Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

Not really necessary. No matter what you say, your bible has no relevance to the philosophical argument.

What if the "philosophical argument is based on the content of the Bible?

The bible didn't redefine evil, evil was a concept already considered, and moreover, is understood in that way more so than the biblical way by any generation of philosophers.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion? (understand what ever reference you list will be scrutinized so please do your research lest you wind up looking like the last guy the posted th first thing a google search provided.)

All your argument states is that God cannot be evil because his will is good, and it just circular (again).

No, you need my argument to be reasoned out that way, so you create a straw man rather than address what has actually been said.

Again Good and Evil are not absolute standards that have intrinsic values apart from God. We label everything in the Expressed will of God "good" because it is of God. Do you understand the difference? The bible is saying God IS the standard of Good, therefore everything He does is considered good simply because He is the standard. Your argument says I believe there is a universal "good' and everything god does meets this standard. Again the difference being you believe in a standard apart from God as being good, and the bible tells you that God is the good standard.

It does not change the problem of evil.

Indeed it does. In your understanding of good, If Good is a positive force then "evil is a negative force. (Yin/Yang) Therefore if "good" or the representative of good is truly good then why allow for evil? Right?

Well when God becomes the standard of Good rather than yielding to it (as you and apparently Epicurus understand it to mean) Then the allowance of evil can be understood to be the result or proof of free will, and Free will is indeed a gift of God. Therefore if one asks why does God allow for evil? we can look back and say it is because He allows for free will.

The problem of what is understood to be evil.

Indeed.
Look at how the definition of Evil has had to change and be twisted to convict God with crimes against humanity. What foolish logic has one use the bible to be a witness to these so called crimes but refutes the bible when it is used to explain away and dismiss these accusations?

The problem of moral injustice,

The problem of "Moral Justice" is.. the problem of existence outside of a self righteous society. There is no such thing as "moral Justice" in God's economy, and before you twist my words, know it is because "Moral justice" is a oxymoron. For how can their be true justice when your standard of morality has Incorporated sin into it's core standards?

the problem of excessive suffering. All of which refutes a benevolent god.

Use the bible to define this word, or use it to show me where God where God is called benevolent at all.

In your philosophy, god is the definition,

In the Bible God is defined as being the standard of Good and Righteousness.

I am simply going to change your next few statements to read correctly.

whereas philosophically, evil, moral, benevolence are clear concepts.

Where as man has had to change the meaning of, and add some of the following terms: good, Evil, Morality, and benevolence. In order to convict God with crimes against Humanity so people who do not wish to submit themselves to Him, can feel justified in their personal faith/beliefs.

If you can't engage the argument philosophically, then all you can do is repeat circular mantras that have no place in intelligent reasoning.

If you cannot engage the arguments i present directly as written, then know as your work has shown. Your efforts can be identified as a straw man fallacy, and summarily dismissed.

Do you not see the patterns repeating from one post to the next?

You have it in your mind in your philosophy that God is (X) I show you through Scripture that God is not (X) God is (Y). Yet you all (Truly no offense intended) who has a very very basic grasp of the God of the bible desperately hang on to the preconception of God you have Closed Your Minds around some time ago. Why? to preserve the validity of your arguments. What happened to the thinkers mantra? Simply follow where the facts lead. Where ever it may go. You all seem to follow the thinkers mantra so long as it does not take you to God.

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='267696' dateline='1333544634']
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?

Again Epicurus still affirms the consequent. The fallacy has no bearing on truth just a preset of conditions which have been met by his argument. Just need to hear you say these word or a simply "yes i agree" will do.