Why doesn't "God" just kill "Satan"?

@fmf said
Why doesn't the Abrahamic "God" just kill the Abrahamic "Satan"?

In moral/ideological terms, what precludes your God figure from ~ in an inherently "good" act ~ simply killing "Satan"?

Answers more sophisticated than "it is what it is" are welcome.

Why doesn't the Abrahamic "God" just kill the Abrahamic "Satan"?

God does not kill Satan because God uses Satan as a tool to accomplish his own ends. Consider a couple of examples:

The story of Job: Have you considered My servant Job?” God asks, “that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” (Job 1:8) After an extended discussion regarding Job’s possible motives for obedience, God gives Satan permission to afflict Job, but only within specific parameters. “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand” (v. 12). We stand in amazement at the power of Satan. He causes lightning to kill Job’s servants; evil armies are raised up to destroy other servants and the animals; and last but not least, Satan causes a wind that demolishes the house in which Job’s children are eating, and all ten of them are killed! Satan’s power over Job is now increased, but only because God willed it so. The Almighty gives Satan permission to smite Job with sore boils from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head. We should never underestimate Satan’s power; we can, however, be sure that his power, no matter how fearsome, can only be exercised under the hand of God. Did Job’s trial come from God or the devil? The answer, of course, is that the immediate cause was Satan, but the ultimate cause was God. That is why Job’s family “comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought on him” (42:11, italics added). Since Satan can only touch God’s children with the Almighty’s approval, Job’s trial was ultimately from the hand of his Father in heaven.

And Peter: Sometimes Satan chooses the scene of our battles with him. When Satan observed a weakness in Peter that he wanted to exploit, he had to come to Christ and beg permission. “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31–32 NASB). Satan had a sinister plan for Peter, but he had to check with Christ first. He could not approach Peter without divine approval. Indeed, the idea in the passage is “Satan has obtained you by asking.” There he is imploring Christ for an opportunity to touch one of the master’s disciples. Satan blew all of his winds at Peter; the chaff was taken out, and only the wheat remained.

If God wanted robots to worship him blindly without a thought, he could have created them. Instead, God wants people to worship him because they want to, and they know they would be helpless against Satan's power without him.

@mchill said
If God wanted robots to worship him blindly without a thought, he could have created them. Instead, God wants people to worship him because they want to, and they know they would be helpless against Satan's power without him.

This argument is very weak because the "free will" you are alluding to would still be a factor if your God figure made his existence and wishes more explicit and unequivocal. People would not be "robots"; they would still have the free will to worship and obey or not.

@mchill said
God does not kill Satan because God uses Satan as a tool to accomplish his own ends.

This sounds thoroughly evil.

@fmf said
This argument is very weak because the "free will" you are alluding to would still be a factor if your God figure made his existence and wishes more explicit and unequivocal. People would not be "robots"; they would still have the free will to worship and obey or not.

This argument is very weak because the "free will" you are alluding to would still be a factor if your God figure made his existence and wishes more explicit and unequivocal.


God has made his existence and wishes explicit and unequivocal many times. Moses gave us his law; the prophets, proverbs and psalms made his wishes, desires and plans for our future known multiple times all through the hundreds of pages of scripture; and people do have the free will to worship and obey or not. No one is forcing you to follow any of it - are they?

@mchill said
God has made his existence and wishes explicit and unequivocal many times.

If he had, people would believe he existed and then choose whether or not to obey him. For you to suggest that his supposed revelation has been "explicit and unequivocal" enough for you - and is therefore "explicit and unequivocal" for everyone - is very narcissistic of you.

@mchill said
No one is forcing you to follow any of it - are they?

If his supposed revelation was "explicit and unequivocal", why would the notion of people being "forced" to believe even enter your mind? Has your God figure's existence been revealed in an "explicit and unequivocal" way to the billion or so Hindus around the world?

@fmf said
If he had, people would believe he existed and then choose whether or not to obey him. For you to suggest that his supposed revelation has been "explicit and unequivocal" enough for you - and is therefore "explicit and unequivocal" for everyone - is very narcissistic of you.

If he had, people would believe he existed and then choose whether or not to obey him.


If you want to think this way, that's your privilege. You're free to go down your path, and I'll go down mine. 🙂

@mchill said
If you choose to believe this, that's your privilege. You're free to go down your path of beliefs, and I'll go down mine.

What a feeble comeback. So much for your supposedly "explicit and unequivocal" proof!

@mchill said
Moses gave us his law; the prophets, proverbs and psalms made his wishes, desires and plans for our future known multiple times all through the hundreds of pages of scripture

Your attachment to these particular writings does not mean that they are an 'explicit and unequivocal" revelation of the existence of the God figure that you worship.

@mchill said
God does not kill Satan because God uses Satan as a tool to accomplish his own ends.

How do you respond to the observation that what you say here sounds like abject evil?

@fmf said
What a feeble comeback. So much for your supposedly "explicit and unequivocal" proof!

I see you're still looking for earthly proof of God's existence. It's not here my friend. If the pages of scripture are not "proof" enough for you, then I can't help you.

As far as my "feeble comeback" is concerned, I'd remind you that I'm not writing this to score debating points, I'm simply trying to answer your questions.

@mchill said
I see you're still looking for earthly proof of God's existence. It's not here my friend. If the pages of scripture are not "proof" enough for you, then I can't help you.

So much for the "explicit and unequivocal" proof that you claim enables the exercise of "free will". You are simply a member of a group that asserts that your Abrahamic God figure not simply killing the Abrahamic Satan figure is an example of your God doing "good".

@mchill said
As far as my "feeble comeback" is concerned, I'd remind you that I'm not writing this to score debating points, I'm simply trying to answer your questions.

And I am simply calling out your answers as being feeble for the reasons given.

It is par for the course in a discussion, especially in a discussion where you believe the ghastly stakes for not sharing your belief about what is or isn't "explicit and unequivocal" are so high.