God, Satan and Job

[Tim the Skeptic]

The book of Job starts out with the "divine beings", including Satan, getting together with God. (OK, this is bizarre considering what I understand of God/Satan relationship, but not my point here.) And then this conversation, as I interpret it, occurs:

God (to Satan): Isn't Job a great guy, he is a blameless and upright man.

Satan: Look at the way he's been blessed by you. Of course, he's a great guy.

God: OK, you can do to his life whatever you want but don't hurt him.

Satan destroys Job's wealth and kills his children. But he did so with God's permission, so, who's responsible? Is God the source of this evil that happens to Job?

[harvey1]

It sounds like you're saying that God can only affect physical things. This would make God fairly weak. If souls and mental phenomena exist in the dualistic sense -- and I think you'd pretty much have to assume that, given belief in God -- then God can't do anything about them. He can't make people feel things or think things, he can't read their minds, he cannot create moral laws (which are not physical), etc. Even Satan has more power. Heck, even moral humans have the power of hypnosis.

By the term physical here I am not referring to atoms and such. I am referring to the world that conforms to certain conditions that are based on factors other than pure logical requirements. Those conditions might be material conditions, mental conditions, or spiritual conditions, etc.. If dualism (etc.) were true, then the physical world expands to include such things since spirit things would be a necessary description of the world in which we experience.

The reason to separate physical possibility and logical possibility is because there are many limitations that do not appear to violate any logical possibility (e.g., counting to infinity), but this may not be physically possible. That is, there might be conditions that exist by being in time and space that physically prevent the logical possibility from being realized (e.g., we can't count to infinite because the time might come to an end prior to reaching infinity). Therefore, logical possibility is what is possible without concern to physical constraints per se that impact what you do, and physical possibility is what is possible given the physical constraints that do impact what you do. As an example, it is logically possible that I can swim across Lake Michigan, but it is not physically possible for me since if I consider all the constraints that I am under, it is not really possible.

What kind of an omnipotent god needs to be patient ? Even a weakly omnipotent god could do some serious reality alterations on the spot to fullfill his wishes immediately.

Not necessarily. If the physical conditions of the universe required that God exhibit patience, then God is weakly omnipotent only. And, this is the kind of omnipotence frequently mentioned in the Bible, so if secularists want to understand what many Christians mean by omnipotence, it is best to come to terms with how many Christians conceive of omnipotence.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is it that the NT God is patient about ?

God waited patiently for the ark to be built. God is patient until judgement. God was patient with the apostle Paul in his former life until he repented. God is patient until the Lord's coming. That's just a few examples of weak omnipotence at work in Christian scriptures.

Uh... Is this claim biblically supported ? I'd need to see some quotes, because it sounds pretty weird.

Therefore is it of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (As it is written: I have made thee a father of many nations,) before God, whom he believed, who quickeneth the dead; and calleth those things that are not, as those that are. Rom. 4:16-17

* Note: The "things are not" are those things that have not happened yet (namely, the promise of converted Gentile Christians being part of the blessings of Abraham that God had promised to Abraham's children), but God calls them as "those [things] that are" which would only be true if those events have already occurred from God's perspective of history.

And all the dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world. Rev. 13:8

* Note: According to this Christian interpretation, the slaying of the Lamb is referring to the sacrifice of Jesus, and this event took place at the very beginning of the world--meaning that an event in the temporal future which is relative to events that came temporally prior (i.e., prior to AD 30?) can logically precede the events that came temporally prior.

But through holy blood, like that of a clean and unmarked lamb, even the blood of Christ: Who was marked out by God before the making of the world, but was caused to be seen in these last times for you. I Pet. 1:19-20

* Note: This further clarifies Rev.13:8. According to this Christian interpretation, the event of the slaining of the Lamb had occurred prior to human history, but it wasn't visible since humans cannot see the future, they can only experience the present.

For all creation, gazing eagerly as if with outstretched neck, is waiting and longing to see the manifestation of the sons of God. Rom. 8:19

* Note: According to this Christian interpretation, the distant future blurs what can be seen, but as the future becomes the present, certain things that have occurred from God's perspective are manifested to human eyes. The creation itself is metaphorically eager to see what is to be the case with regard to the new evolved lifeforms that will become part of the new creation (i.e., because it already "is" the case--it just needs to manifest itself when it "happens").

Even if we posit a non-biblical, time-travelling god, then your claim still does not solve the original problem. As the creator of the universe, a weakly-omni-everything god would have had the power (and the knowledge) to set things in motion so that they'd turn out the way he wanted. He wouldn't need to go back and fix things after the fact.

The Creator did set things the way that the divine will wanted. That's the past from God's perspective. However, I think that God started with the beginning and end, and then worked out the details inbetween. The details that weren't physically possible (e.g., a world completely removed from evil) are not possible for God to achieve. Therefore, the world we experience is the one that is possible for God to achieve, and that's the world in which we live. Since it is God's nature to choose the final end as joyful (and the beginning there's not a lot God can do), therefore the evil that followed the result of connecting the beginning to the end (or alpha to the omega) is a natural aftermath of there being an alpha and omega. God has no choice in the matter. However, God has a way to accomplish all of this, so God is all-powerful in being able to accomplish it. Actually, it's already done, we just have to wait patiently as these things transpire and the history of the universe is finally manifested in its fullness.

To the best I can tell from my years of study, this is pretty close to the best that I can understand Christian doctrine as it was communicated in the New Testament. Perhaps someone has some other ideas, but this is the best I can decipher for myself.

[The Happy Humanist]

Etymology means nothing since many words in the English dictionary no longer mean exactly what their etymological roots suggest. We have to use the term by how it is used in the English-speaking world,

Ah, good show, Harvey. I assume that means you are willing to relax your definitions of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" as well, so that they conform to their normal, current usage.

[The Happy Humanist]

And, you can have weak immortality. For example, strong immortality would be able to live beyond an infinite period (e.g., God exists beyond infinity). Moderate immortality would mean to live an infinitely old. This is logically possible. Weak immortality would be live without end, but not infinitely old age since one could argue that it is physically impossible to reach an infinite age. You will always be a finite age no matter how far in the future you live. Obviously, weak immortality is what most people think of when they think of immortality.

Harvey, ol' buddy, I'm now convinced you're making this up as you go. I gotta admit, you had me going for a while, but even you couldn't keep it up this long.

Don't worry, your secret's safe with me.

[trencacloscas]

It makes perfect sense. And, you can have weak immortality. For example, strong immortality would be able to live beyond an infinite period (e.g., God exists beyond infinity). Moderate immortality would mean to live an infinitely old. This is logically possible. Weak immortality would be live without end, but not infinitely old age since one could argue that it is physically impossible to reach an infinite age. You will always be a finite age no matter how far in the future you live. Obviously, weak immortality is what most people think of when they think of immortality.

No. The Greeks saw the problem before, even from a mythical point of view. I don't know if you are familiar with the myth of Tithonos, one of the mortals who found favour with Eos, who carried him off and obtained for him, as she did for all her mortal lovers, immortality. However, in the case of Tithonos, she forgot to ask Zeus eternal youth for him. As a result of this oversight, Tithonos grew old as time passed, and although Eos tried to love him as she had when he had been young and beautiful, she eventually had him shut up in a chamber, from which only his voice issued, like the chirp of a grasshopper; and finally he was transformed into that very creature. Then you have the case of Hebe, the goddess of youth (Henry David Thoreau once declared himself worshipper of Hebe: "...who had the power of restoring gods and men to the vigour of youth. She was probably the only thoroughly sound-conditioned, healthy, and robust young lady that ever walked the globe, and whenever she came it was spring"). She could concede exceptionally youth for a whole period of life to a designed mortal, but the mortal remained still mortal.
So, you have immortality (and you don't even need a body for that). And then you have youth. Two different concepts, even though both can be mixed for the myth. In the case of "omnipotence", we are talking about degrees, "weak omnipotence" should indicate omnipotence demeaned. I still don't see the point. Zeus wasn't omnipotent, he was determined by 'anagke' (necessity), more or less the case you mention for the God of the Bible. But Judeo-Christians were interested in putting their God above the Gods of the heathen, so this "omnipotent" quality was invented for him.

It's very simple. Both you and Bugmaster assume that the future is contingent. The future may already be "finished," in which case God is in the same position of a time traveller who is very restricted in what can and cannot be done so as to not change the future and create a paradox that wipes out everything that exists, including God. Therefore, there are compromises that must be made, and this requires that God remain patient in accomplishing the divine will so that the future is not compromised.

Great that you are a fan of science fiction, but the logic weakens in this point too. Even if you create a scenario of no time and no space, and imagine the God of the Bible as an 'a priori' actor in a Kantian constructio, with a 'sub specie aeternitatis' conception, there is no difference in the end. If God is truly omniscient, the paradoxes are solved beforehand, contingences are foreseen and the harmony of perfect justice could be achieved anyway.

[harvey1]

Ah, good show, Harvey. I assume that means you are willing to relax your definitions of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" as well, so that they conform to their normal, current usage.

I am using the current philosophical usage of these terms:

Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000, p.62).

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. Ibid, p.17

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

[The Happy Humanist]

Ah, good show, Harvey. I assume that means you are willing to relax your definitions of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" as well, so that they conform to their normal, current usage.

I am using the current philosophical usage of these terms:

Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000, p.62).

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. Ibid, p.17

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Then why, pray tell, do the majority of atheists on this board and elsewhere, cleave to a subtly but importantly different view of atheism, to wit, they are simply unconvinced of the existence of God, and think it profoundly improbable? They do not call themselves agnostic, because they don't want to leave anyone with the impression that they're "undecided." They are very decided - they have decided that it is so improbable as to not be worthy of much consternation.

There are exactly two kinds of people in this world: Those who believe in God, and those who don't. Agnosticism, under either definition you use above, does not change this. An agnostic in the popular sense does not believe in God. An agnostic in the classical sense is merely making a general epistemic statement, rather than stating any personal belief or lack thereof.

The dictionary definitions you so surgically culled do nothing to change the fact that atheism means a lack of belief in God, whether because one is unconvinced of his existence or because one is convinced of his non-existence.

[harvey1]

An agnostic in the popular sense does not believe in God.

I prefer to say that an agnostic in the popular sense does not agree with atheists.

An agnostic in the classical sense is merely making a general epistemic statement, rather than stating any personal belief or lack thereof.

No, they are stating their beliefs, just like atheists, just like theists. They are not saying that their skepticism applies to every metaphysical belief, just the belief with regards to God.

The dictionary definitions you so surgically culled do nothing to change the fact that atheism means a lack of belief in God

Based on what? Your own personal whim? I can only tell you how the philosophical community generally defines a particular philosophical view, I can't of course make you accept it, but that doesn't make you anymore right in your self-deception.

whether because one is unconvinced of his existence or because one is convinced of his non-existence.

THH, it's obvious to me that a number of atheists would very much like to high tail it to an agnostic stance so that they don't have to provide evidence that actually supports what they believe. However, that's all it is, it is wishful thinking for those atheists to hold the agnostic stance and still call themselves atheists. Agnostics are agnostics, and atheists are atheists. Get over it already.

[harvey1]

Harvey, ol' buddy, I'm now convinced you're making this up as you go. I gotta admit, you had me going for a while, but even you couldn't keep it up this long. Don't worry, your secret's safe with me.

If I made it up, it was a long time ago. My thoughts and ideas have on this subject have developed over the last 25 years or so. I try not to just recite this stuff, but I could do it in my sleep if I had to.

As for the strong, moderate, weak immortality, what problem do you have with the concepts themselves? Are you saying that there is just one type of immortality? What do you say to the claim that being infinitely old is not the same as living infinitely long? What do you say to the claim that the passage of time isn't a real phenomena, but the eternal existence of a platonic is a real phenomena? I think it is justified to break this concept into weak, moderate, and strong concepts. For example, I think God possesses "strong immortality" (although it is not my intent to talk about immortality in this thread).

[The Happy Humanist]

Harvey, I fail to see how you reconcile your admission on the one hand that

We have to use the term by how it is used in the English-speaking world

...with your steadfast refusal to do the same for the word "atheism." Most atheists here and in the real world use my definition, or something similar.

An agnostic in the popular sense does not believe in God.

I prefer to say that an agnostic in the popular sense does not agree with atheists.

Your preference fails to account for those agnostics who are also atheists, i.e., those who disbelieve in God but acknowledge that the question is ultimately unknowable.

An agnostic in the classical sense is merely making a general epistemic statement, rather than stating any personal belief or lack thereof.

No, they are stating their beliefs, just like atheists, just like theists. They are not saying that their skepticism applies to every metaphysical belief, just the belief with regards to God.

They are not stating a belief with regards to God, they are making a statement regarding the fallibility of said belief. They themselves may personally believe in God, whilst acknowledging that "no one can know for sure."

The dictionary definitions you so surgically culled do nothing to change the fact that atheism means a lack of belief in God.

Based on what? Your own personal whim? I can only tell you how the philosophical community generally defines a particular philosophical view, I can\'t of course make you accept it, but that doesn\'t make you anymore right in your self-deception.

Shall we take a poll, and see just how "personal" this "whim" is? I assume you still grant that...

We have to use the term by how it is used in the English-speaking world

...and further grant that the philosophical community does not speak for the rest of the English-speaking world.

Hmmm...on second thought...perhaps that is an unwarranted assumption on my part...

[The Happy Humanist]

As for the strong, moderate, weak immortality, what problem do you have with the concepts themselves? Are you saying that there is just one type of immortality? What do you say to the claim that being infinitely old is not the same as living infinitely long? What do you say to the claim that the passage of time isn't a real phenomena, but the eternal existence of a platonic is a real phenomena? I think it is justified to break this concept into weak, moderate, and strong concepts. For example, I think God possesses "strong immortality" (although it is not my intent to talk about immortality in this thread).

Well, for starters, there's this:

For example, strong immortality would be able to live beyond an infinite period.

Can you please define "beyond infinite" for me?

As to the passage of time not being a real phenomena, my, you philosophers do argue over subtleties, don't you? I wish my boss were as esoteric in his approach...I would never be late for work!