The Riddle of Epicurus (moral, reject, Creator, gospel, Kingdom)

[Scuba Pete]

Vigil,

Why shouldn't you jump in?

But physical death is not evil. Since it is not evil, then why should God prevent it?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

If you ever saw "Bruce Almighty" you might get an inkling for the causality I am referring to. In it, ol' Brucey decided to woo his SO and so lassos the moon and pulls it in close on a whim. The resulting tsunamis (how apropos) showed that messing with the order of things could have dire consequences. In fact the entire film showed how changing ANYTHING on a whim (even to postponing the deaths of a 150,000 people) could have unforeseen consequences.

Now I'm REALLY confused. Earlier, you said it was "obvious" that God is not willing to prevent tsunamis. Now you suggest that, like Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty", God means well but is simply not very skilled at preventing bad things from happening.

Hmm...something that is both unwilling and unable to prevent suffering for humans...sounds a lot like plain ol' Nature to me.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Why try to understand when it's far more convenient to mock?

Why answer a question when it's far more convenient to avoid it?

[linwood]

Now you suggest that, like Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty", God means well but is simply not very skilled at preventing bad things from happening.

Read closer Spinkles.

I think Docs implying that for all we know the act of halting/postponing something like the recent tsunamis might have had effects elsewhere that would have been just as bad or worse.

I think..maybe I need to read closer.

I dunno.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

That's funny, because dicto simpliciter was what came to my mind.

Since it is not a statistical syllogism and does not contain a generalization or numerical qualifiers - or any categorical statements, I'd say that the fallacy of dicto simpliciter is nonexistent in the Riddle of Epicurus.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

So, I find the original premise as completely flawed and intellectually insincere. It's a nice diversion from reality, but nothing more than that. Even being the simple man that I am, I could never base my outlook on such an overly simplistic "riddle".

I would suggest that you CHOOSE to see the Riddle of Epicurus as flawed and intellectually insincere in order to maintain your belief system. I find the Problem of Evil to be one of the most damning arguments of all against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God. I would also posit that the diversion from reality lies with the group that suspends the only rules of logic that man is capable of understanding in order to allow for an uknownable set of rules that apply to an unanswering God. In turn, I could never base my outlook on such an overly convoluted set of rules. Again, as I stated before, this is where we part ways - in terms of accepting answers to the question of the existence of God.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

But of course, I expect my words to be twisted and even some added in an attempt to discredit me rather than to face these issues head on. Why try to understand when it's far more convenient to mock?

NetDoc - you do me a disservice. When have I mocked you? On the contrary, I have shown you nothing but respect on this thread.

Thanks,
TVOR

[Scuba Pete]

TVOR, you have never ever mocked me... not with out it being obviously tongue in cheek. I am sorry that you thought I was reffering to you. However, I have been mocked on this board and in this thread. It only destroys the avenues of communication.

But the riddle is based on a HUGE oversimplification of a complicated issue.

What about "free choice" did you not understand or just simply reject? This has been completely avoided by EVERYONE discussing this thread (except me). People are DEMANDING answers from me and yet do not feel it neccesary to address any of my concerns.

[Scuba Pete]

You see TVOR... it left out the "E" factor.

E) God is not only WILLING and ABLE but he ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING TO DEFEAT EVIL.

But you don't see it because God didn't do it YOUR way. He did it HIS way which preserved our free will. How is that so convoluted?

[Master Vigil]

"But physical death is not evil. Since it is not evil, then why should God prevent it?"

I understand your point, but what about all the rapes, murders, etc... that happens in the world. Why doesn't god stop that? I'm sure he definitely could. I also fail to see how preserving our free will defeated evil, all I see is that it helped evil thrive. Or could it be that free will doesn't exist as we want it to, and that everything we do is based on cultural, moral, and parental upbringing. We never do anything outside of our nature, or once we do, our nature changes. Or could it be that god is not good or evil, and that perhaps good and evil don't even exist except within our mental perceptions?

[Scuba Pete]

Once free will is gone, man is no longer responsible for his actions or able to love.

A world without love is pretty meaningless.

[Master Vigil]

I'm not sure how getting rid of free will gets rid of love?

[Master Vigil]

If anything, god could make it so that all we could do is love. And with his great omnipotence and omniscience make it so that it would be real love, and not just a machine type love. Or god could still have free will, but have no way of choosing evil. We would still have the choices, but no one would choose evil. And with his great omnipotence and omniscience he could make that completely free, I do not put any limitations on gods omnipotence or omniscience.