(April 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Why do we use God's interpretation of Evil rather that the pop cultures understanding of the word?

Aaah, NOW we don't use the dictionary then.

(April 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Because it is God's actions (or lack of) that are being questioned in relation to Evil. If God is being judged against a standard then we must establish Who God is, against the very same standard in which He is being Judged.

Indeed, Needless pain and suffering.

Quote:If we are speaking of the God of the bible then it is to the biblical standard in which we are to also judge evil.

Nope. No dice. Epicurus is all about traditional evil, the death of an infant, the tsunami that kills beyond human control..

Quote:That is unless you feel you need to stack the deck in your favor to judge God unfairly in order to win your conviction.

You may see it as stacking the deck. We see it as you have no good answer.

Quote:A fair assessment would indeed single source (as there is only one source that defines the God of the bible) information of God and sin/evil, inorder to make a sound judgment.

You mean other than the Qu'ran, Zend Avesta. If there is an all powerful God. Whom is as Epicurus states, Omnipotent, Not Malevolent, blah blah, then he is a contradiction, a paradox given the world we live in.

Quote:otherwise it would be like asking who were the better soldiers? the 300 of Sparta or a current active duty seal team, simply by judging the effective usage of their weapons. If one wants an accurate assessment the one has to look at the soldiers as a whole, meaning times and conditions of service, and not the one aspect that favors your argument.

Oooh, Good analogy.. oh wait, bullshit.

So is your God a great soldier who is now outdated? That regardless of his power he is unable to act against those now more powerful given better technology?
Not Omnipotent.

Quote: so people like you can not rely on the loop holes you think you have found in the biblical account.

What biblical account? We are talking about Epicurus.

Answer this;
Do these things describe your God, yes or no is all that is required.
Is he Omnipotent, and is he not Malevolent, in context of HUMAN LIFE.

He may not be malevolent by his standards, but he certainly is by ours is the whole of the argument.

You may not feel he should be judged by Human Standards, but this is OUR life, and our pain and suffering, and he should be judged by them. You instead argue for the malevolent despot, because whilst he keeps the country safe from harm, does so by tyranny and injustice.

---

(April 12, 2012 at 1:27 pm)Perhaps Wrote: The proponents of this argument are transposing human characteristics on an entity which is in no way bounded by our characteristics (I'm generalizing the argument to all possible Gods, not just the one of the Bible). A few questions I have for those who hold this argument: Is all death evil? Is evolution evil? Is natural selection evil? Is the fact that millions die daily, yet we as humans do nothing to stop it from occurring, evil? Are we evil?

No. Next?

Neither are we capable of preventing any of these things, whereas God would be, so the needless pain and suffering, which are not always caused by man, would be simple to remove.

Quote:If we are evil, then who are we to assert what benevolence looks like?

Not Evil here.

Quote:If we are not all powerful, then who are we to assert what omnipotence acts like?

Then God is malevolent. No problem there, we are determining that if such a being exists, he is malevolent, or not omnipotent, or not existing. You have no point here.

Quote:If we are not all knowing, then who are we to assert how omniscience works?

Where did Omniscience come into Epicurus' Paradox?

(April 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Why do we use God's interpretation of Evil rather that the pop cultures understanding of the word? Because it is God's actions (or lack of) that are being questioned in relation to Evil. If God is being judged against a standard then we must establish Who God is, against the very same standard in which He is being Judged. If we are speaking of the God of the bible then it is to the biblical standard in which we are to also judge evil. That is unless you feel you need to stack the deck in your favor to judge God unfairly in order to win your conviction. A fair assessment would indeed single source (as there is only one source that defines the God of the bible) information of God and sin/evil, inorder to make a sound judgment.

otherwise it would be like asking who were the better soldiers? the 300 of Sparta or a current active duty seal team, simply by judging the effective usage of their weapons. If one wants an accurate assessment the one has to look at the soldiers as a whole, meaning times and conditions of service, and not the one aspect that favors your argument.

