Christians - Why Did God Create Satan?

[Fatal Jay]

Then why are you in the discussions? I swear in all bible discussions the people who don't believe are the main people in the discussions. That's stupid.

 

[VladPatton]

Where's that hard evidence again? All I see is grown men talking about ghosties and goblins like they believe that crap. Where's the proof?

LOL Too true! Throw in the Easter bunny vs. Santa in a cage match MMA style while you're at it.

 

[JoeMarron]

People who really read the bible also know God is not all loving, he DEPISES sinners. He loves those who respect his word and obey his wills. God does not love everyone on this earth, that is truly false teaching that's been in the church by people who have change the words of the bible.

This verse contradicts that.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

That would be a pretty fvcked up diety; joyfully casting people into eternal damnation. The question in the OP will never get a straight answer because Christians can't even agree amongst themselves about half of the things in the bible, including what respecting his word and obeying his will means.

Where's that hard evidence again? All I see is grown men talking about ghosties and goblins like they believe that crap. Where's the proof?

Faith is the only thing that's necessary. Proof, evidence, reason, all of these things get in the way. This logic can be used to believe in virtually anything hence the thousands of religions in existence.

 

[Vice]

This thread has a few pages that I only glossed over, but to answer the original question:

God created Lucifer (Satan) when when created the rest of the angels. Lucifer was an archangel, and had all of his power and ego go to his head, to the point where he thought he was superior to God. God threw him out. Angels have free will, they have emotions, intelligence, and most of all, they have egos.

My own personal theory is that God is an intelligent entity from another dimension, where time, space, and matter does not have the limiting effect that we have. He created this universe in this dimension for whatever reason, and here we are, reacting to it. An analogy would be a computer programmer creating an artificial intelligence that goes off and takes on a life of its own. Or a video game; if you can get into the code of a video game, your "power" is unlimited; you can change ANY value in the game at any time.

I believe that once we create a sentient artificial intelligence, we will see it manifest the same emotional traits as humans. I believe that it may seek the purpose of its existence, be afraid of the end of its existence, get angry, sad, happy, etc. That day will be a major breakthrough in philosophy and science.

After going through a college physics and biology course, it has led me to believe more and more that there is some kind of intelligent design in our universe. This is due to us not being able to explain WHY things happen, only HOW. We have already been able to detect things such as dark matter and other universes, it is entirely possible that if you boil down to it, there's some weird sh*t going on.

An example of that weird sh*t is listed below; the double slit experiment. This experiment baffled physicists because they observed that light acted differently when it was observed vs. not being observed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

 

[Driggs]

Faith is the only thing that's necessary.

Quite right, the suspension of rational thought is necessary. Otherwise nobody would ever believe such a pile of poo and all the priests would have to get real jobs.

Proof, evidence, reason, all of these things get in the way. This logic can be used to believe in virtually anything hence the thousands of religions in existence.

Shore got that right.

it has led me to believe more and more that there is some kind of intelligent design in our universe. This is due to us not being able to explain WHY things happen, only HOW.

The universe itself is intelligent. We are the proof-- we're parts of the universe that have risen up to take a look around.

I think it's hubris to think that there is a why, or that humans will ever know the answer. Certainly it's silly to assume that some desert witchdoctors 2500 years ago had any idea what was going on.

Then why are you in the discussions? I swear in all bible discussions the people who don't believe are the main people in the discussions. That's stupid.

Who is really stupid, the people talking about fairies and powerful space wizards as if they are real, or the people poking fun at it? If you don't want your beliefs to be laughed at, quit having such funny beliefs. We're in the discussions because you're talking this silliness in a public forum and at long last people have finally started slapping some sense into religionists.

If you want us to quit laughing, provide hard evidence.

 

[Vice]

The universe itself is intelligent. We are the proof-- we're parts of the universe that have risen up to take a look around.

I think it's hubris to think that there is a why, or that humans will ever know the answer. Certainly it's silly to assume that some desert witchdoctors 2500 years ago had any idea what was going on.

That's exactly my point; there is some kind of intelligence that permeates throughout the universe and its processes. Much like dark matter; we know it's there, we can detect it because of other things, but we are having trouble "nailing it down" so to speak. Again, we can describe what is happening, but not how, or why.

And you are absolutely correct about the hubris of humanity thinking it will ever know the answer. We can't solve a problem (or question) at the level it was created in.

Since you're a reasonably intelligent guy, I'd recommend you take a closer look at the occult, and see where that rabbit hole takes you. You may find that those witch doctors and quantum physicists may have more in common than you may realize. Many of the greatest scientists had some sort of connection to the occult, which will never have any "hard" evidence beyond giving their users unexplainable results.

 

[Driggs]

I've taken a VERY close look at the occult It's a pile of flapdoodle. The people claiming a connection between the occult and quantum physics are engaged in something quantum physicists call "quantum flapdoodle" (not making that up.)

The difference between science and the occult (religion being occult practice) is that science needs to provide evidence and repeatable results. The occult produces neither of these things. It only produces claims, and refuses to support them.

 

[Vice]

I've taken a VERY close look at the occult It's a pile of flapdoodle. The people claiming a connection between the occult and quantum physics are engaged in something quantum physicists call "quantum flapdoodle" (not making that up.)

The difference between science and the occult (religion being occult practice) is that science needs to provide evidence and repeatable results. The occult produces neither of these things. It only produces claims, and refuses to support them.

And so the debate continues in a circular fashion. Just remember that many great scientists were in touch with the occult in some fashion, and to ignore its influence on science is naive at best.

And for the record, I am not Christian, nor am I an Atheist.

 

[Driggs]

And so the debate continues in a circular fashion. Just remember that many great scientists were in touch with the occult in some fashion, and to ignore its influence on science is naive at best.

Yes, there is a word for occult philosophies that have been examined and adopted into science.

The word is "science."

The rest of it is a collection of claims, and goes in the bin with all the other claims where it will remain until supporting evidence is presented, whereupon it can once again be examined.

The Grand Debate is really not a debate at all, and here's why: One side has made an affirmative claim, that is to say "ghosts and stuff exist." The other side has asked for hard evidence to be presented for that claim. Everything past that point is just smoke and mirrors thrown up to obscure the fact that there isn't any evidence at all. It is in that smoke and mirrors that the circling dance of the theologists really occurs. They need to engage in tautological fallacy because they don't have any evidence.

So the Grand Debate is essentially in a ceded condition. It has been ceded by the theologists and "spirituality" types, and will remain so until hard evidence is provided. We're all waiting.

Meanwhile, scientific materialism continues its inexorable forward charge, the same one it's been doing since the start of the Enlightenment.

You could best call me a hard atheist. I am not agnostic about gods and ghosties precisely the way you are not agnostic about Rumplestiltskin. Since not a shred of evidence has been provided in support, you are perfectly comfortable in saying that Rumplestiltskin doesn't exist, and I am perfectly comfortable in saying that all the other fairy tales aren't true either, and for the same reasons.

 

[Vice]

Yes, there is a word for occult philosophies that have been examined and adopted into science.

The word is "science."

The rest of it is a collection of claims, and goes in the bin with all the other claims where it will remain until supporting evidence is presented, whereupon it can once again be examined.

The Grand Debate is really not a debate at all, and here's why: One side has made an affirmative claim, that is to say "ghosts and stuff exist." The other side has asked for hard evidence to be presented for that claim. Everything past that point is just smoke and mirrors thrown up to obscure the fact that there isn't any evidence at all. It is in that smoke and mirrors that the circling dance of the theologists really occurs. They need to engage in tautological fallacy because they don't have any evidence.

So the Grand Debate is essentially in a ceded condition. It has been ceded by the theologists and "spirituality" types, and will remain so until hard evidence is provided. We're all waiting.

Meanwhile, scientific materialism continues its inexorable forward charge, the same one it's been doing since the start of the Enlightenment.

You could best call me a hard atheist. I am not agnostic about gods and ghosties precisely the way you are not agnostic about Rumplestiltskin. Since not a shred of evidence has been provided in support, you are perfectly comfortable in saying that Rumplestiltskin doesn't exist, and I am perfectly comfortable in saying that all the other fairy tales aren't true either, and for the same reasons.

Well, maybe you know more than I do about this then. I haven't educated myself at the same level you have, so I can't really argue about this beyond my capacity and be able to present a strong case for either side.

This is off topic slightly, but as a "hard atheist", are you one of the types that absolutely refuses the idea that some kind of beneficial knowledge can be gleaned from religious texts?

At the end of the day, I love learning about science and I also love learning the wisdom that can be extracted from religious texts from all faiths, and putting those principles into action in a way that benefits me. I am no longer dogmatic about any particular philosophy; only the ones that provide me with results.

Unfortunately, both science and religion have served as a justification to achieve truly horrifying things.

 

[Driggs]

Well, maybe you know more than I do about this then. I haven't educated myself at the same level you have, so I can't really argue about this beyond my capacity and be able to present a strong case for either side.

As you may have surmised this is not the first time I've discussed it.

This is off topic slightly, but as a "hard atheist", are you one of the types that absolutely refuses the idea that some kind of beneficial knowledge can be gleaned from religious texts?

I refuse the idea that there's anything that can be gained from religious texts that can't be gained by non-religious texts.

Unfortunately, both science and religion have served as a justification to achieve truly horrifying things.

The half claim, that religion should be believed because of all the good things that it can be achieved, or that science should not be accepted because bad things have been done using science, is called utilitarian fallacy.

In other words, you could be happy if you believe that you have a billion dollars in the bank (OR I COULD BE HAPPY IF I HAD BOUGHT $10,000 BITCOIN WHEN IT WAS $1 LIKE I WANTED TO but I digress...)

But rational people don't believe things because there is some putative benefit to be derived because of belief.

Rational people believe things because there's supporting evidence.

MOREOVER: The crazier the claims, the more evidence there needs to be for rational people to adopt a belief. And to be honest religion is a huge steaming pile of crazy.

 

[99absolute]

According to Bible God is a just and fair God.As humans i doubt how much we are capable of comprehending creation. Now God does not create to destroy. I suppose we are all created equal. We only become what we choose. Will we blame God for what we choose. I suppose all Angels including satan were all created equal i.e. the power to choose freely. So does Satan blame God for what he chose. I don't think so.