Epicurean Paradox

[NoMoreFaith]

Aaah, NOW we don't use the dictionary then.

This must be one of your favorite fallacies. Because you beg the question alot. Do you not have any other tools of communication avaiable?

For as long as you continue with the Bible must be used to define Evil fallacy. Yes. Yes I will.
For as long as you avoid the questions. Yes I will. Calling it a fallacy is simply argumentum ad nauseum unless you prove it, and you have only done so in your own mind.

Who are you to judge pain and suffering needless?

As a being capable of empathy. Something your god is incapable of.

Appearently you do not even understand the core Epicurean Arguement. It was not to the Hebrew God (as he would have known Him) Epicurs directed his efforts (In 300 BC) to the prominate gods of Rome.

You're getting there Drich, slowly and surely. So you can see how useless it is to use the bible to define what evil is in this context. It is not how Epicurus was using it.

Now, you have avoided the question. So I will ask until you again.

Is YOUR God, omnipotent. Is YOUR God, not malevolent.

In short Epicurus did not understand the biblical concept of evil either. His idea was based on the Greek understanding of the word which is far different than your modern wester defination of the word.

In short, therefore Biblical definition is irrelevant to the argument.

In short Epericus is asking why is life hard. You are asking why do bad things happen to what you think are basically good people. For epicurus this was not a question, for he knew why bad things happened. He wanted to know why after so much sacerfice and giving to the gods of his day wasn't life easy and full of pleasure, as it was promised.

I actually agree with you to a certain extent, on this, but all it means that "malicious intent against the will of God" is DEFINITELY not the version to use.

You use the Bible to identify the God of the bible yet you refuse to use the very same bible to define the concept you are accusing Him of being meligned against.
For this you have supported your own understanding of the word that allows you the self appointed sense of righteousness needed to judge and convict God.

I'm not. I'm using the concepts of a non-malevolent, omnipotent God. I couldn't care less if it was the Faery God, Allah, or any other God who makes a claim to these aspects.

I don't think the Bible has any input whatsoever, its up to you to defend your concept of God, not me.

Are YOU claiming, that your version of God 2.0 is neither of these things from human perspective?

If he did exist, would we have a right to judge Him? Maybe not, but from our perspective he is still malevolent. The argument stands.

Thier is a Reason I use the term "God of the Bible." If you wish to apply this "paradox" to any of the other gods out there then feel free.

Only the ones that are omnipotent and not malevolent, if your version of the christian God is neither, then why call him God?

If you wish to use that word or anyother "omin Aspect of God" then please show book chapter and verse that uses those terms to define God.

See above. Don't need to. If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God.

As we are speaking of the God of the bible I will hold you to the bible to make your arguement. However if you have created your own little idea of god then feel free to do, say or blaspheme all you like. just let me know that you are talking about your own idea of god rather than the God of the bible so I do not waist any more time with you than I need to.

I am talking about ANY god who claims to be both not malevolent and omnipotent.

I can't tell you what God you believe in, even Christians can't decide on his aspects, so how can you expect me to tell you what you believe?
The aspects that Epicurus defines, that if they apply to your God, then he is a paradox.

If your god is lacking in ability or power, it would explain why he is reduced to making pictures on toast, but its entirely up to you to state whether your god is omnipotent, kind and loving and to justify the world we live in by the standards that these terms imply.

IfI don't care by what standards you ultimatly judge God. I am only pointing out the hyprocrisy in your efforts. Why? Because it is by the standard you judge, that you too will be judged. If you wish to be judged fairly then it is up to you, to judge fairly. I was appealing to your humanity because that seems to be the only foundation or the closest thing to it, that guys like you will claim. If you wish to judge God by your own version of righteousness then know it will be by your own standard of judgement that you too will be judged. In complete truth it is no skin off my nose whatever you decide.

Wow. I think I detect some spittle on the screen. That was precious. I was wondering how long it'd be until you cracked and threatened everyone with judgement.

Your entire argument can be summed up quite simply;

God can do what he likes because he's God and whatever he says goes, so you can't say he can be judged by human morality.

The point is, this simply make him malevolent to mankind. You simply do not care if he is. But the real question is, if he weren't' fictional, what would be worth worshipping?

You instead argue for the malevolent despot, because whilst he keeps the country safe from harm, does so by tyranny and injustice

May here you should ask why rather than assume you know the answer. It's up to you lest I be accused of over stepping by bounds.

"Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists; it's too complicated for you to understand. Therefore God Exists".