Abstract
This article examines the statement attributed to Epicurus, commonly known as the Epicurean Paradox, exploring its meaning, historical context, and far-reaching implications. The paradox raises profound questions about the nature of God, particularly His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, in light of the existence of evil. Tracing its influence through history, the paper highlights how this argument has fuelled scepticism, shaped atheistic worldviews, and inspired notable critiques such as those of J. L. Mackie and Richard Dawkins. While primarily analytical, the discussion also anticipates the theological and philosophical responses that will be developed in Part B, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of the problem of evil from a Christian perspective.
Introduction: The Problem of Evil and the Question of God
The problem of evil has long been one of the greatest challenges to belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God. Among the earliest and most influential formulations of this problem is attributed to Epicurus (341–270 BC), an ancient Greek philosopher and founder of Epicureanism—a philosophical system emphasizing the pursuit of happiness and peace through modest living.
Epicurus taught that the greatest good is found in seeking modest pleasures: the absence of physical pain and freedom from mental disturbance, achieved through wisdom, friendships, and self-restraint. These ideals are not bad in themselves, but to pursue them outside the spectrum of God may not end well. For life, with all its goodness, is not only surrounded by God but flows from within God. He is considered the only being who is truly good, for besides Him there is none. This means He exists as the first being not only to know or acknowledge what good is, but to be the very epitome of good itself. He does good because He is good (Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19).
Epicurus was not considered an atheist because he believed in the existence of gods; however, he disregarded their involvement in human affairs. He believed that gods may exist outside the spectrum of this physical world, yet they do not concern themselves with the affairs of humanity. This perspective excused him from acknowledging God as the one and only true being—One who not only exists but is both immanent and transcendent. Because of his belief, Epicurus effectively removed the supernatural or divine from the timeline of human history, and in doing so, he argued against God through what is now known as the Epicurean Paradox—a logical dilemma concerning the problem of evil.
The Epicurean Paradox: The Logical Challenge
Epicurus’ paradox argues:
If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing, then whence comes evil? If He is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God?
This paradox does not merely suggest a dysfunction of God among humanity; it directly challenges three fundamental attributes of God Almighty, rendering them untrue and unrealistic.
It claims:
- God’s omnipotence (being all-powerful) is false.
- God’s omniscience (being all-knowing) is disproven.
- God’s omnibenevolence (being all-loving and compassionate) is unrealistic.
Logically, an all-powerful God would have the ability to undo what has been done, the knowledge to foresee evil and prevent it before it happens, and the compassion to look upon humanity’s struggles and intervene kindly. On the contrary, if such a God exists while we still witness unspeakable horrors and unthinkable evils taking place in the world, how can one maintain that such a God exists? If He does and yet all He does is watch, then He must, as the argument implies, take delight in these occurrences of evil.
However, God—the author and beginner of every beginning—cannot logically be detached from His own creation. No one creates and then keeps himself entirely removed from what he has made. The very fact that creation still exists testifies to its value and importance to its Creator. How then do we demonstrate that God is not as ungodly as suffering seems to portray Him?
The Historical Influence of the paradox
Over the years, the Epicurean paradox has fuelled scepticism and given birth to various philosophical and theological movements. It has encouraged atheistic worldviews that deny the existence of God altogether, asserting that the presence of evil makes such a being impossible. Others, while not rejecting God entirely, have redefined Him into a powerless or indifferent deity—one who exists, perhaps, but cannot or will not intervene in the affairs of humanity.
Modern Echoes
Since it was first proposed, this paradox has been adopted by many atheists as an argument for the non-existence of God. It has also inspired various concepts and propositions surrounding its implications.
J. L. Mackie, in his essay “Evil and Omnipotence,” argues that:
‘God as omnipotent; God as being wholly good; and yet evil exists, appears to be a contradiction, so that if any two of them were to be true the third would be false, making belief in such a God ‘positively irrational’.
In light of all this, Richard Dawkins, one of the most influential voices in modern atheism, has, in his book ‘The God Delusion’ (2006), argued strongly against God, religion, and the very idea of faith. Drawing from his understanding of evolutionary theory—though widely accepted in biology, yet often seen by believers as a misapplication of science to matters of theology—he presents a case that rejects the biblical portrait of God. Dawkins famously writes:
‘The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
From such a premise, he arrives at the conclusion, stated earlier in River Out of Eden (1995):
‘The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good—nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.’
From a faith perspective, these claims are deeply flawed. Christian apologists such as C. S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, 1952) and William Lane Craig (various debates and writings) have long argued that moral language presupposes a moral standard.
To call the God of the Bible ‘evil’ assumes that objective good and evil exist. Yet Dawkins’ naturalistic worldview denies such objective standards. In essence, he borrows the moral framework of theism to critique theism, a contradiction noted repeatedly in apologetic literature.
From this perspective, the weakness in his argument becomes clear: if there is no God, there is no ultimate moral lawgiver, and moral judgments lose any absolute grounding. But if moral outrage against injustice is real and meaningful—as even Dawkins’ words suggest—then it points, not away from God, but toward Him as the source of all moral truth.
But does the existence of evil truly negate the reality of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God? Or is the paradox itself built on flawed assumptions about God’s nature, purpose, and relationship to suffering?
Part B will explore the biblical perspective on evil, suffering, and God’s sovereignty, showing how Scripture explains the problem of evil, the moral order of the universe, and God’s ultimate redemptive plan through Christ.
Leave a comment