Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 12:16 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 11:53 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(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?

Here's the difference between me and your god: I love my children unconditionally, so I am better than your god. Just like if I saw a child being raped I would step in and do something right there, whereas the god you believe in will watch, let it happen and then punish the rapist only after he dies. That's the difference, your god is an asshole.

Also, the Paradox is for a benevolent god, so if you're saying your god isn't benevolent, then like the paradox says, why call him god?

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WillHopp's post
13-02-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Drich, when will you realize that Epicurus was not referring to the god of the Bible?

He was just trying to point out that if there is a god, he is either not benevolent or not omnipotent.

A malevolent god is fine by his paradox. Is it so hard for your brain to process that?

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like undergroundp's post
13-02-2014, 12:21 PM
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?

your one of 30 talking to me. either I missed your post, felt I have already addressed your our points recently, or you started out cussing, which if that were ever the case I just move on. It's one of the three so don't focous on which one it is not.

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, 12:23 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 11:35 AM)natachan Wrote:  You just admitted god is malevolent. Parameter met, output successful.

so you agree there is no paradox? Or have you forgotten this is called the Epicurean PARADOX? Or do you simply not understand what that term means?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Drich's post
13-02-2014, 12:25 PM
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.

Lucid dreams that are actually reality and hearing disembodied voices. I would suggest that somethings not quite right with Drich.

I said God never claimed ALL Of the Omni attributes mentioned in the bible. I did not say He did not claim any.
More specifically God does not claim to be Omni benevolent. If you believe He does it is on your to provide book chapter and verse.

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, 12:28 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 12:33 PM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 12:23 PM)Drich Wrote:  so you agree there is no paradox?
Of course!!
[Image: tumblr_lf19dbB5xO1qfxwx9]
If you admit that you're worshiping a fucking sadist of a God then yes... it is not a paradox anymore Thumbsup
(13-02-2014 12:02 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  They aren't. The human race as a whole is.
[Image: 49.%20Red%20Herring.png]

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 12:23 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:35 AM)natachan Wrote:  You just admitted god is malevolent. Parameter met, output successful.

so you agree there is no paradox? Or have you forgotten this is called the Epicurean PARADOX? Or do you simply not understand what that term means?

Of course. If parameter is met than paradox ceases. I was just waiting for you folks to admit it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 01:03 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 10:37 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  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.
Not true, otherwise you would not have put in the time to answer the OP.

Quote: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.
Without a doubt pop christianity has attributed these traits on the God of the bible, but any Christian who is willing to yield doctrinal authority to what is said in the bible, will have to let go the idea of an omni max God. Because God never claims this title for Himself. He claims to be the alpha and Omega, and the great I am, not Omni-max.

Quote: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.
I LOVE IT when you guys used generalizations like this: "philosophical rigmarole and apologetic acrobatics ." It shows that you have closed your mind to anything not consistant with the sunday school understanding of christianity you may have gleaned over the years. what does that mean for me? I get to dismiss yoour dismissal, because you wish to stay in a state of ignorance.Tongue

Quote:No, that is an improper definition of evil. Evil is defined as:
ah, no.
The bible consistantly tells us we can have evil in our hearts which broadens the defination beyond the boarders of your understanding.

Quote: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.
So your saying if a Slave was free to make a choice between working in the cotton fields or being burned up in a fire, then he has free will? If so then why did we fight a war over this?

Quote: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.
Which is my point. because you and epie seem to think God claims to be omni benevolent you have an arguement. He doesn't offer His love to everyone, just those who seek it.
as such the 'paradox' becomes moot. It is only a paradox when two conflicting absolutes butt heads against one another.

Quote: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.
Indeed. So what happenes when the paradox is used against a God who does not make these claims?

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, 01:04 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 12:17 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  Drich, when will you realize that Epicurus was not referring to the god of the Bible?

He was just trying to point out that if there is a god, he is either not benevolent or not omnipotent.

A malevolent god is fine by his paradox. Is it so hard for your brain to process that?

from the OP you might want to read it before commenting next time.

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, 01:34 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 11:58 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:53 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  So you would be considered malevolent if you hated someone who is an asshole to you?
How exactly are starving children being a jerk to God? please explain your bullshit.Drinking Beverage

You'd hate 'em too if they were the spawn of some apple eating rib chick.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: