Does god love the devil?

[Kenny]

So an earthquake, volcano, flood, drought, typhoon or tornado is our fault?

Is it God's?

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I think earthquake, volcano, flood, drought, typhoon or tornado is all my fault.

 

[Brian2]

Omniscience includes "every detail". Omnipotence requires "every detail". An omniscient and omnipotent God is absolutely responsible for everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will ever happen, in the universe. There is simply no other possibility. (The idea of a war of Light v Dark, as found, eg in Zoroastrianism, is much more malleable.)

Are you saying that to know the future makes you responsible for the future?
If so then the argument is no more than playing with words to create the argument.
It is true that if God knows the future then everything will happen as God knows it will but it is not true that to know the future means that you are controlling the future. Can't God know what we will freely choose if He knows the future? Can't God know what will happen randomly if He knows the future?
How do you explain God's knowing the future being equated to God's controlling the future and us having no free will without using the play on words argument that says we cannot do anything that God does not know we will do so either we have no free will or God is not omniscient.
I could use a similar argument and say that the future will be what it will be and so we have no choice but to do whatever that future is going to be, so we have no free will. But I won't because it is a crap argument that is no more than a play on words.

Until there's a definition of a God with objective existence, such that if we ever come across a real candidate we can determine whether it's God or not, God is just an imaginary being with no more place in physics than any other other imaginary being. (Places for imaginary beings can be found however in psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology, history and of course the arts.)

That's fine that God is not in science but at the same time science should be seen for what it is and not given a status beyond that. Science tells us things about the physical world and not whether there is a God involved in making sure things work as they do or a God who created everything. The status of science is taken way too far by people who want to use it to justify their view of reality. And many people actually believe that the status of science is what some people say it is and so actually believe that science has or can show that there is no need for a God.
And history does show many Gods and the God of the Bible imo is the one who has shown Himself to be real.

That would be a psychological process, surely? No brain research offers any support for dualism; indeed I'm not aware of any theory of dualism that's coherent, let alone expressed in scientific / falsifiable terms.

Brain research is part of science and works with the current paradigm that everything is material based. Even if something was found in brain research that could be seen as showing dualism, it would be explained away.
There really is evidence in Near Death Experiences and accompanying Out of Body Experiences which point to some sort of dualism. Here is a link for you to listen to if you are interested.

 

[blü 2]

Are you saying that to know the future makes you responsible for the future?

Yes, in two ways. First, if something bad is foreseeable and preventable, and having foreseen it you don't act to prevent it, you're morally culpable in my book. (More subtle takes on such matters are put by the trolley problem, but I'm for pulling the lever. God, of course, neither says nor does, watches as children are burnt to death, as famine decimates populations, as monstrous injustices are comfortably accomplished without retribution. [He] just sits on [his] omnipotent hands and lets it happen.

Second, if you're God, you not only know the future but you created the universe always intending exactly that future. So yes, it was and will be always your fault. And by the same token, you always intended some people, like me, to think that.

If so then the argument is no more than playing with words to create the argument.
It is true that if God knows the future then everything will happen as God knows it will but it is not true that to know the future means that you are controlling the future.

No, God's billing says [he]'s omnipotent AND omniscience AND perfect. So of course God controls everything, without exception, without excuses, and that must include the future.

Can't God know what we will freely choose if He knows the future?

He knew what we're freely going to choose before [he] made the universe, and made the universe with that decision already approved and made possible by [him].

Moreover, if God is omnipresent, then [he]'s already seen everything that will ever happen, happen. Omnipresence covers the entirety of spacetime.

How do you explain God's knowing the future being equated to God's controlling the future

Those are direct consequences of God's omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, and, if you like, omnipresence. Those qualities of God mean that once [he]'d created the universe, which by definition is the exact universe [he] intended, there has never been anything more for [him] to do ─ the plan that was present at the origin of the universe continues to unfold perfectly and without the tiniest deflection from [his] perfect intention.

and us having no free will without using the play on words argument that says we cannot do anything that God does not know we will do so either we have no free will or God is not omniscient.

As above. As I also pointed out, I don't see how humans can make decisions independently of the wholly material operations of the functions of their brains either; strict determinism may be avoided if random QM events alter things, but there's simply no known manner in which human decision-making can be free.

In fact I don't see how God could make decisions independently of [his] own decision-making mechanisms.

I could use a similar argument and say that the future will be what it will be and so we have no choice but to do whatever that future is going to be, so we have no free will. But I won't because it is a crap argument that is no more than a play on words.

But don't you agree that the illusion we have of free will, the feeling that we own our own choices, is sufficient? That's my feeling, anyway.

Brain research is part of science and works with the current paradigm that everything is material based. Even if something was found in brain research that could be seen as showing dualism, it would be explained away.

I don't think so. I think if you could demonstrate that there was something else there, a real rather than an imaginary soul, say, and offer ways in which we could explore why a soul would need a body in the first place, and how it could interact with that body, and why the body would respond favorably to what amounts to parasitism, you'd get yourself a Nobel and fortune on the lecture circuit.

There really is evidence in Near Death Experiences and accompanying Out of Body Experiences which point to some sort of dualism. Here is a link for you to listen to if you are interested.

Thanks. The reasons I'm at present firmly of the view that NDEs and OBEs are forms of illusion start with the fact that there is not one authenticated case in which someone returned from the trip with new remote knowledge. Grandpa with the light of heaven behind him, didn't get to tell the returning party to look under the third floorboard in the stable because that's where the missing will / gold / deeds will be found. Or to use the following numbers for the next lotto draw. The same is true of Doris Stokes, and the spiritualists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, or Uri Geller and firends ─ they've produced nothing that requires new science.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I think he does.What do you think?

Dear Frank Goad

What is your definition of the ”devil” in this question?

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Frank Goad]

Dear Frank Goad

What is your definition of the ”devil” in this question?

Humbly
Hermit

A spirit being.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, in two ways. First, if something bad is foreseeable and preventable, and having foreseen it you don't act to prevent it, you're morally culpable in my book. (More subtle takes on such matters are put by the trolley problem, but I'm for pulling the lever. God, of course, neither says nor does, watches as children are burnt to death, as famine decimates populations, as monstrous injustices are comfortably accomplished without retribution. [He] just sits on [his] omnipotent hands and lets it happen.

I'm sure God takes full responsibility for His creation, including mortality and suffering, both of which have good reason for existing, and even for the wearing out of this creation, in all ways including that DNA has become corrupted over time.
There are of course other beings around with will to do what they want. Animals are no doubt less free in this regard than we are. We have moral choice also, even if we find it hard to follow what our conscience might tell us is right. There are many pressures on us when it comes to making choices and conscience is not always the most pressing.
Anyway, so God is responsible for what He has done and humans etc are also responsible for what they have done.
God would have good reason for all that He does or does not do. It is understandable to judge God as being evil because of suffering in the world but however we look at it, it is a judgement from ignorance and not knowing God's side of the story.

Second, if you're God, you not only know the future but you created the universe always intending exactly that future. So yes, it was and will be always your fault. And by the same token, you always intended some people, like me, to think that.

There is a big difference between knowing what would happen and intending that to happen. For all we know this is the best option God had if He wanted to create the human species. Things certainly could be a lot worse and God may be holding back a lot of evil and suffering at this very moment.

No, God's billing says [he]'s omnipotent AND omniscience AND perfect. So of course God controls everything, without exception, without excuses, and that must include the future.

God does not offer excuses. We offer excuses and try to get out be feeling guilty for what we have done however.
I don't know where you come up with the idea that God controls everything. It sounds like just the old semantic argument that God knows what will happen so God is responsible iow God made it happen.
God being in charge does not mean that He controls everything minutely. He is not a control freak like that. He does not control us and chance occurrences happen to all of us.

He knew what we're freely going to choose before [he] made the universe, and made the universe with that decision already approved and made possible by [him].
Moreover, if God is omnipresent, then [he]'s already seen everything that will ever happen, happen. Omnipresence covers the entirety of spacetime.

God chose to make humanity, knowing what we would be like, true. You can curse God for making humanity or you can thank Him. We would be less than human if we could not choose to be evil.
As I said, this may have been the best options God has when it comes to people with free will.

Those are direct consequences of God's omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, and, if you like, omnipresence. Those qualities of God mean that once [he]'d created the universe, which by definition is the exact universe [he] intended, there has never been anything more for [him] to do ─ the plan that was present at the origin of the universe continues to unfold perfectly and without the tiniest deflection from [his] perfect intention.

I would say that God keeps everything on track despite things happening that go against His perfect will.
I also point to my belief, and what the Bible tells us, that God is actually at work and doing things and that He has known all along what He would do. These are things that we do not always know, we just look at what is and some of us blame God instead of thanking God for being alive and all the good things we have.

As above. As I also pointed out, I don't see how humans can make decisions independently of the wholly material operations of the functions of their brains either; strict determinism may be avoided if random QM events alter things, but there's simply no known manner in which human decision-making can be free.
In fact I don't see how God could make decisions independently of [his] own decision-making mechanisms.

As I said, there are many factors which enter in to our decisions.
And yes God makes decisions based no doubt on His character and what He wants as a best result and etc
It of course should be remembered that omniscience means that God can see it all and knows what is best in the long run.

But don't you agree that the illusion we have of free will, the feeling that we own our own choices, is sufficient? That's my feeling, anyway.

It is just reality that we make choices based on x,y and z, and many times we cannot follow through with what we choose and many times we rationalise/justify our choices and actions to ourselves even when we know they were wrong.

I don't think so. I think if you could demonstrate that there was something else there, a real rather than an imaginary soul, say, and offer ways in which we could explore why a soul would need a body in the first place, and how it could interact with that body, and why the body would respond favorably to what amounts to parasitism, you'd get yourself a Nobel and fortune on the lecture circuit.

People explain away the evidence from NDEs, science fights the idea of dualism, and especially people with strong a materialistic world view.
Science can plod along and get whatever results it gets and come to whatever conclusions it comes to and debate about it. Science no doubt has always had bias in one direction or another, depending on the people doing it.

Thanks. The reasons I'm at present firmly of the view that NDEs and OBEs are forms of illusion start with the fact that there is not one authenticated case in which someone returned from the trip with new remote knowledge. Grandpa with the light of heaven behind him, didn't get to tell the returning party to look under the third floorboard in the stable because that's where the missing will / gold / deeds will be found. Or to use the following numbers for the next lotto draw. The same is true of Doris Stokes, and the spiritualists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, or Uri Geller and firends ─ they've produced nothing that requires new science.

NDEs seem different in that the evidence for the "anecdotes" being "brought back" can in many cases be verified. It does not matter what "science" thinks of it, the evidence speaks for itself for people with an open mind imo. Our consciousness can exist outside of our body. Call it spirit or whatever, that is up to the individual, but we should not be controlled by what "science" says as if science knows.
When it comes to charlatans and psychics etc charlatans have always existed and the existence of consciousness outside of a physical body leave the path open for spiritual entities to influence and even deceive people.

 

[blü 2]

I'm sure God takes full responsibility for His creation, including mortality and suffering, both of which have good reason for existing

I have no problem with that as a statement about reality and evolution but as a moral proposition, bringing about the suffering of innocent people, or forbearing to prevent it, through deliberate choice either to act or to refrain from acting, that's entirely unacceptable.

We have moral choice also, even if we find it hard to follow what our conscience might tell us is right.

All good, all 'right', is relative. There is no absolute morality.

God would have good reason for all that He does or does not do.

They may be good in [his] view, but if they're not good by my moral standards then they're not good. For example, I can't condone failing to act to prevent bad things, especially since, if you're omnipotent, it costs you no effort whatsoever.

It is understandable to judge God as being evil because of suffering in the world

As God says in Isaiah 45:7

I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.​

but however we look at it, it is a judgement from ignorance and not knowing God's side of the story.

If the bible is to be believed, I've just given you God's side of the story.

There is a big difference between knowing what would happen and intending that to happen.

That doesn't excuse God when [he] sits on [his] hands and just watches as terrible things occur to innocent people. And wow, does [he] ever do that!

For all we know this is the best option God had if He wanted to create the human species. Things certainly could be a lot worse and God may be holding back a lot of evil and suffering at this very moment.

Let God spell out [his] own excuses to us. No need for us to try to invent some for [him].

I don't know where you come up with the idea that God controls everything.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent then there's no other possibility. [He] could have created the universe any way [he] wanted, and had perfect foresight of everything that would ever happen if [he] created this one as we see it. We can no more deviate even in the tiniest degree from what [he] perfectly foresaw.

Or else, of course, God is not omnipotent, omniscient or perfect.

 

[DKH]

Does God love the devil?

God's love is expressed to all living beings "at the point" of creation or birth! However, the continuation of this Godly love is conditional…Therefore, disobeying God's will and commands separates the created/born from the love of God. Yet, God is merciful. So, with the changing of ones actions or death, "the trend of separation from God's love," can be reversed through the resurrection of the Christ.

Sadly, this does not apply to the angels…The reason for this is that angels were created with life-inherent or they don't cease to exist. Thus, when the angels disobeyed or rebelled against God, they became devils and their rebellious character became locked-in and they can't revert back to sensibility! Therefore, they must be limited in their influences and abilities by the power of God. Where, the truth is, if these devils could destroy the human race, they would…

Note: This posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.

 

[Muffled]

I think "the devil" is a fictional characterization of our all-too-human inclination to fall for with our own self-centered, grandiose delusions.

I believe that is a fantasy on your part.

 

[Muffled]

Right time! He sends various prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis, who each create different religions which fight among each other and with others. And humans suffer, but he does not send the seed. 'Not the right time' he says. Does he have the seed or he has exhausted the seeds? He is old. Will testosterone help?

I believe Jesus is all one needs for this time period. What seed are you talking about?

 

[Muffled]

How do you love sinners but base their eternal damnation on whether they love you back?

Sounds superficial.

I believe love does not force another to be what you want them to be but then that decision he makes determines a separation to be necessary. If I wish that which is good then I must be willing to part with what is evil.

 

[PureX]

I believe that is a fantasy on your part.

It's actually a conceptual theory, not a fantasy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe Jesus is all one needs for this time period. What seed are you talking about?

Maybe He is waiting for you to turn to the seed who has already come and be saved through Him before He is sent again to finalise it all.

I do not know. Brian2 was talking about some seed. Some bush or tree, I suppose. However, Jesus, if historical, lived in first Century CE. What is he supposed to do?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe love does not force another to be what you want them to be but then that decision he makes determines a separation to be necessary. If I wish that which is good then I must be willing to part with what is evil.

If you part with what is good and chose another good, because that choice is not evil, why can't you still be loved by god?

Love doesn't give ultimatums, though. Right?

 

[Brian2]

I have no problem with that as a statement about reality and evolution but as a moral proposition, bringing about the suffering of innocent people, or forbearing to prevent it, through deliberate choice either to act or to refrain from acting, that's entirely unacceptable.

What if the alternative was more unacceptable?

All good, all 'right', is relative. There is no absolute morality.

No matter. We still have a moral choice about it.

They may be good in [his] view, but if they're not good by my moral standards then they're not good. For example, I can't condone failing to act to prevent bad things, especially since, if you're omnipotent, it costs you no effort whatsoever.

It's not a question of effort. There are other considerations that need to be considered by a God who is judge of all thing. Your moral standards are relative, as you say, and also you base your judgement of God on limited knowledge.

As God says in Isaiah 45:7

I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.​

Meaning God brings peace and also bad times and also God with omniscience and being good does it all for the best even if it is not all seen as good in the short term.
​

Let God spell out [his] own excuses to us. No need for us to try to invent some for [him].

It is no invention to say that an omniscient, omnipotent and good God must have good reasons to do and allow what He does. It is just obvious. It is also obvious to say that we do not know what God is actually doing to stop the full extent of suffering and evil which may have happened.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent then there's no other possibility. [He] could have created the universe any way [he] wanted, and had perfect foresight of everything that would ever happen if [he] created this one as we see it. We can no more deviate even in the tiniest degree from what [he] perfectly foresaw.

Or else, of course, God is not omnipotent, omniscient or perfect.

As I said, knowing what would happen and allowing it is not control, it is foresight and acceptance of short term evil for long term benefit.
If you have a mechanism whereby God controls it all OK, but you don't, you are just using semantics as a form of argument and it is just that, semantics. It is just as if I said that the future is set no matter how we try to change it so everything is determined because we cannot change the future.
That does not mean we cannot decide our actions however.

 

[chinu]

I think he does.What do you think?

Of course, God loves his innocent creature possessed by the devil.

 

[Muffled]

It's actually a conceptual theory, not a fantasy.

I like to stick to the facts. Jesus refers to him as a real entity.

 

[Muffled]

I do not know. Brian2 was talking about some seed. Some bush or tree, I suppose. However, Jesus, if historical, lived in first Century CE. What is he supposed to do?

I believe if you make Him your Lord and He will eliminate your sin.

 

[Muffled]

[QUOTE="Unveiled Artist, post: 6854309, member: 55631"]If you part with what is good and chose another good, because that choice is not evil, why can't you still be loved by god?

Love doesn't give ultimatums, though. Right?[/QUOTE]

I believe if you were asking if I could give up eating Fruit Loops cereal for eating Raisin Bran then those are two good things and God will not have a problem with it.

No, I believe ultimatums are going the extra mile which love compels.