If a god exists, then it could reasonably be believed (without evidence, since there is no evidence for any god at all) that god is defining morality for us, rather than defining morality in regards to themselves. You could likewise argue that if it’s the will of god, then it must be good, and if it’s not the will of god, then it’s not good. So children getting cancer? That’s clearly god’s will, and is therefore good.
If a god exists, then it could reasonably be believed (without evidence, since there is no evidence for any god at all) that god is defining morality for us, rather than defining morality in regards to themselves.
Absolutely, and this is the frame of reference for the paradox. When, in the paradox parameters, we say “god cannot be all-good” what we are saying is “god cannot be all good as we understand it and as the Church is pitching him”
You could likewise argue that if it’s the will of god, then it must be good, and if it’s not the will of god, then it’s not good. So children getting cancer? That’s clearly god’s will, and is therefore good.
That is not a valid argument IMO, you are now redefining what is good or bad, not on the merits of the act or the consequences it carries, but by who executes it. You are deriving a quality from a source not intended to convey it. Like saying “if Ford made this car, it must be fast”
you are now redefining what is good or bad, not on the merits of the act or the consequences it carries, but by who executes it.
That’s a core Christian ideology though. They define god as being the source of everything that is good. Therefore, if god wills it, then regardless of how awful a thing seems, it must definitionally be good. Everything is contextual to the will of god. It’s a very simplistic view of morality (as is the idea that morality is universal and unchanging).
Well considering this is not based on evidence or logic, I think it’s safe to dismiss from this argument.
To clarify, not attacking the validity of your point, I am attacking the “solution” presented here by the Church. Basically, “if we say it’s good you must take my word for it”… nope
So children getting cancer? That’s clearly god’s will, and is therefore good.
This answer to the Epicurean paradox is nothing but semantics. Let’s just rephrase the question:
Can god be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving by human standards?
–> No. It creates a paradox. So, using human words and human concepts, god cannot possibly be all three things. Therefore, by human standards, we cannot expect love, omniscience, and omnipotence from him. That’s all the paradox proves.
It’s not a “gotcha” to claim that there might be other standards, which are meaningless to us, but somehow mean something equivalent than the concepts we already have words for. Those foreign concepts have obviously nothing to do with what we humans call power, knowledge, and love. They don’t mean anything and there’s literally no way to fill them with meaning either, since they are by definition independent of human concepts.
Claiming that god is something, but this something cannot be understood, is in all consequence an empty claim without any meaning. Easy to make, but at the end of the day says and proves nothing.
It doesn’t. What it simply presupposes that if God participates or allows it, that puts god in the “not all good” category
If God exists withtout morality, god cannot be all good to us
If a god exists, then it could reasonably be believed (without evidence, since there is no evidence for any god at all) that god is defining morality for us, rather than defining morality in regards to themselves. You could likewise argue that if it’s the will of god, then it must be good, and if it’s not the will of god, then it’s not good. So children getting cancer? That’s clearly god’s will, and is therefore good.
Absolutely, and this is the frame of reference for the paradox. When, in the paradox parameters, we say “god cannot be all-good” what we are saying is “god cannot be all good as we understand it and as the Church is pitching him”
That is not a valid argument IMO, you are now redefining what is good or bad, not on the merits of the act or the consequences it carries, but by who executes it. You are deriving a quality from a source not intended to convey it. Like saying “if Ford made this car, it must be fast”
That’s a core Christian ideology though. They define god as being the source of everything that is good. Therefore, if god wills it, then regardless of how awful a thing seems, it must definitionally be good. Everything is contextual to the will of god. It’s a very simplistic view of morality (as is the idea that morality is universal and unchanging).
Well considering this is not based on evidence or logic, I think it’s safe to dismiss from this argument.
To clarify, not attacking the validity of your point, I am attacking the “solution” presented here by the Church. Basically, “if we say it’s good you must take my word for it”… nope
This answer to the Epicurean paradox is nothing but semantics. Let’s just rephrase the question:
–> No. It creates a paradox. So, using human words and human concepts, god cannot possibly be all three things. Therefore, by human standards, we cannot expect love, omniscience, and omnipotence from him. That’s all the paradox proves.
It’s not a “gotcha” to claim that there might be other standards, which are meaningless to us, but somehow mean something equivalent than the concepts we already have words for. Those foreign concepts have obviously nothing to do with what we humans call power, knowledge, and love. They don’t mean anything and there’s literally no way to fill them with meaning either, since they are by definition independent of human concepts.
Claiming that god is something, but this something cannot be understood, is in all consequence an empty claim without any meaning. Easy to make, but at the end of the day says and proves nothing.