• @[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.