Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[cottage]

As I said, it didn't really make me feel good about myself... and I wouldn't have felt bad about myself if I hadn't lent money to the person either...

But you believed you were doing the right thing. Had you believed it wasn't the right thing to do you wouldn't have done it.


All I did was earn an expectance of more money I didn't do it for gratitude...

Ah, but gratitude there was, nevertheless. :yes:




There really wasn't much if any gain(none that I noticed)...

That said, the existance of gain for self does not necessitate a selfish motivation. Even if one does "feel good about" oneself for doing a good deed, it only becomes a selfish act if you do it for the purpose of feeling good.

What I'm saying is that all thoughts and actions have a selfish element.


Not so... there are many ways that there could be a benevolent God while evil exists... for instance an equally malevolent second deity. A God who considers free will the highest benevolence. Two right there...[/quote]

If a second, malevolent deity exists then self-evidently there is no omnipotent, benevolent God.

If free will implies existence (which it doesn't necessarily), then the possibility for evil plainly exists. And if God is the creator and sustainer of all that exists, then it must be the case that the possibility for evil exists only because God wills it to be so.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

This only defers the unselfishness of the act.

Satisfaction is in itself a thought; what selfish motivation is there to take satisfaction in helping another without reward?

I can't profess to have looked into the human brain, allowing me to state 'every thought is selfishly motivated', which is not my argument. What I am saying is that the self is logically prior in every thought and action. The she-cat that flies at a dog twice her size in order to protect her kittens; the drowning mother who holds her baby's head above water, putting the infant's life before her own; the kind people who help the sick and elderly - all those examples have a selfish element to them. Our every instinct and reaction is self-centred, concious or unconscious. Even those who sacrifice or give up their lives for their God are first giving consideration to the self: for God must logically come second.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

I do disagree with you here. A single instance of evil does not demonstrate complete lack of benevolence; it simply demonstrates the lack of complete benevolence. In other words, evil can be an indication that God is not perfectly benevolent, but in itself, it does not indicate that God is not benevolent at all.

I guess the point can be summed up by the law of identity, which is to say a thing cannot have two identities. For example, the concepts God = perfectly good, Satan = the epitome of evil. A thing may be black or white, or part black and part white, but it cannot be all black and all white at the same time. So by existing in a particular way a thing has no contradictions. Certainly a creator god may cause/allow both good and evil - but then, like humans, he simply has good and bad as part of his nature. And he cannot on that account have the identity of a good and benevolent God.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

No one can furnish the requested information?

A benevolent God cannot logically exist. And that is a demonstrable proof because of the fact of evil in the presence of a supposed all loving God.

But, generally, to ask for proof that something (anything) doesn't exist is nonsensical. Where does one look for a thing's non-existence? How do you suppose we might find evidence for the non-existence of a thing when believers cannot themselves demonstrate its existence? But if the argument is insisted upon it can be turned back on the believer: for if you believe that your God is the only god, then it must follow that there can be no other gods. And in that case it is incumbent upon you to prove the non-existence of all the other gods, which is equally absurd.

Cottage

 

[logician]

It helps them sleep at night.

Seriously, if there is an omnipotent, omnisceient, omnipresent being, it would be damn frightening if he were malevolent.

With even passing consideration, though, it takes more than an assumption to believe that god is benevolent. It takes active denial to attribute god with the creation of the universe and not blame him for disease, natural disasters, and human imperfection.

Actually, a benevolent god with free will could certainly become malevolent.

 

[Storm]

A benevolent God cannot logically exist. And that is a demonstrable proof because of the fact of evil in the presence of a supposed all loving God.

Yes, it can. I've shown a couple ways, as have others. The fact that you don't like the answers does not invalidate them.

 

[cottage]

Yes, it can. I've shown a couple ways, as have others. The fact that you don't like the answers does not invalidate them.

