Why not tackle Epicurus head-on?

Okay, I know things that are simple and brief are easily dismissed, even disappointing. Did you come to see more?

Check this out: you see a child playing at the playground, right? Let's say she's on the jungle-gym. There are swings present, and children playing tag. Now is it possible or impossible that this child also desires to play some tag and swing on the swings? We know the answer. We know! It is possible for a small child to desire more than one thing.

Well it is possible to introduce problems, using Epicurus' spiel. He dares not explicitly tell you what's needed.

Recall that we are maintaining God desires to prevent evil, God is capable of preventing evil, and God created evil. Now were one to posit a tiny god, far less than even a child in mental capacity, a god only capable of desiring one thing - well, then Epicurus' riddle works. Such a tiny, restricted god, desiring to prevent evil, and being utterly single minded and restricted, would be unable to also create evil.

Fortunately, such a God as Epicurus needs in order to succeed is an obvious absurdity. We can be confident Epicurus understood the necessity of his unstated premise, and omitted it in order to avoid provoking his audience to uncontrolled laughter. God - even according to the most inaccurate traditional understandings - God is greater than man rather than vastly inferior.

We should also be prepared for the scoffers to demand: "Why would God create evil if He desires to prevent evil?" The preparation is simple: prepare to stand your ground, and refuse to question God's decisions. It is not our place. At this point, you see, after all Epicurus' questions have been answered directly and honestly, the burden is on the hateful to PROVE the answers incompatible. We have no burden to play 1000 why's, or even one why. We have no burden to answer a single question more.

Now surely we know God desires to forgive, to demonstrate His grace and mercy, to grant free will, to make courage possible, and a whole slew of other things. But so long as one is dealing with the overtly disingenuous, why start down any path?

Until a man is seeking understanding, you won't force him to understand very much at all. Before answering further questions, it only makes sense to first have some reason to believe you are dealing with an honest seeker of knowledge and truth. He who insists there is some sort of burden on the man who has given honest answers to all Epicurus' questions is not honest. He is an intellectual, moral, and spiritual vandal.

For a minute there, CTD, I thought this was some sort of culinary controversy.

... that you had some problem with recipes found on this site & thought a challenge was necessary?

http://www.epicurious.com/

Epicurus hits the nail on the head. Your counter-argument is facile because a "God" beyond understanding would be useless to an intellectually average population, and it is from such a population that you received your conditioning for your version of rationality. Atheism is not solely based on the logic of Epicurus... it is also based on the overwhelming historical evidence that religion tends to be divisive and pernicious at the macro-level.

I'm not concerned about your opinion of "useless". I'm here to discuss things in a logically compelling manner. None of your absurd assertions has any potential.

Indeed, let anyone consider the folly of a god so simple mankind can fully understand it. We can't even fully understand ourselves. What an inferior being this atheist has proposed!

Now why would you suggest I ever intended to convince anyone Epicurus provided the basis for "atheism"? I have suggested no such thing. He only repeated the same silly "problem of evil" nonsense that's been Satan's standard since the earliest days. No, the basis of atheism is universally known to all men. I need not rub your face in it, or derail the thread.

For those who have trouble following, I have provided honest, straightforward answers to Epicurus' questions. I have met them head on. The ball is in the court of those who would support his nonsense. They need to demonstrate a problem with my honest answers. They shall not succeed, as you observe.

Nobody here is likely to enter a futile discussion involving the convoluted logic of the existence of metaphysical entities. For those of us who have read up on epistemology,"knowledge" boils down to "confidence in what works" and gods don't work , except as a psychological palliative against misfortune or fear of death and the unknown.

Really? Without some mighty convoluted logic (and other things) there is no atheism.

I think there are those who'd like to do something - anything - to salvage this pet lie. If I'm mistaken, is it somehow your concern? How so?

Indeed, your continual assertions and attempts to divert attention from the topic constitute activities which speak quite eloquently about your motives.

Epicurus - head-on, smashed right in the teeth with direct, honest answers to his oh-so-"clever" trick questions, ...and you're willing to sit idly by and do nothing? Cool!

What you are unlikely understand is that all concepts whether they be "gods", "selves" or "rocks" are merely tokens of human communicative exchange, in the same way that dollar bills are tokens of transactional exchange enmeshed in a social network. They have no existential status in their own right. Your concept of "self" clearly has functional linkage with your concept of "God". Mine does not. You require a "God" for your self-integrity, and that requirement is largely a result of your social conditioning. You talk about "honesty" as though you were not looking through a particular brand of rose-coloured spectacles. That is why your proposition, is futile.

What makes you think that Original Sin, or "God" for that matter, exists at all? You're working from a base of imaginary assumptions. Any logic that proceeds from that is flawed at it's concept.

What makes you think I'm about to waste my time? You write fiction about me and expect me to consider you remotely sincere? Fat chance!

I work from no imaginary assumptions. I am not an atheist in need of magic to remove elements of reality I find inconvenient. I have logically compelling reasons for just about everything I say, just as conversely there are logically compelling reasons to reject everything you assert.

Really now, no hope at all for Epicurus? None? Just gnash your teeth and sling mud?

This joker cracks me up . . . you can't beat this place for free entertainment . . .

Poor, poor Epicurus. No help - just fanatical hatred from those atheists who nowadays just can't manage to take up "the cause" with their intellect. Will name-calling really convince anyone he was right? Are you sure? How much name-calling exactly is required? Care to quantify it?

i'd say about six pounds of name calling is sufficient

or 2.7 kilograms for those so inclined

I guess the question was a bit unfair, seeing as you don't know me.

Still, you know one thing about me: I have no problem answering Epicurus' oh-so-"clever" questions in the most direct terms possible. His failure to state the absurd premises required has left him vulnerable, and I spotted it.