Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2014, 10:06 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 01:53 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 11:58 PM)toadaly Wrote:  ...so can you choose evil in the afterlife too then?

Isn't that what the angels did when they decided to fight for Satan..? Presumably we could do the same thing.

If the answer is 'yes', then it would seem to undermine drich's convoluted argument about this life being a choice between heaven and hell, since you could still make such choices in the afterlife too. If the answer is 'no', then god is malevolent according to his claims.

drich Wrote:If we were not given the choice this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell. This is the picture of true malevolence.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like toadaly's post
10-02-2014, 10:18 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 10:21 AM by joben1.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Drich keeps claiming that god never claimed that he had the attributes mentioned in the paradox. Apparently this is because said attributes are claimed for him by the writers of the babble. God therefore must have told Drich personally what his attributes are. So now he's hearing voices in his head.

Lucid dreams that are actually reality and hearing disembodied voices. I would suggest that somethings not quite right with Drich.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like joben1's post
10-02-2014, 10:21 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 10:18 AM)joben1 Wrote:  Drich keeps claiming that god never claimed that he had the attributes mentioned in the paradox. Apparently this is because said attributes are claimed for him by the writers of the babble. God therefore must have told Drich personally what his attributes are. So now he's hearing voices in his head. Figures.

And probably using his turds as pencils to write his 'prophecies' on the wall. Big Grin

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 10:37 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  My response:
We answer this like we do with any other question.

first we define the parameters of the question. Meaning we take into account the circumstances of the who or when the question was asked, and then we look at what is asked.

Second we help the one asking the question to redefine any misconceptions they may have in the questions asked, leading to a false assumption, then we address the question according to the bible.

Finally we draw together all of the points i have outlined so they can come to a biblically based conclusion.

No, that's what you do. We don't care about whether or not a conclusion is based on that old self-contradicting book of fables.

(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  For example we know that this Greek philosopher lived about 2300 years ago and was not privy the revelation of Christ and the teachings of the NT. at best He was living in a truly dark age which saw no light of salvation. Epicurus' query was directed to his gods. If someone is using his words in the context He wrote them, then a simple explanation of the Gospel should answer each and every question Epicurus had.

So? His paradox relates to the incompatibility of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity with the world as it existed then and still exists today (with evil). It applies to any deity that is proposed to have those traits, regardless of whether or not he was directing it at the specific god you believe in. Most Christians claim that their god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, so the paradox applies.

(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  But I know the general popularity this set of questions has found in recent days is not because of the original intent this philosopher had when He wrote this query. Our modern want-to-be's have taken this question and married it with a pop culture understanding of the words, sin, evil and a loose understanding omni aspects of God.

No, the "loose understanding" is not the problem for you, it's that they don't jump through the philosophical rigmarole and apologetic acrobatics that you do in order to rationalize your belief in your god without eliminating one or more of the omni claims.

(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  So what we must do now is re-educate and give a biblical account of these words and how they relate to the popular culture's understanding of these questions. We do this by deconstructing the question line by line.
(I took the liberty of looking up the actual quote)

We start with the basics by giving a biblical definition of Sin, Evil and Freewill.

Sin, is anything not in the expressed will of God.

Evil is a malicious intent to be outside the expressed will of God.

No, that is an improper definition of evil. Evil is defined as:

"morally bad" or "causing harm or injury to someone."

When we discuss the Epicurean paradox, what we mean by "evil" is murder, rape, theft, genocide, etc. along with other examples of suffering. This can also include natural evil, such as floods, famines, tornadoes, etc. We aren't referring to a definition of evil that matches "anything not in the expressed will of God". For one, that simply results in nonsense - if evil is by definition simply "not the will of God", then there is nothing that can be considered evil as long as it is rationalized as being God's will. This includes genocide, which has been demonstrated as being within God's will at certain points in the Bible (if as a Christian you are claiming that the Bible is wholly true). You're saying that God can't be evil because evil is defined as "not God". You're using a circular definition here, which gets you nowhere. You can't redefine evil to exonerate your god.

