Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Storm]

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

Well again, if you start from the premise of a benevolent Creator, it has to be. The trick is figuring out how it works.

 

[JMorris]

well, i think you know thats not the premise im starting from

 

[Katzpur]

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?

Perhaps you need to look deeper. I would agree that the act of burning someone alive is evil. But what would you suggest might have happened to prevent this act? How would your suggestion fit in to your idea of a world where no evil was allowed to happen?

 

[cottage]

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

Oh! How disappointing!

So your argument is that there has to be evil in order to...overcome evil! Well, evil has no logically necessary existence and so you can't build an argument around a circular absurdity. And although 'good' depends totally upon evil in order to have any meaning, it isn't a proper state at all - it is just a term for the absence of evil.

It seems that your argument is that without x there can be no y. In actual fact all you are saying is if there were only the one discriptive term its correllative could not exist. But if for example we dispense with light, not just the term but the state itself, we are left with 'dark', the condition, but not the term, which is now redundant. Similarly, if we annihilate evil, whatever existed before continues to exist but now without the need for distinction, but we don't now have something called 'good'. Got loads more to say on this subject, but it's 2 am in the UK and so I'm going to bed. Continue tomorrow.

Cottage

 

[Sonic247]

Wait where no evil was allowed, as in not tolerate by humans, or where it was impossible for evil things to happen.

 

[Sonic247]

Oh! How disappointing!

So your argument is that there has to be evil in order to...overcome evil! Well, evil has no logically necessary existence and so you can't build an argument around a circular absurdity. And although 'good' depends totally upon evil in order to have any meaning, it isn't a proper state at all - it is just a term for the absence of evil.

It seems that your argument is that without x there can be no y. In actual fact all you are saying is if there were only the one discriptive term its correllative could not exist. But if for example we dispense with light, not just the term but the state itself, we are left with 'dark', the condition, but not the term, which is now redundant. Similarly, if we annihilate evil, whatever existed before continues to exist but now without the need for distinction, but we don't now have something called 'good'. Got loads more to say on this subject, but it's 2 am in the UK and so I'm going to bed. Continue tomorrow.

Cottage

This is just kind of philosophical but I would say evil is just the absence of good not the other way around. But if you have strong convictions on that point let's hear them.

 

[Sonic247]

Ahh, maybe I understood it wrong. But it's funny how you mentioned the whole dark in light thing. For the longest time good was associated with light and evil with darkness. And people will say darkness is the absence of light but not light is the absense of darkness. At least I never heard anyone say that.

 

[Storm]

Oh! How disappointing!

So your argument is that there has to be evil in order to...overcome evil!

You really do love to miss the point, don't you? I'm done with you.

 

[JMorris]

Perhaps you need to look deeper. I would agree that the act of burning someone alive is evil. But what would you suggest might have happened to prevent this act? How would your suggestion fit in to your idea of a world where no evil was allowed to happen?

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"

im not sure you read my response above?
compassion and mercy are only required because cruelty and suffering exist.
which is better, a world with no evil, and thus no need for good, or a world with both? im not sure myself, specially since you cant really know what a world without either would be like.

 

[rojse]

Oh! How disappointing!

So your argument is that there has to be evil in order to...overcome evil! Well, evil has no logically necessary existence and so you can't build an argument around a circular absurdity. And although 'good' depends totally upon evil in order to have any meaning, it isn't a proper state at all - it is just a term for the absence of evil.

It seems that your argument is that without x there can be no y. In actual fact all you are saying is if there were only the one discriptive term its correllative could not exist. But if for example we dispense with light, not just the term but the state itself, we are left with 'dark', the condition, but not the term, which is now redundant. Similarly, if we annihilate evil, whatever existed before continues to exist but now without the need for distinction, but we don't now have something called 'good'. Got loads more to say on this subject, but it's 2 am in the UK and so I'm going to bed. Continue tomorrow.

Cottage

Here's a few idea for you, Cottage. The first one: Imagine if God did intervene, and the holocaust had been stopped, no atomic bombs had been dropped. You would never know these, and you would complain about the other atrocities in this world. And if those had been stopped, you would find something else. Even if everything else had been removed, the fact that you accidentally cut your arm would lead you to question the benevolence of God.

Second: Imagine if God has intervened in history prior to this, and our world right now merely contains the lesser of the evils that might have been committed had God not intervened.

 

[Katzpur]

im not sure you read my response above?

Probably not. I apologize if I missed something that would have possibly have caused me to think my response.

which is better, a world with no evil, and thus no need for good, or a world with both? im not sure myself, specially since you cant really know what a world without either would be like.

And that's what it really gets down to. In a world without "evil," it would be pretty difficult to be able to say that anything was "good." More to the point, how would we define evil (i.e. bad, negative, unpleasant, etc.). Very few things in the world are black or white. Is a strong, healthy body good? Most of us would agree that it is. But would any of us want to live forever? If no one ever aged, if our bodies never deteriorated, if we were never subject to illness or injury, we probably would live forever. Do we really want the world to be as crowded as it would be if no one had ever died? Obviously, the planet could not support human life if no one ever died. So maybe death at some point would be okay after all, but at what point? Who wants to die suddenly in the prime of life? (I think I'm starting to ramble. I just feel as if people who can't see the necessity of "evil" in the world aren't really thinking things through very carefully.)

 

[JMorris]

Probably not. I apologize if I missed something that would have possibly have caused me to think my response.

And that's what it really gets down to. In a world without "evil," it would be pretty difficult to be able to say that anything was "good." More to the point, how would we define evil (i.e. bad, negative, unpleasant, etc.). Very few things in the world are black or white. Is a strong, healthy body good? Most of us would agree that it is. But would any of us want to live forever? If no one ever aged, if our bodies never deteriorated, if we were never subject to illness or injury, we probably would live forever. Do we really want the world to be as crowded as it would be if no one had ever died? Obviously, the planet could not support human life if no one ever died. So maybe death at some point would be okay after all, but at what point? Who wants to die suddenly in the prime of life? (I think I'm starting to ramble. I just feel as if people who can't see the necessity of "evil" in the world aren't really thinking things through very carefully.)

as far as death goes, is death in of itself evil? or isnt the manner in which we die that can be evil?
you explained perfectly how a world without death can be bad. but what about a world without murder? or painful deaths in general? what if we all died nice and painlessly in our beds?

 

[Katzpur]

as far as death goes, is death in of itself evil? or isnt the manner in which we die that can be evil?

I think the case can be argued either way. I don't see death as evil in an of itself. Obviously the manner in which a person dies can be considered evil, but I think it's even more complicated than that.

you explained perfectly how a world without death can be bad. but what about a world without murder? or painful deaths in general? what if we all died nice and painlessly in our beds?

The parents who find their healthy 6-month-old child dead in his crib of SIDS would undoubtedly be heartbroken by their loss, and the fact that his death was probably painless would be only marginally comforting. Would most people choose (if that choice were even possible) to die a painless death at the age of 6-months or to live 95 long, happy, healthy years and then die at 96 after a year of suffering following a stroke?

Obviously a world without murder would be wonderful, provided no one hated anyone else enough to want to take away his life. But where do you draw the line? I hate murder; you hate murder. That med student charged in the Craig's List murder probably got a real high off murdering that young woman. Okay, so we go with what the majority wants and decide that murder is an "evil" that shouldn't ever happen. I'm assuming you're suggesting that a benevolent God should not allow it to happen. But how does He prevent it? What else does He keep from happening? Should He have struck the Craig's List murderer dead moments before he murdered and thus spare the young woman's life? Suppose the guy had never even considered murdering the woman, but "just" raping her instead. Should God have stopped him? Maybe they guy isn't to blame at all; may it's his parents' fault. Maybe his dad beat the crap out of him when he was four years old and wet the bed. Maybe God should zap the guy's parents. Do you see where I'm going with this? I've just never figured out how God can be expected to let us have any freedom to choose at all unless He gives that same privilege to the bad guys as well as the good guys.

 

[Falvlun]

Perhaps you need to look deeper. I would agree that the act of burning someone alive is evil. But what would you suggest might have happened to prevent this act? How would your suggestion fit in to your idea of a world where no evil was allowed to happen?

God could have created a world where evil was an impossibility-- just like flying (like Superman) is an impossibility.

Choice could still exist: we make many meaningful choices everyday of our lives that do not necessarily have to do with choosing between good and evil.

Even if you insist that evil is necessary for whatever reason, there is a lot of needless suffering of innocents, suffering caused by natural disaster, suffering that just serves no point. Evil, if it truly was absolutely necessary, could have been precisely, strategically applied in each person's life exactly where it was needed to allow for maximum growth of virtues, with the minimum amount of collateral damage. Instead of this skillfully wielded scalpel, in our world, we have an indiscriminately slashing machete.

 

[Katzpur]

God could have created a world where evil was an impossibility-- just like flying (like Superman) is an impossibility.

I disagree and I believe I explained why.

Choice could still exist: we make many meaningful choices everyday of our lives that do not necessarily have to do with choosing between good and evil.

