Epicurean Paradox

[Perhaps]

You forget that the abstractions themselves are created by the mind. Why wouldn't words ascribed to represent the abstraction not capture it fully? Further, providing a concrete definition fro a word does not make the concept subject or meaningless outside perception.

Have you never encountered an emotion or an instance where words literally couldn't describe your perception? Language is built on semantics and often fails to fully capture the meaning of abstract ideas. I do agree, however, that abstractions are themselves created by the mind.

Moreover, I didn't mean that by providing a concrete definition you made it subjective and meaningless; I meant that your definition as it stands is subjective in so much as it begs the interpretation of 'undesired'.

Yes, we can, since we are the ones who created those abstractions. We cannot know the concepts of benevolence and evil outside our consciousness because they do no exist outside it. To the extent they exist, they can be fathomed.

Suppose there are things which do exist outside of our consciousness, what them becomes of your statement that the concepts of benevolence and evil don't exist outside of ourselves? Surely they wouldn't be our 'benevolence' or our 'evil', but isn't that what we are addressing in this discussion - the disconnect between our linguistics and their application to entities outside of ourselves?

Yeah - no action - if you ignore the declaration of Jake Scully as the "chosen one" in the beginning of the movie or the directing of all creatures against humans in the climax, thereby saving the Navi's collective asses. I think that that deity definitely proved that it was both capable and willing to intervene and prevent violence and destruction when no other course was open.

Perhaps I misunderstood the plot line, but it seemed to me as if the creatures came to the aid of the Navi against the humans of their own accord. The energy united them, but it doesn't indicate that it specifically moved the rest of nature to fight against the human invasion. In my interpretation, the deity took no part in the violence, not to stop it, nor to fight for one side of the other. The deity was outside the realms of such violence, which was enacted by the nature (humans, Navi, creatures, etc.) itself.

Regardless of which one of our interpretations of the plot is correct, we can take my interpretation as simply an example of what a non-acting deity would look like.

And that is your error. Firstly, our definitions do capture our abstractions. Therefore, I see no reason, apart from special pleading, for why god would not be bound by them.

This is where we differ, which is fine.