Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 03:04 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 02:37 PM)Drich Wrote:  Laugh out load how can it if you will not open your mind to an answer?Laughat you guys are so funny sometimes.

I, again, invite you to answer it as it stands.

It does not mention 'sin' or 'free will'.
Using the new testament's fan-fiction as the basis for anything is just kinda weird.

I guess it's reasonable to require a definition of 'evil' though.

Let's go for evil = natural disasters that hurt and kill living creatures.

Now try it.

Rolleyes

dude. I just gave you the biblical definition of Sin and Evil that is based on what God Himself set into practice via the mosaic law concerning the Jews/Redemption and death penality offenses.

If you are going to judge God by the terms He set, then the paradox fails. If your going to make up random crap and call it evil then your moving the goal posts and the paradox fails.

Maybe you should stick to reading this one or maybe just bark personal insults from the side lines like mockingbird or some who does not want to be taken seriously.

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
09-02-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 03:08 PM)natachan Wrote:  
Quote:is it because your afraid your post will not stand up to serious scrutiny?

Or that I'm on my cell phone and don't have the battery life. If you want to read it it's still in archives.

Quote:(get it?) Seinfeld episode?

I don't own a tv Sad

I'm still stating that evil as defined in our common usage is the evil, and you have yet to answer the question. You only state it doesn't apply.
see the above post on evil. the same applies. If your going to use your own definition of the word then you have to appeal to a fallacy of logic (Shift/moving Goal posts) to make your argument work which by definition breaks the paradox.

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
09-02-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 03:11 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  And don't you think an all-powerful, all-loving god would be able to give humans a choice without one of the choices being eternal torture?
Who said anything about God being All loving? That is a doctrine of man not supported scripturally. In fact the bible clearly states God does not love everyone. to take it one step further in proving this point. there is a list that can be made from the bible of those in whom God is said to even hate.

Quote:We have no choice anyway. If a god created us, we already live with some limitations and some choices.
Actually we have one true choice. That is to seek redemption or not.

Quote:Would it make any difference if the choice was not between Heaven and Hell, but between Heaven and no afterlife (or anything less cruel than Hell anyway)? A loving, compassionate god would prefer such a fate than having his own children tortured for eternity, don't you think?
The bible does not say we are tortured forever. It simply says Hell is forever and satan will be tortured their eternally. For us we are told we will be consumed by Hell's fire. Or that it is our second death.. However it does not say how long it will take for us to die..

Quote:Do you have kids? If they disobey you, do you beat them, burn them, torture them, or simply refuse to buy them candy?

Not a good analogy. as you assume God's kids are the ones going to hell. Jesus makes it very clear that not every person here belongs to God. I can provide you with scripture if you want it, or you can look up the parablles of the wheat and weeds, the grain and chaff, the sheep and the goats... all of which point to God's kids/ wheat, grain, sheep, and those in whom God does not claim, weeds, chaff, goats...

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
09-02-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Drich,

You committed the first fallacy by taking a universal idea and its paradox and redefining it when applied to a book that was "written" centuries later. Evil is as evil does.

And then you were unwilling to let DLJ do the exact same thing to show you you're wrong, saying it is moving the goalposts, something you did first. He'd like to take a definition of evil as we all understand it from a book (dictionary) written centuries after your source.

I find it comical you think you're allowed to take words and ideas and change their meaning depending on whom the speaker was, when they said them and try to refute them by saying your source came afterward so it supersedes what Epicurus could have meant or envisioned. But then you'll still stand by your bible as a current acceptable source, despite it being centuries older than the disparity you initially proposed between Epicurus' paradox and when Yahweh/bible surfaced.

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
09-02-2014, 03:55 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 03:35 PM)Drich Wrote:  Who said anything about God being All loving? That is a doctrine of man not supported scripturally. In fact the bible clearly states God does not love everyone. to take it one step further in proving this point. there is a list that can be made from the bible of those in whom God is said to even hate.

