Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-02-2014, 02:28 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(24-02-2014 02:09 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 01:29 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Humans are the disgusting creatures.
FYI humans are the only beings who are capable of overriding their natural programming Via self-awareness.

That's quite the claim you're making. Care to back it up?

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 02:38 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(24-02-2014 02:28 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 02:09 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  FYI humans are the only beings who are capable of overriding their natural programming Via self-awareness.

That's quite the claim you're making. Care to back it up?

Haha. Come on Indian back it up Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2014 09:18 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(24-02-2014 12:04 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(23-02-2014 12:05 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  1. Re: Omnimax: Is shorthand for omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and/or omnibenevolent being.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnimax

The Christian god is considered to have all of these characteristics plus Eternalness: This is the Christian 5-part nature of God, represented historically as a star. While this may be an esoteric idea contemporarily, it's the reason Pentagrams are seen as "Satanic": They represent cutting off the 5 powers of God.

What Drich is doing is reducing God's power to avoid the Traditional Problem of Good and Evil by cutting off an arm: Which is actually conceding that it is a problem for Christianity.

Then conclusion drawn historically is that God cannot be as defined, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as it is logically impossible for such a being to exist AND for evil to exist. A lot of semantic gymnastics have been performed around this, including arguments from free will, but the problem stands.

2. Omnibenevolence does not apply to an entity which is only "good" to "His children".

Again, semantic gymnastics, where "God's Children" is now metaphorically interpreted to be "Only True Believers."

If a man has two children, and loves one, and locks the other in the basement chained to a furnace, would we call that man a benevolent father?

According to Drich, we would: The other child deserved to be chained to a furnace, as they were not truly the "Man's Child".
What drich has done is successfully pointed out that the God of the bible has never claimed to be an Omni max God.

You are lying again. What you have shown is that you claim your own unique version of xtardianity based on YOUR OWN interpretation of your fantasy novel, just as others (including those who have just as much "truth" on their side as you do (meaning none at all) when they claim that "the babble is the word of gawd") claim their own unique version of xtardianity. None of you has any evidence to support your assertions. None of you have provided even a shred of evidence to support your claim that ANY version of your fairy tale monster actually exists, making all of your versions equally credible: they all fail equally.


Quote: That omni max is a doctrine of man, is never mentioned in the bible.

Your fantasy book is a doctrine of man as well. You continue to attempt to avoid your obligation to demonstrate through evidence that this fairy tale monster you propose actually exists. You continue to prattle on as if you had already satisfied this requirement and you haven't. This is clearly demonstrates your dishonesty and self-delusion for anyone who might have been too dull to pick up on that from everything else you have posted here.

Quote:Aspects of it yes. Can the bible be cut and pasted to support this doctrine again yes, but does God describe Homself as Omnimax? No. Does He decribe Himself as even being Omnibenevolent? Again no.

*himself

*describe

*moving the goalposts

Quote:So what the problem is?

The problem is that you are a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, lying arrogant troll.

Quote:Unless you can provide book chapter and verse that supports your version of God then know in your heart of hearts your version of God is not the God of the bible and as such does not exist. Per your best efforts to prove otherwise and Epicurus' paradox.

Your fairy tale book is a fairy tale book written by superstitious iron age goatfuckers. It is not evidence of anything, and you still have failed to produce even a SHRED of evidence to support your claim that your fairy tale monster exists AT ALL, in ANY form or version.

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
24-02-2014, 09:15 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(24-02-2014 01:29 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Humans are the disgusting creatures.

That's quite a blanket claim. Care to back if up?

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
24-02-2014, 12:18 PM
Epicurean paradox defeated.
Well, it's good to see Drich using his special pleading powers to make his personal form of Christianity exempt by selective interpretation, and believes he has "defeated" a logical problem argued over since 230 BC.

I submit that Drich is not, in fact, one of "God's Children," but a minor demon (Golgothon) and demand Drich prove he is not before any further claims be taken seriously, let alone the mass of unsupported claims he dumped in this thread.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
24-02-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(24-02-2014 12:18 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Well, it's good to see Drich using his special pleading powers to make his personal form of Christianity exempt by selective interpretation, and believes he has "defeated" a logical problem argued over since 230 BC.

I submit that Drich is not, in fact, one of "God's Children," but a minor demon (Golgothon) and demand Drich prove he is not before any further claims be taken seriously, let alone the mass of unsupported claims he dumped in this thread.

Yes, Golgothon sounds just about right for him....




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
02-03-2014, 11:46 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2014 10:21 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Dowsing rods are bullshit too. Also, have your read Alla's posts? She gets visions and her Holy Spirit talks to her and tells her that Joseph Smith and his teachings are authentic.
I have absolutly[sic] no doubt she gets direction from someone/thing that says everything she reported.

You have no doubt? Really? You do know that she credits this voice as the Holy Spirit, the voice of Yahweh/Jesus, and that it tells her to follow the 'teachings' of Joseph Smith? What can you at all say to discredit her interpretation of the Holy Spirit, other than to say it's wrong? What evidence do you have that your Holy Spirit is any more accurate? How do you know that you're not the one being deceived?



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about you go figure out why you two don't seem to agree before you try to convince anyone else of your spirit's 'authority' over anything.
Done. If One wished to worship The God of the Bible then it is to the Bible one must remain faithful. Smith showed himself to be a false prophet the first time he made a false prophesy. therefore any 'spiritual' endorsement of smith is not from the God of the bible.

which again does not mean that her 'god/spirit' was not real. The God of the bible infact[sic] tells us to watch out for this very thing.

Right. Not an answer, because she has a whole series of apologetic answers that are no better or worse than anything you've posted here. She has found a way to square that circle that works for her. Now I don't find it at all compelling because it lacks evidence. You don't find it compelling simply because you interpret the text differently, without any better evidence to back you up. So your reason is no better than hers, which is why I also find everything you say not at all compelling.



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Contradictions are still contradictions, and simply dismissing and ignoring them doesn't magically make them go away fucktard.
that's[sic] just it sport. If your exegesis was wrong then your conclusion is also wrong.

Translation: I don't interpret (keyword there) the Bible in the oh-so-special contradiction free way that he does; therefore I am wrong.

How original. Weeping



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Could you be any more purposely obtuse? I doubt it. The point being that there are more discrepancies between the manuscripts than there are letters in the Bible, so it simply is not possible to to make a definitive accounting of anything that was said. How many Bible translations exist? How many church denominations exist? This might be a surprise to you, but there are actually people who go to school and study this stuff, and they do so without pulling bullshit out of their ass to make excuses for the parts of the book they don't like.
You still do not understand and I'm the one being accused of being obtuse...

Maybe ask some question before you assume your stock arguement[sic] will cover what is being discussed. I will not help you here. If you want to know what is being discussed then ask a question. Otherwise know that your arguement[sic] is invalid because you have not shown one single shread[sic] of evedience[sic] that supports your charge. nor[sic] have even demonstrated that Christianity is based on having a single source for the bible.

I do understand it better than you do, it's why I'm an atheist. Laugh out load

Also, you have the burden of proof to validate your own claims, I need not present counter evidence to dismiss the claims you presented without evidence. You really are that fucking stupid... Facepalm

I never claimed that Christianity "is based on having a single source for the bible", you dumbass. My point has always been to undermine your literal and specious interpretation of the Bible as entirely unfounded. Didn't you claim that you can read Greek? If so, take a look at the list of variations in the Greek manuscripts for the New Testament alone. Almost every line has multiple entries for many variations, and it is from this jumbled pile of writings that modern days translations are cobbled together from; and upon which only the willfully ignorant and foolish accept as the literal truth about anything.



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Can you please quote the bit in the Bible where it says 'Oh, you know that whole Hell and Damnation thing we staked onto Judaism? Well, it sucks and lasts forever, but if you get sent there you will eventually cease to exist. Bonus, right?'
I'll be happy to. First we must establish that Hell is forever.

42 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where ‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where ‘Their worm does not die,
And the fire is not quenched.’
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where ‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched

And also lest not forget our destruction in Hell which is found in Mat 10:27 “Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Clear enough? In both instances you have Christ's own teachings.

