Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[rinnie]

If you read the Bible from the beginning to the end, you will see, God created us in his image. We must be true and obey him. Look at the Bible Adam and Eve didnt listen what happend Death came to us.
Look at Abraham he was totally Loyal to God, He was given what he was promised.

It all goes back to the bible, and obeying the ten commandments.

Look at Jesus he came did exactly what was asked and now we are free from Death. The devil has lost, Jesus beat him, there is no death.

Now we are waiting for God to come in glory. And it will be soon, we must be ready.

Now our own fate is in our hands, thats why Jesus gave us the freedom of will. No one can say that we dont have free will.

You either believe in Jesus or you dont.

He will never force himself on us. If we really want him in our life, he will come, but we must obey, you cant have it both ways.

the only way the devil will be destroyed in our time (until Jesus comes back) is if we live our life the way Jesus says.

You want to destroy the devil, we all have the power, Obey Christ and his commandments, If you want the devil to hang around keep doing evil, keep turning away from God. Its really that simple.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Ateista -

You made this bold claim below…

ateista:

I can fully comprehend the implications of the omnimax attributes,

And I counterpunched to the core of your intellectual reality with…

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 you became silent…almost “evasive” like you claimed I was being. Have you nothing to say to back up this claim that your entire argument rests upon - the limits of human intellect?

 

[ateista]

Hi Ateista -
You made this bold claim below…

And I counterpunched to the core of your intellectual reality with…
And you became silent…almost “evasive” like you claimed I was being. Have you nothing to say to back up this claim that your entire argument rests upon - the limits of human intellect?

I did not answer because I am not interested in answering all the posts coming my way. But since you insist:

The so-called omnimax attributes are mostly nonsensical. However, if we were to toy with the idea that they are meaningful, then the inescapable corollary is that God would not allow needless, gratuituos suffering.

I keep asking for an explanation of a few examples, and get no answer to them. That is the sad truth. If you wish to pitch in your opinion about those problems, I will be happy to read your opinion.

If you wish to talk about the omnimax attributes, start a new thread. This one deals with a different problem.

 

[ateista]

If you read the Bible from the beginning to the end, you will see, God created us in his image. We must be true and obey him. Look at the Bible Adam and Eve didnt listen what happend Death came to us.
Look at Abraham he was totally Loyal to God, He was given what he was promised.

It all goes back to the bible, and obeying the ten commandments.

Look at Jesus he came did exactly what was asked and now we are free from Death. The devil has lost, Jesus beat him, there is no death.

Now we are waiting for God to come in glory. And it will be soon, we must be ready.

Now our own fate is in our hands, thats why Jesus gave us the freedom of will. No one can say that we dont have free will.

You either believe in Jesus or you dont.

He will never force himself on us. If we really want him in our life, he will come, but we must obey, you cant have it both ways.

the only way the devil will be destroyed in our time (until Jesus comes back) is if we live our life the way Jesus says.

You want to destroy the devil, we all have the power, Obey Christ and his commandments, If you want the devil to hang around keep doing evil, keep turning away from God. Its really that simple.

No, rinnie, it is not that simple at all.

Imagine you are in power and know about a bad guy, who walks around and destroys the innocence of children. Gives them drugs, makes them hooked on it then forces them to do all sorts of abominable acts to sustain their addiction.

What would you do? Allow this bad guy to continue his actions? Or use your power and crush him to smithereens?

And to the highlighted part: what is he waiting for?

 

[rinnie]

No, rinnie, it is not that simple at all.

Imagine you are in power and know about a bad guy, who walks around and destroys the innocence of children. Gives them drugs, makes them hooked on it then forces them to do all sorts of abominable acts to sustain their addiction.

What would you do? Allow this bad guy to continue his actions? Or use your power and crush him to smithereens?

And to the highlighted part: what is he waiting for?

But see Love you just answered your own question AND THAT IS WHAT GOD IS GOING TO HAVE US ANSWER FOR. And trust me these people who are in power and didnt do anything (and you know there are alot today) will pay. They will pay to God.

I remember something my Mom had on her refrigerator it said
The neighbor is hungry, doesnt have anything to eat, and the Man said to God why dont you do something. And God answered I did do something I MADE YOU!

And thats what you dont understand about God, If someone puts these kids on drugs, trust me they are not responsible for their actions, they were inocent. But the drug dealer, God will have no mercy. He tells you in the bible anyone who hurts my children or causes them to go astray its better for them they would never have been born. God will have mercy on the Child but the drug dealer, No way, He is in his right mind. Now dont get me wrong if the drug dealer pays for his crime, repents, he has a chance, but it is still up to God. And Thats a sin i sure wouldnt want to answer for.

And who is going to pay more is the Judge that knows, and turns the other way, he is even in more trouble than the drug dealer. And you cant fool God. Thats the problem the devil has these people convinced that God isnt there. If they really believed they would never turn bad, They replaced God for the Devil (money). Money became their God. I will wait for my great reward, If God wants me to have something here thats fine, but I wont cheat, lie, and murder like those people to get things, See thats the point they got their reward, in this world, I hope they enjoy it, it wont last long! I will wait like God told me for the next world, thats the never ending world its forever.

 

[davidv]

Well, you certainly made me very curious. Explain it to me, please, preferably with examples. Say, the victim is crushed in an Earthquake and dies in a slow and painful manner. How can you justify it as a necessary suffering? What kind of “greater good” can come out for her - which is the direct, logical consequence of her death and especially the manner of her death?

I cannot accept positing some “greater good” which might befall on someone else.

Sure thing. I will give a few examples.

Scenario #1: A doctor and a friend take a field trip, and the friend is bitten by a poisonous snake. Suppose the only available method to save the friend’s life is an amputation of a finger. Painful procedure, but the greater good is saving his life. Result: justifyable or necessary suffering.

Scenario #2: Same premise, but the doctor happens to have the proper antidote. Administering the antidote is sufficient to save the life. Result, as above.

Scenario #3: Same premise, the doctor has the anitdote, but still does the amputation. This is not a justifyable or necessary suffering! The life is saved, but the suffering was not logically necessary.

Scenario #4: Someone needs a kidney transplant. The only available donor does not volunteer to give up his kidney. A doctor neverthless performs the operation. A life is saved, but the price is paid by someone, who did not want to pay it. Regardless of the morality of the donor’s refusal, the doctor’s decision cannot be justified.

Are these examples sufficient? If not, let me know.

Unfortunately events like that cannot always be predicted. And even if they are, not all people have the wherewithal to move to “safer” ground.

Others have posted examples. I will not add any more.

Your examples actually confuse me more. In each case, the suffering was the direct result of an action (the amputation or surgery). Once this act is begun the result must come about by necessity based on cause and effect principles inherit in our human nature. The distinctions only show up if one moves up the cause chain (i.e., why was the finger amputated?). In examining these examples the distinctions are not based on the necessity of the suffering, but on the perceived morality of the choices that lead to it.

I submit that in each case the suffering was necessary, whether any good came out of it or not. On the part of the sufferer, they may completely reject the idea of redemptive suffering and fail to put it to that use. On the part of the inflictor, if they do not see the resulting suffering as a indictment of their immorality, they will remain unrepentant and it be of no good to them.

In what way does predictability infer necessity or not?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
To you God is a hypothesis. To me He is an axiom.

That is your axiomatic belief, which is asserted axiomatically just like mine.

So, who wins that “battle of assertions”?

Actually, no. It is not axiomatic at all. God’s existence and benevolence are simply a hypothesis, and the available “measurements” do not support it. I am willing to contemplate that the hypothesis is correct and God really is benevolent, but it must be supported by rational arguments, not by faith. And so far there was not one argument.

So, as with all atheists, YOU are the judge of what is valid evidence of God? Actually, that’s fine, as I am the judge of whether God has supplied valid evidence of His existence to me as well, and, SURPRISE of surprises (!), HE HAS!!

The fact that that evidence is not communicable to you by me is jsut a little “quirk” inherent in the type of proof tht it is we’ll both have to live with, I suppose.

Once again, my job is not to PROVE anything to you, but only to hint at what is not communicable by me to you. You must do the work of “allowing” this particular type of proof, and you won’t (will not) do that. Oh well.

Of course, if you hold it as an axiom, everything follows, and all the “seemingly” contradictory measurements are simply “measurement errors”.

Actually, you are quite correct and accurate! We aren’t equipped to measure the “gap” between what we (admittedly!) see as “wasted suffering” and it’s reward! Very insighful of you.

That follows not from reason, but a dogmatic belief. And try as you might and assert it as many times as you want, it will not amount to one iota of argument, much less a convincing one.

You are once again quite correct!

To shamelessly steal a line from “Joe and The Volcano”,… “I’m not ARGUING that with you!”

I’n not arguing with you to concince you of a single thing. I’m simply INFORMING you of a truth!

Why do you consider “dogmatic belief” as a “bad thing”? (I know why, in truth, but I’d like to see YOUR explanation of this belief.)

As has been said at least ten-thousand times, one either believes in revealed truth (divine revelation) or not.

All your beliefs, just as mine do, flow from that initial belief.

Yet, that intitial belief (“belief or not in revealed truth”) is a DOGMATIC BELIEF!

You hold “dogmatic belief” against me, yet base all your beliefs on DOGMATIC BELIEF.

This is the basic contradiction of the atheist. At least the non-atheist admits that a “dogmatic belief” is not an “evil thing”, though only if it is a DIVINELY revealed dogma concerning matters of faith and morals.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
So, you are willing to entertain an axiom as a hypothesis but not as what it is, which is an axiom?

To you it may be an axiom, but that is not the deciding factor. You might consider it axiomatic that God is really the Easter Rabbit in disguise, but your belief does not make it axiomatic.

You assume that because you can arbitrarily create a dogma all dogmas are arbitrary creations. Can you tell me what kind of logical error that is?

As a matter of fact, an axiom cannot be denied.

That is quite right. But it can possibly be contradicted. Your problem with my axiom (“God is all-loving”) is that it is utterly uncontradictable without violating the basic definition of “God qua God”.

That is why it is an axiom. And God’s existence and benevolence can be reasonably doubted, based upon the millions of events we all can observe.

Yes you can, indeed, reasonably doubt the loving-ness of God based on what YOU can observe! Which means that your “field of vision” is too limited to see actual reality, but only the “narrow” reality that you CHOOSE to see.

You choose to disregard them, I don’t. And you cannot support your position by rational arguments.

You choose to disregard the “wider view” because of your investment in God being nonexistence because you REFUSE to believe that God is EVIL! God MUST be evil to you if God were to exist, and that is unacceptable.

Due to your need for “touchable” reality to be the ONLY reality, because of your disappointment with having had your “spiritual” beliefs of reality taken advantage of by someone or something, you very logically and correctly conclude (based on your limited evidence) that God is either evil or nonexistent.

I’m gratified to see that you chose the lesser of the two evils.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
So, to you, God can’t exist if anyone’s suffering is not rewarded IN THIS LIFE ON EARTH?

I did not say that.

If you wish to assert that she will be rewarded in heaven, you must do two things.

1. One, present an argument that she will “end up” in heaven. (She might be in the state of unrepented mortal sin.)

Not true. We are not unconditionally OWED the reward for our suffering! If we choose not to recieve our reward, then we are allowed our hell by wanting something other than God more than God.

1. But more importantly you must present an argument that without being slowly and painfully crushed to death she would not “end up” in heaven. If she just died quickly and painlessly, she would not get to heaven.

That’s ridiculous.

No one, not even the most awful sufferer, is owed heaven because of their suffering! A person who suffers the most torturous death and ultimately chooses not-God will recieve only hell as their reward for their pain. Why is this “fair”? Because nothing “buys heaven” other than ultimately choosing God as God (God qua God).

All “trauma” inflicted by a persons suffering is rewarded in nearly unbounded excess, so it really doesn’t matter to the having-suffered person the amount of suffering they endured.

A “seemingly excessive” amount of suffering has a massive effect on those who learn (to become nore Godly-like) from exposure to (knowledge of) that suffering.

The justifiable pain and suffering must be a logical precursor to the reward.

The “zero sum” mercantile transactional model of the atheist is not applicalble to God’s all-loving relationship with His personal creations (His creations who are persons).

This “mercantile model” is why atheistic behavior invariably and inevitably degenerates (under stress) into murder and slavery.

“I’m OWED my heaven-on-earth, regardless of the cost to others (if I can get away with it), because earthly life is all there is, and where is my reward if not here!?”

…the atheist’s creed.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
2) The “greater good” FOR HER is the admiration of those who learn from her suffering in the larger portion of life.

Nonsense. She might have died unknown to everyone else.

Her death is “imagined” by those who can learn from her sacrifice. Just as you “propose” her suffering as a “hypothetical”, we all know (all of us “grown-ups” at any rate) know full well that her situation is hardly ONLY hypothetical and HAS infact really happened.

That’s why we (Catholics) pray for the unsung and unknown sufferers whose suffering is not lost on us.

We needn’t know a person’s actual name to pray for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
3) The “greater good” FOR others is that they were given the opportunity TO learn, and took it.

That is a horrible degradation of her suffering turning into a “teaching material”.

How is it a “degradation” to honor the suffering of others?

You are illustrating atheistic “interpretations” of what other’s truly mean to atheists, in magnificent clarity. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Do you actually PREFER the fantasy of “absence of God and rampant wasted suffering” over the reality we’ve described?

Why?

Because you only described your own beliefs, which have precious little to do with reality.

We have yet to hear you find a contradiction in any Catholic belief.

I have shown you the BASIC contradiction in the atheist’s belief. (That of saying dogmas are EVIL while holding dogmas themselves.)

You choose the absence of God because it is the more preferable choice to God being actually evil.

You prefer the existence of “wasted suffering” because it is a necessary consequence of believing that God is absent because God CAN’T be evil.

You are FORCED by the agent responsible for the deception that God is absent because He can’t be evil to accept “wasted suffering”, which makes acceptable enslavement and inhumanity.

The GOAL of the atheist mind is to make fertile ground where the weeds of sociopathic aquisition can flourish when conditions are ripe.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
Hi Ateista -
You made this bold claim below…

And I counterpunched to the core of your intellectual reality with…
And you became silent…almost “evasive” like you claimed I was being. Have you nothing to say to back up this claim that your entire argument rests upon - the limits of human intellect?

I did not answer because I am not interested in answering all the posts coming my way.

As with ALL atheists, they are very selective about dealing with reality. That keeps them from showing themselves for what they are, inherently self-contradictory and utterly unfounded in their thinking.

But since you insist:

The so-called omnimax attributes are mostly nonsensical. However, if we were to toy with the idea that they are meaningful, then the inescapable corollary is that God would not allow needless, gratuituos suffering.

I keep asking for an explanation of a few examples, and get no answer to them. That is the sad truth.

You’ve gotten any number of explanations from me.

That you choose to lie through your teeth is perfectly in character, and while annoying, expected.

 

[ateista]

But see Love you just answered your own question AND THAT IS WHAT GOD IS GOING TO HAVE US ANSWER FOR. And trust me these people who are in power and didnt do anything (and you know there are alot today) will pay. They will pay to God.

Sorry, that was not my question. I asked specifically you, what would you do if you had the power to eradicate evil?

I remember something my Mom had on her refrigerator it said
The neighbor is hungry, doesnt have anything to eat, and the Man said to God why dont you do something. And God answered I did do something I MADE YOU!

Cute, but no cigar. If that is the case, God tries to wiggle out of his responsiblity by putting it on our shoulders. The major problem with this view that he “forgot” to give us the power to do what needs to be done! All humanity might be imbued with the best intentions, but our lack of power would still prevent us from doing God’s “job”. Furthermore, there are times, when we cannot even know about the problem, so how could we eliminate it?

And thats what you dont understand about God, If someone puts these kids on drugs, trust me they are not responsible for their actions, they were inocent. But the drug dealer, God will have no mercy.

You take my example much too verbatim. Those kids could be corrupted, turn to crime, maybe even become dealers themselves. There is no excuse for that.

I will give another example: suppose a doctor sees the beginning of a malevolent tumor growing. A good doctor, who is concerned with the patient’s health will immediately cut the cancerous cells out, and does not wait until the cancer spreads and corrupts other, insofar healthy cells.

This is the situation you must deal with. God allows the devil roam free, and corrupt people who otherwise may not turn to “evil”. To say that those people would have turned to evil anyhow would deny the power of the devil. There are no other options. Either the devil is like a cancerous growth, or not. If it is, then God should have terminated his existence immediately.

And no amout of “it will happen later” can change that. You simply do not allow evil to go free and corrupt others. Now, with this clarification: “what would you do if you had the power?”

 

[ateista]

Your examples actually confuse me more. In each case, the suffering was the direct result of an action (the amputation or surgery). Once this act is begun the result must come about by necessity based on cause and effect principles inherit in our human nature.

Yes, I see your confusion. The “necessity” means here the “logical necessity” to achieve something (future), not the “necessary consequence” of an action (past).

A simple pain or suffering may be the necessary consequence of an action (or inaction). That is not questioned here.

The “problem of evil” says that God only allows suffering if it is necessary to achieve a good result, which cannot be achieved without the suffering. On the previous pages I enumerated this. Please check it out.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

No, rinnie, it is not that simple at all.

Imagine you are in power and know about a bad guy, who walks around and destroys the innocence of children. Gives them drugs, makes them hooked on it then forces them to do all sorts of abominable acts to sustain their addiction.

What would you do? Allow this bad guy to continue his actions? Or use your power and crush him to smithereens?

And to the highlighted part: what is he waiting for?

It’s sad that you were hurt. It’s sad that you blame God for not saving you. It’s sad that you actively try to convince others that your disappointments are a good reason to see God as an impossibility through the clever demon-inspired tactic of the lesser-evil of His nonexistence being preferable to the greater-evil of His being evil.

Your ignorance of theology is not surprising, but that you dishonestly present yourself as an authority about what you have no idea concerning is astonishing.

To answer your questions above:
The bad-guy will get his reward. The children will get their reward. The society will be motivated to change (possibly) in some way, and all the members of the society will get their rewards for their reactions to this motivation. All of humanity will learn (somewhat) from the example of this society’s reactions to this and other motivations allowed by God.

You want Father to make all things perfect for you.

You don’t want a Father. You want to BE THE Father. Father’s do what is best for the long term betterment of their family’s.

Each individual is not “the family”, and some members of the family CAN choose hell over heaven.

 

[Philthy]

The so-called omnimax attributes are mostly nonsensical. However, if we were to toy with the idea that they are meaningful, then the inescapable corollary is that God would not allow needless, gratuituos suffering.

I keep asking for an explanation of a few examples, and get no answer to them. That is the sad truth.

Lets take as a given that God would not allow meaningless suffering. That is to say that if God were to allow suffering then He would only do so for a reason. I think we would both agree with that, yes?

• From this point you proceed to question whether or not the suffering that you can recognize is compatible with the criterion of resulting in some good. Correct?
• If it is compatible, then our understanding of God (and the omnimax attributes) and evil can logically coexist; and if it is not compatible then you would conclude that our understanding of God and that criterion cannot logically coexist. Correct?
• The only problem I see in this approach is in assessing the ultimate, absolute good which results from suffering. We cannot truly measure it. We are limited with respect to information and time. If there is an eternal good which results, how would we determine the amount of temporal suffering which justifies it? Mathmatically any eternal good - regardless of how minimal - outweighs and therefore justifies a temporal evil - regardless of how great. Correct?
  You ask for an example. I’ll try one:
  Two strangers interact on an internet forum. One is an atheist and the other is a Catholic. Their encounter occurs because of a discussion involving evil in the world - specifically, regarding starving African children. As a result of that conversation - which would not have occured if there were no evil to discuss - the atheist comes to realize the limitation of human knowledge and opens his heart and mind to the possibility of God. This results, ultimately, in his spending eternity in Gods presence, which is the fulfillment of every his every desire: emotional, spiritual, physical and…intellectual.

Who is to judge the relative value? God alone makes the call.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
But see Love you just answered your own question AND THAT IS WHAT GOD IS GOING TO HAVE US ANSWER FOR. And trust me these people who are in power and didnt do anything (and you know there are alot today) will pay. They will pay to God.

Sorry, that was not my question. I asked specifically you, what would you do if you had the power to eradicate evil?

• For me to be able to do that I would be God.
• As God I would do as God would Do. (D’uh!)
• As God IS DOING what God would do, I would do as God is doing.
• God is NOT “eradicating evil”, therefore I would not “eradicate evil”.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
I remember something my Mom had on her refrigerator it said
The neighbor is hungry, doesnt have anything to eat, and the Man said to God why dont you do something. And God answered I did do something I MADE YOU!

Cute, but no cigar. If that is the case, God tries to wiggle out of his responsiblity by putting it on our shoulders.

The major problem with this view that he “forgot” to give us the power to do what needs to be done!

So, only God Himself (by His personal act) can help our fellow men?

Yours sounds like a GREAT excuse to NOT help our fellow men because it’s “God’s job”.

God created creation for us to learn from and learn in. Why subvert (nullify!) the very reason for this creation by making it “not necessary”?

It is another “Catholic axiom” by the way that no creation of God’s is unnecessary.

All humanity might be imbued with the best intentions, but our lack of power would still prevent us from doing God’s “job”. Furthermore, there are times, when we cannot even know about the problem, so how could we eliminate it?

Why does it exist if it is not to be eventually “dealt with” by us, for whom creation was created?

 

[ateista]

So, as with all atheists, YOU are the judge of what is valid evidence of God?

Of course. Who else? Just like you do it according to your next sentence.

Actually, that’s fine, as I am the judge of whether God has supplied valid evidence of His existence to me as well, and, SURPRISE of surprises (!), HE HAS!!

That is your business. To me it is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, even the RCC accepts that personal “evidence” of revelations can be discarded.

I’n not arguing with you to concince you of a single thing. I’m simply INFORMING you of a truth!

Nope, you try to “inform” me what you think is the truth. And as you said above, you are not able to do that, either. This is what you said:

The fact that that evidence is not communicable to you by me is jsut a little “quirk” inherent in the type of proof tht it is we’ll both have to live with, I suppose.

If you cannot communicate it to me, why even bother?

Why do you consider “dogmatic belief” as a “bad thing”? (I know why, in truth, but I’d like to see YOUR explanation of this belief.)

Dogmatic belief is: “My mind is made up, do not confuse me with facts!”. Need I say more?

As has been said at least ten-thousand times, one either believes in revealed truth (divine revelation) or not.

Sure. I don’t. And neither do you, when it comes to the “revelation” of Allah. You pick and choose “which” revelation to accept and which one to reject. Why do you think that I ought to accept yours, when you reject others’?

Yet, that intitial belief (“belief or not in revealed truth”) is a DOGMATIC BELIEF!

Wrong, as usual. I am open to change my mind, if and only if convincing arguments are presented. Therefore my belief is not dogmatic.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
And thats what you dont understand about God, If someone puts these kids on drugs, trust me they are not responsible for their actions, they were inocent. But the drug dealer, God will have no mercy.

You take my example much too verbatim. Those kids could be corrupted, turn to crime, maybe even become dealers themselves. There is no excuse for that.

I could do this all day! ]]

Sure there is an “excuse for that”!

The “evil things” that we deal with are not PERSONS but POWERS!

The “power” that corrupts persons (drug dealers, children, etc) is what is to be fought. One doesn’t “kill” these “powers” by eliminating the persons they infect/corrupt.

You will no doubt say that God should then “kill” the POWERS.

The powers are there (exist so as) to be seen by US as something for us to DO in our advancement toward being “adults” in dealing with our “requested” lessons!

We are HERE to LEARN to DEAL with the consequences of SIN, and that is why God allows us to “experiment” with situations where we can learn to do what we’re here to do.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Either the devil is like a cancerous growth, or not. If it is, then God should have terminated his existence immediately.

And no amout of “it will happen later” can change that. You simply do not allow evil to go free and corrupt others. Now, with this clarification: “what would you do if you had the power?”

The devil is not a cancerous growth.

The devil is the author of hard word problems.

Cancerous growths have the goal of killing the host organism. The devil CAN’T kill his host! He can only try to “stump” individuals by as-tough-as-God-will-allow problems so that they don’t learn fast enough before class is over.

Those who don’t learn fast enough are more likely to choose hell, because they are “annoyed” at class being over and hold it against “Teacher”.

Without “teaching material” there is no “class”, and “class” is what we chose to “live in”, which God has given us (for a time).