Cool Guides
Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community
1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.
2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.
3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.
4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.
5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.
6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.
Community Guidelines
-
Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
-
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
-
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
-
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.
By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!
view the rest of the comments
Not casually, but as soon as you escalate the scale of the discussion to "X is True Because Evil Exists", you're stuck making these much more formalized and stringent responses.
And I absolutely think - particularly in an era of climate change catastrophe and ecological crisis - that you can argue our collective suffering is a collective punishment for the world we have collectively built.
Hardly convoluted. We act upon each other. And we perceive the actions inflicted on one another as "good" and "evil". If you want to argue a purely deterministic understanding of our behaviors, you can blame God (or the Prime Mover / First Domino / Deist Clockmaker Thing). But once you open up the idea that we own responsibility for our own actions, you abdicate The First Actor from responsibility.
All it disproves is a particular set of assumptions that not even other Christians generally believe. Like, the idea of the Abrahamic God being cruel or capricious or personally flawed isn't even a conclusion you can take away from a straight reading of the Bible. You need one of those Evangelical hype artists to punch up the original material in order to get there.
At the point, you're not arguing against the existence of a deity. You're arguing against the existence of Buddy Jesus and the big smiling sun baby from Teletubbies.
The Argument From Evil can be reduced down to "I don't believe a God exists, because if It did I wouldn't like It."
While you're arguing about all the parts of human suffering that can easily be attributed to humans, other forms of suffering exist as well. Think volcanoes. Think cancer. You're not making a good argument if you're conveniently forgetting that not all suffering has to do with our free will at all.
I think you're misunderstanding the Epicurean paradox. It specifically argues against a very specific idea of god with the characteristics of being omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving at the same time. Call him "buddy jesus" if you will (some call him "God"), but that's exactly the thought exercise we're talking about here. No one is arguing against deities in general. The term is way too broad to have a single conversation about every potential divine entity anyway.
Iceland without volcanoes looks like Greenland. Hawaii without volcanoes doesn't exist at all. Volcanoes aren't evil.
Similarly, cancer is result of a flaw in cellular reproduction. But these flaws in replication are also important in the means by which species evolve over time. Cancer is a consequence of an imperfect but necessary process for life to exist.
You're discounting enormous processes that provide enormous benefits over the order of millennia to marginal discomforts experienced by tiny minorities over the course of months. Why stop at volcanoes and cancer? We could claim that teeth are evil. We could claim that fire and salt are evil. We could claim that emotions are evil.
With the conclusion that such a deity does not deserve to be worshiped, presumably because an immensely powerful but flawed being is not worthy of reciprocal love and devotion. But that's not an argument against God, its an argument against Parents.
Even then, it makes enormous presumptions about the nature of Good and Evil. Volcanoes are Evil Because They Make Me Sad. Cancer is Evil Because It Makes Me Sad. A Perfectly Knowing And Loving God Would Have Done It Better.
It's not a paradox so much as it is a child's whining.
Well, I mean... there's the Atheists.
If you're seriously arguing that there is no unavoidable suffering in this world you're very ignorant towards your fellow human beings. An omnipotent god could create a world without volcanoes and without sickness. Yet he didn't. You're sill not understanding even the starting point of the Epicurean paradox if you don't get that.
Again, you're misunderstanding the conversation. It's not about judgment or whining, it's not about arguing if it's okay for god to be how he is, it's not about any conclusions from gods nature to anything. It's a logical thinking exercise about the premises of the abrahamic idea of god's characteristics and whether they make sense or not.
If the premises are: god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, the existence of human suffering creates a paradox. (And if you're unsure why just look at the guide above.) What you're saying has nothing to do with that. You don't resolve the paradox by insulting those who find it interesting to think about, you're disqualifying from the conversation. If you believe in a god without those characteristics the Epicurean paradox says nothing about your faith at all.
