Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2014, 09:41 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Been a while since I've been out blading....hope the ice melts soon; imagonna pull out my skates....


[Image: squishy-girls-go-squish-g3.gif?w=300&h=169]

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, 10:17 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 09:22 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 09:11 PM)Drich Wrote:  Bangin
It can not be applied to the God of the bible (as per the OP) because God does not claim the attributes needed for the paradox to be valid. This paradox will only work against the idea of an Omni max type deity. God makes no such claims. He describes Himself as an alpha and omega not an Omni max. the difference? He is Who he wants to be, nothing more nothing less.

Sorry sport, the second line of Epicurus' Paradox says he's not omnipotent. You said God does not claim the attributes of the paradox, but here it is from your divine book: "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” -- Revelation 19:6. Or are you one of those Christians that doesn't believe the bible is the word of god?
Check yourself old sport, God does not claim all the attributes of the paradox. which means it fails.

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, 10:28 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 10:17 PM)Drich Wrote:  Check yourself old sport, God does not claim all the attributes of the paradox. which means it fails.

Wow, you know you're right. God doesn't claim any attributes at all. Man claims all attributes of any god, which creates paradox. Which means it fails.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like evenheathen's post
09-02-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 10:17 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 09:22 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Sorry sport, the second line of Epicurus' Paradox says he's not omnipotent. You said God does not claim the attributes of the paradox, but here it is from your divine book: "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” -- Revelation 19:6. Or are you one of those Christians that doesn't believe the bible is the word of god?
Check yourself old sport, God does not claim all the attributes of the paradox. which means it fails.

*Moving the Goalposts

*Special Pleading

You admit that your imaginary friend is malevolent, capricious, vicious and cruel. If it really did exist, I would have no part of it. Except to yank out its eyeballs and skull-fuck it to death. Like I would do with you, should we ever meet.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
09-02-2014, 11:20 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 09:11 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 07:45 PM)Impulse Wrote:  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.
Bangin
It can not be applied to the God of the bible (as per the OP) because God does not claim the attributes needed for the paradox to be valid. This paradox will only work against the idea of an Omni max type deity. God makes no such claims. He describes Himself as an alpha and omega not an Omni max. the difference? He is Who he wants to be, nothing more nothing less.
Oh, so then he's not God, sport. Why didn't you just say so? 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
09-02-2014, 11:24 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

Right, the 'revelations', as passed down to us by hearsay stacked upon hearsay written down by anonymous authors decades after the supposed events by non-eyewitnesses. This means that Epicurus has just as much exposure to 'the revelation of Christ' as we do; absolutely nothing we can be certain about.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the impression that anybody can have a firm understanding of any aspects of an omni-max being. Seeing as how we've never had one to test inside a laboratory under controlled conditions, nobody knows anything; it's all speculation and logical gymnastics. If you study the literature and history of your religious texts, the omni-max attributes are easily explainable as literary devices and the one-upmanship of a particular tribe of emerging monotheists; rather than any real description of something that exists within reality.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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)

Oh goody...


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

Sin does not appear in the original question, and barring any evidence confirming it's existence, it's addition will not at all be compelling.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  Evil is a malicious intent to be outside the expressed will of God.

I reject your definition of evil, until such a time as we have evidence for your god and he/she/it confirms that we operate under the rigors of Divine Command Theory.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.

Not compelling in the least.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

I reject your premise for lack of evidence.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

I reject your premise for lack of evidence.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  *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.

Neither do you have a complete understanding of any god's word, here or otherwise.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  On to the actual quote:
β€œIs 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[sic] for all those who seek it.

For starters, complete lack of any evidence to support any of your assertions. Many however would reject the very concept of your god's offered 'atonement' on the grounds of the immorality of vicarious redemption. Also you're missing the simple point here; if your god was not able to create a universe without sin and prevent the sin that arises; he is still not omnipotent.

So to answer the question, your god simply is not willing to prevent evil. We can stop right here, as the question assumes a benevolent god; and you've just posited one that is not. The rest of the problem is not needed, as the Problem of Evil is no problem for an Evil god. Drinking Beverage


(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.

Choice? Like the 'choice' given to the billions that have lived, died, and will continue to die without knowledge of your particular brand of Yahweh and Jesus worship? It would cost god nothing to make us aware of our mistakes as he sees them, correct them, and then set us about our way entirely forgiven. But your god never intervenes, and according to most, none of us will know for sure until after we die and it's too late to do anything. Are you referring to the 'sacrifice' of Jesus? What sacrifice? To create a loophole in the rules he created, he came down to Earth to kill himself to appease himself, spent a long weekend in Hell, came back to life in his physical body, then ascended up to heaven to rule all creation for eternity? What was lost? Nothing. What was sacrificed? Nothing. What was gained? Nothing, outside a stoking of god's own ego if he actually exists.

If your god has the power, but chooses not to for whatever reason (remembering that power is not a obstacle here), then he is malevolent.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

Once again, a complete lack of evidence for any of your assertions and pseudo-answers. Our entire existence is easily explained within a naturalistic framework, no god required.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

You are under the mistaken impression that your Gospels are evidence for anything.


(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

That is why this supposed paradox fails.

No, that's why a mind slave like you will never understand it; because you lack the ability to imagine a world without god. But it's not hard at all, seeing as how a world without god would be identical to this one; funny how that works...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like EvolutionKills's post
09-02-2014, 11:58 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  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)

...so can you choose evil in the afterlife too then?

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 11:59 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 09:41 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Been a while since I've been out blading....hope the ice melts soon; imagonna pull out my skates....


[Image: squishy-girls-go-squish-g3.gif?w=300&h=169]

If that's you skating there, I want to be the guy holding the camera that you run into.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 12:35 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 11:59 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 09:41 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Been a while since I've been out blading....hope the ice melts soon; imagonna pull out my skates....


[Image: squishy-girls-go-squish-g3.gif?w=300&h=169]

If that's you skating there, I want to be the guy holding the camera that you run into.

No, sorry, I actually kinda wish all humans could have tits like that.....

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
10-02-2014, 12:42 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
It is not defeated you just remade the free will excuse.
It was debunked 1000 times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: