Why God doesn't stop satan?

[R00tKiT]

Well, for one, since there is no good argument in favor of other minds, the fact that you think there are other minds than yours leads you to an incoherent position. I can simply say that since God speaks about people in a sacred book and affirms there are other creatures than myself, I can rest assured there are other minds. I admit it's a clumsy example, but you get the idea: you have no foundation to assert that anything is true outside of your brain.

Or, to put it more radically, anything you consider to be true is only true for you. If there is no absolute reference of truth (i.e. God), nothing you say has any truth value whatsoever.

You must have encountered a similar argument related to morality, there cannot be an objective morality without a supreme moral entity. Even if one says that well-being or minimzing suffering is an objective criterion of good moral actions, one can simply keep asking what makes this criterion superior to other competing criteria, etc.

I should note I am not a fan of these arguments, because they resemble presuppositionalism. But presuppositionalists have a point, though: the premise "God exists" seems to solve hard solipsism. No other premise can do that.

[Angrboda]

Or, to put it more radically, anything you consider to be true is only true for you. If there is no absolute reference of truth (i.e. God), nothing you say has any truth value whatsoever.

You are in the same position. A) You don't have access to God. B) Even if you did, your belief in its absoluteness would be dependent upon you, not God.

You must have encountered a similar argument related to morality, there cannot be an objective morality without a supreme moral entity. Even if one says that well-being or minimzing suffering is an objective criterion of good moral actions, one can simply keep asking what makes this criterion superior to other competing criteria, etc.

The same applies to God. Does Euthyphro ring any bells?

I should note I am not a fan of these arguments, because they resemble presuppositionalism. But presuppositionalists have a point, though: the premise "God exists" seems to solve hard solipsism. No other premise can do that.

No, it just adds another belief that the solipsist believes in.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

ROFL!

"I can read me a book and that has it written there ars other minds.... "

ROFL!

Can't make this sheet up.

[WinterHold]

It is said in the bible that satan "roams the earth and seeks who to devour". Meaning, they end up in hell. Why God doesn't stop this madness? What is he waiting for?

According to Islam, God is the creator of Satan, and the maker of this scenario we are living.
He knew that Satan would rebel even before he made him.

Look at this Quranic verses:

Sura 2, The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 35 )   And We said, "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat therefrom in [ease and] abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers."

( 36 )   But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, "Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time."

( 37 )   Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.

This life is a mere test against Satan. Why would God stop the main problem in our test?
Satan will always exist in this life, and our whole life is "a battle against him".

So the question doesn't make any sense according to Islam's message.

[R00tKiT]

You are in the same position.  A) You don't have access to God.  B) Even if you did, your belief in its absoluteness would be dependent upon you, not God.

I don't disagree that I don't have more access to information than an atheist has. But the set of axioms by which I view the world is more coherent than that of an atheist, this is the only difference

The same applies to God.  Does Euthyphro ring any bells?

I'm afraid it doesn't. Kindly review what the Euthyphro dilemma says. I also remind you that I am arguing from my own religious POV, i.e. I believe in a revealed theology, that a sacred book contains God's instructions verbatim. Not a natural theology where I infer God's properties and morality from my own observations and biases.

No, it just adds another belief that the solipsist believes in.

Okay. Give us an alternative solution to hard solipsism. I'll go grab a popcorn.

---

At work.

  ROFL!  

 "I can read me a book and that has it written there ars other minds.... "

 ROFL!

 Can't make this sheet up.

 

ROFL all you want. Where is your argument in favor of other minds ?

[LadyForCamus]

Well, for one, since there is no good argument in favor of other minds, the fact that you think there are other minds than yours leads you to an incoherent position. I can simply say that since God speaks about people in a sacred book and affirms there are other creatures than myself, I can rest assured there are other minds. I admit it's a clumsy example, but you get the idea: you have no foundation to assert that anything is true outside of your brain.

Neither do you. Can you demonstrate your book exists anywhere else besides your mind?

Or, to put it more radically, anything you consider to be true is only true for you. Nothing you say has any truth value whatsoever.

How does your personal belief in a god solve this problem? Maybe your mind, with its god-belief, is the only one that exists. You don’t seem to be grasping the concept of solipsism.

You must have encountered a similar argument related to morality, there cannot be an objective morality without a supreme moral entity. Even if one says that well-being or minimzing suffering is an objective criterion of good moral actions, one can simply keep asking what makes this criterion superior to other competing criteria, etc.

What makes god’s morals better than anyone else’s? If morals are based on what god says is right then they’re still subjective. In this instance the subject is god. Gods don’t solve any problems with coherence or morality.

I should note I am not a fan of these arguments

Really? You just told me they were undeniable.

[R00tKiT]

It is said in the bible that satan "roams the earth and seeks who to devour". Meaning, they end up in hell. Why God doesn't stop this madness? What is he waiting for?

You can ask billions of questions regarding why God wouldn't this or that. Why not stick to what God actually did, lol.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

At work.

  ROFL!  

 "I can read me a book and that has it written there ars other minds.... "

 ROFL!

 Can't make this sheet up.

 

ROFL all you want. Where is your argument in favor of other minds ?

? My 'Argument?

I don't 'Need' an argument.
Yup, 'Other' minds exist.
I'm quite happy with the medical knowledge that every other human skull holds five pounds of toothpaste (Give or take)of equivalent grey matter 'Running' it's version of a 'Mind'.

Cheers.

[Angrboda]

You are in the same position.  A) You don't have access to God.  B) Even if you did, your belief in its absoluteness would be dependent upon you, not God.

I don't disagree that I don't have more access to information than an atheist has. But the set of axioms by which I view the world is more coherent than that of an atheist, this is the only difference

Which axioms would those be, for you and the atheist?

The same applies to God.  Does Euthyphro ring any bells?

I'm afraid it doesn't. Kindly review what the Euthyphro dilemma says. I also remind you that I am arguing from my own religious POV, i.e. I believe in a revealed theology, that a sacred book contains God's instructions verbatim. Not a natural theology where I infer God's properties and morality from my own observations and biases.

That means squat concerning the Euthyphro dilemma. Apparently, you need to review what Euthyphro says.

No, it just adds another belief that the solipsist believes in.

Okay. Give us an alternative solution to hard solipsism. I'll go grab a popcorn.

I don't have any obligation to do so. Do you think that I do?

At work.

  ROFL!  

 "I can read me a book and that has it written there ars other minds.... "

 ROFL!

 Can't make this sheet up.

 

ROFL all you want. Where is your argument in favor of other minds ?

i. I have a mind;
ii. I have physical attributes;
iii. Physical attributes appear to determine phenomenon;
iv. Other people have the same physical attributes as me;
v. My mind is a phenomenon;
Therefore, other people likely have the same phenomenon, a mind.

I don't even know that it's a particularly good argument, but:
a) It's certainly plausible;
b) I have no necessity to believe in the existence of other minds;
c) It's better than, "I read it in a book."

[LadyForCamus]

You are in the same position.  A) You don't have access to God.  B) Even if you did, your belief in its absoluteness would be dependent upon you, not God.

I don't disagree that I don't have more access to information than an atheist has. But the set of axioms by which I view the world is more coherent than that of an atheist, this is the only difference

The same applies to God.  Does Euthyphro ring any bells?

I'm afraid it doesn't. Kindly review what the Euthyphro dilemma says. I also remind you that I am arguing from my own religious POV, i.e. I believe in a revealed theology, that a sacred book contains God's instructions verbatim. Not a natural theology where I infer God's properties and morality from my own observations and biases.

No, it just adds another belief that the solipsist believes in.

Okay. Give us an alternative solution to hard solipsism. I'll go grab a popcorn.

---

At work.

  ROFL!  

 "I can read me a book and that has it written there ars other minds.... "

 ROFL!

 Can't make this sheet up.

 

ROFL all you want. Where is your argument in favor of other minds ?

Where is yours?