Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2014, 01:52 AM
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.

Clearly you have a different brand of Christianity that I've never heard of. I'm pretty sure when I went to church, we praised an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, all-present creator.

Examples:

omniscient: There are many instances in the Bible where Jesus knew the thoughts of those he was speaking with. (Luke 6:8, Matthew 12:25, John 2:25, John 6:61ff) Jeremiah 1:5, God knows us before we're even in the womb. 1 Samuel 2:3 - "the Lord is the God of knowledge" Also, Romans 10:33, God's wisdom is unfathomable.

omni-benevolent: God cares for all of us (Matthew 6) more than the birds and the lilies. He will care for us, this shows his love for us. Not to mention John 3:16 - "for God so loved the world" Also, Psalm 145:8-9 The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, Slow to anger and great in mercy. 9 The Lord is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works. (empasis mine) aaaand Ephesians 3:19 - His love surpasses understanding! Romans 8:35-39 - "who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" and 2 Peter 3:9 He is "not willing that any should perish"

omnipotent: Can't say it any better than Revelation 19:6 - “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!" SO many verses in Psalms extol the mighty power of God. Psalm 62:11, power belongs to God. Psalm 147:5 - "Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite." Romans 1:20 mentions His eternal power.

omnipresent: Proverbs 15:3 - The eyes of the Lord are in every place,
Keeping watch on the evil and the good.

Also, the "alpha and omega" bit is just a testament to his power.

NOTE, Drich, before you assume something. I do not believe this. I do not believe in any god. I am using scripture in the Bible (something that is true for you, but not for me) to show you that these attributes are, in fact, part of the god of the Bible, and therefore the paradox applies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Colourcraze's post
10-02-2014, 01:53 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 11:58 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(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?

Isn't that what the angels did when they decided to fight for Satan..? Presumably we could do the same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 03:49 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Drich Wrote:Are you an atheist? how is that possiable if your argueing for the existence of the trinity?

Hey knucklhead, you're the one with a faith based belief, arguing to "prove" the existence of god.

I understand that the irony won't be acknowledged by your impenetrable ego, but at least it's on the record.

Drinking Beverage

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Kestrel's post
10-02-2014, 04:13 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 08:52 PM)Drich Wrote:  
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.

(09-02-2014 08:52 PM)Drich Wrote:  
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.

Epicurus did not claim any of that. Epicurus did not use the paradox to prove that "there can be no God" (he believed in the gods, how the fuck could he possibly be trying to do that?) Have you been following the conversation?

I will say it for the last time, Epicurus' paradox only refers to benevolent, omnipotent gods. If you don't consider your god to be any of those things, why bother destroying the paradox?

(09-02-2014 08:52 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

It is not a dead language either. Modern Greek is what the ancient Greek language evolved into. It's not two separate languages.
I happen to have also studied a lot of linguistics and literature and I know for a fact that the interpretation of any text depends heavily on the person who reads it. How do you explain the fact that you probably can't find a lot of people who interpret the Bible in the exact same way you do?

I don't "understand" the scripture in any way affected by my country. I wasn't taught those things. I deal with the scripture as I would deal with any text written in ancient Greek.

It is still a fact, however, that any part of the scripture can be interpreted both in my way (second death not being the end and torture being eternal) and your way (hell is eternal and the second death is the final death).

If you disagree with that, show me those parts in ancient Greek and show me the linguistic elements that prove your point.

(09-02-2014 08:52 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

How do I know that? Especially in a biblical context, "death" should not be understood as "the end". If we see it so, we should believe that the "first" death is the end, too. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Show me the quote about being consumed because I can't find anything.

(09-02-2014 08:52 PM)Drich Wrote:  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

This is not a "Latin copy". It is a copy of an original book in Latin. It's called "Divinae institutiones", if you were too bored to look at it.

It is the earliest appearance of the paradox. Laertius does not mention it. Not every single thing a philosopher might say survives after thousands of years you know.

If Laertius mentioned it, it hasn't survived. Lactantius is the one with the earliest version of the paradox that survives. Whether you like it or not, the word "invidus" is the earliest one we have.

