rojse
RF Addict
I've went and created a poll on this one, because it sounds interesting enough to warrant it.
Whether I will understand the answers to the questions is entirely different, though.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do most people assume God is benevolent?
- Thread starter rojse
- Start date
I've went and created a poll on this one, because it sounds interesting enough to warrant it.
Whether I will understand the answers to the questions is entirely different, though.
Sojourner:
Your whole argument is moot. "There need be no world," indeed! Shame on you! The facts are these: There is a world, and we suffer in it. You say you don't believe in God, because you don't like suffering. I say I do believe in God because I like life.
Cottage:
You argue as if God had no choice but to create the world as it is. And, yes, of course it is a fact that there is a world and that suffering exists! But no facts are necessary. Not one! And because suffering exists you have to try and accommodate it. But you are defending your beliefs (for plainly, if God exists he needs no defending) against the logic and reasoning you would use in every other aspect of your life.
But anyway, lets have a quick review:
First of all there is the logical argument: If there is an omnipotent, all-loving and benevolent God then there will be no instances when he is not benevolent. If God is the omnipotent Creator then all things occur or come into existence by his will, and it follows that a thing not willed by God cannot occur or come into existence.
Secondly, following on from the first point, is the evidential argument. Suffering does exist in the world, in the presence of a supposedly all-loving and benevolent God: hence the contradiction.
And thirdly we can add to the fact of suffering a few of the words spoken by your God in the Bible.
I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
And plenty more besides, from this benevolent God.
Sojourner:
You cannot prove or disprove God based upon the presence of evil, nor can you prove God's level of benevolence based upon the presence of evil. The only thing you can prove is that evil exists. Period.
Cottage:
I can, and I have, demonstrated that the God you describe is logically impossible. But, now then, whats this level of benevolence you speak of? Are you saying God is sometimes benevolent? Because if you are that means sometimes he is not, which is a clear demonstrable admission that there is no all-loving and benevolent God.
Sojourner:
The argument isn't "why evil must exist." That's a smoke screen. Evil does exist. Where theodicy comes in is "how do we deal with it theologically?
Cottage:
Absolutely right! The argument isnt why must evil exist, since we know that it doesnt have to exist. And theodicy is the attempt to explain or justify evil, but you speak as if it addresses the contradiction. It does not. It is basically an apologetic, or actually I should say apologia, since there isnt a single specific argument proposed. And, Indeed, some of the arguments conflict with one another.
Sojourner:
God is benevolent, because God has revealed God's Self to us as benevolent. I can't help it if you don't believe it. All I can do is bear witness to it. You don't get ot lay a bunch of "conditions" on God by saying, "if this, then you must be..."
It just don't work that way.
Cottage:
I really couldnt agree more that we cant impose conditions upon God. And Im sure youll agree that to say The Necessary Being is not the Creator is a contradiction and an absurdity, since Creator is implied in the meaning of Necessary Being. But to say God is not benevolent involves no contradiction - and crucially the statement also happens to fit with the known facts of the world.
__________________
Your whole argument is moot. "There need be no world," indeed! Shame on you! The facts are these: There is a world, and we suffer in it. You say you don't believe in God, because you don't like suffering. I say I do believe in God because I like life.
Cottage:
You argue as if God had no choice but to create the world as it is. And, yes, of course it is a fact that there is a world and that suffering exists! But no facts are necessary. Not one! And because suffering exists you have to try and accommodate it. But you are defending your beliefs (for plainly, if God exists he needs no defending) against the logic and reasoning you would use in every other aspect of your life.
But anyway, lets have a quick review:
First of all there is the logical argument: If there is an omnipotent, all-loving and benevolent God then there will be no instances when he is not benevolent. If God is the omnipotent Creator then all things occur or come into existence by his will, and it follows that a thing not willed by God cannot occur or come into existence.
Secondly, following on from the first point, is the evidential argument. Suffering does exist in the world, in the presence of a supposedly all-loving and benevolent God: hence the contradiction.
And thirdly we can add to the fact of suffering a few of the words spoken by your God in the Bible.
I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
And plenty more besides, from this benevolent God.
Sojourner:
You cannot prove or disprove God based upon the presence of evil, nor can you prove God's level of benevolence based upon the presence of evil. The only thing you can prove is that evil exists. Period.
