Poor chioce of wordage on my part. I do however feel if there were a benevolent omnipotent God...the world isn't as it should be :no:.
-Benhamine
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Epicurus disprove God?
- Thread starter Dan4reason
- Start date
Poor chioce of wordage on my part. I do however feel if there were a benevolent omnipotent God...the world isn't as it should be :no:.
-Benhamine
If you prefer all loving or unconditional love makes no difference. It is a word I've seen around the interwebs so it must be a word.
I know... it was just a pre-coffee grump.
Haha, well I'm glad we finally found out...we weren't really arguing
I agree omnibenevolence was a word pretty much invented for the debate of whether an omnibenevolent God exists. I think it's something that makes some people feel good and warm inside...unfortunately it don't exist :sorry1:
-Benhamine
Orias
Left Hand Path
*psst* Don't go there.
Orias
Left Hand Path
*psst* Don't go there.
I'm already past it
If people can use labels to disprove the existence of a labeled subject matter or a label itself, then they could do the same in terms of this "God" character, which as we can all easily see is still a hot topic. Better yet, they could do the same thing to disprove our existence and so on, making labels ultimately meaningless.
Labels exist to describe perception, if a label could not exist then it would not be labeled for what the essence of it is perceived as. Sure a lot of people like to suck on the tit of the spaghetti monster, but grown and competent individuals know anything can be proved or disproved, simply by the way in which a perception is worded.
Omnibenevolence, I would agree on its nonexistence if One could get "God" to think that is not omnibenevolent, but then again just finding the terd is a daunting task in itself.
It makes less sense to say that an individual and limited entity is omnibenevolent because then he would have to make everything else the same way, which he clearly did not. So I would say that its more logical to say omnibenevolence is where you chose to see it, just like everything else.
Orias
Left Hand Path
What about them?
If your going to try and make a point, then you have to be a little more vocal on what your trying to get at.
Last edited:
Masourga
Member
To the original post -in my opinion, the end result isn't a matter of proof against, it's effect is better summed up in "don't go thinking you know God".
In the end, any "God" that exists may not be for or against our prosperity or pain in any way. "God" may end up being no more than the sum of all rules and adherences to which the universe is bound. Or perhaps we're just a tangential result of said adherences - those which He created - and "God" doesn't even know we exist.
Because it's all conjecture (read "fantasy"), there are infinitely many possibilities. So to say you know something about "God" is simply ludicrous.
In the end, any "God" that exists may not be for or against our prosperity or pain in any way. "God" may end up being no more than the sum of all rules and adherences to which the universe is bound. Or perhaps we're just a tangential result of said adherences - those which He created - and "God" doesn't even know we exist.
Because it's all conjecture (read "fantasy"), there are infinitely many possibilities. So to say you know something about "God" is simply ludicrous.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Masourga
Member
Where did I say I knew something about God? I simply stated that to say you know something (meaning something definitive - details) about God is ludicrous. That's more a statement that deals with a knowledge of people, of which I do have at least some experience.
Besides, in my post, I basically admitted to "making everything up", in my meanderings (see references to "conjecture" and "fantasy"). I am the first to admit that I know absolutely nothing about God (or even whether or not something fitting the definition(s) of the word exists).
Last edited:
You couldn't say that, though, unless you know something about God.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Well assuming the existence of such a thing is presuming knowledge over it.
Knowledge of "people" is highly irrelative, since it is you (yourself) making these statements, not "people".
No your not, and this statement is extremely fallible.
By claiming that you know nothing of "God" you're claiming that you know that you know nothing of "God".
I believe God can prevent evil, but He is allowing it for some reason. Ultimately, all evil will be thrown away.
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
What reason would compel an omnipotent God to allow evil to exist in his creation? Does evil serve a purpose or something? If it does, then why call it evil?
One small example I could think of now is Genesis 50:20, Joseph's story.
You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.
The creation was free to choose and it chose evil. Would God want the creation to be forced to love Him and be good?
I don't think so. But He used evil for the good.
Masourga
Member
This is entirely untrue. I could ask you "What do you know about the chemical make-up of platypus venom?". Now, I may have just clued you in to the fact that it may or may not exist, but if you then go spouting off details as to its actual chemical make-up, you're pulling those details out of your proverbial butt.
In that particular instance, it is NOT ludicrous to say that you know something about platypus venom, because it has been proven to exist. However, if I then ask you "What do you know about the chemical make-up of giraffe venom?" If you then start going about talking about any details of this particular topic, then you ARE being ludicrous, because the substance has NOT been proven to exist.
I think you would agree that it IS ludicrous to go saying you know any details surrounding "giraffe venom", which has not even been proven to exist.
At any rate, you people know what I mean and you're just trying to sound "smart". Key word: "trying".
Masourga
Member
I specifically referenced the fact that I am not assuming the existence of a thing called "God". Knowledge of people is entirely relevant to the discussion, in my opinion. If you don't know why then I can't even begin to tell you.
This is ridiculous. Try this on for size:
"I know nothing about giraffe venom".
Please tell me how I am claiming knowledge of "giraffe venom" by making the above statement. I know that I know nothing about giraffe venom. I sincerely do know this with all my being. I'll even say it again - "I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GIRAFFE VENOM". You're calling me out just because I know one thing about it - that is, that I don't know anything about it?? Huh??? That's your big argument??? What???????
Think of it like this - picture yourself as a mechanic, and a friend comes to you and says "Hey man, I've been having trouble with my car, and I don't know anything about car engines, think you could take a look?", and your response is: "Wrong! You KNOW that you don't know anything about car engines, and that's at least ONE thing!" and then I picture you standing there grinning like an idiot, awaiting your friend's reaction to your "genius".
Again you people knew to what I was referring... DETAILS. Like where something called God resides. Where it makes its bed. Where it goes to breakfast in the morning. If it eats breakfast at all. If it even eats. Etc. etc. etc. You KNEW what I meant, and still you tried to tear me apart. This site is so ridiculous sometimes. You all assume you're having some profound intelligent discourse on these topics when you're really just... nevermind. Just go run around in some more circles and pretend you know what you're doing.
Last edited: