God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

[System of Solace]

[Drich]

Posting a thread where every reply made you seem more and more like a complete moron? Good idea.

..Because sweeping non specific generalities makes one sound as if he knows what he is talking about without actually having to say anything at all?

Try again.

[System of Solace]

Posting a thread where every reply made you seem more and more like a complete moron? Good idea.

..Because sweeping non specific generalities makes one sound as if he knows what he is talking about without actually having to say anything at all?

Try again.

All that needs to be said has been said. Your attempt at debunking the Epicurean paradox has failed (as shown by the thread you posted and by Darkstar in this thread).

[Drich]

All that needs to be said has been said. Your attempt at debunking the Epicurean paradox has failed (as shown by the thread you posted and by Darkstar in this thread).

Then please oh great wise and knoweledgable one, school me on how or where you see the failure. Surly this will be an easy task since you have appealed to non specific generalities on two seperate occasions now.

[System of Solace]

All that needs to be said has been said. Your attempt at debunking the Epicurean paradox has failed (as shown by the thread you posted and by Darkstar in this thread).

Then please oh great wise and knoweledgable one, school me on how or where you see the failure. Surly this will be an easy task since you have appealed to non specific generalities on two seperate occasions now.

Are you seriously this fucking stupid? Do I have to do work for you?

"Cutting down on all the excuses, redefinitions, rationalizations, evasions... the blah-di-blah and the yack-yack-yack, what it comes down to is this. God was able to prevent evil by not giving anyone free-will. He was not willing to do that. Therefore, malevolent."

"I think that you'd be surprised at how much access ancient greek philosophers had to your little "revelation" before it was ever "revealed". Mostly because your "reveal-er" seems to have been a plagiarist."

"Pretty sure Epicurus didn't have a complex understanding of god because no one's even established that god exists yet. Go back to the drawing board."

"Humpf, that's funny. I don't remember choosing to be evil. I don't remember choosing a sinful life, I don't believe in sin remember? I don't believe in hell remember? I don't believe in god remember? Also I don't do bad things, I don't steal, I don't hurt people. I've chosen a life of peace, productivity and lots of sex. Yet I bet that just because I've rejected a religious claim that some how I deserve to go to hell right?
With god I've noticed, it always seems to come back to that - Either your on my side or your my enemy. He seems a bit of a prat to be honest."

"I always find it curious that the definitions of Sin and Evil, bear no relation to moral concepts of Good or Bad, merely "Do as you're told" "Don't do as you're told" and then tell us free will is a gift.. just don't use it.. that would be Sin.

Free Will, except.. Go to Hell if your will does not match God's will.

Therefore Malevolent."

"No you don't. Its called a paradox. You can't resolve it because its a Paradox. You can't dismiss it with that "freewill" bullshit because its a P-a-r-a-d-o-x.

PARADOX.

PARA-FUCKING-DOX."

"None of this answers the paradox. It just side steps the question by reinterpreting it into a Christian famework. Most of the philosophical basis for what we now consider "Christianity" was laid by Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle.

If god has these traits then the paradox stands. Saying that the rules are set up to allow differently is not satisfying. If god created the rules then it is useless to make this claim."



There's the first page for you. Want more?


"Once again THIS IS AN ATHEIST FORUM; the bible has no authority here.
By all means keep citing the bible. I will keep dismissing your arguments and treating you with the contempt you have earned. A hint: IF you want to be taken seriously,try using logic and reason to refute a position,rather than rely on the non existent authority of the bible. However,at this point you are putting the horse before the cart: You have not yet established the existence of God. Your belief is faith based, not evidence based. That makes it a superstition."

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

Malevolent."

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

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

Then there is Mister Agenda picking apart every single thing you said and destroying it.

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

[Drich]

"Pretty sure Epicurus didn't have a complex understanding of god because no one's even established that god exists yet. Go back to the drawing board."

I have pointed out that Epericus lived before the advent of Christianity in that thread. ThereFore the "god(s)" he was ORGINALLY Speaking of was NOT the God of the bible. Epericus would have only known Him as the God of the Jews. As a Greek/Gentile Philospher The God of the Jews would have made no promises to him nor any of his/gentile people. Let me phrase it so even you can understand. Epericus was NOT Speaking of The God of the bible because he could not have known anything of Him. Epericus was speaking of the gods he knew. None of which applies to the promises made by the God of the bible.

