Epicurean Paradox

[houseofcantor]

It only works if one credits the existence of evil.

Nice avvy, Rhythm.

[Drich]

If you find that you're consistently unable to communicate your message effectively, perhaps you should work on the delivery (or reconsider the message itself)?

Your follow up comment is proof that the content is strong. The issue is you all either skim through my work looking for key words to formulate a stereotypical atheist argument that would address the stereotypical christian statement.
-or-
You simply do not have the basic foundational understanding needed to ask the questions being asked, or follow the answers being given.

An example of the first problem i outlined is the way you and your buddy honed in on the phrase "unauthorized biography" Ignored absolutely everything else that was said so you could get your zingers out and attack the bible. Never mind that the bible was not even being discussed.

This type of behavior is not the fault of the teacher, it is a failure of basic reading comprehension skills of the student.

An example of the second problem is how you champion the word "morality" as the standard in which the universe and everything in it (including God) must yield. Even after a complete explaination of what morality is.

If your everyday run of the mill truth is unauthorized truth, and biblical truth is authorized truth, then why leverage the unauthorized shit, seeing as you have a much better source so ready at hand?

The Greatest command we have is to Love our Lord God with all of Heart, Mind, Spirit, and Strength. What we will be looking at here is how the Mind" Loves and worships God. Not every "mind" is built the same. Not all minds can comprehend the same things. The Command tells us to love or Worship God at our minds end, or at the fullest capacity that our mind can comprehend. Not to have one singular understanding of God that may push past the understanding or need of some people.

The Omni aspects of God contain enough truth to satisfy the follower who is maybe not meant to spend his or her life studying scripture. For we are a body with many parts. Each part having a different function. Not all can be an eye, nor can all be a hand. all the parts of the body of Christ are needed to be complete.

If the author does not have a complete understanding of whom he is documenting, perhaps it should not be advertised as an understanding at all, sounds more like a collection of personal opinions. Much like your own, with regards to the same.

Again if one is destined to be a missionary abroad then why would he need to spent the next 10 years scratching the surface trying to understand the reveled nature of God?
Especially when the "omni" aspects will some what accurately describe what he needs to know.
It seem you are looking at Christianity like every other world religion. where their is a very specific way to do things and if you do not follow you burn in hell.
Biblically based Christianity does not follow man's understanding of religion.

What's the matter, don't like being called on your bullshit? Easy solution, stop bullshitting. Your arguments probably aren't half as clever (nor we half as dull) as you might have hoped. Assert, evade, assert, evade, wiggle a little bit...forgive me for finding this entire routine to be less than convincing.

Then stop messing around trying to entrap me and ask direct questions. Just because I am new to this web site does not me I just fell off of the Jesus truck. I have been answering questions of people like you for a very long time. I know your question perhaps better than you do. whether you know it or not you belong to a collective, and plus or minus a few personality and eductational descrepencies you all are all the same. That is why I have made a very concerted effort to only answer what has been asked. If my answers seem evasive to you then take another look at your question. If you do not like or understand the answer then re ask the question in a more direct way, making sure it includes all of the points you want to discuss.

Otherwise know that my efforts and commitment to our discussion will always reflect your own. If you find me lacking then all you have to do to change it, is to readdress your own efforts.

If you want proof of this then look at how some of the longer post are answered. Honest effort on your part yields complete answers and descriptions. I do not hold grudges nor are I being spiteful for the sake of it.

Again I am not here to win arguments. I am here to answer questions and bring clarity. I can not do this unless the person who has questions or is in a fog is willing to give an honest effort.

[Drich]

It only works if one credits the existence of evil.

Nice avvy, Rhythm.

If one supports the Epicurean 'paradox' the that same one credits the existence of evil.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your follow up comment is proof that the content is strong. The issue is you all either skim through my work looking for key words to formulate a stereotypical atheist argument that would address the stereotypical christian statement.
-or-
You simply do not have the basic foundational understanding needed to ask the questions being asked, or follow the answers being given.

The only common denominator in all of our failures in life (however minor) would be ourselves, stop passing the buck and get better at this.

An example of the second problem is how you champion the word "morality" as the standard in which the universe and everything in it (including God) must yield. Even after a complete explaination of what morality is.

Your explanation of morality was garbage, so it matters very little what point you hope to glean from it.

The Greatest command we have is to Love our Lord God with all of Heart, Mind, Spirit, and Strength. What we will be looking at here is how the Mind" Loves and worships God. Not every "mind" is built the same. Not all minds can comprehend the same things. The Command tells us to love or Worship God at our minds end, or at the fullest capacity that our mind can comprehend. Not to have one singular understanding of God that may push past the understanding or need of some people.

The Omni aspects of God contain enough truth to satisfy the follower who is maybe not meant to spend his or her life studying scripture. For we are a body with many parts. Each part having a different function. Not all can be an eye, nor can all be a hand. all the parts of the body of Christ are needed to be complete.

"Contains enough truth", sounds like a cheap burger "contains enough meat". I have higher standards.

Again if one is destined to be a missionary abroad then why would he need to spent the next 10 years scratching the surface trying to understand the reveled nature of God?

To avoid coming off like a simpleton with nothing but his own opinions (loudly professed as "truth") to share.............

Especially when the "omni" aspects will some what accurately describe what he needs to know.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

It seem you are looking at Christianity like every other world religion. where their is a very specific way to do things and if you do not follow you burn in hell.
Biblically based Christianity does not follow man's understanding of religion.

By george you've fucking got it! Perhaps you give your favorite fairy tale a special pass, I don't.

Then stop messing around trying to entrap me and ask direct questions. Just because I am new to this web site does not me I just fell off of the Jesus truck.

Entrapment by direct questioning..lol. If you worry that you'll be "entrapped" by a direct question, then you should probably step back and reconsider your platform before expressing it to a skeptical audience. The only person who can entrap you here would be yourself. Let's avoid playing the martyr card, especially if you're going to have to lie through your teeth to do it. Should I link some "direct questions" asked and evaded? I don't think you fell off any "jesus truck" amigo, I think you got hit by one.

I have been answering questions of people like you for a very long time. I know your question perhaps better than you do. whether you know it or not you belong to a collective, and plus or minus a few personality and eductational descrepencies you all are all the same. That is why I have made a very concerted effort to only answer what has been asked. If my answers seem evasive to you then take another look at your question. If you do not like or understand the answer then re ask the question in a more direct way, making sure it includes all of the points you want to discuss.

There's bound to be a vast and dismal trail of dissappointed people in the wake of answers like the ones I've seen here. I call bullshit again btw, you've been making a concerted effort to be evasive. Why would I need to take another look at a question I asked? More direct, didn't you just complain about that?

Otherwise know that my efforts and commitment to our discussion will always reflect your own. If you find me lacking then all you have to do to change it, is to readdress your own efforts.

If you want proof of this then look at how some of the longer post are answered. Honest effort on your part yields complete answers and descriptions. I do not hold grudges nor are I being spiteful for the sake of it.

Now that part I believe completely, because it takes me very little effort to have this conversation, and I can't imagine that these sorts of responses take much effort in return.

Again I am not here to win arguments. I am here to answer questions and bring clarity. I can not do this unless the person who has questions or is in a fog is willing to give an honest effort.

If clarity is what you're shooting for, the bar is just a tad bit higher.

[Drich]

The only common denominator in all of our failures in life (however minor) would be ourselves, stop passing the buck and get better at this.

How would you suggest I do that? give you the stereotypical religious answers you are looking for?

Your explanation of morality was garbage, so it matters very little what point you hope to glean from it.

So you can use biblically based knowledge to accuse God of being evil and unfair, but the bible can't in turn be used to bring you clarity or to answer your accusation?
Do you not see the logical fallacy in that line of reasoning?

"Contains enough truth", sounds like a cheap burger "contains enough meat". I have higher standards.

Then it should be easy for you to formally address the failed points in my statement, rather than deferring to white washing with broad baseless accusations that do not really address anything specific.

(This is a standard tactic of trivializing and attempting to dismiss what you can not intellectually answer. Again i know this because you all think alike.)

To avoid coming off like a simpleton with nothing but his own opinions (loudly professed as "truth") to share.............

What if this missionary simply wishes to share medicine or clean drinking water? Why do you think a missionary would ever get this deep into a philosophical conversation???

I severed in several different outreaches and never once did Epicurus come up.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

It is amazing that even after my explanation you still only see what you want to see. Such is the curse of the blind.
So one more time. "close" is all any of us can do. What finite FOOL thinks He can understand the Infinite? Do you not understand this word? Or is it you do not know of your own limited thinking capacity?

[quote]By george you've fucking got it! Perhaps you give your favorite fairy tale a special pass, I don't.

Again because you do not understand what it is Biblical Christianity is all about.

There's bound to be a vast and dismal trail of disappointed people in the wake of answers like the ones I've seen here. I call bullshit again

Why? because you carefully ask questions you think you know the answers to, and have a well rehearsed atheist answer to give. When a biblical answer is given to you that you do not understand or know how to respond to, you dismiss and being evasive. rather than admit you are in over your head.

btw, you've been making a concerted effort to be evasive. Why would I need to take another look at a question I asked?

If you did not get the answer you were looking for then you asked the wrong question.

Otherwise know that my efforts and commitment to our discussion will always reflect your own. If you find me lacking then all you have to do to change it, is to readdress your own efforts.

Now that part I believe completely, because it takes me very little effort to have this conversation, and I can't imagine that these sorts of responses take much effort in return.

Then why are you complaining about the results of your own efforts?

[The Grand Nudger]

There is very little that is "stereotypically christian", 38k denominations, each individual within each denomination with their own personal twist, their own jesus. You seem to have a habit of lumping things together without any thought given to reality of the situation (you're equally dismissive of christians and atheists alike, which is usually a sign of complete ignorance of the varying positions held by any given person).

"Biblically based knowledge"? lol, no. I point out the amusing bits of the fairy tales (both those written and your own). This conversation would be so much more fruitful if you asserted less (even so far as to embed them in your terms) and demonstrated more. You seem to think we're having some sort of debate where you can flash around the word fallacy and all will bow. We aren't, and I don't think that word means what you think it means. You have your own favorite interpretation of scripture, there are others, and none of you can provide any convincing demonstration as to why I should read your fairy tale in the manner that you recommend. That's laying aside the fact that if you ever could provide such a demonstration, you would still be left holding nothing but a fairy tale, unless further demonstration was arranged.

The "failed points" in each and every one of your statements would be a failure to demonstrate the veracity of any given assertion. Other "failed points" for specific claims lie in the inconsistent manner in which you make your claims. Other "failed points" lie in your use of fuzzy langauge, weasel words, and general evasion. Not that any of this hasn't been pointed out to you, but it's easier to prance about claiming that you've somehow been wronged, that no one has addressed this. Well, you haven't, and it has, repeatedly. This is something that we see fairly often from those engaged in defending the indefensible.

-Ignores criticism, evades direct questions, posts large, empty responses-
-"Why aren't you addressing my "arguments?"-
-"Whaaaaaaaaaah-
-Finds anything other than their own bullshit to argue about-

I don't think you have any medicine, or any clean water to share. Demonstrate that you do. If a missionary cannot clearly communicate the message they are hoping to spread, if they cannot address the criticisms or questions of those who they are communicating with, then they aren't very good at this whole missionary bit. Whether or not you had ever had to deal with Epicuras means exactly what? Are you seriously complaining here that you were not prepared for this specific line of questioning? A line of questioning older than your fairy tale and "it never came up"? Well, now it has, and your responses were less than satisfactory. Improve upon them.

You do? You're prepared to demonstrate that you do? That's the entirety of the problem isn't it? You make assertions which you are incapable or unwilling to justify. When you attempt to justify them you seem to believe that more assertions will satisfy the requirement. It's turtles all the way down. Again, I have higher standards.

Why do you suppose that you feel that there are "well rehearsed atheist answers" to these things that you post? How could I possibly know what you might post next in any case? Could it be that your "arguments" have been entirely unoriginal up to this point? If I (or we) have heard all of this before, and yet remain unconvinced, then why would you assume that you could rehash them and I (or we) would miraculously see the light? It isn't going to be by sheer force of your repeating them amigo. I can't say that I consider you much of an authority on anything at all, and each post you make reduces your already dismal level of credibility with me. I'm actually very close to writing you off as a habitual, and intentional, bullshitter. A troll. When your "biblical answers" are evasive, I call them evasive, you even managed to embed evasiveness in your bible waffling around about truth and doctrinal truth. Weasel words and platitudes. Bring me something that flies over my head, I love it when things fly over my head, gives me some direction as to where I might learn something new. You haven't yet.

Or perhaps I didn't get the answer I was looking for because you don't have it.

"When I fail it's your fault", sorry, no. Man up, if you want to pretend that you're some kind of missionary here then you need to accept that it is your failure to effectively communicate the concepts and ideas you are hoping to explain. Otherwise you'll never be any good at this (or anything else, really). What kind of missionary blames the natives when they "just don't get it"? This is how a child responds to criticism.

I'm not, I'm simply mentioning that your efforts have been disappointing, and even that I only mention because you seem to be so convinced that you have something worthwhile to share. If you do, you haven't been able to express it very well.


-Notice, while we're on the subject, the lengths you've gone to in order to bicker with me about what is essentially nothing, repeating yourself as though you've been talking to yourself. Compare that with the number of posts you've made to justify your assertions. Why is it that you seem to be so willing to mope around blaming those you disagree with for not understanding what you have failed to effectively communicate, but completely unwilling to provide a convincing demonstration of these things which you hope to "clarify"? Personally, I call massive bullshit.-

[Mister Agenda]

Perhaps you did not understand the promise of the OP. The first paragraph in my post was taken from another forum written by another user asking How Christians address this misidentified paradox. That is not to say it is not a paradox of personal logic, but that should point to the short comings of individual understanding, rather than the subject in general.

I understood you were quoting someone else, that's why I said 'this guy' instead of 'you' or 'Drich'.

again the statement you are commenting against is apart of the original question asked.
(not apart of my response.)

Obviously.

Epicurus was guilty of affirming the consequent, so why would I address him head on?

In the interest of brevity, I'll stop here. If you can demonstrate the Epicurean Paradox affirms the consequent, you've demolished it, full stop. A better question would be why wouldn't you address him head on if his reasoning is fallacious? If you can, perhaps you'll be kind enough to to demonstrate the fallacy you believe is contained in the argument?

[Mister Agenda]

[makes a fresh cup of tea, and with bright eyes and a cheerful smile, props chin on hand and sets about enjoying Mister Agenda once again thoroughly demolishing stupidity.]

I blush.

And appreciate that you are not dismayed by my long posts.

[thesummerqueen]

Only on days like today when I'm frightfully busy.

[Mister Agenda]

LOL!