Blast from the Past! The Epicurean paradox from 300 BC!

[Paralogic]

No, he did not.

IF God is willing to prevent evil, but is unable to (which means He's not that powerful).....or He's able to prevent it but not willing (then that means He's malevolent)....then, why do you call Him, God?

All gods in human societies are either powerful or malevolent. The proof that a god can't be either powerful or malevolent was shown 2,500 years ago. It's the choice of an individual to ignore reality and just want to get gratification from a mental onanism... like religion is.

 

[tosca1]

All gods in human societies are either powerful or malevolent. The proof that a god can't be either powerful or malevolent was shown 2,500 years ago. It's the choice of an individual to ignore reality and just want to get gratification from a mental onanism... like religion is.

That's your opinion. It's rooted on a wrong premise, though.

Epicurus didn't give any proof that shows God/gods can't be powerful.
He's merely saying that God/gods are indifferent to our behaviours and trivial lives.
Epicurus is saying that we're merely created - and then, left to our own devices.

Just think of an artist. After drawing his picture/sketch, he just leaves it lying around while he goes on to pursue other interest.


Being indifferent does not translate to having no power, or with less power, or not powerful at all.


Furthermore....Epicurus gives evidence that God is powerful!

The power of THE CREATOR has been shown to be powerful, and it can be observed. Look at what He's created - starting with the people that Epicurus' been talking about in the first place!

And He can afford to be indifferent (if He is indeed indifferent), or do anything that He wants to do with His creation! What could creation do? Overthrow Him?
He can wipe them out with a flick of His finger, and can start all over again, if He wants to.
Even if we scream "malevolent! malevolent!" at Him till our face is blue - it's His prerogative as the Creator whether to listen to us or not.
He doesn't have to answer to, or even to explain Himself and His action(s) to anyone.
That's not merely power. That's absolute power!

 

[Hicup]

Here's more proof that religion set back civilization for thousands of years. The question about gods was posed by Epikouros (better spelling than the Epicurus on comon websites) around 300 B.C.

NO ONE supporter of deism was ever able to respond to this question since Epikouros posed it. Here it is:

"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?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'. "

That's the proof there are no gods.

Star Trek prime directive..

/Thread.


Tim-

 

[CrabCake]

NO ONE supporter of deism was ever able to respond to this question since Epikouros posed it.

That's simply untrue. Such a claim betrays the profound ignorance you have of the topic you are plunging into. That question, in its broader form, is the most widely discussed question in Philosophy of Religion it has been answered in numerous ways through the centuries. Nobody asks that question in the way Epicurus did today because we now recognize his question as being logically flawed (it presents a false dilemma). But asked in a logically sound way, this is among the most widely discussed questions in Philosophy of Religion. I'll provide a link I used in an earlier post about a similar question, this may help get you started in catching up with all of the responses that have been given:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

 

[chromium]

The only truth started in this thread is that man was created with free will! Man is a spiritual Being temporarily in physical form. Man chose to be born into this world. The Source/Universal Intelligence/God neither rewards nor punishes, nor does he interfere in your life. That is why you have free will! The so called God of the Bible does not exist! The Source of All That Is is Love! There is no negativity in the world of spirit--no devil, no Satan, no fallen angels, no hell. Religion is FEAR, which is the biggest obstacle faced by mankind! Take it or leave it!

But then that only raises a further variation of why are we allowed this free will? If god can't prevent it, he's not omnipotent. If god allows it, he's a ****ing idiot, because look at how we use our free will - to war with each other, destroy all other species. If anything, humans have long been in need of a serious kick in the ass

 

[Paralogic]

Epicurus is saying that we're merely created - and then, left to our own devices.

That's actually the first legit argument I've heard for several years.

However, that is *not* 99% of all religions in the world claim -- that the entity that supposedly created humanity and/or the universe is not involved in the present or future course of humanity.

All religions "pray" for an attempt to make their divine master change their mind and actually intervene in the flow of nature so that the result is not undesirable for the person who elected to "pray" for that priviledge.

From just a rational point of view, a fantastic claim that some entity is a creator of everyting but not a participator of the past, present or future of existence is just absurd and nonsense, therefore false too, like all religious claims are.

If you still have issues in comprehending that religion is just a human imagination, what did your god do between the years of 650 million and 675 million years ago, when the Earth was bubbling up with volcano emissions on about 95% of its surface? Was your god twiddling their imaginary thumbs for 25 million yeas waiting for the volcanoes to die down?

That's why religion is for the stupid and the ignorant.

 

[tosca1]

That's actually the first legit argument I've heard for several years.

However, that is *not* 99% of all religions in the world claim -- that the entity that supposedly created humanity and/or the universe is not involved in the present or future course of humanity.

All religions "pray" for an attempt to make their divine master change their mind and actually intervene in the flow of nature so that the result is not undesirable for the person who elected to "pray" for that priviledge.

From just a rational point of view, a fantastic claim that some entity is a creator of everyting but not a participator of the past, present or future of existence is just absurd and nonsense, therefore false too, like all religious claims are.

That's Epicurus' claim! You gave Epicurus as your main argument - and I'm showing you that you're wrong in claiming he proved that God/gods are non-existent! :doh

It was you who brought up Epicurus - and you don't even understand his message!

I was simply explaining to you how your claim is false!

If you still have issues in comprehending that religion is just a human imagination, what did your god do between the years of 650 million and 675 million years ago, when the Earth was bubbling up with volcano emissions on about 95% of its surface? Was your god twiddling their imaginary thumbs for 25 million yeas waiting for the volcanoes to die down?

That's why religion is for the stupid and the ignorant.

:lol:

Why are you so sure that it's not the way the Creator had intended them to happen?
Do you know His purpose?
Do you know if God's time and earthly time are the same? For all you know, a billion years to us is just a snap of His finger!
You're thinking of the Creator in terms of a human. You don't have a clue as to the concept of God.
That is obvious.

 

[Paralogic]

That's Epicurus' claim! You gave Epicurus as your main argument - and I'm showing you that you're wrong in claiming he proved that God/gods are non-existent! :doh

Epikouros showed that the concept of a god is logically contradictory, therefore impossible. He did this 2,500 years ago and no religious or philosophic or academic scholar has ever been able to refute him. If you think you can, write up a paper and try to publish it in any of the accepted and legitimate venues in our society. Good luck.

You're thinking of the Creator in terms of a human.

Ask any Sociologist. It's humans that think of their fantastic deities of preference in terms of their own humanity -- that their gods are able to intervene in the personal life of the believer and micromanage their affairs. If people were able to think deities as supernatural entities that have nothing to do with the believers' lives, then none of them would pray and ask their god for personal favors -- yet the all do.

It's just a matter of education.

 

[Juanita]

But then that only raises a further variation of why are we allowed this free will? If god can't prevent it, he's not omnipotent. If god allows it, he's a ****ing idiot, because look at how we use our free will - to war with each other, destroy all other species. If anything, humans have long been in need of a serious kick in the ass

Humankind are slow learners. How we use our free will is our business. We are here to learn and grow, however slowly that may happen. It is a painful process. Cause and effect!

 

[tosca1]

Epikouros showed that the concept of a god is logically contradictory, therefore impossible. He did this 2,500 years ago and no religious or philosophic or academic scholar has ever been able to refute him. If you think you can, write up a paper and try to publish it in any of the accepted and legitimate venues in our society. Good luck.



Ask any Sociologist. It's humans that think of their fantastic deities of preference in terms of their own humanity -- that their gods are able to intervene in the personal life of the believer and micromanage their affairs. If people were able to think deities as supernatural entities that have nothing to do with the believers' lives, then none of them would pray and ask their god for personal favors -- yet the all do.

It's just a matter of education.

:roll:

 

[Pozessed]

Here's more proof that religion set back civilization for thousands of years. The question about gods was posed by Epikouros (better spelling than the Epicurus on comon websites) around 300 B.C.

NO ONE supporter of deism was ever able to respond to this question since Epikouros posed it. Here it is:

"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?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'. "

That's the proof there are no gods.

In a time where infinity exists, why would an observer of this time consider anything evil? Everything created inside will either die bad or die good, if they die at all. If death is not a factor, there is always time to move toward and away from good. We all may have our own definition of what good is, but our definition of what good is would be irrelevant, the same as what we consider evil. So long as we are considered to be moving towards the definition of good that this creator/observer has set in motion nothing else would matter.

Of course all this would only matter if infinity is a logically sound physical possibility.

To add substance to the idea that we all may be working towards similar goals please view this video for about 3 mins from it's current time. To me this is suggesting that the human race has like minded ideas of what good is, and that many countries and cultures have come a long way in reaching that mutual agreement in a short time. This should also not be considered to add substance to the idea that a God exists, only that if one were to exist, there is a chance we are doing its bidding.
https://youtu.be/hVimVzgtD6w?t=158

 

[Paralogic]

... This should also not be considered to add substance to the idea that a God exists, only that if one were to exist, there is a chance we are doing its bidding.

That's deism, also known are religionism, also known as the support of unsubstantiated claims that a supernatural entity has a direct effect to human's lives.

That's false by definition -- because all religion is false by definition.

 

[Pozessed]

That's deism, also known are religionism, also known as the support of unsubstantiated claims that a supernatural entity has a direct effect to human's lives.

That's false by definition -- because all religion is false by definition.

My comment that you are suggesting implies "religionism"was regarding people who would try to misinterpret my opinion to imply certainty. Most religious people assert certainty, I am trying to do anything but.

Is there something illogical about my speculation other than your feeling that a God does not exist?

 

[Paralogic]

My comment that you are suggesting implies "religionism"was regarding people who would try to misinterpret my opinion to imply certainty. Most religious people assert certainty, I am trying to do anything but.

Your "if xyz exists" is equivalent to "xyz exists", especialy if xyz is an usubstantiated claim.

Is there something illogical about my speculation other than your feeling that a God does not exist?

My statement is not a "feeling". My statement is a statement of reality - as humanity can express it in our times. No gods exist - that's provably true. -- [edit] Epikouros proved it 2,500 years ago -- that was the purpose of this post. [/edit]

 

[joG]

Here's more proof that religion set back civilization for thousands of years. The question about gods was posed by Epikouros (better spelling than the Epicurus on comon websites) around 300 B.C.

NO ONE supporter of deism was ever able to respond to this question since Epikouros posed it. Here it is:

"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?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'. "

That's the proof there are no gods.

Funny that that could be believed a disproof of the God hypothesis. It seems so quaint.

 

[Paralogic]

Funny that that could be believed a disproof of the God hypothesis. It seems so quaint.

It is a proof that the claim for gods must be false. Any attempt to refute it must be, at the least, minimally rationaly legitimate. Your comment was just irrelevant.

 

[joG]

It is a proof that the claim for gods must be false. Any attempt to refute it must be, at the least, minimally rationaly legitimate. Your comment was just irrelevant.

Only, if She cares about our categories of good and evil. But off hand, I cannot think of any reason She should.

 

[Pozessed]

Your "if xyz exists" is equivalent to "xyz exists", especialy if xyz is an usubstantiated claim.



My statement is not a "feeling". My statement is a statement of reality - as humanity can express it in our times. No gods exist - that's provably true. -- [edit] Epikouros proved it 2,500 years ago -- that was the purpose of this post. [/edit]

A simple no would suffice.

 

[Jerry]

Yeah, about that.

A truly omnipotent creator deity could easily design humans to be fully cognizant and programmed at birth.

A truly omnipotent creator deity could easily design a universe in which humans have both free choice, and cannot make certain choices.

We already know that's pretty much the case anyway. E.g. someone who is a sociopath cannot truly imagine what it means to be sympathetic or empathetic, but can still make choices. Because of neurological and/or psychological conditions, they don't care much about other people, and the decisions they make will be different than those with humans who are capable of empathy. But they can still choose to be kind, or at least choose not to kill for the fun of it.

In some cases, we will put people through challenging, even traumatic, even life-threatening situations as part of an educational process (e.g. Spartan-style hazing and training; adolescent rituals, etc). However, in most cases we do not say that it is morally acceptable to inflict trauma, attempt to kill, or successfully kill someone in order to train that person, or other people, in how to handle a bad situation. That is generally not regarded as the action of a benevolent person; so why would a benevolent deity do such a thing?



If I flipped a switch that caused a flood which killed 200,000 people and made 1 million homeless, and I knew it would have that effect, and I did it anyway, would you classify me (or my action) as good, bad or neutral?

I don't use the good/evil rubric, so I wouldn't classify you as either.

 

[Logicman]

Epikouros showed that the concept of a god is logically contradictory, therefore impossible. He did this 2,500 years ago and no religious or philosophic or academic scholar has ever been able to refute him.

This is horse manure.

That premise was already refuted and busted in Post # 6.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-epicurean-paradox-300-bc.html#post1064571042

Continuing to say it hasn't been refuted when it has doesn't help your cause.

 

[RAMOSS]

Epikouros showed that the concept of a god is logically contradictory, therefore impossible. He did this 2,500 years ago and no religious or philosophic or academic scholar has ever been able to refute him. If you think you can, write up a paper and try to publish it in any of the accepted and legitimate venues in our society. Good luck.



Ask any Sociologist. It's humans that think of their fantastic deities of preference in terms of their own humanity -- that their gods are able to intervene in the personal life of the believer and micromanage their affairs. If people were able to think deities as supernatural entities that have nothing to do with the believers' lives, then none of them would pray and ask their god for personal favors -- yet the all do.

It's just a matter of education.

Actually, he does that the concept of a benevolent god to be contradictory. That's different.

 

[tosca1]

Your "if xyz exists" is equivalent to "xyz exists", especialy if xyz is an usubstantiated claim.



My statement is not a "feeling". My statement is a statement of reality - as humanity can express it in our times. No gods exist - that's provably true. -- [edit] Epikouros proved it 2,500 years ago -- that was the purpose of this post. [/edit]

How can you say your statement that gods don't exist, is a statement of reality - yet on the next sentence you say:

No gods exist - that's provably true.

You can't say you're certain about your claim when you're using the term, "probably." And obviously, you don't fully believe your claim about Epicurus, either - that he proved it. You said, "probably."

 

[Jerry]

How can you say your statement that gods don't exist, is a statement of reality - yet on the next sentence you say:

No gods exist - that's provably true.

You can't say you're certain about your claim when you're using the term, "probably." And obviously, you don't fully believe your claim about Epicurus, either - that he proved it. You said, "probably."

I'm not sure why anyone even cares.

 

[Paralogic]

This is horse manure.

That premise was already refuted and busted in Post # 6.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-epicurean-paradox-300-bc.html#post1064571042

Continuing to say it hasn't been refuted when it has doesn't help your cause.

It's not enough to just claim something random and expect others to accept it. That's just religion. If you claim that you have answered the Epikouros paradox you have to present your statement that others will accept as logically consistent and true, so we can go on forward with our intellectual edeavors.

When someone calls your claims as ignorant and stupid, you can't just respond that some other ignorant and stupid said that they will not accept the accusation. That would make you part of the ignorant and stupid crowd.

 

[Paralogic]

No gods exist - that's provably true.

Yes. The claim that "no gods exist" is provably true.

There's an easy way to prove it. Ask anyone that claims that their god exists to logically and rationally and objectively prove that their claim is true. They will not be able to do this. Therefore... "no gods exist" is provably true.