• TheFonz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As an atheist I take issue with Epicurus statement, which gets floated around a lot. I think it’s because in Epicurus’s framing of the universe evil has agency, whereas christian apologetics will respond with evil representative of a lack of goodness. Then there’s the issue of free will to contend with.

    • ThisGuyFromThatPlace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure I follow. If you see evil as “a lack of goodness”, the argument stand. If he’s benevolent, why is goodness not everywhere?

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, the answer I’ve heard from apologetics is the benevolence is a paternal type of benevolence. Kind of like a parent who will let their child touch a hot stove so as to not deprive them of free will. I’m probably doing a terrible steel man of the position because I don’t quite buy it

    • Jose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If goodness supposedly has agency because of God, when why evilness wouldn’t have it? Supposedly it also does, because of the devil. If good and evil don’t have agency, then it’s just karma and there is no God or devil.

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well yes ok. But the way I’ve heard I described is evil is a lack of goodness the same way darkness is the absence of light. There is no “non-light”, there is less or more light.