Solmyr - I don’t even know where to begin.
That is fine. How can you hope to convey your understanding of the world, if your words have no meaning or have variable meaning?
It is a generic concept that a “good” being does not allow “evil” roam freely, if he can prevent it. You wish to make an exception for this rule - namely God.
The OP was a question about how to approach atheists about the concept of the “devil”. You can’t succeed until you can reconcile the “good” God with the “evil” Satan…
The bible does not seem to be helpful, since it depicts God and Satan as good buddies, who have a bet at the expense of poor Job and his family.
I don’t understand the first bit. What are you talking about?
God is not a being. You still don’t understand that, despite several attempts I’ve made at explaining this. It is SUPER relevant for discussing goodness and God. Even if you don’t believe in act and potency (which is ridiculous), you should still be able to understand the argument if you applied yourself to making sense of it. I don’t see that you have. In any event, good beings let evil things happen all the time. Daddy lets Johnny fall on the bike because that way he learns. Extend to a cosmic scale, and you’re starting to get it. Free choices are what hurt people in the end anyway.
If you don’t want to understand it, you won’t understand it. You could read Job that way, but that would be a radical departure from how it’s historically understood.
The principle of reciprocity.
But the point is not about “justice”, it is about reconciling the alleged “love” with allowing “evil”. And that is where the apologists fail, miserably.
Even if there would be some valid argument for the existence of God, the existence of the devil would destroy that argument.
You can’t assert the existence of a self-contradictory being.
Reciprocity, eh? So everyone gets what he dishes out? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth? Is that the extent of it? Even if you did think that, which you probably don’t (but is suggested by your word choice), it would still imply a belief in an order, an “ought.” Why ought there be this “reciprocity,” whatever you mean by it? Could it be because human beings have purposes, and that those purposes come from and are directed toward God, Who is the measure of reason and therefore the ultimate rule of justice? Or is it “just cuz, that’s fair, ya know.”
The point is all about justice. You are implying that if there is a God it is WRONG for Him to let the Devil exist, because it is DISORDERED, namely, it harms human beings. And God OUGHT to “love” instead. So skimming over justice is a bad idea.
Refer to my first post… We play with the hand we’re dealt. We don’t create our own world. That’s quite a bizarre claim, anyway, not only for the obvious reasons dealing with the absurdity of the clause “If there wasn’t a God, then xyz.” A “valid” argument is a successful argument. And, likewise, supposing we follow the “common wisdom” then if there is a “Devil” then there MUST be a God. Think before posting! Come on.
This last bit is worded very poorly, but I assume you mean that it is “self-contradictory” for God to create something that is evil. In a sense, you are right! Strictly speaking, God does not make evil. Evil is a lack of some good. On the other hand, God causes things that cause evil. There are many distinctions to be made therein, and they require quite a bit of attention. Christ cast a shadow on a plant, is that evil? In a way. God sent plagues on Egypt, is that evil? In a different way. Judas betrays Jesus, is that evil? In a yet different way. God causes all actions in at least some indirect way, but he never causes their moral deficiency. That is a subtlety that requires real attention if it is to be understood. The larger point to be made is that God is the source and measure of goodness, since He is the Creator. The useful, the pleasant, and the worthy (the three kinds of goodness), are all present in any action of God. It is always useful for His purposes, those actions of His are always spiritually pleasant if rightly perceived, and always worthy on account of their perfect weight, order, and measure. These are some of the beginner’s principles for understanding this issue. Again, God’s goodness is wrapped up in His not being “a being.” That is CRITICAL, and as far as I can tell, completely lost on you.
That is not the usual idea.
Life is about “love”, and there is no need for a fight to love someone.
This kind of “war” mentality starts to wear rather thin. "War " on poverty, “war” on drugs, “war” on cancer… everything is seen as a “war” on something.
As for the encounters with the “good” or “evil” entities, if that is possible and “extremely well documented” (???), …
let’s have the invocations to grab them demons by the scruff of their neck and yank them over here, so we can examine them and create an “anti-demon-spray” to get rid of them… Is “holy water” not good enough any more?
No, it is not.
Yes, it’s about love too. No, you don’t always need to fight, but you must always be willing to sacrifice, which would always imply a fight of some kind, even if against oneself.
So?
A particularly well known case is St. Joan of Arc. Read the proceedings from her trial, and do some background reading on just what is going on in that exchange… Who are the players, what is their background, what is at stake, etc.
It’s called an exorcism, and, despite the movies, they always work when done right. But we don’t get to “uncreate” demons. God could, but chooses not to because it obviously works out to a greater expression of His glory and the better good of mankind, despite being rough in the here and now.
After all, even the worst possible humans are sparkling white compared to the “ultimate evil”. Not even the worst child-molester, rapist and murderer is as “bad” as Satan.