Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

I thought that is what being god meant - being omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

Nope

If you accept that your god is not all-powerful or all-good then the only question is "Why call him god"?

You are begging the question here.

Yes, we understand your argument. You are trying to first subvert the standards that have been set up by Epicurus, 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.

There is nothing to fall for. All any honest man has to do is look at the parameters of the supposed paradox and see that the God of the bible is not being discussed here, and if one wanted to force the comparison to the God of the bible, then one is bound to address how the bible describes God.

Real simple if you or anyone else wants to maintain any semblance integrity.
Otherwise know in your heart of hearts you had to lie, cheat and misrepresent Epicurus'' work, The God of the bible, and force the issue when truth and understanding was brought to you. this is a dishonorable work by any man's standard.

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.

Now we are into several other fallacies. I never said any of those things i simply pointed out God is not bound to your understanding of the Omni aspects that you deem necessary to accredited to Him. God has His own descriptions as recorded by the bible, none of which begin with O-M-N-I. Because of this it changes the paradigm of the "paradox." If you would like for me to walk you through it again i would be happy to point you in the right direction.

[genkaus]

Nope

Ok then.

You are begging the question here.

And you are avoiding it.

There is nothing to fall for. All any honest man has to do is look at the parameters of the supposed paradox and see that the God of the bible is not being discussed here, and if one wanted to force the comparison to the God of the bible, then one is bound to address how the bible describes God.

And that position is addressed in the paradox as well. If a being is not omnipotent or omnibenevolent, then why call him god? Your Yahweh fails to meet the criteria for being a god.

Real simple if you or anyone else wants to maintain any semblance integrity.
Otherwise know in your heart of hearts you had to lie, cheat and misrepresent Epicurus'' work, The God of the bible, and force the issue when truth and understanding was brought to you. this is a dishonorable work by any man's standard.

Oh what fine ramblings you weave just to avoid the question.

We've established that your so called god is not omnipotent. He is not omni-benevolent. Which means his power is limited and he is atleast a little evil. Why then would you call him a god?

Now we are into several other fallacies. I never said any of those things i simply pointed out God is not bound to your understanding of the Omni aspects that you deem necessary to accredited to Him. God has His own descriptions as recorded by the bible, none of which begin with O-M-N-I. Because of this it changes the paradigm of the "paradox." If you would like for me to walk you through it again i would be happy to point you in the right direction.

The paradox doesn't change with the blatherings of your bible. Epicurius, in an amazing display of foresight, provided a category for your "god" as well. Something that is not all good or all powerful should not be called god. The entity described in the bible is a poser. A fraud. A con man. And he cannot become god not matter how many times he refers to himself as such.

That settles it then. Who's up for some coffee?

[Drich]

[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='273197' dateline='1334579271']
[quote]Point to where I have misused the term Sin please. All sin is Evil. If you have separated the two concepts that constitutes as a misuse of the term.

[quote]Try to understand, this is not an argument aimed solely at the Hebrew god. But any God that claims omnipotence and kindness. [/quote]Then the rest of the conversation is moot. For God does not claim that attribute. It is given to him by worshipers and atheists like.

[quote]You have stated that you have no idea if your God has omni aspects.[/quote]Not what was said. I said God of the bible does not claim these terms. They are given to him from people who do not know of or understand the biblical descriptions of Him.

[quote] So the question is; What can your God actually do apart from fail to act?[/quote]Begs the question.

[quote]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.[/quote]Maybe if you are spider man.

[quote]If God is capable of averting an earthquake, then does he not have a moral responsibility to do so?[/quote]No. Why? Because at the fall of man, the reigns of this world were given over to us. It is now our responsibility to mitigate the destruction of a fallen world.

[quote]So by referring to me as a child repeatedly, you were actually saying your argument was an act of desperation.[/quote]In a sense yes, as I am desperately trying to communicate these basic principles.

[quote]Or does it not count when you are offensive?[/quote] The offense should be secondary to your personal understanding of these basic concepts. If there is a lack of understanding in these basic terms then questions should be asked rather than trying to push past them with your current understandings. I was trying to force a productive dialog rather than continually argue a belabored point.

[quote]I trivialize 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).[/quote]You do not understand my argument at all. I am saying omnipotence in not a biblical term and as such God is not bound to your (or Epicurus') understanding of the word in question.

[quote]Tell me, substituting evil as "against the will of God" does not change the dynamic? Not to mention completely irrelevant to Epicurus' statement.[/quote]
Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin, and yes it does, which is my point.

Plus If it is irrelevant to Epicurus' statement in it's original context then by definition is breaks the paradox.

If Epicurus is talking about a different understanding of God or different understanding of evil then the "paradox" does not apply everything man deems or addresses as God or any and everything he identifies as evil. Therefore to plug in the God of the bible to this work we must also bring in the definitions and descriptions the God of the bible uses to identify Himself!
Otherwise the work of Epicurus simply does not apply to the God being discussed.


[quote]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'.[/quote]Because of what God does call Himself and How He identifies Himself.
Believe it or not the standard of identifying God does not reside in the scope of Epicurus.


[quote]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?[/quote] For Epicurus no, which again is not the issue as He was not talking about the God of the bible which Again He has his own definitions of Sin and Evil, and description of himself that puts him beyond the "paradox" EP made for himself.

[quote]If No, In what way does pain and suffering equate against our argument that evil is suffering.[/quote]How is pain and suffering not evil?
Because these two disliked human experiences are not intrinsically evil or sinful. They simply exist. It is how we perceive and interpret these experiences that ultimately ascribes good or bad value it as a whole.

[quote]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.[/quote]Nothing to explain as you have made my point for me. They are two totally separate things. Therefore if we are to judge God then should it not be by His bible and His definitions of Sin and Evil?

[quote]If Yes, then prove that what we know of Greek Skeptics 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.[/quote]I said this once before I am only pointing out the hypocrisy in Judging God by a standard that you yourself would not want to be judged. in that you all have judged God using terms and descriptions of him not consistent with what He has claimed for himself.

What if i draged you before a like minded judge and labled you a rapist and murderer and then proceeded to tell the judge (in a general non specific way) all the bad things muderers and rapists do. All the while the two of us conspiring to ignore all of the personal attributes that would vindicate you, all the while soley focousing on what "murderers/rapeist" are known to do. Never mind the fact we are not even describing you in the least little way. You simply share a title that i arbertarily gave to you. would this be justice in your eyes?

[quote]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.[/quote]I see that you have finally changed direction and are facing the same way I was at the beginning. Now the only question is can you continue down this line of thought and catch up?

[NoMoreFaith]

If you have separated the two concepts that constitutes as a misuse of the term.

Regarding Sin and Evil, and my request to show where I have used the word Sin. Once again failing to address the question.

Your statement equates sin and evil, which you do so from a biblical standpoint, rather than the philosophical one and therefore dismissable.

Try to understand, this is not an argument aimed solely at the Hebrew god. But any God that claims omnipotence and kindness.

Then the rest of the conversation is moot. For God does not claim that attribute. It is given to him by worshipers and atheists like.

Once again, although it gets quite dull. We claim nothing for your God. Your interpretation of your God is for you alone in your head.
The conversation however, is not mooted, for if he is no omnipotent, why call him God? The question you avoid for so many pages is... what makes your idea of God... God?

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

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.

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.

You have stated that you have no idea if your God has omni aspects.

Not what was said. I said God of the bible does not claim these terms. They are given to him from people who do not know of or understand the biblical descriptions of Him.

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? Despite your attempts, we cannot assume this question for you, or make assumptions about YOUR God.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Maybe if you are spider man.

Voltaire originally. Sadly, you will not see the irony that you accuse others of being dominated by pop culture references.
How about one you will recognise;
Luke 12:48: "from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

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

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

No. Why? Because at the fall of man, the reigns of this world were given over to us. It is now our responsibility to mitigate the destruction of a fallen world.

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

The offense should be secondary to your personal understanding of these basic concepts. If there is a lack of understanding in these basic terms then questions should be asked rather than trying to push past them with your current understandings. I was trying to force a productive dialog rather than continually argue a belabored point.

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.

To do so, is simply ad hominem of the highest order, the arguments against a biblical definition in a greek sceptic argument were, and remain sound.

Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin, and yes it does, which is my point.

Are we back to this so soon? No, Evil is not a malicious intent to commit sin, only in your assertion it is so. Pain and suffering have been the standard set by Epicurus. If you are malcontent with the word evil, replace it with pain and suffering, and then you can have a real discussion.

Plus If it is irrelevant to Epicurus' statement in it's original context then by definition is breaks the paradox.

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

If Epicurus is talking about a different understanding of God or different understanding of evil then the "paradox" does not apply everything man deems or addresses as God or any and everything he identifies as evil. Therefore to plug in the God of the bible to this work we must also bring in the definitions and descriptions the God of the bible uses to identify Himself!
Otherwise the work of Epicurus simply does not apply to the God being discussed.

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

Because of what God does call Himself and How He identifies Himself.
Believe it or not the standard of identifying God does not reside in the scope of Epicurus.

Then it stands to reason, that if I call myself God, I have equal status with your God. I identify myself as God. Will you worship me? 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.

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?

For Epicurus no, which again is not the issue as He was not talking about the God of the bible which Again He has his own definitions of Sin and Evil, and description of himself that puts him beyond the "paradox" EP made for himself.

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.

This is the phrase you must contend with, your part in this discussion, is therefore to show that your idea of God is not malevolent, despite being able to prevent suffering.

If he is not able, then you are simply arguing a semantic that God is God "cos he said so".

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

How is pain and suffering not evil?
Because these two disliked human experiences are not intrinsically evil or sinful. They simply exist. It is how we perceive and interpret these experiences that ultimately ascribes good or bad value it as a whole.

Very true, thus Epicurus stands from OUR perspective. We conceive that pain is bad, and pleasure is good at our most base instincts, and thus define much of what we consider moral.
The argument that Epicurus makes, is that from Mans perspective, God is malevolent in the same way Humans may seem malevolent to an Ant.

Nothing to explain as you have made my point for me. They are two totally separate things. Therefore if we are to judge God then should it not be by His bible and His definitions of Sin and Evil?

No. It should not. We judge God by the pain and suffering we endure, which he is capable of preventing, and we are not. He is malevolent in his inaction because of our perceptions.

Let's try an analogy; You have a pet hamster, whom becomes trapped in a wheel that fell off the cage. If you do not lift it.. it will die.
Do you have a moral responsibility to lift the wheel, or is it the consequence of freedom you have given to the hamster to be trapped in the first place.

What if i draged you before a like minded judge and labled you a rapist and murderer and then proceeded to tell the judge (in a general non specific way) all the bad things muderers and rapists do. All the while the two of us conspiring to ignore all of the personal attributes that would vindicate you, all the while soley focousing on what "murderers/rapeist" are known to do. Never mind the fact we are not even describing you in the least little way. You simply share a title that i arbertarily gave to you. would this be justice in your eyes?

With great power......

Your analogy fails to address the issue whether I had power to easily prevent the bad things murderers and rapists do.

I clearly do not, therefore I do not have the responsibility. God has some measure of power to do so, otherwise, why call him God. Thus a paradox.

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.

I see that you have finally changed direction and are facing the same way I was at the beginning. Now the only question is can you continue down this line of thought and catch up?

I thought we had dispensed with the backhanded insults? What did you say about desperation?

The problem of what is understood to be evil. The problem of moral injustice, the problem of excessive suffering.

My first post on the subject. Now. How have I changed direction. I haven't. You are lying. I say that not to insult, but a statement of provable fact. I have always asserted Epicurus' stance on Evil.

You wish that humans have no right to judge God, and so the Hamster trapped in its wheel cannot judge you the human who allows it to live at your sufference.. is not the actions of a benevolent being.
Thus these things are not the actions of a benevolent God.

[The Grand Nudger]

-God "Waaaaah, things didn't go the way I wanted them to, I'm gonna take my ball and leave"
-Man "Pussy."

This "fallen world" bullshit just makes your god an absentee landlord, a deadbeat dad. Way to go. As has been said, malevolent. Not worthy of worship.

[Reforged]

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.

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.

*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.

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.



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. This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter) As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil. 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.

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.

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. :-)

[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?

[TheJackel]

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

So your GOD creates beasts capable of sinning against his will so he can judge them for it..Like taking zero responsibility for what he himself creates. Ever read the book Island of Dr Monroe? Blaming the beasts of your creations for the wrongs they commit from a position or pure hypocrisy? It's like people blaming the bomb instead of the bomb maker for all those whom had died due to the exploding bomb to the point of even possibly blaming the victims themselves as well.

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.

Then your supposed all powerful deity should have created a perfect world incapable of sin rather than bitching and complaining about how wrong it's going according to his Narcissistic Ego and beliefs.. Bad things in the world happen simply because there are 3 governing properties of pretty much any system or state of existence... That's "Positive, negative, and neutral".. Chaos theory son! And it's of natural consequence and has nothing to do with "sin"... And let's be honest, sin is relative concept.. After all, Christian bigotry magically becomes "righteous"..

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. This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter) As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil. 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.