Again my own experience also unscores[sic] this. In that as i[sic] decended[sic] I felt the loss of control over my own mind. Not that this compares anyway to what Christ said, but it was experienced by me before I knew that Hell meant destruction. At the time I like you thought hell was forever.

"Clear enough? In both instances you have Christ's own teachings." Laughat

For the umpteenth time, you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. Hearsay stacked upon hearsay by non-eyewitnesses recorded decades after the supposed events is not evidence for anything. Therefor you cannot take anything attributed to Christ as being authentic to Christ, because even his very existence is easily doubtable.

Try again dumbass.



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Your justification for this is bullshit pulled out of your ass in an attempt to reconcile the fact that there is a clear demarcation line where the 'eternal torture' bit simply appears.
Eternal torture is apart of Hell, but accoding[sic] to scripture that part is reserved for Satan and his angels.

And the 'eternal torture' bit doesn't show up until the New Testament, denoting it as something new being added to the faith (from the aforementioned syncretistic influences of the Greek concept of Hades); denoting it as a fictitious man-mad addition. This is in addition to the clearly man-made origin of the Old Testament.



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You know there is a much simpler explanation that requires far less assumptions and mental gymnastics than that pile of self aggrandizing apologetic tripe you just vomited up?
That is the problem with people like you. Your sunday[sic] schoold[sic] teacher told you that you would burn in hell for ever, and forever you think that is true without doubt or question. What blatent[sic] hyprocrisy![sic] You people tell me i[sic] should question all aspects of my faith and at the same time make absolutly[sic] no effort to try and understand God or Christianity beyond what you knew when you were in 4th grade.

Do your own research. If you do you will find NOT 1 Passage says the Human soul will burn forever in Hell.

Only that Hell is Forever and was made that way for Satan and His angels. Everytime[sic] Jesus Himself speaks about us and hell He says we will be consumed or kill or destroyed by it.

This isn't gymnastics. It's the plain simply truth from the bible and the words of Christ. The only leap here is to IGNORE the Words of Christ and assume we will burn forever along with Satan.

..You do know Satan is not the 'god' of Hell right? That he will be in tremoundous[sic] torment as well? That this world is the cloest[sic] thing he has to a hell/kingdom?

And again, I'm the obstinate one for not looking at a 4th graders view of Heaven and Hell/God and Satan. Despite what some of you have claimed I have read my bible and gone to the greek[sic] and hebrew[sic] in many cases. 3/4 of the time pop christian understandings and doctrines concerning these things are wrong...

Guess where most atheist get their understanding of God/The bible? If you said from the bible you'd be wrong. They are more guilt of relying on pop christianity[sic] that christians[sic] who do so are!!

You are the greatest offender here. Why? because you have tightly closed you mind about your christian beliefs even in the face of Book Chapter and Verse that says otherwise.

There is not one spec of evidence that Hell exists, eternal or otherwise; so go fuck yourself. The Bible is not proof for the Bible. Q.E.D.



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  1. Only god is perfect? Define your use of 'perfect', then cite evidence that this applies to your god and your god only. Also, please cite evidence he exists. Good luck with that.

2. Scapegoating is immoral, and cosmic scapegoating in the name of Jesus doesn't change that.

3. So Jesus sold this young man a load of worthless bullshit and lied to him about getting into Heaven. How nice of your sinless... wait... isn't lying a sin? Might want to check that and pull a different bullshit spin job out of your ass next time.
Your looking to argue personal philosphy[sic] here. That is not what I do here. I don't care what you think about God. I am to provide accurate information that will help you make a fact based determination. None of what you posted here has anything to do with that. You simply make statements about your beliefs. If you want to have a discussion here then please rephrase otherwise, respectfully.. I am not interested in discussing your 'feelings.'

If you want evidence of God simple A/S/K for it as outlined in Luke 11. No finite Man can summon an infinite God on Demand. However that very same infinate[sic] God has left a trail of bread crumbs that will lead back to Him if one is humble enough to follow. all any of God's repersentivities[sic] can do is point back to said crumbs.

Nope. I'm looking for evidence, which is precisely what you have failed to present time and time again. You are nothing more than a talking pile of apologetic failure.



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You are trying to delineate who is and who is not a 'Child of God', so that they can get saved and everyone else gets fucked (which getting back to your OP, makes your god malevolent and the Epicurean Paradox simply no longer applies).
Just a suggestion, maybe look up that word before you use it then fashion your arguement[sic] to fit that defination[sic].. Your current use is not consisant[sic] with the defination[sic] of Malevolent. Nor is it consistant[sic] with how epicurus[sic] used the word. Eippy[sic] use his paradox to speak of all of humanity. why? because his gods promised man/humanity 'X' if they would 'y', and yet they did y but did not receive 'X', instead received what he considered to be evil. Therefore his god/gods by defination[sic] where malevolent. God offers 123, if we XYZ[sic]. Those who do XYZ[sic] receive 123. Therefore God is not Malevolent by defination[sic]. Malevolence has nothing to do with those who do not do what is asked of them. they are simply living out the natural progression and consenquences[sic] of their life.

So again paradox broken.

You are that fucking retarded. Your god, as presented in the Bible, is a fucked in the head sadist. Only by ignoring, glossing over, and making endless excuses for the inexcusable can you somehow manage to square that circle. All of the extra restrictions and limitations that you place on your god do nothing but to further separate him from omnibenevolence. Thus the paradox no longer applies, because it's only meant to highlight the contradiction of a world were evil and an all-powerful and all-caring god supposedly exist. Even a single restriction makes your god no longer all-caring, and thus the paradox no longer applies.

You have not defeated the paradox, you have merely disqualified your concept of god from being applicable to it.



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You quoted some passages, made some other shit up based on your own skewed (and I'm sure you'd say 'inspired') interpretation, to which I quoted other passage that contradicted the prerequisites you were claiming. You quoted John 3:16 to which I quoted Matthew 19:16-21 and James 2:24.

One has to wonder though, if this shit really is all that important, why does your god need your dumb-ass to interpret it in a poor attempt to fix the apparent problems with it? One would think he could have written something better than this pile of unfounded bullshit. Weeping
You asked for those quotes, i guess I now know why. It was to make this weak tired point people like you like to make when they want to try and convolude[sic] scripture. Do you know how you can break this arguement[sic] of yours? content.[sic] All anyone need do is examine the claim and see if scripture supports it.

It's no different than if you were to say Romeo used a musket to kill himself when He thought Jueliet[sic] was dead, then you quote Romeo's lines just before he dies, but leave out his method of death... If we were having an arguement[sic] on this what would I do to prove you were wrong? I would read the passage in context.. When you were proven wrong would your response be like it was in the above quote? Would you pretend that no one can discern what shakespere[sic] really intended when he wrote the play?

That my friend is an appeal to ignorance, and fails as a line of viable logic.

No, you can break my argument with evidence, which is precisely what you have failed to present.



(22-02-2014 11:44 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  TL;DR Version.

Drich's problem is his constant string of unwarranted assumptions that he makes to fix everything he doesn't like in the Bible and to justify his wild making up of shit; and he uses his 'Holy Spirit' to tell him that his interpretations and assumptions are correct. Epic failure ensues.
If you believe this you are willfully and intentionally tring[sic] to stay in a prepetual[sic] state of ignorance so as to feel comfortable with what you believe and with your arguements,[sic] that are based on a willful ignorance.

For the love of shit, get someone to at least format and spell-check your tripe next time. It's bad enough wading through the bullshit without also having to translate it at the same time. Facepalm

Also, I'm looking for evidence; which for the umpteenth time is precisely what you have failed to present in every post you have ever written since you came here. End of story, full stop. Someone here certainly is wallowing in self indulgent willful ignorance, but it's not the one open to the prospect of evidence for any gods; it's the one who thinks he already has it.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-03-2014, 03:46 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
"You have not defeated the paradox, you have merely disqualified your concept of god from being applicable to it."


^THIS.

gg EK. <3

Atheism is the only way to truly be free from sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Colourcraze's post
03-03-2014, 06:56 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
This is still going? I am going to go argue with a wall now.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 08:15 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(03-03-2014 06:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  This is still going? I am going to go argue with a wall now.

The nice thing about that: the wall won't say a bunch of nonsequiturs back at you and tell you you're wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: