Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[CatsAndDogs]

As I said, I am not “looking” for anything. However, if during these conversations I would find something that would change my mind, I would not fight against that either. The “trouble” is that I am very logical and rational. I only accept sound arguments. I reject appeals to emotions. I do not accept “stuff” just because many people assert their veracity. I never experienced “revelations”.

There is only one way to convince me. Start from what we all see and know. Use logical arguments based upon those premises. I promise that I will listen.

The problem is that you are looking in the wrong direction, and while describing what you ARE looking at gives (rather unconvincing) hints that you should “turn around” to see what we’re trying to show you, there is no “making you” turn around!

You THINK that if this “thing” (God) was as “great” as we say it is then it would be visible regardless of which direction you happened to be facing. That is your error.

One of the reasons that the “sun” was chosen so often as a representation of God is because while it overwhelmingly influences the world it “comes up” and “goes down” and has a “location”. One has to “turn toward it” to “experience it”.

You have the sun at your back.

What does this mean? This means that unless you axiomatically accept a very few simple truths, His omnipotence (ability), His all-lovingness (purpose), and His utter-wisdom (effectiveness), the “story” of humanity makes absolutely no sense except as a pointless random walk.

But be honest about it. If you can make a compelling argument about God’s benevolence (for example) based upon the many wonderful things we truly experience, don’t forget the very bad things we also experience. Don’t pretend that they don’t exist. Don’t forget the hypothetical sign on God’s hypothetical desk: “The buck stops here!”. If you wish to give praise to God for the good things, don’t try to blame “Mother Nature” for the bad ones. That would be intellectually dishonest.

We praise God for the good things, and praise God for what suffering brings. The only “blame” goes to individuals who culpably sin (as explained by revelation) and perpetuate the consequences of those sins.

Don’t make the mistake many posters do. They like to “redefine” words and concepts. If you wish to speak of God’s benevolence (for example) don’t say that benevolence means certain things when applied to humans, and means something totally different when applied to God.

Show me an example of the non-benevolence of God?

 

[SFTor]

Mr. Maher is basing his question on a false premise. The Devil is not the source of evil in the world.

I would simply ask Mr. Maher, if he wants God to snuff out all evil in the world so badly, does this mean that he would be OK with God snuffing him out, too, since he is evil, himself.

You should be ashamed of yourself for calling a fellow human being evil. It is not for you to judge.

Would you like for someone to call you evil?

Best,

Tor

 

[juhothenero]

Now you say that the there must be a potential in order to have free will. So far so good. It is also true that someone actually made a bad choice. That is fine as well. But even if no one ever had actually made a bad choice, the potential would still be there and so would free will.

you get free will too far though, with real free will God could not have stopped evil, otherwise you explain to me how there is free will.

Fine. It was you who said that nonexistence would be like hell. I merely disagreed.

fine again, you have a right to your opinion.

Here is one: no one has ever grown to be 3 meters tall, but the potential is still there. No human has ever run the 100 meter dash under 9 seconds, but the potential is still there. The examples are endless.

these are not valid examples, i said potentiality to something that does not exist. there are things in this world which are 3 meters tall, that is why you can imagine those things. They are actually not valid arguments.

It is not nonsense, it is irrelevant. The concept of potential obviously came from the “actual”, so what?

It means everything. And it is not nonsense. If the potential came from actual God needed to create the actual somehow otherwise there is no potential. This is the key point.

Actually you said exactly that, though you used different wording. I will explain it one more time:

Suppose there is only one human in the whole world. He has free will. He is confronted with a dilemma and he is aware the good and the bad choice - by using logic not experience. According your analysis he does not have free will because he never made a bad choice yet.

This is faulty analysis, hence you did not understand my potentiality claim. He would have free will if evil actualizes somewhere else, It Is the Apple

Your interpretation is refuted by the Bible, too. Before taking the fruit there were no bad choices. According to you Adam and Eve did not have free will, because they never made a bad choice before.

Now do you see how incorrect your analysis was?

No, I was correct and biblical when you understand what i really said. That is why there was the apple because you need actual to have potential.

As usual, you are welcome to draw a different conclusion. So far there was no argument why God did not create the world with free will and without actualized evil. You attempted an argument, but it is clearly incorrect as shown in the previous paragraph.

You misunderstood what i said hence you think you are still correct, if you understood you would know i refuted your argument.

