Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2014, 07:41 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 07:38 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That is called "shifting the goalposts".

Yep, that's what I told him, but he just dismissed it.

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, 07:45 PM
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.
Why the tap dance? It makes absolutely no difference which god Epicurus was referring to or whether he was "privy to the revelations of Christ" or to the NT. Epicurus' argument can and should be applied to ANY god.

Your religion's god creates sin, evil, and hell according to its own tenets. Had he not done so, sinning wouldn't even be possible and hell wouldn't exist. There would be no need for choosing sin vs. following your god. There would be no "choosing" (in quotes because only your god chooses where we ultimately go) heaven or hell. In your own faith, you can't escape the FACT that this is all your god's design. We are completely limited by all the choices he created. If you put a gun to someone's head and say "choose door number 1 and you die, choose door number 2 and you live", that's NOT a real choice.

Tap dance all you want. It doesn't change reality. Drinking Beverage

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
09-02-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 07:41 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 07:38 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That is called "shifting the goalposts".

Yep, that's what I told him, but he just dismissed it.

....because he's a disingenuous lying son of a bitch.

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
09-02-2014, 07:52 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 05:01 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  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.
then you like him are subject to the defining Characteristics of God to get your answers, which are answered in the gospel.

Quote: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.
Again if we look to how God describes himself this description does not apply to the God of the bible.

God does not describe himself as 'All loving.' The bible say God's love is boundless, but not for everyone. Why else is their a hell? In john 3:16 we find their is a condition to God's love. "Who so ever believes in Him..."

Quote: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?
Seriously? Let's say we are talking about a battle between Thor and the Hulk. and you started to quote attributes of the hulk only found in fan fiction.. How long do you think I'd let you go till I called B/S on your version of the hulk?

If we are going to have a discussion about 'x' then we are going to be bound to the orginal source material.. Otherwise how stupid is the one who creates a strawman and then insists his opponent argue the strawman he just created? If you want to have an honest discussion you will have to use the bible to define the attributes that are to be tested.

Meaning if you are going to judge the God of the bible against this paradox, then I will restrict the conversation to the known/knowable attributes of the God of the bible. Otherwise I will point out we are no longer talking about the God of the bible, and we are talking about your version of Him (one you know that will fail under any scrutiny.)

Quote:ALL Gods are the same..
This can only be said from a point of ignorance of God.

Quote:Is God willing to prevent evil or NOT ?
This is not God's realm. He gave it to us. It was our job to prevent evil, but rather we handed this world over to satan.

Quote: you're not gonna answer that are you?
I want you to answer this next question with a yes or no only: What was the score of the super Bowl and who won?? Remember yes or no only. Your not gonna to answer that correctly are you?

Quote:THIS IS THE FUCKING PARADOX YOU MORON!
The reason it is not a paradox is because the conditions do not apply to the God of the bible.
That is why the paradox is broken. God never made the claim epicurus' god's did.

Quote:Why call the fucker God when he's so fucking pathetic?
Smile I could have taken the time and ripped you a new one for not having basic comprehension skills a elementary sunday schooler has, but I chose not to. Don't assume just because you think you understand the problem that you infact do.

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, 07:53 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 05:16 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(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? 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...


(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

it's you. I have not intentionally ignored anyone except maybe mocking jay.. and even then I read every third post or so looking for some reason for him to redeem himself.

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, 07:57 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 07:53 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 05:16 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Is it me or Drich purposely ignore your posts? Consider

it's you. I have not intentionally ignored anyone except maybe mocking jay.. and even then I read every third post or so looking for some reason for him to redeem himself.

Like I said: Lying son of a bitch.

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
09-02-2014, 08:18 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 02:27 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

Or he could just, you know, create people to spend an eternity in Heaven and destroy Hell. Everyone's happy.

Or he could, just, erase the existence of satan and evil. Where is that omnipotence now?

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
09-02-2014, 08:20 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2014 08:24 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Not long woken up.
Catching up.
Find that responses echo what I would have said.

Well done, guys.

So... summary:

Whence cometh evil?

(09-02-2014 05:31 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  ...
This paradox is ... an attempt to show that gods do not care about humans.
...

(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.
...


So... Epicurus FTW! Thumbsup


Quote:...
The bible does not say we are tortured forever. It simply says Hell is forever and satan will be tortured their eternally.
...
Quote:...
Because Satan is the god or ruler of this world.
...

So... Satan is here and Satan is in Hell ∴ Hell is here!