Cottage:
I can, and I have, demonstrated that the God you describe is logically impossible. But, now then, whats this level of benevolence you speak of? Are you saying God is sometimes benevolent? Because if you are that means sometimes he is not, which is a clear demonstrable admission that there is no all-loving and benevolent God.
Sojourner:
The argument isn't "why evil must exist." That's a smoke screen. Evil does exist. Where theodicy comes in is "how do we deal with it theologically?
Cottage:
Absolutely right! The argument isnt why must evil exist, since we know that it doesnt have to exist. And theodicy is the attempt to explain or justify evil, but you speak as if it addresses the contradiction. It does not. It is basically an apologetic, or actually I should say apologia, since there isnt a single specific argument proposed. And, Indeed, some of the arguments conflict with one another.
Sojourner:
God is benevolent, because God has revealed God's Self to us as benevolent. I can't help it if you don't believe it. All I can do is bear witness to it. You don't get ot lay a bunch of "conditions" on God by saying, "if this, then you must be..."
It just don't work that way.
Cottage:
I really couldnt agree more that we cant impose conditions upon God. And Im sure youll agree that to say The Necessary Being is not the Creator is a contradiction and an absurdity, since Creator is implied in the meaning of Necessary Being. But to say God is not benevolent involves no contradiction - and crucially the statement also happens to fit with the known facts of the world.
__________________
I'm sorry Katzpur, but you are saying two very conflicting things. You first assert that love can exist without grief (in green). Then you say that grief is necessary for love to exist (in red). If love can exist without grief, then it is possible to not grieve when someone dies, and to still have loved them.
EDIT:
Besides, the whole point is moot anyway, because there is no reason why an omnipotent God couldn't have created a world where grief is not necessary for love.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No. I'm saying that the world is as it is. God created the world as it is.
True.
Except that God endows us with free will, so we, ourselves, can create evil from either our own design or our own ignorance, when we apply it outside of God's help. Things can (and do) come into existence all the time that God does not will, because God has given us sovereignty.
God limited God's Self, when God created humanity.
No contradiction. It is more important to God (and more beneficial to us) that we have free will, with which we can (and do) create suffering and evil, than it is for us to not suffer. suffering hurts, but the lack of free will takes away our very humanness. We are created in the image of God. If we did not have free will, we would not be in God's image.
God love us and God gives us enough rope to suffer, because that length of rope is also need for us to exercise free will. In the end, free will is the priority.
I don't believe these are "the words of God." I believe that the ancients thought about God in this way. I do not. Nor am I constrained to. My experience and world view are completely different from theirs.
You don't seem to realize that I do not subscribe to sola scriptura. The Bible is not a revelation -- it is a witness. and truth lies outside (as well as inside) the covers of the book that we have created.
What God do you think I describe?
No, what I meant by "level" was based upon an assumption that you perceive a level of beneficence. I do not. God is benevolent.
It doesn't have to exist, but it does exist. The onus is on us, though, and not God, to eradicate it, becaue we are the ones who have created it.
I should mention that, on one level, evil does have to exist, because, since God 1) created us to have free will, and 2) created us imperfect, evil is the necessary result when we choose to turn away from God. Hopefully through growth, we can move toward perfection and the eradication of evil.
Does it? I can see that, only if one lays the blame on God, instead of taking responsibility for ourselves. The known facts of the world is that humanity is sinful by our own volition or ignorance.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Okay, well, I wouldn't want to waste my time over a moot point.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Hold on, Cochise! Love is a relationship, not a feeling. And when part of that relationship goes away, the result is -- grief -- no matter how benign or severe. Because we are emotional, as well as spiritual, beings, love runs very deep and affects us physically. You see, the opposite of love isn't hate. Hate can be deep-seated too, and affects us physically. The opposite of love is ambivalence. Only if you don't care do you not grieve.
Sisterariana
New Member
God is benevolent and merciful- in the O.T. He outlined boundaries for His people regarding what to do to maintain good health, healthy relationships and a lifestyle that would bring peace, joy contentment. The reason we have famine, war and disease is largely due to free will. People chose to live outside of the boundaries established for safety (as any loving parent would give).
rojse
RF Addict
And what are the boundaries established for safety, and where are these boundaries denoted in the OT?
