A cool guide to Epicurean paradox

Fun fact, if you arrive at this conclusion as an 8 year old in Sunday school at your ultra fundamentalist Baptist Church and proceed to tell the teacher, you get yelled at and spanked by the teacher and your parents! Ask me how I know.

What's the definition of "all powerful"? Would an all-powerful being need to be able to draw a square without it being a rectangle? Or to build a house without walls?

If the answer is "no", then I'd argue that the left most arrow/conclusion is logically wrong/misplaced/invalid. Assuming that "free will" is not possible without "evil".

Agreed.
Evil is also a subjective concept, the same action can be perceived as good or evil depending on the understood context.
When you allow action on the subjective experience of life aka free will, you also allow evil to emerge from those actions as those interaction collide with the subjective experience of others.
- Well sure. You could argue that evil is subjective. But even so we could just go with gods definition of "evil" things and use the 10 commandments as what he deems good or bad. In which case he created a world in which people will do the things he told them not to (same with the Apple) which makes him either not good or not all powerful.
  Personally God becomes a lot more palettable when he is a non all powerful and non all knowing higher dimensional being that just created us and can't be fucked dealing with this problem he created. Like avoiding cleaning the dishes in the sink.
That's the thing, it seems too simplistic, though probably is a good start towards something, better understanding I suppose.
Like all planar squares must be rectangles, but curved square nonplanar washers exist... and those neither disprove nor prove the existence of a God (or Gods, or any spiritual beings at all)?:-P
The devil as they say is in the details, like what exactly is evil, in order to go from mere wordplay to true philosophical understanding. imho at least.

One day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I'm sure you'll agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half submerged log.

As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen. Mother and children dining upon mother and children.

And that is when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.

-Sir Terry Pratchett, Unseen Academicals

there is a non terminating loop in this diagram and that is where god is mic drop

Good and Evil are ultimately relative and subjective terms. They also don't really explore the mechanisms by which Good/Evil occur or are evaluated.
The argument from Evil really just boils down to "God isn't real because I'm not happy". And that doesn't logically follow.
A ghost hidden within the finite state automata, you say, dare we call it a Deus ex machina even? :-P
That's where christians are stuck, at least

There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.

It's a slightly more complicated version of whether God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it. Can God create a universe where I simultaneously have freewill and also don't have the ability to do anything outside his will (evil)? Can 0 equal 1? The answer to that question isn't yes/no, it's that the question is invalid. Freewill does not equal non-freewill. It'll confuse some unprepared Sunday School teacher, but that's it.

There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.
It’s a slightly more complicated version of whether God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it.
It's a very good argument against god, and your second statement is a great addition to it. Omnipotence in itself is impossible, as proven by the rock paradox. An omnipotent being can therefore not exist.
Your free will idea however has a very easy counter argument: If free will is the problem, then god has nothing to offer us - since in the afterlife the same rules would apply. Either a world without suffering is possible, or it isn't. Since the afterlife isn't known to work by taking away our free will, suffering would therefore continue to prevail there as well. If the idea of an afterlife must be possible (as seen in most organized religions) than the idea of a world without suffering must be possible, without taking away something so valuable as our freedom.
- Omnipotence in itself is impossible
  The question of God isn't of perfect omnipotence but relative omnipotence. There's plenty of room for a "Godlike" being that does not resolve the paradox of omnipotence. Hell, a guy who sits on a cloud and flings lighting bolts has been sufficient to qualify for eons.
  Either a world without suffering is possible, or it isn’t
  Suffering without purpose. And that's where things get sticky. Because the argument from Evil needs to assume the recipients of suffering are innocent and undeserving. Otherwise it's not evil, just karma.
I agree, this is not a good argument against the existence of god, but it seems to be a fine argument against certain models of god. To get out of the paradox, one must be willing to give up certain notions about god. Either:
God isn't all knowing, so it's unaware of all the evil in the universe.
God doesn't have infinite power, making god unable to create a universe without evil (perhaps due to limitations of what god can and cannot do.
God is not entirely good or god's definition of good does not align with what us humans have been taught. God doesn't see evil where we see evil so it does not use its infinite power and knowledge to change it.
I think there are a lot of theists who would have trouble accepting one of these notions, which would keep them stuck within this paradox.
There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.
That is because this isn't an argument against god. It is simply a question that resulted in a Paradox about the character of god as described by the Church
Can 0 equal 1? The answer to that question isn’t yes/no, it’s that the question is invalid.
What? the question is not invalid. it is a yes/no, the *implications" of that yes or no however can carry significant correlations
Freewill does not equal non-freewill.
yeah, nobody is making this crazy claim...
- Yeah, probably would have been better to use dividing by 0 instead of 0=1 as the example, but the point still stands.
  Yes/no isn't a valid answer to a paradox. Can God create a universe where there is freewill and there isn't freewill? Can God create a rock so large he can't lift it? Can he shit so big he can't flush it? All interesting, but in the end invalid questions. But shoehorning in a yes/no when the real answer is just undefined is incorrect.
  It's good fun for an internet comment section, or irritating some youth group leader, but in the end not a useful question.
In what way is this an argument against God? This is an argument against a god that is all-knowing all-powerful and all-benevolent.
Also your idea of free will is coming loaded with some major baggage.
- My bad, that baggage is the capital G God primarily referring to Abrahamic tradition God. Zeus doesn't pass the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent religion check, but Yahweh and Allah definitely have those claimed tied pretty innately to their being.
What's your logic with 0 = 1?
Can you restate without math?
- It's similar to the "unstoppable force meets an immovable object" thought experiment.
  They can't both exist, just like 0 can't be the same as 1. If you somehow "forced" it to be true because an all powerful deity made it so, the logic breaks, and the answer is effectively useless to us.
  So then if a deity made freewill, there MUST be evil, or at least the capability of it. My metaphor is sorta inverted, but hopefully it makes sense.
Alright so your argument about free will only really adds up if you are an absolutist about free will. Imagine a perfect utopian paradise of a world. All are free to do whatever they want so long as it is not "evil." Your definition of evil can vary but presumably an omniscient god would have a pretty good idea of what that means. Rhe mwans of prevention xouls be literally anything, because y'know omnipotent and omniscient, including just creating people that simply do not have the capacity for evil. Would the people in that world not have free will? Just because there are some things they cannot do does not mean that in my eye. I can't fly or bite my own finger off or perceive and manipulate the fabric of the universe, does that mean I don't have free will? IMO the only way your position here is logically consistant is if you do take the absolutist position that in order to have free will you must be omnipotent yourself, otherwise there will always be things you cannot do.
- I think I would say that the people living in that utopia do not have free will. Their will is not their own, it's God's will imposed on them. They can operate within its confines and limits, but it is externally, not internally defined.
  I think you have to separate out two things that are often conflated together, freedom of will and freedom of action. The difference is with freedom of will, I can want to fly, and with freedom of action, I can fly if I want to.
  It reminds me of the classic Henry Ford quote about having your car in any color you want, as long as it's black. If I want a black car, fine. If I want a white car, that's a problem.

I had a conversation that ended up like this with someone who was genuinely trying to convert me to Christianity once. He eventually argued that god doesn't need to be all powerful to be worshipped, since he is at least extremely powerful.

Sounds like he was worshipping a mid tier god. At least it’s better than those waste of space reasonably powerful ones.
The French have invented a nice too to deal with such "extremely powerful" scumbags.

Seem confusing?

That's right - because anything that's made up and subject to interpretation IS!

One of the funniest things humanity has done is to invent the concept of God as a super entity and then reduce him/them/it to their level.

Why would a super entity be bound by "love" which only humans understand ? Why would "it" have the concept of "evil", something that humans invented out of fear.

As a species we just need to accept we are just stupid.

And that is why religion is effectively meaningless. We have invented a being full of contradictions, much like ourselves, but declared [it|whatever] perfect besides that. The answer to the paradox is that there is no God.
People should learn to strive for good without the threat of eternal punishment from a being of their invention, otherwise those individuals were never good to begin with, and their imaginary all powerful, all knowing and judgemental god would punish them regardless.
Why would a super entity be bound by "love" which only humans understand ? Why would "it" have the concept of "evil", something that humans invented out of fear.
It doesn't. That's the point. The Epicurean paradox doesn't say god doesn't exist in some way or form, but the idea of god as someone with a relationship to humanity based on love, omnipotence and omniscience (in any way that's meaningful to us) is apparently false.
Or from your perspective: God loves us in his way; he doesn't love us in our way, which means we can't expect the same mercy, the same support, the same commitment from him as we humans are capable of.
Epicurus refuted one very specific idea of god, which was prevalent at one point in time, but is today only believed by very devout evangelicals. What we today conclude from the fact that apparently no god will alleviate the suffering in this life is up to each individual.
As a species we just need to accept we are just stupid.
Or in the words of Socrates: "I know that I know nothing."
Or in the words of (possibly or possibly not) Einstein: "Two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
I agree. It is better not to assume anything and take it for a truth, but to find the truth through reliable and provable methods.

"why can't god create a boulder so heavy that even the can't carry it?" even as a child trying to trick god with basic paradoxes sounded funny to me.

The existence of those paradoxes could also mean that omnipotence in itself is simply impossible.
- Or logic is a blasphemy against god.

Just being the devil advocate here: I disagree with the "destroy Satan" part, Satan isn't the definition of evil, he is only the HR department that deal with the evil people, and the part of God not stopping evil, maybe he don't because it go against free will? About the not loving, he promises a perfect infinity world after all of this, after a few centuries of perfection you don't care/remember I guess

Good advocate. Anyway, "God not stopping evil, maybe he don’t because it go against free will" - That enters the loop at the bottom. Could God create a universe where free will exists, but evil does not exist? If yes, then why didn't He? If He could not create such a universe, then he's not all powerful and/or not all loving and good.
"About the not loving, he promises a perfect infinity world after all of this" - Then why do we have to go through this initial, temporary and imperfect part?
- Maybe free will requires the infinite complexity of this world and hence must also contain “evil” in some way.
Literally advocating for the devil.

