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 willing and able ? Then whence cometh evil ?
Is he neither able nor willing ? Then why call him God ?
Any thoughts ?
"I think It's not a riddle.Epicurus proved that god does not exists."
100% agreed, as to the traditional God anyway. But I qualify that by saying I don't believe in any gods whatsoever. Epicurus demolished the God idea with his few lines.
I don't know if Epicurus himself was an atheist, however we know that Socrates died for his impiety so it's likely that he didn't declare himself atheist to save his own skin, and that's part of why he also chose to live peacefully, separate from the Greek polis on the outskirts of Athens.
Epicurus also talked about the atom 2,300 years ago and of the need for science as a way to overcome superstitious fears. And he engaged women and even slaves as equals in philosophical discourse, which was considered scandalous.
Epicurus represents all the most progressive things about Western Humanism. He's a cultural treasure.
Also, Epicureanism is experiencing a revival, focusing mainly on its ethics and its philosophical methodology for happiness (importance of friends, simple living, managing one's desires, etc). There are two Epicurean Gardens in Greece (in Thessaloniki and Athens) and one in Sydney, Australia, and in the US there is the beginning of a movement with the Society of Friends of Epicurus:
Hopefully one day instead of having a church in every corner, we'll begin to see Epicurean Gardens in every major city.
If you are interested in Epicureanism, you might like the book, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, by Stephen Greenblatt. It tells the story of the discovery of a manuscript of Lucretius's The Nature of Things by Poggio Bracciolini early in the fifteenth century and how that discovery brought the thinking of Epicurus into circulation once again and influenced the development of modern thought.
I'll add it to my list of books to read ... just finished Tim O'Keefe's book on Epicureanism, it was well explained.
@ Chris Crawford What evidence is Aquinas able to provide that he/she/it created the universe? Yes, scientists have difficulty with that one as well. OK, let's begin with the first living forms; what evidence can he give that living forms began because of he/she/it and created all in six days, however ever many hours a day was counted? Now, we come to evolution; what evidence can any human being offer that evolution is not a fact of existence?
With all the evidence of natural processes, why should one even entertain a notion that god-did-it?
Ms. Denoo, Aquinas was not concerned with justifying his faith; his concern lay in a variety of philosophical issues, one of which was the apparent conflict between free will and determinism. His major effort lay in reconciling Christian theology with Aristotelian logic; he ended up founding a school of thought called scholasticism. This is the school that gave us the thing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" which it turns out wasn't as stupid as it seems (although it was pretty strained).
Yes, Chris, as I stated b4, Aquinas was an obfuscator, couldn't reconcile conflict between theology (delusion based illogical lies) and Aristotelian deductive/inductive logic.
Since there can truly be no reconciliation between irrational lies based on delusion/hallucinations and almost truthful logic, Aquinas was forced to simply make up garbage or bigger lies.
He is the reason why the Catholic church doctrine is so absolutely DUMB and IRRATIONAL!
Aquinas probably dreamt most of it up during one of his Temporal Lobe Epileptic hallucinations.
Christian theology only became even more stupid and irrational because of Aquinas.
Wow! Your assessment of Aquinas' role in the development of Christian theology is the opposite of just about every historian of Christian thought.
I'm a student of neurology and this is becoming neurology's assessment of Thomas Aquinas, his theology and indeed monotheism in general.
Authors to read on this: V.S. Ramachandran, Oliver Sacks, Robert Sapolsky and many others are of similar opinion to my statement.
Christian thought is based on theology or hallucination based lies, not logic.
Aquinas's contribution to logic was surpassed in other cultures and western thought would have evolved regardless of Aquinas's existence.
What wouldn't have evolved without Aquinas's existence is his dumber than dumb apologetics (lies).
Aye M8! :-D~
BTW: Christian thought is "Irrational Nonsense".
No rationality exists in Christianity.
All the good bits of Christian thought or Jesus's teachings had existed half a millenium in other cultures.
Christianity truly had nothing new to offer human existence.
It was just in the sales pitch.
A more saleable item, just like the marketing of Bill Gates's MS-DOS winning over the market ahead of the better constructed and more functional DR-DOS.
Christianity used some very clever, underhanded tactics to get converts, thus the origins of such things as Christmas and Easter which were pagan festivals overtaken by Christianity because nobody wanted to celebrate anything to do with Jesus at the time so they had to incorporate their celebration into existing celebrations and gradually dominate those festivals, which they ultimately failed to do because many are moving back to the pagan origins, forgetting about Jesus entirely.
Aye M8! :-D~
You had me going there for a while. I did three Google searches:
1) "V.S. Ramachandran" Aquinas
2) "Oliver Sachs" Aquinas
3) "Robert Sapolsky" Aquinas
I looked at the top ten hits generated by each of these searches. The closest connection I found was this quote:
I've listened to a whole series of Robert Sapolsky. Have you read Thomas Aquinas?
To be blunt, I find your claim regarding these authors not credible. I therefore challenge you to provide a citation supporting your claim.
The remainder of your two comments I find to be anger-fueled screeds devoid of logic or evidence, a mere pile of vituperation. It is exactly this kind of mindless hate that I find objectionable. Atheism doesn't need to go postal against religion, because atheism has truth on its side.
I like this reply to the same question Chris.
Yet, deciphering the visions, hearing voices, actions etc of Aquinas, such as the one highlighted in this question all point to a brain malfunction.
The two most likely from a neurological aspect are schizophrenia or temporal lobe epilepsy, because in the diagnosis of all patients suffering such phenomenon has pointed to temporal lobe disorders or lesion.
Removing the lesion in all cases where it has been undertaken has removed these voices of god from the patients.
Stimulating those regions electronically and magnetically creates very close hallucinations and voices. Though certain drugs like mescaline have also produce similar temporal lobe activity.
So there is also a possibility of something in the food, drink or even air that Aquinas was consuming.
Like the volcanic gasses that produced the visions of the "Oracle of Delphi".
Dr. Simon McCarthy-Jones has mentioned Aquinas as a hallucination sufferer in his notes and writings.
Article: McCarthy-Jones, S. (2011). Seeing the unseen, hearing the unsaid: Hallucinations, psychology, and St Thomas Aquinas. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 14, 353-369.
He has been mentioned as such in lectures and neurological articles.
Which is very likely the source of the question above.