Epicurus 300 BC

Originally posted by TerrierJack
I plan to be a total apostate tonite and imbibe a generous portion of 10 year-old Bushmill's Irish Whiskey to ring in the new year! (Since I am both Scot and Irish and Native American I claim all rights related to any form of the true water-of-life!)

Cool, I myself am half Irish and half Native American! 😀

EDIT: And New Years Day is my birthday!

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Does the believer ascribe attributes to a being who is by definition formally beyond the bounds of possible human knowledge? Then said believer wants it both ways.

If theologians posit an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god (OOO), you can hardly blame Epicurus for asking sensible questions. Oh, wait it seems you did anyway...doh

Epicurus' questions are sensible, but they still fail to show that a "OOO" God cannot exist.

Originally posted by 667joe
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

There is no good and evil.
God has given us free will to make our planet unified.
Paradoxes abound.
Its just the way it is.
Maybe people that die horrible deaths and go through terrible suffering get to heaven quicker.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Cool, I myself am half Irish and half Native American! 😀

EDIT: And New Years Day is my birthday!

Happy Birthday . I hope you have a good one🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
There is no good and evil.
God has given us free will to make our planet unified.
Paradoxes abound.
Its just the way it is.
Maybe people that die horrible deaths and go through terrible suffering get to heaven quicker.

There is no good and evil.

Does that mean you feel free to rape and pillage and support those that do?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
premise 1: God is willing to prevent evil
premise 2: God is not able

therefore

3: God is not omnipotent (from 2)

So this is not an irrational conclusion given the premises of the question.

The premise is irrational.

Originally posted by josephw
The premise is irrational.

Joseph, I don't think you're parsing the sentences correctly.

For example, the first sentence is:
"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."

The question does not end at "evil", which is how you seem to be reading it, but at "able".

Would you find it less irrational if they were phrased as statements like this?:
If god is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able but not willing to prevent evil, then he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing to prevent evil, then whence cometh evil?
If he is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then why call him God?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
As you can clearly see from the answers you have received so far: you'll not find an honest discussion around here. Just apes of passed-down opinions and hostility towards any who question them. If you were in throwing distance of their cage I'd suggest that you duck! Most of them don't even have the intellectual equipment to engage in any other kind of ...[text shortened]...
As for your post - the answer is obvious (therefore it will not elicit reasoned responses.)

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Joseph, I don't think you're parsing the sentences correctly.

For example, the first sentence is:
"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."

The question does not end at "evil", which is how you seem to be reading it, but at "able".

Would you find it less irrational if they were phrased as statements like this?: ...[text shortened]... ing, then whence cometh evil?
If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God?

Yes. I see what you mean, but it's the "if" that causes me pause.

Human faculties of reason and logic always gives me reason to question the validity of an argument. Especially when concerning the nature and attributes of God.

"If" God this and "if" God that... 🙄

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]There is no good and evil.

Does that mean you feel free to rape and pillage and support those that do?[/b]

Nah bro.
This is going to be a tedious discussion...
So I'll just say No. I dont support raping and pillaging. Raping and pillaging is painful and full of suffering.
"There aint no right, There aint no wrong. There's only pleasure and pain."-Perry Farrel.
And I devote my life to increasing pleasure and decreasing pain.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Nah bro.
This is going to be a tedious discussion...
So I'll just say No. I dont support raping and pillaging. Raping and pillaging is painful and full of suffering.
"There aint no right, There aint no wrong. There's only pleasure and pain."-Perry Farrel.
And I devote my life to increasing pleasure and decreasing pain.

Hedonism?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Hedonism?

Oh yeah sure. I mean do you have a problem with that?

Of course the pleasure associated with knowing God takes longer to attain.
Much pain and suffering of the dying ego.
But ,you know, at the end of the day its not good to dwell on anything too long... 😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh yeah sure. I mean do you have a problem with that?

Of course the pleasure associated with knowing God takes longer to attain.
Much pain and suffering of the dying ego.
But ,you know, at the end of the day its not good to dwell on anything too long... 😵

You might want to consider the ego bolstering aspect of it and the accompanying delusion. Come to think of it, insofar as that goes, it is much like Christianity, i.e. Paulianity. They are belief systems of the ego, by the ego, for the ego.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently you're no Epicurus. Not even fit to have carried his sandals.

? Good, I never claimed to be.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You might want to consider the ego bolstering aspect of it and the accompanying delusion. Come to think of it, insofar as that goes, it is much like Christianity, i.e. Paulianity. They are belief systems of the ego, by the ego, for the ego.

Christ taught humility, did he not? On what, then, do you base your claim that Christianity is a belief system "of the ego, by the ego, for the ego" ? This "Christianity" that you speak of is utterly foreign to me.

It looks like you might try to make the argument that Paul had his own version of Christianity and that his version was "of the ego, by the ego, for the ego," but this argument fails once it is acknowledged that Paul taught what Christ and His disciples taught regarding humility:

e.g., "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who... made Himself of no reputation" (Philippians 2:3-5, 7).

I really don't see how one could maintain your belief that Christianity is "of the ego, by the ego, for the ego" except by deliberate distortion.