• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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.

    • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month 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.