Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 01:26 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  This was a good question asked and answered in that "other web site"

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?

OP redefines words til he can explain away the problem.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
10-02-2014, 01:31 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 01:26 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Can I get a Cliff's Notes version of this?

It's magic. Drinking Beverage

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, 11:28 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
He still hasn't responded to my biblically based argument of god's characteristics... I'm even using his bible parameters, here! What gives?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2014, 07:52 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 11:28 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  He still hasn't responded to my biblically based argument of god's characteristics... I'm even using his bible parameters, here! What gives?

Cognitive dissonance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 01:41 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
[Image: ac0c27270a2fb6a7da5c92d8303a95d556b655bb...32e0b8.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 11:24 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, the 'revelations', as passed down to us by hearsay stacked upon hearsay written down by anonymous authors decades after the supposed events by non-eyewitnesses. This means that Epicurus has just as much exposure to 'the revelation of Christ' as we do; absolutely nothing we can be certain about.
We can be 100% certain of what has been given us and labled as the revelation of Christ. Fore it is to this that we are held accountable.


Quote:I'm sorry, you seem to be under the impression that anybody can have a firm understanding of any aspects of an omni-max being.
What I am indeed asserting is that God does not claim to be omni Max as our doctrines describe it.

Quote:Seeing as how we've never had one to test inside a laboratory under controlled conditions, nobody knows anything;
If we ever did then by defination he would not be an infinate all powerful God. Especially after the decrees he has made.

Quote:it's all speculation and logical gymnastics.
ah, no. It is spelled out for us.

Quote:If you study the literature and history of your religious texts, the omni-max attributes are easily explainable as literary devices and the one-upmanship of a particular tribe of emerging monotheists; rather than any real description of something that exists within reality.
Again no. God himself does not claim or set up the definations of an omni max God. The known attributes of God have been compiled into an omnimax box. The problem with this the box we built is not going to be big enough to encapsulate an infinate God. Hence the paradoxes.

Quote:Sin does not appear in the original question, and barring any evidence confirming it's existence, it's addition will not at all be compelling.
Sin is the foundation in which Evil is built. To understand evil one must first understand sin. Therefore it is nessary to provide you with this defination.

Quote:I reject your definition of evil, until such a time as we have evidence for your god and he/she/it confirms that we operate under the rigors of Divine Command Theory.
Done/Established in the Pentateuch.

Quote:Not compelling in the least.
Rolleyes

(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

Quote:I reject your premise for lack of evidence.
The Apstole Paul wrote these word in Romans 7. If He says he is a slave to sin then what hope is there for the rest of us?
14 We know that the law is spiritual, but I am not. I am so human. Sin rules me as if I were its slave. 15 I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I do the evil I hate. 16 And if I don’t want to do what I do, that means I agree that the law is good. 17 But I am not really the one doing the evil. It is sin living in me that does it. 18 Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is not spiritual. I want to do what is good, but I don’t do it. 19 I don’t do the good that I want to do. I do the evil that I don’t want to do. 20 So if I do what I don’t want to do, then I am not really the one doing it. It is the sin living in me that does it. 21 So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me. 22 In my mind I am happy with God’s law. 23 But I see another law working in my body. That law makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and that law makes me its prisoner. 24 What a miserable person I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death? 25 I thank God for his salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So in my mind I am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful self I am a slave to the law of sin.

If this discussion is indeed comparing the God of the bible to this paradox then the bible itself becomes a valuable source in which to define the governing principles in which the discussion encompasses.

(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.

Quote:I reject your premise for lack of evidence.
If you are having this discussion then you are intelectually bound to the defining parameters of everything this discussion encompasses.

Quote:Neither do you have a complete understanding of any god's word, here or otherwise.
If we are comparing this paradox with the God of the bible then we have more than information to accuratly discuss whether or not the God of the bible falls under this paradox. As we have the bible.

Quote:For starters, complete lack of any evidence to support any of your assertions.
Again no. As we are comparing epicurus' paradox with the God of the bible the bible then beomes more than enough to refute the paradox. Since your whole arguement seems to repeat this FAILED principle adnausim I will simply ignore anyother reference you make to it.

Quote:Many however would reject the very concept of your god's offered 'atonement' on the grounds of the immorality of vicarious redemption.
examples?

Quote:Also you're missing the simple point here; if your god was not able to create a universe without sin and prevent the sin that arises; he is still not omnipotent.
I think your missing the bigger picture here.First principle: God does not claim onmi-benevolence, (He does not love everyone)

God can and has made a existance without sin/suffering. That is how we started out. Then He gave us this world and we turned it over to sin and suffering.

Quote:So to answer the question, your god simply is not willing to prevent evil.
YES!

Quote:We can stop right here,
Holy Crap Yes!! Why? Because your next assumption is 100% wrong:

Quote:as the question assumes a benevolent god;
again, God Never makes this claim. His love is conditional John 3:16 proves this. Hell proves this. The bibe even has a list of those in whom God is reported to Hate!

So boom, paradox over epicurus defeated next question.

Because clearly Epicurus and the want-to-be's who have picked up this broken paradox simply do not understand the God of the bible.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
You just admitted god is malevolent. Parameter met, output successful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 11:35 AM)natachan Wrote:  You just admitted god is malevolent. Parameter met, output successful.

Where exactly did he say that? I must have missed it.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
"God is not willing to prevent evil"
"God's love is conditional. Here is a list of people he hates."

Malevolent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:53 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 11:50 AM)natachan Wrote:  "God is not willing to prevent evil"
"God's love is conditional. Here is a list of people he hates."

Malevolent.

So you would be considered malevolent if you hated someone who is an asshole to you?

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: