Does Lucifer Have Free Will?

[Nihilist Virus]

He's allowed to persuade and manipulate others by lying and influencing to them.

Why? For what possible reason? Would you ever let someone like that near a child? Near your children?

 

[cvanwey]

Why? For what possible reason? Would you ever let someone like that near a child? Near your children?

** crickets **

 

[DogmaHunter]

What has evidence got to do with anything? Regardless how well documented, the rising of a man from the dead would always remain beyond belief except on faith. This is the crux thereof, that the Christian claim is literally a one-time extraordinary thing - this man was God, died and was raised granting eternal life.

So you either doubt it as lies or trying to pull the wool over your eyes, think those telling it are madmen or deluded by one, or that Jesus was God.

In such a situation, I always ask the question "what's more likely?".

- that the laws of nature were violated / suspended / changed in extra-ordinary ways (something every fiber of science tells us is impossible) by an unfalsifiable being that can't be demonstrated to actually exist

or

- that the people believing / claiming this are just mistaken / deceived / lying

It takes a special kind of mind to think that the first one is more likely.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In such a situation, I always ask the question "what's more likely?".

- that the laws of nature were violated / suspended / changed in extra-ordinary ways (something every fiber of science tells us is impossible) by an unfalsifiable being that can't be demonstrated to actually exist

or

- that the people believing / claiming this are just mistaken / deceived / lying

It takes a special kind of mind to think that the first one is more likely.

You mean, it takes a mind like Stephen D. Unwin to do so..............................?

Not that I go in for making decisions, especially religious ones, by allowing Bayesian stats to dictate my views, but Unwin is interesting nevertheless.

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-...&qid=1547042899&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+unwin

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In such a situation, I always ask the question "what's more likely?".

- that the laws of nature were violated / suspended / changed in extra-ordinary ways (something every fiber of science tells us is impossible) by an unfalsifiable being that can't be demonstrated to actually exist

or

- that the people believing / claiming this are just mistaken / deceived / lying

It takes a special kind of mind to think that the first one is more likely.

What is the likelihood a man rose from the dead on Scientific grounds? Very low to non-existent. But again, that doesn't matter. Christians have always known it an extraordinary, nigh impossible, claim. That is why the man we think did this, must truly have been God.

To write off the initial believers as deluded or lying is always a possibility, and certainly there is no way to counter such an a priori claim - as those same believers' writings are our primary and best sources. Our only external 'character witnesses', like Pliny or Tacitus, are fairly hostile. We hold Faith in its veracity, but no one ever said doubt is unreasonable. I just think it mistaken in this instance.

However, an a priori claim that a one time miraculous event, never to be repeated, must be impossible and thus those holding it are more likely lying or deluded, is difficult to support without sneaking in axioms (repeatibility, ordered cosmos, etc.). A lot of history is actually highly improbable. Japan should have won the Battle of Midway; the colonists should have lost the American War of Independance; the US should easily have overrun Upper Canada in 1812; Numantia should not have held out so long to Rome; the Zulus should have creamed the Boers at Blood River. You can't apply probability to history, no matter what Baynesian people try to pull. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Why would petty Israel, a no account Bronze Age tribe, crushed and conquered like so many others, end up playing a massive role in human history? The probability of that is on par with people rising from the dead.

 

[cvanwey]

Why would petty Israel, a no account Bronze Age tribe, crushed and conquered like so many others, end up playing a massive role in human history? The probability of that is on par with people rising from the dead.

'On par with the rising dead'.?.?.?.?

Not so. Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal, because he was a believer. He is, in part, the reason the religion began to flourish. Scribes were then encouraged to write scrolls and scrolls about this belief. Prior to then, it was a cult, like many others prior and since.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

'On par with the rising dead'.?.?.?.?

Not so. Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal, because he was a believer. He is, in part, the reason the religion began to flourish. Scribes were then encouraged to write scrolls and scrolls about this belief. Prior to then, it was a cult, like many others prior and since.

You are seriously misreading Constantine. Constantine made Christianity legal because it was flourishing, not the other way around. Certainly that helped it spread further though. He spent his life fighting bruising civil wars as the Tetrarchy broke down, so really did not often do things that weren't politically advantageous. The whole reason for the Diocletianic Great Persecution was how extensively Christianity had spread. By the late third century, Christians were probably in the majority in Lower Egypt by funerary evidence and surviving texts, and throughout the Empire their numbers were exploding. That is why people like Porphyry were writing tracts against them.

I am speaking though of the whole chain of events from the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom down to Theodosius' adoption of Christianity as state religion. The whole sequence is highly implausible, as a look at any contemporary peoples' history would show you.

 

[cvanwey]

You are seriously misreading Constantine. Constantine made Christianity legal because it was flourishing, not the other way around. Certainly that helped it spread further though.

Prior to Constantine, believers in Christ were a cult following (in secret using the 'ichthus fish' as their secret 'gang sign'). A growing cult continued, as well, after Saul of Tarsus, a Roman citizen whom had carte blanche to travel freely, in an attempt to convert many. This was the beginning, as to the widening in geographics. He declared that the followers did not have to be Jews, or adhere to older Jewish laws, which opened the floodgates for many to convert. Also, this belief system was born in a area with a common language, further allowing it to spread.

During the beginning decline of the Roman empire, after the first century, many thought the end was near (for some of the reasons you provided). Christianity offered the 'promise' of an afterlife, where some prior beliefs in Roman based god(s) did not so much so; which made Christianity more appealing to many.

You are right, that Constantine made Christianity law before he became a believer. However, the religion seriously flourished BECAUSE he made it law Prior to this, it was a cult, growing slowly.

Regardless of the reason(s), the fact remains that Christianity flourished because it was made Roman law, (rendering it legal). Rome wasn't what it had once been, but everyone still wanted to be like the emperor - whom was a believer.

So when you state the odds of Christianity growing are equal to the odds of the rising dead, I really find this comparison bazaar.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So when you state the odds of Christianity growing are equal to the odds of the rising dead, I really find this comparison bazaar.

That is not what I said. I said that a Bronze Age tribe called Israel coming to play a major role in history. More has been written on them than on any of the 'superpowers' of their day, and the decisions of their petty kinglets, or the recording of their reigns, has been influential millenia thereafter - while Pharoahs and Lugals' monuments crumbled to dust and memories fade. The Hittites, a major world power, were completely forgotten about except for this obscure tribes' records, for instance.

Rome becoming Christian was unlikely. Usually religions Rome disapproved of were destroyed, like Druids or Bacchanalia or Tanit's infant sacrifice. That was unlikely. That Christianity survived Rome's fall, and went on to convert the Germanic world too, is similar.

If you cast a die and repetitively get the same number, each successive throw the odds becoming more implausible, unless the die is loaded. This makes the sequence less and less plausible. This is what we see here: Sennacherib fails to take Jerusalem, Nineveh falls, Judah maintains identity though other nations disappeared in exile, the rise of Cyrus, the Hasmonaean revolt's success, the failure of syncreticism, etc. The implausible follows the implausible, until the whole becomes fairly impossible - yet that is what happened. That is why Church Fathers like Jerome or Augustine saw the hand of God in history, that the die was loaded in their favour.

 

[cvanwey]

That is not what I said. I said that a Bronze Age tribe called Israel coming to play a major role in history. More has been written on them than on any of the 'superpowers' of their day, and the decisions of their petty kinglets, or the recording of their reigns, has been influential millenia thereafter - while Pharoahs and Lugals' monuments crumbled to dust and memories fade. The Hittites, a major world power, were completely forgotten about except for this obscure tribes' records, for instance.

Rome becoming Christian was unlikely. Usually religions Rome disapproved of were destroyed, like Druids or Bacchanalia or Tanit's infant sacrifice. That was unlikely. That Christianity survived Rome's fall, and went on to convert the Germanic world too, is similar.

If you cast a die and repetitively get the same number, each successive throw the odds becoming more implausible, unless the die is loaded. This makes the sequence less and less plausible. This is what we see here: Sennacherib fails to take Jerusalem, Nineveh falls, Judah maintains identity though other nations disappeared in exile, the rise of Cyrus, the Hasmonaean revolt's success, the failure of syncreticism, etc. The implausible follows the implausible, until the whole becomes fairly impossible - yet that is what happened. That is why Church Fathers like Jerome or Augustine saw the hand of God in history, that the die was loaded in their favour.

In post #45 you stated

'Why would petty Israel, a no account Bronze Age tribe, crushed and conquered like so many others, end up playing a massive role in human history? The probability of that is on par with people rising from the dead.'

My point is that nothing which is recorded to have happened, from a mundane standpoint (i.e.) battles, people dying, people fighting, etc., would ever compare to the likes of a 'resurrection' claim. This is what I find bazaar. That you would actually equate any claimed event in 'recorded history', with the claims of anything supernatural. This association reeks of false equivalency.

Moving forward, what are your thoughts on Lucifer's free will?

Satan apparently has the ability to change form to manipulate and trick humans. Satan also has the ability to tempt more that one sole at a time. If God restricts any of his activities, then isn't it God whom is responsible for Lucifer? (i.e.) Like purposefully placing your savage dog on it's leash periodically, to keep him from doing certain acts in which the dog is capable of performing? While other times, letting the dog roam free...

Seems logical that satan could impersonate another being, in an attempt to get people to worship him. What is to stop him?????

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In post #45 you stated

'Why would petty Israel, a no account Bronze Age tribe, crushed and conquered like so many others, end up playing a massive role in human history? The probability of that is on par with people rising from the dead.'

My point is that nothing which is recorded to have happened, from a mundane standpoint (i.e.) battles, people dying, people fighting, etc., would ever compare to the likes of a 'resurrection' claim. This is what I find bazaar. That you would actually equate any claimed event in 'recorded history', with the claims of anything supernatural. This association reeks of false equivalency.

Moving forward, what are your thoughts on Lucifer's free will?

Satan apparently has the ability to change form to manipulate and trick humans. Satan also has the ability to tempt more that one sole at a time. If God restricts any of his activities, then isn't it God whom is responsible for Lucifer? (i.e.) Like purposefully placing your savage dog on it's leash periodically, to keep him from doing certain acts in which the dog is capable of performing? While other times, letting the dog roam free...

Seems logical that satan could impersonate another being, in an attempt to get people to worship him. What is to stop him?????

You are merely assuming a priori that the supernatural does not occur. So the fallacy here is a Petitio Principii. Regardless, if I express it in methodological naturalistic terms, as in organic matter ceasing physiologic function and then starting it up again, we can hypothetise probability on such grounds easily enough. The historic probability of the survival and importance of Bronze Age Israel is on par - as in miraculously unlikely/impossible. Akin to as if the actions of the last Mzami of Burundi was the most influential thing that happened in the last 200 years, for the next 3000.

Anyway, as to the rest: We've been through this. It is Lewis' trilemma of Jesus either being God, insane or a liar/devil. Before you mention the silly extention of legend again, that merely substitutes multiples who must be liars or madmen, for one. I see no reason to go over ground we have covered before, again.

 

[cvanwey]

You are merely assuming a priori that the supernatural does not occur. So the fallacy here is a Petitio Principii. Regardless, if I express it in methodological naturalistic terms, as in organic matter ceasing physiologic function and then starting it up again, we can hypothetise probability on such grounds easily enough. The historic probability of the survival and importance of Bronze Age Israel is on par - as in miraculously unlikely/impossible. Akin to as if the actions of the last Mzami of Burundi was the most influential thing that happened in the last 200 years, for the next 3000.

We appear to be speaking past each other. (My point), was that to state that anything naturalistic (can) be on par with the claim of (anything) supernatural is committing a false equivalency. Regardless of the variables, needed scenarios, and/or situations which are needed to transpire, does NOT compare to the likes of (anything) claimed or asserted (beyond) naturalistic means.

To state this is question begging is purely absurd. The burden of proof is to demonstrate that the supernatural does exist. And thus far, it has not. Otherwise, we must then investigate any/all/other claims of the supernatural; which also do not encompass your specific God claim

Anyway, as to the rest: We've been through this. It is Lewis' trilemma of Jesus either being God, insane or a liar/devil. Before you mention the silly extention of legend again, that merely substitutes multiples who must be liars or madmen, for one. I see no reason to go over ground we have covered before, again.

You are placing words in my mouth. I issued a direct point (or) positive claim. Prove Jesus was not Satan in disguise. Without going back and forth countless times, it will be concluded that you cannot You will not be able to 'disprove' my positive and blankly asserted claim. So you can keep CS Lewis' incomplete false trilemma analogy. I don't even need it

The entire point of this tread is to place the shoe on the other proverbial foot. I assert, and it is (you) whom cannot 'disprove' it

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

We appear to be speaking past each other. (My point), was that to state that anything naturalistic (can) be on par with the claim of (anything) supernatural is committing a false equivalency. Regardless of the variables, needed scenarios, and/or situations which are needed to transpire, does NOT compare to the likes of (anything) claimed or asserted (beyond) naturalistic means.

To state this is question begging is purely absurd. The burden of proof is to demonstrate that the supernatural does exist. And thus far, it has not. Otherwise, we must then investigate any/all/other claims of the supernatural; which also do not encompass your specific God claim



You are placing words in my mouth. I issued a direct point (or) positive claim. Prove Jesus was not Satan in disguise. Without going back and forth countless times, it will be concluded that you cannot You will not be able to 'disprove' my positive and blankly asserted claim. So you can keep CS Lewis' incomplete false trilemma analogy. I don't even need it

The entire point of this tread is to place the shoe on the other proverbial foot. I assert, and it is (you) whom cannot 'disprove' it

No, we aren't talking past each other. You merely aren't paying attention to what I am saying. I said that even if placed in the form of methodologic naturalism, it stands: meaning, placed in a completely non-supernatural framework where the chance is based on physiologic cell-death spontaneously reversing. Further, it isn't that you are 'begging the question', which is a specific type of Petitio, but the fact that your premise requires your conclusion - You are assuming impossibility on a priori grounds and therefore disregarding probability, not assessing probability of the juxtapositions themselves. Regardless, probability doesn't work well for historic events, which was my whole point.

As to this thread: As far as I am concerned, it is about Lewis' trilemma. I can't prove Jesus wasn't a devil, but neither can you prove He wasn't God. That is what the whole thing is about, that you must decide between the three. As far as I am concerned, Christianity has been a force for good overwhelmingly; so if a devil, He was an incompentent one. If mad, than a holy fool - more wise than the sane. If I look at the fruits, I see the hand of God.

Regardless, I don't see much worth in continueing this discussion. You aren't going to budge an inch, and I disagree fundamentally with the implied premises from which you seem to be working.

So, I bid you Good Day.

 

[cvanwey]

No, we aren't talking past each other. You merely aren't paying attention to what I am saying. I said that even if placed in the form of methodologic naturalism, it stands: meaning, placed in a completely non-supernatural framework where the chance is based on physiologic cell-death spontaneously reversing. Further, it isn't that you are 'begging the question', which is a specific type of Petitio, but the fact that your premise requires your conclusion - You are assuming impossibility on a priori grounds and therefore disregarding probability, not assessing probability of the juxtapositions themselves. Regardless, probability doesn't work well for historic events, which was my whole point.

False sir. It is you whom is not 'budging.' I 'assume' impossibility on the grounds that we have yet to receive sufficient evidence on any assertion to the supernatural. Where-as the claims of naturalistic events, we do have sufficient evidence to support the assertion/claims.

Regardless, attempting to equate any given supernatural event, with equal improbability, to any given claimed natural based event, is not on a level playing field by any stretch of the imagination.

Claims of the risen dead is not equal to any claimed naturalistic asserted event; regardless of the unlikeliness of the claimed naturalistic event's odds.

The odds of survival of anything in the naturalistic world is not on par to the claims of the odds of the claims of the risen dead being actual. This is further substantiated by the fact that the only sources we have for such claims came from a small handful of bias reports of a priori believers, along with one rogue reporter with a claimed vision. Furthermore, it appears odd that 'truth' hinges upon eyewitness attestation, or lack there-of. Seems like a vacuous way to conclude a truth?

As to this thread: As far as I am concerned, it is about Lewis' trilemma. I can't prove Jesus wasn't a devil, but neither can you prove He wasn't God. That is what the whole thing is about, that you must decide between the three. As far as I am concerned, Christianity has been a force for good overwhelmingly; so if a devil, He was an incompentent one. If mad, than a holy fool - more wise than the sane. If I look at the fruits, I see the hand of God.

Regardless, I don't see much worth in continueing this discussion. You aren't going to budge an inch, and I disagree fundamentally with the implied premises from which you seem to be working.

So, I bid you Good Day.

You were actually just starting to address the OP It would appear you are deducing the conclusion of the asserted premise of your self created false trilemma, by introducing the moral argument?

Furthermore, if the God/devil scenario IS true, then of course satan is a 'fool' or 'incompetent'. He would already know in the end he will be defeated; (from the Bible's proclamations). So the entire story line is a non-starter

My points are that such an agent (the devil), has the ability to change form. This agent also appears driven to deceive many. This alone raises the probability that satan could be at the core of your post hoc beliefs. It's quite possible the Orthodox Jews are 'more correct' - (i.e.) rejecting Jesus as a Messiah.

But I understand if you do not wish to engage...

 

[Uber Genius]

If so, demonstrate why Jesus was not actually Lucifer in disguise.

Argument from ignorance.
Please demonstrate one piece of textual data that suggests that Jesus was Lucifer.
P.S. I am not going to try and prove Jesus was not a frog trapped in a man's body either.

 

[cvanwey]

Argument from ignorance.
Please demonstrate one piece of textual data that suggests that Jesus was Lucifer.
P.S. I am not going to try and prove Jesus was not a frog trapped in a man's body either.

Ding ding ding! You win a cookie. You just played right into my entire point

Yes, it IS an argument from ignorance. The same which can be said for why no one can effectively disprove that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead

If you re-read the OP, you will see how I'm placing the 'shoe on the other foot.' Why?....

As it stands, we have satan's ability to deceive. Satan's ability to change form. Both written in the Bible. These two points alone raise the question... How do you KNOW Satan was NOT Jesus in disguise? If God restricts/regulates/monitors satan's actions in any way or form, (i.e.) by not allowing the impersonation of a deity, then one must instead reconcile that God is responsible for any 'bad' satan is allowed to inflict upon God's human creation.

So make your choice. A) Satan has the ultimate ability to deceive, in the form of a 'Messiah'. Or, B) God restricts such acts, but allows all other acts of 'bad' satan performs, with his confirmed limited free will, upon humans.

 

[Uber Genius]

Yes, it IS an argument from ignorance. The same which can be said for why no one can effectively disprove that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead

Holy informal logic debacle Batman. Wait what???

The case for the resurrection, that is the real cases, not straw men versions are abductive cases from examining the evidence and looking at the various inferences, swoon theory, moved the body, made it up decades later, etc.

If you want to poison the wells to abductive reasoning,

The problem with poisoning the well by using a straw man argument then attacking your own misrepresentation to eliminate the resurrection is that it does enormous damage to a good portion of what we call "Knowledge," in history, the law, all social sciences as well, oh and you just did away with a good portion of science including Darwin's theory of evolution. Inauscpicious.

Ding ding ding go back to logic 101, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

[cvanwey]

Holy informal logic debacle Batman. Wait what???

The case for the resurrection, that is the real cases, not straw men versions are abductive cases from examining the evidence and looking at the various inferences, swoon theory, moved the body, made it up decades later, etc.

If you want to poison the wells to abductive reasoning,

The problem with poisoning the well by using a straw man argument then attacking your own misrepresentation to eliminate the resurrection is that it does enormous damage to a good portion of what we call "Knowledge," in history, the law, all social sciences as well, oh and you just did away with a good portion of science including Darwin's theory of evolution. Inauscpicious.

Ding ding ding go back to logic 101, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

LOL! There exists 'real cases' for a 'resurrection'? I would love to hear one which does not resort to wishful thinking.

Again, the Bible speaks of 'Satan's' ability to change form. The Bible speaks of Satan turning against God. The Bible speaks of Satan's ability to manipulate others. Whether you like it or not, you are then faced with a dichotomy; IF such a 'God vs Devil' scenario actually exists - (according to the writings of the Bible)....

1. Satan has complete free will. Satan is not governed or restricted of his capabilities in any way by God. Thus, it would be very easy for satan to mimic a false Messiah to manipulate millions/billions.

(or)

2. God restricts/limits/regulates satan's free will. Which means that any and every act satan successfully performs, received God's prior approval/allowance. Which would beg the question, God does not allow the imitation of a person claiming to be the Messiah, but somehow allows all other 'evil' in the world, perpetuated in origin by Lucifer? This appears inconsistent and odd, to say the very least...

But thank you for completely dodging the entire OP, along with my prior response, etc., to instead 'rubber stamp'

Whether you want to address my blank assertion, or the assertion of a 'resurrection', in either case, you cannot truly falsify either claim.

 

[Uber Genius]

LOL! There exists 'real cases' for a 'resurrection'? I would love to hear one which does not resort to wishful thinking.

Clearly that is false.

A 30-second search on Google for " The case for the resurrection," would have produced hundreds of sites that more than adequately produced such cases.

You took longer to continue your fallacious post than would have been necessary to find how "real cases" as opposed to your strawman were argued.

Willful ignorance is no way to go through life.

Stop faking it.

If you have a case to make based on real evidence, and real arguments then by all means present it but stop wasting our time with arguments that are not possibly true in any possible world due to their violation of sound reasoning or outright misrepresentation.

 

[cvanwey]

Clearly that is false.

A 30-second search on Google for " The case for the resurrection," would have produced hundreds of sites that more than adequately produced such cases.

You took longer to continue your fallacious post than would have been necessary to find how "real cases" as opposed to your strawman were argued.

Willful ignorance is no way to go through life.

Stop faking it.

If you have a case to make based on real evidence, and real arguments then by all means present it but stop wasting our time with arguments that are not possibly true in any possible world due to their violation of sound reasoning or outright misrepresentation.

Re-read the OP. The Bible states as such... I'm simply holding all believers of the Bible's assertions to their beliefs of these assertions.