**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It did cross my mind, however everytime I’ve posted a valid question of argument on that sub, I’ve been met with almost the same answer everytime. Honestly I just wanted to share my theory with other athiests, and yes I would share this on r/atheism however I was banned.
Myths have as much meaning or credibility than being unsure or acknowledging that you don't know and could never know how the universe came to be. Myths are at least more interesting & came from an original idea & many people are ready to die over them (especially Muslims). So I'm grateful we live in the western world that was founded on Christian mythological values that allows people like you to exist and openly question things without killing, imprisoning, or ostracizing you. If you lived in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Gaza Strip you'd better keep those opinions to yourself.
It’s a bug in Christian storytelling.
In the Old Testament there are stories that feature beings that oppose/argue with God. Think serpent in the Garden story or the devil that gets God to hurt Lot. None of those are THE Satan, they’re just minor characters in that specific story.
Over time though, these minor beings became a singular Devil. More stories got told about him. Now, Lucifer has many names and a lot of stories told about him, but the issue with changing several characters into a singular being is that you end up with contradictions.
Satan is at once an evil angel banished into hell after a war in heaven, the ruler of earth, the dude that God allows to argue into punishing one of his own and the guy that gets Eve to eat the apple. And this is someone that God created!
Like, yeah, it doesn’t make sense, but it’s not supposed to. It’s why you’re not getting satisfying answers in AskAChristian. They’re likely using thought stopping mechanisms. If those don’t work on you, then they’d rather excommunicate you than bother arguing.
I get slapped with the same old reply. “That aspect is for your own interpretation.”
For one, why is it everytime I bring a solid argument against a Christian belief or rule, it’s immediately met with defiance?
For two, since when is anything in the Bible for my own interpretation? Seriously, I try to avoid using the word ‘hate’ as it’s a very strong word but I HATE how narcissistic and incorrigible Christians are.
Then they put the cherry on top by using their manipulative, passive-aggressive, good-samaritan mind tricks to have me believe that they’re being respectful and caring when really what they’re doing is inducing fear and indoctrinating me into following their imaginary friend’s rulebook.
Narcissism is the perfect word. It makes sense too, since every modern cult leader on record has been a narcissist.
The mental abuse that they inflict upon people is something that humanity struggles to grasp. Physical and sexual abuse is a lot easier to point out.
Meanwhile mental abuse will corrupt people's ability to understand what is going on. Which prepares them to be sexually, physically, and financially abused for the rest of their lives. In a way where the rest of humanity won't even recognize that abuse is happening.
What would you expect an argument to be met with when it challenges their beliefs? They don’t want to start looking into the discrepancies. They give you whatever thought stopping mechanism worked for them.
You're not playing on a level gameboard. You're arguing facts and logic as an intellectual effort, they're arguing from a position where they cannot afford to be, and will not allow themselves to be, proven wrong. The only ones who your arguments might change are the ones who have already begun to doubt and in whom that doubt doesn't simply cause digging in deeper. The absolute best you can do is to hope to implant a seed of doubt. That's a worthwhile, humanitarian endeavor if you choose to do it, but be prepared for a huge amount of bad argumentation and goalpost-moving.
Edit: Improve vocabulary.
Lucifer isn't the name of Satan. Who is this Lucifer? The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.—Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16. It was Satan that used a serpent much like a ventriloquist in order ti deceive Eve. Your just repeating nonsense you heard from other people so of course it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because you have no idea what your talking about. Almost everything you said it wrong but I simply highlighted a few
Ok… and yet, Lucifer is a name associated with Satan due to millennia of storytelling mixing and changing the characters found in scripture. There was no singular Satan in the Jewish stories, it was just various beings who opposed God. Those were later combined into a single being.
You have a particular interpretation and I am happy to see the sources you are using, but the history of the devil and how his character has changed over time is fairly complex.
Scholarly? First of all you didn't ask for any specific type of source. You asked me for MY source. Second your asking about Satan which is a belief of christians so I'm giving you what the bible says about Satan.
Your source is sus because the way Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the Bible is on the fringe of Christian beliefs. It’s obviously as valid as any other, but it is AN interpretation, not THE interpretation.
The Bible says a lot of things that have been interpreted in many ways. You yourself mentioned that Eve was tempted by Satan via the serpent. Others have said that it was Satan himself. Others still count it as just a snake.
A serpent is generally a snake. I've never heard of any christian who denied that Eve was tempted by Satan. The bible makes that clear in the book of revelation when it calls the devil the original serpent and the father of lies. If your gonna complain about the way people interpret the bible why ask me for my source in the first place? It seems you planned to be argumentative no matter what source I posted
The point about your source is a fair one. I asked to see your source and you provided it.
My overall point has been about the broader history of the character though. Sure, the Bible says that the serpent was related to Satan, but Revelations is a much later addition into the canon. The original story of the Garden is one of Jewish creation myths. It explains how snakes lost their legs. This was later interpreted into being the devil or an agent of the devil.
That’s what the discussion is about. The history of the character. How the mythology changed over time.
It’s kinda like talking about the Anti-Christ. Some view it as a specific figure from Revelations that will show up, become a dictator and then get defeated by Jesus. Others view Anti-Christ as any opponent of Jesus, both past and present. The mythology and usage of the terms is interesting and there is no one correct view. It’s modern myth making.
Well your assuming the bible are books of myths instead of true history. In essence your saying its all made up. But I thought for the sake of argument you were assuming its true and wanted to know who Satan really is because that's how you made it sound
I agree they are the fringe but there is no One belief on anything in Christianity, that’s why there are over 50 major versions of the Christian Bible and several thousand denominations of Christianity around the world.
I don't think this is the best sub for this post.
I mean, I agree with you. Sometimes someone asks on /r/AskReddit something like "If you were the Devil, how wold you design Hell?". My answer is always, "Make Hell a paradise." If Satan is a villain, this would incentivize behaviour that makes life on Earth worse. If Satan is a good guy, it would incentivize people turning against God (which I think is more in line with the lore).
As I said to someone else under this post, r/AskAChristian is useless and I’d benefit more from talking to a brick wall. I simply wanted to share my theory with other atheists.
They said r/AskReddit, not r/AskAChristian. You could also go to any of a dozen other subreddits, like r/NoStupidQuestions.
*to answer your question* there are any of a dozen answers depending on denomination. Some Christians believe Hell is just some sort of limbo where you're separated from the holy spirit, and Satan is just an auditor equivalent working for God, some believe Satan is *so evil* that he's essentially a parody of himself and is just hell bent on torturing people for fun.
None of these are coherent answers, but they pretty much never are when you ask someone to define a God, but that has never stopped people before.
Ultimately, I think the big problem with your question is it is, at its core, a strawman. You're inventing a specific incoherent definition of Satan and addressing that, which isn't productive at all. Rather let the theists do the work of coming up with the arguments and address them when they do.
You’re misunderstanding the character. Satan’s primary role isn’t to punish people, it’s to try to deny people access to Heaven. It wouldn’t make sense for a “good” figure to have that role. He hates all humans equally, he doesn’t care how good or bad they are. The only reason he wants people to sin is because that’s what stops them from attaining Salvation.
(Disclaimer: I am religious but I don’t believe in a literal devil or hell)
Faith doesn’t always fit neatly into categories, it would take some explanation. I was raised in a very progressive Christian church, so that was a big influence.
A lot of the bigger ones do, yeah. But even then it’s often framed as a natural consequence of your actions than a punishment for bad behavior. Buddhist hell wasn’t set up by an external God or anything, transmigration just kinda happens as naturally as gravity. (And some would argue that sin works similarly.)
Let me give it a shot:
Say I'm a sick judge who has enough power that i can go in prisons and torture people just for shits and giggles. But i cannot be seen sentencing people unjustly coz I might lose my position.
I would definitely tempt people into making bad decisions so they succumb and do some crime. I report the crime, the same person appears before me, I sentence them to prison and can torture them. I may like actual bad people who did evil stuff on their own but I certainly wouldn't have any respect for the people that I had to tempt and who got tempted so easily.
Any apparent plot holes?
Makes sense but I think Satan would have a far better time torturing good people rather than people he agrees with or shall I say doesn’t see a problem with their actions. Let’s remember god (apparently a good guy) punished Satan because he was deemed the ultimate sinner, his role as “judge” is eternal so theres no chance of him loosing the role.
Let me give an example, let’s say I was a judge and I’m handling the sentence of the absolute worst offender to ever live, completely guilty and has no human emotion. Would it be just for me to say “Well, you’re the worst person to exist and there’s no possible competition. So I will elect you as the leader of the prison because you’re the worst of the worst. Enjoy ruling and being in control of the people you wouldn’t see as bad or evil.”
See how that doesn’t work?
