Yes, I can understand it feels to you like I am side stepping the argument.
The "evil" in the paradox above (I am not responding to Epicureus but to the quote, which is presented out of original context) refers implicitly to a very limited, modern definition of the term, as your examples show.
All the religions that I have some understanding of, have much more elaborate understanding of the question of good/evil. But each religion has a unique view point of this question, so we cannot generalize these terms. I just gave one example.
The paradox is a false dilemma. In my understanding, such dilemmas are often set up within religions as tools to help you to think things through for yourself, they are not refutations of the religion.
I am not trying to refute an argument or convince you of anything. That would be pointless.
I don't consider earthquakes to be "evil" by any sensible definition. But the question "if God exists, why did he create a world with earthquakes" is an interesting question. I don't have any idea how any religion would approach this question.
If you are really interested in what religions can offer you, you can take a look at the feeling that arose in you when reading my reply.
You said you felt that I was side stepping the argument. To me it seems that it was partly because you thought that I was trying to refute an argument. You also missed the part where I said "Much of which we think of as ..."
This being HN, you can think of religions as methods to hack your own thinking. You can use such feelings (and the fact that you miss some key points when you discuss the issue) as a signal for yourself that there is a subconscious emotional issue related to the question. You can learn about yourself and grow through studying these issues.
Firstly, I appreciate your kind and thoughtful answer.
More importantly, I thoroughly commend the intellectual honesty when you said this:
> But the question "if God exists, why did he create a world with earthquakes" is an interesting question. I don't have any idea how any religion would approach this question.
To be clear, I wasn't hoping for a handy solution to one of life's "big questions" in an HN comment.
I was just pointing out that your response to the Epicurean argument was a bit narrow in the assumed scope of the assumed interpretation of the Epicurean argument.
The "evil" in the paradox above (I am not responding to Epicureus but to the quote, which is presented out of original context) refers implicitly to a very limited, modern definition of the term, as your examples show.
All the religions that I have some understanding of, have much more elaborate understanding of the question of good/evil. But each religion has a unique view point of this question, so we cannot generalize these terms. I just gave one example.
The paradox is a false dilemma. In my understanding, such dilemmas are often set up within religions as tools to help you to think things through for yourself, they are not refutations of the religion.
I am not trying to refute an argument or convince you of anything. That would be pointless.
I don't consider earthquakes to be "evil" by any sensible definition. But the question "if God exists, why did he create a world with earthquakes" is an interesting question. I don't have any idea how any religion would approach this question.
If you are really interested in what religions can offer you, you can take a look at the feeling that arose in you when reading my reply.
You said you felt that I was side stepping the argument. To me it seems that it was partly because you thought that I was trying to refute an argument. You also missed the part where I said "Much of which we think of as ..."
This being HN, you can think of religions as methods to hack your own thinking. You can use such feelings (and the fact that you miss some key points when you discuss the issue) as a signal for yourself that there is a subconscious emotional issue related to the question. You can learn about yourself and grow through studying these issues.