 

[juhothenero]

Let me clarify something. I don’t say anything negative about “God”, per se. What you perceive as negative comments are not about “God”, they are about the belief system pertaining to God. That is where I see very serious problems.

Of somebody would tell me i created a world with evil just because i like it, to me personally it would sound a bit like you are saying something negative about me. But then again i am not God so who am I to say

I am not going through anything. My time here is simply a little innocent entertainment, which I can afford, being retired.

hmm… ok

I have no idea why you think that. When I speak about God, I speak of the human (Catholic) concept of a being, who has many “strange” attributes. I find some of them nonsensical, and some in dire contradiction with life as we all experience it.

This is the point, but I am not talking about human God rather the real one. The reality is, it is not about emotions, it is just about this, you either except it or not but God is and always will be. Truth is the truth even trying to fight against it.

You are very kind, and I sincerely thank you for your concern. But I don’t “reject” God, I do not believe that such a being exists. I look at the available evidence, and find it wanting.

there is no evidence of course since everything is evidence.

God does not need our help, if he is omnipotent.

you are right but we need his help, hence we are not omnipotent

I don’t believe in the devil either.

Of course there is

I never found a “soul” within me.

because you tried to look away

As I said, I am not “looking” for anything. However, if during these conversations I would find something that would change my mind, I would not fight against that either. The “trouble” is that I am very logical and rational. I only accept sound arguments. I reject appeals to emotions. I do not accept “stuff” just because many people assert their veracity. I never experienced “revelations”.

I don’t think you would, do this for me, Go to church and pray to God to forgive you and say in sincerely. Say i do not believe there is God and i never have believed in God and i probably never will, but if you are there please forgive me. Actually you can do it anytime.

You can make a safe bet this way. And the most important is if you do this you will probably find your faith.

There is only one way to convince me. Start from what we all see and know. Use logical arguments based upon those premises. I promise that I will listen.

all logic points to God. The fact that there is logic points to God. I do not see why otherwise you would believe in such beliefs as science or things like that. If you read philosophy you would know there is no basis for those silly things…

But be honest about it. If you can make a compelling argument about God’s benevolence (for example) based upon the many wonderful things we truly experience, don’t forget the very bad things we also experience. Don’t pretend that they don’t exist. Don’t forget the hypothetical sign on God’s hypothetical desk: “The buck stops here!”. If you wish to give praise to God for the good things, don’t try to blame “Mother Nature” for the bad ones. That would be intellectually dishonest.

O there are no really evil things, they just look evil because you do not know God in your heart. But if there is a God there is the Devil, this follows quite logically and our own nature which likes to reject God. Actually our free will, which we had earlier unstained is now stained and we are inclined to choose evil rather then good.

What is intellectually dishonest is to say, well i investigate catholic God and then state such a postures claims about him as you did in this paragraph

Don’t make the mistake many posters do. They like to “redefine” words and concepts. If you wish to speak of God’s benevolence (for example) don’t say that benevolence means certain things when applied to humans, and means something totally different when applied to God.

This is just intellectually dishonest, It really is. We all have our own definition of every single word. For example word I does not mean the same to you as it does for me. The same with the word God or anything that describes him. If you want to be logical, rational and intellectually honest you have to take that into account and try to see things from other perspectives otherwise you just be cheating yourself

 

[Philthy]

So far there was no argument why God did not create the world with free will and without actualized evil.

One argument is that doing so is inferior to not doing so.
It is, ultimately, a mystery. Im sure you dont like either of those answers, but such answers are not limited merely to theology.
Our very existence is a mystery.
What appears to be clearly wrong is to assume that all of what you are capable of understanding allows you to fully comprehend God. If God is greater than our capacity to understand Him, then it is only reasonable to expect that certain aspects of His reality will escape us. Furthermore, if those aspects influence things which we are partly able to grasp we will be left without complete answers.
This points to another mystery: why do you wish to know more than you know?

 

[ateista]

One argument is that doing so is inferior to not doing so.

I have no idea what you mean here. Do you mean that the world with evil is somehow more desirable to God than a world without evil?

It is, ultimately, a mystery. Im sure you dont like either of those answers, but such answers are not limited merely to theology.

You call it mystery. I call it evasion.

What appears to be clearly wrong is to assume that all of what you are capable of understanding allows you to fully comprehend God. If God is greater than our capacity to understand Him, then it is only reasonable to expect that certain aspects of His reality will escape us. Furthermore, if those aspects influence things which we are partly able to grasp we will be left without complete answers.

But I am not talking about “God”, the hypotetical being. I am talking about the fully human concept of “God”, which is within my grasp to understand. I can fully comprehend the implications of the omnimax attributes, and they are in contradiction with our experiences. Calling it a mystery will not help.

 

[ateista]

It may have been “refuted” to your satisfaction, but it can’t be truly refuted to my satisfaction because the basis of free will is the ability to choose “nonsensically” (badly) and thereby “sin” and evoke evil.

Ability (or potential) does not equal actuality. You can try and show that the ability commit something will necessarily lead to the actulality of it.

Once you DO have the requisite knowledge of God qua God, It is obvious that nothing that happens to any person is anything BUT an expression of God’s love to them.

Yeah, right. Tell that to kids in Africa who are starving to death due to the lack of rain. Your arrogance is the hypocrisy of the healthy and well-fed people who - oh so heroically - are willing to endure other people’s misfortunes.

Show me where rape was condoned by God?

Read the Bible. God does not simply condone rape and sexual slavery, he explicitly orders these acts - along with the wholscale genocide of the rest.

They, like we all, serve our “purpose” in this life. Suffering what we need to suffer, and rejoicing in what we choose to rejoice in.

Go and visit those starving children in Africa. Maybe you will be able to tell them how glorious their suffering is in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[ateista]

What does this mean? This means that unless you axiomatically accept a very few simple truths, His omnipotence (ability), His all-lovingness (purpose), and His utter-wisdom (effectiveness), the “story” of humanity makes absolutely no sense except as a pointless random walk.

If one accepts these “axiomatically”, then there is nothing to talk about. I am only willing to contemplate them hypothetically - and since the hypothesis is refuted by the facts, it must be discarded.

We praise God for the good things, and praise God for what suffering brings.

The children in Africa?

Show me an example of the non-benevolence of God?

Read the OT. God “boasts of” intolerance, jealousy, hatred, he orders and commits genocides… “benevolence”? Bah, humbug!

I realize your holy book is the dictionary, but it’s a VERY unworthy reference for revealed truths.

There are no “revealed” truths.

Like a rat in a maze.

Insults like this will not earn you respect even from your peers. It earned a spot on my ignore list. If I had read it sooner, I would not have wasted my time on answering your posts at all. Done talking!

 

[Philthy]

I have no idea what you mean here. Do you mean that the world with evil is somehow more desirable to God than a world without evil?

Somehow, that is correct. Do you find that impossible, contradictory or simply incomprehendable?

You call it mystery. I call it evasion.

Ahhh - you wish to fight! I must have inadvertantly struck the nerve which calls into question the limits of your intellect. What is it, exactly, that you believe I have evaded? Sometimes the answer “I dont know” is the best answer.

But I am not talking about “God”, the hypotetical being. I am talking about the fully human concept of “God”, which is within my grasp to understand.

It is unclear whether you are referring to your personal limits of the concept of God here or are you talking about the limits of human knowledge per se? Either way neither I nor you know the limits of what you can grasp or understand.

I can fully comprehend the implications of the omnimax attributes,

Really? How would you know that? Do you have all of the information of all of reality throughout all time at your disposal? Or are you simply in denial? If there were limits to your knowledge of the omnimax attributes how would you know it? What specifically enables you to claim that you, personally can fully comprehend the implications of the omnimax attributes? This is a bold assertion which you cannot validate.

and they are in contradiction with our experiences.

You mean that they are in contradiction with your limited, imperfect assessment of your experiences and then judged according to standards that you create in your ignorance. Lets be intellectually honest. If this is what you are relying upon to know the Truth, you will never know if fully.

Calling it a mystery will not help.

Help? I’m not sure what you mean - I didnt call it a mystery to help anything. I called it a mystery because that is an accurate assessment in my opinion.
What will not help is your denial of the reality that you will never have all of the information all at the same time in order to make a perfect determination of the Truth. It also does not help to remain in denial of the limits of human knowledge generally, and your own limited intellect. In addition, it certainly does not help that your emotions affect your ability to properly interact with what good information you do receive. For example, you have dismissed some of the information I have presented because you - in your limited, imperfect assessment - you have wrongly assumed that I was being “evasive” and attempting to defend an indefensable position.

 

[Philthy]

Yeah, right. Tell that to kids in Africa who are starving to death due to the lack of rain.

Whats wrong with death? Don’t we all die anyhow? I dont follow you here - and you seem angry again - like you wish to fight. Why?

Your arrogance is the hypocrisy of the healthy and well-fed people who - oh so heroically - are willing to endure other people’s misfortunes.

And you - recognizing this - find time to write posts on the internet rather than serving in Africa? That’s the purest hypocrisy - blaming others for not doing your own work.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

You should be ashamed of yourself for calling a fellow human being evil. It is not for you to judge.

I’m sorry you feel that way. The Bible is very clear that God considers all unrepentant sinners evil. Obviously, you don’t agree with Him, but I still have to be obedient to His command to present the Gospel to the lost.

Would you like for someone to call you evil?

Funny you should ask that. Before I was saved, I was evil. I was an unrepentant sinner and on my way to Hell.

I’m very grateful to the men who loved me enough to be honest with me about my state before God.

 

[ateista]

you get free will too far though, with real free will God could not have stopped evil, otherwise you explain to me how there is free will.

Of course he could have, simply by not creating those individuals who “abuse” their freedom.

these are not valid examples, i said potentiality to something that does not exist. there are things in this world which are 3 meters tall, that is why you can imagine those things. They are actually not valid arguments.

You got to be kidding. Potential is not separated from physical reality. Sequoia trees grow to awsome heights and live thousands of years. That actuality does not allow to have bacteria with the same properties.

It means everything. And it is not nonsense. If the potential came from actual God needed to create the actual somehow otherwise there is no potential. This is the key point.

It is only your misconception that the “actual” metaphysically preceeds the “potential”.

 

[ateista]

Expounding on my previous post. I made a generic comment about the Bible without quoting specific passages. I was told that I should have quoted chapter and verse, so here it comes:

Numbers 31:15-18

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

We all know what was the fate of women captured in war. They were subject to the humiliation of rape and sexual slavery.

 

[ateista]

This is the point, but I am not talking about human God rather the real one. The reality is, it is not about emotions, it is just about this, you either except it or not but God is and always will be. Truth is the truth even trying to fight against it.

I will be happy to see your proof.

I don’t think you would, do this for me, Go to church and pray to God to forgive you and say in sincerely. Say i do not believe there is God and i never have believed in God and i probably never will, but if you are there please forgive me. Actually you can do it anytime.

Been there, done it, have the T-shirt to prove it. I tried and nothing happened.

You can make a safe bet this way. And the most important is if you do this you will probably find your faith.

Pascal’s wager?

O there are no really evil things, they just look evil because you do not know God in your heart.

Well, that is news to me. I always thought that rape, war, murder, genocide are wrong.

This is just intellectually dishonest, It really is. We all have our own definition of every single word. For example word I does not mean the same to you as it does for me.

And yet you speak to me and expect to be understood. That expectation presupposes that the words mean the same to you and me.

 

[ateista]

Whats wrong with death? Don’t we all die anyhow?

We sure do… but the time before that inevitable fact is not irrelevant.

And you - recognizing this - find time to write posts on the internet rather than serving in Africa? That’s the purest hypocrisy - blaming others for not doing your own work.

Incorrect address. I never called myself “omnibenevolent”. As soon as you catch me doing it, your criticism will have merit. But not until then. However, rest assured, if I had the power to do it, I would do it. Nevertheless I do whatever little I can to alleviate the problem. But I cannot create rain.

 

[ateista]

Somehow, that is correct. Do you find that impossible, contradictory or simply incomprehendable?

All of the above.

Sometimes the answer “I dont know” is the best answer.

I very much agree. But it is the believers who assert God’s benevolence. When called to substantiate it, and asked about the evidence which contradicts your claim, you say it is a mystery. And that is evasion.

What will not help is your denial of the reality that you will never have all of the information all at the same time in order to make a perfect determination of the Truth.

Sure thing. So we must bring a “verdict” based upon the information we have. After all, you (generic, not personal) do assert that God is benevolent, and you don’t have any more hard information than I do. Is it OK for you to make a claim, but not OK for me to question it?

 

[Philthy]

QUOTE:

We sure do… but the time before that inevitable fact is not irrelevant.

Really? What “fact” leads you to this conclusion? What lasting impact does any of it have?

Incorrect address. I never called myself “omnibenevolent”. As soon as you catch me doing it, your criticism will have merit. But not until then. However, rest assured, if I had the power to do it, I would do it. Nevertheless I do whatever little I can to alleviate the problem. But I cannot create rain.

You chided another poster for being hypocritical in trusting that despite outward appearances God could create good from the tragedy of this world. You too, are hypocritical and you dont need to claim to be omnibenevolent to be hypocritical.

Hint: They dont need rain, Ateista, they need help from you and me.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
It may have been “refuted” to your satisfaction, but it can’t be truly refuted to my satisfaction because the basis of free will is the ability to choose “nonsensically” (badly) and thereby “sin” and evoke evil.

Ability (or potential) does not equal actuality. You can try and show that the ability commit something will necessarily lead to the actulality of it.

I absolutely agree with you. The ability to choose evil doesn’t mean that evil WILL be chosen.

But evil WAS chosen, which is why we are in this “classroom” being taught the consequences of sin.

Please tell me if you believe free will exists, and whether evil exists, and whether evil has a purpose. An explanation of the links between these things would also be nice. Thanks!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Once you DO have the requisite knowledge of God qua God, It is obvious that nothing that happens to any person is anything BUT an expression of God’s love to them.

Yeah, right. Tell that to kids in Africa who are starving to death due to the lack of rain. Your arrogance is the hypocrisy of the healthy and well-fed people who - oh so heroically - are willing to endure other people’s misfortunes.

If you, a well fed non-starving-african, don’t believe the truth, then why should a presently suffering starving african believe the truth?

The truth is the truth regardless of who is stating it, who is hearing it, or who is affected by it.

That you arrogate to yourself the “right” to claim that the suffering of a starving african child has no meaning, other than to “prove God’s nonexistence”, is quite a leap on your part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Show me where rape was condoned by God?

Read the Bible. God does not simply condone rape and sexual slavery, he explicitly orders these acts - along with the wholscale genocide of the rest.

I asked you to show me where rape was condoned by God in scripture. Can you do that of not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
They, like we all, serve our “purpose” in this life. Suffering what we need to suffer, and rejoicing in what we choose to rejoice in.

Go and visit those starving children in Africa. Maybe you will be able to tell them how glorious their suffering is in the eyes of the Lord.

Their suffering comes as a consequence of sin, and almost universally not their own sin. They will be rewarded in excess for their earthly suffering in the rest of their life not-on-earth.

Does this mean that we, the living, are to not help them to not suffer? Of course not. To the extent that we don’t help them we are culpible of great sin and will also be rewarded for that sin in our life not-on-earth.

But you seem to argue that their suffering “goes to waste”! Why would you even WANT to think that?

God does not want to see them suffer, and doesn’t consider their suffering “glorious” as you mean it. But God does reward in glorious fashion those who do suffer greatly.

You choose to see God as either evil or nonexistent, and in fact claim He is nonexistent precisely BECAUSE He can’t be evil.

What you fail to consider is that what you see is not all that there is. Your’e “snap” judgements are the normal, though uneducated, ones of a myopic “mortal” who has not been properly informed of the further extent of reality.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
What does this mean? This means that unless you axiomatically accept a very few simple truths, His omnipotence (ability), His all-lovingness (purpose), and His utter-wisdom (effectiveness), the “story” of humanity makes absolutely no sense except as a pointless random walk.

If one accepts these “axiomatically”, then there is nothing to talk about. I am only willing to contemplate them hypothetically - and since the hypothesis is refuted by the facts, it must be discarded.

How does accepting “axiomatically” that 1+1=2 leave us with nothing to talk about in regards to mathematics? It is actually a STARTING POINT from which to talk about mathematics!

You HAVE no facts as to your “perception” of God with which to “refute” anything, because you have no idea what “God” means!

You even refuse to provisionally agree to these basic axioms of what “God” means to test their sensibleness as they are being used by those who “claim” (Catholics) to know what they mean.

All you can say is a perpetual, “God can’t be evil so God doesn’t exist because if God did exist then He would have to be evil because evil does exist.”

We say, in like perpetual fashion, “God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-wise, and the evil that we see is the limited view of reality of we living men who can not see that greater good will always result from any evil done by men.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
We praise God for the good things, and praise God for what suffering brings.

The children in Africa?

Suffering does not bring the starving children of africa. Sin which allows the children of africa to starve brings suffering which God will reward in excess to them.

We praise God for the children. We praise God for the blessings (happiness) that will accrue to those children for their suffering, and the curses that will accrue to those sinners who evoked the evil which make children suffer.