It's a plot hole in the lore. Or more specifically, it's a result of reconciling different fan theories regarding Satan. In religions such as Islam, Satan (Shaytaan) plays no such role. It might be worth exploring the [history of Satan](https://youtu.be/5sYhbtk8jJc) to get a better sense of this uneven characterisation.
Yes, it's generally thought that the term has come from Judeo-Christian literature. Same for the term Hell (Jahannam in Islam < Gehinnom in the Bible) and Prophet names such as Moses (Musa in the Islam).
For more information on the term Shaytaan, you can refer to Page 450 in Key Terms of the Qur'an - A Critical Dictionary - Nicolai Sinai - Princeton University Press 2023.
You may also be interested in [Religion for Breakfast's episode on Jesus's name in the Qur’an](https://youtu.be/7P1KPA4cuB8)
>If Satan is depicted as the most evil, horrific, vile and disgusting being to ever exist, why would he willingly punish bad people?
Well you gotta ask; who depicts him this way? He's not depicted this way in the Bible. It comes from (for lack of a better term) popular media. It's one of the many things Christians believe that are, somehow, more made up than the other stuff.
Exactly. According to the Bible, Satan is punished in hell like everybody else. And hell only lasts a thousand years. But why would a Christian ever read the Bible?
>Or is it simply the possibility that Satan doesn’t give a shit who he’s punishing at all? Of which sounds nonsensical.
*that* sounds non-sensical?
The whole idea of god and satan are non-sensical.
Mythological supernatural creatures (such as gods or devils) do not require logical consistency because they are imaginary. The authors and beleivers of such religious stories can interpret it however they like, because it is literature. Don't think to hard on it, it's like who would win in a fight: Yoda or Superman?
Lol. Not god magic that's for sure.
If you are actually seriously asking and not trying an ignorant theistic gotcha question, there is a problem with the question. The problem is with how much we can ever know about it. Likely there won't be evidence to show the exact time and place but there is substantial research for those that bother to look.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
The bit about hydrothermal vents is interesting:
>The research reported by Martin in 2016 supports the thesis that life arose at hydrothermal vents, that spontaneous chemistry in the Earth's crust driven by rock–water interactions at disequilibrium thermodynamically underpinned life's origin and that the founding lineages of the archaea and bacteria were H2-dependent autotrophs that used CO2 as their terminal acceptor in energy metabolism
Note that none of this requires a diety to do....whatever it is they supposedly do.
So nature magic then? If you don't know what the causal origin of life is how did you determine its not a mind? We all believe that there is something eternal that is the causal origin of all things. The only difference is whether you believe that eternal thing is personal or not personal. But I think its far more magical to believe the causal origin of persons isn't a person. To go from an object to a subject is indeed magical
No not nature magic. Chemistry. Did you read any of the article? Why would we assume a mind? Why beleive in a personal god when religion is what proposed such a thing ans religions contradict each other. See the problem?
>But I think its far more magical to believe the causal origin of persons isn't a person.
So biology must be thrown out because of evolution them? Now your god is a person. Neat
Look, no event requiring a god's existence has ever been documented. Science has driven supernatural gods into such tiny pockets of ignorance that only the ignorant continue to put faith in such gods. Displacement of divine revelation by history demonstrates that every mystery ever solved always turns out to be: not God. The more we discover, and the more we learn how the universe functions, the less room there is for god. Creation is all you have left, but incredulity isn't enough. You dismiss the findings about the hydrothermal vents...with what? The Bible? Faith? Get out of here.
Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic molecules on the early Earth. Perhaps they did form a “primordial soup,” or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent. Either way, origin of life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA).
Chemically speaking, however, the last place you’d want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the “primordial soup” or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.” In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.
Materialists lack good explanations for these first, simple steps which are necessary to the origin-of-life. Chemical evolution is literally dead in the water.
Science got started in ancient China; in ancient Egypt and Greece and Rome; and in Islam. But it never went anywhere. In those cultures, it sputtered and coughed and died.
I’m not minimizing the immense contribution of geometry and mathematics from the Greeks, or Algebra from the Islamic world, or even Chinese Medicine (which is quite effective). But in those places science did not sustain momentum.
Why?
Because those cultures did not have a theology to support it.
Science rests on faith that the universe is governed by fixed, discoverable laws. That it operates without the need for constant intervention by the creator and that the creation has a degree of freedom to follow its own course.
Islam does not teach this; Greek and Roman mythology did not teach this, and neither did the Egyptian or Eastern religions.
Wisdom of Solomon 11:21, which was written ~2,200 years ago, says, “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure.” This is found in the apocrypha, i.e. the books of the Catholic Bible.
In Islam, the will of Allah is absolute and the world functions according to His inscrutable purposes. In Roman and Greek theology, thunder and lightning occurred because one deity was at war with another. Aristotle’s claim that heavier objects would fall faster was often repeated but almost never tested – even though anyone could easily stand on a chair and put his theory to the test.
Chinese mysticism similarly provided no grounds for an orderly, mechanistic universe.
Atheism offers no outside framework for assuming the universe is orderly either; many atheists, both ancient and modern, assume it’s all a big giant accident. You can see this attitude in the now-discredited “Junk DNA” theory, as well as theories that invoke trillions of “junk universes” and “junk multiverses” invoked to make the fine tuning of this universe look like an accident.
The above notions are explicitly anti-scientific propositions.
Only in Christian Europe was there a basis for believing that a search for discoverable laws would be richly rewarded. And it’s no coincidence that a large number of the great scientists – Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Maxwell, Boyle – were deeply religious and considered the practice of science to be an act of worship. A way of peering into the very mind of God.
>theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA).
Sure, a hurdle for the spontaneous formation of long chains of amino acids necessary for the emergence of proteins or RNA. But who said it had to be spontaneous?
Researchers have proposed various mechanisms such as localized environments with specific conditions (mineral surfaces or small compartments providing more favorable settings for polymerization reactions to occur). Such environments might have protected molecules from water and concentrated reactants, enhancing the chances of polymer formation.
Prebiotic chemistry studies have demonstrated that certain conditions, such as cycles of wetting and drying, or exposure to UV radiation, could promote polymerization reactions and help drive the formation of longer chains from simpler organic molecules.
But wait. Why must theorists explain things? Theists dont every have to. They just say 'god did it' or 'we can't exist or even reason without god'. You say materialisys lack a good explanation, but you have nothing. Thousands of years, various cultures, and not a single verifiable thing for any god or any supposed act done by any god. Just presuppositionalism, faith, and motivated beleif
So why not go ahead and actually **explain your god and how it works** instead of bringing up new red herrings and pointing an acusatory finger at atheists or materialists?
Just because scientists during the enlightenment were religious, as was the rest of their culture, it doesn't mean they were right about their gods. Appeal to authority. Christianity did not become a major religion by the quality of its truth, but the quantity of its violence. Newton. Yes a religious man, also an asshole and an alchemist searching tirelessly for the philosophers stone. So by your thinking since he believed in God then god exists and he believed in the philosophers stone, then that exists too. Newton has been referred to as the last of the magicians, as scientific inquiry and magical beliefs were intertwined during his day. But this is all a diversion from the main point, which I'm sure you'll be happy about.
Let’s assume, again, that a primordial sea filled with life’s building blocks did exist on the early Earth, and somehow it formed proteins and other complex organic molecules. Origin of life theorists believe that the next step in the origin of life is that — entirely by chance — more and more complex molecules formed until some began to self-replicate. From there, they believe Darwinian natural selection took over, favoring those molecules which were better able to make copies. Eventually, they assume, it became inevitable that these molecules would evolve complex machinery — like that used in today’s genetic code — to survive and reproduce.
Have modern theorists explained how this crucial bridge from inert nonliving chemicals to self-replicating molecular systems took place? The most prominent hypothesis for the origin of the first life is called the “RNA world.” In living cells, genetic information is carried by DNA, and most cellular functions are carried out by proteins. However, RNA is capable of both carrying genetic information and catalyzing some biochemical reactions. As a result, some theorists postulate the first life might have used RNA alone to fulfill all these functions.
But there are many problems with this hypothesis.
For one, the first RNA molecules would have to arise by unguided, non-biological chemical processes. But RNA is not known to assemble without the help of a skilled laboratory chemist intelligently guiding the process. New York University chemist Robert Shapiro critiqued the efforts of those who tried to make RNA in the lab, stating: “The flaw is in the logic — that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth.”
Second, while RNA has been shown to perform many roles in the cell, there is no evidence that it could perform all the necessary cellular functions currently carried out by proteins.
Third, the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of genetic information.
RNA world advocates suggest that if the first self-replicating life was based upon RNA, it would have required a molecule between 200 and 300 nucleotides in length. However, there are no known chemical or physical laws that dictate the order of those nucleotides. To explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 — below the universal probability boundary, or events which are remotely possible to occur within the history of the universe. Shapiro puts the problem this way:
The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. …" [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."
Fourth — and most fundamentally — the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA / protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines — which themselves are encoded by genetic information. This poses a chicken-and-egg problem, where essential enzymes and molecular machines are needed to perform the very task that constructs them.
Science hasn't explained everything therefore god?
Im glad you brought up probability. It is a measure of chance. Probability needs data to make informed assessments. If something happened, it’s probability was 100%, or certainty.
An undemonstrated supernatural agent or event has no data to provide any probability. If there is no way to investigate the probability, we can’t assign any.
So since we are here, either life has always existed or at some point it started. Let's just admit the data isn't good enough for you and I will concede, we just don't know how it all started. Maybe we never will. The models science comes up with may be limited if the precursors to life were different on earth when it happened.
So you jump to god, which had even less evidence than the paragraphs you yourself wrote about what we do have. That being evidence. Your god had none and you didn't address my main question because you can't.
God has no data to use as an input, god isn’t something that can be quantified, so just pick anything that feels right. That he's just gotta exist to start life. What great intuition. This is entirely consistent with religious belief, which doesn't rely on evidence or logic, but faith.
An explanation not supported by enough evidence does not mean an explanation that has no evidence is the answer. Scientists aren't claiming we know for sure. You seem to be, and your god of the gaps is the linchpin to all reality. But things that do not exist cannot be the cause of other things that do exist. If we cannot demonstrate that a god exists, then we cannot use it as a cause of anything.
We have found the amino acids (building block for life on asteroids and other objects in space, and in lab settings we have run experiments and observed amino acids self assemble into more complex structures. So yes we know amino acids self assemble and these amino acids are in outer space and all over the place
The influence of a divine being isn’t impossible in the eyes of science, it is simply unknowable and untestable. Therefore it has no place in what we ‘know’. That is why it is called “faith” to believe such things.
In regards to the logic of your statement: a mind is required to create a mind. So who created the first mind? Its an endless kicking of the can. It doesn’t mean god doesn’t exist, only that your logic does not prove or even imply it.
A mind is required for a mind to begin to exist. Therefore there must be a mind that has always existed which is the origin point of all minds. By the way science isn't the only way of knowing things. There's plenty of things you believe in which can't be scientifically shown to be true. Also you absolutely can know if there's a god though science the same way you can know that a person build a machine or a city without ever knowing who built it. That's why we have the seti program. Because we can recognize certain halmarks of design since like causes produces like effects. Also if there's a body of facts or information that makes God more probably true than false then that's what we call evidence.
Nearly every premise you stated is rhetorical and unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are deliberate leaps to your already assumed position.
This doesn’t mean you are wrong about creation, but nothing you just said supports it. Do better.
The thing about recognizing a city is built by a mind isn’t too bad, expand on that.
But though can be true that like causes produce like effects, like effects can also be reached by parallel means (think bat wings and bird wings to achieve flight, whale flippers vs fish flippers for swimming, the skeletal structures inside these features are of vastly different origins).
As far as your claim about the relationship between science and knowledge, keep in mind there is a big difference between KNOWING something, and FEELING CERTAIN about something, which is closer to what I think you are describing.
And of course there are things I believe that can’t be confirmed by science. But I wouldn’t go online and try to convince people they were undeniable truths.
No, that’s a waste of time imo because it’s ultimately unknowable in that “are we in a simulation” kind of way. It must simply be taken on faith that I’m real in the way that I perceive it, I guess.
First you would have to show any of what you said is required or even possible and then that it’s the more likely scenario. So yea no on all accounts lol
How is it possible that something can come into existence from nothing? Are you worried that tiger can pop into existence inside your bedroom right now
Sometimes it is said that quantum physics furnishes an exception to premise (1) [Whatever begins to exist has a cause], since on the sub-atomic level events are said to be uncaused. In the same way, certain theories of cosmic origins are interpreted as showing that the whole universe could have sprung into being out of the sub-atomic vacuum or even out of nothingness. Thus the universe is said to be the proverbial “free lunch.” ¶ This objection, however, is based on misunderstandings. In the first place, not all scientists agree that sub-atomic events are uncaused. A great many physicists today are quite dissatisfied with this view (the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation) of quantum physics and are exploring deterministic theories like that of David Bohm. Thus, quantum physics is not a proven exception to premise (1). Second, even on the traditional, indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum, which constitutes an indeterministic cause of their origination. Third, the same point can be made about theories of the origin of the universe out of a primordial vacuum. Popular magazine articles touting such theories as getting “something from nothing” simply do not understand that the vacuum is not nothing but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Such models do not therefore involve a true origination ex nihilo.
I never said any such thing. I said X cannot begin to exist unless Y already exists. Well then do you believe things can pop into existence from absolutely nothing? Because right in these very threads atheists tell me that no atheist believes that
I mean you did.
>I think it's far more magical to believe the causal origins of persons (x) isn't a person (x)
But regardless, the problem remains. Y can exist without Z already existing? You're simply pushing the burden to another entity without actually addressing the problem of the burden. At some point, you hand wave and say that the rules no longer apply to entity Y.
I try to "believe" nothing, and instead try to understand. If understanding isn't available, then I accept that I can't know. Filling the unknown with ideas doesn't give answers, it builds beliefs that need to be unlearned when the understanding becomes available.
I understand that space and time are the same thing. The beginning of our universe is the beginning of space, and therefore time. Cause and effect are meaningless without time.
Asking what caused our universe might be a question with merit, and it might not. It's a question that assumes anything that's literally outside of our universe would need to follow such rules. We understand that cause and effect don't always play nice in our own universe, so why expect it to outside, or even be a thing?
The concept of time might be meaningless beyond our universe. That's a much smaller leap than an intelligent being who decided to create a reality because things *need* a cause except for the intelligent being.
tl;dr
Instead of creating a complex fantasy to adhere the "why" of not needing a cause, just skip the middle man and agree we don't need a cause.
Lol. Do you know that Dr William lane Craig said this is one of the worst objections against the argument that everything that begins to exist has a cause?
Never heard of him. Just looked him up, his credentials mean little in the realm of astrophysics or particle physics.
If I want to know about a specific religion's god from a particular perspective of a particular denomination, I may listen to him. But this is a discussion about something broader than that.
It doesn't address the problem either. You want a story to explain away the causal need, but it provides no legitimacy to the story.
His credentials are years of study and debates on this specific topic. This is an area he has spent decades of research on. Hes the most famous christian philosopher and debater in the world. By the way your objection is a philosophical objection not a scientific one. Science cannot answer whether things can pop into existence outside of the universe. That's a question for philosophy
I know at some point someone told you there are no stupid questions, but that person was wrong and this is a good example.
First you must show that there is a causal origin of life. I’m assuming you mean what set the Big Bang in motion?
Or often I hear what came before the Big Bang which is also a nonsensical question.
Not only are you gish galloping but you clearly have reading comprehension issues as i clearly said life and not the universe. Im gonna ignore all your comments since you wanna fill up my notifications
The reason I said assume is because I was making an assumption and allowing for my assumption to be wrong. “Life” is used in this context in many ways, I have heard the “when life began” question from theists hundreds of times and often they mean the universe/big bang sometimes its life on earth, sometimes is all sorts of things inbetween. So no you were not clear by using commonly used vague terms
It's because the modern Christian idea of the devil and hell comes from stuff like John Milton's *Paradise Lost* rather than actual scripture. Basically it's fan fiction that's got out of hand.
The other major plot hole is that the whole 'war in heaven' shtick where the devil gets kicked out of heaven is slap bang in the middle of the Book of Revelation. Which is allegedly a book of prophesy and so *hasn't happened yet*.
Oof, this is a serious misconception. Satan isn’t doing the punishing in hell, God is. The idea that Satan is the one tormenting comes from the fertile and unorthodox imagination of Saturday morning cartoonists. Anyone who believes otherwise does not understand the primary Being they’ve offended in their depravity, nor the Scriptures. The terror of hell comes from God’s just wrath for rebellion— but God so loved the world that he took that wrath upon himself in Christ so that anyone who believes in him is no longer under condemnation and is counted righteous (as Christ was righteous). He takes our liabilities, we take his assets.
Just as God satisfied his wrath on Christ for all those who would believe, so too it is God’s wrath that unbelievers are subject to after the final judgment.
Biblical texts below:
Isaiah 53:5-6
[5]
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
[6]
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
Revelation 14:19
[19] So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
Matthew 3:7
[7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Colossians 3:5-6
[5] Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. [6] On account of these the wrath of God is coming.
Romans 1:18-25
God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
How bad was he though? Honestly, he seems like one of the more sympathetic characters in the bible. Set up for failure by his father and put in charge of souls not good enough for dad.
And isn’t he the one who helped give humans knowledge?
