why free will doesn't spare God's omnibenevolence

[MonDie]

I'm reluctant to use my SFN account to post religious threads, but this counterapologetics argument is actually clever and fun. I'm not a philosophy student, so feel free to refine the way in which it is stated. Honestly I think it's a lot simpler than this format makes it out to be.

 

1) Satan had free will, for he rebelled.

2) Satan exists eternally, for he tortures us eternally.

3) If 2 but not 1, Satan was made to torture us by outside influences (i.e. God).

4) If 1&2 and Satan has free will eternally (E), he must inevitably be saved.

5) If 1&2 but Satan remains evil eternally, then Satan at some point irrevocably loses free will (not E).

6) If Satan loses free will eternally (5), then either God took it away from him or is at least failing to return it to him.

7) Either Satan never had free will (not 1), he has or had it but loses it (5), or he retains it eternally but is eventually saved (4). Under all possibilities, it's up to God whether we're tortured eternally.

8) From 7, God is not loving if we're tortured eternally.

 

It can be Satan's free will, my free will in hell, whatever. There's this regress of who took my free will away and who is withholding their free will, which inevitably leads back to God. It makes it impossible for evil to persist eternally.

Edited October 14, 2015 by MonDie

[puppypower]

Free will occurs because humans have two centers of consciousness. We have an instinctive center of consciousness, which is also common to animals, called the inner self. This is what makes animals conscious and integrates them with nature via instinct. Humans, are unique among the critters in that we also have a secondary center, called the ego, which can make choices apart from instinct and the inner self. The choices of the ego are connected to culture and learning. These choices may or may not be natural and therefore may to may not coordinate with the inner self.

 

For example, the inner self may give us a natural urge to eat. The ego can sense being hungry. It can then choose to go along with that urge, ignore the urge, or postpone the urge. Once we do decide to eat, the body and inner self may also decide we need to eat X amount. The ego can find this sweet spot, overeat or under eat, with deviation having potential long term consequences on health.

 

When the ego first appeared the inner self was far more conscious. The symbolism of Lucifer, who was the precursor of Satan, was the morning light because the ego was helping the inner self, as civilization begins to form. The ego was helping to extrapolate natural instinct into a new type of environment never before on the earth. But as the ego became more developed, the inner self became less and less conscious, so deviation and repression begins to appear. In modern times, it is difficult to define natural human instinct due to the unconsciousness of the inner self. We make free choices apart from the inner self, by default, due to being unconscious of the real time natural path.

 

As an analogy of God and human free will, picture a computer programmer who is trying to develop artificial intelligence or a conscious computer. The inner self is analogous to the foundation operating system, common to all the computers in the network, that funnels each computer and the network down preprogramed paths. The AI is analogous to the ego, which one day appears in one of the computers, that allows it to think and act apart from the foundation programs. There are pitfalls for having artificial intelligence since that one computer can now make choices which can help or undermine the foundation software.

 

If the AI appeared, the programmer will be amazed with pride and will hope he can influence the free will of the AI, so it can be an asset. But he also knows that free will means making choices apart from the programmer and its internal program. If the AI, as an act of free will, crashes the network, this very act of conscious choice, although bad/evil to everyone else, it is nevertheless an amazing occurrence that the programmer will love. He knows the AI is just learning to walk and has to learn and evolve, with the hope that someday it will coordinate with the operating system and network, and take that to higher levels of functionality.

[Strange]

Free will occurs because humans have two centers of consciousness.

 

Citation needed.

 

 

Humans, are unique among the critters in that we also have a secondary center, called the ego

 

Citation needed.

 

Also: off topic.

[MonDie]

Hello, PuppyPower. I don't see the relevance of anything you said. You appear to be soapboxing on my thread. There's also a problem with the prophecies if Satan has free will, which he should if he rebelled.

I did read your post.

 

edit: I think he's saying Satan is a force rather than a conscious entity. My next question is why I can't be saved once I'm in hell. What's stopping me?

Edited October 14, 2015 by MonDie

[pavelcherepan]

I'm reluctant to use my SFN account to post religious threads, but this counterapologetics argument is actually clever and fun. I'm not a philosophy student, so feel free to refine the way in which it is stated. Honestly I think it's a lot simpler than this format makes it out to be.

 

1) Satan had free will, for he rebelled.

2) Satan exists eternally, for he tortures us eternally.

3) If 2 but not 1, Satan was made to torture us by outside influences (i.e. God).

4) If 1&2 and Satan has free will eternally (E), he must inevitably be saved.

5) If 1&2 but Satan remains evil eternally, then Satan at some point irrevocably loses free will (not E).

6) If Satan loses free will eternally (5), then either God took it away from him or is at least failing to return it to him.

7) Either Satan never had free will (not 1), he has or had it but loses it (5), or he retains it eternally but is eventually saved (4). Under all possibilities, it's up to God whether we're tortured eternally.

8) From 7, God is not loving if we're tortured eternally.

 

It can be Satan's free will, my free will in hell, whatever. There's this regress of who took my free will away and who is withholding their free will, which inevitably leads back to God. It makes it impossible for evil to persist eternally.

 

Hi there, I'm slightly confused. There are different interpretations of Satan, but for now let's talk about the fallen angel, who had rebelled against God after God created men and after gaining knowledge of upcoming incarnation of God as a man and refusing to bow to inferior creatures.

 

So in this version he has free will (1) and exists eternally (2) being an angel.

Since the reason for his rebellion didn't go away, there's no reason for him to repent, even though he retains free will, and then there's no salvation, so (not 5).

Using the same logic I see no contradiction between Satan being forever "evil" from our perspective and still retaining free will. In his own perspective he'd still believe that he's doing the right thing. I see no reason why he'd change his mind. And then (7) breaks down.

[MonDie]

Hi there, I'm slightly confused. There are different interpretations of Satan, but for now let's talk about the fallen angel, who had rebelled against God after God created men and after gaining knowledge of upcoming incarnation of God as a man and refusing to bow to inferior creatures.

 

So in this version he has free will (1) and exists eternally (2) being an angel.

Since the reason for his rebellion didn't go away, there's no reason for him to repent, even though he retains free will, and then there's no salvation, so (not 5).

Using the same logic I see no contradiction between Satan being forever "evil" from our perspective and still retaining free will. In his own perspective he'd still believe that he's doing the right thing. I see no reason why he'd change his mind. And then (7) breaks down.

To rebel he must have free will, and specifically, the freedom to accept or reject God. If he can't accept God once again, then he no longer has that freedom specifically, despite necessarily having it at one point. If we redefine "free will" as that particular freedom, then the integrity of the argument is spared.

You are framing free will as circumstantial, that is some freedoms are only available under certain circumstances. Satan had these circumstances at one point. Tell me who withholds these circumstances from Satan, and who withholds these cirvumstances from them as well... for all of eternity.

Edited October 18, 2015 by MonDie

[pavelcherepan]

So with this logic an american teenager, for example, has free will to go either for Democrats or Republicans, but then if later in life he/she makes a choice and sticks with it for the rest of the life, does it mean that he/she had lost free will? Or is it maybe because a person is very stubborn, or maybe the original choice was just so good, or maybe the choice was not good, but he/she is too stupid to understand it?

[MonDie]

So with this logic an american teenager, for example, has free will to go either for Democrats or Republicans, but then if later in life he/she makes a choice and sticks with it for the rest of the life, does it mean that he/she had lost free will?

 

Free will must be framed probabilistically. If the probability of a choice equals zero or one, that's determinism and does nothing to absolve God of blame, and furthermore I would not call it "free will". Maybe the likelihood of changing their mind was low, but then, given an eternity to make the other choice, they must eventually do so.

[pavelcherepan]

OK, that makes much more sense now. Viewing free will as probabilistic definitely helps.

[Prometheus]

The expectation might be infinite in which case though it is possible for Satan to repent he could remain eternally evil.

 

An interesting aside: i'm just reading Milton's Paradise Lost and Satan does on occasion wish he could repent, but always feels things have gone too far. God, however, declares Satan is forever without the grace he extends to Man, for though man sinned he did so under Satan's influence while Satan rebelled under no duress.

[TJ McCaustland]

I'm reluctant to use my SFN account to post religious threads, but this counterapologetics argument is actually clever and fun. I'm not a philosophy student, so feel free to refine the way in which it is stated. Honestly I think it's a lot simpler than this format makes it out to be.

 

1) Satan had free will, for he rebelled.

2) Satan exists eternally, for he tortures us eternally.

3) If 2 but not 1, Satan was made to torture us by outside influences (i.e. God).

4) If 1&2 and Satan has free will eternally (E), he must inevitably be saved.

5) If 1&2 but Satan remains evil eternally, then Satan at some point irrevocably loses free will (not E).

6) If Satan loses free will eternally (5), then either God took it away from him or is at least failing to return it to him.

7) Either Satan never had free will (not 1), he has or had it but loses it (5), or he retains it eternally but is eventually saved (4). Under all possibilities, it's up to God whether we're tortured eternally.

8) From 7, God is not loving if we're tortured eternally.

 

It can be Satan's free will, my free will in hell, whatever. There's this regress of who took my free will away and who is withholding their free will, which inevitably leads back to God. It makes it impossible for evil to persist eternally.

To point out a flaw in this kind of thinking, let's go back to the point that God must provide a MEANINGFUL end, for all creatures, not necessarily a good one, and the reason why Satan does not lose his free will but is evil eternally and is not saved is because he chose to rebel against God, and God must once again only provide a MEANINGFUL end for all creatures, He uses Satan as an example to all creatures with an eternal soul as an example of what rebellious behavior against him causes, He gives us a very clear choice in which way to go, And though it may seem that he is controlling us, he is very clearly not as if he was we would not possess the capacity to sin, and the very reason why hell does indeed exist is because that is the end of the path that you may take that leads you away from God, and the reason why it is so torturous, is because it is without God, or without the key means of existence, Because just as God did indeed state "I Am", He is the key means to existence because he provides the ability to exist, but even as you're already thinking that this hell cannot exist because it is without God, it can exist because of his will, which is another key means for existence, providing a means for hell to exist without him, however, lets say God was somehow usurped, the proof in the fact that nothing, not even Hell would exist is in the fact that either his will, or his existence in your existence, is necessary for existence.

Edited October 22, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[MonDie]

To point out a flaw in this kind of thinking, let's go back to the point that God must provide a MEANINGFUL end, for all creatures, not necessarily a good one, and the reason why Satan does not lose his free will but is evil eternally and is not saved is because he chose to rebel against God, and God must once again only provide a MEANINGFUL end for all creatures, He uses Satan as an example to all creatures with an eternal soul as an example of what rebellious behavior against him causes,

If God is good, and he provided that meaning, then that meaning must be good. If God made Satan to be bad, then it would show that God is bad.

 

He gives us a very clear choice in which way to go, And though it may seem that he is controlling us, he is very clearly not as if he was we would not possess the capacity to sin, and the very reason why hell does indeed exist is because that is the end of the path that you may take that leads you away from God,

But he doesn't give Satan a choice. Satan is just stuck evil because God made him to be evil because God is evil.

 

and the reason why it is so torturous, is because it is without God

but even as you're already thinking that this hell cannot exist because it is without God, it can exist because of his will, which is another key means for existence, providing a means for hell to exist without him,

In other words, God willed that hell exist (without him) so that all the bad people could be tortured infinitely for finite crimes, and accomplishes this by taking away our freedom to be saved once we're dead, thereby forcing us to be evil eternally and justifying our infinite punishment. That sounds extra loving.

 

---

 

I think my argument can be reduced a bit. God is supposedly loving, and many Christians excuse evil by claiming that God had to give us free will (for some reason). To defend eternal evil, however, they have to explain why God had to both (a) give it that freedom, then (b) take that freedom away. It's arguable that even A alone precludes God's loving nature, and why A was necessary is even more questionable once we learn that B is also possible, that Satan was capable of existing without that freedom in the first place. In retrospect, I guess it doesn't prove 8 as solidly as I thought, but it makes avoiding 8 extra, extra, extra difficult for the apologist.

Edited October 23, 2015 by MonDie

[TJ McCaustland]

If God is good, and he provided that meaning, then that meaning must be good. If God made Satan to be bad, then it would show that God is bad.

 

But he doesn't give Satan a choice. Satan is just stuck evil because God made him to be evil because God is evil.

 

In other words, God willed that hell exist (without him) so that all the bad people could be tortured infinitely for finite crimes, and accomplishes this by taking away our freedom to be saved once we're dead, thereby forcing us to be evil eternally and justifying our infinite punishment. That sounds extra loving.

 

---

 

I think my argument can be reduced a bit. God is supposedly loving, and many Christians excuse evil by claiming that God had to give us free will (for some reason). To defend eternal evil, however, they have to explain why God had to both (a) give it that freedom, then (b) take that freedom away. It's arguable that even A alone precludes God's loving nature, and why A was necessary is even more questionable once we learn that B is also possible, that Satan was capable of existing without that freedom in the first place. In retrospect, I guess it doesn't prove 8 as solidly as I thought, but it makes avoiding 8 extra, extra, extra difficult for the apologist.

So, you believe God is evil? Because he wills that hell exists? Well the very reason why he wills that hell exists is because he must provide a meaningful end for all creatures, and that is the only available option, because either way without God your existence will be hell, Secondly, to support that fact, God could very easily instead of allowing you to exist after having disobeyed him just simply said "Pff... You are a terrible person who doesn't deserve to exist so I'm just gonna snap my big God fingers and you're going to vanish." The very fact that you are not denied existence is evidence he is omnibenevolent, as he allows you to exist on your own terms, with or without him, It's simply the fact that he makes you stick to that choice that makes him appear evil to some people. Now in reference to Satan, he was put in the exact same position as we are in, as he was given two choices, A: Follow God's will and exist with his existence in your existence, or B: Follow your own will and live however you want but be without God for all eternity, So Satan HAD and still HAS free will but is unable to deviate from the choice he made to rebel against, and therefore be without God, as God does not force himself upon people, nor does he allow them to embrace him only out of their own will to end their suffering, he wants truthful faithfulness and love of him, because it wouldn't really make sense to allow falsehood to creep into the realm of either faith or love.

[Sorcerer]

I'm reluctant to use my SFN account to post religious threads, but this counterapologetics argument is actually clever and fun. I'm not a philosophy student, so feel free to refine the way in which it is stated. Honestly I think it's a lot simpler than this format makes it out to be.

 

1) Satan had free will, for he rebelled.

2) Satan exists eternally, for he tortures us eternally.

3) If 2 but not 1, Satan was made to torture us by outside influences (i.e. God).

4) If 1&2 and Satan has free will eternally (E), he must inevitably be saved.

5) If 1&2 but Satan remains evil eternally, then Satan at some point irrevocably loses free will (not E).

6) If Satan loses free will eternally (5), then either God took it away from him or is at least failing to return it to him.

7) Either Satan never had free will (not 1), he has or had it but loses it (5), or he retains it eternally but is eventually saved (4). Under all possibilities, it's up to God whether we're tortured eternally.

8) From 7, God is not loving if we're tortured eternally.

 

It can be Satan's free will, my free will in hell, whatever. There's this regress of who took my free will away and who is withholding their free will, which inevitably leads back to God. It makes it impossible for evil to persist eternally.

The argument is bound by a lot of hidden premises that are assumptions of the ecclesiastical god.

 

I am uncertain that Christianity accepts the premise that given sufficient time all beings will be saved by God. I've never heard this belief before. If this can't be shown the argument isn't valid.

 

An easy way out would also be to assume our view of good is simplistic when compared to God's omniscience. God doesn't deems it good to provide some who aren't deserving with salvation and deems it good and appropriate to punish them eternally.

 

However I now wonder why I even bothered to comment because the whole arguments initial assumption of God's existence has no supporting evidence and all qualities this fictional god has are therefore fictional themselves.

 

State your assumptions and list the premises ie the qualities of god/define the god you're referring to.

To rebel he must have free will, and specifically, the freedom to accept or reject God. If he can't accept God once again, then he no longer has that freedom specifically, despite necessarily having it at one point. If we redefine "free will" as that particular freedom, then the integrity of the argument is spared.

You are framing free will as circumstantial, that is some freedoms are only available under certain circumstances. Satan had these circumstances at one point. Tell me who withholds these circumstances from Satan, and who withholds these cirvumstances from them as well... for all of eternity.

Oh I get you now. Free will means he's free to reject god and each choice is independent of the last, there is no limit to how many times he can choose not to accept god, he can do so eternally and not violate free will. It is only necessary for there to be the option for him to accept not that he must eventually do so.

 

To use an example a coin flip has a 50/50 chance of heads or tails, it is entirely possible although infinitesimally likely that given an infinite number of flips the coin will continually land on only one option. The other option is always a possibility at every flip but having the option doesn't dictate it must occur.

 

It is the same for a dichotomous choice and free will. The choices options being heads or tails and the choice being the flip. There is no law which says both options must occur even once in an infinite number of flips.

I think the problem here is that you're viewing choice as not being independent of prior choice at each moment. The premise that an available choice must eventually made given an infinite number of decisions or the option isn't really a possibility is false. Options aren't required to occur in a scenario for them to have existence since possibility is an abstract thing.

 

If assumed true, your reasoning could be extended using god then as the subject. God has free will, he is eternal, at some point god must choose to be evil or that choice doesn't exist and he has no free will.

 

What if, when Satan chooses to repent as his one good act in eternity, God then chooses to reject that as his one evil act in all eternity?

[Ten oz]

I'm reluctant to use my SFN account to post religious threads, but this counterapologetics argument is actually clever and fun. I'm not a philosophy student, so feel free to refine the way in which it is stated. Honestly I think it's a lot simpler than this format makes it out to be.

 

1) Satan had free will, for he rebelled.

2) Satan exists eternally, for he tortures us eternally.

3) If 2 but not 1, Satan was made to torture us by outside influences (i.e. God).

4) If 1&2 and Satan has free will eternally (E), he must inevitably be saved.

5) If 1&2 but Satan remains evil eternally, then Satan at some point irrevocably loses free will (not E).

6) If Satan loses free will eternally (5), then either God took it away from him or is at least failing to return it to him.

7) Either Satan never had free will (not 1), he has or had it but loses it (5), or he retains it eternally but is eventually saved (4). Under all possibilities, it's up to God whether we're tortured eternally.

8) From 7, God is not loving if we're tortured eternally.

 

 

Satan is not a character in all religions. In context to the one(s) where Satan is God is the creator of all things. The obvious implication that God then also must have created evil is masked by the concept that Satan was given "free will" and used that gift for evil. For that to be true at least one of 2 things must be true:

-free will comes with the power of not just choice but creation itself.

-evil has always existed.

 

In either case God is Satan's enabler.

[Sorcerer]

Satan is not a character in all religions. In context to the one(s) where Satan is God is the creator of all things. The obvious implication that God then also must have created evil is masked by the concept that Satan was given "free will" and used that gift for evil. For that to be true at least one of 2 things must be true:

-free will comes with the power of not just choice but creation itself.

-evil has always existed.

 

In either case God is Satan's enabler.

You give your options with such certainty that you have considered every possibility. Correctly you do say in the religions where Satan exists, but since there need not be any justifications for the creation of a religion, you never considered the one I just made up now.

 

What about : Satan is a necessary creation and God's plans include his existence. None of God's actions are evil and neither is Satan, Satan is simply a tool god uses to measure the worth of the souls he created. Satan is God's test and he rewards those who resist, those who do not he doesn't punish but the alternative to the reward is no reward and by default those souls end up with Satan.

