- Oct 25, 2016
- Reaction score
I disagree. I explained why there was no paradox. So since you keep bringing it up, it's your inability to get me to agree with you that is creating the problem for you. The same goes for my convictions. It's your inability to get me to move off of my convictions that is causing problems for you.We began down this road when I popped in and introduced the Epicurean Paradox, a riddle that challenges the popular notion of God. Your inability to deal with that box spurned endless arguments between us, and frankly, I haven't enjoyed most of it while remaining resolute that you have no answer but to insult reason and logic.You are defining God how you think I should be defining God rather than how I define God. I've explained it to you numerous times. This is you trying to impose your will upon me.When I refer to God, I refer to God as you have defined. I challenge not God for I simply don't believe there is a God. It would be obtuse of me to define what I do not believe exist.You wrote, "But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith."If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.
And you don't think that is illogical?
I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?
If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.
But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.
This is your criteria for God's existence. That God cannot tolerate ANY amount of human suffering. Therefore it is your expectation of what you think God should do. In other words, you cannot accept any God that would allow any human suffering.
What am I missing here?
What I challenge is your contradictory definition of your God.
Perhaps you should fall back on faith and leave it at that. I'd respect that.
Paradoxes typically arise from false assumptions, which then lead to inconsistencies between observed and expected behaviour. Sometimes paradoxes occur in simple logical or linguistic situations, such as the famous Liar Paradox (“This sentence is false.”).
Other articles where Paradox is discussed: complexity: Paradox: Paradoxes typically arise from false assumptions, which then lead to inconsistencies between observed and expected behaviour. Sometimes paradoxes occur in simple logical or linguistic situations, such as the famous Liar Paradox...www.britannica.com