the problem with the Epicurean paradox is that it rationalizes the universe in human terms--as if good and evil could only be measured by what we humans see as good and evil, and by what happens to us humans. But, as cabdriver about points out, we can't be sure that we know everything about our situations (that we are 'sufficiently enlightened') to be able to judge it all. To be really sure that the evil we see in this world is "really" evil, when the whole universe and full awareness of ourselves are taken into account.

The Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov was the first to talk about a Godman; he had this concept of Godmanhood (or богочеловечество) which suggested humans can grow in their level of awareness as far as Godhead. (Of course all the Gnostic traditions also talk about that; but Solovyov's concept was more subtle in its developmental aspect, and in its attempt to reconcile metaphysics with science. Ken Wilber also comes to mind.)

Which is why Booblefrip's argument is not convincing--Booblefrip, like the rest of us, doesn't really know what 'evil' is. Nor do the Christians really know what 'good' is--which is why their claims of an infinitely good God are, well, unproven. The question of God as all-good or all-evil is indeed symmetrical--in our current perspective. In our current level of awareness.

I think Jorge Luis Borges put it best: we don't know what the Universe is. And how 'evil' and 'good' fit in it.

Clockwork Smurf, very well said.

the mortal human perspective considers itself the ultimate arbitrator, matters always going to appear to the most advantaged (and in actuarial terms, that description fits most Salon readers) as if they're going from

a halcyon past, to not as good as it was, to bad, then worse, then nothing.

The Unjust Universe. "Poor me"- and, when extended by the mental conjuring of the solipsist, "poor us."

But who says that humans- as conscious beings- are fully aware of our situation? It's a conceit.

The working of universe is a mystery. We have the merest perception and cognition of it. And perhaps the most important agency we have within it is our sense of purpose. Which is, of course, contingent on thinking that there is such a thing.

I'll spare you my personal theistic perspectve, the mere mention of which is guaranteed to produce a toxic reaction in some readers, accompanied by the usual remonstrances.

Just- beware of maya. And, as a Stoic might put it, "get over yourself."

Admittedly, it can be tough for the most advantaged to remember that- just like everybody else- we have our work cut out for us. But we do.

The point of the story is that the problems of man, are just that the problems of man. Man creates his problems and man must find a way to solve his problems. God can not solve man's problems without changing man to a point to where he is no longer man.

If man is so concerned about his brother who is hungry, then let man feed him, if man is so concerned about his brother who is enslaved, then let man free him.

This is the central theme in the story of the fall of man. In essence at the begining of the story, you no paradox, there is man at peace and all cared for by a beneveloant god. But God gives man something no other animal gets, the ability to choose his actions and thusly his fate. Man (symbolicly) rejects the all encompassing existance under the care of the diety in order to choose for himself (and herself) the knowledge of good and evil.

In knowing good and evil, you take on the responsibility of acting goodly or evily.

Yes, God, like superman has the ability to whipe man off the face of the earth and create a perfect paradise or through force of will, or threat of violence cause humanity to behave as he so demands. But such an action would rob man of his humanity, and would make the world without responsibility an empty gift.

God has compassion for all, and all are welcome in his house, heaven being the ultimate nullifier to the eppicurian paradox. If death is not an end, and suffering is only temporial, then the challenge that man has to learn to care for his brother is his entire purpose for being. To take away that purpose from man would render us mearly beasts, moving about dumbly unaware of the world beyond our personal basic needs.

I wouldn't be upset in the least if Tom the Dancing Bug just alternated between Super-Fun-Pak Comix and God-Man from week to week.

Minniesinger5: Why does there have to be a God? The existence of God is as much a presumption as the presumption that this presumed God must act logically.

Clockwork Smurf: That's the worst answer to the Epicurean Paradox ever. God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Man is not.

A righteous athiest passed from this world, and because he was such a good and decent man he found himself at the pearly gates.

At first he is dumbstruck and filled with joy, as he had never imagined such an outcome for his life, but soon, he became quite upset.

Clearly, he has died, and clearly there is a god, and yet all the horrors of the world continued, horrors this god could have stopped at any time. Filled with righteous indignation the Atheist marched up to St. Peter and demanded to speak with God immedeatly.

St. Peter, having received similar requests before, gladly obliged.

The two men walk down a small corridor to an office, and St. Peter informs the gentleman that god's office is just beyond that door, and that he is expected.

Having no time for niceties, the atheist burst into god's office and pounded on his desk, demanding to know why he allowed evil to continue in the world, despite having the power to stop it at any time.

And god smiled calmly, looked at the atheist, and said,

"you know, I was just about to ask you that same question."