Epicurean Paradox

[NoMoreFaith]

Apparently I have to spell it out for you in simple English. The bible does not use that word to describe God, Therefore I can not say that He is, or He is not if I was as using a biblical standard. That is why i asked you to define the word, apparently because you have the power to redefine biblical words like sin and evil, and apparently have given yourself the power to use word phrases like omnipotent, to describe God when the bible does not. So Again, you define the word because it is not a biblically based word.

You realise I spent several replies stating that I couldn't care less how you interpret your holy book.

Epicurus' Paradox uses the terms Omnipotent and by inference, the antonym to malevolence, being kind and caring.

If your God is neither capable of prevention, not is he kind and caring, then why call him God.

Thankyou for admitting that you have no idea if your god is omnipotent or not. The question is, if he is not all powerful, then what makes him a god in your eyes?

Again as if I were talking to a child. Epicurus was judging non biblical gods with non biblical terms. therefore his argument stands in that specific discussion.

You seem to suffer a delusion that equating a need to explain things simply is equivalent to their intellectual superiority. The ad hominem just makes you look desperate.
What it really shows is that your assertion of being right is so strong, you simply block out all dissenting opinions, which in term, limits your argument to base assertion.

Epicurus was judging any being that calls itself Omnipotent and Loving. It matters not one bit which book you refer to.
If Aldur is omnipotent and loving he stands to the same paradox as the christian God.

The reason is does not work with the God of the Bible is because you all have decided to use the Bible to define God,

Who used the bible to define god? You keep saying it as if it is true. I don't care if its Shiva or Thor. If they are omnipotent and kind, they are a paradox giving the world today.

Typical persecution complex.

Then you entrap God with a standard or term of your own definition ignoring the standard He Himself has set in the Same book you used to define Him.

Our definition? You mean that pesky dictionary you were throwing around earlier which now you want special dispensation to stop using it for the crux of the argument.
The definition which has been the basis of philosophical discussion for thousands of years.
You're so full of shit Drich, you always amuse.

Epicurus was asking why his life and the lives of his peers was such hard work after so much had been sacrificed to his gods. He was not asking about the evil you have embraced and redefined.

Yes, he defined it as a life of pain. Now, does your god wish for us to suffer a life of pain given that he can prevent it if he so wishes.

I really did not see a need to respond to anything else because you have fail to establish the basic premise of your argument. (That we claim God is omnipotent in the face of malevolence)

You are claiming, that we are claiming God is omnipotent?

Rather we claim that if your god is not all powerful, why call him God.

As I pointed out earlier you are using the frame work designed to speak to very specific gods.

Read again. I have said over and over again, the only things that are relevant are; Is your god omnipotent, is your god kind. These are the general aspects often applied to a deity.

Your god, you tell us. Don't ask us what YOU believe.

Again if you want to redefine god, sin, evil and add words that start with omni,

You do KNOW that you are supposed to be arguing against Epicurus' paradox.

You know.. the one that goes;

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent."

So who is adding words with omni? Oh the author of the paradox you are trying to refute.

If your god only has finite power, and is incapable of preventing worldwide pain and suffering, then fine. He just simply sucks as a "God" and barely is worth of the term, but he DOES escape the paradox. Bully for you, your god sucks.

To paraphrase your cute but meaningless insults littered all over your previous post, let me explain as if I would to a child.

If God wants to stop us from suffering, but can't or doesn't.. he's either a BAD god, or not god.

(Talking to a child) If you want to keep mixing your standard with a god of your own creation even if you make him similar to the God of the bible, then you can pat yourself on the back because you won this conversation. Because I am only interest in helping those looking to make an honest effort. I am not here to break you of your personal convictions or reason you have to hate God, or the reason you have no more faith.

What god? We're just using Epicurus and the words he used. I agree he means life of pain, but that is far different from your "malicious intent to go against the will of god".

All this and still, you have refused to answer if you believe your god is omnipotent (not my word you muppet, Epicurus', that thing we're discussing apparently) merely you don't even know, and if you believe your god is not malevolent. You have still refused to answer the question. You're a weasal who couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag without first trying to argue that you should let him out of the bag before he will engage in the debate meaningfully.

My name is a reference to a band btw, not an indication of a prior belief system. I need to believe in a god to hate him, and this is the core point you never understand, just like you can't understand how malicious intent against god is an impossibility.