Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[Orwell]

If God is all-powerful, why doesn't he destroy Satan?

Similarly, if Satan is the most distressed and tormented of souls, why don't we pray for him?

 

[RenegadeMx]

If God is all-powerful, why doesn't he destroy Satan?

Similarly, if Satan is the most distressed and tormented of souls, why don't we pray for him?

if my grandma had nuts, why isnt she a grandpa?

 

[dan964]

If God is all-powerful, why doesn't he destroy Satan?

Where are you wanting that answered from?

 

[Orwell]

What do you mean?

 

[dan964]

What do you mean?

like I could obviously give you an answer as a Christian for instance, or just try to reason from supposedly outside of this framework?

 

[Orwell]

In all honesty, I'd like to hear your stance from both sides.

 

[dan964]

well the Christian argument basically relies on that Jesus defeated Satan by his death and resurrection; because by that he defeated death (because he did not stay dead) and sin (re: discussion had earlier), hence triumphing over the powers of evil. There is obviously more to it. But that is simplest explanation that any person could reasonably understand.
This means not only is Satan disarmed, he is already doomed to destruction (this may also answer the second question in some degree, as his fate is already sealed).

====

logically, it will depend on your definitions of God and Satan. I honestly think it doesn't make much sense without reference to the former, but I will give it a shot by contradiction.

remark: We will define Satan as the greatest conceivable evil entity.

If God (YHWH), being intrinsically good, has not defeated Satan, then God is not the most powerful being (and ditto for all others in that category), leaving Satan as the most powerful being, since God was not able to beat him. Then unless we hold to some dualistic (a good God and an evil God) religion, we are left with the conclusion that God is not God, which is absurd.

It does require these two underlying things, which have to be deduced separately:
The main issue I have is it mainly "words" rather than more of an argument, it is hardly airtight, and more of a sketch.

1. That GOD is the most-powerful and greatest (conceivable?) incorruptible being, by definition. (This is just a definition, so it is easy to deduce, in fact this is generally the accepted concept for God, but not always)

2. For the sake of argument, we can use the conclusion that GOD is God (YHWH), or for that matter any God that satisfies by their nature and attributes the above definition. Namely that God is a loving, just God from (1). To actually deduce this properly, is the point of this thread of course, but it is not something that can be just proven, but more so asserted with confidence on the evidence (but one can with sufficient evidence, assert the opposite).

The underlying assumption is that the greatest conceivable being must be good and loving. This assumption is probably just as hard to prove, but is generally accepted. (A proper discussion of this might be a bit beyond what I am trying to address). In fact logically, this is where the argument hinges.
(We can basically say that this can be justified by examining/reducing to simpler things, such as the law-maker tends to set what is good, but this simplification fails because from experience, not all law-makers are incorruptible
)

The basic premise of this argument is found by replacing Satan, being the embodiment of evil, with evil itself.
The real question is what attributes would one prescribe to the most greatest conceivable being, well for starters, we would most likely assume depending on how we view the world, certain positive attributes (in our very nature, we esteem good things, such as kindness, charity, justice, truth etc. etc.) would be presumed that the greatest being would have. The real question is how can we prescribe these attributes.

Now if God decided not to deal with evil properly then Frankston we have a problem..., as God is not just
Now if God decided not to keep the promise to deal with evil at some point, then Frankston we also have a problem..., as God is a liar.
which if God is supposed to good, he isn't, so maybe evil is not the most conceivable evil.

Basically, God would not be God, if he did not have the attributes that by definition he should have. The most obvious is omnipotence. In fact what we can deduce directly about the divine without word-twisting is, that if God exists he has to be powerful, but not necessarily loving. While that doesn't disprove God's existence it can indeed.

The converse is also true. If one can systematically disprove all the attributes that are supposed to be there in the lack of God's existence, then you have a proof by contradiction for God's existence. Unfortunately if one only disproves one attribute one can still challenge whether the absence of God leads to.

In the end, you can only prove God's existence and non-existence, if the implications of either claim can be proven or disproven (the latter is stronger).



In fact that is why for instance there are different views of God.

 

[Drsoccerball]

If God is all-powerful, why doesn't he destroy Satan?

Similarly, if Satan is the most distressed and tormented of souls, why don't we pray for him?

Here is the Muslim stance:
There is good in everything God creates. He created everything with the ability to either do either good or bad. In regards to the Satan, unlike the Christians who believe him to be a "fallen angel" (please correct me if I am mistaken), we believe him to be a "Jin" (who has free will and was made from a smokeless fire - see surah rahman) and thus was one of the best creations as he was glorifying God at such an extent where he rose above the angels as angels don't have the inclination to sin. (So therefore doing something willfully good and abstaining from something bad willingly will allow us to rise above the spiritual ranks of angels). However, as we know when God created Adam(pbuh) out of elements from soil and dirt, God commanded the angels and the Satan to prostrate in front of Adam(pbuh) as a sign of a respect and complete submission to God (and not to actually worship Adam(pbuh)), Satan refused and he was arrogant as he was made of fire so he became the Satan we know now.

