RE: Epicurean Paradox
April 4, 2012 at 7:43 am
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2012 at 7:43 am by Drich.)
(April 4, 2012 at 2:09 am)Rhythm Wrote: Demonstrate the veracity of your assertions regarding "the nature of evil"? The free will defense is unconvincing, unless you can demonstrate that free will bit as well. Just making more work for yourself. Now you're stuck defending two ghostly concepts against demonstrable objections.
"You criticisms are not logical because you failed to account for magic"
I will be most happy to. But,thier is a little matter we must resolve First:
" Regardless of what you think of the biblical definitions, even if you took the biblical definitions of of this equation, Epicurus has still affirmed the consequent. How you ask? Because the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false)."
Conceed this point and i will most happily move to the next. After all, one has absolutly nothing to do with the other.
