Epicurean Paradox

[Adjusted Sanity]

Maybe god's like dr manhatten. Not evil. Just incapable of understanding us.

[Mister Agenda]

Maybe if Drich had paid attention to my use of the term 'natural evil' he could have saved himself some work and not gotten the notion that he is the one introducing the concept that Epicurus was talking about human suffering rather than bad intentions. We've been trying to convince him of that. Is he for real?

The Paradox works against any God that is claimed to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He could have just written a Paradox that would only apply to Zeus or Apollo, and their relatives, but he chose to write about any god with the attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

Again, Drich is not making these claims about his God so what's the big deal about Epicurus?

[NoMoreFaith]

I have Identified the original Greek word that translate to evil in the English and I have posted the original meaning of the word. (Which basically translates into unfair hard work.) Which is a far cry from how you are using the term.

Epicurus was not talking about hard work, he was talking about a life of pain. Are you seriously saying the epicurian paradox is actually about how if God was real he wouldn't have to work very hard. What idiocy.

"Good is pleasure, pain is evil. Uncontrolled pursuit of pleasure results not in more pleasure but in pain. Therefore we must live austere to avoid pain. Pain, fear of death, and fear of the gods were the greatest threats to man's happiness." Epicurus

Pain was equated to evil in his thinking, but differed from other greek schools that he didn't believe all pleasure was good either.

Otherwise know you have undertaken a personal vendetta ignoring all semblances of a honorable and or a fair inquiry. For you have literally redefined the terms being discussed to stack the deck n your favor to win this argument.

No we have not. You want to define evil as malicious intent against god.
You're right that evil is poorly defined, but your version requires a presupposition that anything he does, no matter how much pain and suffering it causes to mankind, is a good thing.

Quit the martyr act, you were pulling a fast one, and thought you'd get away with it.

If you persist then know my interest in the conversation stops.

Translation: If you don't stop pointing out the bible is not a reference for word definitions in greek philosophy I'll throw my toys out the pram.

As I told the other guy arguing this broken line of logic I am not here to change your personal philosophy on God I am simply trying to provide clarity for all who earnestly seek it.
Clarity has been provided, it is not my responsibility to keep you from mucking it back up in your own minds.

We're not trying to change yours, but if you persist in trying to play word games instead of putting forward actual philosophical arguments and logical progression, what is the point?

If you are establishing that your god does not fulfill any omni definitions, jolly good, he may be able to dodge the paradox.

I tell you what, I let you use the Bible for Epicurus' Paradox, but you've got to let me use The Belgariad by David Eddings in response. Muppet.

---

Maybe god's like dr manhatten. Not evil. Just incapable of understanding us.

Then he is not omniscient. Although I admit thats a totally different discussion (worth discussing elsewhere thou).

There is always an argument that a omniscient God can't understand what it feels to ride a bike for instance, but i've never been persuaded by it.

Why worship something that feels no empathy or kindness towards you. It'd be like you expecting your ants in the ant farm to worship you.

[genkaus]

That's a slippery slope to walk on. What defines a conceptual attribute? Furthermore, by what evidence do we acknowledge that benevolence and evil only exist within the conscience? Surely our ideas as to what benevolence and evil look and act like are only within our minds, but how does it follow that only our 'benevolence' and our 'evil' exist?

A conceptual attribute is one that a) cannot be physically measured, b) does not correspond to any perceptible characteristic of the object.

As to the second - we acknowledge the fact that benevolence and evil exist only within our mind when we understand how those abstractions came into existence. As subjective human beings, we find certain actions to be desirable and others undesirable. Combining that with the motivations behind those actions, we came up with the abstract concepts of benevolence and evil. Thus we see that these concepts cannot exist where subjective desires - the consequence of consciousness - do not exist.

The very idea of God is beyond human concepts, this is what I've been referring to about the deeper ideas behind abstractions. We can self define abstractions, but the very nature of the abstraction itself is beyond our grasp to understand or fathom. Once again, if I ask you what is infinity and what does it look like, or similarly, what does infinite transparency 'look' like, you could attempt to analogize or illustrate an image to me, but that wouldn't capture the very idea of the abstraction itself.

Why would the idea of god be beyond human concepts? Why would an abstraction that we have defined be beyond our grasp by its nature?

