Why did God create Satan?

[JDaniel]

It follows logically from what you said. If God created Satan, then in God’s time there was a point when Satan did not exist yet, and then there was a time when God created Satan, and from that moment onwards Satan existed. Either this is true, or Gad and the angels have been coexisting eternally.

Serious:

Well, now that you put it like that! I can’t argue with it.

As such there was a time when God did not create Satan (or all the angels) YET, but according to the catholic doctrine, he already knew which angels will rebel and which ones will not.

There’s where the problem lies. That’s is not Catholic doctrine. I’ve posted the text from The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol. I, p. 225, at least four times recently, although I’m not sure if I posted it in this thread. God does not foresee the future. To God, all is present (obviously), including the free causes of future acts. Under God’s Eternal gaze, He sees the perfect angel that He created, along with all of the other angels. By the way, angels possess a duration measure of their own (also Catholic Doctrine that I can substantiate). They are not infinitely eternal. When Lucifer actualized his desire to abstain from God, and God’s intentions, and look only to his own, he, in essence, cast himself out.

So God had foreknowledge, and this could have chosen not to create all the rebelling angels.

Not so. See above.(If you would like me to quote again, the Catholic doctrine, let me know.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Serious]

Well, now that you put it like that! I can’t argue with it.

Excellent. Now let’s use some elementary logic.

1. God is eternal, Satan is not.
2. From that it logically it follows that there was a time when God existed, and Satan did not and then there was a time, when God created Satan, and there is a time since that - ergo God is NOT timeless.
3. From God omniscience it follows that God already knew that Satan will rebel if he will be created even before the creation took place.
4. God had the freedom of creating or not creating Satan.
5. To argue against the “foreknowldge” is just semantic squabbling.

I don’t really care what is it called, though the only logical description would be “foreknowledge”, but if you don’t like logic, that is fine by me.

 

[danserr]

It depends. If you say: “is it better to have a thousand saved and zero not saved, than one hundred saved and zero not saved” then I will agree. But if you say: “is it better to have 1000 saved and 500 not saved than 100 saved and none not saved”, then I disagree. Of course this is unimportant. See below.
.

Would you agree that it is better to have 1000 saved and 1 not saved, than 2 saved and zero not saved?

My central point here will continue to be that those who choose to reject God should not have a veto on the happiness of those who would choose to accept God. More anon.

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
No, your claim that God could create all who would choose Him, regardless of whether or not he created all who would reject Him is misguided. You are failing to consider that God is limited in his action by the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. It may be that given creaturely freedom, a world where all were saved would be a world with over-riding drawbacks (like a very small number of people) that would lead God not to create it. If this world had a very small number of people, then how could God implant the same number of saved souls? (multiple souls per body?)

You are repeating yourself. I proved above that the number of “people-to-saved” is independent from the number of “people-not-to-be-saved”, and the number of “people-to-be-saved” can be as large as God wishes it to be.

You have not refuted my position at all, only made the bare assertion that God should be able to put all the souls who would choose Him into bodies anyway. Your position also depends on some confusing issues in metaphysics of personal identity that you don’t lay out clearly. It may also depend on the eternal existence of the human soul (since you refer to God finding a human soul), which is an absurd position. You further seem to fail to account for God’s need to account for the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

Let’s try this. I am going to assume that we agree with the following:

1. God’s omnipotence does not include the ability to do things described by counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

• You seemed to indicate that you agreed with this earlier when you agreed that God could not force Bob to freely accept Him.

Now you want God to create only people who will be saved. That is to say, you want God to create a word where there are no damned people.

Now, I have replied by observing that such a world may be possible to God, but not feasible, that is to say, it may have over-riding drawbacks (like a very small number of people) that would lead God not to create it. Perhaps there is a possible world where all are saved, but maybe this word has only two people in it, hence God decides not to create it, preferring to create a world where more people will come to know and love Him.

