Answering the Epicurus Dilemma.


Epicurus (341-270 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher known today for providing what some tend to believe is a knockdown argument against belief in God. It is a fairly popular argument within atheistic circles where an observer will see it widely quoted and often shared in memes and graphics (such as the one above).

Nonetheless, Epicurus’ argument focuses on the problem of evil and how it might present a big problem for a classical concept of God generally embraced by Christian theists:

“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?”

I think Epicurus’ quote encapsulates much of the skepticism held by many today when it comes to the evil and suffering as an argument against God, which makes it particularly helpful to analyze and respond to. Essentially Epicurus raises an important question on the subject of evil in the world given Christianity’s belief in an all-powerful, all-loving creator God.

One way we can observe its logic is to break it down into smaller units of evaluation.

1. If God is willing but not able to prevent evil, then He’s not omnipotent (therefore not God).

I believe that one can question this line fairly convincingly. Indeed, at least on what the Bible teaches, God is willing to prevent evil but that does not necessitate the fact that God cannot prevent it. In other words, God may have morally sufficient reasons (see my brief article here) for allowing evil to exist in this world. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig in a Q&A during one of his debates explains that “In terms of the intellectual problem of suffering, I think that there you need to ask yourself is the atheist claiming, as Epicurus did, that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the evil and suffering in the world? If that’s what the atheist is claiming, then he has got to be presupposing some kind of hidden assumptions that would bring out that contradiction and make it explicit because these statements are not explicitly contradictory. The problem is no philosopher in the history of the world has ever been able to identify what those hidden assumptions would be that would bring out the contradiction and make it explicit” (1).

However, as Craig rightly challenges, how could the atheist, skeptic, or anyone else, know that God would not, if he existed, permit the evil and suffering in the world? After all, it is not impossible that God would have reasons for it. Craig argues that God’s purpose for human history might be to bring the maximum number of people freely into his kingdom to find salvation and eternal life which requires the existence of evil and suffering.

Thus, it could be the case that salvation might require a world that is  suffused with natural and moral suffering. It might be that only in a world like that the maximum number of people would freely come to know God and find salvation. Craig continues, “So the atheist would have to show that there is a possible world that’s feasible for God, which God could’ve created, that would have just as much salvation and eternal life and knowledge of God as the actual world but with less suffering. And how could the atheist prove such a thing? It’s sheer speculation. So the problem is that, as an argument, the Problem of Evil makes probability judgments, which are very, very ambitious and which we are simply not in a position to make with any kind of confidence.”

2. If He is able but not willing, then He is malevolent (therefore not God).

This subsequent line builds on the assumption exposed by Craig in point 1 above. However, as a Christian theist might retort, biblical revelation seems to suggest that it will be God who one day does rid the world of evil. In other words, though God could rid the world of evil right now (which would naturally result in God’s obliteration of us in the process given that the Bible affirms that evil exists within every person given that every person has sinned. A fact that would make God’s sacrificing of Jesus on the cross for humankind’s sins a pointless exercise) the time right now is not appropriate. If God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering and evil in the world, as briefly stated above, then it doesn’t follow that he is malevolent or not omnipotent.

3. If He is able and willing, then where does evil come from?

The Bible claims that evil manifests from the fall (Genesis 3) which essentially says that man, given the gift of freewill, chose to reject God. And through that act sin (evil) entered the world. This is if you’re looking for a simple answer according to scripture that seems to be taken seriously by most Christians.

4. If He is neither able nor willing, then He is not God.

Again, given that God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist this line falters, the conclusion does not follow. Perhaps most informative in this regard is the atheist philosopher William Rowe who pens that “Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God [who is all-powerful and all-good]. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed… there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God” (2).

Ultimately Epicurus’ argument does not provide a logical defeater of a Christian concept of God, though it is undeniably an important objection that needs to be answered for those wishing to rationally justify belief in God in a world that is suffused with evil and suffering.


1. Craig, W. 2009. Transcript: Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens. Available.

2. William Rowe quoted by Pojman & Rea in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (2012). p. 314.


9 responses to “Answering the Epicurus Dilemma.

  1. This article is pure crap. Please answer a simple question with a simple answer, not with fallacies like circular logic: “Is there a God? Yes. Prove it. Read the Bible. How can you be so sure it is true? Because it is the Word of God”. Pfffff, crap.
    Epicurus had a few questions, please answer them punctually. Without the Bible. Do not use the Bible as proof or as mean of information.
    Why not use the Vedas as proof? Why not use the Qur’an as proof? Why not use Norse Legends as proof? Hmmmm???? These books are as good and false as the Bible.

    • Hey, Error…
      The point of the article wasn’t to prove God’s existence as you were hoping for. The point of the article was to refute Epicurus objections to the common monotheistic God, and answering that through the monotheistic Christian worldview which requires the bible.
      The article did answer them punctually and made no claims to answer anything else outside of Epicurus loaded questions.
      For you to expect this article to prove God or use a god from a different worldview is like me reading a vegan cookbook and throwing it away bc it didn’t explain anything about the intramolecular forces between the organic molecules of the food. In other words, the chemistry of cooking is already established beforehand, or at least presupposed, and moving on to further subjects.
      The author had every right to use the bible as a source of refutation because Epicurus is referring to God of the bible.
      The article also doesn’t use circular reasoning, idk where you’re even getting that from. It did a great job with outside sources to also show that Epicurus’ claims are invalid.
      I recommend checking out the links that the article provides, bc it uses sources outside the bible, aka the William Lane Craig links.

  2. “And how do we know that that [salvation] wouldn’t require a world that is simply suffused with natural and moral suffering?”
    actually, that is exactly what Epicurus and atheist are pointing. this world, this nature and our existence is a creation of such God, therefore pain and suffering is part of the creation of this sadistic entity.

    • Your position is valid and legitimate once you can justify the existence of evil, to define evil itself, therefore your claim of the sadistic entity is not itself a justified claim.. you judged from the perspective of the existence of evil that the creator is sadistic, but what about the good that exists, how it can be justified?? And can an evil God allow for goodness in this world?? Rational people would say no, an all evil, sadistic God will not allow goodness to exist. Then what becomes of the objection that this world is created by an evil God because of the existence of evil??
      Epicurus’s and athiests’ position are not justified, because if God doesn’t exist, then you have no objective ground to object against evil and to name bad actions evil.
      I’m not saying believing in the existence of God, but the ontological necessity of this being.
      Consider these questions in your search for truth.
      Best regards.

  3. I’ve noticed that Christianity is often very strong in areas where poverty & suffering occur but in the West spoilt atheists use this suffering as an excuse for them to reject God.

  4. Epicurus actually reveals that tge problem of good and evil side by side in time and space is not as trivisl or as simple as some people want to pretend.

  5. Excellent article! I don’t believe in a God or subscribe to any religions. James does an fantastic job at debunking Epicure’ s logical inferences. What I would like to add is that both epicurean and theological logic fail to consider that in the universe there’s no such things as Good or Evil. Those concepts are constructed by society, and dynamically shift throughout history. What was viewed as evil in ancient times might not be today and the opposite is true too. Therefore, Epicure and theology are both addressing a pointless argument, much like trying to define whether Dark is different from light. Both are basically the same, the presence or absence of light. A dark or lighted room keeps its intrinsic quality and structures regardless of external conditions. It’s only the perception that changes. An erupting volcano destroying a town is no more Good or Evil than child labour, for example. We simply agree as a society what should be considered good or evil. For the victorian capitalist society, for example, child labour was totally acceptable. Hence, from the premise that good and evil have no universal qualities or definition, the question whether there is or not a willing and /or able God is irrelevant.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s