Now why doesn't God destroy Satan? Prophet Muhammad says that If Humans didn't sin God would wipe out humanity and replace it with a nation which sins so that they could repent. We wouldn't have inclinations/whispers and thus wouldn't sin. We can compare this to a simple example of weight lifting. When weight-lifting you tear muscles which come back even stronger after repaired and are able to sustain heavier weight. The Satan is like this tempting us "ripping" spiritual muscles only for us to either give up and became a loser or repent(recover in the case of weight-lifting) and gain a higher spirituality.

 

[Drsoccerball]

funny how the number of miracles that occur has plummeted in perfect correlation with our understanding of science and mental illness increasing

One of the signs of the coming of judgement day is that most miracles will be able to be performed by people but not to the extent that the original miracles were. Well this is the Islamic belief you don't have to accept it .

 

[dan964]

Here is the Muslim stance:
There is good in everything God creates. He created everything with the ability to either do either good or bad. In regards to the Satan, unlike the Christians who believe him to be a "fallen angel" (please correct me if I am mistaken), we believe him to be a "Jin" (who has free will and was made from a smokeless fire - see surah rahman) and thus was one of the best creations as he was glorifying God at such an extent where he rose above the angels as angels don't have the inclination to sin. (So therefore doing something willfully good and abstaining from something bad willingly will allow us to rise above the spiritual ranks of angels). However, as we know when God created Adam(pbuh) out of elements from soil and dirt, God commanded the angels and the Satan to prostrate in front of Adam(pbuh) as a sign of a respect and complete submission to God (and not to actually worship Adam(pbuh)), Satan refused and he was arrogant as he was made of fire so he became the Satan we know now.

Now why doesn't God destroy Satan? Prophet Muhammad says that If Humans didn't sin God would wipe out humanity and replace it with a nation which sins so that they could repent. We wouldn't have inclinations/whispers and thus wouldn't sin. We can compare this to a simple example of weight lifting. When weight-lifting you tear muscles which come back even stronger after repaired and are able to sustain heavier weight. The Satan is like this tempting us "ripping" spiritual muscles only for us to either give up and became a loser or repent(recover in the case of weight-lifting) and gain a higher spirituality.

what would you say is the Islamic definition of repentance?

 

[Drsoccerball]

what would you say is the Islamic definition of repentance?

To feel bad about what you have done, make the intention to never do the sin again and try your best not to do it again.

 

[durrrrr]

One of the signs of the coming of judgement day is that most miracles will be able to be performed by people but not to the extent that the original miracles were. Well this is the Islamic belief you don't have to accept it .

lmao what a cop out

 

[durrrrr]

Now why doesn't God destroy Satan? Prophet Muhammad says that If Humans didn't sin God would wipe out humanity and replace it with a nation which sins so that they could repent. We wouldn't have inclinations/whispers and thus wouldn't sin. We can compare this to a simple example of weight lifting. When weight-lifting you tear muscles which come back even stronger after repaired and are able to sustain heavier weight. The Satan is like this tempting us "ripping" spiritual muscles only for us to either give up and became a loser or repent(recover in the case of weight-lifting) and gain a higher spirituality.

there's absolutely no reason for this though

if it were possible, we would design ourselves to have big muscles without having to lift anything

the only reason god could make us 'perfect' but chooses not to is to be an enormous cunt

 

[Drsoccerball]

there's absolutely no reason for this though

if it were possible, we would design ourselves to have big muscles without having to lift anything

the only reason god could make us 'perfect' but chooses not to is to be an enormous cunt

Hes already made a perfect creation; the angels if He did make us perfect there would be no difference between us and angels. It allows us to be greater than angels as I said or worse than the devils.

 

[nerdasdasd]

The whole problem with this god exists or not debate is that it's based on assumptions.

Both sides make arguments on things that can or cannot be proven.

 

[porcupinetree]

The whole problem with this god exists or not debate is that it's based on assumptions.

Both sides make arguments on things that can or cannot be proven.

Such as? And besides, how do you define 'proof'? Is it not reasonable to make arguments based off ideas/statements which are more than likely true (but can never be 'proven')?

 

[dan964]

To feel bad about what you have done, make the intention to never do the sin again and try your best not to do it again.

cool thanks, then I will say as a precaution to the third party observer, that terms like repentance do have different understanding, esp. between faiths.

also to the observer, just a tip, tracing the logic might be a bit difficult as often there are multiple people speaking, hey it is a forum....

 

[dan964]

Hes already made a perfect creation; the angels if He did make us perfect there would be no difference between us and angels. It allows us to be greater than angels as I said or worse than the devils.

can you explain your statement? I don't get your logic flow...

 

[Drsoccerball]

can you explain your statement? I don't get your logic flow...

Sorry ill try again

So what we believe in(again it's a belief you have a right to not agree and I have convinced myself with proofs that I agree with that probably everyone else won't) is that if there is a choice/inclination to do bad then it would obviously be more valuable to not do that bad then if you do not have the choice/inclination to do bad. Similarly if you have the choice to only do good things then the value of that good thing isn't as great as if you have the ability not to do good things and do bad. Does this make sense ?

For example I program a robot to respect me vs a child who can have the choice to disrespect me but respects me at the same level as the robot, obviously I would give a greater reward/respect to the child.

 

[Paradoxica]

Such as? And besides, how do you define 'proof'? Is it not reasonable to make arguments based off ideas/statements which are more than likely true (but can never be 'proven')?

Probability is not well defined for meta-events.