Sisterariana
New Member
God gave His people boundaries in the books of Leviticus and Deutoronomy explaining what foods to eat, how to keep our bodies clean, how to have healthy relationships,... it's only when we step outside those boundaries we have problems.
________
The evidence that this cosmos has an intelligent artist behind it is the laws of physics, laws of conservation... no perfect order could come out of chaos without some intellect behind it.
________
The evidence that this cosmos has an intelligent artist behind it is the laws of physics, laws of conservation... no perfect order could come out of chaos without some intellect behind it.
Andal
resident hypnotist
ok there's like 35 pages of responses, i got through the first 4 so forgive me if this idea has come up already.
God is benevolent because that is his nature. Think of it this way, if we look at all the wonderful qualities in humanity ie: love, compassion, honesty, friendship, forgiveness, caring, etc these are all things that most people experience and embody at least at some point in their lives. these things are healthy for the world in that it keeps things at least semi close to functioning and they are the qualities most of us like to be on the receiving end of. now if we assume God is perfect, which is the assumption of the major world traditions, then would he not be the embodiment of such qualities? To be malevolent, evil, angry, etc is not perfection. This is my somewhat logical take on the issue.
From a religious point of view God is absolutely benevolent. Why do we suffer? Because we decided we wanted to enjoy material existance so we left God. God being benevolent gave us our desire so here we are. In terms of suffering, it's karma. While in the material world we are bound by its rules. Just like we can't decide when and where we want to experience gravity, we can't decide when and where our karma comes to fruition.
Just thought I'd throw it out there
God is benevolent because that is his nature. Think of it this way, if we look at all the wonderful qualities in humanity ie: love, compassion, honesty, friendship, forgiveness, caring, etc these are all things that most people experience and embody at least at some point in their lives. these things are healthy for the world in that it keeps things at least semi close to functioning and they are the qualities most of us like to be on the receiving end of. now if we assume God is perfect, which is the assumption of the major world traditions, then would he not be the embodiment of such qualities? To be malevolent, evil, angry, etc is not perfection. This is my somewhat logical take on the issue.
From a religious point of view God is absolutely benevolent. Why do we suffer? Because we decided we wanted to enjoy material existance so we left God. God being benevolent gave us our desire so here we are. In terms of suffering, it's karma. While in the material world we are bound by its rules. Just like we can't decide when and where we want to experience gravity, we can't decide when and where our karma comes to fruition.
Just thought I'd throw it out there
free spirit
Well-Known Member
To krishnakanta
ok there's like 35 pages of responses, i got through the first 4 so forgive me if this idea has come up already.
God is benevolent because that is his nature. Think of it this way, if we look at all the wonderful qualities in humanity ie: love, compassion, honesty, friendship, forgiveness, caring, etc these are all things that most people experience and embody at least at some point in their lives. these things are healthy for the world in that it keeps things at least semi close to functioning and they are the qualities most of us like to be on the receiving end of. now if we assume God is perfect, which is the assumption of the major world traditions, then would he not be the embodiment of such qualities? To be malevolent, evil, angry, etc is not perfection. This is my somewhat logical take on the issue. From a religious point of view God is absolutely benevolent. bravo krishnakanta so far you have wisdom.:yes:
Why do we suffer? Because we decided we wanted to enjoy material existance so we left God. God being benevolent gave us our desire so here we are. ?????????? please explain.
In terms of suffering, it's karma. While in the material world we are bound by its rules. Just like we can't decide when and where we want to experience gravity, we can't decide when and where our karma comes to fruition. ????????????????????? please explain.
Just thought I'd throw it out there
Andal
resident hypnotist
Hiya Free Spirit
The first half of my post was how I logically got to the conclusion of God's benevolence.
The second half was from the faith side of things. I'll do my best to explain. According to my religion we are by nature spiritual beings. Our true existence is in the spiritual realm in relationship with God. This is the truest experience of happiness. Well at some point in our existences we (as in all the creatures in the material worlds) decided that we wanted to experience the material world. God loving us so much let us come here. However when we entered the material world we are bound by its rules, mainly illusion and the law of cause and effect. We come here forgetting about our true existence due to illusion so we engage in activities that are harmful and lead to more illusion. Until we make it back home we are subject to the fruits of our deeds.
The first half of my post was how I logically got to the conclusion of God's benevolence.
The second half was from the faith side of things. I'll do my best to explain. According to my religion we are by nature spiritual beings. Our true existence is in the spiritual realm in relationship with God. This is the truest experience of happiness. Well at some point in our existences we (as in all the creatures in the material worlds) decided that we wanted to experience the material world. God loving us so much let us come here. However when we entered the material world we are bound by its rules, mainly illusion and the law of cause and effect. We come here forgetting about our true existence due to illusion so we engage in activities that are harmful and lead to more illusion. Until we make it back home we are subject to the fruits of our deeds.
free spirit
Well-Known Member
To logician
I didn't know anyone understood time, some scientists insist it doesn't exist.
When things do not change we say time is standing still.
Men are captive of space and time, but God is not, he is like our thoughts they can travel from one part of the universe to the other in no time at all, for he is aver present.
The universe will be his children's backyard, without star wars.
The multiverse is eternal, a god is superfluous.
Last edited:
free spirit
Well-Known Member
To krishnakanta
If it is, in may spiritual existence i would know for what it is, right: therefore why anyone is his right mind would want to live through an illusion, when, as you said I am having the truest experience of happiness.
I know that those that are not happy take drugs to escape from reality. Sorry I must have missed something?
My faith on the other hand considers an illusion the benefits of sin, all the reast is real.
So are you saying that the life in this material world is in fact an illusion?
If it is, in may spiritual existence i would know for what it is, right: therefore why anyone is his right mind would want to live through an illusion, when, as you said I am having the truest experience of happiness.
I know that those that are not happy take drugs to escape from reality. Sorry I must have missed something?
My faith on the other hand considers an illusion the benefits of sin, all the reast is real.
Andal
resident hypnotist
I'm not sure I understand exactly what your asking but I hope this is helpful. Yes if you are in proper relationship with God thus existing truly in a spiritual mode, you would know. What happens though is that in this material existence we become very captivated by the illusion and we forget. In regards to the person who uses drugs or anything else to "escape" reality, they aren't actually escaping. They are creating more karma and suffering, digging deeper into illusion.
I don't think we are too dissimilar in that I agree that illusion is a benefit of sin. In my case though the sin that caused it all was leaving God for the material world in the first place.
varioustbags
New Member
Personally I believe that we come to the assumption of a benevolent god comes from not from one, but a group of assumptions. (whether they are logical or not I don't know as I cannot attest to the situation in transcendent realities).
Firstly, God MUST be all powerful and all knowing and all wise. This assumption/presumption comes for the idea that God created everything. If however god did not create everything, then he is not god, because something must have thus created him (in this case he is merely a super being). To be able to create the whole universe, he would need to be transcendant and absolutely eternal in some sense (regardless if there were a million universes and a million gods, there must still be some kind of regress to a single being who requires no creation and has nothing before it). IF god is all powerful all knowing and all wise, then he must be benevolent because any increase in human knowledge, power or wisdom leads to further relative benevolence. Indeed destruction is malevolent, but the ultimate act of creation is therefore benevolent.
Secondly, by our human measure, those that deserve praise and support, even worship are those woh are altruistic, caring, loving, charitable people. I don't know of many wall street bankers who have received such praise and support for there selfishness. Along this line of thinking , it is the next logical step that God must be benevolent because if he is not, he is not worthy of support praise or worship. Furthermore we would not consider him god at all but again he would be merely a super being who is tyrannical and all powerful. If it is not worthy of the best of our human qualities, it cannot be god.
Thirdly, and most importantly, because we want it to be benevolent. For now we don't even know if god exists, even if it does we cannot possibly know it or understand it. So god as we know it is our own creation. millenia ago god was not benevolent at all. My personal opinion is that he became benevolent as we began wondering about an afterlife. The gods of polytheistic religions were not nice but when you die, that it, game over. Only upon our ponderings of an afterlife did we come up with benevolence. While I can't prove with empirical evidence I would hypothesize that this is because we WANTED him to be nice. Imagine living your whole life only to die and we all go to eternal torment no matter what, who is gonna worship and follow a religion that is going to end badly anyway? God's benevolence fulfils the hope of the future, if he were any less, we wouldnt have created so many religions devoted to him, people would probably hate him and never be in a religion at all.
Finally, I tend to agree with other posters, for organised religion, god is NOT benevolent at all and whatever their assumption, they are merely not reading there own books. For others who do believe in god it is a very dominant assumption and a great question for a thread.
