Epicurean Paradox

[NoMoreFaith]

If you have separated the two concepts that constitutes as a misuse of the term.

Regarding Sin and Evil, and my request to show where I have used the word Sin. Once again failing to address the question.

Your statement equates sin and evil, which you do so from a biblical standpoint, rather than the philosophical one and therefore dismissable.

Try to understand, this is not an argument aimed solely at the Hebrew god. But any God that claims omnipotence and kindness.

Then the rest of the conversation is moot. For God does not claim that attribute. It is given to him by worshipers and atheists like.

Once again, although it gets quite dull. We claim nothing for your God. Your interpretation of your God is for you alone in your head.
The conversation however, is not mooted, for if he is no omnipotent, why call him God? The question you avoid for so many pages is... what makes your idea of God... God?

Epicurus had your answer covered. If your God is limited, then by what standard to you call him God?

You failed to answer again, and it makes a person curious as to why the twisting and turning if you cannot give an honest answer.

I ask again for clarity, not because I expect an answer, but it amuses me to see where your twists and turns will lead you.

You have stated that you have no idea if your God has omni aspects.

Not what was said. I said God of the bible does not claim these terms. They are given to him from people who do not know of or understand the biblical descriptions of Him.

I do not doubt this, although you must confess it is a popular description, even given the restrictions on omnipotence presented by Aquinas. The question stands; What makes your idea of God.. God? Despite your attempts, we cannot assume this question for you, or make assumptions about YOUR God.

You deny that you do not know, which implies you have an answer to this incredibly simple question; What can your God do, if he is not omnipotent, that makes him a God?

You make the claim that it begs the question incorrectly, as no prior assumptive statement was made.

I do no assume omnipotence, nor do I assume limitation, the question is addressed to your understanding so that you may have the opportunity to clarify your position instead of avoiding the question.

If you are using petitio principii is a warped manner that whatever God does makes him God, making the question what can God do to make him God irrelevant, then you simply state that if you call your Dog God, then anything he does makes him a God.
I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you would not make such an asinine claim.

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.

Maybe if you are spider man.

Voltaire originally. Sadly, you will not see the irony that you accuse others of being dominated by pop culture references.
How about one you will recognise;
Luke 12:48: "from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Don't worry, I can see the special pleading coming from a mile away.

If God is capable of averting an earthquake, then does he not have a moral responsibility to do so?

No. Why? Because at the fall of man, the reigns of this world were given over to us. It is now our responsibility to mitigate the destruction of a fallen world.

Then he is malevolent. We have no power to avert earthquakes, but God can. Malevolent as in spiteful is most perfectly apt.

The offense should be secondary to your personal understanding of these basic concepts. If there is a lack of understanding in these basic terms then questions should be asked rather than trying to push past them with your current understandings. I was trying to force a productive dialog rather than continually argue a belabored point.

You were merely being offensive. Rather than answer the points raised, in regards to Evil, you instead resorted to attributing childlike understanding to those you argue with.

To do so, is simply ad hominem of the highest order, the arguments against a biblical definition in a greek sceptic argument were, and remain sound.

Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin, and yes it does, which is my point.

Are we back to this so soon? No, Evil is not a malicious intent to commit sin, only in your assertion it is so. Pain and suffering have been the standard set by Epicurus. If you are malcontent with the word evil, replace it with pain and suffering, and then you can have a real discussion.

Plus If it is irrelevant to Epicurus' statement in it's original context then by definition is breaks the paradox.

The original context is pain and suffering. The paradox stands.

If Epicurus is talking about a different understanding of God or different understanding of evil then the "paradox" does not apply everything man deems or addresses as God or any and everything he identifies as evil. Therefore to plug in the God of the bible to this work we must also bring in the definitions and descriptions the God of the bible uses to identify Himself!
Otherwise the work of Epicurus simply does not apply to the God being discussed.

He is talking about any being that expresses a wish to be kind to his creation, and has the power to prevent pain and suffering.
If he is not willing, but able, then he is malevolent

Because of what God does call Himself and How He identifies Himself.
Believe it or not the standard of identifying God does not reside in the scope of Epicurus.

Then it stands to reason, that if I call myself God, I have equal status with your God. I identify myself as God. Will you worship me? Or is there some transcendent quality to define a god. Please share, we're dying to hear it.
You bemoan that we ask no questions, yet you provide no answers.

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?

For Epicurus no, which again is not the issue as He was not talking about the God of the bible which Again He has his own definitions of Sin and Evil, and description of himself that puts him beyond the "paradox" EP made for himself.

We're getting somewhere then. Now, ignore the bible. It is irrelevant, just forget about the word Evil, because its causing you a major mental barrier to the argument. Replace the word pain and suffering with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument hinges that the fall of man means we must take responsibility for the world, regardless of whether we can prevent pain and suffering, and this is the consequence of the fall of man?

What is being proposed by Epicurus, is that if God, is able to prevent pain and suffering, but not willing, then he is malevolent.

This is the phrase you must contend with, your part in this discussion, is therefore to show that your idea of God is not malevolent, despite being able to prevent suffering.

If he is not able, then you are simply arguing a semantic that God is God "cos he said so".

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

How is pain and suffering not evil?
Because these two disliked human experiences are not intrinsically evil or sinful. They simply exist. It is how we perceive and interpret these experiences that ultimately ascribes good or bad value it as a whole.

Very true, thus Epicurus stands from OUR perspective. We conceive that pain is bad, and pleasure is good at our most base instincts, and thus define much of what we consider moral.
The argument that Epicurus makes, is that from Mans perspective, God is malevolent in the same way Humans may seem malevolent to an Ant.

Nothing to explain as you have made my point for me. They are two totally separate things. Therefore if we are to judge God then should it not be by His bible and His definitions of Sin and Evil?

No. It should not. We judge God by the pain and suffering we endure, which he is capable of preventing, and we are not. He is malevolent in his inaction because of our perceptions.

Let's try an analogy; You have a pet hamster, whom becomes trapped in a wheel that fell off the cage. If you do not lift it.. it will die.
Do you have a moral responsibility to lift the wheel, or is it the consequence of freedom you have given to the hamster to be trapped in the first place.

What if i draged you before a like minded judge and labled you a rapist and murderer and then proceeded to tell the judge (in a general non specific way) all the bad things muderers and rapists do. All the while the two of us conspiring to ignore all of the personal attributes that would vindicate you, all the while soley focousing on what "murderers/rapeist" are known to do. Never mind the fact we are not even describing you in the least little way. You simply share a title that i arbertarily gave to you. would this be justice in your eyes?

With great power......

Your analogy fails to address the issue whether I had power to easily prevent the bad things murderers and rapists do.

I clearly do not, therefore I do not have the responsibility. God has some measure of power to do so, otherwise, why call him God. Thus a paradox.

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.

I see that you have finally changed direction and are facing the same way I was at the beginning. Now the only question is can you continue down this line of thought and catch up?

I thought we had dispensed with the backhanded insults? What did you say about desperation?

The problem of what is understood to be evil. The problem of moral injustice, the problem of excessive suffering.

My first post on the subject. Now. How have I changed direction. I haven't. You are lying. I say that not to insult, but a statement of provable fact. I have always asserted Epicurus' stance on Evil.

You wish that humans have no right to judge God, and so the Hamster trapped in its wheel cannot judge you the human who allows it to live at your sufference.. is not the actions of a benevolent being.
Thus these things are not the actions of a benevolent God.