Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

You judging the Biblical God to be "good" is a woeful misjudgment.

By what standard?

Who said anything about complete all encompassing benevolence?

You just keep moving those goalposts don't you?

I never set this standard. You assumed it. I pointed out your assumption is wrong. That is unless you can show Book, Chapter and Verse that says God is "Omni-benevolent." If you can not, then know your argument that attributes "Omni-benevolence" to God (Much like the work of Epicurus) is in error. That in turn means all of your assertions based on that foundation also fails. Again which is why I can identify the Epicurean Paradox as being little more than the personal grudge one man had against his understanding of God.

This is a general failure to read your bible. A large portion of the sentient being God created to exist in Heaven, decided sometime ago they did not want to live with God.

And do you know why everyone starting hating god enough that they couldn't stand being near him?

Yes. Because they wanted what you want. The ability to be completely free and uninhibited to make any choice they want free from any and all consequences. Their Pride told them they deserved it and it was their right to live this way.

Oh wait, that's right, because the colossal bastard created everyone with no greater purpose in mind than to exist in -complete servitude and submission- to him.

Which is why you have been given the option to opt out of creation at the end of your time here.

Your god concept doesn't understand equality.

Maybe because we are not equal to God.

Indeed, he's completely incompatible with, and diametrically opposed to, the concept.

So what? What will you do about it? "opt out?"

Because (like all of you) Not everyone wants to spend an eternity in the presents of the God of the bible.

You got that right. Who the fuck would want to be near such a cosmic cunt for a minute, let alone an eternity?

Again then simply opt out. That is the purpose of this life you have been given. to see whether you want to spend an eternity with God. Not everyone wants to. That means not everyone will. Now that you have made your decision, what will you do with the rest of your time as a member of creation?

Congratulations. You couldn't resolve the Epicurean paradox and now you're on the verge of creating another paradox depending on your theology and "interpretation of scripture". You cannot still exist in Hell and remove yourself from an omnipresent being whom you assert Hell is apart from. That's a contradiction.

Only if you do not understand what is being implied.

Your continuity, your soul, your "sanity" is a gift. Therefore it is apart of creation. Hell is the eternal separation of your core elements and what God has given you to bind all of that together. The "Spiritual dirt" you were made from will remain. what bound it all together into a cohesive sentient being will return to God.
If you are familiar with the story of Nebuchadnezzar (The book of Daniel)God did something similar to Him while He was alive. What was left was the primal animal or the frame work your soul inhabits.

Hell isn't enough. To achieve liberation from such a being, one must simply cease to exist altogether, so the tyrant god has no more power over them, any more.

In part, a large portion of you will.Your mind will buckle under the enormity of simply staring into the abyss. When the reality of Hell consumes you, and the thought of an eternity of that life sinks in, what has not buckled will break and everything you were in this life will be reduced to a primal mass of fear and instinct.

The problem here is you wish to be God yourself. You are not. Therefore you will be subject to His Expressed Will orEternial separation.

Do fuck off. Next minute you'll pull that ridiculous "You're just atheists because you want to sin! A-bloo-bloo-bloo!" statement out of your arse for us. That's not what he's saying at all with that thought experiment.

then explain

No freedom? What a miserable bore-fest of a destiny. Even you don't deserve such a fate, no one does.

Indeed! no one does. That is not to say we can be given this destiny if we simply ask seek and knock.


2

. Wouldn't it be actually foolish to abuse our divinely-given freewill and not make any choices but throw it back in God's face?

you only have one choice, because you were born destine for eternal separation. So doing nothing would have you eternally separated from God. The only choice/change you have is to elect to be apart of Creation for eternity.

So if you looking to live your life and not make a choice just to throw in God's face. Know He beat you to it.

3. Why do you insist on spelling "eternal separation" incorrectly over and over again?

I am Not a well educated man. I did not know it was spelled incorrectly, and spell check did not get it. (Now ask why I will continue to do so)

4. Why are you constantly fucking up simple quote tags?

See above

I found this saying to be true in life. Those who can, do. Those who can't teach. Those who can't teach correct others on message boards when their arguments are weak and failing.

---

That is where you are wrong. The purpose of discussion of any attributes of god is ultimately to determine if such an entity is realistically possible.

So If I were to say Red Riding hood hood was blue I am trying to determine whether or not she existed? How do you know I am not simply stating what I have been told because I never actually read the story? Maybe I because of what others have told me to think about riding hood's hood I never bother to look or read for myself.
Therefore I am arguing the foolish conclusions of a self deluded person who makes claims against what he himself either does not understand or has a personal vendetta against. If this is the case is it not wise to establish the known information about God before trying to discern whether or not He exists? After all how can one make an honest determination if one refuses to examine what is known?

What you and you friend are trying to do by invoking the great powers of the red herring is to preserve you preconceived understandings of God without addressing what you can not easily account for.

You talk about properly representing the subject and accepting biblical standards about it. But the problem here is that its the biblical standards that are wrong and self-contradictory and it is those standards against which criticism is being leveled.

Then answer this simple question. How is it you can use the bible to convict the known nature of God (As with the Epicurean 'paradox") and yet dismiss the very same bible when a coherent defense is found with in the same pages the original accusation is levied?

Do you not see the logical fallacy here?