Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
87
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 1, 2016 at 7:57 pm
Really liking your posts here, Chad!
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 31728
Threads: 117
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 1, 2016 at 8:04 pm
(February 1, 2016 at 7:50 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (February 1, 2016 at 7:29 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The problem does not come from postulating that God is all-loving. The other side of omni-benevolence will do, that God is all good. If you do not accept that God is all-good, then you admit that he is prone to evil, even if only a little bit. This for most Christians simply will not do. Thus he is postulated as omni-benevolent, whether or not it's in the bible, for the simple expedient of ruling out the possibility that God has committed evil acts. This meaning of omni-benevolent is sufficient to restore order to the riddle. I think if you had a better grasp of Scholastic theology, you would know that evil is defined as privation and that since God is not lacking in any perfection, He cannot be the source of evil.
We could go so many directions with this!
I don't see how this is an objection to what I posted. Unless you're circularly defining evil as privation from good being privation from God, then the problem of corruption of his perfection is the same. Again, is God defined as all-good? Yes he is. And the riddle points out the incompatibility between that perfection and his supposed action in the world. There is a definite privation of God from the world which you've just told me is evil. Riddle restored!
Posts: 8719
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 1, 2016 at 8:15 pm
(This post was last modified: February 1, 2016 at 8:18 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(February 1, 2016 at 8:04 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Again, is God defined as all-good? Yes he is. Actually, not. At least in the sense you seem to be applying the term. He is known as 'The Good', a subtle but important distinction that makes your point moot.
Posts: 31728
Threads: 117
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 1, 2016 at 8:19 pm
(February 1, 2016 at 8:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (February 1, 2016 at 8:04 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Again, is God defined as all-good? Yes he is. Actually, not. He is known as 'The Good', a subtle but important distinction that makes your point moot.
Is he or is he not capable of performing acts that are contrary to his nature? You're dancing on the head of a pin, Chad.
Posts: 8719
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 1, 2016 at 8:29 pm
God cannot act contrary to His own Nature.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
87
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 1, 2016 at 8:31 pm
God IS goodness and love. Evil is the absence of these things. The absence of God.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 31728
Threads: 117
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 1, 2016 at 8:34 pm
(February 1, 2016 at 8:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: God cannot act contrary to His own Nature.
Then God cannot act contrary to "The Good." Problem solved.
Posts: 31728
Threads: 117
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 1, 2016 at 8:38 pm
(This post was last modified: February 1, 2016 at 8:42 pm by Angrboda.)
(February 1, 2016 at 8:31 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: God IS goodness and love. Evil is the absence of these things. The absence of God.
Yes, but is he goodness and love in a way that is incompatible with his omnipotence and the existence of evil, as the riddle asks?
Does his goodness not compel him to act in those places he has denied his beneficence? Or is denying aid not an absence of good?
Posts: 8719
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 2, 2016 at 1:27 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2016 at 1:38 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(February 1, 2016 at 8:34 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: (February 1, 2016 at 8:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: God cannot act contrary to His own Nature.
Then God cannot act contrary to "The Good." Problem solved.
Do you have a point? Or will you basically ignore the my previous posts in this thread?
Posts: 8446
Threads: 40
Joined: March 18, 2014
Reputation:
54
RE: Epicurus riddle.
February 2, 2016 at 1:40 am
(January 20, 2016 at 6:05 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: (January 14, 2016 at 3:54 pm)maccoon Wrote: doesn't this discussion still beg the question of the possibility of the existence of a non-anthropomorphic god?
Holy fuck I literally made a joke about thread being necro'd 2 posts before you nercro'd it
Methinks the noob didn't read the rules he agreed to abide by. 
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
|
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
