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?

[bobfisher]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Beloved Pagan wisdom.

Statement #2 is not necessarily true. Don't we say some like "if it hurts you but doesn't kill you it only makes you stronger?" And since God can raise the dead...

[bobfisher]

You are arguing that Christian theology is rational; I am arguing that it is not. I leave it to the philosophers to determine if something shown to be irrational can still be true. Basically we're arguing the relative merits of two worldviews.

You misunderstood the purpose of my posts. I was clearing up what imo the bible claims 1. is the source of evil and 2. my understanding of the purpose of evil according to the bible. If your going to have a debate regarding evil & Satan in the bible, you should know what it really says.

According to the bible, spiritual knowlege is not gathered using your senses plus reason. It's imparted by God. So there is little point in me trying to demonstrate to you what you should believe or that my worldview is superior.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

[bernee51]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Beloved Pagan wisdom.

Statement #2 is not necessarily true.

So being able to stop suffering but not is what - benevolent?

Don't we say some like "if it hurts you but doesn't kill you it only makes you stronger?"

Because it is said by some doesn't make it true, does it?

And since God can raise the dead...

On the assumption that such thing as the biblical god exists...

... I know of no independently documented cases of god raising anyone from the dead, so guess we only have hearsay to support that.

[bobfisher]

Those four points are put forth as an iron clad proof that given the present evil, a benevolent omnipotent God can not exist. I'm pointing out the weak link in the argument. Where is the demonstration that suffering can not be beneficial? I don't need to prove that suffering is beneficial. I only need to point the argument fails to prove suffering is always detrimental.

[AlAyeti]

Has it escaped this illustrious group, that this "Book" is in both the Christian and the Jewish Bibles?

Such open-mindedness in those Bible-believers. Including a Book that opens up more questions than it answers. How supernatural so to speak.

Job seems to be an exception and not the rule as God and Job talk over the situation. And the Book doesn't offer itself as allegory.

Satan cannot do anything apart from God allowing it. Once you get to the meat of the Book, the converstional aspect of man and Deity, the Book takes on its phenomenal nature.

[The Happy Humanist]

And so atheism wins this round. Thanks for the concession!

THH, what's gotten into you lately? You never used to be this impolite.

I don't see what's impolite about claiming a small victory in a large debate. The answer "I can't explain it" is usually a good sign that you've scored a point. I don't believe in letting these debates go round and round forever; at some point there needs to be some closure.

Anyway, Spetey, you, and I already covered this ground. The problem of evil comes down to whether the atheist is claiming that it is impossible for an all-powerful, all-good God to allow evil (therefore an all-powerful, all-good God necessarily cannot exist), or whether the atheist is claiming that an all-powerful, all-good God probably would not allow evil (therefore an all-powerful, all-good God probably doesn't exist). In both Spetey's case and your case, you later admitted that the former argument was mistaken.

If you could point out where I conceded that, I'd be obliged. Not denying it...yet....it may have been a moment of weakness, I just don't remember.

As for the second argument, you also admitted that you lack sufficient knowledge to make this judgement as to whether it is probable that an all-good, all-powerful God would allow evil. Therefore, both of your arguments fail.

Now I'm really mystified...I don't remember admitting any such thing.

Sorry, but I'm not an atheist yet, and Spetey is no longer around to help defend your views (and sorry, Quentin Smith hasn't shown up either), so you'll have to actually defend your position that you have "won."

I told you, in ten years you'll be an atheist. Patience!!

I don't understand Quentin Smith. I don't even understand Quentin Tarantino.

As to my position, I continue to think that an all-powerful, all-benevolent God is out of the question (overriding any previous concessions I may or may not have made). The key to our argument here is the qualifier "all." It may be next to impossible to define "God," or "heaven," or even time and space....but the word "all" as used here has a very definite, precise, easy-to-understand meaning. It means 100%, no exceptions. If I can show that God had an opportunity to lessen human suffering, and that the means to do it would not interfere with accomplishing his ultimate goal, and yet chose not to take that opportunity, then I will have nullified omni-benevolence. I say that that opportunity came at the point at which God decided to create the universe. He would of course have been able to foresee the wickedness of mankind, along with the suffering caused by nature. If he still thought it was a good idea to create man, he could have done so, but placed him in heaven already in a state of grace, sinless but free willed. The travails of the human saga would have thus been avoided, all of humanity would be in heaven, no wailing or gnashing of teeth in hell, God gets to hear himself praised and Hosannahed till the cows come home. Mission accomplished.

But that didn't happen. Here we are.

That the universe exists is cosmic testimony to the non-benevolent nature of God, and/or his nonexistence.

[bernee51]

Those four points are put forth as an iron clad proof that given the present evil, a benevolent omnipotent God can not exist. I'm pointing out the weak link in the argument.

The weak link in your reply is the assumpton that the cause of suffering is 'god'.

Epicurus' statement, does not prove the non-existence of god, it merely puports that any such entity is not deserving of the epithet.

Where is the demonstration that suffering can not be beneficial?

'Suffering' is unavoidable...whether it is beneficial or not depends on the sufferer.

I don't need to prove that suffering is beneficial. I only need to point the argument fails to prove suffering is always detrimental.

And this proves what?

[The Happy Humanist]

Those four points are put forth as an iron clad proof that given the present evil, a benevolent omnipotent God can not exist. I'm pointing out the weak link in the argument. Where is the demonstration that suffering can not be beneficial? I don't need to prove that suffering is beneficial. I only need to point the argument fails to prove suffering is always detrimental.

The claim is that suffering IS beneficial, not just CAN BE. If there exists any suffering that has no potential benefit, then God's benevolence is disproven.

I return to the example of the earthquake victim. Remember, his fate is sealed. He will die. He may go to heaven, and he may even be canonized. But all that could have happened the moment the bricks fell on him. Why trap him under rubble for a week, and THEN call him home? What was accomplished? How did the victim benefit, in a way that he might not have had he died instantly? He had no contact with anyone for a week, so he couldn't inspire anyone with his "strength" or piety. Perhaps he prayed for a week, and that inspired hope and courage in him. To what end?

Oh, and it does your side no good to claim that he may have benefited in ways that we can't think of. What good is a benefit no one knows about?

[bobfisher]

The claim is that suffering IS beneficial, not just CAN BE.

If I were trying to convince you that God does exist, I would have to prove among other things that all suffering is beneficial. I don't think its possible to demonstrate that. I am only trying to break down faulty schmoofs that God can not exist, because suffering has no benefit.

I return to the example of the earthquake victim. Remember, his fate is sealed. He will die. He may go to heaven, and he may even be canonized. But all that could have happened the moment the bricks fell on him. Why trap him under rubble for a week, and THEN call him home? What was accomplished? How did the victim benefit, in a way that he might not have had he died instantly? He had no contact with anyone for a week, so he couldn't inspire anyone with his "strength" or piety. Perhaps he prayed for a week, and that inspired hope and courage in him. To what end?

- Not all suffering in the bible is for the benefit of the sufferer. Jesus suffered for our benefit & to present an example for us to follow. By the way, the NT teaches that we (believers) must suffer. It's not an option.

- Maybe he gained an appreciation for what's important in life. Like how a person's outlook drastically changes when he comes close to dieing. So in the resurrection he will be a different person.

- Maybe he now has true understanding of suffering so in the future he will be able to comfort others who suffer (I realize this looks circular) but I mean that the person himself has benefitted having gained the capacity to empathize and care for others.

- Maybe he finally learned with an absolute knowing that there are things far more important than his own selfish desires. Maybe he deeply regrets where he focused his time and efforts in life. Maybe he longs to hold his children & wife one more time before he dies, but can not. Now, I admit, if God did that to a person and then and never restored the person to life to reap the benefit of his new understanding, I myself would consider that to be just plain cruel. Nor would I wish to be like such a god or serve him. But that is not what I believe about God.

Oh, and it does your side no good to claim that he may have benefited in ways that we can't think of. What good is a benefit no one knows about?

I might not be able to think of the benefit now, but I might see the benefit when it occurs.

[bobfisher]

Epicurus' statement, does not prove the non-existence of god, it merely puports that any such entity is not deserving of the epithet.

That's what it purports, but there's a big hole in the argument. Prove to me that suffering can not be beneficial. Unless you prove that, then statement #2 fails.