Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hume summarizes Epicurus's version of the problem as follows: "Is [god] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" [43] [44] The logical argument from evil is as follows: P1.
Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?" [9] The logical argument from evil is as follows: P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not. P2. There is evil in the world. C1. Therefore, an omnipotent ...
Epicurus was not an atheist, although he rejected the idea of a god concerned with human affairs; followers of Epicureanism denied the idea that there was no god. While the conception of a supreme, happy and blessed god was the most popular during his time, Epicurus rejected such a notion, as he considered it too heavy a burden for a god to have to worry about all the problems in the world.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist? Although traditionally ascribed to Epicurus and called Epicurus' trilemma , it has been suggested that it may actually be the work of an early skeptic writer, possibly Carneades .
The problem of evil is concerned with how it is possible to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering, with an all-knowing, all-powerful and good God. Hume summarizes one of the first versions of the argument: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Philosopher David Hume summarizes: "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 from whence comes evil?" [39] Addressing this requires a theological and philosophical response which John Hick thinks is the Christian ethic's ...
Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? No extant writings of Epicurus contain this argument. [116]
Discussions of the Bible and violence often lead to discussions of theodicy - the question of how evil can persist in the world if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and good. [119]: xv–xvi Philosopher David Hume summarizes: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is ...