Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Willamena]

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

To be "fulfilled" of the world one must not exempt any part of the world.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Why should we feel grief when our loved one decided it was time to die? Her life would have been fulfilled. Death would be a celebration of a new beginning, a new journey. The whole concept of death as a cause for grief would be turned on its head.

We would attain every goal we set for ourselves on the first try, never experiencing disappointment, frustration or failure.

Not necessarily. Is failure, in and of itself, evil? Is disappointment and frustration necessarily a form of suffering? Imagine a child trying to learn to ride his bike. He wouldn't get it the first time, but he knows he as time to try again; he knows that his "failures" are only steps towards his success. No, I don't think frustration and disappointment would exist simply because our frame of mind would view things differently.

No one would be more physically attractive than anyone else, more intelligent than anyone else, or richer than anyone else.

Is this necessary? You imagine a world of blandness; I imagine a world of diversity that is tolerated, appreciated, and not biased against.

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, apparently obstacles wouldn't be a part of your perfect world. I see no contradiction between the existence of obstacles and the elimination of suffering.

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.

Apparently you are the only person in the world whose decisions consist only of choosing between good and evil everyday.
Imagine this: We live in a world wear good and evil exist. The Moosles live in a universe where good, evil, and noofoo exist. Noofoo is a third possible choice that is incomprehensible to us because we don't have it. Does the lack of noofoo in our world mean that we don't have any choices?

Out of curiousity, what do you think heaven is? I personally believe the idea of heaven to be a delightful place of serenity, contentment, growth, and enjoyment. There are many people who mock the idea of heaven, saying that it must be "boring". Isn't my idea of a perfect world the same concept as heaven? Will there be evil in heaven?

Again, out of curiousity, what is your concept of the Garden of Eden? Man did not know the difference between good and evil, and all was at peace. Man still had things to do: ordering the animals and plants, naming things, conversing with Eve. Was this the dreary, bland life you depicted above? If so, then why did God consider it to be good?
Of course, the ability to do evil existed, by disobeying God's one and only commandment. Yet, suffering and evil really did not enter the world until that commandment was broken. I see the Garden of Eden as proof that the Judeo-Christian God could have created a perfectly wonderful world without suffering. And yet, he chose a different method.

 

[Katzpur]

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

I am saying a world like some have described here is highly problematic. I have raised some legitimate questions about such a world and no one has even really tried to respond to them. I have no desire to debate the point further because we clearly can't seem to get beyond the premise that I'm wrong and you're right. There has been a lot of that, but I'm still not seeing any real answers to the questions I have asked, nor do I expect to. So, you guys have fun. See ya around.

 

[Falvlun]

To be "fulfilled" of the world one must not exempt any part of the world.

But if something doesn't exist in the first place, you surely could then be fullfilled just upon what does exist.

 

[Falvlun]

I am saying a world like some have described here is highly problematic. I have raised some legitimate questions about such a world and no one has even really tried to respond to them. I have no desire to debate the point further because we clearly can't seem to get beyond the premise that I'm wrong and you're right. There has been a lot of that, but I'm still not seeing any real answers to the questions I have asked, nor do I expect to. So, you guys have fun. See ya around.

Oh, I do think that's unfair. You can hardly accuse me of not trying to answer your questions.

 

[cottage]

I am saying a world like some have described here is highly problematic. I have raised some legitimate questions about such a world and no one has even really tried to respond to them. I have no desire to debate the point further because we clearly can't seem to get beyond the premise that I'm wrong and you're right. There has been a lot of that, but I'm still not seeing any real answers to the questions I have asked, nor do I expect to. So, you guys have fun. See ya around.

That's a shame. However, I believe your points have been addressed with legitimate objections, which you've not really acknowledged. But anyway, there is still considerable mileage in the controversy, should you wish to continue.

Cottage

 

[Willamena]

But if something doesn't exist in the first place, you surely could then be fullfilled just upon what does exist.

Absolutely.

 

[Katzpur]

Why should we feel grief when our loved one decided it was time to die? Her life would have been fulfilled. Death would be a celebration of a new beginning, a new journey. The whole concept of death as a cause for grief would be turned on its head.

Every time someone I have known and loved has died, I have grieved. I grieve because I have loved and will miss that individual. In order that grief over loss not exist, love would also have to cease to exist. Your answer is overly simplistic, and I think you know that.

Not necessarily. Is failure, in and of itself, evil? Is disappointment and frustration necessarily a form of suffering? Imagine a child trying to learn to ride his bike. He wouldn't get it the first time, but he knows he as time to try again; he knows that his "failures" are only steps towards his success. No, I don't think frustration and disappointment would exist simply because our frame of mind would view things differently.

Why shouldn't failure be considered evil? It's the opposite of success, which is what we all strive for. Do you enjoy being disappointed and frustrated when you to do something time and time again, only to fail? You say that failure is only a step towards success. I agree. I would take it a step further and say that we appreciate our successes even more when they are not immediate. That's why failure, disappointment and frustration are essential to our happiness. It seems to me that you are able to understand this to some degree. You just draw the line in a different place than I do.

Is this necessary? You imagine a world of blandness; I imagine a world of diversity that is tolerated, appreciated, and not biased against.

And why is it tolerated, appreciated and not biased? Would people have a choice to be tolerant, non-judgmental and open-minded or would we be hard-wired to have these qualities? If we were hard-wired to have these qualities, what would that make us? If we had a choice in the matter, some of us might choose to be all of those things. Others, however, would undoubtedly choose hatred, bigotry and intolerance.

No, apparently obstacles wouldn't be a part of your perfect world. I see no contradiction between the existence of obstacles and the elimination of suffering.

Where do you draw the line though? A skier practices and practices to become good at the sport he loves. He tries over and over again to perfect his form and to excel. He fails many times, gets discouraged and wants to give up. But something keeps him going. Finally, he achieves success and beomes a world-class skier. And then, he is in a horrible accident and crashes into a tree, becoming paralyzed. Suddenly, the perfect world -- the one in which you see no contradiction between the existence of suffering and the elimination of suffering -- ceases to exist.

Out of curiousity, what do you think heaven is? I personally believe the idea of heaven to be a delightful place of serenity, contentment, growth, and enjoyment. There are many people who mock the idea of heaven, saying that it must be "boring". Isn't my idea of a perfect world the same concept as heaven? Will there be evil in heaven?

As strange as is may seem, my idea of Heaven is not all that different from yours, except that I see it as something that we can attain only after having experienced a world where we can learn to truly appreciate it and not simply take it for granted.0

Again, out of curiousity, what is your concept of the Garden of Eden? Man did not know the difference between good and evil, and all was at peace. Man still had things to do: ordering the animals and plants, naming things, conversing with Eve. Was this the dreary, bland life you depicted above? If so, then why did God consider it to be good?

And how long would ordering the animals and plants, naming things and conversing with Eve have satisfied man? I believe it would have become bland fairly early on. Would Adam still be as happy there now as he supposedly was 6000 years ago? Would he still be happy 6 million years from now? How many times can you name plants and animals after all?

Of course, the ability to do evil existed, by disobeying God's one and only commandment. Yet, suffering and evil really did not enter the world until that commandment was broken. I see the Garden of Eden as proof that the Judeo-Christian God could have created a perfectly wonderful world without suffering. And yet, he chose a different method.

Yes, He chose a different method because He had something far more wonderful in store for Adam and Eve and their posterity. That's why He allowed them to be tempted, and when they succombed to temptation, He said, "The man has become as one of us, to know the good from the evil." It would have been absolutely impossible for Adam and Eve to progress without having to experience trials, heartache, and all of the negative things that are a part of life. And yet, by obedience -- once they actually understood the difference between good and evil -- they could experience the world, learn to make good choices, come to appreciate the difference between the opposites that would be a part of life and, in the end, be reunited with God in a place that was far better than Eden could have ever been.

 

[Katzpur]

That's a shame. However, I believe your points have been addressed with legitimate objections, which you've not really acknowledged. But anyway, there is still considerable mileage in the controversy, should you wish to continue.

Cottage

There is no mileage left in my opinion. I have stated my position as clearly as I know how. Why should I simply continue to repeat myself? That's all I can really do at this point.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh, I do think that's unfair. You can hardly accuse me of not trying to answer your questions.

I was actually addressing my remarks to Cottage.

 

[sojourner]

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

Then how do you purport to say definitively that there is no God, if you have no proof? You're making an assumption. Then, you blast believers for doing the same. If we "believe" there is a God, then, surely you "believe" that there is no God.

Plus the presence of evil does not necessarily mean that a benevolent God cannot exist. you should know better than that!

 

[sojourner]

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

That's dualistic and doesn't make any sense.
To say that the existence of a good thing depends upon the existence of an evil thing is ridiculous! Does the existence of love depend upon the existence of indifference? Does the existence of light depend upon the existence of darkness?
Light is not defined by darkness any more than compassion is defined by suffering.

 

[sojourner]

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

While the Holocaust was evil (it was premeditated and deliberately targeted people for death), I'm not sure that a natural disaster could be called "evil."
The resultant suffering might conceivably be called "evil," but not the disaster, itself. In fact, I'm not sure that suffering is always "evil." I suffer with allergies quite a bit. I've suffered through the loss of family members, too. But I don't see those bouts of suffering as "evil."

 

[sojourner]

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.

This sounds more like a world in which pharmaceuticals are God...
It appears that "good" consists of being "comfortably numb."

 

[sojourner]

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

Selfless action is a basic, spiritual tenet.

 

[cottage]

Then how do you purport to say definitively that there is no God, if you have no proof? You're making an assumption. Then, you blast believers for doing the same. If we "believe" there is a God, then, surely you "believe" that there is no God.

Either you misread me or you are intentionally misrepresenting me. I have never, ever said or implied that there is 'definitively no God'. Indeed, it is my view that a creator being is logically possible, and I am on record elsewhere as arguing to that effect. My disagreement is with the logical impossibilities attributed to God. And it isn't an 'assumption': it's demonstrable.

Plus the presence of evil does not necessarily mean that a benevolent God cannot exist. you should know better than that!

Now here I adamantly and profoundly disagree with you. It is plainly self-contradictory to maintain that a perfectly good and benevolent God exists in the presence of evil. If God is good then it is necessarily true that if God, then not evil, which has exactly the same logical structure as God cannot not be God. The argument that an all loving, merciful and benevolent God can cause or allow evil is to say a contradiction isn't a contradiction, which is also allows God is not God, which is another absurdity.

So any apologetic that is offered in defence of God and evil is simply an attempt to circumnavigate the problem, while leaving the contradiction in place.

Cottage

 

[Willamena]

Now here I adamantly and profoundly disagree with you. It is plainly self-contradictory to maintain that a perfectly good and benevolent God exists in the presence of evil. If God is good then it is necessarily true that if God, then not evil, which has exactly the same logical structure as God cannot not be God. The argument that an all loving, merciful and benevolent God can cause or allow evil is to say a contradiction isn't a contradiction, which is also allows God is not God, which is another absurdity.

So any apologetic that is offered in defence of God and evil is simply an attempt to circumnavigate the problem, while leaving the contradiction in place.

That's so, only if "evil" is not in some way beneficial. I believe Katzpur has argued admirably in favour of that it is dependent.

In other words, "bad things happen, and who you gonna call...?"

 

[Buttons*]

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

Unless the evil things are actually part of a bigger, benevolent plan. Good does not depend on evil, if we follow my example. All things are "good" because they are ultimately good even if they are temporarily bad. *shrug* Do we assume God makes plans?

Yes, of course. If God is all good then there cannot be even a single instance of evil.

I thought you were claiming that good does not depend on 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.
[/COLOR][/FONT]

Maybe God actually is. It's an assumption either way. But God must be the greatest possible being. Benevolence, like omnipotence, is not a contradictory term in and of itself. It's only when we introduce dichotomy that we have this problem.

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

Here's what I mean:
You claim that God can only have properties that are non-contradictory. You claim that we cannot accept God as benevolent because evil exists, and this contradictory.

But here's what I am claiming - God can have properties that contradict... there's no way that a concept can exist without its opposite because the mind works in dualism. It's our language. But if we can't accept benevolence because evil exists, than we must not be able to accept omnipotence because beings that are NOT all powerful exist.

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

By refuting the claim that either evil doesn't actually exist in a big picture sense.

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

I would say so, if we claim that evil is real. I'm not convinced it is.

'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)

No one is saying "God is not God" but you can reject the whole thing instead of making a contradiction.. and then no contradiction is made, and the premise is still rejected.

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

... Please explain how that works. Because I don't see that there necessarily must actually be an omnipotent self existent being.

... I'm a little sick today, so I oculdn't respond to all of it. sorry

 

[Katzpur]

While the Holocaust was evil (it was premeditated and deliberately targeted people for death), I'm not sure that a natural disaster could be called "evil." The resultant suffering might conceivably be called "evil," but not the disaster, itself.

In prior discussions on this topic (which we have had on far too many occasions to even count), one thing has always amazed me. People who believe that God is malevolent, hard-hearted, callous and uncaring always point to tsunamis, earthquakes and other natural disasters as evidence to support their claims. The argument is always the same: How could God kill 20,000 innocent people and be considered benevolent? Here's my answer: How many people could God kill on any given day to qualify as a nice guy? 10? 250? 5000? Maybe He could wipe out 20,000 and nobody would even notice, as long as they were scattered randomly throughout the world. People die every day. Lots of them. Some die young; others die old. Some suffer; other's don't. If people are going to even consider the possibility that there is a God (which the title of the thread presupposes to be the case), they would almost have to agree that death is a necessary part of existence. It's the "group death" thing that seems to cause everybody such consternation. What's so much worse about 20,000 people dying in an earthquake in a limited location than 20,000 people dying of various illnesses, accidents or old age at various places throughout the world. People don't die collectively. They die individually and it's a necessary thing.

 

[free spirit]

To all thaking part in this thread,

I believe that God is a benevolent God because God and the law is one and the same.
Therefore the law of God and the law of men exists for your protection, it is the light to keep us safe, we have freedom only if we stay within the law, the law of God and the law of men has an inbuild punishement for not conformance.
But the laws are basically benevolent because its existence is for our survival in this world and to eternal life.
God and the law is a mirror image of each other.
To live in a lawless place would be orrific.
I could not imagine to live without the God of order.
Benevolent natural laws are also in place for the survival of the planet.