Please address the questions I posed to JMorris. I am truly interested in your responses.

Even if you insist that evil is necessary for whatever reason, there is a lot of needless suffering of innocents, suffering caused by natural disaster, suffering that just serves no point.

It serves no point because you personally can't make sense of it.

Evil, if it truly was absolutely necessary, could have been precisely, strategically applied in each person's life exactly where it was needed to allow for maximum growth of virtues.

I see. And I suppose that you would be the one to determine the precise point where it was needed. Could you explain what qualifies you to make that decision, since you clearly don't believe a Higher Power is capable of doing so.

Instead of this skillfully wielded scalpel, in our world, we have an indiscriminately slashing machete.

It's only indiscriminate because you fail to understand it.

 

[Buttons*]

*psssst* It's St. Anselm. He's the one who came up with the idea.

 

[Falvlun]

*psssst* It's St. Anselm. He's the one who came up with the idea.

That God was benevolent? I Wiki'd him, and it seems like his biggest contribution was the ontological argument for God's existence. I'm not seeing the connection, but would be interested in what you think it is.

 

[Buttons*]

That God was benevolent? I Wiki'd him, and it seems like his biggest contribution was the ontological argument for God's existence. I'm not seeing the connection, but would be interested in what you think it is.

Why thank you!

Do you know what the Ontological Argument is? It's the theory to prove God's existence. Anslem says that God is necessarily the best possible being to be imagined. If we can imagine a more perfect being, than THAT is God. So, there is nothing that God cannot do, for these are the things he must be able to do if he is truly the best possible God:

Omniscience
Omnipresence
Omnipotence
Benevolence
Necessarily Existing in Reality

God must be the BEST possible being. That is how we get these concepts. This idea comes up whenever someone tries to prove existence of God or existence itself. Most Western philosophy comes from these deeply rooted ideas about the nature of things.

 

[Falvlun]

I disagree and I believe I explained why.

As far as I can tell, this is your reason why a world without evil is an impossibility: "it would be pretty difficult to be able to say that anything was "good." More to the point, how would we define evil (i.e. bad, negative, unpleasant, etc.). Very few things in the world are black or white."

Surely God can separate that which is good from that which is evil. And if God is wholly good, then that means it is possible for good to exist without evil.

Please address the questions I posed to JMorris. I am truly interested in your responses.

Your questions are based upon the concept of evil's existence. If evil never existed, there would be no "Craig's list murderer" that needed to be stopped. You said you couldn't understand how freedom of choice could exist if the bad guys weren't given the same chance to choose as the good guys. But the point is that there wouldn't be any bad guys.

As far as your "strong healthy body" scenario, I believe you are again constrained by what is, and not what could be. Death need not be frightening; it could be a welcomed event, chosen by the individual when he or she is ready. Personally, I find the idea of reincarnation very comforting (just plain reincarnation-- no icky caste stuff); if I knew that there was a part of me that would continue, I would have no fear of laying down this life, when it's course had run, and take up my new one (and I'm not even saying that personality or memories would be transferred; just essence, whatever that may be.)

Did you have any other questions particularly in mind?

It serves no point because you personally can't make sense of it.

This is indeed a possibility. I just can't fathom the idea that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God couldn't have come up with a better method. Have you, by any chance, read the 4th chapter of the Brother's Karamazov? I posted a link a little bit back. I'd be interested in how any one could justify, or see the point, of any of those evils perpetrated upon an innocent child.

I see. And I suppose that you would be the one to determine the precise point where it was needed. Could you explain what qualifies you to make that decision, since you clearly don't believe a Higher Power is capable of doing so.

I assumed it would be the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God that would be weilding the scalpel. I believe such a being would be capable of doing so. Hence the reason I don't think God, if he exists, can be perfectly benevolent or omnipotent.

It's only indiscriminate because you fail to understand it.

A tsunami hits all the villagers alike. I cringe at the thought that some baby drowned in order for me to somehow become a better person.

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

Probably... I'm not perfect

Ah, but gratitude there was, nevertheless.

And?

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

Besides the fact that you can't possibly know that, I know you are wrong, because I myself have performed actions and had thoughts with no selfish motivation.

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

You said you had evidence no benevolent God exists, not no omnipotent, benevolent God. Though I still disagree...

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.

'Allows' and 'wills' are not the same thing...

What I am saying is that the self is logically prior in every thought and action

Not everybody follows your logic of self priority.

all those examples have a selfish element to them.

You yourself admitted in the same post that you can't know that.

I can't profess to have looked into the human brain