Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

Once again, although it gets quite dull. We claim nothing for your God.

Again you do when you substitute the god's originally held in the Epicurean paradox with the God of the Bible. Once you place the God of the bible in that pretext then you accept all of the provenance that comes with Him.

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

Asked and answered 3 times now.

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.

Do you want a bible verse is this what you are asking for?
Or do you want my answer again for the 4th time? Because what is written in the bible has manifested in the life of the believer.

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.

Why not ask a direct question next time if you do not understand the question given then ask another so we may build principles together.

If you do not understand the base or core principle what makes you think you can comprehend any more detail?
If if the core answer seem unfamiliar or vague then ask a question to what you do not know rather than assert what you do not know.

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?

Again how do you want the answer given how can I make it more plain?
Or is that the problem you are looking for the majestic answer when the common place alludes you?

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?

My God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the End, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

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

Because non was needed:
"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.
A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

Your original question:
So the question is; What can your God actually do apart from fail to act?

Which by definition shows an initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without ANY logic to show why the statement is true "What can he do?" suggests he can do nothing "apart from fail to act?" they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

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.

I have repeated my understanding of the term several times now, and have pointed out it does not directly relate to God. Omnipotence is a catch all term that encapsulates and holds god to our understand of unlimited power, and the responsibilities there in. Which again have absolutely nothing to do with How God is portrayed in the bible.

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.

Then why take the time to post this?

Voltaire originally. Sadly, you will not see the irony that you accuse others of being dominated by pop culture references.

I actually was schooled in Voltaire's original quote some time ago, but still Stan lee made a bigger impact with his usage of the phrase (through spider man's demi god like powers.) As we are not talking about corruption in the political affairs of 1830's France.

How about one you will recognize;
Luke 12:48: "from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

How about we put that back in it's context and see what doc luke was jabbering 'bout:
Luke 12
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Faithful Servant and the Evil Servant
35 “Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning; 36 and you yourselves be like men who wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding, that when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master, when he comes, will find watching. Assuredly, I say to you that he will gird himself and have them sit down to eat, and will come and serve them. 38 And if he should come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. 39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and[d] not allowed his house to be broken into. 40 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

41 Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?”

42 And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Looks like you fail to understand what was being said here too. For you see God is not a servant that has been given a task or a responsibility to keep. God in this story is the master that holds us account to what we have been given.

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

please enlighten me..

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

If there are no claims of benevolence then how can one claim He is malevolent? Because you do not get what you want God is malevolent? or are you and those who think as you do suffering from self entitlement?

God is not here to serve you. If He were then why would we call him God? My God the God of the bible is not a servant to man, nor does He claim to be.
Epicurus' Gods on the other hand approach humanity from a different perspective.
Which would make them malevolent if they did not full fill their end of the bargains they made with man.

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.

Again being offensive was just a 'perk.' The primary point was to have you include yourself in the basic percepts being discussed.
I am human like anyone else here. I grow tired and weary of being attacked because those in whom i am speaking do not understand the most basic and elementary biblical concepts, and yet speak to me about God, the bible or religion as if i were the fool in this equasion, and some how (perhaps by devine intervention) their understandings of what i have spent the last 20 or so years studying daily means less than the haphazard effort that they have put in.

If i over stepped i apologize, but know I did not ask you to endure anything that I am not bombarded with in each and every single post to one degree or another.

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

Then lets substitute pain and suffering if you do not feel comfortable arguing sin and evil any more.

The God of the bible does not say He will take away pain and suffering in this life, matter of fact He says because this world has been handed over to the evil heart of man we are to expect much pain and suffering in this life. Why because until his kingdom come the set apart will suffer by the hands of the wicked.

So you see the "paradox" is broken for the God of the bible does not make the same promises the gods of EP made to him.

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

We have been promised Righteousness through the blood atonement Christ sacrifice offers. This in turn provides eternal life. God says nothing about making our lives easier here. again the term malevolent does not apply because benevolence in this life has not been promised.

Then it stands to reason, that if I call myself God, I have equal status with your God.

we will see.

I identify myself as God. Will you worship me?

I have trouble worshiping a god with such difficulty understand basic "religious" concepts.

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.

maybe you should ask questions to the answers given.
for i have answer this question 4 or 5 times in the last 3 posts.
Continue reading perhaps what is comming will help if what has already been said does not.

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.

Not from the eternal perspective in which the whole of the bible speaks. Pain and suffering are a direct result of sin and evil. Sin and evil are a direct result of wanting a will part from God. If we are to live in Harmony with God for an eternity then we must truly know the wage or result of sin and evil there must be no reason to explore or want a will apart from God. we can only be content with God's will on an eternal basis if we live a life full of the results of our own personal will/desire.

If God took away all pain and suffering in this life then we would eventually yearn for it at some point in eternity future. Look at my explanation of Adam and Eve in the garden. They were place in the garden at the dawn of time itself and remain there for a million trillion years or however long it took for man to evolve into what he was 5 or 6 thousand years ago. The point being in a garden the size (estimated) of 2/3 of north America .Adam and eve were camped out in the middle of the garden next to the one thing they were forbidden to do. the question should be why?

Short answer was because they were obsessed with what they did not know or could not have. a life of privilege only begets the self entitlement for more than what is given. That is why God turned this world over to us so we may live a life under our own rule to see and live out an existence without the direct control of God. A life under our control a life without (or as close as we can get and still be apart of creation) God.

So what is true malevolence? 70 years of hardship or an eternity of hell because you were spoiled into thinking you were entitled to what God has?

Our suffering our pain is truly a gift. I have been made to suffer more than anyone i know, and I would not go through it again for a million dollars, like wise there is nothing in this world. Not even the world itself I would trade for the blessing of all of the suffering and pain has brought me either.

Suffering and pain are our keys to contentment in eternal life.

If God is to be called Benevolent then it is to this end (our eternal secureity) that the bible can be found to support this claim.

---

[quote='RaphielDrake' pid='273612' dateline='1334643499']

What a sad way to look at your own existence, to think you're only here to avoid fucking up. I found a little animation that pretty much sums your world view up without that little rose tinted lens you got there... enjoy. :-)

as sad as i may be at 2:30 in the AM I do not need pictures, animations, quotes from better smarter men, foul language, links to another's work to do my talking for me. In the end, 99% of what i represent is what comes from me and the computer i sit at. What do you offer? the fruits of hours spent on youtube looking for the one video clip that will help you express yourself with just the right zinger?

I hate to burst your bubble, but i don't watch clips, click on links, read quotes from better/smarter men, or spend any time fussing over foul language.

If you have something to say learn to use your own words. If you can't and feel the need depict how you feel with the work of someone else then know you truly didn't have anything to say to begin with.

Just look how empty your post when i take away your animation. what is really left?