(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.

Free Will Is a Greek philosophy and not taught by the bible. The bible teaches we are all slaves to sin. As slaves we have no will of our own. Rather we have been permitted to make a choice. Whether or not we want redemption for our sins.

You don't understand the claim or concept of free will. If you have a free choice to choose redemption for your sins, then you have free will. You'd do better by avoiding all the "sin" talk though, as we're not concerned with what is defined as sin by your religion, but what is moral according to our own moral codes, derived from how they affect those around us.

(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  We have been given this ability so we may choose where we wish to spend eternity, but as with any real choice comes a price and consequence.

*Side note; Apparently Epicurus did not have a complete understanding of God's word or His plan as outlined here. nor would anyone of that time period, but to those who would twist this effort to suit their own agenda there will be little excuse.

On to the actual quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Evil is the ultimate expression of sin. It is the proof that we indeed are outside the will of God's expressed will. In other words Evil is the proof or ultimate result of our sin status. Rather than prevent sin God offers attonement for all those who seek it.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the concept here - we don't give a rat's ass about your god's will or your twisted definition of evil, evil as used here (at least when this argument is given by an atheist) means acts such as murder, rape, theft, genocide and other examples of suffering.

(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

If we were not given the choice this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell. This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter) As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil. It is a choice made in a man's heart apart from the expressed Will of God. Because we have been given a true choice we have to all live with the consequences. Remember what it cost God to give us this choice. A malevolent being would not have paid such a high price.

A benevolent being wouldn't have invented hell to begin with and would instead have all individuals in heaven. Your point is as moot as it is ridiculous.

(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Again, Evil is the proof of Our bondage the consequences of that choice is the point and purpose of this life. We are to choose where we wish to spend eternity. Without "Sin and Evil" there is not point of been given this existence as the only choice we have would be to simply endure whatever was decided for us.



Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Because the Title "God" has absolutely nothing to do with how Epicurus nor the person using this quote defines it.
And keep in mind Epicurus was not speaking of Christianity (because he lived 300 years before Christ.) nor is he even speaking to the God of Judaism (as Yahweh does not make the claim Epicurus makes for Him.) Rather here he was speaking to the only godS he knew. His supposed paradox is out of context and out of place. This is more than apparent when it falls on its face when compared to the light of the gospel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

That is why this supposed paradox fails.

His paradox isn't targeted specifically to his contemporary gods, it addresses the claims of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience and how they're incompatible with his observation of evil that exists in the world. It applies whenever someone makes a claim that their god has all three omni traits, regardless of whether or not he had knowledge of the specific god that the claimant worships.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
10-02-2014, 10:49 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 10:18 AM)joben1 Wrote:  Lucid dreams that are actually reality and hearing disembodied voices. I would suggest that somethings not quite right with Drich.

...sounds a lot like that 'Paul" lunatic who wrote most of the New Testament.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like toadaly's post
10-02-2014, 10:54 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 10:49 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(10-02-2014 10:18 AM)joben1 Wrote:  Lucid dreams that are actually reality and hearing disembodied voices. I would suggest that somethings not quite right with Drich.

...sounds a lot like that 'Paul" lunatic who wrote most of the New Testament.

Exactly, hence my tirades about him previously ... He soooo wants to be a prophet of Gawd! He even does his whole 'wrong side of the tracks' spiritual rebellion back story. The guy is way out there!

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
I've been skimming through this thread, trying to find the part where Drich defeated the Epicurean Paradox. I havent' found it yet.

Could someone direct me where in the thread he acomplishis this? Thanks...

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
10-02-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 11:01 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  I've been skimming through this thread, trying to find the part where Drich defeated the Epicurean Paradox. I havent' found it yet.

Could someone direct me where in the thread he acomplishis this? Thanks...

Never happened. He tried to move the goalposts and got caught and called on it, and he's been running ever since.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
10-02-2014, 11:24 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 11:01 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  I've been skimming through this thread, trying to find the part where Drich defeated the Epicurean Paradox. I havent' found it yet.

Could someone direct me where in the thread he acomplishis this? Thanks...

Clearly, we've all been dazzled by his arguments. We are up against an intellect so razor sharp, so beyond our human capacity for reason, that not only did we miss it, we will continue to do so until we suffer catastrophic head trauma.

Only then, with the complete distruction of our frontal lobes, shall we drool in universal enlightenment and awe.

(We'll also follow the orders of any household appliance, but Pfft! We will then see what Drich sees.)

Drooling

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Kestrel's post
10-02-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  This was a good question asked and answered in that "other web site"

some long forgotten atheist. Wrote:I'm often trolled by atheists who ask me this, what do you guys think?

I usually defend it in that it's not in God's nature to act in that way, but I'm not sure how good of an argument that is.

For those of you who don't know what the Epicurean Paradox is, it is as follows:

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?
Taken from the last time I answer this question:

My response:
We answer this like we do with any other question.

first we define the parameters of the question. Meaning we take into account the circumstances of the who or when the question was asked, and then we look at what is asked.

Second we help the one asking the question to redefine any misconceptions they may have in the questions asked, leading to a false assumption, then we address the question according to the bible.

Finally we draw together all of the points i have outlined so they can come to a biblically based conclusion.

For example we know that this Greek philosopher lived about 2300 years ago and was not privy the revelation of Christ and the teachings of the NT. at best He was living in a truly dark age which saw no light of salvation. Epicurus' query was directed to his gods. If someone is using his words in the context He wrote them, then a simple explanation of the Gospel should answer each and every question Epicurus had.

But I know the general popularity this set of questions has found in recent days is not because of the original intent this philosopher had when He wrote this query. Our modern want-to-be's have taken this question and married it with a pop culture understanding of the words, sin, evil and a loose understanding omni aspects of God.

So what we must do now is re-educate and give a biblical account of these words and how they relate to the popular culture's understanding of these questions. We do this by deconstructing the question line by line.
(I took the liberty of looking up the actual quote)

We start with the basics by giving a biblical definition of Sin, Evil and Freewill.

Sin, is anything not in the expressed will of God.

Evil is a malicious intent to be outside the expressed will of God.

Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.

Free Will Is a Greek philosophy and not taught by the bible. The bible teaches we are all slaves to sin. As slaves we have no will of our own. Rather we have been permitted to make a choice. Whether or not we want redemption for our sins.

We have been given this ability so we may choose where we wish to spend eternity, but as with any real choice comes a price and consequence.

*Side note; Apparently Epicurus did not have a complete understanding of God's word or His plan as outlined here. nor would anyone of that time period, but to those who would twist this effort to suit their own agenda there will be little excuse.

On to the actual quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Evil is the ultimate expression of sin. It is the proof that we indeed are outside the will of God's expressed will. In other words Evil is the proof or ultimate result of our sin status. Rather than prevent sin God offers attonement for all those who seek it.



Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

If we were not given the choice this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell. This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter) As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil. It is a choice made in a man's heart apart from the expressed Will of God. Because we have been given a true choice we have to all live with the consequences. Remember what it cost God to give us this choice. A malevolent being would not have paid such a high price.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Again, Evil is the proof of Our bondage the consequences of that choice is the point and purpose of this life. We are to choose where we wish to spend eternity. Without "Sin and Evil" there is not point of been given this existence as the only choice we have would be to simply endure whatever was decided for us.



Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Because the Title "God" has absolutely nothing to do with how Epicurus nor the person using this quote defines it.
And keep in mind Epicurus was not speaking of Christianity (because he lived 300 years before Christ.) nor is he even speaking to the God of Judaism (as Yahweh does not make the claim Epicurus makes for Him.) Rather here he was speaking to the only godS he knew. His supposed paradox is out of context and out of place. This is more than apparent when it falls on its face when compared to the light of the gospel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

That is why this supposed paradox fails.

Can I get a Cliff's Notes version of this?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: