Epicurean Paradox

[genkaus]

So If I were to say Red Riding hood hood was blue I am trying to determine whether or not she existed?

No, but you are claiming that a red hood which is colored blue can exist.

How do you know I am not simply stating what I have been told because I never actually read the story?

Because you didn't simply state - you attempted to justify statements.

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.

An apt analogy of your attitude towards god.

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.

You do realize that the only person this applies to is you?

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?

You cannot "know" his attributes and then determine if he exists -because knowledge implies certainty. You can assume certain attributes and then show that it can possibly exist. In your case - since you chose self-contradictory attributes - it cannot.

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.

It its the meaning of the words that is established a-priori. What you are trying to do is to change the established meaning.

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?

Because the known nature of god did not come from bible. Epicurus lived long before your bible was written and therefore he did not use it as a basis for his paradox.

Which is why, the bible a as a standard can be questioned.


Further, even if bible was used to to come up with such a paradox, it is not a coherent, logical, scientific theory based on a single premise. It is a bunch of events, stories, parables, metaphors etc. which are inconsistent, irrational and often self-contradictory. So accepting one part of bible as the premise does not necessitate accepting whole of it as one.