Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[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.

Evil doesn't depend upon the existence of 'good' in order to give it meaning. Murder is evil, but not murder is simply the former possibility not enacted: there isn't a state or condition of not murder. However, the term 'good' (but not the state) is dependent upon evil. Conceive of the non-existence of evil. What would the state of 'goodness' comprise? How could one be good when it is impossible to be bad? And now if we reverse the situation, where we have only an evil existence, we find we don't need the correlative 'good' to identify this negative state. In sum, the state of evil and badness, eg hurt, injury, death etc, exists as a proper state, but 'goodness' is merely a descriptive term for the theoretical absence of that negative state; it is not a state in itself.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

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


Quote:
Ah, but gratitude there was, nevertheless.
And?

And there was a benefit for you, which otherwise would not have existed had you not done the deed.


Quote:
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.

I'm not talking about motivation. What I've said is that every human thought or action has a selfish element to it. And if I'm correct then your defending yourself, claiming to have performed selfless actions, is itself a perfect example of human selfishness.


Quote:
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...

I'm speaking of the Inconsistent Triad, which is that if evil exists it means God is unwilling to prevent its existence (not benevolent) or unable to prevent, or unaware of, its existence (not omnipotent).


Quote:
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...

If God allows the possibility for evil, then that is his will, since it is self-evident that if he didn't will the possibility then it couldn't happen!


Quote:
What I am saying is that the self is logically prior in every thought and action
Not everybody follows your logic of self priority.

You don't have to follow it, but it is true. Do you want examples?


Quote:
all those examples have a selfish element to them.
You yourself admitted in the same post that you can't know that.

I've 'admitted' no such thing. I said I cannot look into the human brain (see below). What I'm identifying is the element of selfishness that exists in all that we do.

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

​

 

[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.

Yes, I understand where you're coming from with this. But my objection, which everyone seems to be missing, is that God didn't have to create the world as it is - he didn't have to create the world at all! So we can't build an argument around the existence of evil as if it has a necessary existence that humans (and God) just had to get on and deal with. And to make pain and suffering a condition for overcoming pain and suffering is a startlingly absurd notion, as I'm sure that most will on reflection agree.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

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

Have I missed the point? Your argument was predicated on a sort of Ying and Yang type of concept, quoted beneath this. And I addressed the point fully.

Cottage


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

 

[cottage]

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.

Yes, Anselm's non-inferential argument seeks to define God into existence through logic alone. It's one of my favourite 'proofs'. At the core of the argument is a thought of something greater than the thought itself, the non-existence of which is impossible. However, I don't think benevolence is evident in that than which no greater can be thought, as the concept is directly contradicted in experience. And in any case 'benevolence' isn't necessary to the concept of Supreme Being in the same way as 'omnipotence'(which includes omniscience and omnipresence) and 'self-existent' are.

The OA is a compelling analytical argument (most of the religions dismiss it, though), but I have to admit that, in one respect, if Anselm, Descartes et al were arguing to factual necessity then the argument must fail because 5 + 5 = 10 doesn't mean that something called '10' must exist beyond the internal truth of the demonstation. Having said that, more than eight centuries on the argument hasn't been soundly defeated. Go Anselm, Go! :bow:

Cottage

 

[cottage]

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.

Exactly! Although it's worth mentioning that 'good' would then be a redundant term.

Cottage

 

[Buttons*]

Yes, Anselm's non-inferential argument seeks to define God into existence through logic alone. It's one of my favourite 'proofs'. At the core of the argument is a thought of something greater than the thought itself, the non-existence of which is impossible. However, I don't think benevolence is evident in that than which no greater can be thought, as the concept is directly contradicted in experience. And in any case 'benevolence' isn't necessary to the concept of Supreme Being in the same way as 'omnipotence'(which includes omniscience and omnipresence) and 'self-existent' are.

And why wouldn't the most supreme being EVER not be all benevolent as well as all powerful and all knowing? His proof has been refuted and challenged many a time, but the idea of God being able to do all things comes from his idea. Not only that, but all good is a quality which a best possible being would have to have.

The OA is a compelling analytical argument (most of the religions dismiss it, though), but I have to admit that, in one respect, if Anselm, Descartes et al were arguing to factual necessity then the argument must fail because 5 + 5 = 10 doesn't mean that something called '10' must exist beyond the internal truth of the demonstation. Having said that, more than eight centuries on the argument hasn't been soundly defeated. Go Anselm, Go! :bow:

Cottage

It's only compelling to a point, which is why, while it's important to study in Western philosophical history, it's often beautifully and tactfully refuted. I mean, Kant did a pretty good job of working existence out of the equation. *shrug* At least, that's just my opinion. Yes, Descartes was a precursor to Kant on the necessity of existence.

Anselm is incredibly intelligent, but there is always that pesky imaginary island that he can't seem to shake off with logic alone. >.< Curse you Gaunillo!

 

[cottage]

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.

I suppose it is easy to see why darkness has always been associated with evil, ie nefarious goings-on in the blackness.

And you are correct to say that darkness is the absence of light. But both are proper states. Were we to annihilate one the other would still exist. We can conceive of the lack of light, ie the blackness, just as we can conceive of there being no dark.

In the case of good or evil, only evil is a proper state. We can describe what it is without reference to 'good' (try doing that the other way round). So 'good' is just a term, and it is completely dependant upon the state of evil for its meaning.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

And why wouldn't the most supreme being EVER not be all benevolent as well as all powerful and all knowing?

Because evil exists! ergo God is not benevolent.


His proof has been refuted and challenged many a time, but the idea of God being able to do all things comes from his idea. Not only that, but all good is a quality which a best possible being would have to have.

But only if you have evil, which is a contradiction.


It's only compelling to a point, which is why, while it's important to study in Western philosophical history, it's often beautifully and tactfully refuted. I mean, Kant did a pretty good job of working existence out of the equation. *shrug* At least, that's just my opinion. Yes, Descartes was a precursor to Kant on the necessity of existence.

Did Kant refute the OA? That's really just a matter of opinion. According to Kant there is a difference between a logial predicate and a real predicate, that is, one which determines a thing, his conclusion being that existence isn't derived from essence. Well, in general use 'existence' may, or may not, be a proper predicate, but in the case of God we are talking about an Absolutely Necessary Being; so to describe a necessarily existent thing is to use the predicate 'existence' correctly. It's not like saying 'A London bus is red in colour, has two decks and a diesel engine - oh and it also exists!' A necessary existence in this case is the defining predicate, before any other thing.

Anselm is incredibly intelligent, but there is always that pesky imaginary island that he can't seem to shake off with logic alone. >.< Curse you Gaunillo!

In answering Gaunillo we can use the analogy of a plate. There is a plate that is unbreakable, indestructable even, and greater than all other plates, exceeding the sum of all possible greatness in the plate world. But the greatness of contingent things, be they Guanillo's most perfect island, or plates, must be exceeded by 'the something than which nothing greater can be conceived', because no matter how great or perfect a plate (or island) may be it is easy to conceive of something far greater: that is to say our already-mentioned Necessary Being.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

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.

Ah! A musician, and gifted in being to be able to see life in such terms. Respect.

<cottage sulks, enviously>

 

[Buttons*]

Because evil exists! ergo God is not benevolent.

I agree, the Bible doesn't teach that. But the best possible God MUST be good, he must want good for us. Otherwise he's not the best possible being - thanks to Anselm.

But only if you have evil, which is a contradiction.

Ok, so this comment really confuses me. I've taken it a few ways, just respond to the comment that applies to the situation. Or, let me know what you meant... because I'm confused lol!

1) Do you mean that God does not have the ability for evil, and so cannot have the ability for good? Can God only have the properties that are non-contradictory? Please explain to me how omniscience does not have an opposite. Or how existence does not have an opposite, if that is the case.

2) According to Anselm, the best possible God that can be conceived is the true God. I can conceive of a God that is all those things and benevolent. So where does that leave the God that isn't benevolent? He's not the best possible God.

Did Kant refute the OA? That's really just a matter of opinion. According to Kant there is a difference between a logial predicate and a real predicate, that is, one which determines a thing, his conclusion being that existence isn't derived from essence. Well, in general use 'existence' may, or may not, be a proper predicate, but in the case of God we are talking about an Absolutely Necessary Being; so to describe a necessarily existent thing is to use the predicate 'existence' correctly. It's not like saying 'A London bus is red in colour, has two decks and a diesel engine - oh and it also exists!' A necessary existence in this case is the defining predicate, before any other thing.

He did to a point. But the thing is, necessary must be defined - and by Kant's definition, God is NOT necessary. According to Anselm, God is the ONLY necessary being. WEIRD. It just depends on who's definition you pick, really. But Kant states that you can't use existence as a predicate because it's a presupposition. I am taking Kant's definition right now, but that's because I JUST stumbled upon the guy. I think he's fascinating. Anselm isn't bad at all, he's incredible also, but I was raised on theology, you know? Kant is new to me.

In answering Gaunillo we can use the analogy of a plate. There is a plate that is unbreakable, indestructable even, and greater than all other plates, exceeding the sum of all possible greatness in the plate world. But the greatness of contingent things, be they Guanillo's most perfect island, or plates, must be exceeded by 'the something than which nothing greater can be conceived', because no matter how great or perfect a plate (or island) may be it is easy to conceive of something far greater: that is to say our already-mentioned Necessary Being.

Depending on your definition of necessary

 

[Willamena]

Yes, Anselm's non-inferential argument seeks to define God into existence through logic alone. It's one of my favourite 'proofs'. At the core of the argument is a thought of something greater than the thought itself, the non-existence of which is impossible. However, I don't think benevolence is evident in that than which no greater can be thought, as the concept is directly contradicted in experience.

To be clear about what you've said, which concept do you refer to as "contradicted in experience"?

 

[cottage]

I agree, the Bible doesn't teach that. But the best possible God MUST be good, he must want good for us. Otherwise he's not the best possible being - thanks to Anselm.

If an omnipotent God was good, and wanted the best for us, it follows that evil could not exist.

Ok, so this comment really confuses me. I've taken it a few ways, just respond to the comment that applies to the situation. Or, let me know what you meant... because I'm confused lol!

1) Do you mean that God does not have the ability for evil, and so cannot have the ability for good? Can God only have the properties that are non-contradictory?

Yes, of course. If God is all good then there cannot be even a single instance of evil.
Very simply we can't say God is benevolent because self-evidently he isn't! If we try and make 'good' dependent upon evil then we're just arguing in a circle.

Please explain to me how omniscience does not have an opposite. Or how existence does not have an opposite, if that is the case.

Not sure what you're saying here, but both examples have their opposites.


2) According to Anselm, the best possible God that can be conceived is the true God. I can conceive of a God that is all those things and benevolent.

How can you conceive of a benevolent God when evil exists? (!)

So where does that leave the God that isn't benevolent? He's not the best possible God.

Self-evidently if evil exists then he cannot be the 'best possible God'!


He did to a point. But the thing is, necessary must be defined - and by Kant's definition, God is NOT necessary.

'Necessary (log) is that which cannot be other than it is. If God is not the Necessary Being then he is not God; and to say 'God is not God' is a contradiction (whether or not there is such an entity)

According to Anselm, God is the ONLY necessary being. WEIRD.

Exactly, and he's correct. There can only be one omnipotent, self-existent Necessary Being.

It just depends on who's definition you pick, really. But Kant states that you can't use existence as a predicate because it's a presupposition.

