Board index ‹ Satan

[U Can't Believe]

It seems to me that your whole comment is special pleading for the 'If god is Good, why is there Evil' argument.

"Here's what I guess: God created all things good, but since God is, by definition uncreated, anything He created (which is all things) is less than God, less than perfect, less than eternal, less than...oh, everything, which means all created beings are vulnerable to and capable of missing the mark. Satan, whatever he was, made a choice somewhere along the way, as was his right to do, and disassociated from God. How a being could see the beauty, majesty, and power of God and turn away is beyond me, but hey, it obviously happened. How, and why, we are not told."

If God is perfect and it sounds like you're saying the purpose of making everything was to make it all good. By 'good' do you mean good as in the opposite of evil? If that's the case than this implies that all things made are perfectly good. Unable to do anything other than perfect good. If God is perfect than he wouldn't get this part wrong or less than perfect. Now looking around at reality we know this isn't the case. So please elaborate.

Problem with glass analogy; "If I were to create the most perfect cut crystal glass, I'm not to blame if someone drops it and it breaks. Glass, by nature, breaks. That doesn't mean I didn't create it perfectly well." The glass is 'cut' perfectly. Not unbreakable. The analogy should read, "If the glass piece is perfectly shaped." That all.

[jimwalton]

Then you have misunderstood my whole comment. My comment actually barely touches on the "If God is good, why is there evil" argument. Instead, my comment pertains to the following:

* God cannot create something equal to Himself, since He is both eternal and uncreated. Anything created is by necessity and definition not uncreated; anything that has a beginning is by necessity and definition not eternal.
* Whatever God created is less than God by definition and necessity. That doesn't mean it was created flawed.
* The Bible says nothing about Satan's origins.

> By 'good' do you mean good as in the opposite of evil?

No, "good" in Genesis 1 is not a moral statement, but rather a functional one. When God created everything "good", it was not in contrast to evil but in contrast to disordered.

[Be More Original]

> Whoa, not at all. I didn't in the least say or imply that Isaiah was false. What I said was that one traditional interpretation of Isaiah that has been popular in recent times is false.

You are discrediting a portion of Isaiah as false so why defend other portions of it? This is where confirmation bias comes into play.

> And since when is Genesis "blatantly false"? Where did that come from? We haven't even talked about Genesis yet.

Genesis is false in creation, period. There was no original Adam and Eve. The creation account contradicts itself so it is can be cast aside as a false narrative.

> Whoa, where did THIS come from? The question was about Satan's origin, and my answer was about Satan's origin, and now you're talking about hell? And then you toss in "at no fault of their own"? I sense a chip on your shoulder that's coming out irrespective of the conversation at hand. If you want to talk about hell, that's a different conversation and has nothing to do with Satan's origin.

It is a continuation of your comment. Obviously, I have a chip on my shoulder after being lied to for 30+ years. Christianity has no evidence and had been proven to be false by many fields of science.

> Sure. The heavens reflect the glory of God, and I consider them to be beautiful, majestic, and a display of power.

Do they? Or is this a reflection of a planet and your wonder at its beauty and elegance? 14+ billion light years of expanse that you can’t witness in its full glory. You’d witness nothing but this planet of it weren’t for science.

> There's plenty of proof. Over 2 billion people on the planet claim to be Christians—supernaturally changed by the supernatural power of God. The resurrection of Jesus has evidences and can be examined in the real world as a historical event. I have this feeling you have a chip on your shoulder and you're just venting at me. Stand down, soldier. Let's talk.

2 billion or so people have been indoctrinated into a religion that they can’t prove is truth. The supernatural is yet to be proven. The resurrection is a claim and not a fact as well as Jesus’ divinity. Jesus was at best a rogue preacher, if he truly existed at all. As miraculous as he supposedly was, he’d have numerous historians writing about him, yet we find none writing of his miracles. His god character wasn’t proclaimed until the 3rd century, so early Christians never believed he was God incarnate.

> So you're telling me that if I create an awesome car, and someone hits it and wrecks it, that it's a design flaw?