Well, he is called the god of love, he is said to love the world, send his son for the sins of people etc.
But sorry, I didn't know what kind of Christian you are. You know, there's about 38247293 different types of belief you Christians may have. A guy just yesterday told me "God loves EVERYONE".

Don't expect people to know each time your personal interpretation of the Bible.

However, my argument still stands if you replace "all-loving" with "benevolent".

(09-02-2014 03:35 PM)Drich Wrote:  The bible does not say we are tortured forever. It simply says Hell is forever and satan will be tortured their eternally. For us we are told we will be consumed by Hell's fire. Or that it is our second death.. However it does not say how long it will take for us to die..

If we are not tortured forever, what the heck does the phrase "eternal punishment" in Matthew 25:46 mean?

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Or this quote from Jude 1:7?

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

(09-02-2014 03:35 PM)Drich Wrote:  Not a good analogy. as you assume God's kids are the ones going to hell. Jesus makes it very clear that not every person here belongs to God. I can provide you with scripture if you want it, or you can look up the parablles of the wheat and weeds, the grain and chaff, the sheep and the goats... all of which point to God's kids/ wheat, grain, sheep, and those in whom God does not claim, weeds, chaff, goats...

Fair enough. But this serves as an even better argument against the benevolent nature of god.

"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
09-02-2014, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2014 04:18 PM by Reltzik.)
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.

I'm interested by the double standard that you're applying here. On the one hand, you're intently focused on making sure that we don't believe that Epicurus was talking about the Christian God. On the other hand, you are demanding that we interpret evil in a very strict Christian sense of sin and defiance of God's will.

Why this double standard? If we're going to address the gods which Epicurus was referring to, why not address the question of evil in the way that Epicurus meant, with evil referring to things like, say, disease, natural disasters, famine, and so on?

And then, why can't we ask the same question about this sense of evil regarding the Christian God? Is it invalid?

This mix-and-match is so particularly arranged to favor the Christian position, so precisely done, that I have a hard time imagining that it's anything but deliberate. The only other explanation that makes any sense is a subconscious pro-Christian bias so powerful and so pervasive that it makes any sort of rational thought impossible.

... also, I note that you approach the Biblical answer to this in a very roundabout manner. You could have saved yourself a hell of a lot of work. Let's see what Isaiah 45:7 has to say...

Quote:I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

(KJV. Emphasis added.)

There, you see? That wasn't that hard. I have no idea why you spent all that time twisting yourself around into a stance that was clearly contrary to what the Bible says.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
09-02-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(This post the result of user error a feature.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
09-02-2014, 04:38 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 03:45 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Drich,

You committed the first fallacy by taking a universal idea and its paradox and redefining it when applied to a book that was "written" centuries later. Evil is as evil does.
sorry sport mosaic law was written sometime before Epicurus put pen to paper.

Quote:And then you were unwilling to let DLJ do the exact same thing to show you you're wrong, saying it is moving the goalposts, something you did first. He'd like to take a definition of evil as we all understand it from a book (dictionary) written centuries after your source.
because dlj like you are trying to redefine the terms of evil to support your own strawman version of God, and of this paradox.

The word Epicurus would have used in the Greek is (ponēros)/πονηρός
It means:
full of labours, annoyances, hardships
pressed and harassed by labours
bringing toils, annoyances, perils; of a time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness; causing pain and trouble
bad, of a bad nature or condition
in a physical sense: diseased or blind
in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

Reference number G4190 strong's lexicon.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with natural disasters or anything else dlj reference in His personal definition of the word.


Quote:I find it comical you think you're allowed to take words and ideas and change their meaning depending on whom the speaker was,
your not serious are you? The speaker defines the context in which the paradox takes place. If this is Epicurus' paradox then are we not to honestly examine the words and settings he himself observed? To change his words or their meanings redefines the paradox. Which means this ceases to be the work of Epicurus. Therefore the conclusion that epicurean paradox has been defeated stands.