What if an almighty God created the universe without evil, but with free-will, and then one angel decided to challange the way God rules, so that God has to let him rules to show everyone whose way of rule is the best?
Simply killing that angel would not answer the challenge, on the contrary, killing that angel would demonstrate that God is a dictator.

Pasted from a reply to another user.

God created angels. If God created an angel which challenges them and is "evil" (saying that about some angel dude who isn't a mass murderer like their creator according to bible records https://www.wired.com/2007/04/old-testament-m/ https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html ) then we arrive again at the Epicurean paradox.
God is already a dictator by choosing the state of everything. Designing a chaotic system and letting it run also supports being a dictator. He designed the system. An omnipotent God is unable to escape His own designs. The rebellious angel was by design. His planning thereby is guile.
- If the rebellious angel was evil by design, then there is no free-will.
Still wouldn't answer why god doesn't interfer with evil. Why doesn't he help us against this angel? Heals sicknesses? Stops wars? Saves victims of murder and rape?

evil exists -> no

Honestly that's probably the only way out of the problem of evil.
That said you are on a path of ethical relativism, and from a practical standpoint it's fucked up beyond belief.
Also so much of religion is founded on the good/ evil dynamic that if this was removed, everything else would crumble.

Kind of falls apart if rejecting the idea of objective good and evil and interpreting the parable of the fruit of knowledge in Eden as the inheritance of a relative knowledge of good and evil for oneself which inherently makes any shared consensus utopia an impossibility.

In general, we have very bizarre constraints on what we imagine for the divine, such as it always being a dominant personality.

Is God allowed to be a sub? Where's the world religion built around that idea?

What about the notion that the variety of life is not a test for us to pass/fail, but more like a Rorsarch test where it allows us to determine for ourselves what is good or not?

Yes, antiquated inflexible ideas don't hold up well to scrutiny. But adopting those as the only idea to contrast with equally inflexible consideration just seems like a waste of time for everyone involved, no?

I've always thought the better argument was to replace 'good and evil' with 'happiness and sadness'. Everything you said makes sense because good and evil are subjective, but at least everyone agrees that happiness is a goal in itself that we all strive for, regardless of what it takes to get you there personally.
If you go through this chart and use the word 'happiness' instead, it becomes pretty clear that god is not omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent, or we would only ever feel happiness.

I once heard omnipotent doesn't mean they can overturn logic itself, which seems a little unintuitve to me, but hey why not.

Being unbound by logic / information theory would make it impossible to reason about anything at all
- Thereby implying that everything becomes meaningless and there is no point in believing anything.

Are you 16 and this is deep?

It's actually a really important subject and very deep if you actually think about it. The problem of evil has challenged philosophers for centuries, and apologists have not been able to square the circle of evil, all knowing, all powerful and all loving.

I have never before encountered an "aC" dating system. A quick google shows the dates to line up with BC, but it's still new.

heh, it's the ante christ

But if Satan is all powerful then God is not, as God could not hold power over Satan.
- But if god is omnipotent then satan is not, as satan could not hold power over god.
My understanding is that God is big on free will, including for the angels. Angel wants to fall and be the lord of darkness? Whatever, go for it.
My own interpretation of God and Satan, which is highly limited by what I learned about the Bible when I was a kid — and thus may be extremely incorrect — is that Satan viewed God’s “requirements” of being “good” to gain eternal life in heaven to be paradoxical to free will. Following God means not making decisions for yourself. So Satan represents the rebel, the true free will, with no regard to God’s plan or will.
But there’s a trick, I think: choose to follow the path of “good.” Don’t follow God’s plan because you have to but because you want to.
This resolves the problem and Satan can go back to being “good.”
I view this all symbolically and as a metaphor for how each of us confront and balance our individuality and selfish interests with harmony and collective good.

Why should God want only the good?
Because otherwise god could not be considered all-god or all benevolent
Why should the test be to let God know about us? It could be about letting us know about ourself.
Because if his is all powerful, god could have made us with that knowledge already acquired
Also the branch that are not yes/no does not cover all possibility. Therefore, this is not a paradox but rather an incomplet thought
Can you add any that would actually not end up conflicting with "not all powerful", "not all knowing" or "not all good"?

Fuck I all I want "ai" for is to filter out these stupid fucking posts that I see all the time from whatever screen I am viewing

Wdyat about the answer that unsong gives to this? Which is roughly "God creates all unique universes that are on net good. This world has evil but is still on net good.".

"I donated a million dollars to a charity for impoverished children and I also murdered a few people for funsies. Hey, they even out right?"
No. That's stupid.