If you were god, you create crash avoidance and save people from such pain and torture.

> Now you're dipping into the absurd. God create an eternal being? If it's created, it's not eternal. Think about it.

You should think about it. God can do anything so.... He could create eternal beings, as he created angels who are eternal....

> So you're saying that if glass is breakable, it's the glass sculptor's fault? To me, that an odd assessment, and wrong.

I never said it wasn’t breakable. But a god would create perfection. You as a glass maker that allowed flawed glasses to be released to the purchaser, are at fault for the lack of quality in your product. When I get some Chinese manufactured garbage, I blame the Chinese workers. This isn’t complicated to comprehend. Low quality products are the fault of the producers. I buy old American made products because they are tried and true guarantees of quality and reliability.

[jimwalton]

> You are discrediting a portion of Isaiah as false so why defend other portions of it?

I did no such thing. I said that people had misinterpreted it.

> Genesis is false in creation, period.

Prove it. Genesis 1 is about how God ordered the world to function as His temple, not about its material manufacture. It is about the role and functions of the universe, the earth, and life on earth. How is that verifiably false? Go ahead, give me your case. I'm listening.

> There was no original Adam and Eve.

Prove it. The Bible doesn't require that they were the first humans, but the first hominids that God revealed Himself too. Prove to me there was no such event. I'm listening. If you make an assertion, you must support the assertion.

> The creation account contradicts itself so it is can be cast aside as a false narrative.

It does no such things. It only contradictions itself if you have been taught lies about it and you believed the lies. Tell me what you're thinking here.

> It is a continuation of your comment.

Talking about the eternal fate of humanity is a continuation of my comment that the Bible doesn't tell us about the origins of Satan? Um...

> I have a chip on my shoulder after being lied to for 30+ years

I can tell that you have been. That's what our conversation is good. Possibly I can undo some of those lies and put you in a better place of having a more open mind to dialogue.

> Christianity has no evidence and had been proven to be false by many fields of science.

Christianity has a world of evidence, and there's nothing about it that contradicts anything we know about science. Science has not proved a single element of Christianity to be wrong. It's obvious someone lied to you and you bought the lies. Let's talk more.

> Do they? Or is this a reflection of a planet and your wonder at its beauty and elegance? 14+ billion light years of expanse that you can’t witness in its full glory. You’d witness nothing but this planet of it weren’t for science.

When I gaze into the universe at night, it's not a reflection of any planet but a glorious display of majesty. Last night there was a super full moon that was simply beautiful and stunning in its size and brilliance. 14+ billion light years of expanse have been opened to us even more by the Hubble telescope so we can see more than ever before. Science is a wonderful, fantastic thing. I don't know why you are imaging that I dislike or discredit science.

> 2 billion or so people have been indoctrinated into a religion that they can’t prove is truth.

This is provably untrue. There are millions upon millions who came to Christ without having been raised in it, even with knowing very little about it. There is even now something dramatic happening among Muslims: hundreds, if not thousands, are having visions of Christ, out of nowhere, and coming to him in faith. This has nothing to do with indoctrination. The "chip on your shoulder" is showing again. I'm hoping that our conversation can help you relax a little bit and be more objective. Someone has obviously lied to you about many things, and you need some reasonable conversation with someone who gives you answers you can trust.

> The resurrection is a claim and not a fact

The resurrection has substantial evidence in its favor. It has been examined by lawyers, philosophers, historians, scientists, anthropologists, theologians, linguists, and archaeologists. While I can't guarantee is to be 100% proven, I can claim it's a valid belief beyond a reasonable doubt.

> Jesus was at best a rogue preacher, if he truly existed at all.

The historical existence of Jesus has been reasonably established beyond a reasonable doubt.

> As miraculous as he supposedly was, he’d have numerous historians writing about him, yet we find none writing of his miracles.

This is not true. We have four Gospels. Josephus writes of them. There is also a bowl that was recently discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, dating from about 125 BC to the first century AD. The engraving reads (in Greek) “dia chrstou o goistais,” translated by the excavation team as “through Christ the magician.” It is speculated that a first-century magician used it in the work he was doing to invoke the name of Jesus, showing from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known for His miracles.

> His god character wasn’t proclaimed until the 3rd century, so early Christians never believed he was God incarnate.

This is patently untrue. You've been lied to, again. The Gospel of John dates to anywhere from AD 60-90. We have a fragment (P52) of part of it from about 125. So also the existence of the other 3 Gospels are firmly established by the early 2nd century. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers confirm that it was a uniform belief of the Church that Jesus was God incarnate.

> If you were god, you create crash avoidance and save people from such pain and torture.

You seem to misunderstand the whole nature of God, of life, of how God works, and even of common cause-and-effect. Someone has lied to you, and now you're not even thinking straight about how all this works.

> God can do anything so.... He could create eternal beings, as he created angels who are eternal....

There is NOTHING about this that makes sense or is true. You are claiming that God can self-contradict and still be non-contradictory, that God can make things and events contrary to the definition (a square circle, a married bachelor), that God can be God and non-God at the same time. It's pure nonsense to think it's possible or logical to create uncreated beings. This is not the way reality, logic, math, reason, science, theology, or life work.

> But a god would create perfection.

Not so. Ideal perfection is a possibility only for the uncreated.

> You as a glass maker that allowed flawed glasses to be released to the purchaser, are at fault for the lack of quality in your product. When I get some Chinese manufactured garbage, I blame the Chinese workers. This isn’t complicated to comprehend. Low quality products are the fault of the producers.

Yes. Finally we agree on something.

Creation is in a different category than a piece of glass or Chinese kitsch. It was only an analogy, and any analogy can only go so far—it can't be pushed to the edges. That's not what analogies are for, what they do, or how we understand them. Let's talk more, please.

[U Can't Believe]

> "God cannot create something equal to Himself, since He is both eternal and uncreated. Anything created is by necessity and definition not uncreated; anything that has a beginning is by necessity and definition not eternal. "

Aside from it being nonsensical and a bit redundant, I don't see how something being eternal and uncreated dictate that things capability. To be eternal only speaks to the how of existence for that entity. There's no prescription on ability aside from lasting forever and never having a beginning.
​
> "Whatever God created is less than God by definition and necessity. That doesn't mean it was created flawed."

This all depends. Do you view God as perfection? That means only able to do and be perfect within logic. I'm not going to try some stupid trick of paradox's here. (ie, create a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it) But since we're discussing your version of a deity I need you to explain his ability. This will help in addressing the Satan topic.
​
> (By 'good' do you mean good as in the opposite of evil?) "No, "good" in Genesis 1 is not a moral statement, but rather a functional one. When God created everything "good", it was not in contrast to evil but in contrast to disordered."

My answer to the Satan topic will probably answer this as well.

[jimwalton]

> I don't see how something being eternal and uncreated dictate that things capability. To be eternal only speaks to the how of existence for that entity. There's no prescription on ability aside from lasting forever and never having a beginning.

It's just the obvious example that God cannot create another God, because God is uncreated. And if God cannot create another God, anything creates is automatically, undeniably, and necessarily a lesser being. From that necessity we can logically conclude that a lesser being also is less than invulnerable, as God is. It's a logical progression that I was assuming you could walk.

> Do you view God as perfection?

Yes.

> But since we're discussing your version of a deity I need you to explain his ability

You mean his omnipotence? That's what I'm going to answer, but if that's not what you had in mind, just disregard the following and ask me again what it is you really want to know.

Omnipotence has never been adequately defined. It doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills. He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.

What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination.

* He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
* He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
* He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
* The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
* He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. Luke 13.34. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
* He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.
* It is not violated by self-limitation on the part of God
* It does not imply the use of all the power of God

Another aspect of God’s omnipotence is that he is free. Nothing in Scripture suggests that God’s will is determined or bound by any external factors. God’s decisions and actions are not determined by consideration of any factors outside himself, but are simply a matter of his own free choice.

Leibniz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a “result” theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, “for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way.” Ross formulated it as “Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world.”

[Russel's Tea Party]

Why does that make the souls of the dead unable to change their minds? Honestly it seems like this theology is based on whatever best allows people to still be threatened with punishment for non belief.

[jimwalton]

I guess I didn't communicate clearly. All I was saying is that the verse is not about the souls of the dead. I wasn't offering the verse as a reason that the souls of the dead are unable to change their minds. As far as the theology of hell, there are many Christians who take the position that it's entirely possible that people may have opportunity to change their minds later. These positions have fancy names (semi-restorationism, reconciliationism, and the like), but they show from the Bible that very possibly punishment for sin fits the crime—that God will not punish anyone unfairly, and that the souls of the dead may have opportunities to be reconciled to God. At the bottom line, I say there are several things we know: (1) God will be perfectly fair, and (2) people will not suffer or be rewarded anything that is not appropriate.

So it's not at all based on whatever best allows people to still be threatened with punishment for non-belief. Instead, it's based on a system of justice that is fair without flaw.

But my point was that Jude 6 isn't addressing this stuff.

[U Can't Believe]

I agree only if in order to qualify as a god it is eternal. However history is filled with non eternal Gods. Even Yahweh is debated to have originated from El Elon and Sheerah. Ba'al and Yahweh were their children. Yahweh was charged with the Israelite people. One can still see this in snippets in Genesis. I disagree however that Yahweh in your definition of him couldn't create another equally powerful God. Since He is perfect. If he decided to create such an entity it logically doesn't follow that he wouldn't be able to. The only difference would be one has a recorded birth. Something not having a beginning doesn't necessarily mean supreme. However since we don't have any examples of something consistently existing throughout all of time. We don't know if this even makes sense to say. This is why I didn't grant the logical train of lesser creations. It is logical that a lesser being would be vulnerable only in the ways that being isn't perfect.

So the majority of this was covered by me saying, “Do you view God as perfection? That means only able to do and be perfect within logic. I'm not going to try some stupid trick of paradox's here. (ie, create a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it)”

I do have to protest that you do have some contradictions in your definition. He is able without logical limitation yet cannot interfere with man because of free will. I think you might want to re-read through it again and think about that part before responding back. Aside from that it's not really pertinent to the Satan topic so we could come back around to it later if you want.

Thanks for the definition. It's also worth mentioning that if God creates to the perfect of his vision than I think that indicates He would also have to be omniscient. Without omniscience he wouldn't be able to know how to create said vision perfectly to how he wants. I'm not saying here that he creates perfect things. It's important that you see the difference. So if God is perfect and all knowing (within logical limits), than all that he has created is how he wanted it to be. If that's the case then he purposely created Satan to disobey. Being all-knowing dictates that he would have prior knowledge of events before they happen. That Satan in time would turn against him. This extends to man as well. Free will really has nothing to do with it. Than God knows what people will chose to do. There is a distinction here. The ability to know the future removes all the supposed possibilities of what could happen. I'll explain this more if you need. In closing because God is all-knowing and all-powerful (within logical constraints), he creates perfectly to his vision of want. That means that Satan and mankind act and function exactly how God wanted.

[jimwalton]

> I agree only if in order to qualify as a god it is eternal.

I would regard eternality as a necessary characteristic of a truly divine being.

> However history is filled with non eternal Gods.

Yeah, they're posers, fakes, pretenders to the throne.

> Even Yahweh is debated to have originated from El Elon and Sheerah. Ba'al and Yahweh were their children.

I'm aware of the debate. I don't buy it. In my mind, similarity doesn't equal derivation. Just because a scholar finds some parallels doesn't mean one derived from the other, and there is no actual proof of derivation.

> I disagree however that Yahweh in your definition of him couldn't create another equally powerful God. Since He is perfect. If he decided to create such an entity it logically doesn't follow that he wouldn't be able to. The only difference would be one has a recorded birth.

My problem with your theory is the coexistence of two all-powerful beings, especially if those two all-powerful beings are at odds with each other. Their very coexistence and conflict would necessitate that one of them would not be able to "bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are," to never be overwhelmed, frustrated, or contained. It's like "What would happen if a non-stoppable object came into contact with an immoveable wall?" We have a necessary defeater (and inherent logical and practical contradiction) for the possibility.

> However since we don't have any examples of something consistently existing throughout all of time.

What about energy? matter? gravity? Just wondering.

> He is able without logical limitation yet cannot interfere with man because of free will. I think you might want to re-read through it again and think about that part before responding back.

I don't need to. If God granted to man (or, as is my opinion, free will is a necessity [but that's a different conversation]) free will, then if God interferes with that free will, then it's not free, and it's not will. Interference is abrogation. I'll take a stab at an analogy, though it may have its weaknesses: If I give you a car, but I refuse to let you get in it or drive it, then (1) I didn't really give it to you, (2) it's not yours to use, and (3) the gift is worthless.

> It's also worth mentioning that if God creates to the perfect of his vision than I think that indicates He would also have to be omniscient.

I agree.

> Omniscience

Omniscience also has its logical limits. In the same absurd senses, God doesn’t know what it’s like to learn. He doesn’t know what it’s like to not know everything, and other such nonsense. These are false paradoxes. When we say that God is omniscient, we are undeniably talking about all things that are proper objects of knowledge. By omniscience we mean that God knows himself and all other things, whether they are past, present, or future, and he knows them exhaustively and to both extents of eternity. Such knowledge cannot come about through reasoning, process, empiricism, induction or deduction, and it certainly doesn't embrace the absurd, the impossible, or the self-contradictory.

To complicate the problem of defining omniscience, it can't be established what knowledge really is and how it all works. What are the principle grounds of knowledge, and particularly of God's knowledge? Does he evaluate propositions? Does he perceive? What about intuitions, reasoning, logic, and creativity? We consider knowledge to be the result of neurobiological events, but what is it for God?

The Bible defines God's mind as...

* creating new information (Isa. 40-48)
* showing comprehension
* gaining new information (Gn. 22.12, but it's not new knowledge)
* He orders the cosmos (Gn. 1)
* He designs (viz., the plan for the temple)
* He deliberates (Hos. 11.8)
* He can reason with people (the whole book of Malachi; Gn. 18.17-33)
* He can change a course of action (Ex. 32; 1 Sam. 8-12)
* He remembers (all over the place)

Is God's omniscience propositional or non-propositional? Can God have beliefs (since beliefs can be true, and beliefs are different than knowledge)? Are God's beliefs occurrent or dispositional? As you can see, this can all get pretty deep pretty quickly. At root, a cognitive faculty is simply a particular ability to know something, and since God knows everything, his cognitive faculties are both complete and operational. Perhaps we can define God's omniscience as:

* Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs
* Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable

> Being all-knowing dictates that he would have prior knowledge of events before they happen. That Satan in time would turn against him. This extends to man as well.

This is correct.

> Free will really has nothing to do with it.

Not with the discussion of God's omniscience, except that we know that knowledge is not causative. Only power is causative. That God knows something has NO implications regarding free will. God's knowledge doesn't interfere with genuine free will. That's where this statement of yours ("The ability to know the future removes all the supposed possibilities of what could happen.") becomes incorrect. Because God is able to move forward in time has no implications on the very real possibilities of real life. He can see it, but He didn't determine it.

Therefore your conclusion is misguided: "That means that Satan and mankind act and function exactly how God wanted." Supposing you and I are in an ice cream shop. I have the cool-o ability to move forward in time, so I do that and see what you're going to order. My knowledge didn't make you order it. My knowledge doesn't interfere with your free will decision in the least. My ability to see is not the same as my determining you to "act and function" in any way at all.

The Bible is quite clear that Satan and humankind do NOT act and function how God wanted. His ability to see all and know all is not determinative.