Epicurean Paradox

[houseofcantor]

My profile picture is actually me in my underwear...

What were we talking about?

Oh, yeah... paradox is for whiners who get stuck on a need to be right. It's a fucking circle. Produces a halting state. Things that halt, get eaten. Evolution in action.

[Faith No More]

God: Allows children to be raped so humans can have the ability to choose to follow and love him.

Malevolent.

[Tobie]

One of the main goals of the Epicurean school of philosophy is happiness. He admitted women and slaves into his school, and thought from a scientific purview. He was an infinitely more enlightened man than you are Drich, yet your christian ignorance thinks of him as being from a dark age.

The Greeks, and their view of god was around far earlier than your christian one, and others far earlier than both, yet somehow yours is the correct view?

[Mister Agenda]

I'm often trolled by atheists who ask me this, what do you guys think?

That this guy defines raising legitimate issues as trolling.

I usually defend it in that it's not in God's nature to act in that way, but I'm not sure how good of an argument that is.

It doesn't resove the paradox, that's for sure.

For those of you who don't know what the Epicurean Paradox is, it is as follows:

Taken from the last time I answer this question: My response:
We answer this like we do with any other question.

Do anything but tackle it straight on?

first we define the parameters of the question. Meaning we take into account the circumstances of the who or when the question was asked, and then we look at what is asked.

It doesn't matter who raised the paradox, it must stand or fall on it's own. Dissecting the questioner instead of the question is deflection.

Second we help the one asking the question to redefine any misconceptions they may have in the questions asked, leading to a false assumption, then we address the question according to the bible.

It's not a question about the Bible. It's a question about God. If the resolution to the paradox is in the Bible, fine, but the answer has to stand or fall on its own, just like the paradox.

Finally we draw together all of the points i have outlined so they can come to a biblically based conclusion.

I notice this method for answering a question never resorts to reason or evidence.

For example we know that this Greek philosopher lived about 2300 years ago and was not privy the revelation of Christ and the teachings of the NT. at best He was living in a truly dark age which saw no light of salvation. If someone is using his words in the context He wrote them, then a simple explanation of the Gospel should answer each and every question Epicurus had.

You prove that by standing up your explanation against the paradox, not against Epicurus. What age Epicurus lived in is irrelevant.

But I know the general popularity this set of questions has found in recent days is not because of the original intent this philosopher had when He wrote this query.

That's because the Paradox of Epicurus has stood the test of time and means exactly what it says now as it did then.

Our modern want-to-be's have taken this question and married it with a pop culture understanding of the words, sin, evil and a loose understanding omni aspects of God.

I have a feeling you're the one about to come up with idiosyncratic definitions of these terms.

So what we must do now is re-educate and give a biblical account of these words and how they relate to the popular culture's understanding of these questions. We do this by deconstructing the question line by line.
(I took the liberty of looking up the actual quote)

The re-education thing might not work over the internet, perhaps a camp of some sort?

We start with the basics by giving a biblical definition of Sin, Evil and Freewill.

Wouldn't you do better to go with the sense in which Epicurus is using his terms? That is, wouldn't it be more honest to do so?

Sin, is anything not in the expressed will of God.

The Epicurean Paradox makes no mention of sin, so redefining it superfluous.

Evil is a malicious intent to be outside the expressed will of God.

In the sense that Epicurus used it, evil was both human cruelty and natural suffering. To address the paradox you have to address it as it was meant.

Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.

The paradox isn't about sin, nor about the definition of evil you are using.

Free Will Is the ability to be outside of the Expressed Will of God on your own accord. In other words The "gift" of free will is the ability to Sin.

The paradox isn't about free will. Even if it were, free will doesn't address natural suffering.

We have been given this ability so we may choose where we wish to spend eternity, but as with any real choice comes a price and consequence.

I would say irrelevant to the paradox, but when you postulate a God that gives you free will and damns you for using it any way other than he prescribes, you make a good case for a God that is not that benevolent.

*Side note; Apparently Epicurus did not have a complete understanding of God's word or His plan as outlined here. nor would anyone of that time period, but to those who would twist this effort to suit their own agenda there will be little excuse.

