Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The illogic of the "devil"


Moonobserver

Recommended Posts

The Christian conception of "Satan" seems to me to be flawed. Here, supposedly, was the highest of the angels, who was closer to God and knew the nature of God better than any other, mounting a rebellion against God.

 

The story says that this was because of pride in his heart, but is that really an adequate explanation? We're told that the most highly intelligent being ever created would, in all seriousness, attempt the overthrow of the one he knew to be the omnipotent creator and sustainer of absolutely everything, including himself. Such an entity couldn't be merely proud; he would have to be irrational to the point if insanity, and those who are insane cannot rightly be held responsible for what they do. I find that to be a considerable weakness in the Christian narrative of the origin of evil.

 

(Of course, all of this becomes moot when you remember that the name rendered in Christian Bibles as "Lucifer" was actually Isaiah's nickname for Nebuchadnezzar.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

There are great videos on youtube about the evolution of Satan in the bible.

 

Anyone got the links handy?

 

I know Aron Ra has one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wikipedia article is pretty good.  The satan of the book of Job, in particular, is drastically different from what people think today.  More making it up as you go along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 hours ago, Masihi said:

Was he wiser then any of us, yes,

Interesting that god would still hold us accountable for being tricked by him.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Masihi said:

Pride can make even he most intelligent people irrational or take irrational ideas. And being irrational doesn’t necessarily indicate insanity. 

If even humans are intelligent enough to understand omnipotence, not even humans can wilfully oppose omnipotence without being in a deranged state of mind. How much more deranged, then, a wiser and more intelligent angel would have to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
4 hours ago, Masihi said:

Who says God holds us all personally responsible?

The bible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this focus on devils and angels and ancient characters makes the Bible sound like a comic book.

 

Also all of the focus on maintaining a lack of self-confidence and non-questioning of the doctrine makes Christianity sound more and more like the typical cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Masihi said:

We see in his pride he challenges God that he would tempt his best servant Job into sin and would force him to reject God, this obviously doesn’t sound like someone with no free will or a servant infact, yes Satan requires God’s permission to preform what ever he wishes to preform, but he serves his own desires and goals. Such as challenging God using Job.

     Ha ha.  So stupid.  All the best rebels and rebellions ask for, no require, permission from those from whom they rebel. 😆

 

     Sounds like a patsy to me.

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Masihi said:

Permission in the sense God allows the rebellion to take place, God allows Satan to do what he does so long as it fits into God’s will and plans and not more. A ruler may let a rebellion take place and allow it to continue if it serves a specific purpose.

     So stupid.

 

     God (to Satan):  A rebellion?  I'll allow it!

     God (to Moses):  A cheeseburger?  NO FUCKING WAY!

 

     So so sooooo stupid!

 

     🤣

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Masihi said:

If Christianity encouraged no questioning of doctrine, then why make ecumenical councils where doctrine would be debated on freely by heretics and Orthodox and Orthodoxy defined, why have Church Fathers, why even have apologetics if you can’t question faith, apologetics itself requires one too ask questions of his faith. On the contrary cults have no formally defined doctrines like in Christianity or Islam, are very secretive, even restricting information from members, keeps non believers out, exploits its members, and can’t have anything close to a ecumenical Council or talk about doctrinal issues.

Perhaps some churches allow some questioning - not in MY house. This is forboten! But I question anyway in hopes of prompting the fundy fams to do same.

Why are the scriptures such that there is such a lack of clarity that prompts the questioning. Don't you think that the supposed work of the creator of the universe would be clear?

 

I did press some questions to one of the pastors at my wife's church when I was attending. He could answer none of them of them reasonably, insulted my ability to read and understand what I was reading, then told me I just had to have faith.

 

Sounds like cult-speak to me, my friend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Masihi said:

The words you wrote no where took place, also it’s pretty much showing your immaturity and your lack of a proper response to what I wrote. 

     God (and the devil for that matter) has never uttered any words.  They're all made up (them along with their words).  My fan-fiction is just as valid as the rest.

 

     Does the devil, or his fellow rebels, have full autonomy in his rebellion?  Could the devil have rebelled if god said had said "no?"

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Masihi said:

Only we can’t even grab a basic understanding of omnipotence much less fully understand it,  neither can Satan who is fallible in mind and knowledge just as we are, only the omnipotent can fully understand omnipotent, everything non omnipotent is naturally ignorant of how omnipotence truly works. 

Omnipotence has the power to bring all things into being by simply commanding them to exist. All things are held in existence by  the omnipotent will and can be swept out of existence by the slightest effort of that will.

 

That's a fair assessment of omnipotence, isn't it? And I'm only human.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Masihi said:

By the way a creator is the best explanation for how fine tuned our universe is. Not to mention our world is so unique among millions of billions of trillions of infinite stars and galaxies which are lifeless and are too toxic to support life. As the conditions to support life are really really what I’d like to call nearly impossible, yet here we are not only existing, but doing quite well. So I would argue the existence of a creator is more logical then your ideas of there being no sort of creator what so ever. If God didn’t want the rebellion to happen, it wouldn’t have happened very simple, it isn’t rocket science.

 

It stands to reason that a creator would have to be even more complex and "fine tuned" than the universe so to conclude that a creator is responsible for it beggs the question "Who created the creator?" and on and on. Kinda like it's turtles all the way down, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
14 minutes ago, Masihi said:

By the way a creator is the best explanation for how fine tuned our universe is.

 

No its not. It's merely a logical fallacy, the argument from incredulity and god of the gaps combined.

 

In order for a creator to be the best explanation you have to demonstrate the creator exists and can actually create. Just you saying so isn't going to cut it.

 

As it stands we don't know if a creator is even a possible explanation, let alone probable. Can you demonstrate that its even possible for a creator being to exist uncaused?

 

Like MOHO points who then created the creator if the universe is so complex to require a creator? If we follow your line of thought to its logical conclusion it goes thusly: The universe is so complex and fine tuned that it required a creator to create it. The creator therefore is complex and requires a creator. You end up in an infinite regress.

 

The assertion that the creator is uncaused, timeless, spaceless etc and therefore doesn't need explaining is just a bunk argument. You haven't answered the question of the creation of the universe, all you've done is push the explanation down the road and said well this doesn't need explaining.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Masihi said:

By the way a creator is the best explanation for how fine tuned our universe is. Not to mention our world is so unique among millions of billions of trillions of infinite stars and galaxies which are lifeless and are too toxic to support life. As the conditions to support life are really really what I’d like to call nearly impossible, yet here we are not only existing, but doing quite well. So I would argue the existence of a creator is more logical then your ideas of there being no sort of creator what so ever. If God didn’t want the rebellion to happen, it wouldn’t have happened very simple, it isn’t rocket science.

     No it's not.  You're making a lot of unfounded assertions here.

 

     The fine-tuned universe is a lot of garbage.

 

     There is nowhere that is more hostile to life than the universe.  Period.

 

     As to how many planets hold life?  As of now we know of one.  How many have we actually explored?  In person?  Just one.  With probes?  A handful around our star.  Beyond that?  Zero.  We've taken a peek and inferred some things with our telescopes but what that should tell you is there are billions of planets out there.  The odds of life existing other than our own is quite high.   Even if there is only one, just one, life form even similar to our own in intelligence in each galaxy.  That leaves billions of aliens.  Or are we the aliens?  I guess it's all perspective.  Billions of us alone, in our own galaxies, yet not actually alone.

 

     Keep in mind.  The universe is huge.  You believe that jesus flew up into heaven.  But heaven is some magical realm.  Because if he was to fly to a real place, even at the speed of light, he still hasn't left the Milky Way galaxy (and he's probably pretty darn cold by now).

 

     Anyhow, that aside, by your own admission god wanted the rebellion to happen.  Could Satan have not rebelled?  Does Satan have full autonomy?

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
4 hours ago, Masihi said:

Where does it say we’re all personally responsible for our parents sins? Also very nice of you to ignore the rest of the post and only deal with the issue which you thought you could pick at.

Mighty cordial of you to throw a strawman at me, also.  My argument is not, never was, that we're all responsible for our parents' sins.  god holds us all responsible for the "sin" of Adam and Eve.  That is the entire point of christianity.  Go back and read what I actually wrote; then we'll talk about what the bible says. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Thus saith the Dave our Mod. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

See also Deuteronomy 5:9

 

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Deuteronomy 5%3A9

 

Exodus 20:5

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Isaiah 14:21

"Prepare for his sons a place of slaughter Because of the iniquity of their fathers. They must not arise and take possession of the earth And fill the face of the world with cities."

Job 21:19

"You say, 'God stores away a man's iniquity for his sons.' Let God repay him so that he may know it.

 

Quote

 

     5 hours ago, Masihi said:

Where does it say we’re all personally responsible for our parents sins?

 

 

So there is a running concept that the children are punished for the sins of the fathers.

Can't wait to hear the apologetics for this one.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So there is a running concept that the children are punished for the sins of the fathers.

Can't wait to hear the apologetics for this one.

     Nuh-uh! :devilfinger:

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Masihi said:

That’s the dictionary definition of omnipotence, I asked can you understand omnipotence and understand what it is to be omnipotent, do you know what it is like to know every detail of the universe in past, present, and future in every small detail with noting escaping your eternal intellect, or how an uncreated being can bring everything into existence from nothing in seconds, if you or any of us understood it we’d be able to explain how such a thing would be scientifically possible, when on a human level it isn’t. None of us can understand how such a thing works or how such a thing could be logically possible because it’s above human logic, thus nobody and nothing can understand omnipotence fully except the omnipotent itself.

I'm not denying the existence of the Omnipotent; I'm just pointing out the impossibility of any sane being thinking it possible to defeat the Omnipotent, and that INsanity means not guilty by REASON of insanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Can you demonstrate that its even possible for a creator being to exist uncaused?

