Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

[Zzyzx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 197 by Blastcat]

No I don't agree. Real means "exists" that is the definition of the word. It does not mean "seen" or "experienced" or "physical" it means that which exists. Something exists or it does not, it doesn't exist in degrees. Your question is like asking "Which is more dead a dog or a lion?" A question of this sort is ludicrous and infantile and says more about the asker and his grasp of language than it does about the subject.

No need to thank me,

JW

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 198 by Yahu]

Do you agree that any rock is more real than your god?

I would have to say, that depends on the definition of 'real'.

Of course. And I already gave one earlier in the thread. Nobody seems to disagree with it.

It's the very common definition that I found at the online Oxford dictionary:

"Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: Julius Caesar was a real person her many illnesses, real and imaginary"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/real

Does that do?
If it doesn't, feel free to present a better one.

Since Yah (God) is a spirit, that would mean He has no physical form whereas a rock does have a physical form.

CORRECTION:

I don't want to come off as being too pedantic, but we have to be a bit careful choosing our words. It's NOT ok to say that "GOD IS A SPIRIT", because that is a truth claim you would have to demonstrate. I don't just accept it. I don't think any thinking atheist could, frankly.

I think it would be preferable to say that :

"God CAN be a spirit." In the same way that I say " A ROCK can be a spirit".

The concept "rock" OR "God" don't have a physical form. I can understand "God" to denote something spiritual, and I can understand "rock" to denote something spiritual. HOWEVER... I don't think that the concept "God" has a physical form, while the rock does.

The rock can be spiritually real and is physically real.
God can be spiritually real.

That's two to one for the rock being real.
That's why I now say that a rock is more real than God.

So is 'real' mean something physical or just something you can experience.

I think the word "real" can apply to both.

Something physical can be experienced somehow.

I USUALLY experience things that I call "real", even though, sometimes, I'm mistaken. But we can always be mistaken. But even a MIRAGE has a degree of "realness"... the illusion is a real event in our minds. It's just that a mirage isn't OUTSIDE of our minds. A mirage in the desert is like "God" that way. Not so with rocks.

Rocks are real IN our minds and OUTSIDE of our minds. ( of course, we can also have illusions of rocks... and illusions of God... so again.. God is lagging behind in realnes )

I would like to see who agrees that God isn't as real as a rock.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 197 by Blastcat]

HEY GANG

I'm seriously hijacking this thread with my dumb question, so I created a new one, just for the HUGELY controversial issue.. is God as real as a rock?

ref:Is%20God%20as%20real%20as%20a%20rock

Thank you for your patience.

[marco]

Most of us have noticed that the Bible claims that its God created evil.

Really? Can you clarify who "us" is? "most of us" atheists?

Surely when one reads the Bible one "notices" things, JW. It would be impolite to suggest that those who read the Bible don't have a clue as to what they are reading.

God made the Garden for Adam, later joined by Eve, whom God also made. Into the Garden came an evil serpent. Those who read the Bible NOTICE this.

The thread we are on discusses whether Satan is a god - is he coeval with God? Did God make the serpent or was the serpent made? Did not John say: "and without him was made nothing that was made?"

Thus, we notice God made the serpent, the only evil that we know of that was in the Garden. Thus we notice that God made evil, unless we get into the Theory of Abstract Nouns.
Thus, JW, it is reasonable to say, politely, we've noticed that God made evil. Only those who weren't paying attention would not notice. Were you paying attention, JW?
So why quibble here over a simple observation?

[Yahu]

I think the word "real" can apply to both.

Something physical can be experienced somehow.

I USUALLY experience things that I call "real", even though, sometimes, I'm mistaken. But we can always be mistaken. But even a MIRAGE has a degree of "realness"... the illusion is a real event in our minds. It's just that a mirage isn't OUTSIDE of our minds. A mirage in the desert is like "God" that way. Not so with rocks.

Rocks are real IN our minds and OUTSIDE of our minds. ( of course, we can also have illusions of rocks... and illusions of God... so again.. God is lagging behind in realnes )

I would like to see who agrees that God isn't as real as a rock.

It all comes down to a matter of subjective perception of something an individual has experienced.

A man blind from birth has no experience of light. How can light be a real thing to that blind man other then taking the word of someone else that has experienced light?

So an atheist that has never experienced the presence of God would have to take the word of someone that has to become real. It would all come down to a matter of trust, ie faith in someone else's experience.

A better comparison would be is God more real or are aliens? Since a rock is a common object that everyone has experienced, comparing the 'real-ness' to God isn't a fair comparison.

Few claim to have personal experience with aliens. Are they believed by people that haven't? Sometimes!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 204 by Yahu]

A man blind from birth has no experience of light. How can light be a real thing to that blind man other then taking the word of someone else that has experienced light?

