RE: Epicurean Paradox
April 13, 2012 at 12:24 pm
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm by NoMoreFaith.)
(April 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm)Drich Wrote: I have Identified the original Greek word that translate to evil in the English and I have posted the original meaning of the word. (Which basically translates into unfair hard work.) Which is a far cry from how you are using the term.
Epicurus was not talking about hard work, he was talking about a life of pain. Are you seriously saying the epicurian paradox is actually about how if God was real he wouldn't have to work very hard. What idiocy.
"Good is pleasure, pain is evil. Uncontrolled pursuit of pleasure results not in more pleasure but in pain. Therefore we must live austere to avoid pain. Pain, fear of death, and fear of the gods were the greatest threats to man's happiness." Epicurus
Pain was equated to evil in his thinking, but differed from other greek schools that he didn't believe all pleasure was good either.
Quote:Otherwise know you have undertaken a personal vendetta ignoring all semblances of a honorable and or a fair inquiry. For you have literally redefined the terms being discussed to stack the deck n your favor to win this argument.
No we have not. You want to define evil as malicious intent against god.
You're right that evil is poorly defined, but your version requires a presupposition that anything he does, no matter how much pain and suffering it causes to mankind, is a good thing.
Quit the martyr act, you were pulling a fast one, and thought you'd get away with it.
Quote:If you persist then know my interest in the conversation stops.
Translation: If you don't stop pointing out the bible is not a reference for word definitions in greek philosophy I'll throw my toys out the pram.
Quote:As I told the other guy arguing this broken line of logic I am not here to change your personal philosophy on God I am simply trying to provide clarity for all who earnestly seek it.
Clarity has been provided, it is not my responsibility to keep you from mucking it back up in your own minds.
We're not trying to change yours, but if you persist in trying to play word games instead of putting forward actual philosophical arguments and logical progression, what is the point?
If you are establishing that your god does not fulfill any omni definitions, jolly good, he may be able to dodge the paradox.
I tell you what, I let you use the Bible for Epicurus' Paradox, but you've got to let me use The Belgariad by David Eddings in response. Muppet.
(April 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm)Adjusted Sanity Wrote: Maybe god's like dr manhatten. Not evil. Just incapable of understanding us.
Then he is not omniscient. Although I admit thats a totally different discussion (worth discussing elsewhere thou).
There is always an argument that a omniscient God can't understand what it feels to ride a bike for instance, but i've never been persuaded by it.
Why worship something that feels no empathy or kindness towards you. It'd be like you expecting your ants in the ant farm to worship you.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
