- 30 Mar 2024 17:56
#15309789
The Epicurean Paradox only shows that God doesn't care. That's it, nothing else. If Christians claim that he does care about human affairs, the polar bears and the starving people of Africa, then they have an issue with their God being inconsistent on where he cares. But that is not an argument against God. God cares about humans about as much as a human child cares about the ant its putting on fire for the lulz.
No that is false.
Problem with laymen, is that they do not understand either what they write or what they read.
Let's make this as simple and clear as possible.
Do perfect triangles exist in the natural world? Nein. How about cubes? Neither, how about perfect circles? Neither. What about numbers? Prove the existence of the number 1, then prove the existence of the number 0.
That these things do not physically exist, does not mean that they do not exist conceptually which they clearly do, nor does it mean that these abstract object are bad, useless or that they should not exist conceptually because they do not physically exist.
Only a muppet would argue that since numbers do not physically exist, we should proclaim them as non-existent conceptually and proceed to ban math from learning because they rely on non-physical unproven objects.
Same kind of muppet argues the same for God failing to comprehend that without God, we have no Ontology, without Ontology, no Metaphysics, no Metaphysics, no Science, no Science, no Math, no Math, no Progress.
If you are having trouble understanding the difference, consider the concept of the good or bad chocolate.
What defines a good chocolate? A scientist will tell you that the more substance that increases the serotonin in your brain, the better the chocolate, but a child will tell you they like "kinder bueno", I like salt on my chocolote, so for me salted dark chocolate is the "best".
'Good chocolate' is an abstract concept that does not physically exist but conceptually it does. As such philosophically, we can define what people agree on being a good chocolate, this is Ontology, analysing what is in "being" bad, good, beautiful, ugly, great, shitty, etcetera. A very fundamental scientific process of analysing metals, abstract objects like triangles, cubes, circles, morality, etcetera.
Difference between "being" and "is".
"Is"= the precise co-ordinate on a cartesian axis. Btw, "Is" is also "Is" in Greek, from Istamai = I am [located here] from there you get ep-istamai = I am standing here, becoming eventually, episteme=science.
"Being" is the [x] distribution of a set of coordinates on a cartesian axis. Also literally 'in & ein pronounced the same' or 'on' in Greek depending on the location (in)start or end(on). In English these are reversed as startein(starting) and on end, not endon.
Eg. when you see a stock market graph.
"Is" refers to the point, this is @ price 2.42 in September 2012 @ 09:52:38 am.
"Being" refers to the thing in itself moving along space-time, in this case the [average] [highest] [lowest] [based on X formula] price of the item. This looks and is understood to be pretty straight-forward but formal logic in natural language(without computers, media and numbers) requires a closed system, which in turn requires robust definitions for it to be formal.
Is refers to an exact location, being refers to a motion.
God aka the Good aka the Prime Mover, aka the Being, aka the Supreme being, is the ultimate ontological being, and consequently the ultimate referential point in Aristotelian Metaphysical Ontology. Aristotelian Formal Logic is literally built by placing God as the point 0 on a cartesian graph. Do cartesian graphs exist in the physical world? Ofc not. Should we do away with them? If you 're totally retarded, perhaps.
The Philosophers, mainly Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, created Formal Logic for humanity with God as the 1 and only necessary building block for Logic to exist. No God, no Logic. So it is not a case of "God does not logically exist", but Logic does not ACTUALLY exist without Aristotle's God.
When the Jews came into contact with the Greeks and found out about this discovery, they tried to claim that their God is the one that the Philosophers discovered in an attempt to justify the existence of their own God against a background where the Greek Gods were already being ridiculed by the God of the Philosophers(orgy party hard raving Zeus couldn't hold a candle against Aristotle's Prime Mover), so for the Jews this became a life and death situation, if they did not equate their God with the God of the Philosophers, their God would follow the same bin trajectory as the Greek gods, hence they proclaimed Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras as 'Prophets' which is what Catholic and Orthodox Christianity believe to this day and hence why you see them 3 around Jesus or among the prophets in several mosaics. Paul explicitly makes this argument to the Athenians in Acts 17:23.
Later on Maimonides fully adopted Aristotelian ontology for Judaism as well since Christianity broke off Judaism .
ingliz wrote:@noemon
The Epicurean paradox proves that God *If He/She/It exists* is not the Christian God.
As to the 'free will' get out, Einstein showed us that free will is an illusion in the block universe.
The Epicurean Paradox only shows that God doesn't care. That's it, nothing else. If Christians claim that he does care about human affairs, the polar bears and the starving people of Africa, then they have an issue with their God being inconsistent on where he cares. But that is not an argument against God. God cares about humans about as much as a human child cares about the ant its putting on fire for the lulz.
late wrote:All the 'proofs' were ripped apart over a century ago.
No that is false.
Problem with laymen, is that they do not understand either what they write or what they read.
Let's make this as simple and clear as possible.
Do perfect triangles exist in the natural world? Nein. How about cubes? Neither, how about perfect circles? Neither. What about numbers? Prove the existence of the number 1, then prove the existence of the number 0.
That these things do not physically exist, does not mean that they do not exist conceptually which they clearly do, nor does it mean that these abstract object are bad, useless or that they should not exist conceptually because they do not physically exist.
Only a muppet would argue that since numbers do not physically exist, we should proclaim them as non-existent conceptually and proceed to ban math from learning because they rely on non-physical unproven objects.
Same kind of muppet argues the same for God failing to comprehend that without God, we have no Ontology, without Ontology, no Metaphysics, no Metaphysics, no Science, no Science, no Math, no Math, no Progress.
If you are having trouble understanding the difference, consider the concept of the good or bad chocolate.
What defines a good chocolate? A scientist will tell you that the more substance that increases the serotonin in your brain, the better the chocolate, but a child will tell you they like "kinder bueno", I like salt on my chocolote, so for me salted dark chocolate is the "best".
'Good chocolate' is an abstract concept that does not physically exist but conceptually it does. As such philosophically, we can define what people agree on being a good chocolate, this is Ontology, analysing what is in "being" bad, good, beautiful, ugly, great, shitty, etcetera. A very fundamental scientific process of analysing metals, abstract objects like triangles, cubes, circles, morality, etcetera.
Difference between "being" and "is".
"Is"= the precise co-ordinate on a cartesian axis. Btw, "Is" is also "Is" in Greek, from Istamai = I am [located here] from there you get ep-istamai = I am standing here, becoming eventually, episteme=science.
"Being" is the [x] distribution of a set of coordinates on a cartesian axis. Also literally 'in & ein pronounced the same' or 'on' in Greek depending on the location (in)start or end(on). In English these are reversed as startein(starting) and on end, not endon.
Eg. when you see a stock market graph.
"Is" refers to the point, this is @ price 2.42 in September 2012 @ 09:52:38 am.
"Being" refers to the thing in itself moving along space-time, in this case the [average] [highest] [lowest] [based on X formula] price of the item. This looks and is understood to be pretty straight-forward but formal logic in natural language(without computers, media and numbers) requires a closed system, which in turn requires robust definitions for it to be formal.
Is refers to an exact location, being refers to a motion.
God aka the Good aka the Prime Mover, aka the Being, aka the Supreme being, is the ultimate ontological being, and consequently the ultimate referential point in Aristotelian Metaphysical Ontology. Aristotelian Formal Logic is literally built by placing God as the point 0 on a cartesian graph. Do cartesian graphs exist in the physical world? Ofc not. Should we do away with them? If you 're totally retarded, perhaps.
The Philosophers, mainly Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, created Formal Logic for humanity with God as the 1 and only necessary building block for Logic to exist. No God, no Logic. So it is not a case of "God does not logically exist", but Logic does not ACTUALLY exist without Aristotle's God.
When the Jews came into contact with the Greeks and found out about this discovery, they tried to claim that their God is the one that the Philosophers discovered in an attempt to justify the existence of their own God against a background where the Greek Gods were already being ridiculed by the God of the Philosophers(orgy party hard raving Zeus couldn't hold a candle against Aristotle's Prime Mover), so for the Jews this became a life and death situation, if they did not equate their God with the God of the Philosophers, their God would follow the same bin trajectory as the Greek gods, hence they proclaimed Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras as 'Prophets' which is what Catholic and Orthodox Christianity believe to this day and hence why you see them 3 around Jesus or among the prophets in several mosaics. Paul explicitly makes this argument to the Athenians in Acts 17:23.
Later on Maimonides fully adopted Aristotelian ontology for Judaism as well since Christianity broke off Judaism .
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...