Epicurean Paradox

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

You're right, I do have trouble believing your God makes no claims to being all powerful and benevolent.

What you propose is that human existence is equated with the movements of ants. God has no benevolence for the ant, and does not care what befalls their existence, all he cares for in your world view is worship. It is not a reciprocated relationship.
He has the means to prevent needless pain and suffering but chooses not to, based on the indiscretion of his first creations.

Theres a word for that... spiteful. Synonym with malevolent.

The bible does not say he is benevolent? So why are you arguing against the paradox? His actions, from our perspective are malevolent.

If you do not understand the base or core principle what makes you think you can comprehend any more detail?

Insults again. We understand the base and core principles very well. You simply do not wish to accept a counter-argument, through assertion of your own faulty definitions.

To blame us for lack of understanding is nothing more than misdirection, which I accuse you of often, merely because it is a factual statement.

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?

The argument from intelligence is not endearing, nor accurate.

Save your ad hominems, they represent the worst of your argument that we "do not understand as you understand".

The last few posts of yours have been dripping with malice and insult. If you can't be civil, and concise, please refrain from making insinuations about the intelligence of others purely through assertion of your own position without philosophical basis.

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.”

Excellent. You request simple questions, so what does that mean in terms of his capabilities.

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

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.

On the contrary, it is a simple question about the capabilities of the creator. What we can prove, is that he fails to act to prevent pain and suffering, whether through ability or will. This does not presuppose what he can do, nor what he can't do, the question remains simple, and as per usual, avoided.

It is commonly thought that the easiest way to define God is through his limitations, such as Aquinas perfection of power limitations, would you prefer to express your thoughts that way?

Quoting wikipedia for the begging the question fallacy, then misappropriating it for a question asking for a definition of what you perceive God's ability to be, makes no assumptive statement and relies instead of the fallacy that begging the question is applicable to any question.

I have repeated my understanding of the term several times now, and have pointed out it does not directly relate to God.

All of which remains within the paradox. Willing/Able/Evil.

You were supposed to be arguing that your God is not covered by the paradox, regardless of the God(s) it was originally addressed to.

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.

The philosophical statement I propose is thus;

The greater power you wield, the greater the moral responsibility you have to use at least some measure of it to prevent pain and suffering.

This is the premise I propose if you wish to prove that your God has no obligation to prevent pain and suffering.

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)
blahblahbibleblah
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.

I apologise for paraphrasing, but it was a hefty chunk. I do not deny the context within the bible, that was not in dispute.
This all avoids the argument proposed as above. Whether God owes no responsibility, means to shirk a moral obligation to use the power for which he has. Failure to do so, based on "fall of man" is malevolent which appears to be spiteful.

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

please enlighten me..

You've already used it twice in this post. You claim God has no moral responsibility to prevent pain and suffering. We simply must put up and shut up and keep worshipping, despite his ability to prevent pain and suffering, its all our fault we're suffering.
Nobody buys that, its a perfect expression of infinite spite, and therefore malevolent.

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?

Hamster stuck under the wheel analogy I used in my last post. You have the power to prevent the suffering of the hamster, and it would be a benevolent action.
Failure to act, despite the power you hold to do so, is not neutral, but actively malevolent.

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.

So the statement "Able but not willing" is applicable. This statement makes the claim that God has no obligation to use his power for benevolent deeds, nor does your bible claim that he does.

No problem, but any definition of an overlord who seeks only servitude, and obedience regardless of the pain and suffering of those whom he has provided for, does not escape the paradox, in fact he fulfills it neatly.

I'm starting to question why you feel the need to argue against the paradox, if your God is not benevolent.

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.

Understandable, I accept your apology, and offer my own for any slight I have offered in defence.

I concede absolutely, and without reservation that your knowledge of the bible is greater, I wouldn't dare say otherwise. What I am suggesting, is that we are only capable of presenting our case for pain and suffering in ways that affect human beings. It is not logical to approach it from the standards of an infinite(perhaps) being, because we are not "He".

However, what I do suggest, is that we are in a position to state that his inaction appears to be malevolent from our standpoint, like the hamster trapped in the wheel.
If you feel, the hamster has no right to judge us for not preventing its pain and suffering because it does not understand human ways, does not remove the injustice that the hamster could feel in that position, and we appear malevolent.

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.

Even unto the millionth descendent yes.

This, from our position, would seem spiteful to punish us for the Sin of our antecedents. It is the torture of the child, because of the disobedience of the father.
Whether just by his standards, it is apparently malevolent to the child who has no say in the matter.

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.

Would you agree with the following statement;

To mankind, God appears immoral, as morality has no meaning to God, only righteousness.

I make no judgements from this statement, I merely want to be sure we both agree on a concept.

I identify myself as God. Will you worship me?

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

If I am God, then my concepts are the religious concepts, not your understanding of them.

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.

The same principle as knowing your children are hungry, and therefore starving them so that they may know what real hunger is like.

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?

We were made in Gods image, now I'm not sure what your interpretation of this term is, so forgive me if I misuse it, but does this not mean that he has created us with this sense of entitlement to not suffer. Then makes us suffer to prove we are not entitled to it.

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.

Then we are the starving child, crying desperately for our parent to feed us, and only by obedience will we be sustained.
The ends do not justify the means in any interpretation of what you state.

However, it clarifies why you believe what you believe, so I appreciate the clarity which I feel has been lacking previously.

What you propose appears to me, as if it makes all religion futile, that God is deliberately absent so that we may learn our lessons. Judgement is irrelevant because our redemption is measured through our suffering. Jesus has prevented none of this.

Quick question; slightly besides the point, but idle curiosity. Do you believe your God wants to be loved, and do you believe he wants worship? If so, given we are born atheist, what does he do to warrant it if we do not know about eternal life.
The existence of the bible is futile, as it is without basis, and has no apparent truth element to it beyond any other work of fiction.

If God means for us to worship him, despite suffering, then why be obtuse and mysterious?

All it does, is make him appear malevolent. He may not to you, and you accept suffering as is your "due".

When this is all said and done, lack of existence is more probable than absenteeism given the obtuse instruction you claim he has given.