So to recap we look to the bible for the definition of evil because it is in the context (Judgment of the God of the bible) that we use it. We use modern dictionaries to further break down the definition to clarify the biblical definition so people like you can not rely on the loop holes you think you have found in the biblical account.

Apply the same principle to the real world, if you will. So, when judging whether a man is a criminal or not, instead of using well-established legal standards, we should use his standards on what constitutes a crime. When judging a person on whether he is suitable for a job or not, we should disregard the actual job requirements and judge him by what he says the criteria should be. While judging a beauty pageant, we should ask the contestants to pick the winner among them.

Definitions provide an objective and fair standard for passing judgment and the reason we are using the dictionary here is the same as to why we refer to law books when judging a criminal. What you want to do is subjectively redefine evil in such a way that your idea of god would be excluded tautologically.

(April 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm)genkaus Wrote: You forget that the abstractions themselves are created by the mind. Why wouldn't words ascribed to represent the abstraction not capture it fully? Further, providing a concrete definition fro a word does not make the concept subject or meaningless outside perception.

Have you never encountered an emotion or an instance where words literally couldn't describe your perception? Language is built on semantics and often fails to fully capture the meaning of abstract ideas. I do agree, however, that abstractions are themselves created by the mind.

Moreover, I didn't mean that by providing a concrete definition you made it subjective and meaningless; I meant that your definition as it stands is subjective in so much as it begs the interpretation of 'undesired'.

(April 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm)genkaus Wrote: Yes, we can, since we are the ones who created those abstractions. We cannot know the concepts of benevolence and evil outside our consciousness because they do no exist outside it. To the extent they exist, they can be fathomed.

Suppose there are things which do exist outside of our consciousness, what them becomes of your statement that the concepts of benevolence and evil don't exist outside of ourselves? Surely they wouldn't be our 'benevolence' or our 'evil', but isn't that what we are addressing in this discussion - the disconnect between our linguistics and their application to entities outside of ourselves?

(April 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm)genkaus Wrote: Yeah - no action - if you ignore the declaration of Jake Scully as the "chosen one" in the beginning of the movie or the directing of all creatures against humans in the climax, thereby saving the Navi's collective asses. I think that that deity definitely proved that it was both capable and willing to intervene and prevent violence and destruction when no other course was open.

Perhaps I misunderstood the plot line, but it seemed to me as if the creatures came to the aid of the Navi against the humans of their own accord. The energy united them, but it doesn't indicate that it specifically moved the rest of nature to fight against the human invasion. In my interpretation, the deity took no part in the violence, not to stop it, nor to fight for one side of the other. The deity was outside the realms of such violence, which was enacted by the nature (humans, Navi, creatures, etc.) itself.

Regardless of which one of our interpretations of the plot is correct, we can take my interpretation as simply an example of what a non-acting deity would look like.

(April 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm)genkaus Wrote: And that is your error. Firstly, our definitions do capture our abstractions. Therefore, I see no reason, apart from special pleading, for why god would not be bound by them.

This is where we differ, which is fine.

(April 12, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Have you never encountered an emotion or an instance where words literally couldn't describe your perception? Language is built on semantics and often fails to fully capture the meaning of abstract ideas. I do agree, however, that abstractions are themselves created by the mind.

At that moment, yes. Eventually, no. What you are pointing out here is absence of knowledge regarding the abstraction which corresponds to perceptions or non-existence of such an abstraction. When coming across an unknown perception, either you find an abstraction that corresponds closely or create a new one.

(April 12, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Moreover, I didn't mean that by providing a concrete definition you made it subjective and meaningless; I meant that your definition as it stands is subjective in so much as it begs the interpretation of 'undesired'.

Subtle distinction here. Definition, as it stands, describes evil as a subjective concept. But the definition itself is objective. As an analogy, "delicious" means pleasing to taste, which by its nature makes it subjective. But the concept itself is objectively established. FYI, I personally don't subscribe to that definition either.