That puts a slightly different slant on Pascal's Wager.

I'm changing my bet.
It looks like Satan is more powerful than his opponent.

(09-02-2014 07:45 PM)Impulse Wrote:  ...
Tap dance all you want. It doesn't change reality. Drinking Beverage

Or, in this case, fantasy. Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like DLJ's post
09-02-2014, 08:39 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 07:52 PM)Drich Wrote:  then you like him are subject to the defining Characteristics of God to get your answers, which are answered in the gospel.

A collection of two thousand year old fairy tales!

Quote:Again if we look to how God describes himself this description does not apply to the God of the bible. God does not describe himself as 'All loving.' The bible say God's love is boundless, but not for everyone. Why else is their a hell? In john 3:16 we find their is a condition to God's love. "Who so ever believes in Him..."

You mean how man describes "God"!

Quote:This can only be said from a point of ignorance of God.

This can only be said from a point of ignorance of man!

Quote:This is not God's realm. He gave it to us. It was our job to prevent evil, but rather we handed this world over to satan.

Hobo

Quote:I want you to answer this next question with a yes or no only: What was the score of the super Bowl and who won?? Remember yes or no only. Your not gonna to answer that correctly are you?


Yes and yes!

Quote:The reason it is not a paradox is because the conditions do not apply to the God of the bible.

What makes your god special and therefore immune to the paradox?

Quote:God never made the claim epicurus' god's did.

Once again man made the claims not "god"!


Quote: Smile I could have taken the time and ripped you a new one for not having basic comprehension skills a elementary sunday schooler has, but I chose not to. Don't assume just because you think you understand the problem that you infact do.

Drinking Beverage

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
09-02-2014, 08:52 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 05:30 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  Then he is not a loving god.
not to everyone no. Now do you see why now the paradox is broken?
Quote:He does not love his creations.
We are not his creations. The bible only ever states God created Adam, then He produced eve from one of Adam's ribs, and they Reproduced/Had offspring. We are not creations. We are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies and so on.. and again no He does not love all of us. nothing in the bible says that. that is a lie forged from the pit of Hell to make some of us feel entitled to something not offered to us in that way. We have to first accept attonemment.

Quote:It's not an unconditional love.
Again From the mouth of Christ you should know this in John 3:16 "who so ever believes in Him, shall not perish but have ever lasting life." The love God offers is conditional. In that you must first believe, before you can receive it.

Quote:That means, whether you like it or not, that he is not benevolent.
Holy Crap seriously?!?!? I have been saying that for 3 pages now!!!

Quote: If you believe he is not benevolent, why try to destroy the Epicurean paradox?
It is destroyed because Epicurus or rather those who changed the paradox assumed that the God of the bible claims to be Omni benevolent. Again He doesn't.

Quote:The Epicurean paradox states that there can be no benevolent, all-powerful god.
no the paradox claims there can't be a God period.
God is all powerful and all knowing, but His leading self described quality has nothing to do with being an Omni max God. God describes Himself as the alpha and omega, meaning He is exactly what He wants to be and nothing more or nothing less. Does that mean God could create a rock so big he can't lift it? Only if He wanted to.. and so on it goes with every other paradox. It's not just about epicurus.

Quote: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".
What a quink-ie-dink I have studied ancient/koine greek for the last 10 or so years myself. And in that time I learned it is no longer a spoken language outside of accidemic circles, and as such the meaning of a word or phrase like this one is subject to interpretation. If this was a stand alone verse I would be inclinded to agree. but it is not. there are 15+ other verses that speak against this one. Not to mention in the context of this passage it describes the punishment being set up for satan and his angels, not the rest of humanity. You may have very well be taught what you have described here, the problem? Greece was apart of the Holy roman empire and as such it's understanding of scripture would have been filtered to R/C doctrine for 1700+ years.

Quote: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.
θάνατος if you speak greek you know this is not a figurative term in a biblical context. Not to mention Christ says we are to be consumed by Hell.

Quote: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.
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.;P



Quote:http://books.google.gr/books?id=rs47AAAA...&q&f=false
ahh, no.
This is a latin copy not the orginal text. (which is what I asked for) According to
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/ Diogenes Laertius' was the retainer and transcriber of the words of Epicurus in third-century AD/CE. It this source also tells us these writtings were passed on in Greek as epicurus was a Greek philosopher and All his writtings would pertain to his POV as a Greek philosopher.Smile

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: