Found this. Thought it would be good to discuss about it with reference to the Holy Bible especially, possible, impossible or inadvisable on the questions by Epicurus ?

Added [A], [B], [C] & [D] just for ease of reference.

Ooops how did you know ? 😊

It was meant to a discovery for answers to Epicurus question, among the Catholic brethren.

But if you want to answer the question with regard to the Holy Bible why not, I guess.

Seriously it's 2000 year old riddle that nobody has cracked. Wow this ought to be real fun, I reckon, if permission is granted in the name for Catholic study.

No worries, I understand your position as an atheist, however for Scripture also says

"None of you will ever believe unless you see miracles and wonders." ~ Jesus Christ

I apologize then, for assuming that you could answer the riddle if you wanted to. 😊 That's the drawback writing online instead of an old fashion face-to-face conversation. 😉

That is a big word to use "Statistic"....with that being said, Show us how you derived 0.001%

or is that your unqualified guesstimate?

Ok I cannot and I won't comment on other religions, since I know absolutely nothing about them.

But I will share this 1 miracle with you, out of the few that I have personally witnessed that was done in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Has anyone who suffered a semi or partial stroke without any medical intervention whatsoever, make a complete and full recovery within 7 days ?

Well my father-in-law has and we praise Almighty God for it. Being a miser, we were up in arms with him and with his stubbornness, the only option left for us was to pray like mad. Really mad.

I am not good at statistics so I don't know how that works out but someone experiencing constant dizzynees, droopy face and loss of arm and feet sensations on the left side of his body simultaneously overnight and to recover within days without any medical intervention except for God, what's the probability again cause when I raise this up to the doctors I meet, they say it's impossible !

So the Scriptures is true

"What is impossible for man is possible for God." ~ Jesus Christ

Hold on, earlier you said 0.001%, now you're saying 0.01%?

Okay, nvm then.

Where was it proven that Lourdes was a fraud?

lol, He's the one who gave a statistic point of 0.001 then later gave a different point of 0.01% (implying he doesn't know), When questioned how he derived at the figure of 0.001...now he twist it and say I'm the one who gave the calculation.

So much for "simple word"....

kesimpulan: he doesn't know yet want to claim the statistic is simple word and change subject to ants and elephant. lol ha ha ha     

*next time when you make a statistical claim, make sure you can back it up. if cannot, don't use the word statistic. Pordah.

Is Epicurus Neither Able nor Willing to Understand Evil and the Mercy of God? Then Why Give Him the Time of Day?
October 12, 2017  Rob Slane

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?

Thus spake Epicurus, the Greek philosopher who lived from 341-270 BC. The riddle is undoubtedly a clever one, and yet it turns out to be loaded with a couple of erroneous presuppositions: firstly, a flawed presupposition, and secondly, a really flawed presupposition.

So what is the flawed presupposition? In a nutshell, it is the idea that to deal with evil, God must do so in exactly the way we think he ought to, and if he doesn’t, we’re going to get all uppity and tell him that he doesn’t exist. In our wisdom, we know that he ought to deal with evil, and we also know just how he ought to do it. Yet the problem we have is that any of the ways we can come up with to deal with evil end up destroying not just evil, but humanity itself. Let me explain.

Take the simplest example of the kind of evil that Epicurus might have envisaged: Cain and Abel. “Okay,” says Epicurus, “so if God is good, willing and omnipotent, why did he allow Cain to kill his brother?” Now how could God have prevented it? There are only really three options: he could have simply prevented Cain from doing it either by natural or miraculous means; he could have destroyed Cain either before or after he did his deed; or he could have “reprogrammed” Cain so that he never again had such a thought in his head.

But with each of these “solutions” there is an insurmountable difficulty. The problem with the first option – preventing Cain doing the deed – is that Cain’s heart remains unchanged, and he will simply look for another opportunity to carry out his crime. The problem with the second – destroying Cain – is that not only must Cain be destroyed but Abel too, because he is also a guilty sinner before God. And the problem with the third – reprogramming Cain – is that Cain loses one of the characteristics that make him to differ from the beasts.

With the first option, sin is harboured within Cain’s heart to be brought out into the open on another day. With the second, all humanity is wiped off the face of the earth, because all – not just the Cains and the Hitlers of this world – are guilty before God. And with the third, Cain is no longer made in the image of God. None of these options deals with evil in a satisfactory way, and if God were to choose any of them, humanity dies.

