Talk:Epicurean paradox

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Religion / Ancient Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion
	Ancient philosophy

On 16 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Epicurus' paradox to Epicurean paradox. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 16 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested RM (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 18:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epicurus' paradox → Epicurean paradox – A quick review of sources shows Epicurean paradox as the clear common name of the topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – per nom, also "Epicurus'" is incorrect per MOS:POSS. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this article a hoax?

This article was created by a now-banned hoaxter, Drekmikc76. None of the sources I checked actually talk about anything called "Epicurus' paradox". It may be the same thing as the problem of evil, which already has an article. I did find a blog here [1] but that's not RS. The strange ref style makes it hard to know what's a source and what's not, and I'm going to try to fix that. But I suspect this article should just be deleted. @Seraphimblade: GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even a brief Google search leads to sources that demonstrate beyond question that this article is not a hoax. Our own article on the problem of evil cites one of the sources given here for the specific logical process and its questionable, if widespread attribution to Epicurus. And a cursory examination of that article demonstrates that the scope of that topic goes far beyond what is or should be covered here.

The only question, then, is whether anything here is not duplicative of the content at "problem of evil", or could not be conveniently covered there. If there is too much to cover regarding Epicurus, his formulation, or the question of his authorship of this logical conundrum, in "problem of evil", or if what is there seems too detailed and perhaps deserving of splitting, then this article should remain, irrespective of who started it.

I do think it may be necessary to review the sources that come up to ensure that there are no copyright violations. The editor who started it does not seem to have understood basic Wikipedia policies, and may not have been able to write clearly or effectively in English. It could be that subsequent editors have greatly improved the prose, but there may be passages lifted from some of the original author's sources with little change. If so, the issue can probably be resolved by rewording with attribution.

If you're concerned with the title being original, I don't see that as an issue. Either sources that mention it use a common name for this paradox, or they don't. If they don't agree on what to call it, then any reasonable, logical description of it is a suitable title for this article. And unless Epicurus is said to have posited some other, better-known paradox, either the current title, or the proposed one in the previous section, will do. I don't believe that MOS:POSS covers this, because the possessive of Epicurus could be pronounced equally with or without an additional 's'. As a plural, I might expect "Epicurusses", but much less so as a possessive. However, "Epicurean" would avoid that problem. P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrilemma

The article first calls it a "logical dilemma" but then calls it a "trilemma". I think it's actually a quadrilemma. I've brought this up on the trilemma talk page as well.

I do not know how Epicurus himself formulated it, but there is actually a fourth possibility as well ("evil does not exist"). The quadrilemma is based upon the following inconsistent tetrad (cf. inconsistent triad):

An omnipotent being could put an end to evil
An omnibenevolent being would put an end to evil
An omniscient being would be aware of all evil
Evil exists

If the theist cannot resolve the paradox then he must choose which of the four premises to throw away. So he can keep three out of the four. This allows for four possible combinations ((1,3,4), (1,2,4), (2,3,4), (1,2,3)) so it's a quadrilemma. 2601:49:8400:26B:1921:3F36:9E7D:CACA (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]