Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2014, 06:47 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
I'm trying to get to 500 posts. Smile

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
[+] 2 users Like WillHopp's post
09-02-2014, 07:03 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 06:47 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I'm trying to get to 500 posts. Smile




Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Crulax's post
09-02-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 04:03 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  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?
Hmmm Why could that be?

If one is insisting that Epi was the author of this paradox and intends to stand behind it as written, then the argument is He wrote it before he could have know the God you are using this argument against. The argument fails.

One of you said so what and redefined evil to include natural disasters. To which I responded if you do not use the definition of evil Epi used then your in breech via a logical fallacy (moving the goal posts) and the paradox fails.

Quote: 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?
Because we are not offered protection from such things. why? Because Satan is the god or ruler of this world.
That is what it means to be apart of a fallen world.

Quote:And then, why can't we ask the same question about this sense of evil regarding the Christian God? Is it invalid?
you can ask, but it does not apply, because the paradox is broken via what God does offer in the way of the gospel. Which has been outlined in the OP.

Quote: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.
thank you???

Quote:... 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.

what are you talking about? I never denied God created evil... I said the paradox is broken and listed why. The primary reason being is because it does not apply to the God of the bible. Meaning the paradox presupposes a great number of things about the God of the bible and as you pointed out God freely admits to being the author/creator of evil. So again the paradox is broken

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, 07:12 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 05:00 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 04:38 PM)Drich Wrote:  sorry sport mosaic law was written sometime before Epicurus put pen to paper.

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.


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.

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.

ahh, no. Jesus was the Messiah the son of 'Yahweh.'

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, 07:15 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 07:12 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 05:00 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  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.

ahh, no. Jesus was the Messiah the son of 'Yahweh.'

Surely that's "is the Messiah the son of 'Yahweh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joben1's post
09-02-2014, 07:15 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 07:08 PM)Drich Wrote:  I never denied God created evil!

Why worship a malevolent diety?

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Crulax's post
09-02-2014, 07:21 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 06:42 PM)joben1 Wrote:  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.

He seemed nice in the beginning but then the arrogance came out. His arguments are the same as sooooo many other theists that have come before him. Nothing new here.


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
09-02-2014, 07:29 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 07:12 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 05:00 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  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.

ahh, no. Jesus was the Messiah the son of 'Yahweh.'

Sorry sport, never heard of the Trinity, have we?

John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to his statement to know he was claiming to be God. They tried to stone him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming—deity.

Maybe in your version of Christianity you don't believe in the Trinity, but tell that to the billion deluded Catholics.

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, 07:29 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 07:21 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 06:42 PM)joben1 Wrote:  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.

He seemed nice in the beginning but then the arrogance came out. His arguments are the same as sooooo many other theists that have come before him. Nothing new here.

Nice at first?

I guess he did wait a few posts before he started making wild assumptions about people! He was also nice enough to give us the choice to believe in his god or suffer eternal torment in hell; since we never really had that choice before he offered it!

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Crulax's post
09-02-2014, 07:38 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

That is called "shifting the goalposts". And it comes as no surprise at all that you use this approach with every challenge to your batshit assertions.


Fuck you.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: