• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14 months ago

    The premise written from the perspective of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds, yes.

    Which is precisely what the Epicurean paradox is about.

    Mate I’m sorry but if you still don’t understand what the paradox says in the first place this is a waste of time. Obviously you want to talk about something that hast nothing to do with the paradox itself. I’ll leave you to it.

    • @UnderpantsWeevil
      link
      English
      -14 months ago

      Which is precisely what the Epicurean paradox is about.

      The paradox assumes a much more substantive understanding of philosophy in its axioms.

      Mate I’m sorry but if you still don’t understand what the paradox says

      Right back at you.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        The paradox assumes a much more substantive understanding of philosophy in its axioms.

        How is that an counterargument? Epicurus says: Those axioms create a paradox, they must be wrong. You’re saying: Yeah well your axioms are too substantive. You are agreeing that the three premises can’t be true. Everything else you’ve talked about was simply missing the point.

        The Epicurean paradox does nothing else than to discuss if the premises as phrased can be true. If you talk about an idea outside those premises you’ve already missed the mark.

        • @UnderpantsWeevil
          link
          English
          04 months ago

          How is that an counterargument?

          The Epicurian rebuttal to the Bronze Age understanding of omniscience can be resolved by asserting “God is less omniscient than we thought”. That’s it. And there are plenty of readings of Old Testament that imply the Abrahamic God isn’t perfectly omniscient. Hell, the Garden of Eden myth asserts God isn’t perfectly omniscient.

          The Epicurean paradox does nothing else than to discuss if the premises as phrased can be true.

          It asserts a paradox of infinities, rather than a non-existence of God.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It asserts a paradox of infinities, rather than a non-existence of God.

            It never attempted to prove non-existence. This is what you misunderstood from the beginning.