Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='274251' dateline='1334724689']
The epicurean paradox does not make such a compareson. you do, and no I do not agree with you.

Yes it does. The Epicurean paradox says "Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

If you think your quoted passage is indeed comparing the gods of Epicurus to the Hebrew God. Your reading comprehension is probably not where it should be to have these conversations. At least to the degree where you are insisting on asserting points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

What i see is Epicurus comparing his gods to his standard of morality (which were given over to him by his gods' prophets.) None of which have anything to do with the Hebrew God.
Lest you are suggesting a gentile/Greek philosopher with no Jewish ties somehow had access to the God of Abraham, and has judged him according to the standards and morality of gods he knew.

If this is what you are saying, The next question would be why would he seek the consul of a God from a "defeated people?" Back then that was a sure sign you were worshiping a false/weak god. No paradox was needed in his culture to prove the Hebrew God false in his mind.

Because of that Epicurus would have ignored the Hebrew God completely, and focused his worship on the strong gods of the mighty Roman Empire.
As such we can know what his gods promised him and his people in exchange for loyalty and sacrifice. Which is why he came up with method to judge the gods he has paid homage to all of his life and apparently did not get what he had bargained for.

The "he" here refers to whatever entity is posing as a god such as your biblical one, God refers to a god by Epicurean standards and the question here clearly a comparison between the two based on their qualities of ability and intent. Seems like a straightforward comparison to me.

perhaps you should take some time and research this paradox before further commenting. That's if you will not take my word for it.

[TheJackel]

[genkaus]

If you think your quoted passage is indeed comparing the gods of Epicurus to the Hebrew God. Your reading comprehension is probably not where it should be to have these conversations. At least to the degree where you are insisting on asserting points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

My understanding is much better that yours, apparently. Apart from judging his gods by their characteristics, Epicurius is also setting up standards for minimum qualification to be a god, i.e. you should atleast be able or willing to prevent evil.

Thus, Epicurius had the foresight to provide a generic criteria for classification into godhood, fully knowing that many other poser gods would want to try and take on the paradox. Your god failed the criteria, thereby making him an inferior wannabe god to the actual Epicurean gods.

What i see is Epicurus comparing his gods to his standard of morality (which were given over to him by his gods' prophets.) None of which have anything to do with the Hebrew God.

I'd agree. Morals rarely have anything to do with your Hebrew god.

Lest you are suggesting a gentile/Greek philosopher with no Jewish ties somehow had access to the God of Abraham, and has judged him according to the standards and morality of gods he knew.

No, I'm, saying that unlike the Jews who did not see the paradox coming, Epicurius expected that there would be wannabe, poser gods and in order to separate the good stock from shit, he set up an explicit standard for what can be considered a god. Your god simply failed that standard.

If this is what you are saying, The next question would be why would he seek the consul of a God from a "defeated people?" Back then that was a sure sign you were worshiping a false/weak god. No paradox was needed in his culture to prove the Hebrew God false in his mind.

Because of that Epicurus would have ignored the Hebrew God completely, and focused his worship on the strong gods of the mighty Roman Empire.
As such we can know what his gods promised him and his people in exchange for loyalty and sacrifice. Which is why he came up with method to judge the gods he has paid homage to all of his life and apparently did not get what he had bargained for.

I don't think that your Hebrew god even entered into his considerations. He didn't design the standard with your god in mind. And your god still failed.

Now, an examiner (Epicurius) has setup a standardized test for students (wannabe gods) who want to claim a certain degree (godhood). Certain students (Epicurean gods) pass the test. Another one (Hebrew god) who wants to claim the degree but fails the test. Now, comparison between the two is automatic and the one who failed is automatically judged inferior. What's so difficult about this simple concept?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

What's so difficult about this simple concept?

To you, me,and most people here the concept is not hard to grasp. However, it must be extremely hard for dogmatic believers and others who have yet to master the basics. of critical thinking.

If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any (Greg House)

[NoMoreFaith]

two thing the first addresses the next talking point. you accuse me of insulting you simply because you do not/can not understand basic christianity.

Its hardly our fault theres too many versions of Christianity. More to the point, most Christians don't seem to understand Christianity according to you.
You do a great job of pretending you are not just one of many interpretations however. Kudos.

we can not continue unless you address how you understand biblical Christianity.

As above. Too many versions to be addressed, that is not a strong point of your faith you know. Whether you are pop christianity or biblical christianity or rice krispie christianity. We can't tell you what you believe, the burden is on you to provide clarity of what you believe.

Understand, that many of us are atheists, there is no more cause for us to read the bible, as the qu'ran, twilight novels, or any other text in order to argue the philosophical aspects of what defines a God.

This topic has gone on for a long time, much of it merely because you are separating yourself from the majority of Christian belief with "biblical christianity". Its nothing more than another sect. Don't get angry with us because your compatriot believers diluted what you believe into an incomprehensible mess.

It is not my fault you guys do not take the time to process what is given and simply assert what you remember christianity to be about.

See my first reply. We are not responsible, to understand each one of every thousands sects.

