Epicurean Paradox

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

Point to where I have misused the term Sin please. I have never used it, because it is particularly biblical in usage and of no import to the question at hand.

Try to understand, this is not an argument aimed solely at the hebrew god. But any God that claims omnipotence and kindness. You have stated that you have no idea if your God has omni aspects. So the question is; What can your God actually do apart from fail to act?

Let's look at moral responsibility, the more power you have, the greater the moral responsibility you have for the usage of it. With great power comes great responsibility and all that.
If God is capable of averting an earthquake, then does he not have a moral responsibility to do so?

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 by referring to me as a child repeatedly, you were actually saying your argument was an act of desperation.
Or does it not count when you are offensive?

I trivialise your argument solely on the basis that your stance is irrelevant to the paradox. You say you don't know if he is omnipotent because the bible says nothing, then he is either omnipotent subject to Epicurus, or he is not omnipotent and is merely finitely powerful yet immoral (by human standards).

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.

Tell me, substituting evil as "against the will of God" does not change the dynamic? Not to mention completely irrelevant to Epicurus' statement.

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.

No issue. No argument. If your God fails to live up to the standards for Godhood set by Epicurus then he is exempt.
Hence 'Then why call him God'.

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.

Pleasure and pain were ultimately, for Epicurus, the basis for the moral distinction between good and evil.

Do you deny this statement? Yes or No?

If No, In what way does pain and suffering equate against our argument that evil is suffering.

Explain it once more, and explain how trying to define evil as "against Gods will" has ANYTHING to do with pain and suffering as defined by Epicurus.

If Yes, then prove that what we know of Greek Sceptics is actually completely wrong.

You accuse us all of twisting the argument, yet you are the one who wishes to use a faulty understanding of Evil. You are blinded by the blinkers of your faith if you cannot see this has been proven without doubt.

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.

LOL. That is the only statement this paragraph requires due to the massive hypocrisy contained therein.

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.

What do I believe exactly? Can you tell me? Your statement indicates I am defending my belief? Which one exactly.

My efforts are based into research into how Epicurus defined evil, through pleasure and pain. If you wish a responsible discussion, you must accept the terms as used by the creator of the argument and not the bible.

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

You have found no logical fallacies except that which do not comply to your biblical understandings, which we have at great pains explained their irrelevance as the argument.
We do not direct the argument at your version of God. Merely any God which is to be considered Omnipotent and Kind.

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.

This is the part you do not get your head around. Myself, and others define nothing about YOUR god. Indeed, it is not possible for us to define YOUR god to YOU.

The question is, IF god is omnipotent, then he is malevolent, IF he is not, then why call him God.

The question for you now, is to state if God has finite power, then why do you call him god? Because he says he is? God is God because the bible says he is, and the bible is true, because its Gods word? You understand enough to know that we can dismiss a circular argument.

This is the quintessential essence of the Epicurean paradox. If God or Gods exist, then they have no interest in mankind, and especially in judging them.

I will also point out, that if you are unable to give a reason to call him God, that is non-circular in nature, then by default, you must also admit to not knowing if he has the basic power of "existence" in the first place. No shame in not knowing, most of us call ourselves agnostic to a certain extent, even as atheists, come join the club.