Exactly - apparent paradoxes. There's a lot of theoretical work attempting to solve it. The paradox isn't the end point of what we assume to be the truth, it's our way of describing a unsolved problem hinting to the fact that there's something we don't understand just yet.
To Copernicus what he learned about the geocentric world and what he observed in his astronomical research was a paradox. It didn't make sense, so he started to question the premise. Learning more about the nature of things eliminated the apparent paradox. Today we know better.
The Epicurean paradox has a very obvious solution as well. The premise of an all knowing, all powerful, and all-loving god is wrong. A god of this nature doesn't exist. The people who came up with the idea were wrong. Simple as that. As soon as we accept that, the paradox is resolved. Because it was a problem of thought - an error - not a problem of reality.
A shame you didn't reply to my comment from earlier, since the afterlife argument is used quite often in this instance while not actually resolving the underlying problem:
One answer I’ve heard from religious people is that life after death will make up for it all. But that doesn’t make sense either. If heaven/paradise/whatever puts life into such small perspective that our suffering doesn’t matter, then our lives truly don’t mean anything. It’s just a feelgood way of saying god couldn’t care less about child cancer - because in the grand scheme of things it’s irrelevant anyway.
Paradoxes don't "exist" in the real world. Reality isn't paradoxical. Paradoxes are what we call problems we haven't found answers for yet. They point to unsolved questions, false correlations, and wrong premises - precisely because nothing in the real world can actually be paradoxical.
If you skip the "evil" part and just start talking about "things that are bad for us humans" it's still true though. Sure, maybe child cancer is somehow moral or good from the perspective of an immortal entity, but in this case this entity is obviously operating on a basis that is completely detached from what's meaningful to us. Our lives, our suffering, our hardship - obviously none of all this is relevant enough to a potential god to do anything about it. Or he would, but can't. Hence the Epicurean paradox.
One answer I've heard from religious people is that life after death will make up for it all. But that doesn't make sense either. If heaven/paradise/whatever puts life into such small perspective that our suffering doesn't matter, then our lives truly don't mean anything. It's just a feelgood way of saying god couldn't care less about child cancer - because in the grand scheme of things it's irrelevant anyway.
To us humans, our lives aren't meaningless. Child cancer isn't irrelevant. We care about what's happening in this life and to the people we care about. How could a god be of any relevance to us if our understanding of importance, of value, of good and bad, is so meaningless to them? Why would we ever construct and celebrate organized religion around something so detached from ourselves? The answer is: We wouldn't.
Either god is relevant to our lives or he isn't. Reality tells us: He isn't. Prayers don't work, hardship isn't helped, suffering isn't stopped. Thought through to it's inevitable conclusion the Epicurean paradox is logical proof that god as humans used to think about him doesn't exist, and if something of the sorts exists, it's entirely irrelevant to us.
Dann dürfen sich die Frauen aber eben auch nicht wundern, wenn die Männer sich entsprechend keinen Sex mehr wollen, sich Zeugungsunfähig machen und niemand mehr Kinder haben will, oder sich gar nicht erst auf eine Beziehung einlassen und lieber Single sein wollen.
Würde mich gar nicht wundern, das ist aus meiner Sicht sogar die beste Art, verantwortungsvoll mit unserem Potential umzugehen, neue Menschen zu produzieren.
Ein Kind zu verlassen ist es nicht.
Selbst da leidet aber am allermeisten ein Kind, das für die ganze Situation ja am allerwenigsten kann. Es ist mies, dass die Natur in Sachen Kinderkriegen so ungleiche Rollen geschaffen hat, aber so ist es einfach.
Abtreibungen mütterlicherseits und Kindsaufgabe väterlicherseits mögen sich gleichberechtigt anfühlen, aber die Resultate sind total unterschiedlich. Nach ausgetragener Schwangerschaft ist eine dritte Person im Spiel, und die kann man nicht ignorieren. Es ist einfach Realität, dass wenn ein Mann sich gegen ein Kind entscheidet, selbiges mit einem gravierenden Handicap ins Leben startet; finanziell und psychisch noch dazu.
Mit Blick auf das Kindeswohl ist das wichtigste, was wir machen können, ungewollte Schwangerschaften zu verhindern. Und dazu können Männer natürlich beitragen. Dass mit Abtreibungen ein weiterer Mechanismus hierfür existiert (auf den Männer typischerweise keinen direkten Zugriff haben), ändert an der notwendigen Schlussfolgerung nichts.
Ich verstehe den Wunsch nach Fairness, aber die Szenarien sind nicht so 1 zu 1 vergleichbar. Abtreibung und Kindesaufgabe haben extrem unterschiedliche Outcomes. In einem der Fälle leidet ein Kind unter der Entscheidung - mitunter für den Rest seines Lebens - in der anderen gibts kein Kind, das leiden könnte.
Kinder sitzen lassen geht einfach nicht. Und dabei geht es gar nicht den Mann und sein Recht auf Gleichberechtigung, sondern ganz einfach um die Vermeidung von Leid auf der Kinderseite.
You're right, but the same must be said for July 23rd. Both are abbreviating "day in the month of july" to a simple mention of the month.
At the end of the day both work, both are equally efficient, and simply come down to habit.
@Mrs_deWinter
@feddit.org