Ahem! With respect, nobody has shown how how an omnipotent, benevolent being can exist in the face of an outright contradiction. The various explanations have included the view that God is sometimes benevolent, the notion that there is also a malevolent being, and the concept of free will. The first example informs us that God is either not omnipotent or not wholly good. The second example informs us that the assumed deity is not the omnipotent, Necessary Being. The third example implies that free will has a greater moral worth than the alleviation or prevention of suffering, and confirms that evil exists by God’s will.

Cottage

 

[Storm]

Yeah, I have. I notice you didn't address my main argument, also put forward by Katzpur.

 

[Willamena]

Even for those who think life is hell, is it better that they can think "life is hell" than not? (Not exist, that is.)

 

[cottage]

Yeah, I have. I notice you didn't address my main argument, also put forward by Katzpur.

In that case I apologise. I never intentionally ignore posts. Please post your argument again and I promise to respond by return.

Cottage

 

[Storm]

In a nutshell, that evil is not evil at all, but beneficial. It only seems evil from our limited perspective.

 

[JMorris]

In a nutshell, that evil is not evil at all, but beneficial. It only seems evil from our limited perspective.

i saw another thread on this forum showing a video of a group of "witches" being burned alive in a ditch. i think this is evil. how is this beneficial in any way? there are alot of posts in this thread, and ive admitedly not read them all, so maybe im taking this statement out of context. but if im not, can you please answer my question?

 

[Storm]

See post #127. Without suffering, there can be no compassion. Without cruelty, there can be no mercy. The list goes on.

 

[JMorris]

ok, i read it, and btw i loved Firefly and Serenity too.

and i believe your right, without cruelty, there can be no mercry. but i dont agree that would be a bad thing. mercy wouldnt be neccesary if there were no cruelty. compassion wouldnt be neccessary without suffering. it seemed from post 127, that it was saying that if there would be no cruelty, there would be no mercy, so all we would have is cruelty, that dosent make any sense, but maybe i misunderstood what he meant. but thats certainly what it seemed to be implying.

those people burning in that ditch, if there was no cruelty, they wouldnt have been there to begin with, so why would mercy be neccesary of someone to save them?

so i think its better to say, "if there is no cruelty, then mercy isnt neccesary"

 

[Storm]

Firefly RULES!

Anyway, it ties in with the free will argument, too. By having real options, we are enabled to choose well, and in so doing, become better and nobler than we could have been otherwise.

Assuming a benevolent Creator God, this is a satisfactory answer to the puzzle for me. I don't believe it, but it makes sense.

 

[Sonic247]

I guess it's kind of like how all those great movies have an antagonist. This is the story of the human race.

 

[Storm]

In the Silmarilion, Tolkein spoke of the creation of Middle Eart as a song. How the antagonists introduced pain and sadness, but it only deepened the music and made it more lovely.

 

[JMorris]

Firefly RULES!

Anyway, it ties in with the free will argument, too. By having real options, we are enabled to choose well, and in so doing, become better and nobler than we could have been otherwise.

Assuming a benevolent Creator God, this is a satisfactory answer to the puzzle for me. I don't believe it, but it makes sense.

i see what your saying. but that leads into the debate of whether free will is inherently good, or even if existence is.

and im generally unsatisfied by any answer when it concerns the unkown

 

[cottage]

In a nutshell, that evil is not evil at all, but beneficial. It only seems evil from our limited perspective.

I’m extremely interested to hear how evil is beneficial? And I can assure you the child screaming with pain doesn’t merely imagine that it is suffering. Was the Holocaust or the Tnusami merely a matter of our misleading perception? Pain and suffering exist, which is why we have the Problem of Evil.

I suspect ‘our limited perspective’ is a phrase trotted out to defend irrational supernatural beliefs in the face of rational argument. And if it isn’t? Well, that being the case you must stay silent on all matters, not just those concerning faith.

Cottage

 

[Sonic247]

Yeah, like that. It's actually kindof cool to think about. For some reason minor chords sound sad and major chords happy but both can be used together to make great songs. And maybe even some diminished chords.