Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2014, 05:01 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2014 05:04 PM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  My response: We take into account the circumstances of the who or when the question was asked, and then we look at what is asked.
Err.. actually the question is asked by atheists in general epicures was just the original atheist who asked this question and we're still asking the same question.

you see it doesn't really take a genius to ask why evil&suffering can co-exist with an All loving&All powerful God it just doesn't make sense.
Quote:then we address the question according to the bible.
Like who the fuck gives a shit about that book ?? its an ancient book talking about curing leprosy with bird blood! you're telling me that that's the book we should refer to when talking about logical paradoxes?
Quote:He was living in a truly dark age which saw no light of salvation.
LOL wut a stupid book which talks about curing leprosy with bird blood and teaches you how to keep slaves is salvation?
Quote:Epicurus' query was directed to his gods.
ALL Gods are the same..
Quote:and a loose understanding omni aspects of God.
Just Answer the Goddamn questions already you pussy! Angry
Quote:Rather than prevent sin God offers attonement for all those who seek it.
You didn't answer the question at all..

Is God willing to prevent evil or NOT ? you're not gonna answer that are you?
Quote:If we were not given the choice this life affords
Again.. you didn't answer the fucking question!! Is he able to but not willing ?
Quote:Again, Evil is the proof of Our bondage the consequences of that choice is the point and purpose of this life.
You motherfucker! you keep avoiding the questions!! The original question was that why does evil&sufferingexist when a God exists who is both willing to destroy it and is able to ??

THIS IS THE FUCKING PARADOX YOU MORON!
Quote:His supposed paradox is out of context and out of place.
The only thing out of place is your pathetic rag-tag of an argument.
Quote:That is why this supposed paradox fails.
You didn't even try to answer the last question.. at least try to.. you asshole!

Why call the fucker God when he's so fucking pathetic?

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
[+] 1 user Likes IndianAtheist's post
09-02-2014, 05:05 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 04:38 PM)Drich Wrote:  sorry sport mosaic law was written sometime before Epicurus put pen
.

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.

So if you are saying that Epicurus' paradox came after Mosaic law, then why couldn't his paradox refer to Yahweh?

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, 05:05 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 03:55 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  Well, he is called the god of love, he is said to love the world, send his son for the sins of people etc.
actually john 3:16 says: for god so loved the world that He gave His only Son, (watch this next part) That Who So Ever Beleives....
Did you see it? It being the condition of God's love?
Quote: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.
we are only responsible for what we can comprehend.

Quote:A guy just yesterday told me "God loves EVERYONE".
Then if you see him again ask Him how can a all loving God put the people he loves in Hell?

Quote:Don't expect people to know each time your personal interpretation of the Bible.
it's real simple I speak where the bible speaks and I remain silent where the bible is silent. The bible is silent about an all loving God. But it speaks to a God who says not all are his children. So despite pop christianity doctrine that is what I must follow.

Quote:However, my argument still stands if you replace "all-loving" with "benevolent".
ahh, no. The Arguement still fails because God's love or benevolence or whatever word you wish to use is not offered to everyone. It is only available to His Children.

(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?

Let's look at the passage in context.
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him,[d] saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

The everlasting punishment was prepared for the devil and his angels. Meaning the punishment/hell is everlasting, it does not say we are. In fact all OT references and half a dozen nt references say hell is the grave or our Second death. Perhaps death through torment, but never the less it is still death.

Quote: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."
again look at the passage closely. Does it say you will live forever in eternal fire? Or does it say the fire is eternal?

I know to some of you this sounds like splitting hairs, but as a believer we must reconcile all of scripture on a given subject, and not just focus on one aspect of it. Again there are 10's of examples of Hell being our grave or second death. This must be reconciled with the everlasting fire passages one does not cancel the other out. To put them together is what we must do to try and find a description that satasified all the pictures we are given.

Which makes hell an eternal place who's fire never burns out yet it remains to be our grave or second death... Which mean obliteration by Hell fire at some point. Which may mean minutes days decades or eons it guess it depends on how bad you were.. Some of us are in it for the long haul because we are reminded that this fate will be yours as long as your made to endure it.

It may not be forever, but I assure you it will seem to be an eternity.

Quote:Fair enough. But this serves as an even better argument against the benevolent nature of god.
Indeed. God does not have an obligation to everyone. God's benevolence/agape' is only offered to those who accept Jesus as their savior.

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, 05:10 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 05:05 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 04:38 PM)Drich Wrote:  sorry sport mosaic law was written sometime before Epicurus put pen
.

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.

So if you are saying that Epicurus' paradox came after Mosaic law, then why couldn't his paradox refer to Yahweh?
Because Judaism was not a popular religion in his time. It would not have even been on his radar because 'converts' were not well received unless they were very young and even then treated as outsiders. One had to be born a Jew. Epicurus was defiantly a gentile as such would have worship gentile gods. This would have been the sum total of his exposure to a god or a bevy of them. Which means his paradox was geared toward Zeus, and the pantheon of God looking to trade worship for benevolence. Which again has absolutely nothing to do with 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
09-02-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 04:57 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(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.

Source material?

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, 05:16 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 04:03 PM)Reltzik 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.

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.

Is it me or Drich purposely ignore your posts? Consider


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
09-02-2014, 05:30 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 05:05 PM)Drich Wrote:  Then if you see him again ask Him how can a all loving God put the people he loves in Hell?

(09-02-2014 05:05 PM)Drich Wrote:  ahh, no. The Arguement still fails because God's love or benevolence or whatever word you wish to use is not offered to everyone. It is only available to His Children.

Then he is not a loving god. He does not love his creations. It's not an unconditional love. That means, whether you like it or not, that he is not benevolent. If you believe he is not benevolent, why try to destroy the Epicurean paradox? The Epicurean paradox states that there can be no benevolent, all-powerful god.

(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..

Let's look at the passage in context.
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him,[d] saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

The everlasting punishment was prepared for the devil and his angels. Meaning the punishment/hell is everlasting, it does not say we are. In fact all OT references and half a dozen nt references say hell is the grave or our Second death. Perhaps death through torment, but never the less it is still death.

(09-02-2014 05:05 PM)Drich Wrote:  Again there are 10's of examples of Hell being our grave or second death. This must be reconciled with the everlasting fire passages one does not cancel the other out. To put them together is what we must do to try and find a description that satasified all the pictures we are given.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be Greek and I've had my fair share of Ancient Greek back in school.

First of all, it would be crystal clear to any Greek who reads the phrase "κόλασις αιώνιος" that it is talking about "punishment that lasts long" and not "an eternal place where people are punished".

As for "death", the word was (and is) used metaphorically all the time. Some interpret it as the death of the spirit, meaning that the spirit is now away from god, its first death took it away from the Earth.

If you really want to go into semantics and interpretations, please learn Ancient Greek before you try debating a Greek person who has studied Ancient Greek for years.


(09-02-2014 05:05 PM)Drich Wrote:  It may not be forever, but I assure you it will seem to be an eternity.

Then why are we talking about it? It is still cruel.

(09-02-2014 05:12 PM)Drich Wrote:  Source material?

http://books.google.gr/books?id=rs47AAAA...&q&f=false

"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
[+] 3 users Like undergroundp's post
09-02-2014, 05:31 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
I find it hard to believe Epicurus would be referring to Zeus in his paradox, since he was neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and wasn't thought of in that way. He often was deceived by other gods and even humans. His power was anything but boundless.

The paradox refers to God, not numerous gods, and not Zeus. If he were writing about Zeus, why wouldn't he say Zeus? I also find it hard to believe Epicurus, as someone charged with thinking of man's great problems, wouldn't have at least known about mosaic law, or been referring to any religion that had a god. The paradox certainly reads universally to me.

Do you have a source that says Epicurus was talking about Zeus or the Pantheon of Gods you refer to? Or do you have a source that says Epicurus wouldn't have known about Yahweh or the Hindu 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
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
09-02-2014, 06:25 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 05:31 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I find it hard to believe Epicurus would be referring to Zeus in his paradox, since he was neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and wasn't thought of in that way. He often was deceived by other gods and even humans. His power was anything but boundless.

The paradox refers to God, not numerous gods, and not Zeus. If he were writing about Zeus, why wouldn't he say Zeus? I also find it hard to believe Epicurus, as someone charged with thinking of man's great problems, wouldn't have at least known about mosaic law, or been referring to any religion that had a god. The paradox certainly reads universally to me.

Do you have a source that says Epicurus was talking about Zeus or the Pantheon of Gods you refer to? Or do you have a source that says Epicurus wouldn't have known about Yahweh or the Hindu god?

Epicurus (if it was him) was not referring to any known god. He was referring to any god, the divine. This paradox is not an attempt to disprove god or the gods. It was an attempt to show that gods do not care about humans. They are neither benevolent neither malevolent.

Taken from Wikipedia:

"He regularly admitted women and slaves into his school and was one of the first Greeks to break from the god-fearing and god-worshiping tradition common at the time, even while affirming that religious activities are useful as a way to contemplate the gods and to use them as an example of the pleasant life. Epicurus participated in the activities of traditional Greek religion, but taught that one should avoid holding false opinions about the gods. The gods are immortal and blessed and men who ascribe any additional qualities that are alien to immortality and blessedness are, according to Epicurus, impious. The gods do not punish the bad and reward the good as the common man believes. The opinion of the crowd is, Epicurus claims, that the gods "send great evils to the wicked and great blessings to the righteous who model themselves after the gods," whereas Epicurus believes the gods, in reality, do not concern themselves at all with human beings.


It is not the man who denies the gods worshiped by the multitude, who is impious, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them."


Let's say he was like a deist. He believed in the divine, but simply as indifferent beings who did not take part in human life.

It would be ridiculous to assume that he was not familiar with monotheistic religions (let's not forget that before the Abrahamic religions there were signs of monotheism in many other religions) but as I said, he did not refer to any of those gods, but as you said, it was more universal.

"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
[+] 5 users Like undergroundp's post
09-02-2014, 06:42 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
I really don't know why Drich is responded to at all. He was never what he claimed to be (atheist), will never admit that his dream was just a fucking dream, will never admit that he just makes shit up to bolster his own delusions, and is plainly just batshit crazy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joben1's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: