RE: Epicurean Paradox
April 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm by genkaus.)
(April 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm)Perhaps Wrote: That's a slippery slope to walk on. What defines a conceptual attribute? Furthermore, by what evidence do we acknowledge that benevolence and evil only exist within the conscience? Surely our ideas as to what benevolence and evil look and act like are only within our minds, but how does it follow that only our 'benevolence' and our 'evil' exist?
A conceptual attribute is one that a) cannot be physically measured, b) does not correspond to any perceptible characteristic of the object.
As to the second - we acknowledge the fact that benevolence and evil exist only within our mind when we understand how those abstractions came into existence. As subjective human beings, we find certain actions to be desirable and others undesirable. Combining that with the motivations behind those actions, we came up with the abstract concepts of benevolence and evil. Thus we see that these concepts cannot exist where subjective desires - the consequence of consciousness - do not exist.
(April 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm)Perhaps Wrote: The very idea of God is beyond human concepts, this is what I've been referring to about the deeper ideas behind abstractions. We can self define abstractions, but the very nature of the abstraction itself is beyond our grasp to understand or fathom. Once again, if I ask you what is infinity and what does it look like, or similarly, what does infinite transparency 'look' like, you could attempt to analogize or illustrate an image to me, but that wouldn't capture the very idea of the abstraction itself.
Why would the idea of god be beyond human concepts? Why would an abstraction that we have defined be beyond our grasp by its nature?
Your mistake is that you think "grasping" and abstract means to perceive it. That is incorrect. You are limiting the human ability to think only to perceptual concretes - an ability we surpass the moment we learn to create abstractions. Regarding your infinity question, I'd say that infinity is an abstract concept which cannot be grasped as a perceptual concrete - because it is not a perceptual concrete. So it makes no sense to ask what infinity looks like. Something infinitely transparent might be a perceptual concrete and it would simply look black or empty - like the space.
(April 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm)Drich Wrote: I am glad to see we agree on this very important point, for as I said several times now. Epicurus with his definitions was not speaking to your understanding of sin and evil, and if we are hold a strict understanding to the work of Epicurus and his definition of Evil then we must also strictly look and only look to the gods He was calling out as well. Why because His definition of Evil specifically addresses failed promises of his gods. None of which were made by the God of the bible.
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.
Therefore if you use the bible to define God, and ignore Epicurus' gods and Epicurus' definition of evil then you are only left with the definition of Evil used by the very same bible you used to define God.
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. If you persist then know my interest in the conversation stops. 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.
The claims made by Epicurean gods are the same as those made by your god - unless you accept that your god is not benevolent and/or omnipotent. According to you, by Epicurean standards - your god is malevolent. Your excuses only go to show that your god does not measure up to the standards set up by Epicurius, while attempting to retain the qualities he ascribed to his gods. Therefore, in order to retain the qualities of both omnipotence and benevolence, while clearly not measuring up to the established standards, your god must redefine the words to have the standards lowered to his level. Such a blatant subversion cannot even be called dishonesty - its simply pathetic.
