The Christian God Sure Takes His Sweet Time

Welcome to yet another essay where I pile on even more reasons to find Christianity false. For those keeping score at home, I’ve previously exposed Christianity for contradicting the evidence by getting the order of creation hopelessly wrong in Genesis. I’ve also busted Christianity for prayer being false and contradictory, having a doctrine of Hell that is clearly unjust, and for the actions of God in the Bible being clearly malevolent.

And don’t forget that God both endorses a great deal of suffering in our world and is a total uninvolved no show. At this point I am genuinely surprised there are those who intellectually justify the literal truth of Christianity, but I have even more to say.

 

Specifically, I’d like to talk about this guy Satan. …Why Doesn’t God just kill Satan right now?

It seems like a complete no-brainer: the Bible talks about Satan being the source of tons of evil, and being a major reason why people are tempted into sin. While there is a lot of disagreement over the nature of Satan, it does seem that people acknowledge that the Devil is not someone we want to keep around, if possible.

And God is without excuse, as the standard Problem of Evil applies: God is benevolent and thus wants to eliminate anything evil, God is omnipotent and thus quite capable of eliminating Satan on the tiniest whim, and God certainly knows about Satan. It seems inescapably obvious that God and Satan should not be able to coexist.

 

And to make matters more interesting, the Bible specifically says that God will remove Satan at some point:

When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. — Revelation 20: 7-10

 

 

What is Going On?

So to re-cap: here we have the Devil, the very personification of evil. According to Christianity, he exists and goes around deceiving us and tempting us into doing terrible things. God clearly wants to kill him someday, and the Bible declares that he will do so. Yet he hasn’t done so, yet. This certainly does seem puzzling. What is stopping an omnipotent God?

Remember here that God is omniscient and can see the future. God knew ahead of time what Satan would do the moment he created Satan — the moment he created a being so crazy, malevolent, and irrational that he thought it would be a good idea to rise up and rebel against the most powerful and most good thing in the universe. (Does Satan know something we don’t? If God is perfect, why would people rebel against him?) Thus God intentionally set up all this evil.

 

As always, the standard excuses don’t apply:

“Satan cannot be killed.” Oddly enough, this argument actually has been advanced, and appeals to the fact that Satan has a soul, and souls are eternal. However, there still seems to be no reason why God can’t end a soul, or at least imprison it somewhere (Hell) where the soul can do no more harm, so the excuse at best just changes the question to “Why doesn’t God just send Satan to Hell right now?”. Additionally, God, knowing everything that would happen, could have just not created Satan’s soul in the first place. Or he could have created a type of Satan soul that could be killed.

“Satan is necessary to test us via temptation.” This doesn’t square with God’s omniscience, since God can automatically and infallibly predict what it is that we would do in response to any scenario without needing the scenario played out in real life (given that God “knows people’s hearts”, and thus can gauge all of their intentions). Also, it’s not as if an omnipotent being is so short on time that he requires a middleman (the Devil) to accomplish his objectives.

“God must respect Satan’s free will.” This does sound initially plausible, but respecting free will doesn’t explain why you can’t intervene. Would it be the violation of a murderer’s free will to kill them before they manage to kill other people? Hardly, and Satan is no different. God can give people the choice to commit evil acts and still stop them from actually harming people — including Satan.

“God needs Satan to show us what evil looks like.” So God is so terrible that we can only recognize his goodness when comparing him to the most malevolent entity ever? Makes sense to me, but I’m not sure that’s what you would want to endorse. We recognize what evil looks like in our every day lives from observing murders and hurricanes. I certainly don’t know what the Devil adds to that, given that we never get to meet the guy or see him in person. (Funny that everything the Devil does is so indirect as to be untestable…)

“God needs to have an adversary.” A perfect being doesn’t need anything, and creating your own villan just so you can fight it is so hopelessly contrived and arbitrary, especially when other people are forced to suffer just so you can play out the hero role. If this excuse is truly the reason why God made and allows Satan, he is a tragic character worthy of pity, not worship.

“It’s the fault of sinners that Satan can do evil anyway.” Right, if only we could resist his temptations! I’m not sure what it is that Satan does to tempt us, whether it is mind manipulation or more subtle deception, but he still would be guilty of aiding and abetting under any court system. The fact that people can be deceived does not excuse deception. For the same reason that people leaving their stuff unsecured does not excuse thievery and people dressing in revealing clothing does not excuse rape, people being open to deception does not excuse the Devil.

“Satan was necessary for The Fall.” This excuse is so bad I will need an entire paragraph to eviscerate it and demolish more of Christianity along the way. See below.

 

 

Was Satan Needed for The Fall?

First off, the Fall as a story is incredibly silly. We have two people, Adam and Eve… now of course, they didn’t literally exist, so why we would also need a literal Devil to allow for a metaphorical fall is beyond me. But roll with it.

Two people, Adam and Eve. And they have no knowledge of good or evil, yet God tells them that they must obey him and not eat from a certain tree… that it would be evil of them not to. And then God places the tree right within their reach, and best of all allows the serpent (who could or could not be the Devil, depending on who you ask) into the garden and let’s him deceive Eve into eating the apple.

And of course, God knew all of this would happen ahead of time, being omniscient. Thus the Garden of Eden Fall story is as ridiculous as how God wouldn’t allow people to build a Tower of Babel of a specific height because they might reach heaven, yet allows us nowadays to have a space program. Maybe God relocated Heaven to a safer distance?

 

Why Would God Want a Fall?

This question makes it clear that the Fall was all part of God’s plan, and that he specifically created Satan so that the Fall could occur. Now while this does seem an inescapable conclusion based on God’s ability to see the Fall ahead of time and ability to prevent the Fall should he have wanted to do so, it also exposes a really weird flaw in Christianity — God set us Eve up for an inescapable failure, and then blames Eve for it, and then blames Adam for Eve’s mistake, and then blames us today for something that our thousand-of-years-ago not-actually-existing-in-history ancestors did. Wonderful. It’s like God is playing “stop hitting yourself” with us just for kicks.

One might sugget that the Fall was necessary for the whole Jesus thing where God stepped in to save us from our own sins, as if sacrificing an innocent man can make guilty people not guilty. (Try going to court and asking if Jesus can go to jail in your place.) But this would make God into a contrived and arbitrary sham — he decided to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save us from himself. It’s not like our sinful nature was unexpected.

 

Now that the Fall is Over, Why Do We Still Need Satan?

Even all that aside, though, the Fall is still not an excuse: because now that the Fall is over and the atonement occurred, what more use do we have for the embodiment of evil to still be walking around? Even if the Fall could be considered a reason to create Satan in the first place (albeit a really silly one), why does God not kill Satan?

I’m sure you have an excuse, but you’ll notice that it now (very probably) has nothing to do with the Fall. So we’re off somewhere else.

 

 

A Retreat to The Great Unknown

Now we get into some even crazier excuses. They would go something like this:

The Argument from Authority: “God is absolutely sovereign over all of his creation. God’s ways are not our ways, and calling into question God’s plan is to call into question God himself. It is not wise to question his right to do exactly as he pleases. Psalm 18:30 says God is perfect, and you dare criticize perfection? God created us, so he can do whatever he wants with us. If God wants us all tortured severely, he would be in his rights to do so. Our responsibility is to submit to God and do whatever he says, whether we like it or not.”

The Argument from Infallibility: “God is perfect, so whatever God does must be perfect. Whatever plan god has will be the best one possible, resulting in justice being satisfied and righteousness being glorified. Calling into question God’s plan is calling into question perfection, and you cannot challenge perfection — we simply have no basis by which to challenge God. God can simply not be measured by our feeble standards — God cannot do anything wrong, and we must acknowledge this.”

The Argument from Mystery: “God works in mysterious ways, and we shouldn’t expect our fallible and sinful minds to be able to understand divine perfection. God simply must have a reason to allow Satan to continue to exist, even if we do not or cannot know what this reason is.”

These excuses come up so often for so many questions of theology that I’m not going to deal with them here, but rather in my next series, starting with “TheraminTrees’s Atheism, Part 1: Incompatibility”.

 

 

God Will Do it All, Eventually

And it’s not just Satan that we’re wondering about. Christianity promises us a second coming of Jesus, when all will be restored in some sort of kingdom of Heaven on Earth, where everyone exists in the best possible world. Such a second coming would be the end of all the problems of needless suffering, of God being hidden, and of religion being confused, since we would now finally have indisputable proof of the one true religion, and be able to talk to God directly and settle all disagreements on his nature or wishes.

It’s odd enough to notice that God isn’t solving these problems, thus providing large amounts of evidence for his unfortunate nonexistence. The excuses then get made for why God wants to stay uninvolved, citing “free will” or “it’s all a test” or something. But these excuses immediately stop when we notice that God will be coming back someday — whether it be a violation of our free will or an end to the tests.

So if God can come back without there being any problems, why does he not do so now? Why are we always waiting for someday in the future, going generation by generation of people who swore Jesus would come back in their generation.

God seems to be taking his sweet time not just with the Devil, but with everything. The only reason this could be true is to be some sort of ad hoc excuse for why a perfect God would create an imperfect world. It will all just get fixed sometime, we just won’t know when.

And if God is both omnipotent and omniscient, then there is no reason why this would be occurring, since God automatically knows what everyone will do and if they will accept or reject Jesus prior to them doing so. If God is a perfect being, he has nothing to wait for, and can do whatever he wants now. And it’s not like he has to worry about sin, since he can just get rid of it. Thus we have a tension between what we know of God’s character and the fact that we clearly don’t see this being displayed.

This contradiction means that the Biblical God cannot exist, and Christianity is false.

Followed up in TheraminTrees’s Atheism, Part 1: Incompatibility

-

I now blog at EverydayUtilitarian.com. I hope you'll join me at my new blog! This page has been left as an archive.

On 12 Dec 2011 in All, Atheism, Christianity, Problem of Evil. 13 Comments.

13 Comments

  1. #1 joseph says:
    17 Dec 2011, 6:53 am  

    I really tried hard to think of a way to play devils advocate here, or God’s advocate as the case may be, but I just couldn’t think of anything.
    Great stuff.

  2. #2 Lev says:
    17 Dec 2011, 2:47 pm  

    Time is is distinct from and irrelevant to the Christian God, rendering “when” meaningless. Think about it.

  3. #3 Peter Hurford (author) says:
    17 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm  

    @Lev:

    Time is is distinct from and irrelevant to the Christian God, rendering “when” meaningless. Think about it.

    How does that do anything to solve the problem? All it means is that God is that much more indifferent to our suffering, which hardly qualifies him as benevolent. There still is no reasonable explanation for why we have to wait for the Second Coming, other than Christianity being false.

    Also, my critiques against God being outside of time seen in “Proving God Through Cosmology?” apply here.

  4. #4 joseph says:
    17 Dec 2011, 9:27 pm  

    Also God would still have a perfect understanding of time, and if you are a trinitarian, first hand experience as Jesus.

    To be frank, it sounds like nuying a load of fish, putting them imto a fish tank, letting it get so dirty algae were packing their bags and leaving, then when asked why I had let it get in such a sorry state, shrugging and saying “I don’t live in water, that hardly applies to me…”.

  5. #5 Lev says:
    18 Dec 2011, 12:59 pm  

    @Peter, indifferent is right. An omni-everything God is the least sympathetic idea imaginable. Unless, of course, he were to actually come to earth himself and experience it like a human does, something like a politician using the healthcare he voted for.*

    I think I find fault with the points you made in ‘Cosmology’ about causality’s dependence on time. You’re correct that a being outside of time couldn’t ‘act’ in the same way beings inside of time do. I’d imagine he uses some form of action for which ours is a flat, poor representation. Said otherwise, why can’t there be a form of ‘action’ that isn’t constrained to time?

    I realize that I’m arguing from lack of evidence–I’m not saying that action without time necessarily exists; rather that it’s not impossible that it does.

    @joseph, the weird thing is how the owner of the fish tank turned into a fish and took a swim inside. I suppose he unplugged the filter too, even if it’s taking awhile for it to clear things up.*

    *Please bear with my uninspired analogies.

  6. #6 Peter Hurford (author) says:
    18 Dec 2011, 4:20 pm  

    @Peter, indifferent is right. An omni-everything God is the least sympathetic idea imaginable. Unless, of course, he were to actually come to earth himself and experience it like a human does, something like a politician using the healthcare he voted for.

    I think this makes things much worse for your position, not better. The fact that God has (allegedly) incarnated in the form of Jesus, visited us, and suffered among us, yet still remains completely indifferent to our suffering makes him out to be even more crazy and malevolent of a character.

    ~

    I think I find fault with the points you made in ‘Cosmology’ about causality’s dependence on time. You’re correct that a being outside of time couldn’t ‘act’ in the same way beings inside of time do. I’d imagine he uses some form of action for which ours is a flat, poor representation. Said otherwise, why can’t there be a form of ‘action’ that isn’t constrained to time?

    In the interest of grouping similar objections together, I have decided to respond to your question in the comments section of my “Proving God Through Cosmology?” essay, with this comment.

    For the conversation we’re having here, however, God’s atemporal nature has nothing to do with why he is taking his sweet time from our perspective.

    It seems enough to note that suffering is generally bad, and God is allowing more of it by waiting, thus allowing us to classify him as a being that is perfectly fine with allowing suffering even when the being could prevent this suffering with absolutely no personal cost. Such beings are typically called malevolent.

    Imagine you knew of a guy who had a magic button, and if the magic button were pressed, it would magically eliminate all forms of malaria from existence — everyone who has malaria would suddenly be cured, and malaria would no longer afflict anyone else, forever. No harm would come to the guy from pressing the button, yet he refuses to do so. Moreover, he will not state why he refuses. What would you think of such a guy?

  7. #7 joseph says:
    18 Dec 2011, 8:23 pm  

    @Lev

    Don’t worry the Piscine metaphors have a fine tradition!