Here's how you prove light, and sight, to a blind man.
Get a sighted man and a blind man in a room. Give a sheet of paper and a pen to the blind man. Ask him to draw a shape, do not tell him which one. Ask the sighted man to watch.
Then get the sighted man to hold the blind man's hand and reproduce the drawing. When the sighted man succeeds, when he copies the blind man's hand movements, this proves that the sighted man used sight to see what the blind man did.

Notice that there is no similar test for proving God. As you say further on in your comment

It would all come down to a matter of trust, ie faith in someone else's experience.

I have no reason to trust anyone who says "God!"
These faith arguments do not hold water with me.

Few claim to have personal experience with aliens.

I'd love to know just how you define 'few'.

Are they believed by people that haven't? Sometimes!

Do they produce credible, tangible evidence?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 204 by Yahu]

By the way, this conversation should move over to the thread called "Is god more real than a rock"

It all comes down to a matter of subjective perception of something an individual has experienced.

Some people have tried to explain to me how "reality" wasn't really real.
I never get it.

A man blind from birth has no experience of light. How can light be a real thing to that blind man other then taking the word of someone else that has experienced light?

But light is real even though the blind person never sees it. I don't know what you mean. Can a patient tell a doctor "Well, doctor, I'm sure I don't have that disease, cause it's not real to me."?

At that point, I would tell the patient... "Listen to your doctor".

So an atheist that has never experienced the presence of God would have to take the word of someone that has to become real.

Why do that?
And who says that all atheists never felt what they thought was God?

It would all come down to a matter of trust, ie faith in someone else's experience.

Why should we take whatever people say as TRUE? People can't be mistaken? Deluded? Lying? Do you know what I call someone who takes everyone's word as true? I call that person very GULLIBLE. Why do you promote gullibility?

A better comparison would be is God more real or are aliens?

Aliens, for sure.

Since a rock is a common object that everyone has experienced, comparing the 'real-ness' to God isn't a fair comparison.

Lol.... that was my point. Rocks are more real than any god.
It's not a fair comparison because gods just aren't as real.

Few claim to have personal experience with aliens. Are they believed by people that haven't? Sometimes!

If these people believe JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID SO, they are being gullible.

Why do you want to be gullible?
You think it's a good idea?

[ttruscott]

Thus, we notice God made the serpent, the only evil that we know of that was in the Garden. Thus we notice that God made evil, unless we get into the Theory of Abstract Nouns.

The jump from noticing an evil person to the conclusion that therefore GOD made that person evil is not logical since the leap is unsupported. There is just nothing about noticing an evil person that forces the conclusion that therefore he must have been ceated that way.

An alternative: GOD created the person who later used his free will to reject YHWH as his GOD thereby self creating his character as eternally evil, that is, as YHWH's eternal enemy, that is, as the serpent, the dragon Satan. The nomenclature of serpent and dragon refer to his self created character of evil, not to his being created that way by GOD. No leaps of illogic. Nothing contrary to the revealed ways or attributes of GOD nor of evil.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 207 by ttruscott]

Thus, we notice God made the serpent, the only evil that we know of that was in the Garden. Thus we notice that God made evil, unless we get into the Theory of Abstract Nouns.

The jump from noticing an evil person to the conclusion that therefore GOD made that person evil is not logical since the leap is unsupported. There is just nothing about noticing an evil person that forces the conclusion that therefore he must have been ceated that way.

That makes sense.

An alternative: GOD created the person who later used his free will to reject YHWH as his GOD thereby self creating his character as eternally evil, that is, as YHWH's eternal enemy, that is, as the serpent, the dragon Satan. The nomenclature of serpent and dragon refer to his self created character of evil, not to his being created that way by GOD. No leaps of illogic. Nothing contrary to the revealed ways or attributes of GOD nor of evil.

Well, there's a problem.
The universe didn't exist before God created it.

Was there the possibility of anything good in it before it existed? I think it says that the God created the universe and that it was GOOD.

Do you agree with that?
I will await your answer before continuing. I can see a big honking problem with your line of reasoning.

[JehovahsWitness]

Most of us have noticed that the Bible claims that its God created evil.

Really? Can you clarify who "us" is? "most of us" atheists?

Surely when one reads the Bible one "notices" things, JW. It would be impolite to suggest that those who read the Bible don't have a clue as to what they are reading.

It would, which is why I wouldn't do that. Are you suggesting anything I have said implied this? If not why are you telling me this specifically? If so please point it out to me since the quotation you have above doesn't do that.

As for your conclusions, unless you are suggesting yours is the infallible and unquestionable one, others (like myself, who have also read the bible and "noticed" things) choose to differ. That is how biblical interpretation goes.

So why quibble here over a simple observation?

I was under the impression that this was a debating forum and any statement may be open to debate. I don't consider that "quibble" if you do, may I suggest you ignore the post or report it if it violates forum guidelines?


JW