(April 12, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Suppose there are things which do exist outside of our consciousness, what them becomes of your statement that the concepts of benevolence and evil don't exist outside of ourselves? Surely they wouldn't be our 'benevolence' or our 'evil', but isn't that what we are addressing in this discussion - the disconnect between our linguistics and their application to entities outside of ourselves?

"Benevolence" and "evil" are conceptual attributes. They do not have any existence outside consciousness, neither do any other conceptual entities. So, if you are talking about their existence outside our consciousness, you are talking about them independent of mind, which is simply nonsensical.

(April 12, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Perhaps I misunderstood the plot line, but it seemed to me as if the creatures came to the aid of the Navi against the humans of their own accord. The energy united them, but it doesn't indicate that it specifically moved the rest of nature to fight against the human invasion. In my interpretation, the deity took no part in the violence, not to stop it, nor to fight for one side of the other. The deity was outside the realms of such violence, which was enacted by the nature (humans, Navi, creatures, etc.) itself.

Evidence 1: Just before the war, Jake went to the sacred tree and talked to the deity, telling her about the barren wasteland of earth, how humans destroy everything and how they would do the same here if she did not help them.

Evidence 2: Animals who'd not shown any cooperative behavior unless directed by pony-tail thingy, are all suddenly and simultaneously lead a coordinated attack against specific target, indicating a conscious and intelligent being.

Evidence 3: Neytiri cries out to Jake that Eywa has heard his prayers.

Evidence 4: Their wiki says so.

(April 12, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Regardless of which one of our interpretations of the plot is correct, we can take my interpretation as simply an example of what a non-acting deity would look like.

In which case, the deity would have been malevolent to allow the destruction of its own people.

(April 12, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Perhaps Wrote: This is where we differ, which is fine.

It is not fine if it is at the root of the debate. Unless you can establish why any supposed god would be beyond human concepts of good and evil, the Epicurean paradox would still apply.

[quote='genkaus' pid='271315' dateline='1334277282']
Apply the same principle to the real world, if you will. So, when judging whether a man is a criminal or not, instead of using well-established legal standards, we should use his standards on what constitutes a crime. When judging a person on whether he is suitable for a job or not, we should disregard the actual job requirements and judge him by what he says the criteria should be. While judging a beauty pageant, we should ask the contestants to pick the winner among them.

Definitions provide an objective and fair standard for passing judgment and the reason we are using the dictionary here is the same as to why we refer to law books when judging a criminal. What you want to do is subjectively redefine evil in such a way that your idea of god would be excluded tautologically.
[/quote]
EXACTLY! So then why use the bible to establish the works, attributes and will of God and then prohibit the use of the very same bible, to answer an accusation based on a biblical term? Why is it necessary to redefine that term by popular understanding rather than the absolute standard found in scripture? The same scripture you are willing to use to entrap God with?

IF "definitions provide an objective and fair standard for passing judgment." then why would any reasonable man refuse the use of the same source you used to define God, as a legitimate source to also define what you are accusing Him of?

What is this desperate need you all seem to have to separate God and the bible that defines Him? Are you speaking of a different god? Perhaps the god of the dictionary, therefore you must seek out the dictionary to define the principles of sin and evil as well?

If you want to talk real world, then I invite you to step into it. In the real world honorable men seek honest answers. Not conclusions pieced together from as many far flung sources one has to entertain to come to the conclusion he wants to find. If you are talking about the God of the bible then it is by the bible you are bound to define Him, and His methods. If you are speaking of the god of the dictionary or any other reference book then by all means use whatever reference material you need to crucify your god.

---

[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='271254' dateline='1334272461']
[quote]Aaah, NOW we don't use the dictionary then.[/quote]This must be one of your favorite fallacies. Because you beg the question alot. Do you not have any other tools of communication avaiable?

[quote]Indeed, Needless pain and suffering.[/quote]Who are you to judge pain and suffering needless?

[quote]Nope. No dice. Epicurus is all about traditional evil, the death of an infant, the tsunami that kills beyond human control..[/quote]
Appearently you do not even understand the core Epicurean Arguement. It was not to the Hebrew God (as he would have known Him) Epicurs directed his efforts (In 300 BC) to the prominate gods of Rome.

In short Epicurus did not understand the biblical concept of evil either. His idea was based on the Greek understanding of the word which is far different than your modern wester defination of the word.
ponēros
Pronunciation

po-nā-ro's (Key)


Part of Speech
adjective

Root Word (Etymology)

From a derivative of πόνος (G4192)

TDNT Reference
6:546,912
Vines
View Entry
1) full of labours, annoyances, hardships

a) pressed and harassed by labours

b) bringing toils, annoyances, perils;causing pain and trouble

2) bad, of a bad nature or condition

a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind

In short Epericus is asking why is life hard. You are asking why do bad things happen to what you think are basically good people. For epicurus this was not a question, for he knew why bad things happened. He wanted to know why after so much sacerfice and giving to the gods of his day wasn't life easy and full of pleasure, as it was promised.

[quote]You may see it as stacking the deck. We see it as you have no good answer.[/quote]Says the man who has to stack the deck in his favor and refuses to look at plain unmolested facts.
You use the Bible to identify the God of the bible yet you refuse to use the very same bible to define the concept you are accusing Him of being meligned against.
For this you have supported your own understanding of the word that allows you the self appointed sense of righteousness needed to judge and convict God.

Know this is not the first time this happened. The Saducees had to break every single rule governing the death conviction of an accused man to have christ crusified. So know that you are not the first to have to break the rules in order to get what you want.

[quote]You mean other than the Qu'ran, Zend Avesta. If there is an all powerful God. Whom is as Epicurus states, Omnipotent, Not Malevolent, blah blah, then he is a contradiction, a paradox given the world we live in.[/quote]It's funny how you have to take my own work out of context in order to make your points have any meaning. Thier is a Reason I use the term "God of the Bible." If you wish to apply this "paradox" to any of the other gods out there then feel free.

[quote]So is your God a great soldier who is now outdated? That regardless of his power he is unable to act against those now more powerful given better technology?[/quote]Begging the question again???

[quote]Not Omnipotent.[/quote]If you wish to use that word or anyother "omin Aspect of God" then please show book chapter and verse that uses those terms to define God. As we are speaking of the God of the bible I will hold you to the bible to make your arguement. However if you have created your own little idea of god then feel free to do, say or blaspheme all you like. just let me know that you are talking about your own idea of god rather than the God of the bible so I do not waist any more time with you than I need to.

[quote]What biblical account? We are talking about Epicurus.[/quote]
Which appearently is a person like you (not implying anything about you or the relationship you have with your mother.)
Therefore i feel the need to correct your/his understanding as it applies to the God of the bible.

[quote]Answer this;
Do these things describe your God, yes or no is all that is required.
Is he Omnipotent, and is he not Malevolent, in context of HUMAN LIFE.[/quote]Define Omnipotent as this is not a biblical term.

[quote]He may not be malevolent by his standards, but he certainly is by ours is the whole of the argument.[/quote]Which is irrevelant because "our" standards change from generation to generation.

[quote]You may not feel he should be judged by Human Standards, but this is OUR life, and our pain and suffering, and he should be judged by them. [/quote]I don't care by what standards you ultimatly judge God. I am only pointing out the hyprocrisy in your efforts. Why? Because it is by the standard you judge, that you too will be judged. If you wish to be judged fairly then it is up to you, to judge fairly. I was appealing to your humanity because that seems to be the only foundation or the closest thing to it, that guys like you will claim. If you wish to judge God by your own version of righteousness then know it will be by your own standard of judgement that you too will be judged. In complete truth it is no skin off my nose whatever you decide.

[quote] You instead argue for the malevolent despot, because whilst he keeps the country safe from harm, does so by tyranny and injustice[/quote]May here you should ask why rather than assume you know the answer. It's up to you lest I be accused of over stepping by bounds.

Define God, as this is not a term consistent with reality. Sophistry, your usual MO.

"Our standards change generation to generation" -So do your god's.
"Because it is by the standard you judge, that you too will be judged." -No one's being judged at all, fairy tale bullshit Drich, regardless of the standard.

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 12, 2012 at 7:14 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Aaah, NOW we don't use the dictionary then.

This must be one of your favorite fallacies. Because you beg the question alot. Do you not have any other tools of communication avaiable?

For as long as you continue with the Bible must be used to define Evil fallacy. Yes. Yes I will.
For as long as you avoid the questions. Yes I will. Calling it a fallacy is simply argumentum ad nauseum unless you prove it, and you have only done so in your own mind.

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: Who are you to judge pain and suffering needless?

As a being capable of empathy. Something your god is incapable of.

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: Appearently you do not even understand the core Epicurean Arguement. It was not to the Hebrew God (as he would have known Him) Epicurs directed his efforts (In 300 BC) to the prominate gods of Rome.

You're getting there Drich, slowly and surely. So you can see how useless it is to use the bible to define what evil is in this context. It is not how Epicurus was using it.

Now, you have avoided the question. So I will ask until you again.

Is YOUR God, omnipotent. Is YOUR God, not malevolent.

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: In short Epicurus did not understand the biblical concept of evil either. His idea was based on the Greek understanding of the word which is far different than your modern wester defination of the word.

In short, therefore Biblical definition is irrelevant to the argument.

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: In short Epericus is asking why is life hard. You are asking why do bad things happen to what you think are basically good people. For epicurus this was not a question, for he knew why bad things happened. He wanted to know why after so much sacerfice and giving to the gods of his day wasn't life easy and full of pleasure, as it was promised.

I actually agree with you to a certain extent, on this, but all it means that "malicious intent against the will of God" is DEFINITELY not the version to use.

Quote:You use the Bible to identify the God of the bible yet you refuse to use the very same bible to define the concept you are accusing Him of being meligned against.
For this you have supported your own understanding of the word that allows you the self appointed sense of righteousness needed to judge and convict God.

I'm not. I'm using the concepts of a non-malevolent, omnipotent God. I couldn't care less if it was the Faery God, Allah, or any other God who makes a claim to these aspects.

I don't think the Bible has any input whatsoever, its up to you to defend your concept of God, not me.

Are YOU claiming, that your version of God 2.0 is neither of these things from human perspective?

If he did exist, would we have a right to judge Him? Maybe not, but from our perspective he is still malevolent. The argument stands.

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: Thier is a Reason I use the term "God of the Bible." If you wish to apply this "paradox" to any of the other gods out there then feel free.

Only the ones that are omnipotent and not malevolent, if your version of the christian God is neither, then why call him God?

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: If you wish to use that word or anyother "omin Aspect of God" then please show book chapter and verse that uses those terms to define God.

See above. Don't need to. If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God.

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: As we are speaking of the God of the bible I will hold you to the bible to make your arguement. However if you have created your own little idea of god then feel free to do, say or blaspheme all you like. just let me know that you are talking about your own idea of god rather than the God of the bible so I do not waist any more time with you than I need to.

I am talking about ANY god who claims to be both not malevolent and omnipotent.

I can't tell you what God you believe in, even Christians can't decide on his aspects, so how can you expect me to tell you what you believe?
The aspects that Epicurus defines, that if they apply to your God, then he is a paradox.

If your god is lacking in ability or power, it would explain why he is reduced to making pictures on toast, but its entirely up to you to state whether your god is omnipotent, kind and loving and to justify the world we live in by the standards that these terms imply.