The option should not be given if it's then presented as a ultimatum to which entirely removes the "free will". Hence wasting everyone's time with his ego centric drama, much less the need to have a supposed place of hell to torture those whom don't bow down.. He would be better off just making yes robots.. And btw, the argument of choice is bullshit in your statement because no real choice can be made without total and utter omniscience, and omniscience of any and all infinite consequences in regards to any choice to be made. So unless your GOD want's to grant every human omniscience, your argument is utter nonsensical.

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.

Evil is not proof of free will... The second half of your argument here is proof of the folly of your statement about free will.. Free will means no constraints, no limits, or boundaries of any kind or sort what-so-ever. Do you have the choice to tell your GOD to go fuck himself if he tries to send you to hell? Do you have the free will to be GOD?.. No, so free will is a logical fallacy, or nothing more than a placebo ignorant of the rules and constraints that govern your very existence, or even your own conscious mind..

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.

Yeah because the people starving in Sudan deserve it regardless of how much they pray to your idiotic lord.. Tell me, do you starve your children? Do you let them play with guns and knives while you watch TV? The sheer stupidity of the Concept of GOD is mind numbingly sad.. Worst yet, it has everything to do with the "Title" as such a title is nothing more than a concept of pure opinion. The whole concept of GOD is nothing more than a concept of utter opinion to where either all things can be given the title or regarded as a GOD, or that such opinions can by the power of opinion state that there are no such things as GOD's, or worthy of such a title.. The concept of GOD is entirely moot as you may as well worship the dust bunny on my desk... It gets even better when you compare Pantheism with your Christian GOD belief as Pantheism would technically be the top of the totem pole, and that would make everything GOD... AKA A MOOT CONCEPT ENTIRELY!

[Reforged]

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

So your GOD creates beasts capable of sinning against his will so he can judge them for it..Like taking zero responsibility for what he himself creates. Ever read the book Island of Dr Monroe? Blaming the beasts of your creations for the wrongs they commit from a position or pure hypocrisy? It's like people blaming the bomb instead of the bomb maker for all those whom had died due to the exploding bomb to the point of even possibly blaming the victims themselves as well.

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.

Then your supposed all powerful deity should have created a perfect world incapable of sin rather than bitching and complaining about how wrong it's going according to his Narcissistic Ego and beliefs.. Bad things in the world happen simply because there are 3 governing properties of pretty much any system or state of existence... That's "Positive, negative, and neutral".. Chaos theory son! And it's of natural consequence and has nothing to do with "sin"... And let's be honest, sin is relative concept.. After all, Christian bigotry magically becomes "righteous"..

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. This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter) As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil. 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.

The option should not be given if it's then presented as a ultimatum to which entirely removes the "free will". Hence wasting everyone's time with his ego centric drama, much less the need to have a supposed place of hell to torture those whom don't bow down.. He would be better off just making yes robots.. And btw, the argument of choice is bullshit in your statement because no real choice can be made without total and utter omniscience, and omniscience of any and all infinite consequences in regards to any choice to be made. So unless your GOD want's to grant every human omniscience, your argument is utter nonsensical.

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.

Evil is not proof of free will... The second half of your argument here is proof of the folly of your statement about free will.. Free will means no constraints, no limits, or boundaries of any kind or sort what-so-ever. Do you have the choice to tell your GOD to go fuck himself if he tries to send you to hell? Do you have the free will to be GOD?.. No, so free will is a logical fallacy, or nothing more than a placebo ignorant of the rules and constraints that govern your very existence, or even your own conscious mind..

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.

Yeah because the people starving in Sudan deserve it regardless of how much they pray to your idiotic lord.. Tell me, do you starve your children? Do you let them play with guns and knives while you watch TV? The sheer stupidity of the Concept of GOD is mind numbingly sad.. Worst yet, it has everything to do with the "Title" as such a title is nothing more than a concept of pure opinion. The whole concept of GOD is nothing more than a concept of utter opinion to where either all things can be given the title or regarded as a GOD, or that such opinions can by the power of opinion state that there are no such things as GOD's, or worthy of such a title.. The concept of GOD is entirely moot as you may as well worship the dust bunny on my desk... It gets even better when you compare Pantheism with your Christian GOD belief as Pantheism would technically be the top of the totem pole, and that would make everything GOD... AKA A MOOT CONCEPT ENTIRELY!

I needed to use a new meme to properly illustrate the amount of pwnage going down here.
Seriously guys, I'm erect.

[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.