No Apologies, Chapter 6

I find it interesting that one of the best logical argument against god is over 2300 years old:

“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?” — ‘the Epicurean paradox’.[

To be honest, it can be argued that God wants free will.  But, lets reword this with free will, and see if it makes sense.

“Is God willing to prevent free will, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is impotent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh free will? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Just changing two words, and it still makes perfect sense.  Theists use free will as an excuse for evil.  But if God can not prevent free will, why call him God?   The universe acts, in every way, as something that is the result of natural laws.  Miracles never happen.  Free will is never violated.  Cause and effect is never violated.  F=ma always works.  E=mc² always works.  If God can not violate these laws, why call him god?

Let’s reword the Epicurean paradox, once again:

“Is God willing to violate the laws of universe, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he never acts. Is he both able and willing? Then why is there is no evidence of this? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” — ‘the modern Epicurean paradox’.[

I am just a humble engineer and freethinker.  Can someone refute this?

I am not a theologian, or philosopher, but let me state why my worldview makes more sense.

“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?” — ‘the Epicurean paradox’.[

I really don’t think there is something as absolute evil; it is always a relative thing.  When you accept the universe does not care about your existence, the problem of evil is not a problem.  The universe is not evil, it is indifferent, and I am just fine with that.  So much easier than believing in some omnibenevolent god thing.

“Is God willing to prevent free will, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is impotent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh free will? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Free will may or may not exist.  I accept that I am free as the laws of the universe allow me to be.  I know I have a limited brain, that can not conceive of many things, including large numbers and what came before the universe.  You just can’t.  Your brain can’t.  It is a limit of 1200cc of cholesterol based computer that evolved to survive in a harsh world.  I am fine with that and embrace my limitations.  So, I don’t worry about if we are endowed with free will from the impotent god.  It is most likely an illusion and really doesn’t matter.

“Is God willing to violate the laws of universe, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he never acts. Is he both able and willing? Then why is there is no evidence of this? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” — ‘the modern Epicurean paradox’.[

Since I see a universe that never violates its observed laws, with no evidence of miracles ever happening.  Ever.  When you accept the universe is an indifferent combination of mass, dark matter, and energy that follows some simple rules and has a crap ton of randomness to it, it all makes sense.   Prayer never works, more than random chance will dictate.  No one can walk on water, snakes and donkeys don’t talk, and it all makes sense.