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: IfI don't care by what standards you ultimatly judge God. I am only pointing out the hyprocrisy in your efforts. Why? Because it is by the standard you judge, that you too will be judged. If you wish to be judged fairly then it is up to you, to judge fairly. I was appealing to your humanity because that seems to be the only foundation or the closest thing to it, that guys like you will claim. If you wish to judge God by your own version of righteousness then know it will be by your own standard of judgement that you too will be judged. In complete truth it is no skin off my nose whatever you decide.

Wow. I think I detect some spittle on the screen. That was precious. I was wondering how long it'd be until you cracked and threatened everyone with judgement.

Your entire argument can be summed up quite simply;

God can do what he likes because he's God and whatever he says goes, so you can't say he can be judged by human morality.

The point is, this simply make him malevolent to mankind. You simply do not care if he is. But the real question is, if he weren't' fictional, what would be worth worshipping?

NoMoreFaith Wrote:You instead argue for the malevolent despot, because whilst he keeps the country safe from harm, does so by tyranny and injustice

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: May here you should ask why rather than assume you know the answer. It's up to you lest I be accused of over stepping by bounds.

"Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists; it's too complicated for you to understand. Therefore God Exists".

(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote: EXACTLY! So then why use the bible to establish the works, attributes and will of God and then prohibit the use of the very same bible, to answer an accusation based on a biblical term? Why is it necessary to redefine that term by popular understanding rather than the absolute standard found in scripture? The same scripture you are willing to use to entrap God with?

IF "definitions provide an objective and fair standard for passing judgment." then why would any reasonable man refuse the use of the same source you used to define God, as a legitimate source to also define what you are accusing Him of?

What is this desperate need you all seem to have to separate God and the bible that defines Him? Are you speaking of a different god? Perhaps the god of the dictionary, therefore you must seek out the dictionary to define the principles of sin and evil as well?

If you want to talk real world, then I invite you to step into it. In the real world honorable men seek honest answers. Not conclusions pieced together from as many far flung sources one has to entertain to come to the conclusion he wants to find. If you are talking about the God of the bible then it is by the bible you are bound to define Him, and His methods. If you are speaking of the god of the dictionary or any other reference book then by all means use whatever reference material you need to crucify your god.

You seem to have no clue how judgments work in the real world.

Any fair and rational judgment does not and should not take place without any input from the person involved. Where the judgment is regarding the person's character, his/her input is all the more necessary. But it still doesn't replace objective, established standard for judgment.

In a beauty pageant, the contestants are allowed to tell the judges about themselves in their own words. They are allowed to introduce their qualities and tell the judges why they should win. But the judges still make the final decision according to established rules.

In a job interview, a candidate is allowed to explain why he'd be suitable for the job. But that explanation is not allowed to replace established criteria. In a criminal trial, the accused is allowed to present his case. He is allowed to explain his motivations, actions, state of mind etc., but he is not allowed to redefine the laws in his favor.

That is what we are doing here. Since your bible is supposedly the word of your god, then we are allowing your god to tell us about himself - about his characteristics, his will, his intentions and his actions. We are even willing to consider his views on morality. But we are not going to let him hijack and redefine the standards for judgment here. He will be judged according to the objectively established definitions. And judgment according to those is pretty clear. Either your god is impotent or malevolent or both. Either way, he's a liar.

-"But you all misunderstand him!"

-He should work on his communications skills.

(April 13, 2012 at 8:04 am)Rhythm Wrote: Our standards change generation to generation" -So do your god's.

This is where your basic understanding of Christianity has failed you. The standards are the same for everyone. What was a sin is still a sin. The only difference being is believers have found atonement for their sin. Even so it's still sin, and the punishment would be the same, however they/we have found forgiveness. All those who do not believe will be subject to the same wrath as those in the OT were subject to.

Quote:"Because it is by the standard you judge, that you too will be judged." -No one's being judged at all, fairy tale bullshit Drich, regardless of the standard.

If you believed this with all of your heart then I seriously doubt you would feel the need to defend your position to someone like me.