How do you solve the Epicurean paradox?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
How do you solve the Epicurean paradox?
How do you solve the Epicurean paradox?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
By removing the omni properties
If God is not all powerful/all loving/all knowing he cannot help us
So what?
then he is not worth worshiping
Indeed
firemen aren't all powerful or all loving or all knowing but they can still help you
Only good reply itt.
Also lol @ arguing against larpers who are less religious than the people they debate.
This. Problems and contradictions and paradoxes arises when you insist on a holistic all in one, bells and whistles Almighty Big Dick in charge. It originates from raising a tribal chief type character of the israelites to a cosmic overlord - ngmi.
lol atheism just fall into a self contradictory world view
How?
atheism cannot prove that reason, logic, human thought, objective truth to exist but still needs to invoke them for day to day life
It doesn't need to.
then neither does God
That's it?
Well considering you're just going to assert things to exist without proof then so will I
The only thing I asserted is that atheism doesn't concern with the things you named.
ok but what atheism "concerns" itself with has nothing to do with the argument
I mean, you brought it up first lol.
you just responded with a non argument then
...Yeah you seem a bit disoriented bro.
again, not an argument
>Anon: paradoxes arise when people try to grab as many characteristics as they can disregarding internal coherence
>You: atheism just fall into a self contradictory world view
>Me: ?
>You: atheism can't do this this and this
>Me: it doesn't need to
>You: then neither does God
>Me: ?
>You: Well considering you're just going to assert things to exist without proof then so will I
>Me: I just said atheism doesn't need to do the things you said it does
>You: well what atheism can or can't do has nothing to do with the argument
>Me: You brought it up...
>You: [confused]
>Me: dude you're confused...
>You: [more confusion]
Anon I don't want to be mean, but you're the guy on the bicycle meme that trips himself and falls.
>I can't argue against anything you said so I'm going to make something up and argue against THAT in greentext
try addressing what was actually said if you want to be taken seriously
>I can't argue against anything you said so I'm going to make something up and argue against THAT in greentext
Yeah you're either completely lost, or don't understand plain English language.
and once again you completely fail to make an argument
your concession is accepted
Sure thing my shia friend.
not an argument
concession accepted
Can't you see I'm agreeing with you? I said "sure thing".
after i bully you so hard you can't make a further argument?
lmao typical atheistcuck
There's no argument dude lol, you himself said that.
massive cope but ok
About what?
that I bullied you so hard you can't make an argument
Do you see yourself as a strong person?
considering you fail to make a further argument
...What?
>no arguments
>keeps responding
you are my reply guy
Do you like arguments, Anon?
hello reply guy
Hello Anon, how are you?
well glad to know I bullied you so hard you can't make an argument
typical atheist cuck
/thread
I'm glad Anon.
>he believes in causality
ngmi
your concession is accepted
Yes we make basic assumptions about the world called axioms we have no way to prove these however the are necessary in order for us to be able to use logic. Look up math incompleteness theorem.
so asserting that they exist without proof but then refusing to believe in God without proof is just being arbitrary
Lol that's hilarious coming from the ones who claim that "everything needs a creator" until you apply that logic to their god. You guys don't have a leg to stand on when talking about "logic." You literally believe in 2000 year old myths.
this isn't an argument this is just butthurt
try again
Nope. Predictable response from a sollipsistic mind. Nothing atheist about this problem. The problem is in your conception of what a god-like entity is. Anyone who doesn't believe in your version of god is an atheist or heretic. Now that's LOL.
wrong. atheism can't give an account for transcendentals
Nope, it can't, but then neither can self-evident man-made religions whose moral code is nothing but the prevailing rules and prejudices of the communities which made them.
Trad religions' conception of god are like cargo cults like John Frumm; yes, there is a US Navy, but the nature of the US Navy is nothing like the followers of those religions believe.
>Nope, it can't,
and thats how atheism collapses into a self contradictory world view
the rest of your post was just whining
Well argued. God book, it say God make Eve from rib or Adam, and also menstruating woman not allowed in church ... therefore transcendentals.
It is written! Good written, not bad written, like Hindu god book, etc.
I answered this in the other thread. See
The main weakness is the "to test us" line of the chart. We are not the test: we are the demonstration.
well its not a paradox in the first place
also how are the conclusions correct?
God is able to prevent evil, knows about evil and wants to prevents it however it doesn't logically follow that God is not loving because he does not act on Epicurus's assertion
No but it follows that he is not all powerful
>t follows that he is not all powerful
demonstrate this then
The post says God wants to prevent evil.
Evil exists
So God can’t prevent it.
Making him not all powerful.
>The post says God wants to prevent evil.
>Evil exists
>So God can’t prevent it.
no that isn't the case though. God being able to and wanting to prevent evil doesn't necessitate he does so immediately
You can be omnipotent and generally good but not stop every evil act.
If I'm walking down the street and see an old lady getting mugged, I will probably intervene.
I'm I'm walking down the street and see some crackhead destroying a mailbox, I'll probably just ignore it. I likely could have stopped that situation, but choosing not to doesn't mean I'm a bad person.
To a being as powerful as god, maybe cancer and the holocaust are just as insignificant as crackheads destroying mailboxes.
But that still means god created evil and suffering, if he is omnipotent then he's acting negligent/malevolent by not stopping evil
>But that still means god created
no evil isn't something created
Christians believe god created everything
Yeah, but if you created the superbowl to begin with and had knowledge of every action/event/sequence then you still made them do it
>Christians believe god created everything
yes
but Christian theology does not consider evil as something that is created
>Yeah, but if you created the superbowl to begin with and had knowledge of every action/event/sequence then you still made them do it
This doesn't make any logical sense. Again, if God has knowledge of what they will choose, it doesn't take away from them having made the choices.
If you were omnipotent and you hypothetically created the world, humanity, then the superbowl and all its players, you would have knowledge of their actions and the past/present/future events of the superbowl. Therefore, none of the players or viewers have free will because you created them in this omnipotent scenario
It exists, therefore god created it or he's unable to stop it.
Yes there is. Go back to square #1
See:
>t exists, therefore god created it
no, evil is uncreated
How is NOT being all powerful, or all knowing, or all benevolent, an impediment for the existence of evil?
>If you were omnipotent and you hypothetically created the world, humanity, then the superbowl and all its players, you would have knowledge of their actions and the past/present/future events of the superbowl. Therefore, none of the players or viewers have free will because you created them in this omnipotent scenario
Repeating an illogical statement does not make it logical. Just because he has knowledge of what we will choose does not mean he installed those choices on us.
Can actors in a recorded movie act freely?
>Can actors in a recorded movie act freely?
Yes they can choose to not recite the lines and get fired.
Wait I think you're making another point.
No, they can't go back in time and change what they said and did.
Freewill. The end. OP BTFO again.
How can you be free if god created you, and already knows your every action through omnipotence?
That would mean he's evil, is not aware of evil, or does not exist
>How can you be free if god created you, and already knows your every action through omnipotence?
If I record the superbowl, come home and rewind to the end, then watch from the beginning, I know the players moves. Does this mean I made them do it? Of course not. His knowledge of our free will decision making ahead of time does not mean he is making these decisions for us.
And? There's no paradox anymore.
>then why didn't he?
If you could push a button on the back of a woman's neck to make her want to marry you, would that be love? Of course not. She needs free will to love you. Just as we need free will in order to genuinely love God. God desires love to exist, thus free will must exist. And with free will comes the option for evil.
You are already pressing buttons in the back of a woman's neck when you shower, dress fashionably, wear cologne, drive an expensive car, make witty flirtatious comments, be attractive etc.
so i would be incapable of inducing love
meaning im not omnipotent 🙂
Correct. God cannot do what isn't possible. Omnipotence just means you can do anything that is doable. For instance, God cannot make a square a triangle.
And yet paradise exists and is devoid of evil.
Why would that perfect eternity in the afterlife not work in the mortal life? Why even bother with the physical world?
Misattribution
Refuted by free will defense
For morally sufficient reasons
Greek(and other polytheistic) gods are neither benevolent nor omnipotent, YHWH is not benevolent, Zoroastrianism is dualistic.
What omnipotent and omnibenevolent God is Epicure talking about and is he even the author of that paradox, clearly aimed at Christianity which haven't existed in his lifetime?
Will your average atheist be convinced that there is an afterlife after reading the bible? No.
But they will be after understanding this argument as it is an extremely persuasive argument for why near-death experiences (NDEs) are real:
It makes a huge deal about the fact that near-death experiencers (NDErs) are representative of the population as a whole, and that when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist
>"Statistics collected ... show that the "deeper" the NDE ... the greater the percentage of those who come away certain of the existence of the afterlife. Among those with the deepest experiences ... 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."
Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. And so would you, me, or anyone, including the most dogmatic atheists and skeptics, because it is VASTLY more self-evidently real than this puny little experience of life on Earth we have now. When you dream and wake up, you immediately realize that life is more real than your dream. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep, deep dream and the NDE world is the real world.
So unlike the bible that you desperately have to want to be convinced by to stand the slightest chance of being convinced by it, this book will convince you whether you want it to or not.
And NDEs solve the paradox by realizing that life is a voluntary game. We are eternal, can live in paradise literally forever if we want, but we CHOSE to come here. Why would not a loving heavenly father want us to experience whatever we want?
t. Jens Alberts
ITT: christcuck megaseethe
From the Quran.
(If any good reaches them, they say, “This is from Allah,” but if any evil befalls them, they say, “This happened because of you.” Say: “All things are from Allah.” What is wrong with these people that they do not understand any word?) [An-Nisa' 78]
So Allah kills children and doesn't care if people die, get raped etc?
Allah is akbar, He transcends the concepts of good and evil.
So what does “rahman” mean then?
"Ar-rahman" is one of His attributes, that being the Most Merciful or Most Beneficent. It is a divine attribute, an expression of His will, and as highlighted by the definite article, not a limitation.
Evil doesn't actually exist, it's just an illusion borne out of a lack of understanding of the true nature of reality.
Acknowledge God is not "good", and is not all loving
>Heaven and Earth are impartial;
>they treat all of creation as straw dogs.
Evil does not exist .You just have forgotten the divine within you
The Epicurean Paradox broaches the topic of God's power from the mindset of a mortal. It does not take into account that God's true nature is literally impossible to comprehend, being both unbound by time, space and conventional logic.
What paradox? Evil is a given. God is the absolute, not the partially complete.
Read this and reconcile animals frolicking with human sacrifice for religious reasons, maybe.
Btw, the book initiates you into the human sacrifice tradition, don't you wanna murder people, anon?
>then god is not good/not loving
why should some omnipotent being be good? god can be psycho
Proof by induction: Just spin Free-will and Yes indefinetly.
>evil exists
baseless assumption
>believing this
>while browsing fricking IQfy
>Yes
>Yes
>Yes
>No
He wants to vanquish evil, not completely prevent it. And no, that doesn't detract from His goodness. The purpose of this creation was precisely for that. (Rom. 9)
Now stop posting this.
Can't he do it instantly?
He can, but that wasn't His intention.
There must be an interesting diagram for hellfire fundies and Muslims. They don't believe in the concept of "evil" per se. To them, their god creates every human as evil, and the only way to avoid being tortured for ever as a punishment for being the way god made them, is to glory, worship, and be the most abject slave of their make. In other words, the only virtue is ego worship of the deity that made you evil. Hallelujah, behold the good news.
>IOW, they're quasi-satanists who worship "might is right" evil.
>By time! Surely humanity is in loss, except those who have faith, do good, and urge each other to the truth, and urge each other to perseverance. [Surah 103]
What does "By time" mean?
Well the first thing I do is not read it. Next I go hide under my bed and chant prayers over and over for 20 mins. Finally I get out from under my bed shakingly I go to my computer and type "Freewill. The end. OP BTFO again"
Imagine trying to live in a house which is on 2d paper, or to invade a country with a 2d tank. You can't. The 2d image can't break out into another dimension.
Just like it's impossible for you to use 2d logic to explain the >3d actions of God.
Do you think He can be explained by a mere flow chart, lol? Come back 5000 years in the future.
>god is illogical
Thanks for conceding
Look up. You see all those stars? The universe is really big isnt it? Why would human comfort, never mind pleasure be a relevant concern for God? How do you know that you are not deserving of pain and suffering? Why is it God's responsibility to reduce or prevent your suffering? How do you know that your suffering isn't good and just? Epicurus is making a lot of very human-centric assumptions of what God's priorities are.
Evil is good. God created evil to make us stronger
You'll shake my hand when I kidnap and torture your family to death then. For I am making you strong.