NB this does not represent my personal beliefs but my personal opinion as to why people created this belief.
Firstly, God MUST be all powerful and all knowing and all wise. This assumption/presumption comes for the idea that God created everything. If however god did not create everything, then he is not god, because something must have thus created him (in this case he is merely a super being). To be able to create the whole universe, he would need to be transcendant and absolutely eternal in some sense (regardless if there were a million universes and a million gods, there must still be some kind of regress to a single being who requires no creation and has nothing before it). IF god is all powerful all knowing and all wise, then he must be benevolent because any increase in human knowledge, power or wisdom leads to further relative benevolence. Indeed destruction is malevolent, but the ultimate act of creation is therefore benevolent.
Secondly, by our human measure, those that deserve praise and support, even worship are those woh are altruistic, caring, loving, charitable people. I don't know of many wall street bankers who have received such praise and support for there selfishness. Along this line of thinking , it is the next logical step that God must be benevolent because if he is not, he is not worthy of support praise or worship. Furthermore we would not consider him god at all but again he would be merely a super being who is tyrannical and all powerful. If it is not worthy of the best of our human qualities, it cannot be god.
Thirdly, and most importantly, because we want it to be benevolent. For now we don't even know if god exists, even if it does we cannot possibly know it or understand it. So god as we know it is our own creation. millenia ago god was not benevolent at all. My personal opinion is that he became benevolent as we began wondering about an afterlife. The gods of polytheistic religions were not nice but when you die, that it, game over. Only upon our ponderings of an afterlife did we come up with benevolence. While I can't prove with empirical evidence I would hypothesize that this is because we WANTED him to be nice. Imagine living your whole life only to die and we all go to eternal torment no matter what, who is gonna worship and follow a religion that is going to end badly anyway? God's benevolence fulfils the hope of the future, if he were any less, we wouldnt have created so many religions devoted to him, people would probably hate him and never be in a religion at all.
Finally, I tend to agree with other posters, for organised religion, god is NOT benevolent at all and whatever their assumption, they are merely not reading there own books. For others who do believe in god it is a very dominant assumption and a great question for a thread.
NB this does not represent my personal beliefs but my personal opinion as to why people created this belief.
Sojourner:
Except that God endows us with free will, so we, ourselves, can create evil from either our own design or our own ignorance, when we apply it outside of God's help. Things can (and do) come into existence all the time that God does not will, because God has given us sovereignty.
God limited God's Self, when God created humanity.
Cottage:
And in that case God is not the omnipotent, benevolent deity, since by defintion there is no sovereignty, other than Gods. And by your own admission, if God is perfect goodness itself there can be no occasion when he is other than that. God cannot limit himself: omnipotence means literally power without limit, and he cannot be both omnipotent and not omnipotent.
Quote:
Secondly, following on from the first point, is the evidential argument. Suffering does exist in the world, in the presence of a supposedly all-loving and benevolent God: hence the contradiction.
Sojourner:
No contradiction. It is more important to God (and more beneficial to us) that we have free will, with which we can (and do) create suffering and evil, than it is for us to not suffer. suffering hurts, but the lack of free will takes away our very humanness.
Cottage:
With respect, you havent answered the contradiction. Youve offered a circular argument that presupposes a moral worth in suffering, the purpose of which is to overcome suffering. That is nonsense (non-sense)! And still on the subject of circular reasoning, you say the lack of free will takes away our very humanness, again, as if free will necessarily implies suffering.
Sojourner:
We are created in the image of God. If we did not have free will, we would not be in God's image.
God love us and God gives us enough rope to suffer, because that length of rope is also need for us to exercise free will. In the end, free will is the priority.
Cottage:
There is no absoute free will, not if God is omniscient! God has foreknowledge and wills or condones our every action. And, obviously, if he didnt will them they couldnt occur. Our free will is therefore subject to Gods will.
Quote:
And thirdly we can add to the fact of suffering a few of the words spoken by your God in the Bible.
Sojourner:
I don't believe these are "the words of God." I believe that the ancients thought about God in this way. I do not. Nor am I constrained to. My experience and world view are completely different from theirs.
You don't seem to realize that I do not subscribe to sola scriptura. The Bible is not a revelation -- it is a witness. and truth lies outside (as well as inside) the covers of the book that we have created.
