Board index ‹ God

[One fish Bluefish]

> The spirit world isn't subject to scientific experiments or even empirical evidence.

so there is no proof at all? i can claim anything then cant i? i have a pink pet unicorn thats invisible. same thing really.

> If you challenged me with the same challenge: "Can you provide any shred of evidence that you had that memory, or even that that thing happened a few years ago?

you could give witnesses, photos, video proof, etc. where is that for the existence of god?

> I'd have to give the same response: such things aren't subject to scientific experiments or empirical evidence.

then i don't plan on believing them. extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

[jimwalton]

> so there is no proof at all?

Only a small sliver of reality is verifiable by physical evidence. Science is not the catch-all category for all reality, though some (and possibly you) try to make it so. There are abstract realities such as justice, peace, happiness, truth, good and evil. There are metaphysical realities such as language, memories, intuitions, perceptions. There are academic disciplines that don't depend on scientific confirmation such as jurisprudence, literature, philosophy, and the studios arts. It's quite limiting to think that if something can't be proved by science one should not accept it as truth. My mind and way of thinking are far less restricted than that.

> i can claim anything then cant i? i have a pink pet unicorn thats invisible. same thing really.

You can claim anything you want, but that doesn't put it on the same level. Many people through history, and all of the world even as we speak, have experiences with spiritual realities and spirit beings. No one except hallucinogenic drug users and small children have pink pet unicorns that are invisible. These things are not in the same category as people's perceptions of and experiences with spiritual realities. It's not the same thing at all. One is obviously fictional, made up by you to try to prove your point. The other is a widely and broadly accepted reality by billions of people on the planet now, and billions more through history. It is not even close to being on the plane.

People experience love in much the same way as each other, as well as peace. We have notions of goodness and justice. These things are not scientific.

> you could give witnesses, photos, video proof, etc. where is that for the existence of god?

Of course not. It's an inadequate standard of truth and reality. Even scientific discoveries suggest theories that there is dark matter and dark energy that make up 95% of all the universe, yet there are no witnesses, photos, video proof. All materialist generalizations about matter are immediately rendered partial, because how can you claim to know something if you’ve seen only 5% of it? It's shallow thinking and absurd to assume that the only things that are true is what we have photos of. Photos have only been around for about 200 years. This is not the measure of all truth.

> then i don't plan on believing them.

You're free to believe as you wish, but I would encourage you think more broadly. Think about this statement: "The only things that are true are the things that can be proved by science." That statement cannot be proved by science, or by photos, evidence, or even witnesses.

> extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

Not so. Extraordinary claims only need reliable sources. It not the unusualness of the evidence that wins the day, but the reliability of the source. Even extraordinary evidence from a less that reliable source is questionable. And a reliable source can give quite ordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.

But you can believe as you wish. I just wish better for you than to close your mind at 15 years old.

[J Lord]

Memories may not be verifiable now because of our limited technology and understanding, but they are in theory because remembering something is a physical process. Similarly, if the spirit world ever impacts upon our physical reality then it is potentially subject to scientific experiments and empirical evidence. If the spirit world can never have any impact on the physical world then I agree it isn't subject to empirical evidence, but then you are running into the invisible gardener problem.

[jimwalton]

> Memories may not be verifiable now because of our limited technology and understanding, but they are in theory because remembering something is a physical process.

This is a god-of-the-gaps argument. Nor would I agree that memories are just a physical process. I know there's a great debate about such things, but I think neuroscience is affirming emergent properties, not merely eliminate materialism (the physical explanation is the only explanation). If mental events are only neural events, then all mental events (including memory) are ultimately governed by the laws of neurobiology, which I don't agree with. I think this is reductionistic and inaccurate. But I know it's being widely debated.

> Similarly, if the spirit world ever impacts upon our physical reality then it is potentially subject to scientific experiments and empirical evidence.

This is not necessarily so. For instance, suppose God appeared to me. Just suppose. Is He detectable by any scientific equipment? I wouldn't be so sure. Maybe yes, but not necessarily. It's a whole different kind of reality and experience we're dealing with here.

And suppose, just suppose, God caused an earthquake to happen just as Joshua & the people blew their trumpets, and a section of the defense wall of Jericho collapsed. You'd be able to measure the earthquake, but would it be possible to scientifically measure the spirit world's contribution and impact? I don't think so. Trying to apply scientific measures to the metaphysical world just might be a gross mismatch of applying the wrong standard to a phenomenon.

[McQueen]

> his nature is pure evilness.

> In the OT, he is not described as evil at all, let alone pure evil. If you know of a NT verse that labels him as pure evil, or anything even close to that, just tell me and I'll be glad to discuss it.

In Genesis 3, the serpent tricks Adam and Eve into disobeying God. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 identifies that serpent as Satan, the devil, who deceives the whole world.

In Job 2:3 God criticises Satan for inciting God against Job without a cause.

Ephesians 6:11-13 indicates that there are heavenly forces, including "the devil" who are "hosts of wickedness".

> "his relationship with god is a competeder." Again, I need a verse to show that this is true.

That is from Isaiah 14:12-21, which seems to be referring to the devil.

> "he wants to be all powerful as well" Verse?

Isaiah 14:13

> "he is pretty clearly the enemy of god, or else he would be in heaven, and there would be no hell." In that sense, we can infer that he opposes God. The OT doesn't show him to be an enemy of God. The OT doesn't even show Satan to be being with that name. If you have a verse, I'll be glad to discuss it. In the NT he opposes God's people, and in that sense opposes God.

Job 1:6 names Satan.

Isaiah 14:12-21 seems to be talking about Satan, though it literally describes this being as "morning star" ("Lucifer" being a translation from the Latin Vulgate, from memory) who opposes God.

> "except when they possess people and cause them to go against god's will" They do possess people. Do you have a verse where the people who are possessed go against God's will?

It's more of an inference than a direct statement, but Ephesians 6:11-13 indicates that there are heavenly forces, including "the devil" who are "hosts of wickedness", who we must fight against.

> "he seems to have super human powers." Such as? Verse?

Job chapters 1 and 2. Though it seems, normally he only dares to harass people if given God's permission. But in the past he has made war with God and God's angels in heaven, and will do so again in the future according to Revelation 12:7-12 (if I am understanding the timing of that, which I may not be).

More often, the Bible describes Satan's activity as being one of deception of the mind to incite disobedience. Ephesians 2:2; 1 Peter 5:8.

> "being able to possess people at will" Satan possessing people? Verse?

John 13:21-27, Satan enters Judas.

> "living forever" Verse? Where are you getting this stuff?

Perhaps Revelation 20:10.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for all the research and input. Let's talk.

< In Genesis 3 ... Revelation 12:9 and 20:2

Yes, deceit, no, evil. In the OT, the serpent is never identified as evil. (Well, in the OT the serpent is never identified at all.). The OT offers not the slightest hint that the serpent of Genesis 3 was either identified as or inspired by Satan. Again, the accusation was that Satan is "pure evilness," which turns out to be not the case. In the OT the serpent takes the role of instigating disorder by interfering with the man and woman. He launched disorder when humanity decided to make itself the source and center of wisdom and order, a role for which they were not suited because it was not true order. There is no mention or implication of evil. The woman in Gn. 3 says "The serpent deceived me" (Gn. 3.13). It led her astray. She was tricked. There is no association with evil.

The same thought occurs in Rev. 12.9. The same term is creating an unnecessary and unwarranted confusion and mistake. The serpent this time is identified as Satan, but he is not associated with evil—but rather with deceit. Also, this dragon has no particular (or stated) connection with the serpent in Genesis 3. This serpent is a great dragon. No one perceives or interprets the serpent of Genesis 3 as a great dragon.

Satan's being hurled down has nothing to do with Satan's primeval fall, because John's vision is about events of the future. It offers no insights into occurrences of the past, such as a fall. What is being portrayed is future total defeat.

In Rev. 20.10, the devil is again identified as a deceiver—one who misleads.

> In Job 2:3 God criticises Satan for inciting God against Job without a cause.

In Job 2.3, "Satan" is not a proper or personal name. It is the common word for "adversary; accuser; challenger." The whole of Job is set up like a court room. God is on trial. The accuser ("the satan") brings his case to challenge God's policies. He acts as a court prosecutor. He is not bad as such, nor does he oppose God or act as leader of demonic forces. The conclusion that this is the being we call "Satan" is not necessarily valid (In Numbers 22.22, 32, the same term [the satan(adversary)] is used of an angel serving in the same capacity. Therefore his function is not intrinsically evil.

"Though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." Who is responsible for Job's predicament? God is, but the accusation "without any reason" is misguided. We will find out as we read Job that there was reason, there was cause. It certainly was not to punish Job, or even because of any inadequacy in Job (note the same verse), but to give evidence that God's policies are proper.

> Ephesians 6:11-13 indicates that there are heavenly forces, including "the devil" who are "hosts of wickedness".

The devil is mentioned in v. 11 as the schemer. Verse 12 mentions the "spiritual forces of evil," so we can say there are spiritual forces of evil, but neither the devil nor demons are particularly associated with whatever or whoever these things are. Frankly (and seriously), we don't know anything about these things: what they are, where the come from, what they do, and what is their strategy. But you're right: it's wickedness.

> That is from Isaiah 14:12-21, which seems to be referring to the devil.

Yeah, Isa. 14 doesn't refer to the devil, but rather to the king of Tyre. Everything in the text refers to the king; nothing in the text warrants that. Despite that many in history have applied these verses to Satan, there is much opposition to this interpretation. It reads way too much into the text.

"Morning star" (Heb. hell, Latin: Lucifer) refers to the planet Venus. It's an appropriate name for the king of Tyre. It has nothing to do with Satan. The king of Tyre would lose his power and be thrown down. This happened in history. Babylon smashed Tyre. The king of Tyre, as most kings of old, deified himself. The gods of Canaanite mythology were believed to live on the mountain heights. The king of Tyre claimed to join them there. The same kind of thought is seen in Isa. 47.8; Zeph. 2.15 regarding the king of Babylon.

There is just no evidence to associate this passage with Satan. It's about the kings downfall despite his aspirations to divine grandeur. And there is no reason to think, either from the context or from Isaiah's thesis, that he would be telling us something about Satan.

> Job 1.6

Again, the word is "the satan" (the challenger or adversary), not "Satan" as a proper name. This is the court prosecutor, since the whole book is a court case against God's policies.

> It's more of an inference than a direct statement, but Ephesians 6:11-13 indicates that there are heavenly forces, including "the devil" who are "hosts of wickedness", who we must fight against.

Yes, the devil is an enemy of ours and we must fight against him.

> "super human powers" Job chapters 1 and 2.

He does have superhuman powers, but not divine powers. He's not a demigod.

> But in the past he has made war with God and God's angels in heaven, and will do so again in the future according to Revelation 12:7-12

This is a different being. In Job is an adversary (the satan); in Revelation is "Satan".

> John 13.21-27

You're right. Good one. But remember that Satan is not omnipresent, as God is. If Satan is in Judas, he can't be in anyone else. He is a singular spiritual being. He's not anything like the Holy Spirit. Satan is neither divine nor a demigod.

> Rev. 20.10.

He will certainly exist into eternity future, but he did not exist from eternity past. He's not a demigod. God is the only eternal being.

[Mummy]

I really appreciate your succinct and accurate summary of demons and Satan. I’ll even be bold enough to say it’s the most accurate summary I’ve ever read, without any of the heaps of cultural and mythical baggage that usually come attached to these entities. I swear I've read and discussed the Bible for years without realizing none of the teachings I believed on this subject were found in the text.

[Big Black]

Then there is nothing god like about weather gods featured commonly in polytheistic religions.

Those religions aren't polytheistic then because their gods aren't God-like ?

By your logic, many(most?) polytheistic religions aren't polytheistic religions.

[jimwalton]

> Then there is nothing god like about weather gods featured commonly in polytheistic religions

Correct. There is no being (a demigod or spirit being) controlling or manipulating the weather.

> Those religions aren't polytheistic then because their gods aren't God-like ?

They are polytheistic because they worship a multiplicity of deities, but none of those deities actually exist. They are worshipping a fabrication.

> By your logic, many(most?) polytheistic religions aren't polytheistic religions.

Sure they are, but they have no objective, historical, or truthful basis.

[Big Black]

> polytheistic because they worship a multiplicity of deities

No. You said they don't have any attributes of a diety. They don't count.

You can't have it both ways.