Satan and the Work Denying

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33 here:

...satan does his work to deny the work of God.
...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual.

[Euphrates]

You asked for means to confirm a claim that is soaked in Christian and Jewish theology, but then you refuse to accept confirmation from the Bible (the source of such theology)? Why would you do that?

For the same reason I don't look to the moon expecting to see a cow jumping over it.

One of these days you'll make sense.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 18:

The prevalence of dispute and doubt is well-known to Christians, I believe.

I never said it wasn't. It seems you think it's a pity some of that dispute and doubt'd be expressed on a site dedicated to debate.

Belief has to be based on reasons - like God talking to you - and anyone can doubt the validity of those reasons.

And so I ask what those reasons are.

You, for example, have expressed your doubt about the 'actuality' of biblical reasons for belief.

You said a mouthful.

Since you have rejected (so far without providing any justification) a major source of support for the 'claim,' it looks more like the point is simply to declare that there are differences between your epistemic system and the 'claimants' epistemic systems - a point which it seems to take many threads for you to make.

How 'bout the idea of asking someone why they reject claims before complainin' 'cause they do?

Are you upset that I don't believe everything I'm told?

Or perhaps more accurately, maybe the enlightened purpose of this thread is pointing out that given relatively minor differences in epistemic systems as well as cultural and personal circumstances, the 'claimants' do not share your opinions on the relative validity of sources of knowledge?

The point of this thread, as I told you is to arrive at the truth of the matter.

If you wish to disparage me for asking, "how can we know the claimant speaks truth", I can't help ya. Not nary a bit.

Or were you intending to explain the nature of truth to us, and reveal by what privileged method you have access to it?

My intent is getting at the truth of the matter, regardless of your, or anyone else's protestations.

That you are seemingly upset at my attempt to do so causes me not the least bit of fret.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

You asked for means to confirm a claim that is soaked in Christian and Jewish theology, but then you refuse to accept confirmation from the Bible (the source of such theology)? Why would you do that?

For the same reason I don't look to the moon expecting to see a cow jumping over it.

One of these days you'll make sense.

Are you certain you'll able to recognize it when I do?

[Mithrae]

Since you have rejected (so far without providing any justification) a major source of support for the 'claim,' it looks more like the point is simply to declare that there are differences between your epistemic system and the 'claimants' epistemic systems - a point which it seems to take many threads for you to make.

How 'bout the idea of asking someone why they reject claims before complainin' 'cause they do?

Are you upset that I don't believe everything I'm told?

In post 6, Euphrates did ask why you don't consider evidence from the earliest and most widely-accepted sources regarding Satan to be 'actual' evidence for the topic. You response involved a cow jumping over the moon, and an objection that his question (apparently) was not related to the challenge in the OP.

Presumably you would have preferred it if he'd started a new thread, "Please offer some means to confirm that the bible is not 'actual' evidence." As I stated, my objection is that starting a thread about a 'claim' and then dismissing without justification a major source of information regarding the claim serves no purpose whatsoever - or certainly no purpose which couldn't be inferred from any of the scores of other identical threads you make.

Or perhaps more accurately, maybe the enlightened purpose of this thread is pointing out that given relatively minor differences in epistemic systems as well as cultural and personal circumstances, the 'claimants' do not share your opinions on the relative validity of sources of knowledge?

The point of this thread, as I told you is to arrive at the truth of the matter.

If you wish to disparage me for asking, "how can we know the claimant speaks truth", I can't help ya. Not nary a bit.

Our trusty Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'epistemic' as "of or relating to knowledge or knowing" - in effect, how can we know anything? This was the point of your topic, was it not? I am addressing the question posed, aren't I?

Given relatively minor differences in epistemic systems as well as cultural and personal circumstances, we each have different opinions on the relative validity of sources of knowledge. You proved that by dismissing without justification the 'actuality' of biblical evidence. So without better defining the parameters of your enquiry (as I initially attempted to request), the question is essentially meaningless.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 22:

In post 6, Euphrates did ask why you don't consider evidence from the earliest and most widely-accepted sources regarding Satan to be 'actual' evidence for the topic. You response involved a cow jumping over the moon, and an objection that his question (apparently) was not related to the challenge in the OP.

Do I really need to explain the cow jumping over the moon deal?

Please note, I never objected to the question presented, but responded in an honest fashion. I noted that the person in question had not then (and has yet to) present any evidence in support of the claim presented in the OP.

Presumably you would have preferred it if he'd started a new thread, "Please offer some means to confirm that the bible is not 'actual' evidence."

Until evidence is presented, how can I even know its 'actuality' as evidence?

It is my contention the assumption that I would reject biblical evidence is purely in the mind of the assumer. Until something, anything is presented, I have no way of considering its utility as evidence.

As I stated, my objection is that starting a thread about a 'claim' and then dismissing without justification a major source of information regarding the claim serves no purpose whatsoever - or certainly no purpose which couldn't be inferred from any of the scores of other identical threads you make.

I will now, without question, retract any and all statements or implications that I would reject evidence before it's even presented.

Our trusty Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'epistemic' as "of or relating to knowledge or knowing" - in effect, how can we know anything? This was the point of your topic, was it not?

That was not my question, but it's a good'n.

I am addressing the question posed, aren't I?

I'll plow under any statement or implication on my part that says you ain't, and offer you a personal apology for having done so. That said, I'm finding it difficult to determine what in your posts supports or refutes the claim in question.

Given relatively minor differences in epistemic systems as well as cultural and personal circumstances, we each have different opinions on the relative validity of sources of knowledge. You proved that by dismissing without justification the 'actuality' of biblical evidence. So without better defining the parameters of your enquiry (as I initially attempted to request), the question is essentially meaningless.

I answered a question that, if only to me, wondered why I may do so, I did NOT say that any evidence presented must come from a non-biblical source. So, when asked why I may reject evidence that has yet to be presented, I explained why I may reject it, though I do NOT reject that which is not on offer. I can agree that folks may have a different take on my response, or the question in question.

I can respect that a reasoned assumption'd be that what biblical notions may be presented would be rejected by me, based on my past rejections of biblical 'evidence'. This should not lead us to conclude that I would simply dismiss, in the fashion of a hand wave, that which is not on offer.

Even so, I don't make the rules for this site, and folks shouldn't just assume that if I reject evidence, regardless of its yet to be presentedness, that that evidence should not be offered.

If one wishes to support a claim, have at it. It's my contention all this talk about why I'd reject that which has yet to be presented is an indication that what has yet to be presented is so weak as to be useless in support of the claim presented in the OP.

[Mithrae]

Given relatively minor differences in epistemic systems as well as cultural and personal circumstances, we each have different opinions on the relative validity of sources of knowledge. You proved that by dismissing without justification the 'actuality' of biblical evidence. So without better defining the parameters of your enquiry (as I initially attempted to request), the question is essentially meaningless.

I answered a question that, if only to me, wondered why I may do so, I did NOT say that any evidence presented must come from a non-biblical source. So, when asked why I may reject evidence that has yet to be presented, I explained why I may reject it, though I do NOT reject that which is not on offer. I can agree that folks may have a different take on my response, or the question in question.

I can respect that a reasoned assumption'd be that what biblical notions may be presented would be rejected by me, based on my past rejections of biblical 'evidence'. This should not lead us to conclude that I would simply dismiss, in the fashion of a hand wave, that which is not on offer.

Even so, I don't make the rules for this site, and folks shouldn't just assume that if I reject evidence, regardless of its yet to be presentedness, that that evidence should not be offered.

If one wishes to support a claim, have at it. It's my contention all this talk about why I'd reject that which has yet to be presented is an indication that what has yet to be presented is so weak as to be useless in support of the claim presented in the OP.

It seems perfectly clear, to me at least, that in post 3 some information was provided in support of the OP claim, from a collection of early and widely-accepted sources regarding Satan; and it also seems quite clear to me (and apparently Euphrates) that in post 4 you rejected the source of the information with no explanation beyond your personal amusement. I agree that only a meagre fraction of the biblical information which could have been provided was actually posted, but since you didn't even acknowledge what was posted it seems Euphrates wisely saved himself some effort. It is possible that I (and Euphrates) have somehow misunderstood you, but I can't really see how.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 24:

It seems perfectly clear, to me at least, that in post 3 some information was provided in support of the OP claim, from a collection of early and widely-accepted sources regarding Satan; and it also seems quite clear to me (and apparently Euphrates) that in post 4 you rejected the source of the information with no explanation beyond your personal amusement.

I think "deny the work of God" means to oppose God's will.

Biblically, Satan is in opposition to God. The word "satan" in Hebrew means "the opposer". When it's not used as a proper noun, the correct translation would be something like "adversary". Satan tries to get Jesus to turn away from God's plan in Matthew 4 (and Mark and Luke).

But if biblical evidence isn't good enough, I'm not sure what will suffice.

I see the term being defined, and nothing here that offers support this Satan fellow ever set foot inside this or any other universe.

I reject biblical claims until they can be shown to be true, much like I reject tales of cows jumping over the moon - until they can be shown to be true.

I agree that only a meagre fraction of the biblical information which could have been provided was actually posted, but since you didn't even acknowledge what was posted it seems Euphrates wisely saved himself some effort. It is possible that I (and Euphrates) have somehow misunderstood you, but I can't really see how.

Hopefully I just cleared that up.

[Mithrae]

It seems perfectly clear, to me at least, that in post 3 some information was provided in support of the OP claim, from a collection of early and widely-accepted sources regarding Satan; and it also seems quite clear to me (and apparently Euphrates) that in post 4 you rejected the source of the information with no explanation beyond your personal amusement.

I think "deny the work of God" means to oppose God's will.

Biblically, Satan is in opposition to God. The word "satan" in Hebrew means "the opposer". When it's not used as a proper noun, the correct translation would be something like "adversary". Satan tries to get Jesus to turn away from God's plan in Matthew 4 (and Mark and Luke).

But if biblical evidence isn't good enough, I'm not sure what will suffice.

I see the term being defined, and nothing here that offers support this Satan fellow ever set foot inside this or any other universe.

I reject biblical claims until they can be shown to be true, much like I reject tales of cows jumping over the moon - until they can be shown to be true.

Oh hallelujah, praise the Lord, stir the noodles and rattle the drawers! After a mere 22 posts, the thread's author clarifies that his question is not about Satan's acts or motivation, but his very existence!

In the spirit of generousity, we might note that it was not until post 15 that the issue of motivation vs. existence was clearly raised. While I had in fact asked for better clarification of the question being asked in post 8, I must admit that a somewhat reasonable case could be made that it took a mere four responses (to me) after the specific issue was raised for the thread author to clarify what he meant by his OP. Amen!

So... we have finally established that Joey is not interested in questioning Satan's acts or motivation: He wants evidence of Satan's existence!

Now 'pon my oath I have never glanced at this before, but since I've now done so let's get a little context on what the 'claimant' actually 'claimed,' to require such thorough cross-examination by our friend Joey:

• Revelationtestament in post 33 wrote:
  There is no proof for the resurrection, just as there is no proof against it. There is evidence for both sides because as usual, satan does his work to deny the work of God.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks like a fellow named after a book and a section of the Christian bible is stating, within the parameters of his worldview, that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge. What an absurd notion! But (again correct me if I'm wrong) it seems that Joey previously stated that the purpose of his thread was to 'confirm' -
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
- whether Revelationtestament's 'claim' was true or factual. When Revelationtestament stated that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge, in other words, Joey thought it necessary to start a thread requesting 'indisputable fact' or the like on why this is actually the case!

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 26:

Oh hallelujah, praise the Lord, stir the noodles and rattle the drawers! After a mere 22 posts, the thread's author clarifies that his question is not about Satan's acts or motivation, but his very existence!

I asked if the stated claim can be shown to be true and factual, and see nothing in that challenge that precludes anyone from showing any part of that claim to be true and factual. Presenting more claims on top of the initial claim does not show the intial claim to be true and factual. True and factual.

That said, does Mithrae deny the utility of showing this Satan feller exists, so that following claims may be more easily accepted?

In the spirit of generousity, we might note that it was not until post 15 that the issue of motivation vs. existence was clearly raised. While I had in fact asked for better clarification of the question being asked in post 8, I must admit that a somewhat reasonable case could be made that it took a mere four responses (to me) after the specific issue was raised for the thread author to clarify what he meant by his OP. Amen!

Let's do this then...

What part of "Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual" are you having the most difficulty with, as you attempt to comprehend the challenge?

So... we have finally established that Joey is not interested in questioning Satan's acts or motivation: He wants evidence of Satan's existence!

Please note, NOWHERE in the challenge presented in the OP does it ask for the confirmation of motive. Acts, yes, motive, no.

Now 'pon my oath I have never glanced at this before, but since I've now done so let's get a little context on what the 'claimant' actually 'claimed,' to require such thorough cross-examination by our friend Joey:

Revelationtestament in post 33 wrote:
There is no proof for the resurrection, just as there is no proof against it. There is evidence for both sides because as usual, satan does his work to deny the work of God.'

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks like a fellow named after a book and a section of the Christian bible is stating, within the parameters of his worldview, that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge. What an absurd notion! But (again correct me if I'm wrong) it seems that Joey previously stated that the purpose of his thread was to 'confirm' -
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
- whether Revelationtestament's 'claim' was true or factual. When Revelationtestament stated that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge, in other words, Joey thought it necessary to start a thread requesting 'indisputable fact' or the like on why this is actually the case!

You ain't from the Bible Belt, are ya?

The claim presented in the OP is a common phrase around these parts, and is typically presented as true and factual regardless of the original poster's intent.

I have presented, with the OP, a link to the comments in question, specifically so folks can see the full context. That said, "Satan does his work to deny the work of God" sure sounds like a claim to me.

But perhaps Mithrae, in his infinite wisdom regarding what I seek in my own OP, can set us all straight and just present evidence for the claim or stop this charade of challenging my motives and my intent in presenting my OP.

Don't like claims getting challenged? Perhaps debate ain't the place ya wanna be.

[Mithrae]

Now 'pon my oath I have never glanced at this before, but since I've now done so let's get a little context on what the 'claimant' actually 'claimed,' to require such thorough cross-examination by our friend Joey:

Revelationtestament in post 33 wrote:
There is no proof for the resurrection, just as there is no proof against it. There is evidence for both sides because as usual, satan does his work to deny the work of God.'

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks like a fellow named after a book and a section of the Christian bible is stating, within the parameters of his worldview, that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge. What an absurd notion! But (again correct me if I'm wrong) it seems that Joey previously stated that the purpose of his thread was to 'confirm' -
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
- whether Revelationtestament's 'claim' was true or factual. When Revelationtestament stated that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge, in other words, Joey thought it necessary to start a thread requesting 'indisputable fact' or the like on why this is actually the case!

You ain't from the Bible Belt, are ya?

The claim presented in the OP is a common phrase around these parts, and is typically presented as true and factual regardless of the original poster's intent.

I have presented, with the OP, a link to the comments in question, specifically so folks can see the full context. That said, "Satan does his work to deny the work of God" sure sounds like a claim to me.

But perhaps Mithrae, in his infinite wisdom regarding what I seek in my own OP, can set us all straight and just present evidence for the claim or stop this charade of challenging my motives and my intent in presenting my OP.

Don't like claims getting challenged? Perhaps debate ain't the place ya wanna be.

Howdy again Joey. Took a bit of a breather from debating to get some perspective. I agree that I was getting quite obnoxious there, and for that I apologise.

That said, in the spirit of fairness let's also note that if you don't like scrutiny of the methodology by which you seek to arrive at the truth of the matter, it's probably best to steer clear of debate likewise.

Now as I suggested, it looks to me as though the quote from the OP was an explanation within the poster's worldview of why there is no proof for or against the resurrection. It was not the premise of any argument, nor presented with any presumption that others would or should accept it as true. So snipping out that little section and labelling it as a claim which warrants challenging seems a questionable approach at best.

I notice also that in the threads Knowing the will of God and Noah and the animals, you have snipped sections of what Pax said and requested a means to confirm them: Yet in both cases, his comments were in response to questions and made open reference to personal faith or Christian belief, respectively.

More broadly than simple quote-mining of 'claims' which you want to 'challenge,' however, it seems to me that all of your recent threads can essentially be reduced (initially at least) to the single question of confirmation regarding God's existence. This is implied by their titles:
Knowing the Will of God
Noah and the Animals
God and the Changing of Lives
When'd [miracles, defined as manifestation of divine intervention] Even Start?
Theist Ethics and Divine Revelation
God and Self-Awareness

Clumsily, this is what I was getting at regarding your question of Satan's existence, rather than the actual statement of motivation which is quoted in the OP. With the possible exception of the thread on ethics, every single one of these 'claims' which you 'challenge' is dependant on a theistic worldview. Without confirming -
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
- the existence of a God, his self-awareness or direct intervention or changing of lives or manifest will all remain obviously unconfirmed by the standards which you have said you want. In a sense I suppose that's a somewhat clever format to put them in, an endless series of theistic 'claims' which can't be 'confirmed' when challenged; rather than starting a thread trying to confirm which worldview has the best claim to truth.

If memory serves I've pointed all of this out before, on an occasion when you started a dozen or so of these threads on the same day. As far as methodology goes, I don't think these threads have merit in arriving at the truth of the matter and are somewhat dubious as 'debate.' It's only natural that I feel the urge to reiterate this point whenever my screen begins to fill up with Joey's 'Claim' Challenging Extravaganza.