Theists, please give your opinion on this quote from Epicurius.

[Original_Intent]

Does that mean he doesn't get to have an opinion.

If you claim god is anything (including exists), you have the burden of proof.

So to say God exists, is omniscient, ominipotent, is all YOUR job to prove if you claim to believe it.

He answered that he was a theist, just didn't believe in the omnipotence of God.

Sure he is entitled to his opinion either way, the reason I asked is the thread title was "Theists, please give me your opinion on this quote from Epicurius".

 

[TER]

I would possit that God is a nihilist, or more over an existentialist.

That is quite a statement. That is, to assume the mind of God.

From God's point of view, He exists. His next question is what is He going to do with His existence.

Even Theocrat agrees that God has not external standards. He either couldn't find any moral absolutes that were logically derivable or simply rejected them.

Looking at the Bible and the Universe, He seems to have chosen to embrace life rather than destroy Himself (if possible) and apparently to embrace His nature.

He apparently chose to create, He chose to create a universe of entropy (well we assume He created the entire Universe and exists outside of it... This is not above questioning) and all the violence and beauty, complexity and elegance that goes with it. (Google galaxys colliding for a basic 'not a consequence of the fall' veiw of this.)


Well I think this is a better conception of God than the ones which paint Him creating man soley to be a mastubatory cheering section for all eternity.

The Incarnate Word of God has revealed that humans were created to share in the divinity of God, that is, to be partakers of the divine nature. We are adopted children by grace, to share and grow forever in eternal growing communion with the Source of Life, our Creator, our God.

I don't know where your skewed statement of 'masturbatory cheering' comes into play. I'm guessing you are not a parent yet. I had children with my wife so that I could share with them my love and devotion. Not to have someone keep my ego full.

And further from that is God Who does not need us to praise Him or to give Him reason or meaning for anything. By very definition of being God, the Almighty, He doesn't need us for anything.

 

[idiom]

That is quite a statement. That is, to assume the mind of God.
...
The Incarnate Word of God has revealed that humans were created to share in the divinity of God, that is, to be partakers of the divine nature.

Those two statements infer the opposite of each other. The first one implies disageement with me, the second implies agreement.

We are adopted children by grace, to share and grow forever in eternal growing communion with the Source of Life, our Creator, our God.

I don't know where your skewed statement of 'masturbatory cheering' comes into play. I'm guessing you are not a parent yet. I had children with my wife so that I could share with them my love and devotion. Not to have someone keep my ego full.

And further from that is God Who does not need us to praise Him or to give Him reason or meaning for anything. By very definition of being God, the Almighty, He doesn't need us for anything.

Odd. It thought you would be familiar with theologies that terminate in 'Mans purpose is to praise God for eternity. God's purpose is to be praised'.

They are pretty popular.

The Bible states in several places that Man has no absolute purpose. And it never states what God's absolute purpose is or was. It just says 'This is how He is, so He does stuff'.

 

[Kludge]

I had children with my wife so that I could share with them my love and devotion

Why?

(well, I think you know where this is going....)

 

[TER]

Those two statements infer the opposite of each other. The first one implies disageement with me, the second implies agreement.

You made a statement stating that God is a nihilist. How so?

Odd. It thought you would be familiar with theologies that terminate in 'Mans purpose is to praise God for eternity. God's purpose is to be praised'.

They are pretty popular.

What theologies make this claim? I am not familiar with them.

The Bible states in several places that Man has no absolute purpose. And it never states what God's absolute purpose is or was. It just says 'This is how He is, so He does stuff'.

I disagree.

 

[idiom]

You made a statement stating that God is a nihilist. How so?

He doesn't have an absolute puropse outside of Himself. Why Does God Exist? If there is a reason independent of Him that He exists, then I would retract my statement of Nihilism. As far as I know, He just exists, for no reason whatsoever. He decides for Himself what His purpose will be. That is more or less Nihilism. The things He chose are the basis of Christian Existentialism. The theology of having the same purposes for the same reasons that God does.

What theologies make this claim? I am not familiar with them.

