Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� (or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Thus, is there any sound reason that “Satan� could not be one of the other proposed gods and be equal in “power� to the Bible God?

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Perhaps “Satan� isn't really the “bad guy� he is made out to be by promoters of the Bible God. Maybe “he� is another one of the “gods� and is equal to the Bible God and/or Jesus – and no more bad or good (or real or unreal) than they are.

It does not seem as though God and/or Jesus are able to defeat or eliminate Satan. Wonder why?

[marco]

"What evidence do you have that men were made less than the best possible way?"
This was your challenging statement. Even though Adam and Eve acted idiotically, you can still say God did his best. Well it wasn't good enough.

Well he did, miraculously then - earthquakes, disease .....

Those are easily explained as consequences of the Fall, which wasn’t God’s doing but man’s.

This is where reason parts company with superstition. It is an absurdity to think that the figurative pair in Eden produced future tsunamis and earthquakes. I cannot believe you hold this view with any seriousness.

If earthquakes and tsunamis are flaws in creation, then they are God's flaws.

That’s rot.

And God made the earth and the firmament. And in the earth he created the San Andreas fault. And God thought it was good. But JLB did not believe that God created the earth and all it contains; rather he thought God allocated that task to Adam. What can I say?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 77 by JLB32168]

A) “There is no conclusive evidence that the supernatural exists,� which is most often erroneously stated as “there is no evidence that the supernatural exists.�

The only "evidence" for the supernaturals are the claims themselves and the believers who believe the claims. That ain't much "evidence".

B) “Lots of people make claims to the supernatural,� which must mean “All claims should be rejected.�

Not at all.
Only claims without evidence should be rejected.

C) “Belief in X is just stilly fairy tales,� which is an appeal to ridicule.

That's not an argument, but perhaps a conclusion to an argument.

D) “Science has proved that the miracles of the Bible are impossible,� which is false

Science has not done that.
So, whoever is making that argument is just factually wrong.

I would love to know what atheist in here has asserted that. I will debate against him too.

because Science doesn’t make claims to supernatural events since supernatural events cannot be measured using scientific methods, which only deal with natural methods.[/list]

Yeah, sorta. But science hasn't detected any phenomenon we could call magical or supernatural, only the natural ones. Lots of claims are made, though. There are paranormal debunkers out there. You might be familiar with the James Randi Foundation, for example.

Monta: Their problem is that they think they know it all which gives feeling of superiority.

Zz: Another grandiose blanket statement.

Well, people who consistently paint others as silly for believing children’s fairy tales are implicitly saying, “I’m an adult with critical thinking skills – unlike you who are an adult in years only and have more in common with children.�

We are not allowed to call each other silly or childish in here, so I have no idea who you are talking about. If you would prefer to debate one of us, we are bound by rules of civility. So, you're safe from that kind of childishness. Just report someone stepping over that line.

Feel free to start a thread on the topic of formerly dead people coming back to life and “ascending� into the sky (using whatever words you prefer) – and see if you can make an “intelligent argument� in support.

I think the issue is with the treatment of the belief. “Dead men fly into the sky� is a rather impolite and uncivil way to refer to a belief that someone else dearly holds.

It wouldn't be the first time that people are over-sensitive and over-protective of their beliefs.

It reminds me of an atheist friend of my wife’s who on Easter Sunday wrote “Happy Zombie Jesus Day� on her Facebook wall. It’s rude, dismissive, not a little infantile, and only puts forward face of “I’m a real a$$et on this board.� No one wants to discuss anything with such a person.

Then don't.

Just remember that we should respect each other, but not necessarily each others ideas. Some ideas are not worthy of respect.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 80 by JLB32168]

NOTE:

I am not "Party Skeptic".

I am the BLASTCAT.

If someone makes a truth claim, and cannot PROVE it to be true, pointing out that sad fact isn't an argument but a conclusion to a rather obvious tautology.

Why do you cite my words and say, “If someone makes a truth claim??� What claim of truth did I make???

I did say IF.... as in "WHEN".

If someone makes a truth claim about the genesis of Satan, then he must defend it. If you aren't making a truth claim, then you aren't, and you don't have to defend it. And then you are merely speculating like the rest of us.

If I said for example that Satan WAS a competing god to Yahweh, I would have to burden of the proof to show that my claim is true. I was making a hypothetical. If you HAD made a truth claim, I would have mentioned it, don't worry.

Christians make all kinds of truth claims.. for example one such claim might be that the Bible tells it like it is about gods.

Why can you not debate what I actually say??

I can and always try to.

That's why I always quote my opponents words first, and then comment or object RIGHT UNDERNEATH. Your exact words are always there right above mine.

Why must you fabricate arguments, falsely attribute those fabrications to me, and then rebut your fabrication?

I don't.

Do you have redundancies in place so that should you correctly represent an argument that I make that would be able to call upon to misrepresent my argument at a later time?

No.

But I am not at all convinced that you accurately portray the skeptic view. It seems more like you made it all up yourself.

I stand by my statement.

You get points for intransigence.

• Party “Skepticâ€�: “Was the Wolf morally wrong to eat Grandmother and then attempt to eat LRRHood?â€�
  
  Party “A�: “No, the Wolf committed no crime/moral failing. Animals don’t have moral agency; therefore, they can’t be faulted with moral failures. Also, wolves have evolved to be carnivores to survive and we don’t fault organisms with moral errors when they are doing according to their nature to survive. Lastly, LRRHood and the Woodsmen were actually in the wrong because they killed a wolf for doing that which a wolf does, which is akin to punishing the blind student for failing to copy down the information on the board.�
  
  Party “Skeptic�: “The personified characters in stories are variously described. Is there anything to affirm that the wolf isn't one of the archetypes from other fairy tales? The tale of LLRHood has no copyright on animals as representations of evil. Do you have any Substantiation? Verification? that any of the characters in this story you’ve cited actually exist?�

The skeptic hasn’t addressed “Party A�’s at all. Instead he has used it to beat a dead horse, namely, that Party A can’t prove that LRRHood, the wolf, grandma, or the woodsman even exists (as if this is news to Party A.)

It’s a stupid response or even reason to initially ask the question.

Just WHO is this skeptic party? It's not me, that's for sure. It's very odd that you complain that I don't address your actual arguments when you present some hypothetical skeptic and argue against HIM.

You don't present my argument at all.. so I have nothing to add to your ... hypothetical conversation.

[marco]

It reminds me of an atheist friend of my wife’s who on Easter Sunday wrote “Happy Zombie Jesus Day� on her Facebook wall.

Amusing. I attended an Easter get-together and spoke to one affable Jewish academic.

"Of course you don't celebrate Easter," I said, unnecessarily. And he replied.

"No. We celebrate Good Friday."

There is a lot of humour to be found in the tales of Jesus.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

Yes.

If by "competing" you mean "ex", and by "god" you mean "wife".




I find it odd folks'd think Satan wasn't a competing god, considering his own supernatural abilities, and this on-going war the Christian have with him.

Maybe it is, Satan's him a "lesser-god", but there we go, a lesser god is still a god.

[OnceConvinced]

We are descending into theatricality, my honourable JLB. I said YOUR objection i.e. your limitation on the word "create."

Someone suggested that God created evil. Evil isn’t a thing that can be created.

According to God's word it can be and is. God himself admits to creating it:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.

[OnceConvinced]

Those are easily explained as consequences of the Fall, which wasn’t God’s doing but man’s.

This is where reason parts company with superstition. It is an absurdity to think that the figurative pair in Eden produced future tsunamis and earthquakes. I cannot believe you hold this view with any seriousness.

Theists don't really think this one through at all. If Adam and Eve's sin resulted in the corruption of creation, then clearly there must have been fatal flaws in creation to begin with.

If say a scientist created a robot and programmed it to go berserk if the wrong type of oil was applied, then regardless of the freewill of anyone who uses the robot, it was the will of the scientist that the robot go berserk.

Likewise with creation, if you are going to put such terribly fatal flaws into it where everything becomes corrupt if sin enters the system, then the creator himself must take responsibility. It is all part of his own design process.

If the fatal flaws were put there deliberately by the creator, then that is malevolent design. You are the creator of evil. It would be like putting a virus into a computer programme. Access that part of the program and everything becomes corrupted.

If the flaws were put there unintentionally then that would be incompetent design. You would still have to take responsibility for the flaws though and the consequences of those flaws. Any bugs in the system are there due to negligent programming. We could excuse this when it came to human's doing the programming, but not a flawless god.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 72 by Monta]


Moderator Warning

This reader has not seen any intelligent arguments from Non-Theists.

Their problem is that they think they know it all which gives feeling of superiority.
The language used is also rather primitive- dead man fly into the sky.. you can't
have an intelligent argument with that.

Hello Monta! The above comments are attacking in nature, and are clearly against forum rules. Please just debate the topics, and not the members of the forum.

Thanks
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[marco]

According to God's word it can be and is. God himself admits to creating it:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.

Well thank you for that, OnceConvinced. I never thought good old Isaiah would help me out of a problem.

So God DID create evil after all. I just knew it.

[marco]

Theists don't really think this one through at all. If Adam and Eve's sin resulted in the corruption of creation, then clearly there must have been fatal flaws in creation to begin with.

Perfectly put, OnceConvinced. As Shakespeare said: A Daniel come to judgment. That's my point about God being responsible for what he did. It was suggested that a mother can't be held responsible for what her son does, but that is an entirely different relationship. The flaws in the child were not deliberately placed there by the mother.