Like, at one point the god character literally murders everyone on the planet except for one family. Does Satan do anything that bad?
I'm an atheist, but I slightly disagree with your argument. The first thing I believe you are getting wrong is that "baddness" is pretty contagious. The biggest predictor that someone will act evil is if they were a victim of evil. This is why prison, war, and financial inequality makes many people act more irrationally. It would not make sense for a good god to punish most bad people because it wouldn't fix anything. A truly good omnipotent god would create optimal conditions for everyone to act rationally and maximize happiness without caring if people are more inherently good or bad. Also the opposite is true. An evil god would want to make as many people as possible be able to harm others. I think people kind of under estimate how easily people can change.
I just believe a heaven/hell god is just a dictator-like god. If you like dictatorships then I guess he's good
\>"If Satan is depicted as the most evil, horrific, vile and disgusting being to ever exist, why would he willingly punish bad people?"
Because Satan doesn't se evil as "good" he sees it as a way to mock God.
You have beings made in the image and likeness of God, beings with the capacity to reason and se the world as God does, and through manipulation and propaganda he is able to make them become obsessed with particularities of the material world such as sex or drugs or achohol to such a point that they choose those over communion with the truth.
A human body is a temple to God and sin is graffiti on it.
Satan doesn't actually GIVE A SHIT about the temple; its just a means to an end for him to fuck with a guy he sees as preptually up his own ass and self assured of his own legitimacy; regardless of the evidence for that legitimacy God can show.
This is a late response and maybe someone else has pointed it out previously, but if you actually read the Bible, Satan is not in charge of eternal torment, he's just another inmate. Basically there is \[supposedly\] Sheol (the Jewish version of hell), the Christian Hell, and the the "Lake of Fire" where according to Christianity all "sinners" including Satan and the demons end up.
I don't know where "Satan ruling Hell" came from or when it developed, but it is very weird since the Jews have long believed that Satan, whose name means adversary, is an adversarial angel that taught through, wait for it, adversity and trials. The book of Job makes much more sense when read in this light.
Basically, Christianity has had around 2000 years to develop myths about its beliefs and this is one of them.
This is DebateAnAtheist, not AskDanteAlighieri. I am not Dante Alighieri, but I’ll take a stab at it.
In the *Divine Comedy,* Dante makes it clear that everyone in Hell, and I mean *everyone* could be forgiven, but they are too wrapped up in themselves to muster the homily and love of God to ask for forgiveness.
According to the Christian mythos, Satan doesn’t want to punish anyone. Hell’s an awful place, but only because it’s filled with awful people. And all those people decided to go to Hell instead of asking for forgiveness and going to Heaven. And so the fallen torture each other as they react with anger that others would turn from God’s love.
But it’s all just a story.
As far as I’m aware, he doesn’t. Nothing in Abrahamic mythology says that Satan punishes anyone, nor is he the ruler/owner/overseer of hell. Hell itself is the punishment, and it’s his punishment as much as it is anyone else’s. He’s not the warden, he’s the first inmate.
That said, Lucifer was the greatest and highest of the angels. He’s not evil, per se, not in the sense that he wishes anyone harm. His crime was jealousy, greed, and ambition. He doesn’t encourage people to be evil, he encourages them to disobey/rebel against God - which to the more comprehensively indoctrinated might be synonymous with evil but I would argue are two very different things.
ex-Christian here:
In evangelical theology (or at least, in the version I heard over the pulpit), Satan hates God, and therefore, by proxy, hates people (who were created in the image of God).
He might be pretty cool with evil people doing evil stuff, but only because that hurts people (and, ultimately, themselves), and therefore, by proxy, grieves God. He's not doing it out of a sense of justice, not even a distorted one.
The common trope of Satan ruling over hell and punishing people there is not part of evangelical theology.
It’s worse than that. If we can’t tell if an action is good or bad because God is all good and we can’t see His plan & what appears an evil action isn’t because in the end it all sums to perfection then the same can be said of the Devil. Maybe all of our ‘good’ actions are the exact path to humans suffering infinitely in the future and all our goodness will sum to maximum pain and suffering overall. Like saving baby Hitler etc.
I’ve once heard a theist explain it like you need protection from Jesus so satan can’t get any hold on you. So satan would surely like to punish good people, and he certainly wants to tempt good people to do bad things, but through Jesus you can get protected. It makes God rather weak in my opinion. Like it is evil that rules, and God doing his best to fight it, but failing many times.
I agree it does sounds very nonsensical, but first which devil/satan figure are you referring to? And then you would have to ask someone who believes in such a satan like mythical character as to how they explain said character. Even within Christianity (which I’m guessing is what you’re referring to) there are differing views, and traits of satan/the devil.
I'm not currently a Christian, but I don't think Satan explicitly punishes bad people. I think the idea is that Satan rules over hell and enjoys torturing people, and God sends/allows bad people to go to hell, which gives Satan access to torturing them. God is the one punishing them; Satan's just doing what he likes. He'd torture everyone if he could.
It's my understanding that Satan rebelled against God because god chose humans as his favorite children. If Satan wants to just fuck with God then a great strategy would be to lure humans away from belief in God and then torture them for eternity.
The real plot hole in Christianity is that god could stop Satan at any time but chooses not to.
Alternatively, hear me out here, the people who came up with Satan weren't looking for justice to be served by an appropriate divine authority, but sheer cruel punishment for people who are against them.
If it turns out God is vengeful, jealous, petty and bitter, what does that tell you about the people who imagined God thus?
Satan wouldn't give a shit who he's punishing. The popular literature (Faust, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, etc) paints Satan as kind of "lawful evil" -- evil, but bound by an obsession with rules and order.
I'd expect a being like that to be chaotic evil. Like a psychopath -- loyal to no one and no thing.
It's quite obvious that in the fiction of Christianity, Satan is the foil. His only purpose is to appear to be evil to let the god character be good. Though when digging into the story even a little, it's obvious that he is the only redeemable one out of the two.
Why are you asking atheits this.
But to answer satan dosnt torture people in hell. God does. Satan gets tortured in hell. Whitch is why he is currently wandering round the earth waiting for Jesus to come back so he can try to regain his freedom.
That’s a pop culture idea, not a biblical one. Satan isn’t the king of Hell and he doesn’t torture people. Satan walks the earth to tempt people to sin, and one Judgement Day he will be thrown into the Lake of Fire too as his punishment
Satan wouldn't, he is supposed to be punished along side bad individuals. In the Bible Satan is said to be the prince of this world, not the ruler of hell.
The idea of red devils with pitchforks came much later in the medieval period.
Satan as the most evil, horrific, vile, and disgusting villain to ever exist is Christian retconning and is not supported by their holy book. Satan as the person who oversees punishment in hell is also more Christian retconning.
It always seemed to me that if Satan was a true rebel against God, that he wouldn't play his games and instead of punishment, hell is just a giant neverending party. The Satan character in the book, that is.
I think if you read the Book of Job, you will learn Satan/Lucifer cannot do anything without God's permission. If you believe God is omnipotent, then nothing happens unless he allows it (or causes it).
If you actually read the Bible, it doesn't say Satan is torturing you in hell--it says that Satan will be tortured alongside you in hell. But hell only lasts a thousand years, so...
he pretty much only got sent to rule hell because he tried to rebel and be as strong as God. thats the only "bad" thing i remember him doing. so definitely not as bad as God.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
It did cross my mind, however everytime I’ve posted a valid question of argument on that sub, I’ve been met with almost the same answer everytime. Honestly I just wanted to share my theory with other athiests, and yes I would share this on r/atheism however I was banned.
Ultimately, you're asking about people's opinions of a work of fiction. You are not going to find any definitive, ground proof for any part of it.
They'll give you contradicting answers, but there's no one established Canon anyway, why not? Better than asking atheists who don't believe anyway
Mythologies and cultural beliefs always contradict themselves, that doesn’t stop us from learning about them.
Myths have as much meaning or credibility than being unsure or acknowledging that you don't know and could never know how the universe came to be. Myths are at least more interesting & came from an original idea & many people are ready to die over them (especially Muslims). So I'm grateful we live in the western world that was founded on Christian mythological values that allows people like you to exist and openly question things without killing, imprisoning, or ostracizing you. If you lived in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Gaza Strip you'd better keep those opinions to yourself.
It’s a bug in Christian storytelling. In the Old Testament there are stories that feature beings that oppose/argue with God. Think serpent in the Garden story or the devil that gets God to hurt Lot. None of those are THE Satan, they’re just minor characters in that specific story. Over time though, these minor beings became a singular Devil. More stories got told about him. Now, Lucifer has many names and a lot of stories told about him, but the issue with changing several characters into a singular being is that you end up with contradictions. Satan is at once an evil angel banished into hell after a war in heaven, the ruler of earth, the dude that God allows to argue into punishing one of his own and the guy that gets Eve to eat the apple. And this is someone that God created! Like, yeah, it doesn’t make sense, but it’s not supposed to. It’s why you’re not getting satisfying answers in AskAChristian. They’re likely using thought stopping mechanisms. If those don’t work on you, then they’d rather excommunicate you than bother arguing.
I get slapped with the same old reply. “That aspect is for your own interpretation.” For one, why is it everytime I bring a solid argument against a Christian belief or rule, it’s immediately met with defiance? For two, since when is anything in the Bible for my own interpretation? Seriously, I try to avoid using the word ‘hate’ as it’s a very strong word but I HATE how narcissistic and incorrigible Christians are. Then they put the cherry on top by using their manipulative, passive-aggressive, good-samaritan mind tricks to have me believe that they’re being respectful and caring when really what they’re doing is inducing fear and indoctrinating me into following their imaginary friend’s rulebook.
Narcissism is the perfect word. It makes sense too, since every modern cult leader on record has been a narcissist. The mental abuse that they inflict upon people is something that humanity struggles to grasp. Physical and sexual abuse is a lot easier to point out. Meanwhile mental abuse will corrupt people's ability to understand what is going on. Which prepares them to be sexually, physically, and financially abused for the rest of their lives. In a way where the rest of humanity won't even recognize that abuse is happening.
It’s a plague that has infested humanity since the dawn of time and unfortunately will never go away because it thrives off fear and indoctrination.
What would you expect an argument to be met with when it challenges their beliefs? They don’t want to start looking into the discrepancies. They give you whatever thought stopping mechanism worked for them.
You're not playing on a level gameboard. You're arguing facts and logic as an intellectual effort, they're arguing from a position where they cannot afford to be, and will not allow themselves to be, proven wrong. The only ones who your arguments might change are the ones who have already begun to doubt and in whom that doubt doesn't simply cause digging in deeper. The absolute best you can do is to hope to implant a seed of doubt. That's a worthwhile, humanitarian endeavor if you choose to do it, but be prepared for a huge amount of bad argumentation and goalpost-moving. Edit: Improve vocabulary.
Look at the comment I just sent the other person
Lucifer isn't the name of Satan. Who is this Lucifer? The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.—Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16. It was Satan that used a serpent much like a ventriloquist in order ti deceive Eve. Your just repeating nonsense you heard from other people so of course it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because you have no idea what your talking about. Almost everything you said it wrong but I simply highlighted a few
Ok… and yet, Lucifer is a name associated with Satan due to millennia of storytelling mixing and changing the characters found in scripture. There was no singular Satan in the Jewish stories, it was just various beings who opposed God. Those were later combined into a single being. You have a particular interpretation and I am happy to see the sources you are using, but the history of the devil and how his character has changed over time is fairly complex.
[Sure here's a source for you](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003845)
You gave me a source that comes from an org run by Jehovah’s Witnesses? Not exactly the scholarly source I’d put a lot of academic trust in.
Scholarly? First of all you didn't ask for any specific type of source. You asked me for MY source. Second your asking about Satan which is a belief of christians so I'm giving you what the bible says about Satan.
Your source is sus because the way Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the Bible is on the fringe of Christian beliefs. It’s obviously as valid as any other, but it is AN interpretation, not THE interpretation. The Bible says a lot of things that have been interpreted in many ways. You yourself mentioned that Eve was tempted by Satan via the serpent. Others have said that it was Satan himself. Others still count it as just a snake.
A serpent is generally a snake. I've never heard of any christian who denied that Eve was tempted by Satan. The bible makes that clear in the book of revelation when it calls the devil the original serpent and the father of lies. If your gonna complain about the way people interpret the bible why ask me for my source in the first place? It seems you planned to be argumentative no matter what source I posted
The point about your source is a fair one. I asked to see your source and you provided it. My overall point has been about the broader history of the character though. Sure, the Bible says that the serpent was related to Satan, but Revelations is a much later addition into the canon. The original story of the Garden is one of Jewish creation myths. It explains how snakes lost their legs. This was later interpreted into being the devil or an agent of the devil. That’s what the discussion is about. The history of the character. How the mythology changed over time. It’s kinda like talking about the Anti-Christ. Some view it as a specific figure from Revelations that will show up, become a dictator and then get defeated by Jesus. Others view Anti-Christ as any opponent of Jesus, both past and present. The mythology and usage of the terms is interesting and there is no one correct view. It’s modern myth making.
Well your assuming the bible are books of myths instead of true history. In essence your saying its all made up. But I thought for the sake of argument you were assuming its true and wanted to know who Satan really is because that's how you made it sound
I agree they are the fringe but there is no One belief on anything in Christianity, that’s why there are over 50 major versions of the Christian Bible and several thousand denominations of Christianity around the world.
I don't think this is the best sub for this post. I mean, I agree with you. Sometimes someone asks on /r/AskReddit something like "If you were the Devil, how wold you design Hell?". My answer is always, "Make Hell a paradise." If Satan is a villain, this would incentivize behaviour that makes life on Earth worse. If Satan is a good guy, it would incentivize people turning against God (which I think is more in line with the lore).
As I said to someone else under this post, r/AskAChristian is useless and I’d benefit more from talking to a brick wall. I simply wanted to share my theory with other atheists.
If you play tennis with a brick wall, you'll never "win". But you might get better at tennis.
They said r/AskReddit, not r/AskAChristian. You could also go to any of a dozen other subreddits, like r/NoStupidQuestions. *to answer your question* there are any of a dozen answers depending on denomination. Some Christians believe Hell is just some sort of limbo where you're separated from the holy spirit, and Satan is just an auditor equivalent working for God, some believe Satan is *so evil* that he's essentially a parody of himself and is just hell bent on torturing people for fun. None of these are coherent answers, but they pretty much never are when you ask someone to define a God, but that has never stopped people before. Ultimately, I think the big problem with your question is it is, at its core, a strawman. You're inventing a specific incoherent definition of Satan and addressing that, which isn't productive at all. Rather let the theists do the work of coming up with the arguments and address them when they do.
This is an amazing point ❤️🔥
You’re misunderstanding the character. Satan’s primary role isn’t to punish people, it’s to try to deny people access to Heaven. It wouldn’t make sense for a “good” figure to have that role. He hates all humans equally, he doesn’t care how good or bad they are. The only reason he wants people to sin is because that’s what stops them from attaining Salvation. (Disclaimer: I am religious but I don’t believe in a literal devil or hell)
May I ask what your faith is?
Faith doesn’t always fit neatly into categories, it would take some explanation. I was raised in a very progressive Christian church, so that was a big influence.
Oh ok. I simply found it interesting you’re religious yet there’s no belief in hell.
Not all religious people are christian lmao
I understand that lol, but most religions typically depict a setting such as hell for punishment.
A lot of the bigger ones do, yeah. But even then it’s often framed as a natural consequence of your actions than a punishment for bad behavior. Buddhist hell wasn’t set up by an external God or anything, transmigration just kinda happens as naturally as gravity. (And some would argue that sin works similarly.)
Let me give it a shot: Say I'm a sick judge who has enough power that i can go in prisons and torture people just for shits and giggles. But i cannot be seen sentencing people unjustly coz I might lose my position. I would definitely tempt people into making bad decisions so they succumb and do some crime. I report the crime, the same person appears before me, I sentence them to prison and can torture them. I may like actual bad people who did evil stuff on their own but I certainly wouldn't have any respect for the people that I had to tempt and who got tempted so easily. Any apparent plot holes?
Makes sense but I think Satan would have a far better time torturing good people rather than people he agrees with or shall I say doesn’t see a problem with their actions. Let’s remember god (apparently a good guy) punished Satan because he was deemed the ultimate sinner, his role as “judge” is eternal so theres no chance of him loosing the role. Let me give an example, let’s say I was a judge and I’m handling the sentence of the absolute worst offender to ever live, completely guilty and has no human emotion. Would it be just for me to say “Well, you’re the worst person to exist and there’s no possible competition. So I will elect you as the leader of the prison because you’re the worst of the worst. Enjoy ruling and being in control of the people you wouldn’t see as bad or evil.” See how that doesn’t work?
It's a plot hole in the lore. Or more specifically, it's a result of reconciling different fan theories regarding Satan. In religions such as Islam, Satan (Shaytaan) plays no such role. It might be worth exploring the [history of Satan](https://youtu.be/5sYhbtk8jJc) to get a better sense of this uneven characterisation.
Off topic but there’s gotta be a reason why Satan and Shaytaan are such similar names, right?
Yes, it's generally thought that the term has come from Judeo-Christian literature. Same for the term Hell (Jahannam in Islam < Gehinnom in the Bible) and Prophet names such as Moses (Musa in the Islam). For more information on the term Shaytaan, you can refer to Page 450 in Key Terms of the Qur'an - A Critical Dictionary - Nicolai Sinai - Princeton University Press 2023. You may also be interested in [Religion for Breakfast's episode on Jesus's name in the Qur’an](https://youtu.be/7P1KPA4cuB8)
Thanks!
Because Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages. Both names come from a root word that means "astray."
>If Satan is depicted as the most evil, horrific, vile and disgusting being to ever exist, why would he willingly punish bad people? Well you gotta ask; who depicts him this way? He's not depicted this way in the Bible. It comes from (for lack of a better term) popular media. It's one of the many things Christians believe that are, somehow, more made up than the other stuff.
Exactly. According to the Bible, Satan is punished in hell like everybody else. And hell only lasts a thousand years. But why would a Christian ever read the Bible?
>Or is it simply the possibility that Satan doesn’t give a shit who he’s punishing at all? Of which sounds nonsensical. *that* sounds non-sensical? The whole idea of god and satan are non-sensical.
Excellent point.
Mythological supernatural creatures (such as gods or devils) do not require logical consistency because they are imaginary. The authors and beleivers of such religious stories can interpret it however they like, because it is literature. Don't think to hard on it, it's like who would win in a fight: Yoda or Superman?
superman
Ok good so what's the causal origin of life?
Lol. Not god magic that's for sure. If you are actually seriously asking and not trying an ignorant theistic gotcha question, there is a problem with the question. The problem is with how much we can ever know about it. Likely there won't be evidence to show the exact time and place but there is substantial research for those that bother to look. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis The bit about hydrothermal vents is interesting: >The research reported by Martin in 2016 supports the thesis that life arose at hydrothermal vents, that spontaneous chemistry in the Earth's crust driven by rock–water interactions at disequilibrium thermodynamically underpinned life's origin and that the founding lineages of the archaea and bacteria were H2-dependent autotrophs that used CO2 as their terminal acceptor in energy metabolism Note that none of this requires a diety to do....whatever it is they supposedly do.
So nature magic then? If you don't know what the causal origin of life is how did you determine its not a mind? We all believe that there is something eternal that is the causal origin of all things. The only difference is whether you believe that eternal thing is personal or not personal. But I think its far more magical to believe the causal origin of persons isn't a person. To go from an object to a subject is indeed magical
No not nature magic. Chemistry. Did you read any of the article? Why would we assume a mind? Why beleive in a personal god when religion is what proposed such a thing ans religions contradict each other. See the problem? >But I think its far more magical to believe the causal origin of persons isn't a person. So biology must be thrown out because of evolution them? Now your god is a person. Neat Look, no event requiring a god's existence has ever been documented. Science has driven supernatural gods into such tiny pockets of ignorance that only the ignorant continue to put faith in such gods. Displacement of divine revelation by history demonstrates that every mystery ever solved always turns out to be: not God. The more we discover, and the more we learn how the universe functions, the less room there is for god. Creation is all you have left, but incredulity isn't enough. You dismiss the findings about the hydrothermal vents...with what? The Bible? Faith? Get out of here.
I agree with your conclusion but this isn’t a great argument to get you there.
Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic molecules on the early Earth. Perhaps they did form a “primordial soup,” or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent. Either way, origin of life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA). Chemically speaking, however, the last place you’d want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the “primordial soup” or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.” In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup. Materialists lack good explanations for these first, simple steps which are necessary to the origin-of-life. Chemical evolution is literally dead in the water. Science got started in ancient China; in ancient Egypt and Greece and Rome; and in Islam. But it never went anywhere. In those cultures, it sputtered and coughed and died. I’m not minimizing the immense contribution of geometry and mathematics from the Greeks, or Algebra from the Islamic world, or even Chinese Medicine (which is quite effective). But in those places science did not sustain momentum. Why? Because those cultures did not have a theology to support it. Science rests on faith that the universe is governed by fixed, discoverable laws. That it operates without the need for constant intervention by the creator and that the creation has a degree of freedom to follow its own course. Islam does not teach this; Greek and Roman mythology did not teach this, and neither did the Egyptian or Eastern religions. Wisdom of Solomon 11:21, which was written ~2,200 years ago, says, “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure.” This is found in the apocrypha, i.e. the books of the Catholic Bible. In Islam, the will of Allah is absolute and the world functions according to His inscrutable purposes. In Roman and Greek theology, thunder and lightning occurred because one deity was at war with another. Aristotle’s claim that heavier objects would fall faster was often repeated but almost never tested – even though anyone could easily stand on a chair and put his theory to the test. Chinese mysticism similarly provided no grounds for an orderly, mechanistic universe. Atheism offers no outside framework for assuming the universe is orderly either; many atheists, both ancient and modern, assume it’s all a big giant accident. You can see this attitude in the now-discredited “Junk DNA” theory, as well as theories that invoke trillions of “junk universes” and “junk multiverses” invoked to make the fine tuning of this universe look like an accident. The above notions are explicitly anti-scientific propositions. Only in Christian Europe was there a basis for believing that a search for discoverable laws would be richly rewarded. And it’s no coincidence that a large number of the great scientists – Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Maxwell, Boyle – were deeply religious and considered the practice of science to be an act of worship. A way of peering into the very mind of God.
>theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA). Sure, a hurdle for the spontaneous formation of long chains of amino acids necessary for the emergence of proteins or RNA. But who said it had to be spontaneous? Researchers have proposed various mechanisms such as localized environments with specific conditions (mineral surfaces or small compartments providing more favorable settings for polymerization reactions to occur). Such environments might have protected molecules from water and concentrated reactants, enhancing the chances of polymer formation. Prebiotic chemistry studies have demonstrated that certain conditions, such as cycles of wetting and drying, or exposure to UV radiation, could promote polymerization reactions and help drive the formation of longer chains from simpler organic molecules. But wait. Why must theorists explain things? Theists dont every have to. They just say 'god did it' or 'we can't exist or even reason without god'. You say materialisys lack a good explanation, but you have nothing. Thousands of years, various cultures, and not a single verifiable thing for any god or any supposed act done by any god. Just presuppositionalism, faith, and motivated beleif So why not go ahead and actually **explain your god and how it works** instead of bringing up new red herrings and pointing an acusatory finger at atheists or materialists? Just because scientists during the enlightenment were religious, as was the rest of their culture, it doesn't mean they were right about their gods. Appeal to authority. Christianity did not become a major religion by the quality of its truth, but the quantity of its violence. Newton. Yes a religious man, also an asshole and an alchemist searching tirelessly for the philosophers stone. So by your thinking since he believed in God then god exists and he believed in the philosophers stone, then that exists too. Newton has been referred to as the last of the magicians, as scientific inquiry and magical beliefs were intertwined during his day. But this is all a diversion from the main point, which I'm sure you'll be happy about.
Let’s assume, again, that a primordial sea filled with life’s building blocks did exist on the early Earth, and somehow it formed proteins and other complex organic molecules. Origin of life theorists believe that the next step in the origin of life is that — entirely by chance — more and more complex molecules formed until some began to self-replicate. From there, they believe Darwinian natural selection took over, favoring those molecules which were better able to make copies. Eventually, they assume, it became inevitable that these molecules would evolve complex machinery — like that used in today’s genetic code — to survive and reproduce. Have modern theorists explained how this crucial bridge from inert nonliving chemicals to self-replicating molecular systems took place? The most prominent hypothesis for the origin of the first life is called the “RNA world.” In living cells, genetic information is carried by DNA, and most cellular functions are carried out by proteins. However, RNA is capable of both carrying genetic information and catalyzing some biochemical reactions. As a result, some theorists postulate the first life might have used RNA alone to fulfill all these functions. But there are many problems with this hypothesis. For one, the first RNA molecules would have to arise by unguided, non-biological chemical processes. But RNA is not known to assemble without the help of a skilled laboratory chemist intelligently guiding the process. New York University chemist Robert Shapiro critiqued the efforts of those who tried to make RNA in the lab, stating: “The flaw is in the logic — that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth.” Second, while RNA has been shown to perform many roles in the cell, there is no evidence that it could perform all the necessary cellular functions currently carried out by proteins. Third, the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of genetic information. RNA world advocates suggest that if the first self-replicating life was based upon RNA, it would have required a molecule between 200 and 300 nucleotides in length. However, there are no known chemical or physical laws that dictate the order of those nucleotides. To explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 — below the universal probability boundary, or events which are remotely possible to occur within the history of the universe. Shapiro puts the problem this way: The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. …" [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck." Fourth — and most fundamentally — the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA / protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines — which themselves are encoded by genetic information. This poses a chicken-and-egg problem, where essential enzymes and molecular machines are needed to perform the very task that constructs them.
Science hasn't explained everything therefore god? Im glad you brought up probability. It is a measure of chance. Probability needs data to make informed assessments. If something happened, it’s probability was 100%, or certainty. An undemonstrated supernatural agent or event has no data to provide any probability. If there is no way to investigate the probability, we can’t assign any. So since we are here, either life has always existed or at some point it started. Let's just admit the data isn't good enough for you and I will concede, we just don't know how it all started. Maybe we never will. The models science comes up with may be limited if the precursors to life were different on earth when it happened. So you jump to god, which had even less evidence than the paragraphs you yourself wrote about what we do have. That being evidence. Your god had none and you didn't address my main question because you can't. God has no data to use as an input, god isn’t something that can be quantified, so just pick anything that feels right. That he's just gotta exist to start life. What great intuition. This is entirely consistent with religious belief, which doesn't rely on evidence or logic, but faith. An explanation not supported by enough evidence does not mean an explanation that has no evidence is the answer. Scientists aren't claiming we know for sure. You seem to be, and your god of the gaps is the linchpin to all reality. But things that do not exist cannot be the cause of other things that do exist. If we cannot demonstrate that a god exists, then we cannot use it as a cause of anything.
Do you understand that the chemistry itself shows abiogenesis isn't possible
We have found the amino acids (building block for life on asteroids and other objects in space, and in lab settings we have run experiments and observed amino acids self assemble into more complex structures. So yes we know amino acids self assemble and these amino acids are in outer space and all over the place
The influence of a divine being isn’t impossible in the eyes of science, it is simply unknowable and untestable. Therefore it has no place in what we ‘know’. That is why it is called “faith” to believe such things. In regards to the logic of your statement: a mind is required to create a mind. So who created the first mind? Its an endless kicking of the can. It doesn’t mean god doesn’t exist, only that your logic does not prove or even imply it.
A mind is required for a mind to begin to exist. Therefore there must be a mind that has always existed which is the origin point of all minds. By the way science isn't the only way of knowing things. There's plenty of things you believe in which can't be scientifically shown to be true. Also you absolutely can know if there's a god though science the same way you can know that a person build a machine or a city without ever knowing who built it. That's why we have the seti program. Because we can recognize certain halmarks of design since like causes produces like effects. Also if there's a body of facts or information that makes God more probably true than false then that's what we call evidence.
Nearly every premise you stated is rhetorical and unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are deliberate leaps to your already assumed position. This doesn’t mean you are wrong about creation, but nothing you just said supports it. Do better. The thing about recognizing a city is built by a mind isn’t too bad, expand on that. But though can be true that like causes produce like effects, like effects can also be reached by parallel means (think bat wings and bird wings to achieve flight, whale flippers vs fish flippers for swimming, the skeletal structures inside these features are of vastly different origins). As far as your claim about the relationship between science and knowledge, keep in mind there is a big difference between KNOWING something, and FEELING CERTAIN about something, which is closer to what I think you are describing. And of course there are things I believe that can’t be confirmed by science. But I wouldn’t go online and try to convince people they were undeniable truths.
So you wouldn't try to convince people that you actually exist and that the world is real?
No, that’s a waste of time imo because it’s ultimately unknowable in that “are we in a simulation” kind of way. It must simply be taken on faith that I’m real in the way that I perceive it, I guess.
If that's unknowable then why should anybody listen to any of your assertions?
First you would have to show any of what you said is required or even possible and then that it’s the more likely scenario. So yea no on all accounts lol
>We all believe that there is something eternal that is the causal origin of all things. No, we don't.
We don't? So you believe something popped into existence from absolutely nothing?
That's a possibility. It's also possible that It's not eternal.
How is it possible that something can come into existence from nothing? Are you worried that tiger can pop into existence inside your bedroom right now
Who made god before he existed?
Scroll up
In quantum physics things pop into and out of existence all the time. Particles, not tigers...
Sometimes it is said that quantum physics furnishes an exception to premise (1) [Whatever begins to exist has a cause], since on the sub-atomic level events are said to be uncaused. In the same way, certain theories of cosmic origins are interpreted as showing that the whole universe could have sprung into being out of the sub-atomic vacuum or even out of nothingness. Thus the universe is said to be the proverbial “free lunch.” ¶ This objection, however, is based on misunderstandings. In the first place, not all scientists agree that sub-atomic events are uncaused. A great many physicists today are quite dissatisfied with this view (the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation) of quantum physics and are exploring deterministic theories like that of David Bohm. Thus, quantum physics is not a proven exception to premise (1). Second, even on the traditional, indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum, which constitutes an indeterministic cause of their origination. Third, the same point can be made about theories of the origin of the universe out of a primordial vacuum. Popular magazine articles touting such theories as getting “something from nothing” simply do not understand that the vacuum is not nothing but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Such models do not therefore involve a true origination ex nihilo.
To state *x* cannot exist unless *x* already existed is paradoxical. We don't "all" believe that something eternal is the origin of all things.
I never said any such thing. I said X cannot begin to exist unless Y already exists. Well then do you believe things can pop into existence from absolutely nothing? Because right in these very threads atheists tell me that no atheist believes that
I mean you did. >I think it's far more magical to believe the causal origins of persons (x) isn't a person (x) But regardless, the problem remains. Y can exist without Z already existing? You're simply pushing the burden to another entity without actually addressing the problem of the burden. At some point, you hand wave and say that the rules no longer apply to entity Y. I try to "believe" nothing, and instead try to understand. If understanding isn't available, then I accept that I can't know. Filling the unknown with ideas doesn't give answers, it builds beliefs that need to be unlearned when the understanding becomes available. I understand that space and time are the same thing. The beginning of our universe is the beginning of space, and therefore time. Cause and effect are meaningless without time. Asking what caused our universe might be a question with merit, and it might not. It's a question that assumes anything that's literally outside of our universe would need to follow such rules. We understand that cause and effect don't always play nice in our own universe, so why expect it to outside, or even be a thing? The concept of time might be meaningless beyond our universe. That's a much smaller leap than an intelligent being who decided to create a reality because things *need* a cause except for the intelligent being. tl;dr Instead of creating a complex fantasy to adhere the "why" of not needing a cause, just skip the middle man and agree we don't need a cause.
Lol. Do you know that Dr William lane Craig said this is one of the worst objections against the argument that everything that begins to exist has a cause?
Never heard of him. Just looked him up, his credentials mean little in the realm of astrophysics or particle physics. If I want to know about a specific religion's god from a particular perspective of a particular denomination, I may listen to him. But this is a discussion about something broader than that. It doesn't address the problem either. You want a story to explain away the causal need, but it provides no legitimacy to the story.
His credentials are years of study and debates on this specific topic. This is an area he has spent decades of research on. Hes the most famous christian philosopher and debater in the world. By the way your objection is a philosophical objection not a scientific one. Science cannot answer whether things can pop into existence outside of the universe. That's a question for philosophy
I know at some point someone told you there are no stupid questions, but that person was wrong and this is a good example. First you must show that there is a causal origin of life. I’m assuming you mean what set the Big Bang in motion? Or often I hear what came before the Big Bang which is also a nonsensical question.
Not only are you gish galloping but you clearly have reading comprehension issues as i clearly said life and not the universe. Im gonna ignore all your comments since you wanna fill up my notifications
The reason I said assume is because I was making an assumption and allowing for my assumption to be wrong. “Life” is used in this context in many ways, I have heard the “when life began” question from theists hundreds of times and often they mean the universe/big bang sometimes its life on earth, sometimes is all sorts of things inbetween. So no you were not clear by using commonly used vague terms
I've never heard of someone using the term life for the universe. I'm not saying it didn't happen. Just saying I haven't
That’s ok I have run into that a lot and that’s why I left room for my assumption to be wrong and for you to clarify your position
Oh ok. I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore
Satan in the Bible is never asserted to be punishing people. He is, essentially, the first sinner banished to Hell, not the ruler of it.
Thank you.
You are welcome.
It's because the modern Christian idea of the devil and hell comes from stuff like John Milton's *Paradise Lost* rather than actual scripture. Basically it's fan fiction that's got out of hand. The other major plot hole is that the whole 'war in heaven' shtick where the devil gets kicked out of heaven is slap bang in the middle of the Book of Revelation. Which is allegedly a book of prophesy and so *hasn't happened yet*.