You try to claim that God could simply take this world and create more people who would be saved, but then this would be a different possible world. You seem not to understand possible worlds semantics

Now suppose, we grant your view. Say, God’s creates 3 people, why can’t God just create all the people who would accept Him and not create any of the damned? Well, the existence of the saved may depend in some way on those who reject God. Again, this takes us back to our principle that God’s omnipotence does not include the ability to do things described by the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

 

[Serious]

Would you agree that it is better to have 1000 saved and 1 not saved, than 2 saved and zero not saved?

No, I would not. It is still not a numbers game. It is better to have no “collateral” damage than a pyrrhic victory. And if the existence of that ONE damned is not logically necessary, if those 1000 people can be created without creating that ONE unsaved, then you have no argument. And no “maybe”-s please.

You have not refuted my position at all, only made the bare assertion that God should be able to put all the souls who would choose Him into bodies anyway.

What is the problem? If you say that God could intstantitate up to exactly X people who will all freely choose him, but once it is done than God is unable to choose one more, because the next one would necessarity reject him, THEN and only then would there be an upper limit on the “saveable” people. And so far you did not (and could not) argue for that.

Your position also depends on some confusing issues in metaphysics of personal identity that you don’t lay out clearly. It may also depend on the eternal existence of the human soul (since you refer to God finding a human soul), which is an absurd position. You further seem to fail to account for God’s need to account for the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

What joke is that? We deal with a simple mathematical question: “how many people can be created, until God runs out of the supply of people who can be saved?”.

Let’s try this. I am going to assume that we agree with the following:

1. God’s omnipotence does not include the ability to do things described by counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

• You seemed to indicate that you agreed with this earlier when you agreed that God could not force Bob to freely accept Him.

We already agreed on this. No need to repeat.

Now you want God to create only people who will be saved. That is to say, you want God to create a word where there are no damned people.

Yes.

Now, I have replied by observing that such a world may be possible to God, but not feasible, that is to say, it may have over-riding drawbacks (like a very small number of people) that would lead God not to create it. Perhaps there is a possible world where all are saved, but maybe this word has only two people in it, hence God decides not to create it, preferring to create a world where more people will come to know and love Him.

Just a repetition of Plantinga (who, by the way admitted that his reasoning is insufficient). This line of reasoning must be proven, and no “perhaps-es” are allowed. Show me how many (saved) people can be created until God runs out of the “saveable” people. Plantinga is fond of having empty arguments along the lines: “well, maybe there is some unknown reason…” - and guess what? It is rejected. If there is a valid argument, it will be entertained. But no “maybe”-s. That is the argument of a loser, who does not wish to admit that he ran out of arguments.

You try to claim that God could simply take this world and create more people who would be saved, but then this would be a different possible world. You seem not to understand possible worlds semantics

DUH! Of course it would be a different possible world! If one blade of grass would not grow out, it would already be a different possible world. A possible world is which does not contain a logical contradiction. That is all. What does it have to do with anything?

Now suppose, we grant your view. Say, God’s creates 3 people, why can’t God just create all the people who would accept Him and not create any of the damned? Well, the existence of the saved may depend in some way on those who reject God.

Aha. Here you stepped on the land-mine, which blows all your reasoning to smithereens. First, there no no “may”. Second, how could the existence of the “saved” be LOGICALLY dependent (contingent) upon the existence of the non-saved? We deal with a logical problem here, and not some fancy handwaving. God can create any logically consistent world - that is what omnipotence means. The world with only saved people in it is logically valid. If God - for whatever reason - does not wish to instantiate that world, that is a different story. But that reason is not because of some “counterfactuals of free agents”. It cannot be the limited number of savable people. And so far there was no proposed reason. Only an incorrect proposition of “too few people” - which has now been refuted the “N”-th time, and some unspecified “maybe there is some unknown reason”, which CANNOT have anything to do with the counterfactuals of free agents.

Again, this takes us back to our principle that God’s omnipotence does not include the ability to do things described by the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

I never said that it is needed. I explicitly said and proved that it is not needed.

If you answer this post, please do not use the words “maybe” or “perhaps”. Use ironclad, logical arguments.

 

[clem456]

Excellent. Now let’s use some elementary logic.

1. God is eternal, Satan is not.
2. From that it logically it follows that there was a time when God existed, and Satan did not and then there was a time, when God created Satan, and there is a time since that - ergo God is NOT timeless.
3. From God omniscience it follows that God already knew that Satan will rebel if he will be created even before the creation took place.
4. God had the freedom of creating or not creating Satan.
5. To argue against the “foreknowldge” is just semantic squabbling.

I don’t really care what is it called, though the only logical description would be “foreknowledge”, but if you don’t like logic, that is fine by me.

Why did God create Satan? Because God loves, and Love is creative. All that God creates is good. God did not create Satan evil, evil was a personal choice on his part. As the saying goes, God does not create junk. We freely choose to live apart from God.

As for the foreknowledge part, when you figure that one out, you let us know. All I know is, I did not create myself, and my abilities to reason do not construct the universe to my liking, so I do not pretend to take a bite of that apple. In other words,it’s none of my business what God does or does not know, and when it is known.

The idea that I see you avoiding like the plague is, God is in relationship with us, the ultimate “other”. Relationships cannot be reduced to logical constructs. Relationships should be reasonable, but are not reduceable to mere reason. The best way to appeal to our reason in this regard is to use our human relationships as analogies. When we try to stuff God into a tiny logical box, we are disappointed, and end up in absurd arguments over semantics.

 

[57Bill]

I was rather suprised this was not the first response

Lucifer had a choice and was not created as such (Satan)

 

[Nicea325]

Why did God create Satan when he knew beforehand that Satan would subvert his creation and cause untold suffering, death, and destruction?

Here’s an analogy that I think seems to fit: Imagine you have a large basket in front of you full of lottery tickets. Each ticket has the amount of money that you’ll win if you select it written on it, and you can take as many tickets as you like. Some tickets say $10, some say $50, some say $100, but there are a few that have negative numbers - if you select them you lose money. What would you do? Obviously any sane person would take all the tickets that get them money, and leave the ones that take money away. God, however, took the worst ticket of all - the one that said “lose a million bucks if you take this one.” So why did he do it?

God did not create “Satan” but the angelic being commonly known as Lucifer. The Devil did it to himself. What people forget is that God gives us and angels free-will. Either use it wisely or blow it.

 

[JDaniel]

I was rather surprised this was not the first response

Lucifer had a choice and was not created as such (Satan)

Thank you, brother. Actually I did bring it up in Post # 5. But, it was ignored.

God bless, friend,
jd

 

[danserr]

But no “maybe”-s. That is the argument of a loser, who does not wish to admit that he ran out of arguments.
.

Funny, I would say the same about someone forced to resort to mockery and personal insults…

If you answer this post, please do not use the words “maybe” or “perhaps”.

“Maybe” suffices. You are the one arguing that God should be able to create as many saved people as he wants without creating any damned. Hence, the burden of proof is on you in this one.

*You *must be able to show that God can do this, without interfering with free will, and you have given absolutely no reason for so thinking.

So when you claim that God should be able to create as many saved people with no damned, then all I need do is reply that that may be possible, but not feasible. “May” suffices. You must show that that is it probable that such a world is indeed feasible to God. This you have failed to do.

If you say that God could intstantitate up to exactly X people who will all freely choose him, but once it is done than God is unable to choose one more, because the next one would necessarity reject him, THEN and only then would there be an upper limit on the “saveable” people. And so far you did not (and could not) argue for that.

I don’t argue necessity because I think it risks a confusion. It is enough to say that God creates a certain number, eventually many may reject him. Whether they will reject God or not is up to them not God.

"how many people can be created, until God runs out of the **supply **of people who can be saved?

Supply? What does that even mean in this context? That those people already exist or souls already exist? You are not being clear at all.

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
Now, I have replied by observing that such a world may be possible to God, but not feasible, that is to say, it may have over-riding drawbacks (like a very small number of people) that would lead God not to create it. Perhaps there is a possible world where all are saved, but maybe this word has only two people in it, hence God decides not to create it, preferring to create a world where more people will come to know and love Him.

Just a repetition of Plantinga (who, by the way admitted that his reasoning is insufficient). This line of reasoning must be proven, and no “perhaps-es” are allowed.

Now you have nothing by way of response to this, save for a shallow insult.

But I point out that for me “may” is enough, since the burden of proof is on you to carry your argument that God actually could create as many saved people as He wanted with no damned.

God can create any logically consistent world - that is what omnipotence means. The world with only saved people in it is logically valid. If God - for whatever reason - does not wish to instantiate that world, that is a different story.

And here, you again blow your own reasoning to pieces. You think that omnipotence should be able to create any logically possible world. But this is widely regarded as nonsense and it contradicts your own willingness earlier to agree with me that:

God’s omnipotence does not include the ability to do things described by counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

In sum, your argument depends on you thinking that God can actualize all possible worlds, but as I have said repeatedly, this is not true. God’s omnipotence does not include the ability to do things described by counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, such as rejecting God.

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
Would you agree that it is better to have 1000 saved and 1 not saved, than 2 saved and zero not saved?

No, I would not. It is still not a numbers game. It is better to have no “collateral” damage than a pyrrhic victory.

Then what you are arguing is those those who would reject God should have a veto on the happiness of those who would choose God. This strikes me as wholly absurd.

 

[Serious]

*You *must be able to show that God can do this, without interfering with free will, and you have given absolutely no reason for so thinking.

Since you don’t understand, I am not going to waste more time on you.

So when you claim that God should be able to create as many saved people with no damned, then all I need do is reply that that may be possible, but not feasible.

Possible == feasible.

 

[fred_conty]

Why did God create Satan when he knew beforehand that Satan would subvert his creation and cause untold suffering, death, and destruction?

Here’s an analogy that I think seems to fit: Imagine you have a large basket in front of you full of lottery tickets. Each ticket has the amount of money that you’ll win if you select it written on it, and you can take as many tickets as you like. Some tickets say $10, some say $50, some say $100, but there are a few that have negative numbers - if you select them you lose money. What would you do? Obviously any sane person would take all the tickets that get them money, and leave the ones that take money away. God, however, took the worst ticket of all - the one that said “lose a million bucks if you take this one.” So why did he do it?

God created the angel Lucifer.
Lucifer created the devil Satan.

This mystery is not God’s.
This mystery is Lucifer’s.

Just a thought.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Why did God create Satan when he knew beforehand that Satan would subvert his creation and cause untold suffering, death, and destruction?

God is entitled to his secrets! :tsktsk:

 

[JDaniel]

Why did God create Satan when he knew beforehand that Satan would subvert his creation and cause untold suffering, death, and destruction?

God is entitled to his secrets! :tsktsk:

Yes He is! But, the Church knows. The Church knows.!

God bless,
jd

 

[Serious]

Yes He is! But, the Church knows. The Church knows.!

As the old saying goes, if 2 people know a secret, it is not a secret any more. But if the church knows, why doesn’t it share that “secret”? BTW, I answered your previous post. You might have missed it. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9214871&postcount=22

 

[danserr]

Since you don’t understand, I am not going to waste more time on you.

Possible == feasible.

I see. You give a convoluted explanation, refuse to explain it clearly, and then declare yourself done…

Are you seriously denying the difference between a possible world and a feasible world?

 

[Serious]

I see. You give a convoluted explanation, refuse to explain it clearly, and then declare yourself done…

I gave a simple explanation, but maybe you percieved it as comlicated. If you really want to hear it one more time, I will try again, using a different approach, so maybe we can come to mutual UNDERSTANDING, even if not to agreement. If you are interested, tell me your answer to this question: “how many people can God create, who will ALL, freely choose God (without creating anyone who would reject God)?”. It seems that you already said that it can be 2 such people, or even 3 of them. Is it possible for God to create 4 people, who WILL freely choose God?

Mind you, those do not have to be “perfect” people. They can all commit sins, even mortal sins, but they are willing to repent and they DO repent.

Are you seriously denying the difference between a possible world and a feasible world?

Of course. The two words mean the same. If you use them differently, explain.

 

[danserr]

I gave a simple explanation, but maybe you percieved it as comlicated. If you really want to hear it one more time, I will try again, using a different approach, so maybe we can come to mutual UNDERSTANDING, even if not to agreement. If you are interested, tell me your answer to this question: “how many people can God create, who will ALL, freely choose God (without creating anyone who would reject God)?”. It seems that you already said that it can be 2 such people, or even 3 of them. Is it possible for God to create 4 people, who WILL freely choose God?

Mind you, those do not have to be “perfect” people. They can all commit sins, even mortal sins, but they are willing to repent and they DO repent.

I don’t know how many people God can create who would freely choose Him. I don’t see how we could possibly know the answer to that.

But since the burden of proof is on the atheist here to show that God can create as many people as he likes who will freely choose Him, then that doesn’t matter. As long as it is even possible that a world in which all are saved has over-riding drawbacks, then the atheist cannot claim that God is somehow unjust or wrong because He did not create that world.

And since a world where all are saved depends not on God, but on the free choices of individual humans, then the atheist here is in the difficult position of claiming the God could do something that is described by the counter-factuals of creaturely freedom. But any reasonable understanding of omnipotence allows that God’s omnipotence does not include the ability to do things described by the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
Are you seriously denying the difference between a possible world and a feasible world?

Of course. The two words mean the same. If you use them differently, explain.

As I have explained repeatedly, a feasible world is a possible world that does not have over-riding drawbacks that would lead God not to create it. (One possible example of this is that the world might have only a small number of people).

 

[Serious]

I don’t know how many people God can create who would freely choose Him. I don’t see how we could possibly know the answer to that.

Well, then keep on thinking. Maybe you will get to the solution. It is really easy and simple. You already said that there may be 2 or even 3 of such people. Is it possible to have 4? Or maybe even 5? Just keep on thinking.

 

[danserr]

Well, then keep on thinking. Maybe you will get to the solution. It is really easy and simple. You already said that there may be 2 or even 3 of such people. Is it possible to have 4? Or maybe even 5? Just keep on thinking.

You have in interesting way of ignoring much of what I write, but very well.

Your answer here is something of a non-sequitur, so it is a little hard to know what you intend. You seem to be implying that if God can actualize a world where 2 people are saved and none damned (though I don’t claim to know even this much and I don’t see how you could), that he can actualize a world with 3 saved and no damned, and 4 saved and none damned, and 5 saved… and so forth.

If this really is what you intend, then you are committing the slippery slope fallacy.

Second, you are still failing to recognize that God’s ability to create a world with many who accept Him and none who reject Him depends not only on Himself, but on the free choices of human individuals.

 

[couponfit]

Why did God create Satan when he knew beforehand that Satan would subvert his creation and cause untold suffering, death, and destruction?

Here’s an analogy that I think seems to fit: Imagine you have a large basket in front of you full of lottery tickets. Each ticket has the amount of money that you’ll win if you select it written on it, and you can take as many tickets as you like. Some tickets say $10, some say $50, some say $100, but there are a few that have negative numbers - if you select them you lose money. What would you do? Obviously any sane person would take all the tickets that get them money, and leave the ones that take money away. God, however, took the worst ticket of all - the one that said “lose a million bucks if you take this one.” So why did he do it?

Bklynguy has a good RC answer as it is typically explained.

There is much written on Theodicy:
Augustinian school suggests that evil does not exist expect as a corruption of good. Evil itself serves rather a punishment for us choosing sin.

Irenaean suggests evil serves as a basis for use to reference our growth.

Clement suggests that there is no need for Christians to create a special theory for justifying God or his creation of the devil. To all the questions regarding the allowance of evil by God (the problem of evil) there is one answer - Christ; the Crucified Christ, Who burns up in Himself all the world’s sufferings for ever; Christ, Who regenerates our nature and has opened the entry to the Kingdom of everlasting and full life to each one who desires it.