Quote:when they said them and try to refute them by saying your source came afterward so it supersedes what Epicurus could have meant or envisioned. But then you'll still stand by your bible as a current acceptable source, despite it being centuries older than the disparity you initially proposed between Epicurus' paradox and when Yahweh/bible surfaced.
Your argument here states that Epicurus came first. Completely irrelevant so I will not address it again. Epicurus was Greek so I provided the Greek word for evil. Your argument fails because the Greek word does not make the allowances to include the natural disasters your revised paradox needs to function.
Everything else you have said can be dismissed as being completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. As this thread is about discussing the epicurean paradox and not one of your nor dlc's making.

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
09-02-2014, 04:57 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 04:38 PM)Drich Wrote:  because dlj like you are trying to redefine the terms of evil to support your own strawman version of God, and of this paradox.

The word Epicurus would have used in the Greek is (ponēros)/πονηρός
It means:
full of labours, annoyances, hardships
pressed and harassed by labours
bringing toils, annoyances, perils; of a time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness; causing pain and trouble
bad, of a bad nature or condition
in a physical sense: diseased or blind
in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

Reference number G4190 strong's lexicon.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with natural disasters or anything else dlj reference in His personal definition of the word.

Just for the record, there's no text in Ancient Greek. The original text is found in Latin, where Lactantius talks about Epicurus (so we can't even be sure that Epicurus ever said this).
The word used is "invidus", which means "hostile".

Also, there's around 10 different words for "evil" in Ancient Greek, so don't try to assume which one Epicurus could have used.

"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
[+] 2 users Like undergroundp's post
09-02-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 04:38 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 03:45 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Drich,

You committed the first fallacy by taking a universal idea and its paradox and redefining it when applied to a book that was "written" centuries later. Evil is as evil does.
sorry sport mosaic law was written sometime before Epicurus put pen to paper.

Quote:And then you were unwilling to let DLJ do the exact same thing to show you you're wrong, saying it is moving the goalposts, something you did first. He'd like to take a definition of evil as we all understand it from a book (dictionary) written centuries after your source.
because dlj like you are trying to redefine the terms of evil to support your own strawman version of God, and of this paradox.

The word Epicurus would have used in the Greek is (ponēros)/πονηρός
It means:
full of labours, annoyances, hardships
pressed and harassed by labours
bringing toils, annoyances, perils; of a time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness; causing pain and trouble
bad, of a bad nature or condition
in a physical sense: diseased or blind
in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

Reference number G4190 strong's lexicon.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with natural disasters or anything else dlj reference in His personal definition of the word.


Quote:I find it comical you think you're allowed to take words and ideas and change their meaning depending on whom the speaker was,
your not serious are you? The speaker defines the context in which the paradox takes place. If this is Epicurus' paradox then are we not to honestly examine the words and settings he himself observed? To change his words or their meanings redefines the paradox. Which means this ceases to be the work of Epicurus. Therefore the conclusion that epicurean paradox has been defeated stands.

Quote:when they said them and try to refute them by saying your source came afterward so it supersedes what Epicurus could have meant or envisioned. But then you'll still stand by your bible as a current acceptable source, despite it being centuries older than the disparity you initially proposed between Epicurus' paradox and when Yahweh/bible surfaced.
Your argument here states that Epicurus came first. Completely irrelevant so I will not address it again. Epicurus was Greek so I provided the Greek word for evil. Your argument fails because the Greek word does not make the allowances to include the natural disasters your revised paradox needs to function.
Everything else you have said can be dismissed as being completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. As this thread is about discussing the epicurean paradox and not one of your nor dlc's making.

I was referring to the NT, because you said Epicurus wasn't privy to Christ and the gospels, which came after Epicurus. I realize I mentioned Yahweh at the end of my post, but Christ is Yahweh according to Christianity.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: