>>14179523>"good" is indeed subjectivewhat makes you so sure?
the truth value of moral claims (evil, good) does require minds to know and articulate, like any other truth, which causes disagreement since we're fallible, but how we know something has nothing to do with the objectivity of what's being known.
good and evil could easily be real objective things like shape definitions and numbers.
>i doubt epicurus was actually the one who came up with ithe wasn't, the quote this trilemma was based on was a misquote by lactantius that was picked up by hume.
epicurus believed in gods that didn't give a shit about humanity.
>>14179537>omnipotence on its own already comes with contradictionslike what?
the "can god make a pizza so big he can't eat it? haha checkmate" thing?
>...the incapacity [of not being able to do the logically impossible] in God is no evidence that he is not omnipotent, since it involves something which is logically impossible to do. -Nicholas Everitt, Atheist philosopher 
