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?

[Tim the Skeptic]

Dilettante

Do I have your permission then to call my less-than-perfect knowledge of all things under the sun "weak omniscience"?

Being "moderately omniscient" myself, I hereby grant you permission to be "weakly omniscient". Do with what you will, or can or wish or hope or dream.

[bernee51]

. Even the statement 'God is good' is limiting.

You raise an interesting point Mr Bobfisher.

To define is to confine and god is limitless i.e. beyond confinement. Ergo beyond definition.

Which highlights the difficulty in a claim such as...

The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the existence of a {loving} God is logically impossible.

Either you provide a definition or any proof of the impossibility of a 'god' is impossible - as is proof of the existence.

Fortunately you have used a descriptor 'loving' - which means we run into a matter of opinion as to what constitutes 'loving'. If you accept the genocidal actions, the encouragement to kidnap, rape and murder, of the god of the bible as evidence of his loving nature - I wonder at your ethics.

The biblical god seals his own fate in his own words. The Arguments from Evil and Non Belief and the paradox of unanswered prayer are nails in the coffin of the existence of a god as described in the bible.

I also believe the fact that any support or demolition of these arguments comes down to hermaneutics is further evidence of the non involvement of any biblical god of limitless characteristics in the devolution of his 'word'.

[bernee51]

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us

Sounds very Vedantic to me - how can we be sure Christ never visited India?

So does God have to make me suffer in order to make it to heaven?

Yes, to reveal the likeness of God is you.

More Vedanta.

I believe God's plan is to ultimately restore ALL things (all people) to Himself, including the worst of the worst.

Great - so it doesn't matter then whether we believe or not. It no issue if we do not seek salvation in Christ.

If this is 'god's plan', why the obsession with Christ and all the dogma of the religion invented in his name?

Why believe this particular mythology at the expense of all the others? Why believe any of the mythologies?

[bobfisher]

Bobfisher wrote

1. Silly definition of omnipotence.
2. The God of the bible is not omnipotent by this definiton... "God can not lie" for example.
3. Bill Cosby gave a simpler, airtight argument against this type of omnipotence.

Ok, define omnipotence for God. So far, it doesn't sound like it means anything. What can he do, what can't he do? Can God stop the sun so the Hebrews can slaughter their enemies? When God tells the Hebrews to wipe out every man, woman and child in a town, do all the slaughtered people suffer enough to warrant resurrection?

And what is this Bill Cosby argument? Can you paraphrase it or link to it or something? Just because Bill Cosby said it, doesn't mean it is above debate. Put it out there, and let's have at it.

The word 'omnipotence' is not even in the bible to my knowlege. God is powerful enough to create the universe, kill, make alive, wound, heal, harden & soften hearts. etc. I would say God is limited by His character and by being logically consistent. For example, God can not lie or be tempted nor can he make a square circle or pi = 3.

Here's how the Cosby thing came up:
- Some posters keep putting forth the Epicurus argument against the existence of an omnipotent benevolent God.
- I said it's flawed at point 2 because it assumes that the use of evil has to be evil (seeing as evil might result in a net benefit)
- The reply was that God should be able to impart the benefit without the evil.
- My reply was that this may be logically impossible -- an actual experience of evil may be needed to produce that exact results of the experience of evil. Or perhaps a perfectly 'simulated' experience of evil must produce the experience.
- This led to the charge that God would not be omnipotent, if he could not overcome this.

That's where Cosby comes in. If you are going to hold that God must be utterly & absolutely omnipotent, then Cosby gave a short & better proof against God by simply asking "can God make a rock so big that even He can not lift it."

[bernee51]

That's where Cosby comes in. If you are going to hold that God must be utterly & absolutely omnipotent, then Cosby gave a short & better proof against God by simply asking "can God make a rock so big that even He can not lift it."

I didn't realise that Bill Cosby invented this particular philosophical point.


I has already been discussed at some length, and with the usual enthusiam, on this forum. Have a look here.

[bobfisher]

The biblical god seals his own fate in his own words. The Arguments from Evil and Non Belief and the paradox of unanswered prayer are nails in the coffin of the existence of a god as described in the bible.

Ok maybe I'm missing something in AE. Basically its saying that God can reduce the evil at the present time from L' to L but doesn't so He can not exist. Ignores the fact that the present situation L(0)' affects future situations L'(1)...L'(n). The argument implies that a good parent would not discipline a child at present because it increase his suffering. What about the affect of suffering on the futures states?

[bobfisher]

I didn't realise that Bill Cosby invented this particular philosophical point.


I has already been discussed at some length, and with the usual enthusiam, on this forum. Have a look here.

I said he gave it. I have no idea who invented it, but Cosby made it famous.

[Tim the Skeptic]

Bobfisher wrote:

I would say God is limited by His character and by being logically consistent.

Ok, define God's character.

What does all-good mean?

[bernee51]

T
Ok maybe I'm missing something in AE. Basically its saying that God can reduce the evil at the present time from L' to L but doesn't so He can not exist. Ignores the fact that the present situation L(0)' affects future situations L'(1)...L'(n).

It is you who keeps introducing suffering into the equation. The existence of evil is the issue not the end product. It also begs the question that the end product could be obtained by means other than the imposition of evil.

The argument implies that a good parent would not discipline a child at present because it increase his suffering. What about the affect of suffering on the futures states?

As I said - hermeneutics...

I consider myself a good parent - I have three apparently well adjusted children who behave in an ethical manner. I have found no need to inflict evil on my children in order to bring this about. In fact 'discipline' per se, or 'suffering' because of it, has not been an issue at all.

[bobfisher]

Bobfisher wrote:

I would say God is limited by His character and by being logically consistent.

Ok, define God's character.

What does all-good mean?

The purpose of Jesus life was to 'show us the Father'. So looking at His life is probably the best way to see & define the character of God. Jesus gave up His life for others, being mocked, betrayed, beaten & finally murdered. And Jesus layed his life down willingly -- it only appears that they took it. And even when Jesus was hanging on the cross ready to die, He said 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do.'

Now I know you can point to evil throughout the world or in the bible and say 'there is true the character of the Father'. And I don't fault you for thinking that. That's the natural thought. Christians stuggle with the same thought and even (imo) erect unbiblical concepts like free will to try to create an escape hatch for God, even though God says things like "I create good & evil, I kill & make alive, etc. etc."

Here is what the word of God says about the crucifixion of Jesus (a definite evil)

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Does God pretend He had nothing to do with it? Nope. It says God bruised Jesus and that it pleased Him to do so. Not because God is sadistic. But because God knew the suffering Jesus endured would produce good results (Sons of God). Even Jesus who did the suffering would 'see and be satified' that the outcome was worth it.

Yet to the naked eye the crucifixion of Jesus would look like a brutal & cruel & senseless act of an unloving God. So though I can not explain the plan of God and the purpose of individual evil events, I believe God uses evil to bring about a greater good.

Also consider that death (I believe anyway) is non-existence. Like before you were born. You weren't suffering. You weren't bored. Resurrection appears to be simulataneous with death. Just like you weren't waiting 15 billion years to be born.