Epicurean Paradox

[Minimalist]

But we live in a fallen world.

Only in the imaginations of batshit crazy theists.

[Drich]

I meant that in the most sincere way!

At the peak of my faith I can tell you, in all honesty, that I never witnessed a miracle. I would always hear about them from other Christians I knew. Even then, those very same Christians would pray for my sicknesses and I would honestly tell them I wasn't healed. My faith meter on max we're talking.. And everyone looking on or involved in prayer would just say 'keep the faith'! Well.. where's the results? Like I said, never experienced or saw any. Only word of mouth is where my evidence for them lies.

Sorry about my rant. Didn't mean to epically derail the discussion but I couldn't resist letting that out....

Not at all it helps me understand the larger picture. For instance you were looking for a God to do something for you, and in exchange you would reward Him with your "faith."

My question is what if God did not want to be worshiped in such a way? What if He did not feel he needed to bargain with you for your obedience? Do you think He would have granted any of your wishes? (No matter what the reason.)

[Drich]

Surely you can do better than that as a refutation.

If something seems too simply then perhaps it warrants a deeper look.

Stop believing in an empirically proven and testable theory as opposed to the mythological supreme being posited among thousands.
That is a poor comparison and you know it. The point is very clear. If Evil is MALICIOUS, which spiteful and deliberate,

This seems to be the problem. You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word in it's current context.

ma·li·cious   /məˈlɪʃəs/ Show Spelled[muh-lish-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1. full of, characterized by, or showing malice; malevolent; spiteful: malicious gossip.
2. Law . vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose.

it requires the presupposition of a God in which to deliberately spite.

Actually no it doesn't. It can mean vicious or mischievous motivation, which can be considered spiteful but it can also mean a wanton motivation. What is wanton?

wan·ton   /ˈwɒntn/ Show Spelled[won-tn] Show IPA
adjective
1. done, shown, used, etc., maliciously or unjustifiably: a wanton attack; wanton cruelty.
2. deliberate and without motive or provocation; uncalled-for; headstrong; willful: Why jeopardize your career in such a wanton way?
3. without regard for what is right, just, humane, etc.; careless; reckless: a wanton attacker of religious convictions.
4. sexually lawless or unrestrained; loose; lascivious; lewd: wanton behavior.
5. extravagantly or excessively luxurious, as a person, manner of living, or style.
Did you see it? Deliberate and without motivation or provication. Which make your argument meaningless. Because again as I said from the beginning you do not have to even acknowledge God or His expressed will to be found maliciously outside of it.

The same goes for Intent, without belief in God, it is impossible to intentionally go against his will any more than you can intentionally go against the will of the faerie queen.

but you can intently stay with in your own expressed morality can you not? If yes, and this morality is found to be outside of God's expressed will then where does that leave you?
Wan-ton more?

You misunderstand the concept because your mind is too deeply ingrained with the presupposition of a 'God'.

Don't forget the dictionary too. I have a tendency to use words by their given definitions rather than slang interpretation of them.

God has not made himself evident, nor has he provided anything to suggest his existence is likely.

..To those who do not ask seek or knock for said evidence.

All arguments about creation are meaningless if there lots of equiprobable explanations for the same effect. I'm being kind when I say equiprobable to avoid accusation of bias.
The same goes for the bible, but without using personal bias, you are unable to conceive of the idea that the Bible being an account of the means to know this being is not the most probable explanation for its existence.

By design, foreknowledge of God is a gift and not the result of an intellectual exercise (as if we can earn the knowledge of God)
If you want to know God you have to ask seek and knock like He has commanded everyone else.
You nor anyone else will be able to deduce or reason God into existence with what you currently have been given.

The same does not go for gravity, there are not equiprobable explanations of it. We see its effects everyday, and they are measurable, we can even conceive of a gravitational constant.
You can do no such thing for a supreme being.

I see the results of God everyday, and see the effects of God on the lives of the people I interact with daily. Just because you do not know what to look or even what you are looking at, does not mean God is not to be seen.
You nor those you hold in high esteem are the pillars of the universe you understand them to be.

