is not defined, cannot an omnibenevolence be requested from God if the individual does not know what it is? In fact God can be omnibenevolent, only individuals do not understand what benevolence is.

Epicurus looked at the problem of evil, and did not reconcile his existence with the existence of God. But in no way did he analyze the existence of evil, in the concept of individual freedom of decision. In fact, evil could be totally banned, with the formation of individuals without freedom of decision. In fact, the basis of the Eden story was Eve's opportunity to choose the wrong path. If that opportunity did not occur, at that moment and never, then individual freedom would be banned. And everyone should follow the unequivocal and mandatory order of God, without the right not to want another way.

This would be omnibenevolence defined by Epicurus. Logically, this would not be. Which again refers to that Epicurus would not be able to define what benevolence is, if the decision of individual freedom were in the balance of the foundation of benevolence.

In fact, we can say that the good is the action that added to all the truths causes evolution when time tends to infinity. And that evil is the action that seeks to not accept the norms of evolution.



Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments   2


Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!

Saiba Mais

  • Image Nutrição
    Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
  • Image Receita
    Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
  • Image Arqueologia
    Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
  • Image Profecia
    O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?


epicurus, omnibenevolence, paradox, lack of good, evolution, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence