Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

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

Just because I haven't pulled the trigger in the past does not mean I can't or did not have opportunity. I have respect for you and the general atheist desire for some "proof" or substance in belief. That is why i am here to some degree. however that said I am not God and my patients has limits. I am like anyone else here. In that I get tired. "and what I know I should do, I do not do. That which I hate, I do."

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh heavens no, we couldn't possibly mention that little red riding hood is a fictional character, that would be completely out of line. Go try to control the thoughts and words of other people where it's welcome, a church perhaps. There are no "recorded attributes of god". Only claimed attributes of another claim. The author of this question wasn't interested in your god, and neither are we, he was trying to draw an inference about a god that might exist outside of the pages of a dusty fable, an exercise that you are entirely uninterested in, and likely ill-equipped for.

[genkaus]

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

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.

That is where you are wrong. The purpose of discussion of any attributes of god is ultimately to determine if such an entity is realistically possible.

Suppose I make claim about the existence of a species I'd call "Suras". As an attribute I claim that these things have completely black fur. Also, their fur is completely white. No, they don't have black and white stripes - their fur is black all over and white all over at the same time.

The attributes stated here are self-contradictory - as are the attributes of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. We can discuss all day if such a thing is possible, but if I show you he evidence of existence of the species with those specific attributes - the discussion ends there.

You talk about properly representing the subject and accepting biblical standards about it. But the problem here is that its the biblical standards that are wrong and self-contradictory and it is those standards against which criticism is being leveled. Arguing from a given premise to show that it leads to a contradiction and thereby disproving the premise, is a well known and often used method of logical inquiry.

[Welsh cake]

The first paragraph in my post was taken from another forum written by another user asking How Christians address this misidentified paradox.

By dismissing it completely, just like what YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

Simply identifying all of the misconceptions he has about God through scripture shows he did not understand the God he so quickly misjudged.

You judging the Biblical God to be "good" is a woeful misjudgement.

Everyone else seems to see a confused little man who died in rebellion of God.

So you're confirming your God concept is a gigantic dickhead after all then? O_0

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

Interesting 'mindset' you have towards paradoxes.


Resolve this then.

Who said anything about complete all encompassing benevolence?

You just keep moving those goalposts don't you?

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.

And do you know why everyone starting hating god enough that they couldn't stand being near him? Oh wait, that's right, because the colossal bastard created everyone with no greater purpose in mind than to exist in -complete servitude and submission- to him.

Your god concept doesn't understand equality. Indeed, he's completely incompatible with, and diametrically opposed to, the concept.

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

You got that right. Who the fuck would want to be near such a cosmic cunt for a minute, let alone an eternity?

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.

Congratulations. You couldn't resolve the Epicurean paradox and now you're on the verge of creating another paradox depending on your theology and "interpretation of scripture". You cannot still exist in Hell and remove yourself from an omnipresent being whom you assert Hell is apart from. That's a contradiction.

Hell isn't enough. To achieve liberation from such a being, one must simply cease to exist altogether, so the tyrant god has no more power over them, any more.

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

Do fuck off. Next minute you'll pull that ridiculous "You're just atheists because you want to sin! A-bloo-bloo-bloo!" statement out of your arse for us. That's not what he's saying at all with that thought experiment.

Nope. There is no sin in Heaven.

No freedom? What a miserable bore-fest of a destiny. Even you don't deserve such a fate, no one does.

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.

1. How is it foolish if we're using our freewill correctly like we're supposed to and be masters of our own destiny?
2. Wouldn't it be actually foolish to abuse our divinely-given freewill and not make any choices but throw it back in God's face?
3. Why do you insist on spelling "eternal separation" incorrectly over and over again?
4. Why are you constantly fucking up simple quote tags?

[KichigaiNeko]

religious people will never "get it"

[Drich]

You judging the Biblical God to be "good" is a woeful misjudgment.

By what standard?

Who said anything about complete all encompassing benevolence?

You just keep moving those goalposts don't you?

I never set this standard. You assumed it. I pointed out your assumption is wrong. That is unless you can show Book, Chapter and Verse that says God is "Omni-benevolent." If you can not, then know your argument that attributes "Omni-benevolence" to God (Much like the work of Epicurus) is in error. That in turn means all of your assertions based on that foundation also fails. Again which is why I can identify the Epicurean Paradox as being little more than the personal grudge one man had against his understanding of God.

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.

And do you know why everyone starting hating god enough that they couldn't stand being near him?

Yes. Because they wanted what you want. The ability to be completely free and uninhibited to make any choice they want free from any and all consequences. Their Pride told them they deserved it and it was their right to live this way.

Oh wait, that's right, because the colossal bastard created everyone with no greater purpose in mind than to exist in -complete servitude and submission- to him.

Which is why you have been given the option to opt out of creation at the end of your time here.

Your god concept doesn't understand equality.

Maybe because we are not equal to God.

Indeed, he's completely incompatible with, and diametrically opposed to, the concept.

So what? What will you do about it? "opt out?"

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

You got that right. Who the fuck would want to be near such a cosmic cunt for a minute, let alone an eternity?

Again then simply opt out. That is the purpose of this life you have been given. to see whether you want to spend an eternity with God. Not everyone wants to. That means not everyone will. Now that you have made your decision, what will you do with the rest of your time as a member of creation?

Congratulations. You couldn't resolve the Epicurean paradox and now you're on the verge of creating another paradox depending on your theology and "interpretation of scripture". You cannot still exist in Hell and remove yourself from an omnipresent being whom you assert Hell is apart from. That's a contradiction.

Only if you do not understand what is being implied.

Your continuity, your soul, your "sanity" is a gift. Therefore it is apart of creation. Hell is the eternal separation of your core elements and what God has given you to bind all of that together. The "Spiritual dirt" you were made from will remain. what bound it all together into a cohesive sentient being will return to God.
If you are familiar with the story of Nebuchadnezzar (The book of Daniel)God did something similar to Him while He was alive. What was left was the primal animal or the frame work your soul inhabits.

Hell isn't enough. To achieve liberation from such a being, one must simply cease to exist altogether, so the tyrant god has no more power over them, any more.

In part, a large portion of you will.Your mind will buckle under the enormity of simply staring into the abyss. When the reality of Hell consumes you, and the thought of an eternity of that life sinks in, what has not buckled will break and everything you were in this life will be reduced to a primal mass of fear and instinct.

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

Do fuck off. Next minute you'll pull that ridiculous "You're just atheists because you want to sin! A-bloo-bloo-bloo!" statement out of your arse for us. That's not what he's saying at all with that thought experiment.

then explain

No freedom? What a miserable bore-fest of a destiny. Even you don't deserve such a fate, no one does.

Indeed! no one does. That is not to say we can be given this destiny if we simply ask seek and knock.


2

. Wouldn't it be actually foolish to abuse our divinely-given freewill and not make any choices but throw it back in God's face?

you only have one choice, because you were born destine for eternal separation. So doing nothing would have you eternally separated from God. The only choice/change you have is to elect to be apart of Creation for eternity.

So if you looking to live your life and not make a choice just to throw in God's face. Know He beat you to it.

3. Why do you insist on spelling "eternal separation" incorrectly over and over again?

I am Not a well educated man. I did not know it was spelled incorrectly, and spell check did not get it. (Now ask why I will continue to do so)

4. Why are you constantly fucking up simple quote tags?

See above

I found this saying to be true in life. Those who can, do. Those who can't teach. Those who can't teach correct others on message boards when their arguments are weak and failing.

---

That is where you are wrong. The purpose of discussion of any attributes of god is ultimately to determine if such an entity is realistically possible.

So If I were to say Red Riding hood hood was blue I am trying to determine whether or not she existed? How do you know I am not simply stating what I have been told because I never actually read the story? Maybe I because of what others have told me to think about riding hood's hood I never bother to look or read for myself.
Therefore I am arguing the foolish conclusions of a self deluded person who makes claims against what he himself either does not understand or has a personal vendetta against. If this is the case is it not wise to establish the known information about God before trying to discern whether or not He exists? After all how can one make an honest determination if one refuses to examine what is known?

What you and you friend are trying to do by invoking the great powers of the red herring is to preserve you preconceived understandings of God without addressing what you can not easily account for.

You talk about properly representing the subject and accepting biblical standards about it. But the problem here is that its the biblical standards that are wrong and self-contradictory and it is those standards against which criticism is being leveled.

Then answer this simple question. How is it you can use the bible to convict the known nature of God (As with the Epicurean 'paradox") and yet dismiss the very same bible when a coherent defense is found with in the same pages the original accusation is levied?

Do you not see the logical fallacy here?

[Tobie]

That is unless you can show Book, Chapter and Verse that says God is "Omni-benevolent."

I was told that Psalms 17:9 shows the omnibenevolence of god during RS lessons at school. I think that was what one of the vatican councils said anyway.

[Drich]

I was told that Psalms 17:9 (From the wicked who oppress me,
From my deadly enemies who surround me.) shows the omni benevolence of god during RS lessons at school.

The Book of Psalms is not a book of Doctrinal law. The book of Psalms is a book of praises. That would be like trying to teach the Gospel Only using a song book as your source. Yes there is truth, but it is not definitive doctrinal truth.
Conversely one can not properly exegete a passage from the book of Psalms that establishes a principle found nowhere else in the bible.

that said Psalms 17:9 has ABSOLUTLY Nothing to do with establishing Omni benevolence as a leading attribute of God.

I think that was what one of the vatican councils said anyway.

Then ask them to show you book Chapter and Verse.

[The Grand Nudger]

Truth, but not doctrinal truth, varying degrees and categories of truth ftw..lol. "Oh yeah that part, yeah it's true but don't hold me to that".

Are you prepared to ditch omni-benevolence? Is it "non-doctrinal"?

[genkaus]

So If I were to say Red Riding hood hood was blue I am trying to determine whether or not she existed?

No, but you are claiming that a red hood which is colored blue can exist.

How do you know I am not simply stating what I have been told because I never actually read the story?

Because you didn't simply state - you attempted to justify statements.

Maybe I because of what others have told me to think about riding hood's hood I never bother to look or read for myself.

An apt analogy of your attitude towards god.

Therefore I am arguing the foolish conclusions of a self deluded person who makes claims against what he himself either does not understand or has a personal vendetta against.

You do realize that the only person this applies to is you?

If this is the case is it not wise to establish the known information about God before trying to discern whether or not He exists? After all how can one make an honest determination if one refuses to examine what is known?

You cannot "know" his attributes and then determine if he exists -because knowledge implies certainty. You can assume certain attributes and then show that it can possibly exist. In your case - since you chose self-contradictory attributes - it cannot.

What you and you friend are trying to do by invoking the great powers of the red herring is to preserve you preconceived understandings of God without addressing what you can not easily account for.

It its the meaning of the words that is established a-priori. What you are trying to do is to change the established meaning.

Then answer this simple question. How is it you can use the bible to convict the known nature of God (As with the Epicurean 'paradox") and yet dismiss the very same bible when a coherent defense is found with in the same pages the original accusation is levied?
Do you not see the logical fallacy here?

Because the known nature of god did not come from bible. Epicurus lived long before your bible was written and therefore he did not use it as a basis for his paradox.

Which is why, the bible a as a standard can be questioned.


Further, even if bible was used to to come up with such a paradox, it is not a coherent, logical, scientific theory based on a single premise. It is a bunch of events, stories, parables, metaphors etc. which are inconsistent, irrational and often self-contradictory. So accepting one part of bible as the premise does not necessitate accepting whole of it as one.