As with the example I gave, we don't describe contingent things and then say 'and they exist'. The bus's redness, two decks and diesel engine are the predicates. We add nothing to the description by adding the term 'existence'. But in the case of the necessary being concept we are describing existence itself. God by defintion is the reality, or, as Kant himself says: the ens realissimum. And one doesn't have to be a believer to accept that.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

To be clear about what you've said, which concept do you refer to as "contradicted in experience"?

Pain and suffering. All moral and metaphysical evil.

Cottage

 

[Willamena]

Pain and suffering. All moral and metaphysical evil.

'Pain and suffering' is contradicted in experience?

 

[cottage]

'Pain and suffering' is contradicted in experience?

Lol. No, 'benevolence'. :sorry1:

Cottage

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Thanks for clarifying!
Hm. The versions that I have been reading all say that "God is something that which nothing greater can be thought". "Great" doesn't necessarily translate to "best".

Besides, isn't including "benevolence" as a characteristic of the "best possible God" seem a bit subjective? I can see how the greatest possible God (ie, the most powerful) must need to be omnipotent and omniscience, but I'm not sure how the greatest possible God would necessarily need to be benevolent. Benevolence implies that there is something to be benevolent to-- which means, in order for God to necessarily be benevolent, humans (or some other creation) would necessarily have to exist.

 

[cottage]

Thanks for clarifying!
Hm. The versions that I have been reading all say that "God is something that which nothing greater can be thought". "Great" doesn't necessarily translate to "best".

Besides, isn't including "benevolence" as a characteristic of the "best possible God" seem a bit subjective? I can see how the greatest possible God (ie, the most powerful) must need to be omnipotent and omniscience, but I'm not sure how the greatest possible God would necessarily need to be benevolent. Benevolence implies that there is something to be benevolent to-- which means, in order for God to necessarily be benevolent, humans (or some other creation) would necessarily have to exist.

Yep! Perfectly explained. :clap

Terms such as 'creator', 'omnipotent' and 'self-existent' are necessary to the concept, but benevolence is not. No contradiction is involved when we deny that God 'all loving' or benevolent.

Cottage

 

[Katzpur]

Falvlun, I guess what you're saying is that a truly benevolent God would have created a world in which only good would exist. We would all live in perfect health for as short or as long a time as we wished. There would be only love in the world, no hate. But when our loved ones died, we would somehow not feel grief. We would attain every goal we set for ourselves on the first try, never experiencing disappointment, frustration or failure. No one would be more physically attractive than anyone else, more intelligent than anyone else, or richer than anyone else. No one would have to work hard to achieve anything because hard work always involves meeting obstacles, and obstacles wouldn't be a part of your perfect world. No one would have any inclination to do anything but good. There would simply be no choice whatsoever. You may find that to be an ideal world. Personally, I can't even begin to conceive of such an uninteresting, unfulfilling place.

 

[cottage]

Falvlun, I guess what you're saying is that a truly benevolent God would have created a world in which only good would exist. We would all live in perfect health for as short or as long a time as we wished. There would be only love in the world, no hate. But when our loved ones died, we would somehow not feel grief. We would attain every goal we set for ourselves on the first try, never experiencing disappointment, frustration or failure. No one would be more physically attractive than anyone else, more intelligent than anyone else, or richer than anyone else. No one would have to work hard to achieve anything because hard work always involves meeting obstacles, and obstacles wouldn't be a part of your perfect world. No one would have any inclination to do anything but good. There would simply be no choice whatsoever. You may find that to be an ideal world. Personally, I can't even begin to conceive of such an uninteresting, unfulfilling place.

So what you are saying here is that a world with hate, poor health, grief, and ugliness (and I'm using your examples here) is a fulfilling place? You are making those things a condition for achieving 'good'. This amounts to some having to suffer in order for others to feel good about themselves. And that, surely, is an amoral argument.

Cottage