Now in his riddle, Epicurus castigates God for not doing something about Cain, but for choosing another option instead, which was “do nothing.” Here is exactly where the presupposition is flawed. Epicurus assumes that God must deal with Cain in one of the first three ways, and if he doesn’t, this is evidence of his inability, unwillingness or malevolence. Yet God does choose another way, but rather than it being “do nothing”, it is something that not only deals with the evil, but which does so in a way that overcomes all the other problems as well.

So how can this be done? Well God’s method, which may well sound like foolishness to the likes of Epicurus, is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the only method which not only deals with the problem of evil, but does so at the same time as overcoming the three problems mentioned above. It deals with evil by God taking evil upon himself. It deals with the heart problem by drawing men to God through the Cross, changing their hearts and bringing them into a right relationship with God. It deals with the problem of destroying humanity by offering hope of salvation to sinful humanity. And it deals with the reprogramming problem by restoring men to righteousness, so that they learn to choose the good and forsake evil. Whether Epicurus can accept the “folly” of this method is another matter entirely.

So much for the flawed presupposition, what of the really flawed presupposition? Well if Epicurus happened to be around today, the one question I would want to put to him would be this: “Mr Epicurus, your famous riddle about evil and the impotence of God has wowed many an atheist with its cleverness, and no doubt stumped many a Christian with its difficulties, but what I am really keen to know is this: what do you actually mean by evil.”

At this point it wouldn’t come as a surprise to see Epicurus’ face contorting in barely concealed contempt, implying that I am some sort of a dimwit for not knowing what evil is. Have I never heard of murders and wars and rapes and thefts and that sort of thing? Well yes I have, but contorted faces notwithstanding, that still doesn’t answer my question: what do you mean by evil? Is it just a bunch of actions such as those you have mentioned, or is it something far deeper than that? What actually is it?

The problem with Epicurus’ riddle is that it never gets around to telling us what this “evil” is that God ought to be stopping, and so it seems a pretty safe bet that Epicurus had in mind a bunch of things “out there”. But since his riddle assumes the existence of God before apparently going on to disprove him it follows that the riddle really ought to allow God to define evil, rather than leaving it to Epicurus to assume that his half-baked definition will suffice.

If God is God, then evil is not defined merely as a bunch of bad actions “out there”, but rather as “anything and everything which is opposite of God.” Now if this is the case, then what this means – amongst many other things – is that Epicurus’ riddle itself falls into the category of evil. I doubt very much whether this possibility actually crossed his mind when he wrote it, but if evil is defined by God as being that which is opposite to him, then Epicurus is guilty of that very thing in even proposing his conundrum. In which case, his only legitimate questions would be these: why doesn’t God come and strike me down for even daring to state such a thing? Why doesn’t he come and deal with my evil?

The answer, once again, is the mercy of God. Epicurus had an evil heart, just like the rest of us. He was opposed to God, just like the rest of us are by nature. He calls on God to come and deal with evil, but does he include his own in this? Is he really prepared for God to come and deal with his evil? If he really does desire this, is he prepared for God to leave his heart unchanged, or to strike him dead or to reprogram him? Does he really want God to deal with it in that way? Or will he not rather hope that God can deal with it in such a way that changes his heart for good, leaves him alive, and doesn’t turn him into a machine?

The good news is that this is exactly what God does. It took some thorns, some nails and the death of the Light of the World to achieve it. But it is finished. The grave is empty and the throne is filled. So come, Epicurus, God has found a way to deal with evil and he invites you to join him. Now are you willing to accept?

Oh you are asking for that kind of miracle. There was one actually some 30 years ago.

A Down syndrome baby was found in the dumpster nearby an orphanage and the baby girl was discovered by 2  orphans while putting the garbage out.

A Catholic priest ordered for the baby girl to be brought in. When they saw the little child 👶, they understood why the little baby was dumped. This priest gathered other Catholic priests and they prayed and prayed and prayed.

The baby's faced began to change and today she is a beautiful lady and smartest girl this country had ever seen. Scholarships were simply thrown at her feet by foreign governments just to attract her to their country.

This Catholic priest whom guided and taught me has since returned to the Lord.

A Down syndrome baby until to verious governments offering scholarships for her services in exchange. What are the odds of that happening ? Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ.

From the Gospel, there's an account of a blind man who was born blind according to his parents testimony and the blind man could see again after his encounter with Jesus Christ who cured him of his blindness.

I suppose the above 2 will suffice at this juncture.

As for this person you've mentioned Sai Baba, like I've mentioned before I really do not know him. If I do not know him, why should I accord him a divinity status ? I must be even mad to that to someone I do not know, right ?

