Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The earliest statement of the problem of evil is attributed to Epicurus, but this is uncertain. The problem of evil possibly originates from the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE). [46] Hume summarizes Epicurus's version of the problem as follows: "Is [god] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.
Bust of Epicurus, c. 3rd/2nd century BC. The Epicurean 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]
The evidential problem of evil (also referred to as the probabilistic or inductive version of the problem) seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism. Both absolute versions and relative versions of the evidential problems of ...
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
The problem of evil is often given in the form of an inconsistent triad. For example, J. L. Mackie gave the following three propositions: God is omnipotent; God is omnibenevolent; Evil exists; Mackie argued that these propositions were inconsistent, and thus, that at least one of these propositions must be false. Either:
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.