"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
[+] 8 users Like undergroundp's post
10-02-2014, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 09:46 AM by IndianAtheist.)
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.
You're greatly mistaken to think that the gospel is a credible source for anything.
Quote:Again if we look to how God describes himself this description does not apply to the God of the bible.
Oh really ? so you're saying that God of the bible is NOT all knowing,all powerful and all loving? then why call him God when he's not really all powerful and all loving?
Quote:The bible say God's love is boundless, but not for everyone. Why else is their a hell?
IDK maybe because God is an ASSHOLE? what kind of question is this ? you're clearly admitting to epicurean paradox by saying that your God is malevolent.
Quote:How long do you think I'd let you go till I called B/S on your version of the hulk?
that makes no sense! i wasn't even talking about bible... >_> you are the one who keeps bringing in your God!! there are literally millions of Gods.

What makes you FUCKING think that your God is any more important then all the other Gods? that's right NOTHING! so i'll talk about all Gods in the same light whether you like it or not.
Quote:I will restrict the conversation to the known/knowable attributes of the God of the bible.
You've already admitted that God of the bible is malevolent now all you need to do is also admit that he isn't all powerful.Smokin
Quote:This can only be said from a point of ignorance of God.
So you're saying that your God is not supernatural? Consider
Quote:This is not God's realm. He gave it to us.
SO HE's NOT WILLING TO STOP SUFFERING?? just answer the question smartass!
Quote:The reason it is not a paradox is because the conditions do not apply to the God of the bible.
Yes they fucking do! unless the God of the bible is an impotent fuck who isn't all powerful. the paradox applies to him too.
Quote:Don't assume just because you think you understand the problem that you infact do.
Why don't you just fucking leave?

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
10-02-2014, 08:52 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  That is why this supposed paradox fails.

The paradox fails because Gwynnies. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
10-02-2014, 08:56 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:55 PM)natachan Wrote:  Goalpost shifting does not eliminate the paradox. You don't get to redefine words to mean what you want.

That's the only way they defeat the paradox. Otherwise, what Epicurus said has held for the last 2,300 years. If they don't somehow cry "no fair!" and change what things mean, they're stuck with an impotent or malevolent god (or both!).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
10-02-2014, 09:00 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 02:39 PM)Drich Wrote:  ...If He did that then by definition could not be sentient could they?

Sounds like God's not all powerful. Didn't Epicurus cover that in one of his four points?

Or are you putting limitations on God and then redefining "omnipotent" to suit your argument?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
10-02-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Quote: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 ...

*academic ... irony

So the asphyxiating deist who can't spell academic whilst attempting his own brand of pseudo academic waffle, is making the appeal that we should take his interpretation of Greek writing, which has been heavily smeared with massive amounts of confirmation bias, over the native Greek speaker who also understands the inflections and subtlety of the language and studied it in context?

What's next? A dream that Joan of Arc visited you and told you to join TTA? It must be true because you'd awoken, with a choking sensation, a nauseating stench filling your bedroom. Mysteriously the usually only slightly grubby off white wall was now littered with French phrases, daubed eloquently with your own shit? For fucks sake! How do you take yourself seriously?

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
10-02-2014, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 10:15 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(10-02-2014 09:39 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
Quote: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 ...

*academic ... irony

So the asphyxiating deist who can't spell academic whilst attempting his own brand of pseudo academic waffle...

Monster I'm liking you more and more.

I think you are right, his use of accidemic is improperly used in his context. Let us see what Full Circle's Dictionary of Amalgabinations has to say.

ac·ci·dem·ic
ˌakəˈsi' demik
adjective
1.
of or relating to the combination of accident and academic,
2.
not of practical relevance; not even by accident.

"Drish constantly spouts accidemic bullshit without realizing it"

and/or

ac·ci·dem·ic
ˌakəˈsi' demik
adjective

1.
of or relating to the combination of accident and comic,
2.
unintentional, or unexpected; but funny as hell.

"Drish is oblivious to how accidemic his bullshit utterings are"

Smartass

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: