Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[cottage]

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...?"

'Evil in someway beneficial'! Here again, this is stating that evil is good. But surely what Katzpur is referring to are situations where a lesser evil mitigates or alleviates a greater evil. But the concept of evil has to exist in the first place for those situations to occur. My argument is that it doesn't have to exist. But if this view is wrong then it must be easy to show, conclusively, why it is wrong by demonstrating how evil has a necessary existence. And by that I mean cannot fail to exist.

Cottage

 

[Buttons*]

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".

But does anyone feel that Greatest does not include "best" or "benevolent"?

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.

It could be subjective, but God's apparent properties are all a little subjective. If God's omniscient, God must be able to know everything - so then everything must necessarily exist. If God is omnipresent, there must necessarily be an "everywhere" ... so really we're not making our lives easier by rejecting a few premises on the basis of subjectivity.

Subjectivity must occur anyway for one to be able to conceive of a God that has the greatest possible qualities.

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.

See above.

 

[Buttons*]

'Evil in someway beneficial'! Here again, this is stating that evil is good. But surely what Katzpur is referring to are situations where a lesser evil mitigates or alleviates a greater evil. But the concept of evil has to exist in the first place for those situations to occur. My argument is that it doesn't have to exist. But if this view is wrong then it must be easy to show, conclusively, why it is wrong by demonstrating how evil has a necessary existence. And by that I mean cannot fail to exist.

Cottage

Now wait a minute :sarcastic The concept of evil is not necessary for people to hurt each other or other stereotypically "evil" acts. Once we name them evil, then evil "exists" but people do harmful things to each other anyway - and would still do them without the concept.

BUT, on the other hand, if it is all part of a larger plan put to us by God, then it can't really be evil - not in the scope of things.

 

[gnostic]

'Evil in someway beneficial'! Here again, this is stating that evil is good. But surely what Katzpur is referring to are situations where a lesser evil mitigates or alleviates a greater evil.

I'd prefer not to use the word "evil".

For me, it either "bad" or "really bad", or "really, really bad" (well, you should get the picture by now ) to "worse".

 

[cottage]

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?

But 'temporarily bad' simply restates the problem! And it is still making good dependent upon evil.

I thought you were claiming that good does not depend on evil...

Certainly not!

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.

You seem to be saying benevolence isn't contradictory until a conundrum presents itself. Well, yes, exactly! That is what a contradiction is.:yes:

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.

If God can have properties that are contradictory then the proposition God is not God is equally valid, which is absurd. The difficulty here is that it follows from the above that if I say 'There is no God' you can then make no objection to that statement.

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

Even if it exists only in one sense (whatever that may be) then it still exists. It either exists or it does not (a thing and its opposite).

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

If it were the case that we do not feel pain and that people do not suffer then there is no Problem of Evil, in which case there is nothing to discuss. But we are having this discussion because there is suffering. And even if I dream that I'm in pain it means there is such a state.

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.

Sure. You can reject subject and predicate, together: No God, no benevolence.

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

Okay, a supreme being doesn't necessarily exist. For example there is no contradiction in stating 'There is no God'. The necessity lies in the concept; if God exists, then his existence is necessary. In other words we have the Law of Identity (A=A): God is God and cannot be other than God; and the Law of Non-Contradiction: God cannot be both God and not God at the same time.


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

I'm sorry to hear you're unwell. I wish you a speedy recovery.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

Now wait a minute :sarcastic The concept of evil is not necessary for people to hurt each other or other stereotypically "evil" acts. Once we name them evil, then evil "exists" but people do harmful things to each other anyway - and would still do them without the concept.

The Problem of Evil exists not because of some arcane conceptual notion but because of its factual existence.

BUT, on the other hand, if it is all part of a larger plan put to us by God, then it can't really be evil - not in the scope of things.

This is just special pleading. It is also a circular argument: God has a greater plan. Therefore evil isn't evil. Why? Because it's all part of God's plan.

Cottage

 

[cottage]

But does anyone feel that Greatest does not include "best" or "benevolent"?

'God is not the creator': contradiction

'God is not omnipotent': contradiction

'God is not immutable': contradiction

'God is not benevolent': no contradiction

It could be subjective, but God's apparent properties are all a little subjective.

Sorry, but they're not. The first three above are necessary properties. Remove any of those three properties and God becomes a lesser being, ie not God. However, we are of course free to imagine a god of our choosing. One might conceive of a god who favours one group of people over all others, a god who sends his envoys to earth, a god who speaks through humans, or a god who enters into covenants with mankind. While none of those things are necessary to the concept, none are contradictory. But the moment that we propose an all loving God is the same moment that we contradict ourselves.



If God's omniscient, God must be able to know everything - so then everything must necessarily exist. If God is omnipresent, there must necessarily be an "everywhere" ... so really we're not making our lives easier by rejecting a few premises on the basis of subjectivity.

God's omniscience is part of his omnipotence, as is his omnipresence.

But it doesn't follow that just because he's omnipresent, for example, that worlds have to exist, but only that where they do (by his cause) he will be present. In the same way, God the Creator doesn't have to create worlds, but where they exist he will be their creator. There is no necessity for God to do anything.

Subjectivity must occur anyway for one to be able to conceive of a God that has the greatest possible qualities.

Yes! Providing there is no contradiction involved.

 

[Buttons*]

God is not benevolent

that must be a contradiction too...

I'll reply more when I'm feeling better >.< *ugh*

 

[cottage]

God is not benevolent

that must be a contradiction too...

In one way it is...but only in the sense that it contradicts those who want to say 'God is benevolent'. The popular notion of God is that he is omnipotent, eternal and benevolent. If we say the popular notion of God doesn't include benevolence, then that is a contradiction. But the internal truth of that definition is tautological and has no reference to experience, while the facts demonstrate that evil exists.

Cottage

 

[logician]

By definition, an omniscient god has no free will, as it knows all future actions. A god that is omniscient would foresee its own death, and be powerless to prevent it.

 

[Katzpur]

By definition, an omniscient god has no free will, as it knows all future actions. A god that is omniscient would foresee its own death, and be powerless to prevent it.

By definition, a god is immortal. Immortal beings don't die.

 

[Storm]

By definition, a god is immortal.

Debateable.

 

[logician]

By definition, a god is immortal. Immortal beings don't die.

There' s no requirement that a god be immortal, any more than a universe.

 

[sojourner]

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

Your argument only works if God cannot step back from God's creation and watch it play out. Which, by definition, limits God, making God, by definition, not God at all.

If God is God, then God has the power to step back and let things play out. I just don't buy into the whole "God is in control" stance. At least not in the sense it is usually put forth.

God certainly can be (and is) in the midst of evil. When we suffer, God suffers along with us. God suffered in the crucifixion. The problem of evil will always exist, but the presence of evil cannot be used as a qualifier for God's existence, or evil would then dicate who God is or is not. Nothing but God can do that, if God is God.

 

[sojourner]

By definition, an omniscient god has no free will, as it knows all future actions. A god that is omniscient would foresee its own death, and be powerless to prevent it.

God, by definition, is immortal. God, by definition, exists outside of our understanding of time. Your argument is moot.

 

[sojourner]

There' s no requirement that a god be immortal, any more than a universe.

That's the hebraic understanding. The difference between humanity and Divinity is mortality.

 

[rojse]

That's the hebraic understanding. The difference between humanity and Divinity is mortality.

Didn't Jesus die, even if it was for three days?

 

[fantome profane]

That's the hebraic understanding. The difference between humanity and Divinity is mortality.

Is this thread intended to be limited to the Hebraic understanding of “God”?

Lets face it, “God” is usually defined very poorly. It is a vague nebulous concept.

 

[Storm]

That's the hebraic understanding. The difference between humanity and Divinity is mortality.

So, if Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life as well, we would be God's equals?

 

[cottage]

Your argument only works if God cannot step back from God's creation and watch it play out. Which, by definition, limits God, making God, by definition, not God at all.

If God is God, then God has the power to step back and let things play out. I just don't buy into the whole "God is in control" stance. At least not in the sense it is usually put forth.

I have no problem at all with that. For certainly, if God is not omniscient, that is to say not omnipotent, then certainly the situation you describes makes perfect logical sense. So, yes, of course evil is possible under those conditions. He's simply unable to put his benevolence into action. But then of course he's not the Absolutely Necessary Being, which leaves room for another God - one who is!

God certainly can be (and is) in the midst of evil. When we suffer, God suffers along with us. God suffered in the crucifixion. The problem of evil will always exist, but the presence of evil cannot be used as a qualifier for God's existence, or evil would then dicate who God is or is not. Nothing but God can do that, if God is God.

Again, no problem with that. The Problem of Evil only exists when it is insisted upon that God is both omnipotent and benevolent. A Necessary Being is not harmed in the least by the removal of the notion of benevolence, unlike omnipotence, which is necessary to the concept.

You say the problem of evil will always exist. Well, forgive me, but that is not true, anymore than it is to claim the material world, or the world in any form, will always exist.

Cottage


Cottage