    Again, this makes the situation less understandable to me as it would mean that God, a timeless being or not, should understand time more, not less.

  8. #8 Thinking Emotions says:
    18 Dec 2011, 10:18 pm  

    What a pummeling essay. This is excellent. I can’t even think of anything to say in response.

  9. #9 Thinking Emotions says:
    18 Dec 2011, 10:20 pm  

    Oh yeah, sorry for the double comment, but your frankness in these matters is much appreciated. You make no attempts to dress your language up or dance around the issues. Instead, you give them the roughest, most direct treatment possible. I’d say this entry is a KO punch to the Christianity.

  10. #10 Peter Hurford (author) says:
    19 Dec 2011, 11:19 am  

    Thanks for the encouraging compliments!

  11. #11 Stephen R. Diamond says:
    22 Mar 2012, 4:18 am  

    Wasn’t there supposed to have been a war, wherein thousands of angels supported the devil. I think angels died in that war, but I’m no Bible authority.

    I think ordinary Christians–as opposed to philosophers of religion–believe Satan has vast powers. I don’t think they believe God is omnipotent, only the most powerful being. And was it Aquinas or Augustine who defined God as a “very powerful being”–not as an omnipotent one?

    The important theological point, I think, is that the theist “world view” doesn’t require a God that’s presently omnipotent, provided he was initially, and the limitations on his power were self-inflicted. An omnipotent God can create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it–by limiting his own power, which limitation, if genuine, can’t be repealed.

    It’s still not terribly plausible, but it’s more plausible than “massive suffering exists and our omnipotent God, in his benevolence, won’t lift a finger.” At least the compensating good is specified: a community of free-willed angels, a large minority of whom joined the devil’s revolution. The devil wanted to overthrow God; who are we to say that’s not only improbable but inconceivable?

    If today’s Christian philosophers of religion insist on defending the omnipotence of God and the necessity of all suffering (except that which is freely willed by humans, including catastrophic acts like biting the wrong apple), unless I’m missing something, casts doubt on their competence. Perhaps the Christian philosophers of religion are as intellectually castrated as their Christian Rightist counterparts in politics: and we know how enfeebled they are.

  12. #12 cl says:
    22 Mar 2012, 12:57 pm  

    ThinkingEmotions,

    I’d say this entry is a KO punch to the Christianity.

    Nonsense. This is the same incredulity that sustains Peter’s POE: “Why doesn’t God just kill Satan right now?” IOW, because Peter can’t think of a reason God doesn’t kill Satan right now, we have reason to consider Christianity false. Honestly, you guys, no offense, but this is juvenile. These aren’t appeals to logic or rationality. They’re appeals to the inability of a subset to conceive. Geocentrism, cathode rays and the falsity of QM also seemed like complete no-brainers, right? So on what grounds should any rational person accept any argument of the variant, “I can’t think of reason X, therefore Y?”

    Mr. Diamond,

    I think angels died in that war, but I’m no Bible authority.

    They didn’t die. They were cast out of heaven (Rev. 12:4-9).

  13. #13 Peter Hurford (author) says:
    27 Mar 2012, 1:27 am  

    Nonsense. This is the same incredulity that sustains Peter’s POE: “Why doesn’t God just kill Satan right now?” IOW, because Peter can’t think of a reason God doesn’t kill Satan right now, we have reason to consider Christianity false. Honestly, you guys, no offense, but this is juvenile. These aren’t appeals to logic or rationality. They’re appeals to the inability of a subset to conceive.

    It’s an incompatibility argument, suggesting that if God were omnibenevolent and Satan was causing a great amount of harm, God would eliminate Satan. If you want to deny that inference, you would have to adopt Skeptical Theism (what I labeled here as “The Argument from Mystery”) or provide a theodicy, both of which I think are better discussed in our previous conversation over at “TheraminTrees’s Atheism, 3: Evil”.

    ~

    Geocentrism, cathode rays and the falsity of QM also seemed like complete no-brainers, right? So on what grounds should any rational person accept any argument of the variant, “I can’t think of reason X, therefore Y?”

    A relevant difference is that we can actually provide reason X for heliocentricism, electrons, and QM, whereas I would argue that we cannot for God. Perhaps we disagree, and you can provide a reason why God allows Satan to exist, despite being omnipotent. (Or perhaps you disbelieve in Satan.)

    “The no reason for X, therefore ~X” can be occasionally valid in the case of some logical impossibilities. Sometimes this inference is valid: For example, “I can’t think of a reason why circles can be square, therefore there are no square circles.”

Leave a Reply

Comment HTML: You can use HTML in comments. I recommend <blockquote>Quote</blockquote> for quoting what others have said. <b>Text</b> is for bold, <i>Text</i> is for italic, and <a href="url">text</a> is for making links.