Epicurus' riddle

[sojourner]

Like unicorns and leprechauns.

Nope. You're confusing "will" with "power."

 

[prometheus11]

Nope. We KNOW the earth is round. Free will is a philosophical concept with ZERO evidence.

 

[prometheus11]

Nope. You're confusing "will" with "power."

Nope. You can prove free will as much as you can prove unicorns. Precisely.

 

[sojourner]

Nope. You can prove free will as much as you can prove unicorns. Precisely.

Do you have a will? Who's prompting you to keep posting?

 

[prometheus11]

Why are you dodging?

Can you or can't you prove free will exists more than unicorns?

 

[sojourner]

Why are you dodging?

Can you or can't you prove free will exists more than unicorns?

Why are you dodging? Do you or do you not have a will? Who's prompting you to keep posting? My question to you provides the answer you seek.

 

[prometheus11]

No. I'm not looking for answers. I'm asking you to acknowledge the obvious. If you can't admit it to me, at least admit it to yourself. You have ZERO proof of free will. Exactly as much as you have for unicorns.

 

[sojourner]

No. I'm not looking for answers. I'm asking you to acknowledge the obvious. If you can't admit it to me, at least admit it to yourself. You have ZERO proof of free will. Exactly as much as you have for unicorns.

You're still dodging the question. The answer to that question is my evidence.

 

[sojourner]

No. I'm not looking for answers. I'm asking you to acknowledge the obvious. If you can't admit it to me, at least admit it to yourself. You have ZERO proof of free will. Exactly as much as you have for unicorns.

You have zero proof of God's existence, either yet you have no problem arguing as if God did exist. No, there's no objective evidence for free will, other than the decisions, impulses and self-awareness that all people display. All of this to say that objective evidence isn't critical to a good theological argument. Your insistence upon it, therefore, is really immaterial.

 

[Town Heretic]

It seems like no religious person in the Abrahamic faiths takes Epicurus' riddle seriously:

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?

It's not really much of a riddle or argument though. It's a series of unsupported assumptions about God. None of it necessarily follows.

If you're going to say God and by that mean a being whose capacity and expression are sufficient to create the order and mechanism of our reality, then presuming to judge him from a broken, imperfect corner is a bit...presumptuous.

 

[prometheus11]

You have zero proof of God's existence, either yet you have no problem arguing as if God did exist. No, there's no objective evidence for free will, other than the decisions, impulses and self-awareness that all people display. All of this to say that objective evidence isn't critical to a good theological argument. Your insistence upon it, therefore, is really immaterial.

I don't believe in personal gods.

We don't have enough information to be talking about free will. It's hypocritical theorizing equivalent to Stone Age hominids discussing what causes light, or phlogiston.

No sense using such ignorance to discuss other issues. Or make other conclusions.

 

[prometheus11]

It's not really much of a riddle or argument though. It's a series of unsupported assumptions about God. None of it necessarily follows.

If you're going to say God and by that mean a being whose capacity and expression are sufficient to create the order and mechanism of our reality, then presuming to judge him from a broken, imperfect corner is a bit...presumptuous.

Define God, then.

 

[Town Heretic]

Define God, then.

I'd start with Anselm for the general qualification: "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The perfection that scale itself points to.

 

[viole]

I'd start with Anselm for the general qualification: "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The perfection that scale itself points to.

Am I allowed to define the devil as "a being than which nothing lower can be conceived" ?

Ciao

-viole

 

[Shad]

I'd start with Anselm for the general qualification: "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The perfection that scale itself points to.

Which is a useless definition.

 

[prometheus11]

I'd start with Anselm for the general qualification: "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The perfection that scale itself points to.

Fine.

As you pointed out in your previous post, we cannot criticize such a being. We tend to criticize gods defined in ways that allow the typical person to find fault with abhorrent, childish behavior. If a proposed God has no negative attributes, there's nothing to criticize. If you happen to be talking about biblegod, well, he's a despicable idiot that deserves the lake of fire he created.

 

[Town Heretic]

Fine.

As you pointed out in your previous post, we cannot criticize such a being. We tend to criticize gods defined in ways that allow the typical person to find fault with abhorrent, childish behavior. If a proposed God has no negative attributes, there's nothing to criticize. If you happen to be talking about biblegod, well, he's a despicable idiot that deserves the lake of fire he created.

Anselm was speaking to the God of Abraham, as am I. Offering that description at the end only serves to let me know that no matter how reasonable you begin, your bias is steeped in the emotional. Judging my God is pointless. Either He isn't, in which case you're wasting time, or He's beyond your understanding and ability to judge, as you should understand anyone accepting Anselm believes is the case for Christ/God...I'd continue along this line, but it's almost always pointless to discuss my faith with someone who feels comfortable with or compelled to use terms like "biblegod" and "idiot" in response to a civil enough profer...as pointless as discussing property rights with a Marxist or most taxes with a libertarian.

Which is a useless definition.

That's a fine declaration, Shad, but it's neither argument nor demonstrably, objectively true. To the contrary, it's useful to its purpose, which is understanding that when we speak of God, if we understand Anselm, we are speaking of perfection in being. That which is beyond our judgement or, except as it relates to us, our understanding.

 

[Town Heretic]

Am I allowed to define the devil as "a being than which nothing lower can be conceived" ?

Ciao

-viole

It's an interesting definition, but Anselm in using greater implies perfection. I don't think of the devil as the most imperfect being, or perfectly imperfect, if you would. You could define him as a being in perfect opposition to God.

 

[prometheus11]

Anselm was speaking to the God of Abraham, as am I. Offering a pointlessly rude and juvenile description at the end of that only serves to let me know that no matter how reasonable you begin, your bias is steeped in the emotional. Judging my God is pointless. Either He isn't, in which case you're wasting time, or He's beyond your understanding and ability to judge, as you should understand anyone accepting Anselm believes is the case for Christ/God...I'd continue along this line, but it's almost always pointless to discuss my faith with someone who feels comfortable with or compelled to use terms like "biblegod" and "idiot" in response to a civil enough profer...as pointless as discussing property rights with a Marxist or most taxes with a libertarian.


That's a fine declaration, Shad, but it's neither argument nor demonstrably, objectively true. To the contrary, it's useful to its purpose, which is understanding that when we speak of God, if we understand Anselm, we are speaking of perfection in being. That which is beyond our judgement or, except as it relates to us, our understanding.

It's not my fault that the bible describes its God as a petulant child intent on violent revenge and torturing people that don't lie about his actions being "good" when they are clearly the most disgusting actions ever written.

Biblegod is far from a perfect being in that he continually changes his mind and motives and enjoys killing and destruction. I mean, what two year old can't think of a better solution than drowning every man, woman, child, and kitten in the world? What a stupid God.

 

[Shad]

That's a fine declaration, Shad, but it's neither argument nor demonstrably, objectively true. To the contrary, it's useful to its purpose, which is understanding that when we speak of God, if we understand Anselm, we are speaking of perfection in being. That which is beyond our judgement or, except as it relates to us, our understanding.

There are many problems from the use of words which are symbolic expressions based on experiences. If we are using the word "being" then this carries the experience which it is based upon. These experiences include specific facts which are used to in the purpose of the words themselves. However if such experiences of "being" do not apply to God then we are misusing the word "being". We would need to separate "being" from "g-being". However this causes a problem with the term greatest since this is based upon the experience for which the word "being" which is now separate from the "g-being". The vocabulary used is based on subjective limitation "conceive" while also are ontological commitments theists already agreed to. Anselm's argument has no merit thus I reject it completely.

Your own comment creates a contradiction since Anselm is describing a being which we can conceive of thus understand while you are express view which is beyond our understanding thus not conceivable. As Anselm definition is key to an ontological claim. You are not talking about the same idea..