No, it hasn't, this is simply where your wall of ignorance presents itself.

Tell me more about what I "believe in my heart", jackass. There isn't any amount of belief in this statement whatsoever. You have failed to demonstrate that there is an afterlife, failed to demonstrate that there is some judgement in this afterlife, and failed to demonstrate that there is a judge to pass this judgement in this afterlife. You may simply take all of these assumptions for granted. I call bullshit. This rather hefty list of bare assertions is being used to support some other non-point you're attempting to make. Again, bullshit.

(April 13, 2012 at 9:12 am)Drich Wrote:

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.

Pointing out when someone is full of shit =/= insecurity about your own position.

(April 13, 2012 at 9:12 am)Drich Wrote: 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.

Except your god seems to get a special exception where all things are concerned.

(April 13, 2012 at 8:36 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: 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.

Apparently I have to spell it out for you in simple English. The bible does not use that word to describe God, Therefore I can not say that He is, or He is not if I was as using a biblical standard. That is why i asked you to define the word, apparently because you have the power to redefine biblical words like sin and evil, and apparently have given yourself the power to use word phrases like omnipotent, to describe God when the bible does not. So Again, you define the word because it is not a biblically based word.

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

As if I were talking to a child. Epicurus was judging non biblical gods with non biblical terms. therefore his argument stands in that specific discussion. The reason is does not work with the God of the Bible is because you all have decided to use the Bible to define God, Then you entrap God with a standard or term of your own definition ignoring the standard He Himself has set in the Same book you used to define Him.

Sunday schooler explanation:
Epicurus was asking why his life and the lives of his peers was such hard work after so much had been sacrificed to his gods. He was not asking about the evil you have embraced and redefined. Why did he ask this? because his people had a deal with his gods, they offer them food and sacrifice in return they got things. He did not receive those things so in turn he question his idea of god.

Why does this standard not work with the God of the bible? Because no such "deal" was brokered between God and his people. Matter of fact Adam was told it was only by hard work would he eat.

Now to take this one step further, you have taken the Epicurus frame work and applied your own definitions apart from the originals and apart further from the bible. So your witch hunt doesn't even follow the intent or purpose of the original work.

That is why your representation of this "paradox" Fails. That is why I am saying in order for your argument to have merit you must single source the variables in which you pretend to judge IF you wish to do so honorably.

Quote:I'm not. I'm using the concepts of a non-malevolent, omnipotent God.

Actually this is what you need my argument to be, in order for yours to work. However, as I have stated at least a dozen or more times "The omni aspects of God are not a biblical representation of the characteristics of God as these terms are not found in the bible.

If I need to say this to a child I would say: We can not call God "omni" anything because the bible does not use or outline the use of these terms as used by religious and atheist alike.

I really did not see a need to respond to anything else because you have fail to establish the basic premise of your argument. (That we claim God is omnipotent in the face of malevolence)

As I pointed out earlier you are using the frame work designed to speak to very specific gods. Of which little besides the title of God can be transfered to the God of the bible. The parameters of the discussion no longer fit, therefore one must source characteristics and definition from the Bible when speaking of the God of the bible if you want to have an Honest discussion about the God of the bible.

Again if you want to redefine god, sin, evil and add words that start with omni, then know there is nothing else for me to say as we are not discussing the God of the Bible. That would place us in a position much like your attempted conversation of Thor, anubus, allah or any other god of your choosing. It is something I have little to no interest in discussing.

(Talking to a child) If you want to keep mixing your standard with a god of your own creation even if you make him similar to the God of the bible, then you can pat yourself on the back because you won this conversation. Because I am only interest in helping those looking to make an honest effort. I am not here to break you of your personal convictions or reason you have to hate God, or the reason you have no more faith.

---

(April 13, 2012 at 9:54 am)genkaus Wrote:

(April 13, 2012 at 9:12 am)Drich Wrote: 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.

Except your god seems to get a special exception where all things are concerned.

No for He defines Sin and Evil. The special exception is your personal defination of sin and evil.

(April 13, 2012 at 9:55 am)Drich Wrote: Apparently I have to spell it out for you in simple English. The bible does not use that word to describe God, Therefore I can not say that He is, or He is not if I was as using a biblical standard. That is why i asked you to define the word, apparently because you have the power to redefine biblical words like sin and evil, and apparently have given yourself the power to use word phrases like omnipotent, to describe God when the bible does not. So Again, you define the word because it is not a biblically based word.

You realise I spent several replies stating that I couldn't care less how you interpret your holy book.

Epicurus' Paradox uses the terms Omnipotent and by inference, the antonym to malevolence, being kind and caring.

If your God is neither capable of prevention, not is he kind and caring, then why call him God.

Thankyou for admitting that you have no idea if your god is omnipotent or not. The question is, if he is not all powerful, then what makes him a god in your eyes?

(April 13, 2012 at 9:55 am)Drich Wrote: Again as if I were talking to a child. Epicurus was judging non biblical gods with non biblical terms. therefore his argument stands in that specific discussion.

You seem to suffer a delusion that equating a need to explain things simply is equivalent to their intellectual superiority. The ad hominem just makes you look desperate.
What it really shows is that your assertion of being right is so strong, you simply block out all dissenting opinions, which in term, limits your argument to base assertion.

Epicurus was judging any being that calls itself Omnipotent and Loving. It matters not one bit which book you refer to.
If Aldur is omnipotent and loving he stands to the same paradox as the christian God.

Quote:The reason is does not work with the God of the Bible is because you all have decided to use the Bible to define God,

Who used the bible to define god? You keep saying it as if it is true. I don't care if its Shiva or Thor. If they are omnipotent and kind, they are a paradox giving the world today.

Typical persecution complex.

Quote:Then you entrap God with a standard or term of your own definition ignoring the standard He Himself has set in the Same book you used to define Him.

Our definition? You mean that pesky dictionary you were throwing around earlier which now you want special dispensation to stop using it for the crux of the argument.
The definition which has been the basis of philosophical discussion for thousands of years.
You're so full of shit Drich, you always amuse.

Quote:Epicurus was asking why his life and the lives of his peers was such hard work after so much had been sacrificed to his gods. He was not asking about the evil you have embraced and redefined.

Yes, he defined it as a life of pain. Now, does your god wish for us to suffer a life of pain given that he can prevent it if he so wishes.

Quote:I really did not see a need to respond to anything else because you have fail to establish the basic premise of your argument. (That we claim God is omnipotent in the face of malevolence)

You are claiming, that we are claiming God is omnipotent?

Rather we claim that if your god is not all powerful, why call him God.

Quote:As I pointed out earlier you are using the frame work designed to speak to very specific gods.

Read again. I have said over and over again, the only things that are relevant are; Is your god omnipotent, is your god kind. These are the general aspects often applied to a deity.

Your god, you tell us. Don't ask us what YOU believe.

Quote:Again if you want to redefine god, sin, evil and add words that start with omni,

You do KNOW that you are supposed to be arguing against Epicurus' paradox.

You know.. the one that goes;

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent."

So who is adding words with omni? Oh the author of the paradox you are trying to refute.

If your god only has finite power, and is incapable of preventing worldwide pain and suffering, then fine. He just simply sucks as a "God" and barely is worth of the term, but he DOES escape the paradox. Bully for you, your god sucks.

To paraphrase your cute but meaningless insults littered all over your previous post, let me explain as if I would to a child.

If God wants to stop us from suffering, but can't or doesn't.. he's either a BAD god, or not god.

Quote:(Talking to a child) If you want to keep mixing your standard with a god of your own creation even if you make him similar to the God of the bible, then you can pat yourself on the back because you won this conversation. Because I am only interest in helping those looking to make an honest effort. I am not here to break you of your personal convictions or reason you have to hate God, or the reason you have no more faith.

What god? We're just using Epicurus and the words he used. I agree he means life of pain, but that is far different from your "malicious intent to go against the will of god".

All this and still, you have refused to answer if you believe your god is omnipotent (not my word you muppet, Epicurus', that thing we're discussing apparently) merely you don't even know, and if you believe your god is not malevolent. You have still refused to answer the question. You're a weasal who couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag without first trying to argue that you should let him out of the bag before he will engage in the debate meaningfully.

My name is a reference to a band btw, not an indication of a prior belief system. I need to believe in a god to hate him, and this is the core point you never understand, just like you can't understand how malicious intent against god is an impossibility.

(April 13, 2012 at 9:55 am)Drich Wrote: No for He defines Sin and Evil. The special exception is your personal defination of sin and evil.

No, he redefines sin and evil. The concepts of sin and evil - where Epicurius is concerned - were defined independently and prior to your bible. Your god may futilely attempt to redefine those concepts through the Church's sock-puppets, but when talking about the paradox, we'd use the meanings applicable in that context.

(April 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.

The Paradox speaks to any tri-omni version of God. It's generic. It's not about your God in particular, so no fair re-writing the terms to suit your specific religion. Besides, you've already evaded the Paradox by conceding that your particular version of God values free will over beneficence. The Paradox is only a problem for people who believe all three attributes are absolute, and you don't. Yet something compels you to continue to argue against the Epicurean Paradox despite its inapplicability to the God you believe in.

---

(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.

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.

It took sixteen pages but glad you finally get that Epicurus wasn't using your biblical definition of evil.

(April 12, 2012 at 11:12 pm)genkaus Wrote: "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.

That's a slippery slope to walk on. What defines a conceptual attribute? Furthermore, by what evidence do we acknowledge that benevolence and evil only exist within the conscience? Surely our ideas as to what benevolence and evil look and act like are only within our minds, but how does it follow that only our 'benevolence' and our 'evil' exist?

(April 12, 2012 at 11:12 pm)genkaus Wrote: 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.

The very idea of God is beyond human concepts, this is what I've been referring to about the deeper ideas behind abstractions. We can self define abstractions, but the very nature of the abstraction itself is beyond our grasp to understand or fathom. Once again, if I ask you what is infinity and what does it look like, or similarly, what does infinite transparency 'look' like, you could attempt to analogize or illustrate an image to me, but that wouldn't capture the very idea of the abstraction itself.

If that's what it takes to be a pantheist, you can have it.

(April 13, 2012 at 10:40 am)genkaus Wrote:

(April 13, 2012 at 9:55 am)Drich Wrote: No for He defines Sin and Evil. The special exception is your personal definition of sin and evil.

No, he redefines sin and evil. The concepts of sin and evil - where Epicurus is concerned - were defined independently and prior to your bible. Your god may futilely attempt to redefine those concepts through the Church's sock-puppets, but when talking about the paradox, we'd use the meanings applicable in that context.

I am glad to see we agree on this very important point, for as I said several times now. Epicurus with his definitions was not speaking to your understanding of sin and evil, and if we are hold a strict understanding to the work of Epicurus and his definition of Evil then we must also strictly look and only look to the gods He was calling out as well. Why because His definition of Evil specifically addresses failed promises of his gods. None of which were made by the God of the bible.

I have Identified the original Greek word that translate to evil in the English and I have posted the original meaning of the word. (Which basically translates into unfair hard work.) Which is a far cry from how you are using the term.

Therefore if you use the bible to define God, and ignore Epicurus' gods and Epicurus' definition of evil then you are only left with the definition of Evil used by the very same bible you used to define God.

Otherwise know you have undertaken a personal vendetta ignoring all semblances of a honorable and or a fair inquiry. For you have literally redefined the terms being discussed to stack the deck n your favor to win this argument. If you persist then know my interest in the conversation stops. As I told the other guy arguing this broken line of logic I am not here to change your personal philosophy on God I am simply trying to provide clarity for all who earnestly seek it.
Clarity has been provided, it is not my responsibility to keep you from mucking it back up in your own minds.

---

(April 13, 2012 at 11:42 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.

The Paradox speaks to any tri-omni version of God. It's generic. It's not about your God in particular, so no fair re-writing the terms to suit your specific religion. Besides, you've already evaded the Paradox by conceding that your particular version of God values free will over beneficence. The Paradox is only a problem for people who believe all three attributes are absolute, and you don't. Yet something compels you to continue to argue against the Epicurean Paradox despite its inapplicability to the God you believe in.

---

(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.

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.

It took sixteen pages but glad you finally get that Epicurus wasn't using your biblical definition of evil.

Even after 16 pages you still do not understand Epicurus was not speaking of the God of the bible.

It is amazing how some of you can completely close off your minds to contextual information and only select what you wish to accept.