RE: Epicurean Paradox
April 4, 2012 at 9:03 am
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2012 at 9:25 am by The Grand Nudger.)
LOL, Drich.......
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=modus+tollens
Sorry, you've been pissing in the wind all this time. I've been having a laugh though, since the argument actually denies the consequent (and is valid)......lol. You see, the point of the trilemna is that this -omni- god concept rules out the existence of evil, by definition. Your defense of the omni god by way of invoking free will has no relevance to the proposition at all (and falls under the remit of one of the propositions). "The Problem of Evil" as this argument is formulated is that it exists, not where it comes from. When you pass the buck onto man, you simply fall prey to the "able, but not willing" portion. Unless you would propose that god will not wipe out evil due to being bound by his word/free will, In which case, "willing, but not able". "Able, and willing" is completely out of the ballpark, if evil exists at all. Little something for everyone. The free will defense, (the most notable of which being Platinga's) only attempts to mount the defense by removing or redefining omnipotence. It's already been mentioned to you that this is a valid way to escape the argument, but you seem completely unwilling to ditch any of these -omni- claims (remember me asking you this directly....pages ago?). Waffling on about "enough truth" and "unauthorized biographies" etc.
But who cares? This god business isn't a matter of logic or philosophy, just superstition elevated to an institution. Now, on to the part where you justify your assertions, correct?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=modus+tollens
Sorry, you've been pissing in the wind all this time. I've been having a laugh though, since the argument actually denies the consequent (and is valid)......lol. You see, the point of the trilemna is that this -omni- god concept rules out the existence of evil, by definition. Your defense of the omni god by way of invoking free will has no relevance to the proposition at all (and falls under the remit of one of the propositions). "The Problem of Evil" as this argument is formulated is that it exists, not where it comes from. When you pass the buck onto man, you simply fall prey to the "able, but not willing" portion. Unless you would propose that god will not wipe out evil due to being bound by his word/free will, In which case, "willing, but not able". "Able, and willing" is completely out of the ballpark, if evil exists at all. Little something for everyone. The free will defense, (the most notable of which being Platinga's) only attempts to mount the defense by removing or redefining omnipotence. It's already been mentioned to you that this is a valid way to escape the argument, but you seem completely unwilling to ditch any of these -omni- claims (remember me asking you this directly....pages ago?). Waffling on about "enough truth" and "unauthorized biographies" etc.
But who cares? This god business isn't a matter of logic or philosophy, just superstition elevated to an institution. Now, on to the part where you justify your assertions, correct?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
