Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Yes, that would make god a hypocrite. Maybe that can be the last line of our revised riddle.
|
As long as we can agree that Epicurus is irrelevant.
Quote:
|
Do you have the power to save all of them?
|
No, but that's not the point. I have the power to do more than I am doing, and I am not doing it. This doesn't make me apathetic, apathy implies that I don't care at all, and I do care.
Quote:
|
Apathy could be implied in malevolence.
|
But apathy doesn't equal malevolence. If you take malevolence to mean the willful infliction of pain and/or suffering then apathy, being the state of not caring, has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
|
Maybe you should list all the common definitions of god, from most common to least common. I mean, I listed the Bible verses.
|
You listed a handful of bible verses. That's not that difficult. Listing definitions of god is a little bit more dicey since I'm fairly certain a lot more goes into the process of defining god than choice bible quotations (though there's probably some of that, too). If you're really curious you should ask people who actually believe in god how they feel about Epicurus, preferably someone with some sort of theological education. They could tell you better than I. Maybe that's not fair. Life isn't; perhaps that is some sign of a malevolent god...
All I'm saying is that there is more than one way to define a god, and that relying on definitions which aren't necessarily universal to support arguments about the inconsistency of those definitions isn't necessary that interesting or meaningful.