The Epicurean Paradox: The Problem of Evil

There are certain days I get amazed to see such a powerful thing Faith is in people.

Religious people have the tendency to be a little more optimistic during adversity, it seems this certainty in the God's will and a master plan makes the solution of any difficulty a matter of faith. As if time will prove them right because the love of God will reward them with paradise. In my case, today was one of those days, that I see how some people relieve themselves from the suffering from a chronic condition or tough reality, sticking to the promise for a better end in the love of God. This blindsided act of faith with no facts to argue amaze me every time.

Not everyone prays to the same God, but the acceptance of its concept and its intervention in our life is a well spread idea in several cultures. I have to admit I lack of this kind of blind faith, but I see these people with curiosity. A ton of questions comes to mind, like: When to draw a line if its my will or God's in my reality? Or until when am I supposed to feel owner of my actions and not just blame destiny?

In this matter the main disruption is the idea of pain and suffering, how the mere existence of such a good God can allow injustice in the lives of its followers. The duality in the representation of the idea of God makes me seek an skeptical logic to approach to these question. 

When I was in college I stumble upon with this philosophical riddle and I have never forget it since:

Epicurean Paradox (~300 BC)

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?  

What a striking set of words. A logical exercise that left me thinking for the entire day. Wikipedia expands the logical argument from evil from the Greek philosopher as follows:

If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.

There is evil in the world.

Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. 

If Epicurus opens the door to the topic, for the sake of my questions, I think the answers  can be multiple and shown by others. The entertainment of these mental conversations is the eclecticism of arguments we can find. Each religion try to justify this questions with its doctrines of all kind. 

There is another Greek philosophical school called The Stoics, where the idea of God is expanded to Logos, or Universal Reason, which determines the perfect causality of actions that life is. In a physical matter, Stoicism approach the organization of elements and atoms to create our physical world, as a consequence of Logos, the perfect order of everything, the God's plan called a true universal reason. According to the Wikipedia article about it:

 Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (Logos). A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual's ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature." This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy," and to accept even slaves as "equals of other men, because all men alike are products of nature."

Following this, God's will as master order in all physical elements of the universe, makes destiny a consequence of pre-ordered events which are part of this Logos. If men are part of Logos itself, through the idea of every element of life is what makes life itself. Then we are parts of the intervening forces is this causality. If we separate reason from judgment, the concept of God leaves the need of categorizing things in good or bad, everything is just a consequence that might be seen as subjective as wanted.  

There is no premise that makes the universal reason, Logos, a concept to align with a bearded man in the sky, letting good and bad things happen. Instead there is a physical perfect balance of events that creates what we see as reality. Even a plausible way to call it can be a perfect equation, forces interacting to form the path of time.  What is still left out is the role of our capacity in this picture. 

If Logos is the creating reason of the universe, then our own capacity of forming ideas and create what our thoughts plan, might be the touch between human and deity. God and men are one through the capacity of creation. God has created the universe, and man and woman, as resemblance of its creator have the ability to intervene the reality through the power of creation. Forming the subsequent question, is technology the recreation of God's ability in a self explanatory way for humanity? 

I'm still in the discussion within myself today, I just wanted to externalize my chain of thoughts and doubts. 

Feel free to comment or responds to these ideas. 

Thanks for reading, and If you like it please follow my blog @Albertogm. 

Cheers.

#writing

#philosophy

#life