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar:

We may assume—for the moral theologian is not required to do the work of the dogmatic theo*logian, the philosopher and the apologist,—
that God exists,
that He is the sum of all perfections,
and that He is the creator of the universe.
If that is so, it is not difficult to see that the ultimate end of man is nothing less than God Himself. For man and every creature must have as his end that which God, in creation, willed that he should attain. Otherwise God would not be supreme in creating nor Lord of what He has created. But the end that God intended cannot be something outside Himself. For if it were, it would mean that there was something which God lacked, and which He sought to obtain by creation. But by definition God is the sum of all perfection and lacks nothing. Therefore the end must be in Himself. In other words, in creation He seeks neither to increase His glory nor to add to His happi*ness, but simply and solely to show forth His glory, to make manifest His perfection by means of the blessings which He im*parts to His creatures.
The final end of man, therefore, is this manifestation of God's glory, the unveiling of His perfect power, wisdom and love.

The Bolded part is the major mistake. God is not defined, but defines. This type of thinking is widely prevalent. Theocrat adheres to something along these lines.

Here is a similar passage:

Why God created the world
Did God create the world becasue He was lonely and needed fellowship? Did God create the world because He was bored and there was nothing better to do? Did God create the world so all men and women could be in a loving relationship with Him? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding "NO!" God did not create the world because He was lonely or bored, He didn't do it because He needs us or wants all people to be a part of His family.

No, God is much more self seeking than that. He created the world for His glory. He created it to make His glory known. Or in other words, He created the world in order to display the infinite worth of His attributes. He wants to show how beautifully perfect He is.

I disagree.

I know. This is not an argument, just a statement of positions.

 

[Sheepdog11]

Free Will.
He is ignoring Free will. Choice.

So in Heaven is there no free will?

 

[Mesogen]

Many consider the great sin of Adam which led to the Fall and allowed death and corruption to enter Creation to be when he disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

This is a great sin and a cause for the fall.

What finally casted him out, however, was how he answered the Lord. Instead of admitting his sin and repenting, as the prodigal son did (to which the Lord would have at once restored him to his previous glory), he instead tried to put the blame on another and said "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

So, who is it that you blame now?

And for more food for thought, this contemporary Protestant belief that somehow Jesus was killed to appease an angry and vengeful bloodthirsty God is NOT the Church's teaching. Western Christianity has it wrong. Your understanding does not adhere to what the Church has always taught. Look to the historical Church for answers, not the tens of thousands of heterodox denominations.

Who created the evil that Adam performed?

As in, who created the problem for Adam, the forbidden thing he should not do?

Who knew what Adam would do before Adam was even created, then created Adam anyway?

 

[Theocrat]

According to Epicurus

For the sake of argument, let's take the Bible as our standards.

Thou shalt not-
Murder
Steal
Lie

Epicurus would not have accepted the Ten Commandments as the standard for good and evil, being the naturalist (atomist) that he was. In nature, there are no moral standards, for moral standards are not composed of natural materials. So, it is irrational of Epicurus to even appeal to good and evil when his worldview cannot account for such concepts.

 

[Mesogen]

So in Heaven is there no free will?

No no. In heaven you get to lie, cheat, steal, and kill. Not to mention you get to screw everything in sight if you so choose. That's why it's heaven. You get to do whatever you want and there's no consequences. It's paradise, after all.

 

[Josh_LA]

Epicurus would not have accepted the Ten Commandments as the standard for good and evil, being the naturalist (atomist) that he was. In nature, there are no moral standards, for moral standards are not composed of natural materials. So, it is irrational of Epicurus to even appeal to good and evil when his worldview cannot account for such concepts.

that's the not question

don't miss the point.

FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, we should find a set of morals (or good and evil) and see where it goes, utilitarian, Biblical or nihilist, pick one.

As soon as you pick one, you are asked to account for the problem of evil.

As long as evil is defined and exists, there should be an explanation, no matter what defined evil to start with.

 

[Theocrat]

Let's Be Germane

that's the not question

don't miss the point.

FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, we should find a set of morals (or good and evil) and see where it goes, utilitarian, Biblical or nihilist, pick one.

As soon as you pick one, you are asked to account for the problem of evil.

As long as evil is defined and exists, there should be an explanation, no matter what defined evil to start with.

That's really irrelevant to the topic of this thread. We're discussing Epicurus's challenge to God by his appealing to good and evil, not how we find our own sets of morals. I think it's been demonstrated that Epicurus's quote is easily refuted by his own denial of the God Who makes morality intelligible and necessary in the first place.

 

[Josh_LA]

That's really irrelevant to the topic of this thread. We're discussing Epicurus's challenge to God by his appealing to good and evil, not how we find our own sets of morals. I think it's been demonstrated that Epicurus's quote is easily refuted by his own denial of the God Who makes morality intelligible and necessary in the first place.

no, it's relevant.

but you seemed to have answered it already, by no discussiing it.

 

[idiom]

I think the concepts of Evil are a bit odd too.

This is why I got such a kick out of reading Rand, she created a morality in which capitalism is good, but the love of money is evil. Very few other capitalist moralities acheive that.

She considered it to be a sin against the self as money is about controlling other people. Porn and casual sex end up here as well degrading man from his greatness.

Its a short skip hop and a jump to being a sin against God, because man is made in the image of God, and thus degrading yourself is to fall short of the Glory of God. In spite of herself she elucidated an existentialist philosophy compatible with Christianity.

Note that Rand contradicts herself a lot, so you can pick and choose to some degree with her. And I am not an objectivist, I am remarking on some curious formulations she has.

 

[Theocrat]

Amen

Although Theocrat has demonstrated that philosophically speaking, Epicurus' question is untelligible unless you already assume God exists, for the Christian that already believes in an absolute moral law giver, the answer is; God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that he allows.

It is too bad that Epicurus never ran into any intelligent theists in his day, otherwise he would have either converted, shut his mouth or plugged his ears and shouted LA LA LA LA.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Who created the evil that Adam performed?

As in, who created the problem for Adam, the forbidden thing he should not do?

Who knew what Adam would do before Adam was even created, then created Adam anyway?

This determination in believing in an invisible powerful being, must be somehow connected to a desire to be loved I think.

I imagine its especially useful when your fellow humans don't love you, since a fall back to an invisible superbeing always exists for you.

I can see how this can be very useful for any individual.

However, I don't like when religions manipulate people into doing untoward things to each other, particularly members of other religions.

My personal stance is atheism, I find it adequate for my self-esteem, moral and relationship purposes.

Arguments between atheists, agnostics and theists have been going on for a long time, but such arguments concern things that are
alleged to be not of this world, hence a resolution is not likely forthcoming in the near future.

I've been involved in this myself, with my "too small to be seen or detected purple teapot, orbiting a planet, directing human events"
scenario and asking whether anyone can prove or disprove it.

Ultimately, anyone proposing any fantastic scenario with an undetectable object or being is someone who cannot be formally proved or disproved.

I realise that I sound agnostic, however I am comfortable with atheism because my mind repels the following notions under logical grounds:

1. all powerful loving being with sadistic tendencies.
2. diminishing value of a limited life on earth through notions of waiting to go to heaven or fearing hell after I die, without any proof of existence of either.
3. needing to maintain a belief in something that doesn't exhibit a shred of physical evidence of existence
4. watching members of opposing religious camps murder in the name of invisible beings.
5. other assorted related religious stupidity.

I realise some may disagree, but I feel comfortable that I rest my case on solid logical ground. I am not one to indulge in speculation to establish a faith.
I wouldn't consider that to be useful.

 

[Mesogen]

We still haven't figured out why God created Adam knowing full well that he would commit evil and damn humanity.

Why did God create evil, allow his creations to partake in it, and then damn them for doing it?

 

[Kludge]

We still haven't figured out why God created Adam knowing full well that he would commit evil and damn humanity.

Why did God create evil, allow his creations to partake in it, and then damn them for doing it?

If people were perfect, having free will would be pointless.

 

[Theocrat]

The Sovereignty of God & The Problem of Evil

We still haven't figured out why God created Adam knowing full well that he would commit evil and damn humanity.

Why did God create evil, allow his creations to partake in it, and then damn them for doing it?

I can explain to you why that is, but, 1) it is not the subject of this thread, and, 2) you would not be ready to receive it because of your anti-Biblical presuppositions.

 

[Mesogen]

If people were perfect, having free will would be pointless.

Define perfect.

Perfection implies purpose or some sort of goal.

What is the purpose for creating humans? Maybe they are executing that purpose flawlessly. Maybe humans are perfect for their purpose and don't know it.

Maybe the purpose was to amuse God by having certain things forbidden and then giving them innate urges to do those things. When they fail, they amuse God.

Then he can be further amused by torturing them in hell for eternity.