Your mistake is that you think "grasping" and abstract means to perceive it. That is incorrect. You are limiting the human ability to think only to perceptual concretes - an ability we surpass the moment we learn to create abstractions. Regarding your infinity question, I'd say that infinity is an abstract concept which cannot be grasped as a perceptual concrete - because it is not a perceptual concrete. So it makes no sense to ask what infinity looks like. Something infinitely transparent might be a perceptual concrete and it would simply look black or empty - like the space.

---

I am glad to see we agree on this very important point, for as I said several times now. Epicurus with his definitions was not speaking to your understanding of sin and evil, and if we are hold a strict understanding to the work of Epicurus and his definition of Evil then we must also strictly look and only look to the gods He was calling out as well. Why because His definition of Evil specifically addresses failed promises of his gods. None of which were made by the God of the bible.

I have Identified the original Greek word that translate to evil in the English and I have posted the original meaning of the word. (Which basically translates into unfair hard work.) Which is a far cry from how you are using the term.

Therefore if you use the bible to define God, and ignore Epicurus' gods and Epicurus' definition of evil then you are only left with the definition of Evil used by the very same bible you used to define God.

Otherwise know you have undertaken a personal vendetta ignoring all semblances of a honorable and or a fair inquiry. For you have literally redefined the terms being discussed to stack the deck n your favor to win this argument. If you persist then know my interest in the conversation stops. As I told the other guy arguing this broken line of logic I am not here to change your personal philosophy on God I am simply trying to provide clarity for all who earnestly seek it.
Clarity has been provided, it is not my responsibility to keep you from mucking it back up in your own minds.

---

The claims made by Epicurean gods are the same as those made by your god - unless you accept that your god is not benevolent and/or omnipotent. According to you, by Epicurean standards - your god is malevolent. Your excuses only go to show that your god does not measure up to the standards set up by Epicurius, while attempting to retain the qualities he ascribed to his gods. Therefore, in order to retain the qualities of both omnipotence and benevolence, while clearly not measuring up to the established standards, your god must redefine the words to have the standards lowered to his level. Such a blatant subversion cannot even be called dishonesty - its simply pathetic.

[Perhaps]

If that's what it takes to be a pantheist, you can have it.

The paradox doesn't really relate to the pantheist perspective. I'm simply analyzing it for soundness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing really applies to pantheism, it's just a redefinition of the word "god" to mean "everything". Of course, it does allow people to retain the god idea (and attach other things to it, things which are not strictly contained within pantheisms definition). It's one of those fun gods that exist only in arguments.

The pantheist god is nothing like us, couldn't care less about us, and definitely didn't "create" us or anything else. In short, not a god at all. (neither able nor willing)

[Drich]

Epicurus was not talking about hard work, he was talking about a life of pain. Are you seriously saying the Epicurean paradox is actually about how if God was real he wouldn't have to work very hard. What idiocy.

I will not accept that you can not see that the evil you have represented is not the evil being represented by Epicurus. That you try and avoid the fact I do not know my own argument well enough to point out your fallacious misuse of the terms Sin, Evil and God in your representation of the paradox.

Keep burring you head in the sand and stand by your current strategy of trying to trivialize and dismiss my work it only serves to strengthen my position, while showing the weakness of your own. Also not to point out too much but you do know "name calling" is an act of desperation, in an argument. So again I welcome your 'best' efforts.

So to recap; By substituting your evil with the evil being described in the original work of Epicurus you have changed the whole dynamic of the supposed paradox. Again not to mention Epicurus was not directing his attention towards the God of the Hebrews, but to the gods that he knew and failed to live up to his understanding of who and what they were supposed to be.

Bottom line is no matter how you perceive the "evil" Epicurus wrote of it is not the evil redefined in your attack using his "paradox against the God of the bible.

Unless you can legitimately address these points then know your efforts will be shown to be little more than a conjecturous commentary that supports your personal faith/beliefs. And again I can point out your desperate need to hold on to what you believe, but I am not here to break you of it. I am here for those who seek clarity, not for people like you who wish to be blinded by their own sense of righteousness.

No we have not. You want to define evil as malicious intent against god.

Absolutely not. You redefine so much at will that you can not even represent the truth if you had too. It seems you formulate a response and then bend arguments and redefine terms to suit your perceived outcome. Again more evidence in your efforts to support your personal beliefs with conjecture and speculation..

Quit the martyr act, you were pulling a fast one, and thought you'd get away with it.

Your projecting.

Translation: If you don't stop pointing out the bible is not a reference for word definitions in Greek philosophy I'll throw my toys out the pram.

Not at all If you wish to have a responsible discussion I am willing to facilitate it. So far those your efforts seem to be less and lees about truth and more and more about your personal beliefs.

We're not trying to change yours, but if you persist in trying to play word games instead of putting forward actual philosophical arguments and logical progression, what is the point?

:Translation: If you keep pointing out our logical fallacies and make us contend with things like dignity and honor or even hold us accountable to what we do, say and think then I do not want to play;P

If you are establishing that your god does not fulfill any omni definitions, jolly good, he may be able to dodge the paradox.

Again I can not confirm or deny as the omni aspects of God as not biblical terms, so unless you define them there is nothing more I can say.

If you dare to have this conversation then by all means start another thread. I will look forward to it.

---

The claims made by Epicurean gods are the same as those made by your god - unless you accept that your god is not benevolent and/or omnipotent.

Then please show me in the bible where God claims any Omni aspects you all have accredited to Him for Himself.

I am looking for book chapter and verse. Not what you heard or what a Bishop taught you nor even what some website says. We are talking about the God of the bible so it is to the bible we must differ our knowledge of God. (Not to your personal faith on God)

According to you, by Epicurean standards - your god is malevolent. Your excuses only go to show that your god does not measure up to the standards set up by Epicurus,

Why because Epicurus was not judging the God of the bible by any standard promised or set up by that God.
Why can't you guys understand that fact?

You are trying to compare Epicurus' apples to your Oranges.

while attempting to retain the qualities he ascribed to his gods. Therefore, in order to retain the qualities of both omnipotence and benevolence, while clearly not measuring up to the established standards, your god must redefine the words to have the standards lowered to his level. Such a blatant subversion cannot even be called dishonesty - its simply pathetic.

What is pathetic is after all of this time you still do not understand that the God of the bible nor the bible it self, ascribes ANY of the omni aspects of God, that the faith of atheists think describe Him. These are your terms not His.

Again before you record another word (lest you look the fool) show me book chapter and verse in the bible where God calls or accepts the Omni aspects as you or Epicurus has defined them.

Otherwise accept that your understanding of God, this paradox, or even this conversation is well beyond the scope of what you are able to responsibly argue.

[genkaus]

Then please show me in the bible where God claims any Omni aspects you all have accredited to Him for Himself.

I am looking for book chapter and verse. Not what you heard or what a Bishop taught you nor even what some website says. We are talking about the God of the bible so it is to the bible we must differ our knowledge of God. (Not to your personal faith on God)

I thought that is what being god meant - being omnibenevolent and omnipotent. If you accept that your god is not all-powerful or all-good then the only question is "Why call him god"?

Why because Epicurus was not judging the God of the bible by any standard promised or set up by that God.
Why can't you guys understand that fact?

You are trying to compare Epicurus' apples to your Oranges.

Yes, we understand your argument. You are trying to first subvert the standards that have been set up by Epicurius, replace them with inferior standards of your god and then claim that the standards that were set up first are not applicable. Excuse us if we don't fall for the con.

What is pathetic is after all of this time you still do not understand that the God of the bible nor the bible it self, ascribes ANY of the omni aspects of God, that the faith of atheists think describe Him. These are your terms not His.

Again before you record another word (lest you look the fool) show me book chapter and verse in the bible where God calls or accepts the Omni aspects as you or Epicurus has defined them.

Otherwise accept that your understanding of God, this paradox, or even this conversation is well beyond the scope of what you are able to responsibly argue.

Ok, fine, then your god is not all-powerful, he is not all-good and by extension, he probably isn't all knowing either. This case is also addressed in the paradox - Why call him god? By Greek standards, your god is a poser.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Translation: If you don't stop pointing out the bible is not a reference for word definitions in greek philosophy I'll throw my toys out the pram.

--yet again .

[NoMoreFaith]

I will not accept that you can not see that the evil you have represented is not the evil being represented by Epicurus. That you try and avoid the fact I do not know my own argument well enough to point out your fallacious misuse of the terms Sin, Evil and God in your representation of the paradox.

Point to where I have misused the term Sin please. I have never used it, because it is particularly biblical in usage and of no import to the question at hand.

Try to understand, this is not an argument aimed solely at the hebrew god. But any God that claims omnipotence and kindness. You have stated that you have no idea if your God has omni aspects. So the question is; What can your God actually do apart from fail to act?

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

Keep burring you head in the sand and stand by your current strategy of trying to trivialize and dismiss my work it only serves to strengthen my position, while showing the weakness of your own. Also not to point out too much but you do know "name calling" is an act of desperation, in an argument. So again I welcome your 'best' efforts.

So by referring to me as a child repeatedly, you were actually saying your argument was an act of desperation.
Or does it not count when you are offensive?

I trivialise your argument solely on the basis that your stance is irrelevant to the paradox. You say you don't know if he is omnipotent because the bible says nothing, then he is either omnipotent subject to Epicurus, or he is not omnipotent and is merely finitely powerful yet immoral (by human standards).

So to recap; By substituting your evil with the evil being described in the original work of Epicurus you have changed the whole dynamic of the supposed paradox.

Tell me, substituting evil as "against the will of God" does not change the dynamic? Not to mention completely irrelevant to Epicurus' statement.

Again not to mention Epicurus was not directing his attention towards the God of the Hebrews, but to the gods that he knew and failed to live up to his understanding of who and what they were supposed to be.

No issue. No argument. If your God fails to live up to the standards for Godhood set by Epicurus then he is exempt.
Hence 'Then why call him God'.

Bottom line is no matter how you perceive the "evil" Epicurus wrote of it is not the evil redefined in your attack using his "paradox against the God of the bible.

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?

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

Explain it once more, and explain how trying to define evil as "against Gods will" has ANYTHING to do with pain and suffering as defined by Epicurus.

If Yes, then prove that what we know of Greek Sceptics is actually completely wrong.

You accuse us all of twisting the argument, yet you are the one who wishes to use a faulty understanding of Evil. You are blinded by the blinkers of your faith if you cannot see this has been proven without doubt.

Unless you can legitimately address these points then know your efforts will be shown to be little more than a conjecturous commentary that supports your personal faith/beliefs. And again I can point out your desperate need to hold on to what you believe, but I am not here to break you of it. I am here for those who seek clarity, not for people like you who wish to be blinded by their own sense of righteousness.

LOL. That is the only statement this paragraph requires due to the massive hypocrisy contained therein.

Not at all If you wish to have a responsible discussion I am willing to facilitate it. So far those your efforts seem to be less and lees about truth and more and more about your personal beliefs.

What do I believe exactly? Can you tell me? Your statement indicates I am defending my belief? Which one exactly.

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.

Translation: If you keep pointing out our logical fallacies and make us contend with things like dignity and honor or even hold us accountable to what we do, say and think then I do not want to play;P

You have found no logical fallacies except that which do not comply to your biblical understandings, which we have at great pains explained their irrelevance as the argument.
We do not direct the argument at your version of God. Merely any God which is to be considered Omnipotent and Kind.

Again I can not confirm or deny as the omni aspects of God as not biblical terms, so unless you define them there is nothing more I can say.

This is the part you do not get your head around. Myself, and others define nothing about YOUR god. Indeed, it is not possible for us to define YOUR god to YOU.

The question is, IF god is omnipotent, then he is malevolent, IF he is not, then why call him God.

The question for you now, is to state if God has finite power, then why do you call him god? Because he says he is? God is God because the bible says he is, and the bible is true, because its Gods word? You understand enough to know that we can dismiss a circular argument.

This is the quintessential essence of the Epicurean paradox. If God or Gods exist, then they have no interest in mankind, and especially in judging them.

I will also point out, that if you are unable to give a reason to call him God, that is non-circular in nature, then by default, you must also admit to not knowing if he has the basic power of "existence" in the first place. No shame in not knowing, most of us call ourselves agnostic to a certain extent, even as atheists, come join the club.