 

Since all the living that is known and observed to exist in this physical world reflects a life cycle that has two distinct points, a beginning and end, then do  you realistically expect that the nature of the universe is greater than the sum of its parts?   Since the universe itself demonstrates that it has a mortal nature, as evident by the living systems within it which all share a common pattern in their life cycles, that being a beginning and end then what basis do you conclude that this known and observed universe has existed in perpetuity?

 

If the universe has not existed in perpetuity then it would have a point of beginning where it came into existence since it would be impossible for anything which had not existed in perpetuity to have not had a beginning of existence.   Thus, if the universe and every thing which exists within it had a beginning, until you can demonstrate how it is possible for the universe to exist uncaused then the existence of a creator being is simply ipso facto. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, Justus said:

 

Since all the living that is known and observed to exist in this physical world reflects a life cycle that has two distinct points, a beginning and end, then do  you realistically expect that the nature of the universe is greater than the sum of its parts?   Since the universe itself demonstrates that it has a mortal nature, as evident by the living systems within it which all share a common pattern in their life cycles, that being a beginning and end then what basis do you conclude that this known and observed universe has existed in perpetuity?

 

If the universe has not existed in perpetuity then it would have a point of beginning where it came into existence since it would be impossible for anything which had not existed in perpetuity to have not had a beginning of existence.   Thus, if the universe and every thing which exists within it had a beginning, until you can demonstrate how it is possible for the universe to exist uncaused then the existence of a creator being is simply ipso facto. 

 

That's a long way round to answering "no" to my question then simply repeating the afore mentioned fallacy.

 

To specific points:

 

Quote

"that being a beginning and end then what basis do you conclude that this known and observed universe has existed in perpetuity?"

 

I might have lack of memory or something... can you please point to where I concluded that the universe has existed in perpetuity? 

 

Quote

"If the universe has not existed in perpetuity then it would have a point of beginning where it came into existence since it would be impossible for anything which had not existed in perpetuity to have not had a beginning of existence. "

 

I'm not sure if you have kept up with our cosmological discussion about universes from nothing etc? One of the ideas is that what we observe is merely a presentation of the local universe - one of many. It is however possible that the cosmos (So assuming the many worlds interpretation is correction, Cosmos includes everything) has existed in perpetuity. And no I haven't "concluded" this - so resist the urge to attempt an "ah ha, gotcha - you contradicted yourself!" moment. I'm merely pointing out current thinking on the subject. For example we know that in a quantum vacuum you can have particles popping in and out of existence uncaused.

 

Quote

"Thus, if the universe and every thing which exists within it had a beginning, until you can demonstrate how it is possible for the universe to exist uncaused then the existence of a creator being is simply ipso facto. "

 

No your logic here is flawed. Lets say we can never explain how the universe came into being. You don't get to jump to therefore a creator to fill the gap. That is literally god of the gaps. It's like if we can never find out the process of abiogenesis. One, that does not discount that abiogenesis happened and we simply do not know the process, and two you don't get to insert god in there simply because we don't know the answer.

 

There is no sound logical argument in which you can jump from the premise "...the universe and every thing which exists within it had a beginning," to the conclusion "the existence of a creator being is simply ipso facto. " It is not simply by the fact thereof. It does not follow. You are trying a poor version of the KCA and it's flawed.

 

P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause

P2 The universe exists

C) Therefore the universe has a cause

 

That's the logical argument.

 

What you then do is insert some assertions in there with no justification

 

P3) This cause must be timeless, spaceless and uncaused etc 

P4) The cause must be a personal creator having a mind

C) Therefore God. 

(Derived from https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/)

 

But these are merely theological assertions without evidence. If God, an all powerful complex something can exists uncaused, then why not the cosmos? Inserting complexity into the argument doesn't solve it. It's simply God of the gaps to any educated observer.

 

The only logical argument we can actually state with any confidence without making any logical fallacies is thus:

 

1) Every state of the universe derives from an initial state of the universe
2) We cannot yet explain the initial state of the universe
C) We don't know if the universe required a cause or not

 

(Obtained from this discussion http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2012/06/william-lane-craig-and-kalam.html)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
54 minutes ago, Masihi said:

It’s the same thing I told TheRedNeck professor. We suffer the consequences of of our parents sins not personal responsibility see Ezekiel 18:20. God does not hold us accountable for our parents sins, but we still suffer there consequences.

 


 

Typical apologist cherry-picking and/or crearive interpretation (read alternate truth). However, in your defence, these are really the only ways to get around the plain language of these obviously conflicting and so-called infallible texts. 

 

"he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Masihi said:

I will repeat my earlier point to you, Satan has free will and choose what to do just as we can, however if God decided to stop him mid way he could have

Well, then, that makes God an accomplice to Satan's evil deeds and morally worse than Satan. How do you find it possible to worship such a sadist? If I were god, I would have never allowed that. I guess that makes me more compassionate than your bible-God.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.