Philosophy Discussion Forums

Ok then, so let's talk God and Satan...

As somebody once said about a million times, we'll never get to the bottom of any of this unless we are willing to turn our attention to the nature of the medium that all these God and Satan ideas are made of, thought.

We have the concept of "creation" and the concept of "destruction". In our minds, in the realm of thought, these concepts appear to be divided from one another, they appear as opposites. In the symbolic realm, in the dictionary definitions, this division is true.

But in the real world creation and destruction are not divided, but a single unified process. Every act of creation destroys the existing situation, and every act of destruction creates a new situation. So, the words creation and destruction are useful on the human scale, but the price tag for them is the introduction of profound distortion, the appearance of a division which doesn't actually exist in the real world.

This creation/destruction process is the nature of change. And change is the only fixed status quo in reality. So again, while "change" sounds like one thing, and "fixed status quo" sounds like it's opposite, they are really one and the same. Again we see the inherently divisive nature of thought dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual parts.

We could swap out the word "creation" for the word "God", and swap the word "destruction" for the word "Satan", and the same principle described above still applies. These religious concepts of God being one thing, and Satan being another thing, and humans being a third thing, are all products of the inherently divisive nature of thought.

As soon as we utter any noun we have entered the realm of illusion. As soon as a discussion begins with it's dependence on language, and language's dependence upon thought, and thought's dependence upon division, we immediately begin translating reality in to a pile of conceptual division delusion.

What the evidence of history shows is that until this issue of distortion is faced and managed, conversations based on illusory separations will go eternally round and round and round and round to nowhere. Is that the goal of philosophy, to go eternally round and round the same little circles?

Fooloso4 said,

It seems to me that this is more on topic than many of the issues being discussed. If God created everything then God created Satan. So, this is directly related to the question of what God did wrong.

As to the term satan in the Hebrew Bible, here is a complete list:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_7854.htm

If you go through each entry you will find that they confirm what I have said. What you will not find, however, is support for your claim:

It is not a personal claim, but the research of many.

Belindi, define physical being in context.

-- Updated January 7th, 2017, 3:28 pm to add the following --

Ormond said,

Ok then, so let's talk God and Satan...

As somebody once said about a million times, we'll never get to the bottom of any of this unless we are willing to turn our attention to the nature of the medium that all these God and Satan ideas are made of, thought.

We have the concept of "creation" and the concept of "destruction". In our minds, in the realm of thought, these concepts appear to be divided from one another, they appear as opposites. In the symbolic realm, in the dictionary definitions, this division is true.

But in the real world creation and destruction are not divided, but a single unified process. Every act of creation destroys the existing situation, and every act of destruction creates a new situation. So, the words creation and destruction are useful on the human scale, but the price tag for them is the introduction of profound distortion, the appearance of a division which doesn't actually exist in the real world.

This creation/destruction process is the nature of change. And change is the only fixed status quo in reality. So again, while "change" sounds like one thing, and "fixed status quo" sounds like it's opposite, they are really one and the same. Again we see the inherently divisive nature of thought dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual parts.

We could swap out the word "creation" for the word "God", and swap the word "destruction" for the word "Satan", and the same principle described above still applies. These religious concepts of God being one thing, and Satan being another thing, and humans being a third thing, are all products of the inherently divisive nature of thought.

As soon as we utter any noun we have entered the realm of illusion. As soon as a discussion begins with it's dependence on language, and language's dependence upon thought, and thought's dependence upon division, we immediately begin translating reality in to a pile of conceptual division delusion.

What the evidence of history shows is that until this issue of distortion is faced and managed, conversations based on illusory separations will go eternally round and round and round and round to nowhere. Is that the goal of philosophy, to go eternally round and round the same little circles?

Good post, Ormond, but Satan should not solely be tied to Satan and the opposite is true for G_d.

Whitedragon:

It is not a personal claim, but the research of many.

It is up to us personally to evaluate such claims. I have provided the list of passages in which the term satan appears. If you provide links to the research we can compare what is claimed with what the texts say.

Fooloso4 replied to my question:

I note that Origen attaches his philosophy of God to the axiom that evil is absence of good. Of course one takes pleasure and a feeling of safety from that idea. However how is it a better axiom than that good is absence of evil? (Schopenhauer)

I note that what you wrote about the Platonic view implies that for Plato, good and being are interchangeable. It's better to be than not to be as this conversation about Origen is an actual event. It follows that evil is the absence of being-good.

Moreover being is like Spinoza's Natura Naturans i.e. nature naturing itself, and beings are like Spinoza's Natura Naturata i.e. the component parts or events of nature which exist in relation to each other and are identical with Natura Naturans insofar as the degree to which the part in question harmonises with Natura Naturans.