Cottage:
You appear to saying that anything in the Bible that doesnt fit with what you want to believe can be disregarded? Im quite okay with that. We can dismiss the Bible and the supposed words of God in respect of this particular discussion.
Quote:
I can, and I have, demonstrated that the God you describe is logically impossible.
Sojourner:
What God do you think I describe?
A logically impossible one!
Quote:
But, now then, whats this level of benevolence you speak of? Are you saying God is sometimes benevolent? Because if you are that means sometimes he is not, which is a clear demonstrable admission that there is no all-loving and benevolent God.
Sojourner:
No, what I meant by "level" was based upon an assumption that you perceive a level of beneficence. I do not. God is benevolent.
Cottage:
If God is a perfectly good and moral being then there isnt a level of benevolence that can be attributed to him. He is either benevolent or he is not, and a single instance of suffering proves a logical contradiction.
Quote:
Absolutely right! The argument isnt why must evil exist, since we know that it doesnt have to exist. And theodicy is the attempt to explain or justify evil, but you speak as if it addresses the contradiction. It does not. It is basically an apologetic, or actually I should say apologia, since there isnt a single specific argument proposed. And, Indeed, some of the arguments conflict with one another.
Sojourner:
It doesn't have to exist, but it does exist. The onus is on us, though, and not God, to eradicate it, becaue we are the ones who have created it.
Cottage:
If humans can create suffering, or anything else, independent of God, then it is self-evident that God is not the creator of all that exists. He is not then, on that account, the Absolutely Necessary Being. It is undeniable and certain that if evil exists when it neednt exist then its creation by a personal God was an act of malevolence. For we know that evil has no necessary existence and all apologetic argument and special pleas are subordinate to that truth.
Sojourner:
I should mention that, on one level, evil does have to exist, because, since God 1) created us to have free will, and 2) created us imperfect, evil is the necessary result when we choose to turn away from God. Hopefully through growth, we can move toward perfection and the eradication of evil.
Again, free will does not imply necessary evil. Free will means an ability to choose what there is, ie what exists. There didnt have to be evil. So if it is said that God had to include evil as a possible choice then that is a contradiction, if God is omnipotent. And if it is said that God willed the inclusion of evil then, that, too, is a contradiction, if God is benevolent.
Quote:
But to say God is not benevolent involves no contradiction - and crucially the statement also happens to fit with the known facts of the world.
Sojourner:
Does it? I can see that, only if one lays the blame on God, instead of taking responsibility for ourselves. The known facts of the world is that humanity is sinful by our own volition or ignorance.
Cottage:
Sin is a theological concept, a doctrinal belief-as-faith. It is not a known fact of the world. Further up the page you said God created us as imperfect beings. Well, if God created imperfect beings that in his omniscience he knew would suffer, dont you think that ultimately, as the benevolent Creator, he should face up to his responsibilities and demonstrate benevolence, mercy and kindness to his imperfect, contingent creation?
__________________
Except that God endows us with free will, so we, ourselves, can create evil from either our own design or our own ignorance, when we apply it outside of God's help. Things can (and do) come into existence all the time that God does not will, because God has given us sovereignty.
God limited God's Self, when God created humanity.
Cottage:
And in that case God is not the omnipotent, benevolent deity, since by defintion there is no sovereignty, other than Gods. And by your own admission, if God is perfect goodness itself there can be no occasion when he is other than that. God cannot limit himself: omnipotence means literally power without limit, and he cannot be both omnipotent and not omnipotent.
Quote:
Secondly, following on from the first point, is the evidential argument. Suffering does exist in the world, in the presence of a supposedly all-loving and benevolent God: hence the contradiction.
Sojourner:
No contradiction. It is more important to God (and more beneficial to us) that we have free will, with which we can (and do) create suffering and evil, than it is for us to not suffer. suffering hurts, but the lack of free will takes away our very humanness.
Cottage:
With respect, you havent answered the contradiction. Youve offered a circular argument that presupposes a moral worth in suffering, the purpose of which is to overcome suffering. That is nonsense (non-sense)! And still on the subject of circular reasoning, you say the lack of free will takes away our very humanness, again, as if free will necessarily implies suffering.
Sojourner:
We are created in the image of God. If we did not have free will, we would not be in God's image.
