Epicurean Riddle

I use Epicurus' riddle quite frequently in my thinking when it comes to religion and though I believe it has some basic flaws I believe he was fundamentally asking the right question. If there is indeed a God what kind of God would that entity be? Now let's take a look at the riddle.

"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?"
-Epicurus


If he is willing but not able then he certainly by definition is not omnipotent however this leave the door open to an omniscient God. If he is able but not willing God is implicitly doing evil but does that mean his motive is of malevolence? It could be apathy or another of other numerous motives. It is clear that their is not a God both able and willing to prevent evil as evil does exist. If God is neither able nor willing then it could be an omniscient apathetic God. Epicurus' riddle is very handy when you are speaking of a God who's properties are known but more or less useless for deistic Gods with unknown properties. In my post refuting the Judeo-Christian God I was only able to falsify the Judeo-Christian God because the properties were known. While it would be a fools errand to attempt to falsify a deity that is declared unknowable.


You cannot falsify something with unknown properties, it is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In fact every time you are talking to someone who says their God transcends the rules of reason and logic I encourage you to immediately end the conversation. It is not worth your time to reason with an individual who believes that their beliefs are an exception to the rules of reason and logic.