The "Epicurean paradox" disproves the existence of the biblical God.

Before I begin I would like to say that I am going to be liberally peppering my arguments with Scripture I am not really trying to make a point or looking for a way to debate the scripture more of to just illustrate a point (unless otherwise indicated) That said let the Debate begin Introduction ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Now the Epicurean paradox is basically a restatement of the problem of evil which is. 1. God exists. 2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. 3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. 4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. 8. Evil exists therefore god cannot I have four counterarguments to this paradox 1. The "Logical" Problem with the Problem of Evil 2. Free Will Argument 3. Opposition Argument 4. Progression Argument )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 1. The "Logical Problem with the Problem of Evil ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! 2 Nephi 9:28-29 28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. 29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. [1] ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! Now my personal favorite answer the the Problem of Evil is this. 1. If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2. If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3. If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4. If there is no evil then the entire problem of Evil fails because of the lack of evil which is necessary for points 3-8 in the Problem of Evil Thus the counterargument is that if there is no God there cannot be any absolute morality. If there is no absolute morality then evil is simply when something is what an individual thinks it should be. So then the problem of evil would become. "God doesn't exist becasue the world isn't the way I want it" which of course is absurd. Free Will Argument @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 2 Nephi 2:27 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. [1] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ My second argument against the Epicurean Paradox is that God gave mankind free will and he gave them the choice to act as they will, knowing they may use their free will to act contrary to his will. He did this because if we had not free will then we would be simply a world full of moving computer programs without ability to make choice or do as we like, this would means that we would have no choice as to whether or not to have faith, we would not be able to choose whether or not we wanted to love god, and we would have had no choice as to whether or not we want to do good or evil. Now without this choice our entire existence would be for naught because if we never had the choice of whether or not to choose good or evil and be tempted by evil we would never be allowed to progress or further ourselves, we would remain in the same state we did before we came to this earth. Therefore in summary God gave us free will and the ability to choose good and evil in order for us to progress. Opposition Argument ###################################################### 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. [2] ##################################################### My third argument is that if there existed no evil mankind could know no good. It is similar to the old saying "you don't know what you got until you lost it". You really can't enjoy the good times unless you have experienced bad times. For example if you have never gone hungry you can't appreciate what being full is because you have never known otherwise. Now this ties into the Epicurean paradox because God would allow evil to exist because if we never had evil we would never know what good is. This argument is similar in some respects to the Free Will Argument. But basically if we had never experienced sorrow we could never experience joy. These are my three rebuttals to the Epicurean paradox and I look forward to my opponents response. [1]. http://www.coolcontent.com... [2]. http://scriptures.lds.org...