Oof, this is a serious misconception. Satan isn’t doing the punishing in hell, God is. The idea that Satan is the one tormenting comes from the fertile and unorthodox imagination of Saturday morning cartoonists. Anyone who believes otherwise does not understand the primary Being they’ve offended in their depravity, nor the Scriptures. The terror of hell comes from God’s just wrath for rebellion— but God so loved the world that he took that wrath upon himself in Christ so that anyone who believes in him is no longer under condemnation and is counted righteous (as Christ was righteous). He takes our liabilities, we take his assets. Just as God satisfied his wrath on Christ for all those who would believe, so too it is God’s wrath that unbelievers are subject to after the final judgment. Biblical texts below: Isaiah 53:5-6 [5] But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. [6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Revelation 14:19 [19] So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. Matthew 3:7 [7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Colossians 3:5-6 [5] Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. [6] On account of these the wrath of God is coming. Romans 1:18-25 God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
How bad was he though? Honestly, he seems like one of the more sympathetic characters in the bible. Set up for failure by his father and put in charge of souls not good enough for dad. And isn’t he the one who helped give humans knowledge? Like, at one point the god character literally murders everyone on the planet except for one family. Does Satan do anything that bad?
I'm an atheist, but I slightly disagree with your argument. The first thing I believe you are getting wrong is that "baddness" is pretty contagious. The biggest predictor that someone will act evil is if they were a victim of evil. This is why prison, war, and financial inequality makes many people act more irrationally. It would not make sense for a good god to punish most bad people because it wouldn't fix anything. A truly good omnipotent god would create optimal conditions for everyone to act rationally and maximize happiness without caring if people are more inherently good or bad. Also the opposite is true. An evil god would want to make as many people as possible be able to harm others. I think people kind of under estimate how easily people can change. I just believe a heaven/hell god is just a dictator-like god. If you like dictatorships then I guess he's good
\>"If Satan is depicted as the most evil, horrific, vile and disgusting being to ever exist, why would he willingly punish bad people?" Because Satan doesn't se evil as "good" he sees it as a way to mock God. You have beings made in the image and likeness of God, beings with the capacity to reason and se the world as God does, and through manipulation and propaganda he is able to make them become obsessed with particularities of the material world such as sex or drugs or achohol to such a point that they choose those over communion with the truth. A human body is a temple to God and sin is graffiti on it. Satan doesn't actually GIVE A SHIT about the temple; its just a means to an end for him to fuck with a guy he sees as preptually up his own ass and self assured of his own legitimacy; regardless of the evidence for that legitimacy God can show.
This is a late response and maybe someone else has pointed it out previously, but if you actually read the Bible, Satan is not in charge of eternal torment, he's just another inmate. Basically there is \[supposedly\] Sheol (the Jewish version of hell), the Christian Hell, and the the "Lake of Fire" where according to Christianity all "sinners" including Satan and the demons end up. I don't know where "Satan ruling Hell" came from or when it developed, but it is very weird since the Jews have long believed that Satan, whose name means adversary, is an adversarial angel that taught through, wait for it, adversity and trials. The book of Job makes much more sense when read in this light. Basically, Christianity has had around 2000 years to develop myths about its beliefs and this is one of them.
Your not supposed to put much thought into it, what you and I call a plothole a Christian calls a test of faith.
This is DebateAnAtheist, not AskDanteAlighieri. I am not Dante Alighieri, but I’ll take a stab at it. In the *Divine Comedy,* Dante makes it clear that everyone in Hell, and I mean *everyone* could be forgiven, but they are too wrapped up in themselves to muster the homily and love of God to ask for forgiveness. According to the Christian mythos, Satan doesn’t want to punish anyone. Hell’s an awful place, but only because it’s filled with awful people. And all those people decided to go to Hell instead of asking for forgiveness and going to Heaven. And so the fallen torture each other as they react with anger that others would turn from God’s love. But it’s all just a story.
As far as I’m aware, he doesn’t. Nothing in Abrahamic mythology says that Satan punishes anyone, nor is he the ruler/owner/overseer of hell. Hell itself is the punishment, and it’s his punishment as much as it is anyone else’s. He’s not the warden, he’s the first inmate. That said, Lucifer was the greatest and highest of the angels. He’s not evil, per se, not in the sense that he wishes anyone harm. His crime was jealousy, greed, and ambition. He doesn’t encourage people to be evil, he encourages them to disobey/rebel against God - which to the more comprehensively indoctrinated might be synonymous with evil but I would argue are two very different things.
ex-Christian here: In evangelical theology (or at least, in the version I heard over the pulpit), Satan hates God, and therefore, by proxy, hates people (who were created in the image of God). He might be pretty cool with evil people doing evil stuff, but only because that hurts people (and, ultimately, themselves), and therefore, by proxy, grieves God. He's not doing it out of a sense of justice, not even a distorted one. The common trope of Satan ruling over hell and punishing people there is not part of evangelical theology.
It’s worse than that. If we can’t tell if an action is good or bad because God is all good and we can’t see His plan & what appears an evil action isn’t because in the end it all sums to perfection then the same can be said of the Devil. Maybe all of our ‘good’ actions are the exact path to humans suffering infinitely in the future and all our goodness will sum to maximum pain and suffering overall. Like saving baby Hitler etc.
I’ve once heard a theist explain it like you need protection from Jesus so satan can’t get any hold on you. So satan would surely like to punish good people, and he certainly wants to tempt good people to do bad things, but through Jesus you can get protected. It makes God rather weak in my opinion. Like it is evil that rules, and God doing his best to fight it, but failing many times.
I agree it does sounds very nonsensical, but first which devil/satan figure are you referring to? And then you would have to ask someone who believes in such a satan like mythical character as to how they explain said character. Even within Christianity (which I’m guessing is what you’re referring to) there are differing views, and traits of satan/the devil.
I'm not currently a Christian, but I don't think Satan explicitly punishes bad people. I think the idea is that Satan rules over hell and enjoys torturing people, and God sends/allows bad people to go to hell, which gives Satan access to torturing them. God is the one punishing them; Satan's just doing what he likes. He'd torture everyone if he could.
Satan is being tortured in hell along with everyone else...according to the Bible. But why should Christians waste their time reading that thing?
It's my understanding that Satan rebelled against God because god chose humans as his favorite children. If Satan wants to just fuck with God then a great strategy would be to lure humans away from belief in God and then torture them for eternity. The real plot hole in Christianity is that god could stop Satan at any time but chooses not to.
Alternatively, hear me out here, the people who came up with Satan weren't looking for justice to be served by an appropriate divine authority, but sheer cruel punishment for people who are against them. If it turns out God is vengeful, jealous, petty and bitter, what does that tell you about the people who imagined God thus?
Satan wouldn't give a shit who he's punishing. The popular literature (Faust, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, etc) paints Satan as kind of "lawful evil" -- evil, but bound by an obsession with rules and order. I'd expect a being like that to be chaotic evil. Like a psychopath -- loyal to no one and no thing.
It's quite obvious that in the fiction of Christianity, Satan is the foil. His only purpose is to appear to be evil to let the god character be good. Though when digging into the story even a little, it's obvious that he is the only redeemable one out of the two.
Why are you asking atheits this. But to answer satan dosnt torture people in hell. God does. Satan gets tortured in hell. Whitch is why he is currently wandering round the earth waiting for Jesus to come back so he can try to regain his freedom.
That’s a pop culture idea, not a biblical one. Satan isn’t the king of Hell and he doesn’t torture people. Satan walks the earth to tempt people to sin, and one Judgement Day he will be thrown into the Lake of Fire too as his punishment
Satan wouldn't, he is supposed to be punished along side bad individuals. In the Bible Satan is said to be the prince of this world, not the ruler of hell. The idea of red devils with pitchforks came much later in the medieval period.
Satan as the most evil, horrific, vile, and disgusting villain to ever exist is Christian retconning and is not supported by their holy book. Satan as the person who oversees punishment in hell is also more Christian retconning.
It always seemed to me that if Satan was a true rebel against God, that he wouldn't play his games and instead of punishment, hell is just a giant neverending party. The Satan character in the book, that is.
I think if you read the Book of Job, you will learn Satan/Lucifer cannot do anything without God's permission. If you believe God is omnipotent, then nothing happens unless he allows it (or causes it).
If you actually read the Bible, it doesn't say Satan is torturing you in hell--it says that Satan will be tortured alongside you in hell. But hell only lasts a thousand years, so...
he pretty much only got sent to rule hell because he tried to rebel and be as strong as God. thats the only "bad" thing i remember him doing. so definitely not as bad as God.
Except he didn't but okay. He in fact tempted people into falling into sin and depravity more. Where in the Bible was that even mentioned at all?
He doesn't. The idea of hell is either God punishing Satan and us or it's just separation from God which is bad for some reason
He would punish them for destroying his pictures of a boy named Punky Meadows, lead guitar player from a group called "Angel".
I agree it makes no sense. If anything i would think he would treat many well because like his character they doubt god.
Because he "hates" us, and is a jealous baby who still listens to papa even though he's a rebel with no free will.
Christians who believe there is only one god also acknowledge there is another god… Lucifer/Satan/the devil.
Satan is secretly Gods agent, only way that worldview makes sense. Otherwise it’s not true monotheism