In doing so, you dismiss all other explanations for both the universe, the bible, and every tenet of your own personal believes, based on the private assertion of its fact.

The Same Exact thing can be said about you and what you believe.

When you throw a ball, you trust it will come down again, because you have observed it as such.
When you pray to God, you trust he answers, because you privately believe that he does, and if he doesn't you must have done something wrong, or had a false motive.

You assume too much. For prayer is not the formal wishing ceremony you have made it out to be here. If one prays according to the prayer modeled in scripture then you will indeed have it answered.

If you can't tell the difference between Gravity and God, you have a serious problem in your life, that you cannot discern, or filter the fictitious from the evident.
All you can do, is assert the fictitious and fervently hope you aren't suffering from delusion.

Or you simply need this to be true in order that you may in good conscience dismiss what you do not want or are afraid to explore on your own.

---

I can't help but notice that people who choose to hand the reigns over to God don't seem to enjoy any special immunity to natural evil.

You misunderstand. God has handed the reigns over to us. If we have been subjected to evil it is because of the nature of the world we have created for ourselves.

Sure can't. You're the humble one who accepts that you're not God, (just one of his representatives on Earth) maybe he'll stop earthquakes and storms for you since you know your place.

I have a feeling the rest of your post will now be out of context simply because you did not take the time to read/understand what I originally wrote.

Perhaps my writing was not as clear as I thought. I only listed natural evil.

As I pointed out "Evil" is not a thing. therefore your assessment of it was dismissed.

The whole point of the post, from start to finish, was about natural evil.

Evil can only exist in the hearts sentient beings like man. That means even though you personally proclaim something naturally evil does not mean it qualifies as evil according to the bible.

Y'know, another explanation is that there's no perfect craftsman so nothing is perfect. Our planet was formed by natural processes and is impersonally dangerous and there's no supernatural power watching out for us or out to get us. We're tribal and prone to combativeness, and are our own worst enemy because there's nothing higher on the food chain anymore.

Why would the God of the universe.. Meaning the God who put in, and maintains all of the natural processes we know of and a universe more that we do not, have to resort to using supernatural means to create?

Believing in a supernatural God is a personal misunderstanding not a scriptural one.

---

[quote='Drich']
So we can decide where we want to spend eternity. Do we want to live with out sin for an eternity with God? or do we want to be eternally seperated from God?

So, let's sum up. God will not impede on the free will of a child raping murderer, because he wants you(and others) to make the decision to be with or without him.

Sorry but you have not refuted the Epicurean quote. In fact, you have explained his malevolence in detail.

wow it took you a lot longer than some of the others to come up with this conclusion, but you finally got here on your own! Know that this challenge has been presented 3 seperate times and has been answered everytime with the same observation. If you want an answer then go back and re read some of the prior post. I think 2 or 3 pages back was the last one.

[NoMoreFaith]

Are you seriously cherry picking wanton out of the definition of malicious and then using a second order definition to obtain your means?

Second order definitions do not equate to the primary. The primary itself uses malicious in motivation.

The usage of wanton in this order, in context, "Why jeopardize your career in such a wanton way?" requires the assumption you are aware your actions jeopardise your goal, whereas non-belief in God does not presuppose the awareness. An inaccurate context undermines your game sir.

Word games hold little interest for me. If you wish to continue to do so, I suggest we play scrabble, and not debate, because I have no interest if you continue with the move the goalpost manoeuvre.

No doubt you will claim that this rather twisted method of getting to without motivation, despite the second order of definition, defies the usage you have already used it.

However, I am aware of your response, and it will be entirely assertion that your second order definition is correct, in which case I should point out, that you should be more careful with your words, as if you are unable to choose words which support your case, then you are unable to support debate in your corner.

Don't forget the dictionary too. I have a tendency to use words by their given definitions rather than slang interpretation of them.

As in using the secondary definition of a word plucked from the secondary definition of malicious?

You're funny.

Naturally by "funny" I mean plucking the word impertinent from the second order definition of funny, and the second order definition of impertinent, of which second definition is incongruously absurd.

The same goes for the bible, but without using personal bias, you are unable to conceive of the idea that the Bible being an account of the means to know this being is not the most probable explanation for its existence.

On the contrary, I am open to ideas about how and why the bible exists, and I am aware of its questionably historical origins. The question is; can you step outside your assertions long enough to long back at your belief?

I see the results of God everyday, and see the effects of God on the lives of the people I interact with daily.

Aah, yet you cannot see the effects of the fae, who enter our world from the seelie and unseelie kingdoms? Or the works of Anubis?
I said you'd start asserting. Glad to see you don't like to disappoint.

You nor those you hold in high esteem are the pillars of the universe you understand them to be.

Oh but they are. My sons and wife are pillars of my universe, and thats all I need. They are tangible, loving and I see evidence truly every day. But mythological beasts and demons? A sound mind has no need.

So who do I hold in such high esteem.

The Same Exact thing can be said about you and what you believe.

Again, on the contrary, I merely ask for something more than dusty old myths to convince me.
Its not a lot to ask. I look for magic and wonder everywhere I look. I find it, regularly, but none of it supernatural.

You assume too much. For prayer is not the formal wishing ceremony you have made it out to be here. If one prays according to the prayer modeled in scripture then you will indeed have it answered.

You assume the rhetorical you as a personal one. My statement of prayer matches a great many people. The fact that your version of prayer requires God to do nothing, does not prove that he answered them.

Or you simply need this to be true in order that you may in good conscience dismiss what you do not want or are afraid to explore on your own.

Now you assume too much. Why would I not want eternal life? Why would I not want comfort of those who die. Why would I not want a wonderful reason for pain and suffering that justifies every inch of it.

No. You assume again I do not want these things. You merely assert that I don't. The question is; Why should I believe in the faeries, if the faeries refuse to offer evidence of their existence except in the dark private thoughts of the faithfully deluded.

That is not a sound argument. Life is too wonderful to put stock in faery tales and...

To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.

[Faith No More]

wow it took you a lot longer than some of the others to come up with this conclusion, but you finally got here on your own! Know that this challenge has been presented 3 seperate times and has been answered everytime with the same observation. If you want an answer then go back and re read some of the prior post. I think 2 or 3 pages back was the last one.

I didn't come to that conclusion, you led me to it. As for the rest of this thread, I have yet to see you give a valid explanation for why god's need for people to worship is him is so great that he allows the cruelest things to happen to innocent people, but then again, I haven't been reading all of the long posts.

[Ace Otana]

Just so we are clear I am giving you the definition for malicious, because your understanding of the words seems to be more of an emotional state.

ma·li·cious   /məˈlɪʃəs/ Show Spelled[muh-lish-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1. full of, characterized by, or showing malice; malevolent; spiteful: malicious gossip.
2. Law . vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose.

I know what malicious is. In no way does it describe me.

In this way Evil is a vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purposed state outside of God's expressed Standard, law, or will. Again your personal acknowledgment of your placement outside of God's Expressed Will is not necessary.

I don't believe in god, so I don't believe in this law or will of his. Remember, I can't have any intention to go against god's will if I don't believe god even exists.

You will be judged as such independently from your acknowledgment of God, the standard He has given, or your proximity to it.

Yeah and you may end up being judged and sent to hell by Allah or some other god. You shouldn't state that 'I will' end up anything. You don't know jack shit. You only believe you do. It's just a belief, nothing more. One that I laugh at daily.

[Drich]

[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='270368' dateline='1334090747']
[quote]Are you seriously cherry picking wanton out of the definition of malicious and then using a second order definition to obtain your means?[/quote]

wanton describes the situation you have place yourself in I did not so much cherry pick as identified the ques that surround your chosen way of life, and paired it with a legitmate defination for the word wanton.

[quote]Second order definitions do not equate to the primary. [/quote]Even so they still are recognized as Definitions of the word being defined.

[quote]The usage of wanton in this order, in context, "Why jeopardize your career in such a wanton way?" requires the assumption you are aware your actions jeopardies your goal[/quote]If it did It would go against the preceding definition. Read the definition again.
2. deliberate and without motive or provocation; uncalled-for; headstrong; willful:
None of which is supports your assertion of the example given.
Why Jeopardize your career in such a head strong or willful way? This speaks in no way to an assumption of anything. Head strong means stubborn. Stubborn simply means one is locked into a willful course of action. One does not have to be aware of anything other than his own will to be head strong. You are over reaching in your interpretation of the definition. Simply read what has been written on the page. You get in trouble when ever you assume an assumption is needed to interpret a simple definition.

[quote]Word games hold little interest for me. If you wish to continue to do so, I suggest we play scrabble, and not debate, because I have no interest if you continue with the move the goalpost maneuverer.[/quote] As i said if you think a concept is too simple then perhaps you should take a deeper look. I did not move the goal post you simply have been made more aware of them and where they truly stand.

[quote]However, I am aware of your response, and it will be entirely assertion that your second order definition is correct, in which case I should point out, that you should be more careful with your words, as if you are unable to choose words which support your case, then you are unable to support debate in your corner.[/quote]This sounds like sour grapes to me. I word and phrase my initial posts to speak to simple precepts and concepts. If someone has a question then I am able to expound. Where people like you get in trouble is when you believe a simple precept is as deep as you initially perceive to be, and make assertions based on what you think you know, rather than ask questions defining the subject being discussed.

I have found (on this web site) if I put out too much information in the beginning it is lost to you all or dismissed and I just have to go back to the original post 3 to 4 times with everyone who does not get the complete precept. Why? Because you all have a closed minded approach to God and Christianity, and seem to believe that you have a complete understanding of what is being discussed no matter what it is. Which has to be corrected in order for us to move forward. Therefore i found it much easier to break everything down into little pieces and explain as we go. Which works fine until someone comes in and thinks he knows what is being discussed and feels the "goal posts" have been moved when he finds out things are not as simple as he thought they were.

[quote]As in using the secondary definition of a word plucked from the secondary definition of malicious?[/quote]Plucked because your actions demanded to be accounted for in such away. Understand whether first run definition or 10th run definition if a definition is apart of the word being defined it is a valid interpretation of the word, even if you don't like it, and it makes you orginal assessment look foolish.

[quote]On the contrary, I am open to ideas about how and why the bible exists, and I am aware of its questionably historical origins. The question is; can you step outside your assertions long enough to long back at your belief?[/quote]To whom and how?

[quote]Oh but they are. My sons and wife are pillars of my universe, and thats all I need. They are tangible, loving and I see evidence truly every day. But mythological beasts and demons? A sound mind has no need.[/quote]If this were completely true then why spend anytime refuting the myths? I do not hold Thor Anubis in any regard that is why I do not see a need to be apart of those types of discussions. You on the other hand have something compelling you to defend you way of life for the sake of your family.
Otherwise why spend so much time here?

[quote]Again, on the contrary, I merely ask for something more than dusty old myths to convince me. [/quote]Then ask God to show you some new material.

[quote]Its not a lot to ask. [/quote]Then just ask seek and knock as outlined in Luke 11.

[quote] I look for magic and wonder everywhere I look. I find it, regularly, but none of it supernatural.[/quote]God is the Father of the natural universe. Perhaps the reason you have not found God is because you are looking in the wrong places.

[quote][You assume the rhetorical you as a personal one. My statement of prayer matches a great many people. [/quote]Does it match the bible? (Hint- It does not) Who do you pray to? The God of the bible or "a great number of people?"
If you seek an audience with the almighty God then wouldn't it stand to reason to pray to Him as He has outlined in the bible, and not how popular culture defines prayer?

[quote]The fact that your version of prayer requires God to do nothing, does not prove that he answered them.[/quote]Please by all means, Explain to me "my method of prayer."
Show me where it requires God to do nothing.

[quote]Why would I not want comfort of those who die. Why would I not want a wonderful reason for pain and suffering that justifies every inch of it.[/quote]I did not say you wanted eternal life. I have only ever told you how to get the answers for the questions you have directly from God.

Eternal life is a whole nother matter.

---

[quote='Faith No More' pid='270382' dateline='1334091674']
[quote='Drich']
wow it took you a lot longer than some of the others to come up with this conclusion, but you finally got here on your own! Know that this challenge has been presented 3 seperate times and has been answered everytime with the same observation. If you want an answer then go back and re read some of the prior post. I think 2 or 3 pages back was the last one.[/quote]

I didn't come to that conclusion, you led me to it. As for the rest of this thread, I have yet to see you give a valid explanation for why god's need for people to worship is him is so great that he allows the cruelest things to happen to innocent people, but then again, I haven't been reading all of the long posts.
[/quote]

In short there are no "innocent people." All are guilty of sin. We live in a world ruled by sin therefore we are subject to the consequences of sin.

So why does God allow this to happen? Because control of this world has been given to man. It is our responsibility to mange or control all aspects of what we have been given. If you do not like how things go then it is on you and your fellow man to effect change.

---

[quote='Ace Otana' pid='270410' dateline='1334095568']


[[quote]I know what malicious is. In no way does it describe me.[/quote]Do you know what Wanton is?

[quote]I don't believe in god, so I don't believe in this law or will of his. Remember, I can't have any intention to go against god's will if I don't believe god even exists.[/quote]This is an example of being wanton Wanton is head strong; reckless, stubbornness. Wantonness is a defining characteristic of malicious behavior.

[quote]Yeah and you may end up being judged and sent to hell by Allah or some other god. [/quote]If the God of the bible is not the God of Heaven then I will welcome Hell.

[quote]You shouldn't state that 'I will' end up anything. You don't know jack shit. You only believe you do. It's just a belief, nothing more. One that I laugh at daily.[/quote]All of our days are numbered, will you laugh when you have no more days left?

As you can see I am willing to accept Hell if my beliefs are wrong. Can you say the same?

[Ace Otana]

Do you know what Wanton is?
This is an example of being wanton Wanton is head strong; reckless, stubbornness. Wantonness is a defining characteristic of malicious behavior.

Yes I know what it is. It still does not describe me.
If you wish to describe me correctly then you'll need to use these words -
Ethical: honourable, moral, upright, honest.

Rational: endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings. Agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible. Having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense.

Logical: Reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.

If the God of the bible is not the God of Heaven then I will welcome Hell.

And if every religion was wrong? And that you'd simply cease to exist? Better way to go personally, but that's me.
Remember where religion came from. It came from the imagination of the minds of man. Man who is so easily blinded by his imagination and fear of the unknown. That alone should tell you to have considerable doubt over such crazy religious beliefs.

All of our days are numbered, will you laugh when you have no more days left?

As you can see I am willing to accept Hell if my beliefs are wrong. Can you say the same?

Yeah, I'd laugh when there are no more days. Because I've had a great ride so far.

When it comes to religious beliefs in some kind of made up afterlife, I'll only accept the situation I'm in if it actually happens. Until then, it's ruled out as complete nonsense. I'm not concerned in the slightest. Why should I be?
After all, I haven't rejected god, I've rejected the claim. The claim which came from very religious men. I'm pretty sure with god being 'all knowing/wise' he'd understand. So what do I have to worry about?
Religion claims I'm a sinner and hell bound, haven't heard a thing from god. So what reason is there to concern myself over what YOU believe? Huh?

[Autumnlicious]

All of our days are numbered, will you laugh when you have no more days left?

As you can see I am willing to accept Hell if my beliefs are wrong. Can you say the same?

This is what passes for religious discourse here?

"I'm willing to put a Blaster to my head. Can you say the same?"

"Dude, blasters are fictional."

Nothing like "accepting" the consequences of being wrong... where consequences have been cleverly defined to "prove" the veracity of your system. Heh.

Just a gem I noted and thought funny.

[Faith No More]

In short there are no "innocent people." All are guilty of sin. We live in a world ruled by sin therefore we are subject to the consequences of sin.

This is just nonsense your religion sells, because if there is no disease, no one wants the cure.

So why does God allow this to happen? Because control of this world has been given to man. It is our responsibility to mange or control all aspects of what we have been given. If you do not like how things go then it is on you and your fellow man to effect change.

So god allows little children to be raped because of their ancestors wrongdoing? You keep arguing against the Epicurean quote, but every time you describe a quality of your god, you just keep reinforcing it.