• Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think you’re misunderstanding Epicurus. The problem of evil directly refers to human suffering. Whether evil exists outside of our experience has nothing to do with the paradox.

    • flerp@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’re also misunderstanding Buddhism. Fair to assume they’re probably misunderstanding quite a lot.

      • Match!!
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Happy to hear your interpretation!

    • Match!!
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s alright, but then what about point #3, that perhaps suffering can be ended and, in particular, there are religions about humans living without suffering?

      • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        You’re describing part of the paradox: religion promises relief from suffering based on certain characteristics of god (in this case: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving), while suffering continues. The nature of the promise and the nature of our reality don’t seem compatible. That’s what the Epicurean paradox is about. Obviously something can’t be right about the promise that god loves you, has exact knowledge of what must be done and is literally omnipotent. Because evidently he doesn’t follow through with it.

        I don’t know how exactly other religions promise to alleviate suffering. Maybe those create their own paradoxes, who knows. We’d have to look at the actual claims of those religions. The Epicurean paradox very specifically criticises the idea of god as proposed by the abrahamic religions and in my opinion does so very convincingly.