Would you agree with the following statement;

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

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

without question just look at all of the arguments for a malevolent God just in this thread. Which again boils down to a simple matter of perspective.

I think we can accept you do not hold traditional views on religion. Nothing wrong with that, we would be quick to invoke the fallacy ad populum if it was argued otherwise.


I'd like to propose a compromise. In context of Epicurus, that to your own interpretation of God rather than other forms of Christianity, that the paradox is not so much resolved but can be rephrased "If he is able but not willing, then he appears malicious."

Appearance must be taken into context that without your personal interpretation of things, he does indeed appear so.

Since the debate is not whether what you believe is actually true or not, I see no problem in conceding that your personal worldview necessitates an amendment to Epicurus in your particular instance.

I recognise a lot of prior ground has been wasted on more popular views of Christianity, yet I don't think that is unreasonable as the vast majority of those we debate with hold a more popularist view on things, so I still think you are quick to anger and condescension if you are misunderstood, but that is still largely the fault that you do not clarify your differences from other forms of Christianity enough.

I still think you're a nut, but I can accept that in your particular fairytale, the paradox does not have full application in its purest form

[Drich]

[quote='genkaus' pid='274277' dateline='1334729035']
[quote]My understanding is much better that yours, apparently. Apart from judging his gods by their characteristics, Epicurius is also setting up standards for minimum qualification to be a god, i.e. you should atleast be able or willing to prevent evil. [/quote]
I've already had this discussion several times in this thread. go back and address the points that have already been made.

[quote]Thus, Epicurus had the foresight to provide a generic criteria for classification into godhood, fully knowing that many other poser gods would want to try and take on the paradox. Your god failed the criteria, thereby making him an inferior wannabe god to the actual Epicurean gods. [/quote] this point has already been made as well.
I guess someone else had the foresight to make this point before you did. If you wish to talk about it then go back and address what has already been said.

[quote]No, I'm, saying that unlike the Jews who did not see the paradox coming, Epicurus expected that there would be wannabe, poser gods and in order to separate the good stock from shit, he set up an explicit standard for what can be considered a god. Your god simply failed that standard. [/quote] oh wait, asked and answered. just like everything else you have ask.. or do you think you after 21 pages you are the first atheist to come up with your questions?



[quote]I don't think that your Hebrew god even entered into his considerations. He didn't design the standard with your god in mind. And your god still failed. [/quote]Again basic reading comprehension failure. Otherwise you would know this is exactly what I said, and you would understand how and why the contrast between "deities" and the comparison his/your comparison of them will not work.

[quote]Now, an examiner (Epicurus) has setup a standardized test for students (wannabe gods) who want to claim a certain degree (godhood). Certain students (Epicurean gods) pass the test. Another one (Hebrew god) who wants to claim the degree but fails the test. Now, comparison between the two is automatic and the one who failed is automatically judged inferior. What's so difficult about this simple concept? [/quote]
You have been proven to be a waister of my time, so you no longer have the right to ask that I personally tailor an in depth biblical responses to you. Especially when all of your questions have been asked and answered already. If you want to be apart of the conversation then go back and find what has already been discussed and address the points that have already been made.

If you show an honest effort I will consider taking you seriously again. Otherwise know I have identified you as a troll and will be treated accordingly.

---

[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='274372' dateline='1334755813']

[quote]Its hardly our fault theres too many versions of Christianity. More to the point, most Christians don't seem to understand Christianity according to you.
You do a great job of pretending you are not just one of many interpretations however. Kudos.[/quote]
Perhaps that should be the next thread.
types of Christianity.
[quote]
As above. Too many versions to be addressed, that is not a strong point of your faith you know. [/quote]
this is another good topic to discuss. Why there are so many different versions.

[quote]Whether you are pop christianity or biblical christianity or rice krispie christianity. We can't tell you what you believe, the burden is on you to provide clarity of what you believe.[/quote]Which i can not do unless the the other person is willing to yield their idea of christianity is not the only idea of it. which on this website has happened once so far.

[quote]Understand, that many of us are atheists, there is no more cause for us to read the bible, as the qu'ran, twilight novels, or any other text in order to argue the philosophical aspects of what defines a God. [/quote]That is unless you or anyone else wants to honestly test God by the standards He has given us to test Him by.

Which is the underlining lesson of this whole thread. Why judge God by any other standard other than the one He has set before us. Like you said if you were God you would not be concerned with how other interpreted your religion. May I add that God because He has gone through such great lengths, He is also not concerned with meeting anyone on their terms. especially when He has paid such a high price to offer His own. Like wise if one is to make an honest go of what has been provided then He is not willing to let anyone go or ignore them. (parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin.)

[quote]This topic has gone on for a long time, much of it merely because you are separating yourself from the majority of Christian belief with "biblical christianity". Its nothing more than another sect. Don't get angry with us because your compatriot believers diluted what you believe into an incomprehensible mess.[/quote]Which is why this topic and others needed to be readdressed.

[quote]See my first reply. We are not responsible, to understand each one of every thousands sects.[/quote]that is not what I am asking. I am asking that you simply approach what is being said with an open mind rather than challenge or quickly dismiss anything that was not apart of the sect you understood to be Christianity.

[quote]I think we can accept you do not hold traditional views on religion. [/quote]Religion no. Christianity yes. Because my views are modeled straight out of the original blue print found in the bible. The writers of the NT do not make any apologies for God and neither to I. Everything is taught from complete chapters and paragraphs. I do not use cut up verses and arrange them in a particular way to create "doctrine." I speak where the bible Speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent.

[quote]Nothing wrong with that, we would be quick to invoke the fallacy ad populum if it was argued otherwise.[/quote]

[quote]I'd like to propose a compromise. In context of Epicurus, that to your own interpretation of God rather than other forms of Christianity, that the paradox is not so much resolved but can be rephrased "If he is able but not willing, then he appears malicious."

Appearance must be taken into context that without your personal interpretation of things, he does indeed appear so. [/quote]
Agreed, and all that i ask is that "we" look past our initial perception to who God is as reveled by the bible and why He does what He does.

[quote]Since the debate is not whether what you believe is actually true or not, I see no problem in conceding that your personal worldview necessitates an amendment to Epicurus in your particular instance.

I recognize a lot of prior ground has been wasted on more popular views of Christianity, yet I don't think that is unreasonable as the vast majority of those we debate with hold a more popularist view on things, so I still think you are quick to anger and condescension if you are misunderstood, but that is still largely the fault that you do not clarify your differences from other forms of Christianity enough.[/quote]
I have admitted that I am not perfect and I know i have far to go. I did not grow up in the church and I have not been conditioned to say think or act certain way. Which is a bit of a double edged sword. In that I am not tied to the religious beliefs of my fathers but at the same time I have many other issues to sort out as well. These issues seem to come to the surface more quickly when I am bombarded with many harshly worded responses. But I am working on it. I know just a few years ago i would not have been able to come here and do this for all that I might have to say. I am making progress. (Which is all God expects of any of us)

[quote]I still think you're a nut, but I can accept that in your particular fairytale, the paradox does not have full application in its purest form [/quote]Fair enough.

[genkaus]

I've already had this discussion several times in this thread. go back and address the points that have already been made.

this point has already been made as well.
I guess someone else had the foresight to make this point before you did. If you wish to talk about it then go back and address what has already been said.

oh wait, asked and answered. just like everything else you have ask.. or do you think you after 21 pages you are the first atheist to come up with your questions?

Clearly, you still don't get those points. So they bear repeating.

Again basic reading comprehension failure. Otherwise you would know this is exactly what I said, and you would understand how and why the contrast between "deities" and the comparison his/your comparison of them will not work.

I'm not interested in your excuses of how you failed basic comprehension. It doesn't matter if the points were raised before, you clearly didn't comprehend the then. So they are being raised again.

You have been proven to be a waister of my time, so you no longer have the right to ask that I personally tailor an in depth biblical responses to you. Especially when all of your questions have been asked and answered already. If you want to be apart of the conversation then go back and find what has already been discussed and address the points that have already been made.

If you show an honest effort I will consider taking you seriously again. Otherwise know I have identified you as a troll and will be treated accordingly.

Excuses upon excuses upon excuses. If you had actually answered those points and they'd stood upon their merits rather than being shot down again, you'd have pointed them out to me. Don't pretend to have the high ground here - all you are showing is that you have such glaring flaws that independent threads of discussion converge on the same points.

You can keep stomping your foot, throwing a hissy fit and running away all you like, but I'm not going anywhere. I am a part of this conversation, whether you like it or not. I'll keep pointing out your mistakes for everyone to see.

That is unless you or anyone else wants to honestly test God by the standards He has given us to test Him by.

Which is the underlining lesson of this whole thread. Why judge God by any other standard other than the one He has set before us. Like you said if you were God you would not be concerned with how other interpreted your religion. May I add that God because He has gone through such great lengths, He is also not concerned with meeting anyone on their terms. especially when He has paid such a high price to offer His own. Like wise if one is to make an honest go of what has been provided then He is not willing to let anyone go or ignore them. (parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin.)

This is what is fundamentally dishonest about your god. He wants to set the standard of judgment for himself to make sure that he passes it. Its no different than a criminal getting to decide what the law should be or a student getting to decide what the exam should ask. Someone with any concept of justice would have demanded that he himself be judged by objectively and rationally established standards, not asked to set the terms himself.

Further, saying that he should be judged by his standards because he went to great lengths to establish them, is like saying that a thief should be allowed to go on stealing as long as he goes to great lengths to make it legal. What he did was for his own advantage. We have no obligation to give any consideration to whatever standards he established, unless he can show them to be objective, rational and fair.

[Drich]

[The Grand Nudger]

So again, your god fails the test?

[genkaus]

So again, your god fails the test?

How many times does he have to take it to realize that he is just not cut out for godhood.

---

Again the omni aspects of God are not a biblical teaching, so none. My God is not limited by the omni aspects others would place on Him.

The absence of any omni aspects, which are in limit removers, would indicate that your god is very much limited.