Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The problem of evil is the philosophical question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. [1][2][3] There are currently differing definitions of these concepts. The best known presentation of the problem is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus.
Epicurean paradox. Bust of Epicurus, c.3rd/2nd century BC. The Epicurus paradox is a logical dilemma about the problem of evil attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who argued against the existence of a god who is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
The Epicurean paradox or riddle of Epicurus or Epicurus' trilemma is a version of the problem of evil. Lactantius attributes this trilemma to Epicurus in De Ira Dei, 13, 20-21: God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able.
The early Christian writer Lactantius criticizes Epicurus at several points throughout his Divine Institutes and preserves the Riddle of Epicurus, or Problem of evil, a famous argument against the existence of an all-powerful and providential God or gods. [86]
Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the problem of evilthat appears inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotentand omnibenevolentGod.[4] Another definition of theodicy is the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.
Epicurus emerged victorious, because – so the argument went – Aristotle did not yet have the problem, and the Stoics inherited it from Epicurus. In the same year David Furley published his essay 'Aristotle and Epicurus on Voluntary Action', in which he argued that Epicurus' problem was not the free will problem.
The problem of evil is generally formulated in two forms: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. The logical form of the argument tries to show a logical
[26] a fault of judgement, some false notion of good or evil, lies at the root of each passion. [27] Incorrect judgement as to a present good gives rise to delight (hēdonē), while lust (epithumia) is a wrong estimate about the future. [27] Unreal imaginings of evil cause distress (lupē) about the present, or fear (phobos) for the future. [27]