God love us and God gives us enough rope to suffer, because that length of rope is also need for us to exercise free will. In the end, free will is the priority.
Cottage:
There is no absoute free will, not if God is omniscient! God has foreknowledge and wills or condones our every action. And, obviously, if he didnt will them they couldnt occur. Our free will is therefore subject to Gods will.
Quote:
And thirdly we can add to the fact of suffering a few of the words spoken by your God in the Bible.
Sojourner:
I don't believe these are "the words of God." I believe that the ancients thought about God in this way. I do not. Nor am I constrained to. My experience and world view are completely different from theirs.
You don't seem to realize that I do not subscribe to sola scriptura. The Bible is not a revelation -- it is a witness. and truth lies outside (as well as inside) the covers of the book that we have created.
Cottage:
You appear to saying that anything in the Bible that doesnt fit with what you want to believe can be disregarded? Im quite okay with that. We can dismiss the Bible and the supposed words of God in respect of this particular discussion.
Quote:
I can, and I have, demonstrated that the God you describe is logically impossible.
Sojourner:
What God do you think I describe?
A logically impossible one!
Quote:
But, now then, whats this level of benevolence you speak of? Are you saying God is sometimes benevolent? Because if you are that means sometimes he is not, which is a clear demonstrable admission that there is no all-loving and benevolent God.
Sojourner:
No, what I meant by "level" was based upon an assumption that you perceive a level of beneficence. I do not. God is benevolent.
Cottage:
If God is a perfectly good and moral being then there isnt a level of benevolence that can be attributed to him. He is either benevolent or he is not, and a single instance of suffering proves a logical contradiction.
Quote:
Absolutely right! The argument isnt why must evil exist, since we know that it doesnt have to exist. And theodicy is the attempt to explain or justify evil, but you speak as if it addresses the contradiction. It does not. It is basically an apologetic, or actually I should say apologia, since there isnt a single specific argument proposed. And, Indeed, some of the arguments conflict with one another.
Sojourner:
It doesn't have to exist, but it does exist. The onus is on us, though, and not God, to eradicate it, becaue we are the ones who have created it.
Cottage:
If humans can create suffering, or anything else, independent of God, then it is self-evident that God is not the creator of all that exists. He is not then, on that account, the Absolutely Necessary Being. It is undeniable and certain that if evil exists when it neednt exist then its creation by a personal God was an act of malevolence. For we know that evil has no necessary existence and all apologetic argument and special pleas are subordinate to that truth.
Sojourner:
I should mention that, on one level, evil does have to exist, because, since God 1) created us to have free will, and 2) created us imperfect, evil is the necessary result when we choose to turn away from God. Hopefully through growth, we can move toward perfection and the eradication of evil.
Again, free will does not imply necessary evil. Free will means an ability to choose what there is, ie what exists. There didnt have to be evil. So if it is said that God had to include evil as a possible choice then that is a contradiction, if God is omnipotent. And if it is said that God willed the inclusion of evil then, that, too, is a contradiction, if God is benevolent.
Quote:
But to say God is not benevolent involves no contradiction - and crucially the statement also happens to fit with the known facts of the world.
Sojourner:
Does it? I can see that, only if one lays the blame on God, instead of taking responsibility for ourselves. The known facts of the world is that humanity is sinful by our own volition or ignorance.
Cottage:
Sin is a theological concept, a doctrinal belief-as-faith. It is not a known fact of the world. Further up the page you said God created us as imperfect beings. Well, if God created imperfect beings that in his omniscience he knew would suffer, dont you think that ultimately, as the benevolent Creator, he should face up to his responsibilities and demonstrate benevolence, mercy and kindness to his imperfect, contingent creation?
__________________
free spirit
Well-Known Member
To Krishnakanta
For in the presence of God, I take that the spirits are aware of reality, so why leave reality and happiness for sufferings and illusions. It is not logical, because if I am in a bad place I would prefer to go to a better place, but if I am in the presence of God why I would want to go to hell.
Yes why do they leave the presence of God?
For in the presence of God, I take that the spirits are aware of reality, so why leave reality and happiness for sufferings and illusions. It is not logical, because if I am in a bad place I would prefer to go to a better place, but if I am in the presence of God why I would want to go to hell.
Smoke
Done here.
Because only a masochist wants an imaginary friend who is cruel and hateful to him.