Theists, can you answer this riddle?, Epicurisosity! Options

[GreatWhiteWhale]

"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 whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

I'd like to know your opinions on this "riddle" and see what you make of it, and please, no saying "God is something more" because that isn't actually an answer, that's just brushing it aside because you can't answer it
But then, if there is a god, and he could remove all evil, no one would be left on earth, but would you sit back and watch your son or daughter bleed to death? If life is so precious, why do so many go before there time, is a 10 year old girl being raped and burned alive in "gods plan?" and also, if there is a god, and a satan, why couldn't god just destroy him, he's supposedly omnipotent and all powerful, so why let this happen?

This above is of course just a 14 year old kids guess or something, so I can't really answer it, there isn't really an answer for it, but still I'd like to know your opinion on the "magical sky man who grants all your wishes", no offense of course.

and please, respect eachothers opinions, no LOL U GAY FOR BELIVIN IN GAHD

[theBreadSultan]

This man will explain it for you

[Sparrowsmith]

Sultan, try to post more than a video...


Anyway, this has been answered by countless Theists, I even introduced a much more elaborated version on this very forum and had it argued as well.
It's a point of contention, and it is possible for a god to be perfect and allow evil.
I am an atheist, but I will not doubt the obviousness of this riddle and how easy it is for modern theists to debunk it. It was built long ago as a riddle for an intervening god.

The most important thing to remember about religion is this:
The more intelligent people get, the more intelligent god gets

[seliphail]

Short answer since I have a doc's appointment:

As stated in the other discussion, evil is a lack of God the same way that cold is a lack of heat, holes, etc.

The only way there can be a lack of God is if a being with Free Will chooses so, Free Will, etc.

God will not (not cannot) remove Evil as that would be a violation of the gift Free Will, which would violate His nature.

Able and willing, as He is benevolent and the ultimate good. Again, Free Will, violating, etc.

Rest I believe has been covered.

[GreatWhiteWhale]

The more intelligent people get, the more intelligent god gets

Ooo, What a coincedence

[Scriptless]

so I can't really answer it

Don't brush it off.

The meaning is quite out there, if God is able, and has the will then he is hence forth evil. It's giving possible situations through belief.
For this situation it's helping people, people who have sinned which is evil. It has multiple meanings, this is one of them. This meaning is quite idiotic in my theory, because nobody is evil for helping something that is hopeless to sin. My interpretation anyway.

[myperson54]

But God IS something more! And it was man's fault we have sin, not God's. Maybe you should pick up a Bible before asking a question I (and maybe other people) find slightly offending.

[Sparrowsmith]

myperson54, taking offense at something is not a real answer. Insults get thrown at god in serious discussion.

I will say this though, even I as an atheist disregard this argument.
Man naturally takes the ultimate good as suppression, so god only tries to better us, he never aims to perfect us, just keep on improving us.
So god can allow evil to exist, so long as that evil is being reduced.

simple.

[Scriptless]

But God IS something more! And it was man's fault we have sin, not God's

I never said that, but if God did exist, obviously he did sin by making makers of sin, pure logic. Atheist or not atheist.
Anyway, that's off topic. If you wanna discuss about it PM me, I'm all ears. Let's try to stay on topic though.

Also, the Bible is a unreliable source since odds are it was changed a lot since the first actual bible.

[Sparrowsmith]

Your absolutely right about the bible there scriptless,

However, free will is better than forced will. Imagine it like evolution. Modern christians accept that evolution exists as a function for humans to grow and adapt to changing circumstances. Man could not be morally perfect without knowing everything, because how could man act perfectly in a situation they are not fully informed of?
How could god fully inform them without removing their will?
No, much like evolution, in which man adapts to change, so do our morals evolve so that we may adapt to new ethical dilemmas.

Deontology just won't work. It has to be consequentialism.

So yes, god can be good and create something that is not good.
However, I am an atheist.

[BasharTeg6]

I'm not sure I understand why this thread was necessary when we already have a lengthy discussion about God in another thread. You could have simply posted your riddle there. But then, if you actually read what's already in that thread, you probably wouldn't have to.

Also, this is wrong:

If God did exist, obviously he did sin by making makers of sin, pure logic.

It's not pure logic, it's false association and a misinterpretation of the concept of "sin." A sin is an act which separates the actor from God. First, creation is not a sinful act. Second, God cannot separate Himself from Himself, and as such He is incapable of sin.

Also, this was kind of a silly thing to say:

The most important thing to remember about religion is this:
The more intelligent people get, the more intelligent god gets

To be honest I'm not really sure what it means. If you're talking about God, he's already supreme intelligence. He can't possibly get more or less intelligent.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you mean "religious people" when you say "people." In fact, I'm going to go ahead and transpose what you said into what I think you really mean:

"The more intelligent religious people get, the better they get at explaining God."

Which is more or less true but without the vague negative connotations that you attached to the previous version. I'd say it's a true statement about any subject, really. The more intelligent students get about a subject, the better they become at explaining it.

[Sparrowsmith]

Actually I meant that when God says something to a person of:
180IQ
150IQ
100IQ
80IQ

They will all take what is said differently.
You often say what god is and what god isn't, but how do you know? That's not what people said 100 years ago, it's not what they said 1,000 years ago. It's not what they'll say in 100 years.

Like you said:

"The more intelligent religious people get, the better they get at explaining God."

God is infinitely intelligent, therefore there is an infinite amount of intelligence to be gained.
If we double our knowledge we double our understanding.
Since any amount less than infinity is infinitely smaller
We know nothing about god.
At all.
Zilch.

We can't even know he is infallible.
All we can KNOW is whether we BELIEVE he exists.
And that's all there ever is to know. None of these religious texts, miracles, heaven, hell, nothing. There is nothing but belief in that god itself.

And frankly I find that ludicrous.

You realize men have been driven insane by the voice in their head that they called god... In fact, almost all of them have.

No one can explain god at all. We've invented this being that is beyond understanding, because to understand it you would have to be god. Your not allowed to say anything about the nature of god, because your not allowed to know that.
To say differently defies logic versus time.

Anyway, this is about the riddle, this should be in the god thread now that it's gone off topic a bit... I'll trust you to reply there. Just quote me.

[MEands]

It's funny how people just kinda ignored seliphail, because he was actually on to something. This an example of how people ignore things that actually pose a threat to their theories.

[Sparrowsmith]

well actually, as he said, it was brought up in the god thread already and we discussed it in detail...
This thread is now, pretty much, unrelated. What with the subject being moot.

The next post post should be related to the riddle, otherwise it can go in the god thread

[seliphail]

Heh, yep. That's why I put the etc.'s in there, cause it's been discussed in the God thread.

That is more or less the answer, though. Epicurus was the first one I learned of to ask this riddle (with slightly different words), and I believe Socrates also (with even more varied words).