If Schopenhauer is correct that good is the absence of evil then evil would be the default. But evil cannot be the default because as we have seen good and being are identical.

Of course I want it to be true that evil is the absence of good, as the alternative feels like Sisyphus must have felt. I've tried to be impartial.

-- Updated January 7th, 2017, 6:22 pm to add the following --

Belindi wrote:Fooloso4 replied to my question:

I note that Origen attaches his philosophy of God to the axiom that evil is absence of good. Of course one takes pleasure and a feeling of safety from that idea. However how is it a better axiom than that good is absence of evil? (Schopenhauer)

I note that what you wrote about the Platonic view implies that for Plato, good and being are interchangeable. It's better to be than not to be if only because this conversation about Origen is an actual event i.e. there is something that is the case. It follows that evil is the absence of being-good.

Moreover being is like Spinoza's Natura Naturans i.e. nature naturing itself, and beings are like Spinoza's Natura Naturata i.e. the component parts or events of nature which exist in relation to each other and are identical with Natura Naturans insofar as the degree to which the part in question harmonises with Natura Naturans.

If Schopenhauer is correct that good is the absence of evil then evil would be the default. But evil cannot be the default because as we have seen good and being are identical.

Of course I want it to be true that evil is the absence of good, as the alternative feels like Sisyphus must have felt. I've tried to be impartial.

Whitedragon wrote:Satan’s role, in general, is to make humanity stronger by trying and testing them. He plays an important role of tempering the character of humans, of which even the Son was not exempt. Evil does not begin with Satan, but has a nebulous existence, due to the rule of opposites.

Shiva the Destoyer.

Whitedragon wrote:Imagine the world was perfect, as you describe it; but there was on little island filled with wicked people. As soon as we meet them that cancer will gradually spread. Lastly, we are far from hopeless and can evolve and grow, but not being exposed means only that some other party, with much more sinister intent will find us.

[/quote]
Notwithstanding the tragedy of the commons, the problem is readily solved through understanding strategies of the Prisoners Dilemma game (http://www.iterated-prisoners-dilemma.net/) - where, in any interaction, players may either cooperate or defect. There are many "nice" strategies in the game, but it's possible to be too nice, ie. a sucker.

Numerous strategies were submitted in a large context, with strategies fed into a computer and run against each other. The most successful was the simplest - Tit-for-Tat - which simply mirrors the move of the other player. So if someone cooperates with you, you also cooperate. If the other defects, then you defect. However, if one party defects to Tit-for-Tat players can fall into a spiral of defecting that benefits no one.

A "forgiving" strategy to break that loop is Tit-for-Two-Tats, where one defection is forgiven, but a second defection will earn retaliation. It can obviously be exploited but at least the losses are cut. "Naive prober" is opportunistic - it plays like Tit-for-Tat except that it occasionally throws in a defection. This would not work against "Grudger", which always cooperates unless the other defects, after which it always defects against that player. It's easy to see how a whole population of Grudgers would be on a knife edge, with just one defections starting a chain reaction and ultimate destruction. However, Grudgers would be in combination with Tit-for-Tats in dealing with Naive Probers and other "nasty strategies" that initiate defections.

Much attention in countering the "nice myth" is given to Jesus at the temple, but it should be noted that this is a ripoff of the Egyptian legend of Horus whipping enemies in his father's temple. It's probably especially focused on because those Christians who are naturally aggressive, personally or via proxies, seek to justify their tendencies.

Bottom line, it's about balance and most people would agree that the smart way to operate is to generally be nice, but realistically, knowing that there are "predators and parasites in the jungle".

Belindi:

I note that what you wrote about the Platonic view implies that for Plato, good and being are interchangeable.

For Plato, according to the Republic, the Good is beyond being (509b).

Fooloso4 wrote:Belindi:

I note that what you wrote about the Platonic view implies that for Plato, good and being are interchangeable.

For Plato, according to the Republic, the Good is beyond being (509b).

Back to the drawing-board then

Fooloso4 wrote:Belindi:

I note that what you wrote about the Platonic view implies that for Plato, good and being are interchangeable.

For Plato, according to the Republic, the Good is beyond being (509b).

Belindi:

"Being" can be used in different ways. It can refer to things that have being, like a car or a house, or it can refer to being itself, which beyond the former; used in the latter way, the Good and Being are indeed interchangeable and why the Euthyphro dilemma fails.

WD

I think this reply was meant to my question not Belindi-

ME -

So do you believe Satan is an actual being, and causes stuff to happen? Just curious.

Belindi, define physical being in context.

Not necessarily physical, maybe a spiritual being, maybe an angel which can materialise to interact with our material world? I don't know, only you can tell me what you believe Satan is?

Sorry 'bout that.