No need for him to address what hasn't yet been written. The question is if the writings you rely on actually address what Epicurus has written. Given that you have to change what Epicurus said to get the result you want, it doesn't look good.

On to the actual quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Evil is the ultimate expression of sin. It is the proof that we indeed have a will outside of God's expressed will. In other words Evil is the proof or ultimate result of free will.

I am going to parse that as 'God is omnipotent and able to prevent evil if he wanted to.'

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

If we were not given the choices this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell.

So God creates us to spend eternity in heaven, what's the problem with that?

This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter).

This is true failure of imagination. All God has to do is not create any souls to exist in Hell at all. Why have hell in the first place? It sounds like what it is: a device to scare people into following your particular religion by making the consequences of not so doing so horrendous that people will follow it if they think there's a 1% chance it's true. Why does God have a desire to have any souls tortured for all eternity? Why would an omniscient God want something like that around? How could an omnibenevolent God not only tolerate eternal suffering but require it? Painting God as a capricious potentate may have resonated with ancient Near Easterners, but we've come a long way since then and can recognize it as monstrous, just as we can now recognize one human owning another as property is monstrous while the ancients considered it natural.

As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil.

It's an awful lot like the choice a mugger gives you when he gives you the option of 'your money or your life'...if the mugger followed you around at a distance and based his decision to kill you or not on whether you crossed at the light or in the middle of the street.

It is a choice made in a man's heart apart from the expressed Will of God. Because we have been given a true choice we have to all live with the consequences.

Clearly you've gone with 'able but not willing'.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Again, Evil is the proof of Free will. Free Will and the consequences of those choices are the point and purpose of this life. We are to choose where we wish to spend eternity. Without "Sin and Evil" there is not point of been given this existence.

So, will you have Free Will in heaven? I hear the answer is yes, and that there was quite a row with a third of the angels. No doubt free will in heaven will work THIS time with humans.

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Because the Title "God" has absolutely nothing to do with how Epicurus nor the person using this quote defines it.

I'm pretty sure Epicurus meant a powerful being responsible for our existence. Do you think God is NOT a powerful being responsible for our existence?

Conclusion: what you've presented here makes a case for a God who values Free Will above benevolence and provides for eternal torture for actually exercising Free Will to do anything but obey him. Clearly a God who is omnipotent but malevolent, who may be worth worshiping to avoid an eternity of torment, but is not worthy of worship because of his sadistic tendencies (claiming his imperfect creations deserve their torment when they are as he made them is a particularly malevolent touch).

[thesummerqueen]

[makes a fresh cup of tea, and with bright eyes and a cheerful smile, props chin on hand and sets about enjoying Mister Agenda once again thoroughly demolishing stupidity.]

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Finally we draw together all of the points i have outlined so they can come to a biblically based conclusion.

Once again THIS IS AN ATHEIST FORUM; the bible has no authority here.

By all means keep citing the bible. I will keep dismissing your arguments and treating you with the contempt you have earned.

A hint: IF you want to be taken seriously,try using logic and reason to refute a position,rather than rely on the non existent authority of the bible.

However,at this point you are putting the horse before the cart: You have not yet established the existence of God. Your belief is faith based, not evidence based. That makes it a superstition.

[Drich]

I'm often trolled by atheists who ask me this, what do you guys think?

That this guy defines raising legitimate issues as trolling. [/quote]
Perhaps you did not understand the promise of the OP. The first paragraph in my post was taken from another forum written by another user asking How Christians address this misidentified paradox. That is not to say it is not a paradox of personal logic, but that should point to the short comings of individual understanding, rather than the subject in general.

It doesn't resolve the paradox, that's for sure.

again the statement you are commenting against is apart of the original question asked.
(not apart of my response.)

Do anything but tackle it straight on?

Epicurus was guilty of affirming the consequent, so why would I address him head on?

It doesn't matter who raised the paradox, it must stand or fall on it's own.

And by Dissecting the questioner and his level of knowledge points out the short falls and misconceptions in his argument, and the argument begins to unravel or falls on it's own. Simply because He did not understand the God he talking about lead him to his own personal paradox. I identified that the paradox, as being limited to his understanding of God. That makes the argument not a paradox by definition, but just the rantings of a confused angry philosopher.

It's not a question about the Bible. It's a question about God.

