Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

Epicurus was not talking about hard work, he was talking about a life of pain. Are you seriously saying the Epicurean paradox is actually about how if God was real he wouldn't have to work very hard. What idiocy.

I will not accept that you can not see that the evil you have represented is not the evil being represented by Epicurus. That you try and avoid the fact I do not know my own argument well enough to point out your fallacious misuse of the terms Sin, Evil and God in your representation of the paradox.

Keep burring you head in the sand and stand by your current strategy of trying to trivialize and dismiss my work it only serves to strengthen my position, while showing the weakness of your own. Also not to point out too much but you do know "name calling" is an act of desperation, in an argument. So again I welcome your 'best' efforts.

So to recap; By substituting your evil with the evil being described in the original work of Epicurus you have changed the whole dynamic of the supposed paradox. Again not to mention Epicurus was not directing his attention towards the God of the Hebrews, but to the gods that he knew and failed to live up to his understanding of who and what they were supposed to be.

Bottom line is no matter how you perceive the "evil" Epicurus wrote of it is not the evil redefined in your attack using his "paradox against the God of the bible.

Unless you can legitimately address these points then know your efforts will be shown to be little more than a conjecturous commentary that supports your personal faith/beliefs. And again I can point out your desperate need to hold on to what you believe, but I am not here to break you of it. I am here for those who seek clarity, not for people like you who wish to be blinded by their own sense of righteousness.

No we have not. You want to define evil as malicious intent against god.

Absolutely not. You redefine so much at will that you can not even represent the truth if you had too. It seems you formulate a response and then bend arguments and redefine terms to suit your perceived outcome. Again more evidence in your efforts to support your personal beliefs with conjecture and speculation..

Quit the martyr act, you were pulling a fast one, and thought you'd get away with it.

Your projecting.

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.

Not at all If you wish to have a responsible discussion I am willing to facilitate it. So far those your efforts seem to be less and lees about truth and more and more about your personal beliefs.

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?

:Translation: If you keep pointing out our logical fallacies and make us contend with things like dignity and honor or even hold us accountable to what we do, say and think then I do not want to play;P

If you are establishing that your god does not fulfill any omni definitions, jolly good, he may be able to dodge the paradox.

Again I can not confirm or deny as the omni aspects of God as not biblical terms, so unless you define them there is nothing more I can say.

If you dare to have this conversation then by all means start another thread. I will look forward to it.

---

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.

Then please show me in the bible where God claims any Omni aspects you all have accredited to Him for Himself.

I am looking for book chapter and verse. Not what you heard or what a Bishop taught you nor even what some website says. We are talking about the God of the bible so it is to the bible we must differ our knowledge of God. (Not to your personal faith on God)

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 Epicurus,

Why because Epicurus was not judging the God of the bible by any standard promised or set up by that God.
Why can't you guys understand that fact?

You are trying to compare Epicurus' apples to your Oranges.

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.

What is pathetic is after all of this time you still do not understand that the God of the bible nor the bible it self, ascribes ANY of the omni aspects of God, that the faith of atheists think describe Him. These are your terms not His.

Again before you record another word (lest you look the fool) show me book chapter and verse in the bible where God calls or accepts the Omni aspects as you or Epicurus has defined them.

Otherwise accept that your understanding of God, this paradox, or even this conversation is well beyond the scope of what you are able to responsibly argue.