To all bloggers, also fooloso4 and Greta: an essay on Satan, Old and New Testament http://brazenchurch.com/biblical-satan/

It seems pointless to talk about Satan/the Satan without reading this article. We strongly urge all bloggers to read this history on Satan before conversing any further on the matter. After we are done, we can discuss the topic further.

Dark Matter wrote: Sorry 'bout that.

Hang on a minute. DM are you apologising for calling me Belindi, when it was White Dragon who mixed me up with Belindi?

Are you using both the Dark Matter and White Dragon accounts?

Whitedragon wrote:To all bloggers, also fooloso4 and Greta: an essay on Satan, Old and New Testament http://brazenchurch.com/biblical-satan/

It seems pointless to talk about Satan/the Satan without reading this article. We strongly urge all bloggers to read this history on Satan before conversing any further on the matter. After we are done, we can discuss the topic further.

It's just mythology, WD. Satan does not exist. Evil is subjective, being very real in that sense but not in the broader sense. Broadly what's referred to as "evil" is just entropy and chaos, which is necessary for reality's growth, just that you doesn't want too much entropy or chaos concentrated near you personally. There's nothing wrong conceptually with being overcome by strong local entropic forces (eg. storms) and in our dying we become unknowing constituents of nature's next grand projects. However, that seems less appealing than staying in one piece.

Dark Matter wrote:

Fooloso4 wrote:Belindi:


(Nested quote removed.)


For Plato, according to the Republic, the Good is beyond being (509b).

Belindi:

"Being" can be used in different ways. It can refer to things that have being, like a car or a house, or it can refer to being itself, which beyond the former; used in the latter way, the Good and Being are indeed interchangeable and why the Euthyphro dilemma fails.

-- Updated January 8th, 2017, 9:03 am to add the following --

Belindi wrote:

Dark Matter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Belindi:

"Being" can be used in different ways. It can refer to things that have being, like a car or a house, or it can refer to being itself, which beyond the former; used in the latter way, the Good and Being are indeed interchangeable and why the Euthyphro dilemma fails.

Sorry I cannot edit away this false click. I meant o reply to Dark Matter . By being I meant being itself by contrast with the sum total of beings, and by contrast also with the workings of nature.

I'll quote Spinoza again as he has the most concise way of explaining being.

Natura Naturans is a Latin singular phrase for "nature naturing"itself i.e. the working of nature.

Natura Naturata is a Latin plural phrase for all the things, or events, of nature such as you or me or some rain storm, or an internal combustion engine, or somebody's memory of a childhood event. Anything, any things, any event.

Being is both of those together, and is to be contrasted with nothing, or non-being. Non-being includes nothing. No ways of nature, no nature, no events, no things, no people, nothing.

I am aware that there are other usages of 'being' and 'beings' and 'Beings' and I'm not referring to those other usages.

Greta wrote: Broadly what's referred to as "evil" is just entropy and chaos, which is necessary for reality's growth, just that you doesn't want too much entropy or chaos concentrated near you personally.

"You personally" are creation and destruction, except that they aren't two different things as the words imply, but rather a single process.

Creation and destruction are two different things only as they appear from a limited perspective, such as how the sun appears to rise and set, and the Earth appears to be flat, from the limited perspective of standing on the surface of the Earth.

"You personally" exist only in the way that a wave on the surface of the ocean "exists". An ocean wave has no substance that is separate from the ocean, and "you" have no substance that is separate from reality. "You" is a useful concept only because we all share the same illusion of division, we all feel that as a wave on the ocean of life we are separate, discrete, divided from the ocean, or as some so concisely put it "I am".

The fundamental problem our fellow members decline to face is that a profound bias for the illusion of separation is built in to the fabric of language, thus it's pretty much impossible to discuss any subject such as God and Satan, or anything else, without immediately immersing ourselves in the fantasy of division. And so we become trapped in eternally pointless loops such as discussing creation vs. destruction, me vs. everything else, or God vs. Satan, when in reality none of these things exist as discrete separate phenomena, as the use of words so strongly implies.

None of this can be resolved at the level of philosophy, at the level of making a better argument for or against God or Satan or any of the rest of it, because at the moment the thinking and speaking begins, the illusion of division is reintroduced. It doesn't matter how clever one's arguments might be.

To the degree there is a solution to endlessly racing around the pointless hamster wheel of fantasy division philosophy it is to shift the focus of the investigation from the content of thought to the nature of thought. As example, a good astronomer would be an expert on the nature of telescopes.

My fellow members wish to rush past the step of understanding the telescope we are using to view reality, and the price tag for that is to endlessly argue about the imaginary "things" we see in the telescope viewfinder, "things" which don't actually exist, just as the wave on the ocean doesn't exist.