You're arguing the process of plate tectonics is ontologically wicked. Even then, what so much of this boils down to isn't an objection to suffering so much as a fear of it. The Problem of Evil becomes the Fear of Pain. And I suppose we could argue that the solution to this problem is to simply numb ourselves to the world. But then we're left with the prospect of an opioid induced fugue state is... what? Divine?
To what end? You imagine a world absent changes in the shape of the earth or changes in the human condition. You assert that an omnipotent god could create a vast sea of gray goo where nothing happens. And this would be a Utopia, because it is devoid of anything or anyone that might be discomforting in any conceivable way.
But this sounds like Perdition. Absolutely nightmarish. An eternal hellscape I would wish to escape at any cost.
If god is all-powerful, and all-knowing, and all-loving, I am forced to assume that the suffering he creates isn't evil. And while I cannot understand exactly how or why all these little bits and pieces are necessary, I can confidently assert that they are worthy of praise and admiration.
But it is also perfectly possible that all of this exists without a Singular Perfect Entity at its origin. We are functions of our material conditions and what we perceive as suffering is simply our biological urge to change the world around us. Our dissatisfaction is a motivating force, in the same way that the inner heat from the earth's core is a motivating force for the plates floating on the magma sea above it.
If we don't live in an ideal space, it is only because we have not yet carved it out for ourselves and for our progeny. And that we never will create a perfect Utopia, because a frictionless world wouldn't be one we'd want to live in anyway.
Not at all. You're still fighting a strawman. The existence of volcanoes and cancer isn't evil. If it was however consciously created by an omnipotent and omniscient being, that would be evil. The paradox doesn't relate to our reality itself, only to the claim of said characteristics in a god in relation to said reality. You still seem confused about that part.
If you truly cannot a reality with less suffering than ours you are truly unimaginative, mate. Or completely ignorant to the suffering that exists in this world. Or maybe both.
Right, which is why this is the most obvious answer to the Epicurean paradox: This singular perfect entity doesn't exist. Congratulation, you've now arrived at the same conclusion as Epicurus 2.5 thousand years ago.
That doesn't follow
If I suddenly acquired a million dollars and your home address and use them to bulldoze your living room, would that be evil?
Mean spirited, certainly. But the volcano's going to be here long before you are. This is more akin to you building your house on a bulldozer and then claiming I'm evil if I try to use it.
We're talking about a concept of god who's omnicscient, don't forget that. In your metaphor I knew perfetcly well beforehand were you would build your house and consciously put my bulldozer there, knowing it would one day destroy your home.
Using my power and knowledge to so something that will harm you is mean spirited. The same must be said for god. Exceptions would be if god didn't have another choice or didn't know better. Both of those are addressed in the Epicurean paradox.
An omnipotent god would have been able to build a world without suffering. His volcanoes would maybe spray rainbows.
God didn't build a world without suffering. Therefore we can conclude: It is not possible for him to be at the same time fully able and willing to do so. Or to put it more formally: A omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving god is incompatible with a world that includes suffering.
Within the context of Free Will, which sets up another paradox. "How can you be omniscient if I've got the ability to behave unexpectedly?"
And that's where you get into questions of degree. I can be a mechanic who knows how a car engine works without accounting for every particle within the engine block. To a novice, I might look omniscient simply because I've got experience and familiarity with a particular problem. But then you come back and insist "If you were a real automotive mechanic, the engine would never break!" What even are we arguing, at that point?
I'm walking across a yard. Under my feet, there are thousands of tiny creatures crawling about. I have the capacity and the information necessary to see these creatures, if I spend the time and energy. But instead of checking under every footfall for an ant, I wander carelessly through the yard.
Does this mean I am ontologically evil, or simply in a hurry?
Suffering is a consequence of our human condition. We experience discomfort and pain as a motivating force, extorting us to change. To build a world - at least, to build a modern world - some degree of suffering is necessary.