"I always find it curious that the definitions of Sin and Evil, bear no relation to moral concepts of Good or Bad, merely "Do as you're told" "Don't do as you're told" and then tell us free will is a gift.. just don't use it.. that would be Sin.

Actually no, There is no free will in sin. You/we are slaves to sin meaning we have no choice but to sin. "Free Will" is the ablity to choose redemption from sin.

Free Will, except.. Go to Hell if your will does not match God's will.

Therefore Malevolent."

"No you don't. Its called a paradox. You can't resolve it because its a Paradox. You can't dismiss it with that "freewill" bullshit because its a P-a-r-a-d-o-x.

PARADOX.

PARA-FUCKING-DOX."

ONLY IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF GOD. Only if you are working of an ancient greek god model. Only if you think Epicurus' paradox somehow applied to a God he could not possiable know nothing of. (Check the time in which epicurus lived and died)

"None of this answers the paradox. It just side steps the question by reinterpreting it into a Christian famework. Most of the philosophical basis for what we now consider "Christianity" was laid by Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle.

The reason the paradox does not work is because the foundations of Christianity were laied by Jesus Christ 200 years after this man died. What's more The omni aspects of God are not a biblically recorded doctrine.(If you wish to argue this show me book chapter and verse that describes the omni aspects of God) These are doctrine carried over from other religions and have been made to fit the revealed nature of God. Which is what the so called paradox hinges on. Remove the non biblical aspects of this paradox and it falls flat.

Kinda like your arguement.

[Darkstar]

I have pointed out that Epericus lived before the advent of Christianity in that thread. ThereFore the "god(s)" he was ORGINALLY Speaking of was NOT the God of the bible.

So he lived before that particular form of god was invented, so what? It still works.

[System of Solace]

I have pointed out that Epericus lived before the advent of Christianity in that thread. ThereFore the "god(s)" he was ORGINALLY Speaking of was NOT the God of the bible.

ONLY IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF GOD. Only if you are working of an ancient greek god model. Only if you think Epicurus' paradox somehow applied to a God he could not possiable know nothing of. (Check the time in which epicurus lived and died)

Yet it applies to the Christian god rather wonderfully. Invalid argument.

Actually no, There is no free will in sin. You/we are slaves to sin meaning we have no choice but to sin. "Free Will" is the ablity to choose redemption from sin.

That's not free will, that's a decision. A decision that makes people hate your religion because it forces them to feel inferior and in debt for the rest of their lives.

The reason the paradox does not work is because the foundations of Christianity were laied by Jesus Christ 200 years after this man died.

You love to repeat yourself.

What's more The omni aspects of God are not a biblically recorded doctrine.(If you wish to argue this show me book chapter and verse that describes the omni aspects of God) These are doctrine carried over from other religions and have been made to fit the revealed nature of God. Which is what the so called paradox hinges on. Remove the non biblical aspects of this paradox and it falls flat.

Really? Let's check your magical book!

Ah, so God isn't all powerful or all knowing? He's just some guy who created the universe, controls everything, and knows every thought?
“Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6).

Omnipotent.

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell [the grave], behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me” (Psalm 139:7–10).

Omnipresent.

God sees all things, and nothing can be hidden from His knowledge—not even the secret intentions of the heart (Psalm 44:21)
there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account (Hebrews 4:13).
He knows us better than we do (Jeremiah 17:9-10; Hebrews 4:12)

Omniscient! The three O's are right there!

Kinda like your arguement.

MY argument?

Or, as you say "arguement"

[Drich]

I have pointed out that Epericus lived before the advent of Christianity in that thread. ThereFore the "god(s)" he was ORGINALLY Speaking of was NOT the God of the bible.

So he lived before that particular form of god was invented, so what? It still works.

Again it does not work because The God of the bible does not offer all people the omnibenevolence epiricus' gods appearently did. So in the first line of the supposed paradox when the God of the bible is found to be less than loving to you 'good' people, it's not in contradiction to His character. So you believe God to be Malevolent. So what? Did He promise you anything else? If you believe He did then provide book chapter and verse to prove otherwise. Otherwise know this 'paradox' is broken because these 'omni aspects' of Epiricus' gods do not nor have ever applied to the God of the Bible.

---

Yet it applies to the Christian god rather wonderfully. Invalid argument.

Actually no it doesn't. It only applies to your sunday school understanding of what people thought of God 1500 years ago. This is not an accurate protrayal of the God of the bible. If you believe me wrong then simply provide Book Chapter and verse to proove otherwise.

That's not free will, that's a decision.

It is not the greek philosphy that has been deemed 'free will' and has been grafter onto the biblical doctrine, No. But, It is however the only one true choice we have been given by God. You were born unto sin. A slave to sin. That means all your sin desisions are not apart of 'free will.' as you are forced to sin. The only choice you get to make that is not laced with sin is the one Christ died to provide to you. Your only real oppertunity to excersize 'free will' (to make a desision out side of sin) is to seek redemption.

A decision that makes people hate your religion because it forces them to feel inferior and in debt for the rest of their lives.

Again this is a snipit of a 1500 year old view of christianity. Once one can indentify sin and the need for redemption then all he has to do is accept the attonement offered to him. From that point on, that person is free from sin. Not that he can stop sinning as Paul explains in romans 8 but he is free from the consenquences of sin and is not forced to look down upon himself or make up excuses as to why he can sin or why a sin was 'morally' justified in doing. No, this person (while still a practing sinner) is simply free from the consenquences of sin.

You love to repeat yourself.

I have to. repeatedly.

Really? Let's check your magical book!

Ah, so God isn't all powerful or all knowing? He's just some guy who created the universe, controls everything, and knows every thought?
“Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6).

Omnipotent.

Is Omnipotence the only omni aspect of god being repersented in the supposed paradox? Let me see book chapter and verse on the other aspects you have to have in order for this paradox to work.

[quote] Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell [the grave], behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me” (Psalm 139:7–10).

Omnipresent.

It's funny how the bible does not use the word you used, and I think it to be odd you do not define the word. It seems to me you think Omnipresents is God evenly exists everyplace all of the time . If one simply ignored the first part of what David had to say I could possiably agree, but that is not what is being communicated here. In the first 6 verses David is speaking of the nature of HIS personal relationship with his God. This is carried on to verse 7 which states "Where can [b]I[b/] go from Your Spirit?" Meaning God is with David, and David can not wander out of the presents of God. That means For David God is always present. That does not mean you have the same "proxcimity" to God as David did.

God sees all things, and nothing can be hidden from His knowledge—not even the secret intentions of the heart (Psalm 44:21)
there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account (Hebrews 4:13).
He knows us better than we do (Jeremiah 17:9-10; Hebrews 4:12)

Omniscient! The three O's are right there!

This is a streach even for a sunday schooler. Before I proceed let me see you say you believe Omniscients to be limited to God having the ablity to simply 'see all things.' That for you the doctrine of Omniscients does not include any other 'all knowing aspects.'

And againd I see you left out omni benevolence even though your whole arguement depends on it.. Wonder why that is.

[Darkstar]

Again it does not work because The God of the bible does not offer all people the omnibenevolence epiricus' gods appearently did.

So you admit Yahweh is capable of evil and, in fact, employs it. Understood.

Is Omnipotence the only omni aspect of god being repersented in the supposed paradox?

immediately before the other omni aspects are shown...

It's funny how the bible does not use the word you used

It's funny how the exact word used in the bible is at the whim of the translator. Did you miss the 'Lexicon Switcheroo' thread?

and I think it to be odd you do not define the word.

Ever heard of a dictionary?

This is a streach even for a sunday schooler. Before I proceed let me see you say you believe Omniscients to be limited to God having the ablity to simply 'see all things.' That for you the doctrine of Omniscients does not include any other 'all knowing aspects.'

So...god doesn't know everything? Are you saying that there are things god does not know?

And againd I see you left out omni benevolence even though your whole arguement depends on it.. Wonder why that is.

"Then he is malevolent"