I am telling you the truth, I only know my Lord and my God, Jesus Christ who is my Teacher and He has taught me everything I know because He's alive.

All the miracles that has happened in His name, will never and can never be explained via science. Now that's a name I am willing to accord divinity with. Period. Since it ain't broken, no point fixing.

Here how's things going to play out.

When the time comes and you're really down in the pits plus all the sciences in world can no longer help you. You can choose to call upon Sai Baba's name or the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I recommend that you try out the earlier option and if that doesn't work that you know what that means. 😊

Thereafter, if you still up for it, you must humbly call upon the Lord Jesus Christ. After the miracle has been for you,  the option again is fully yours to repent or continue on your way. Now that's free will.

By the way, why did you write Sai Baba is a con-man ? Surely you don't expect me to accord a con-artist with divinity, right ?

QUOTE(zamorin @ Oct 6 2017, 09:22 PM)
OK , you being an agnostic, you are the perfect person to be asked this puzzle:
[A] “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
[B] Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
[C] Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
[D] Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

Referring to above question, I can choose [C] because [A], [B] and [D] are obviously wrong. But then the question of whence cometh evil doesn't make sense at all if you don't believe in God. Who gives a person the authority to say his moral is better than the person he accused of committing the "evil deed". By the accused person perspective his "evil deed" is actually a "good deed" for him, or people that is on his side. Like in America the Left believe in Open Border, while the Right believe in Close Border. Which one is evil then? Or Hitler's deed which was beneficial for the german people, but not to the rest of the world. His deed was good from his perspective. Who can say he is evil when all he was doing was for the benefit of his people?

Fact is, if a person doesn't believe in God, then he should not believe there is any such thing as evil. For him nothing is evil.

Just like how you asked me to read Richard Dawkins? Amazing how one-sided it is....

Actually if you have read that, it's already explained early on that the riddle was based on false premises. Oh boy...sounds like an atheist version of Sylar we have here.

You don't understand. I am questioning the rationality of the question. It is stupid in my opinion.

If you do not believe in God, you should not refer to the Bible at all. Evil word should be non-existent in your vocabulary. Why do you believe in evil thing? where do you get the idea your moral standard is better than anyone?

If there is no God, the world should run on who is the strongest survives. Havoc is the Lord.

I am sorry perhaps I misunderstood you.

Let's get this straight, Jesus Christ has performed so many miracles from the very begining before the world came to be (it's all in the Holy Bible) until this very day and I am a witness to those things.

So how can you say Sai Baba whom you said recently died has done more miracles ?

Maybe we shouldn't be discussing about this cause it's all in the past. But I hope to hear some good news from you about what our good Lord Jesus Christ has done for you.

Oops the con-man word was taken from your earlier text, remember ? Jesus surely has not conned me financially either but instead He has blessed me with much.

Love ❤️ and peace to you.

If the riddle is dumb how can it be answered in the correct way?
How can I be hypocritical when I am just stating the obvious? that the riddle doesn't make any sense.
How can you believe evil exist but God doesn't exist?
Why a question cannot be used to answer a question?
Why an atheist do not allow a theist to question back?

Well, I don't expect any good answer from an atheist either. It's a waste of time and actually I am sinning to my God by arguing with you. So I have no more question to you.

Response to the Problem of Evil and Suffering
Evil and suffering is clearly seen in the world today and deeply affects all people. Whether it be natural disasters, war or increasing ailment ,suffering affects us all. The existence of evil and suffering also provides a strong challenge for the classical theist, in trying to reconcile the existence of an all good God with the natural disasters that cause suffering to humans and the atrocities humans cause to each other.image

The question of evil and suffering in the world is both painful and mysterious. Some theists struggle with the question “if God is omnipotent and  provident, why then does evil exist?”[1] And also with the related question “why does God permit evil?”[2] A theist by definition is one who believes in the existence of a god or gods[3] and “evil can be defined as that which opposes, or is the antithesis of, what is good”[4]

Only some theists have a problem with the question of evil and suffering. The argument, which is first put forward by Epicurus, goes as follows:

God is all powerful(omnipotent), and all good (Omni benevolent)
Evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of God
Evil and suffering exist
Therefore God does not exist.
This argument is of the form of modus tollens or indirect reasoning, where p (God is Omni benevolent and omnipotent) implies q (Evil and suffering are compatible with the existence of God). If q is not true (Evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of God) then p is not true either (God does not exist).