I would not consider a world devoid of feeling one that was compatible with an all-loving god. Numbness is not a virtue.
Not at all. The premise is "all-knowing". That is in fact a mechanic who's able to account for every particle within the engine block.
You are not all-powerful. The premise says: god is. If you were easily able to spare all those small insects, deciding to kill them anyway would make you a psychopath.
Our human condition, within the scenario of the thinking exercise, was very consciously created that way by god.
An all-powerful god would have been able to create a reality with feeling, but without suffering. And religion already claims that he can - that's the idea of heaven or paradise.
You don't need to be omniscient to appear to be to a sufficiently limited observer.
Compared to an ant, I am like unto the Titans of ancient Greek Mythology. I don't need to be omnipotent for an ant to assume I am.
A condition which drives us to Go Forth and Multiply. Not to languish in Eden for eternity.
The insistence that nothing should ever be unpleasant at any time for any reason is the mentality of a toddler.
Yeah, but the premise of the abrahamic god says he is, that's the point.
Back to the insults? That's weak. Maybe you've never experiences anything truly horrible in your life. Good for you! Bad for you for forgetting about the rest of us though, really, that's actually pretty rude. You're reinforcing the notion that the only way christians can get out of the paradox is by becoming very, very ignorant.
Imagine a young child that painfully dies of cancer. The parents ask: How could god let that happen? How can he be all powerful and not save our sweet child from all this unnecessary pain?
What would you answer them?
The premise written from the perspective of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds, yes.
If you've ever dealt with a toddler before, this is exactly how they behave. A great screaming and stomping and flailing if they can't get what they want right this instant. Is the existence of a loving god refuted by a screaming toddler? Or are humans themselves expected to show any degree of stoicism in moments of adversity?
Does love mean the total absence of discomfort? How is that even possible when love itself is a tumultuous experience?
You could address it biologically. The child could only be born thanks to the mechanisms of life that perpetrated the cancer. This is a cycle of life and we take the good with the bad, because that's how our mortal forms function.
You could address it medically. Yes, the cancer was painful, but the child was lucky enough to be born into a world of opioids and physicians skillful enough to ease them through the worst of it. This proves we have the tools we need even in the face of misfortune.
You could answer by saying this you had this rare happy moment together, that the child's time on this earth was a blessing and the opportunity to be with that child was a blessing. That we all live and die, and to spend your last moments surrounded by loved ones is by far one of the better ways to leave the world. The pain you feel now is just the reflection of the love you had, and that this love is only possible in a world with a loving god at its center.
You could say that this is a call to action to make the world a better place for other children and parents. That everyone should enjoy the kind of love and care you showered upon your sick child. And so you're going to find other sick children in need of care and care for them as you cared for your own.
Lots of ways to approach this tragedy that don't boil down to "God must be evil, because something bad happened to us."
Which is precisely what the Epicurean paradox is about.
Mate I'm sorry but if you still don't understand what the paradox says in the first place this is a waste of time. Obviously you want to talk about something that hast nothing to do with the paradox itself. I'll leave you to it.
The paradox assumes a much more substantive understanding of philosophy in its axioms.
Right back at you.
How is that an counterargument? Epicurus says: Those axioms create a paradox, they must be wrong. You're saying: Yeah well your axioms are too substantive. You are agreeing that the three premises can't be true. Everything else you've talked about was simply missing the point.
The Epicurean paradox does nothing else than to discuss if the premises as phrased can be true. If you talk about an idea outside those premises you've already missed the mark.
The Epicurian rebuttal to the Bronze Age understanding of omniscience can be resolved by asserting "God is less omniscient than we thought". That's it. And there are plenty of readings of Old Testament that imply the Abrahamic God isn't perfectly omniscient. Hell, the Garden of Eden myth asserts God isn't perfectly omniscient.
It asserts a paradox of infinities, rather than a non-existence of God.
It never attempted to prove non-existence. This is what you misunderstood from the beginning.