How can one responsibly speak about the God of the bible if he does not use the bible to define God? This is Exactly the problem Epicurus argument has.

If the resolution to the paradox is in the Bible, fine, but the answer has to stand or fall on its own, just like the paradox.

Again just because those who worship this man choose to identify his work as a paradox does not make it a paradox. Simply identifying all of the misconceptions he has about God through scripture shows he did not understand the God he so quickly misjudged.

I notice this method for answering a question never resorts to reason or evidence.

I see you have been taking a pointers from your teacher by affirming the consequent here.

You prove that by standing up your explanation against the paradox, not against Epicurus. What age Epicurus lived in is irrelevant.

Only to the one trying to maintain the purity of His work, against mounting evidence that this man did not know the God He spoke of.
By speaking of the "evidence" or resources Epicurus had during the time he lived proves he could not legitimately make the assertions that he did. which renders the body of his work down to trivial speculation.

That's because the Paradox of Epicurus has stood the test of time and means exactly what it says now as it did then.

maybe to those standing on your side of the fence.
Everyone else seems to see a confused little man who died in rebellion of God.

Wouldn't you do better to go with the sense in which Epicurus is using his terms? That is, wouldn't it be more honest to do so?

Epicurus is making assertions about the Unchanging God. The standards I have out line were established in the OT. The contrast between What Epicurus has identified as sin and Evil and what is recorded in the bible is what Epicurus had to do to create his very own personal paradox. If we are talking about honesty then why not honestly look at what is being discussed?
Why do you insist that Epicurus knows God better than God/The bible knows God?

The Epicurean Paradox makes no mention of sin, so redefining it superfluous.

Either a lie or you do not understand what is being discussed. The entire "paradox" is based on his understanding of sin and evil.

In the sense that Epicurus used it, evil was both human cruelty and natural suffering. To address the paradox you have to address it as it was meant.

If He used Evil and the God of the bible in His "Paradox" then all aspects of his work are subject to the standard in which God has framed them. The body of epericus' efforts center around Sin Evil and Free will That is the only reason any of this is mentioned.

Epericus took it upon himself to judge God using God's standard but changed the standard to make the conviction fit. All I have done is untied the web Epicurus used tangled all who subscribe to his thoughts and himself. Simply by giving the biblical standard in which he pertended to use to create his "paradox.."

The paradox isn't about sin, nor about the definition of evil you are using.

My point EXACTLY! It can NOT be about the biblical definations I am using. OTHERWISE THE PARADOX FAILS!!!

The paradox isn't about free will. Even if it were, free will doesn't address natural suffering.

The nature of suffering is Free Will!

I would say irrelevant to the paradox, but when you postulate a God that gives you free will and damns you for using it any way other than he prescribes, you make a good case for a God that is not that benevolent.

Who said anything about complete all encompassing benevolence?

On to the actual quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Evil is the ultimate expression of sin. It is the proof that we indeed have a will outside of God's expressed will. In other words Evil is the proof or ultimate result of free will.
I am going to parse that as 'God is omnipotent and able to prevent evil if he wanted to.'f we were not given the choices this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell.

So God creates us to spend eternity in heaven, what's the problem with that?[/quote]

For me (by the grace of God) nothing.

This is true failure of imagination. All God has to do is not create any souls to exist in Hell at all.

This is a general failure to read your bible. A large portion of the sentient being God created to exist in Heaven, decided sometime ago they did not want to live with God. rebelled and seperated themselves from Him. Why do you think any of us will be different? Matter of fact those of us who were created to live with God also did something similar.

Why have a hell in the first place?

Because (like all of you) Not everyone wants to spend an eternity in the presents of the God of the bible.

So where in all of creation can you seperate yourself from the"Omni-present" God of Creation? Answer: You can't. However In the Pit, The Void, The Darknesseternial seperation can be found.

It sounds like what it is: a device to scare people into following your particular religion by making the consequences of not so doing so horrendous that people will follow it if they think there's a 1% chance it's true. Why does God have a desire to have any souls tortured for all eternity?[/

Maybe 1000 years ago, and in the minds of young sunday schoolers or those who left sundayschool before learning the complete truth.

Why would an omniscient God want something like that around?

