Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

I thought that is what being god meant - being omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

Nope

If you accept that your god is not all-powerful or all-good then the only question is "Why call him god"?

You are begging the question here.

Yes, we understand your argument. You are trying to first subvert the standards that have been set up by Epicurus, replace them with inferior standards of your god and then claim that the standards that were set up first are not applicable. Excuse us if we don't fall for the con.

There is nothing to fall for. All any honest man has to do is look at the parameters of the supposed paradox and see that the God of the bible is not being discussed here, and if one wanted to force the comparison to the God of the bible, then one is bound to address how the bible describes God.

Real simple if you or anyone else wants to maintain any semblance integrity.
Otherwise know in your heart of hearts you had to lie, cheat and misrepresent Epicurus'' work, The God of the bible, and force the issue when truth and understanding was brought to you. this is a dishonorable work by any man's standard.

Ok, fine, then your god is not all-powerful, he is not all-good and by extension, he probably isn't all knowing either. This case is also addressed in the paradox - Why call him god? By Greek standards, your god is a poser.

Now we are into several other fallacies. I never said any of those things i simply pointed out God is not bound to your understanding of the Omni aspects that you deem necessary to accredited to Him. God has His own descriptions as recorded by the bible, none of which begin with O-M-N-I. Because of this it changes the paradigm of the "paradox." If you would like for me to walk you through it again i would be happy to point you in the right direction.