Showing all 11 replies.
>>
>>18517247
FYI Epicurus wasn’t trying to claim that God wasn’t real or that he was some malicious or incompetent being, rather his actual argument was that God was a non-interventionist being (basically deism), this is the official “solution” to his paradox. Epicurus wasn’t even addressing the Abrahamic monotheistic conception of God to begin with since he lived in Ancient Greece and grew up in a society that worshiped a pantheon of gods like Zeus, Poseidon, and Apollo. His famous paradox was addressing these gods, he still believed in their existence but argued that they were non-interventionist beings that did not demand worship. Epicurus was trying to minimize fear of the gods since most people were superstitious and believed the gods would annihilate them for the most mundane of offenses.
To summarize Epicurus’ actual views on the gods, he believed that the gods lived in the spaces between worlds (metakosmia), enjoying lives of perfect, undisturbed tranquility. To him, a god who cared about human affairs, listened to prayers, or felt any sort of anger would not be perfectly happy. His actual argument wasn't “therefore, the gods aren’t real,” but rather “therefore, the gods clearly don't care about us, so stop fearing them.” All of this is functionally a form of pagan deism, not atheism.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>18517247
>is he able but not willing?
>then he is malevolent
Being malevolent doesn't preclude him from being god.
If anything, god being malevolent is all the more reason to worship him, since an evil god is way more likely to fuck you up if you don't appease him.
>>
>>
>>
File: coney dogs.jpg (633.2 KB)
>>18517251
based Epicurus and he was a good cook too.