Epicurean Paradox

[genkaus]

Nope

Ok then.

You are begging the question here.

And you are avoiding it.

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.

And that position is addressed in the paradox as well. If a being is not omnipotent or omnibenevolent, then why call him god? Your Yahweh fails to meet the criteria for being a 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.

Oh what fine ramblings you weave just to avoid the question.

We've established that your so called god is not omnipotent. He is not omni-benevolent. Which means his power is limited and he is atleast a little evil. Why then would you call him a god?

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.

The paradox doesn't change with the blatherings of your bible. Epicurius, in an amazing display of foresight, provided a category for your "god" as well. Something that is not all good or all powerful should not be called god. The entity described in the bible is a poser. A fraud. A con man. And he cannot become god not matter how many times he refers to himself as such.

That settles it then. Who's up for some coffee?