 

So we see the lack of reward as punishment, when no reward is just the default. Rather than a dichotomy where good is +1 and evil the opposite at -1, it is a dichotomy where good is +1 and lack of good 0.

 

As humans with greed we can't see how our selfish desire for the reward creates the illusion of the lack of it being a punishment. Not wanting the reward at all is probably more virtuous, it can be obtained without attempt, rather nothing is needed, it requires actions which Satan desires to become excluded. With out those actions possible all other actions by default will be good.

For MonDie : this is independence as it relates to probability, can you show that in an infinite number of independent trails with 2 possible results that both results must occur? Or conversely can you show that if after an infinite amount of trials if one of 2 possibilities doesn't occur then it's probability of occurring must be 0?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

 

I assume you were viewing it as this, conditional, where you had an infinite set containing all choices and for there to be free will both choices must be in the set. After an infinite amount of trials, then it must occur that both choices are made.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

 

I will accept your argument if you can show that independent probabilities trialed an infinite number of times must result in the occurrence of all possibilities. Or if you can show that choice is always like conditional probability, where previous choices must always influence future ones.

 

The argument is more easily and clearly made if you just consider god. If God is free to choose and he is capable of making all choices and he is eternal, then he must eventually choose a choice which isn'tgood. Therefore god is not omnibenevolent.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Sorcerer

[Ten oz]

@ Sorcerer, you can invent a new religion and a new God but the character Satan still has a traditional mythology. If a "New" religion chooses to include the characters from other known religions than they are saddled with those mythologies on certain levels. Others why borrow the character at all? Just make a new one up.

[MonDie]

Satan is not a character in all religions. In context to the one(s) where Satan is God is the creator of all things. The obvious implication that God then also must have created evil is masked by the concept that Satan was given "free will" and used that gift for evil. For that to be true at least one of 2 things must be true:

-free will comes with the power of not just choice but creation itself.

-evil has always existed.

 

In either case God is Satan's enabler.

True it's specific to Abrahamic religion, but I think a more refined version could prove more broadly that:

 

If an omniscient and good (or omnibenevolent) being is the source of all things, then eternal evil (or eternal torture) is iimpossible, even if free will is for some reason necessary.

Edited October 24, 2015 by MonDie

[Sorcerer]

@ Sorcerer, you can invent a new religion and a new God but the character Satan still has a traditional mythology. If a "New" religion chooses to include the characters from other known religions than they are saddled with those mythologies on certain levels. Others why borrow the character at all? Just make a new one up.

Since when does religion follow reason lol. Simply because I can. Actually the view I gave is a very common explanation for the problem of evil, the anecdote goes something like: does dark exist? No dark is the absence of light. Similarly evil doesn't actually exist it is just the absence of good.

 

http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2011/10/04/ten-foundational-verses-for-eternal-punishment-in-hell/

 

The Christian god is not omnibenevolent whoever says such is out of touch with their bible or believes that torture can be a good action.

 

The god of the bible is only said to good for those who follow him.

[TJ McCaustland]

The argument is bound by a lot of hidden premises that are assumptions of the ecclesiastical god.

 

I am uncertain that Christianity accepts the premise that given sufficient time all beings will be saved by God. I've never heard this belief before. If this can't be shown the argument isn't valid.

 

An easy way out would also be to assume our view of good is simplistic when compared to God's omniscience. God doesn't deems it good to provide some who aren't deserving with salvation and deems it good and appropriate to punish them eternally.

 

However I now wonder why I even bothered to comment because the whole arguments initial assumption of God's existence has no supporting evidence and all qualities this fictional god has are therefore fictional themselves.

 

State your assumptions and list the premises ie the qualities of god/define the god you're referring to.

 

Oh I get you now. Free will means he's free to reject god and each choice is independent of the last, there is no limit to how many times he can choose not to accept god, he can do so eternally and not violate free will. It is only necessary for there to be the option for him to accept not that he must eventually do so.

 

To use an example a coin flip has a 50/50 chance of heads or tails, it is entirely possible although infinitesimally likely that given an infinite number of flips the coin will continually land on only one option. The other option is always a possibility at every flip but having the option doesn't dictate it must occur.

 

It is the same for a dichotomous choice and free will. The choices options being heads or tails and the choice being the flip. There is no law which says both options must occur even once in an infinite number of flips.

I think the problem here is that you're viewing choice as not being independent of prior choice at each moment. The premise that an available choice must eventually made given an infinite number of decisions or the option isn't really a possibility is false. Options aren't required to occur in a scenario for them to have existence since possibility is an abstract thing.

 

If assumed true, your reasoning could be extended using god then as the subject. God has free will, he is eternal, at some point god must choose to be evil or that choice doesn't exist and he has no free will.

 

What if, when Satan chooses to repent as his one good act in eternity, God then chooses to reject that as his one evil act in all eternity?

If Satan DID repent, he would still be denied heaven because it would not be a whole repentence, only partial, as there is still sin on his soul, because forgiveness only comes through confession, which comes through priests, which comes from God, so a place without God cannot have forgiveness as those who chose to attend such a place rejected his existence, and therefore put themselves beyond reach of forgiveness.

[Sorcerer]

If Satan DID repent, he would still be denied heaven because it would not be a whole repentence, only partial, as there is still sin on his soul, because forgiveness only comes through confession, which comes through priests, which comes from God, so a place without God cannot have forgiveness as those who chose to attend such a place rejected his existence, and therefore put themselves beyond reach of forgiveness.

Some god isn't omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent then?

 

An omnipresent god would still exist in hell.

 

An omniscient god would have knowledge of Satan's repentance.

 

An omnipotent god would be able to be there, hear and act.

[TJ McCaustland]

Some god isn't omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent then?

 

An omnipresent god would still exist in hell.

 

An omniscient god would have knowledge of Satan's repentance.

 

An omnipotent god would be able to be there, hear and act.

Not necessarily, because Hell is existence outside existence.

[Ten oz]

Since when does religion follow reason lol. Simply because I can. Actually the view I gave is a very common explanation for the problem of evil, the anecdote goes something like: does dark exist? No dark is the absence of light. Similarly evil doesn't actually exist it is just the absence of good.

 

http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2011/10/04/ten-foundational-verses-for-eternal-punishment-in-hell/

 

The Christian god is not omnibenevolent whoever says such is out of touch with their bible or believes that torture can be a good action.

 

The god of the bible is only said to good for those who follow him.

You are referencing evil I am more specifically referencing Satan. Evil is a very broad and nebulous concept while Satan is a specific individual. The thread's OP references Satan specifically as well.

True it's specific to Abrahamic religion, but I think a more refined version could prove more broadly that:

 

If an omniscient and good (or omnibenevolent) being is the source of all things, then eternal evil (or eternal torture) is iimpossible, even if free will is for some reason necessary.

Yes, this is true if we assume Satan is merely the name of a source or system and not an individual. In which case who or what Satan is becomes less meaningful than evil which is the real product we are discussing. I am addressing Satan the character, the individual, as written and believed in by those who initially wrote of him.

[MonDie]

Not necessarily, because Hell is existence outside existence.

Firsly, that doesn't make sense.

 

Secondly, Satan isn't stuck in hell apart from God, for he talks to God in The Bible.

 

Thirdly, you are positing more beyond free will. You are positing that (a) Satan was given free will and (b) Satan was given the ability to surrender his own freedom and thereby eternally damn himself. You now have to explain why God had to give both of these capabilities to Satan even though it contradicted his omnibenevolent nature.

Edited October 25, 2015 by MonDie

[Sorcerer]

Not necessarily, because Hell is existence outside existence.

First of all omni means all you cannot make up any new place which isn't a part of all.

 

If God was able to send Satan there he is able to go there.

 

If Satan can tempt us from there, God is able to hear there.

 

Not sure why I am bothering with you though.