Because He "sees" a need for it.

How could an omnibenevolent God not only tolerate eternal suffering but require it?

First one must confirm the God is indeed OmniBenevolent with book chapter and verse before he dooms his arguement to the same fate as epericus' paradox.

Painting God as a capricious potentate may have resonated with ancient Near Easterners, but we've come a long way since then and can recognize it as monstrous, just as we can now recognize one human owning another as property is monstrous while the ancients considered it natural.

It all depends on who does the "owning."

It's an awful lot like the choice a mugger gives you when he gives you the option of 'your money or your life'...if the mugger followed you around at a distance and based his decision to kill you or not on whether you crossed at the light or in the middle of the street.

The problem here is you wish to be God yourself. You are not. Therefore you will be subject to His Expressed Will orEternial seperation.

Clearly you've gone with 'able but not willing'.

If this is all you can see then so be it. God does not promise to be who you or epericus has made Him out to be.

So, will you have Free Will in heaven?

Nope. There is no sin in Heaven.

Conclusion: what you've presented here makes a case for a God who values Free Will above benevolence

Yes

and provides for eternal torture for actually exercising Free Will to do anything but obey him.

Provides Eteranl seperation for all who choose it/themselves, over Him. You provide your own eternal torture When you get a glimps of all you could have had, and yet foolishly choose yourself over God.

---

Finally we draw together all of the points i have outlined so they can come to a biblically based conclusion.

Once again THIS IS AN ATHEIST FORUM; the bible has no authority here.

By all means keep citing the bible. I will keep dismissing your arguments and treating you with the contempt you have earned.

A hint: IF you want to be taken seriously,try using logic and reason to refute a position,rather than rely on the non existent authority of the bible.

However,at this point you are putting the horse before the cart: You have not yet established the existence of God. Your belief is faith based, not evidence based. That makes it a superstition.

If only that were true, then your argument would find some legitimacy.
Especially when they try and explain away the God you hide from.

Fact is when you Speak of the God of the bible using the standards found in the bible your "arguments" become subject to the same bible, or do you need me to point out which category of logical fallacy your efforts fall under?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If only that were true, then your argument would find some legitimacy.

If only what were true? Are you claiming you have proved the existence of god? WOW! Are you gonna be FAMOUS! The first person in recorded history to EVER have accomplished that task. Please,please, share your proof.

Fact is when you Speak of the God of the bible using the standards found in the bible your "arguments" become subject to the same bible,

What? I don't understand what you mean,could you please expand,giving a couple of examples?

or do you need me to point out which category of logical fallacy your efforts fall under?

Yes please.


I can't wait for your reply. Seems I may have underestimated your intellect and overestimated my own. I stand ready to be corrected and to learn.

[Drich]

Are you claiming you have proved the existence of god?

I am stating I do not have to "prove anything" if you engage into a conversation discussing the recorded attributes of God. Why you ask??? Because if we are having a conversation about a documented subject you assume responsibility to properly represent said subject. (whether you believe in it or not.) Otherwise know you are simply trying to distract everyone reading this post by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak on;P

Fact is when you Speak of the God of the bible using the standards found in the bible your "arguments" become subject to the same bible,

What? I don't understand what you mean,could you please expand,giving a couple of examples?

I would be most happy to do so
If we have a discussion about Red riding hood, the fact that whether she was a real person or not is inconsequential unless that is the exact discussion we are having. Why? Because we both agree to speak about red riding hood. As such the parameters of the discussion are limited to the works of James barker. Otherwise if you went off reservation then we would not be having a discussion about RRH. (Do not confuse this point with the informal fallacy you are guilty of.)

In turn if you wish to have a discussion about the recorded nature of God then you surrender your right to protest the evidence. UNLESS We are Speaking directly of the "Evidence" of God. Which we are not.

Yes please.

I'll give you a little help. I have selected a few for you to choose from. Understand you are guilty to one degree or another of everything listed, but one should stand out to you more than the others.. This is the Fallacy you are guilty of.

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak


I decided against rubbing salt into your false humility so i will end my response here.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I decided against rubbing salt into your false humility so i will end my response here.

I was being polite,and quite sincere,you arrogant cunt. Go fuck yourself,you are now on ignore