-
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
black_jesus
New Member
Would it not be logical to assume that if God possesses the "wonderful" qualaties in humanity ... that he also possesses the negative ones (jealousy) as well. This would also fit into the belief that we are made in his image.
Andal
resident hypnotist
no because jealousy is a form of suffering and if God suffers he is no longer perfect. and if he's not perfect then whats the point?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
We most often use the word "jealous" to mean something along the lines of "envious." It also means "demanding respect." When the Bible says that God is a jealous God, it doesn't mean that he is so petty as to envy someone. It simply means that He demands the respect He is entitled to. It is in no way a negative quality.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
God suffered in Christ...
The whole point of Xy is that we could be perfect and attain God, so God became imperfect to attain us.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Forgive me, Katz, but that sounds like you're just making excuses. Also, I double checked the definition, and yours isn't in there:
jeal⋅ous adjective
1. feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages (often fol. by of): He was jealous of his rich brother.
2. feeling resentment because of another's success, advantage, etc. (often fol. by of): He was jealous of his brother's wealth.
3. characterized by or proceeding from suspicious fears or envious resentment: a jealous rage; jealous intrigues.
4. inclined to or troubled by suspicions or fears of rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in love or aims: a jealous husband.
5. solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something: The American people are jealous of their freedom.
6. Bible. intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry: The Lord is a jealous God.
jeal⋅ous adjective
1. feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages (often fol. by of): He was jealous of his rich brother.
2. feeling resentment because of another's success, advantage, etc. (often fol. by of): He was jealous of his brother's wealth.
3. characterized by or proceeding from suspicious fears or envious resentment: a jealous rage; jealous intrigues.
4. inclined to or troubled by suspicions or fears of rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in love or aims: a jealous husband.
5. solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something: The American people are jealous of their freedom.
6. Bible. intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry: The Lord is a jealous God.
Andal
resident hypnotist
There is a difference here between what you're talking about and what I am. If you take the stand point the Christ is the son of God and thus God suffered on the cross etc this is different because this is God choosing to enter into the material world thus playing by it's rules. Which means he would be subject to the suffering of the body and mind when put through what Jesus went through. This is a temporary state of material suffering. I would assume that Jesus is not currently suffering a continuous crucifixion in heaven.
When you talk about jealousy, hate, anger etc. If God maintains these qualities (and I use the term loosely) on a spiritual level this is a problem. Jealousy for example is a disease in that it makes you bitter toward someone, makes you resent them, makes you angry, and eventually it propels you into negative actions (stealing, killing etc) The problem with jealousy is that it's never satisfied. If the problem isn't lift from its source you may get what you were originally jealous about but then you find something else to be jealous about. It's a vicious cycle.
37 pages of debate and the fact remains that if God is omnipotent, he could have created any sort of world he wanted to. If he had to create evil to make free-will or virtues exist, then that puts a constraint upon God's omnipotence, thereby making him not omnipotent. Thus, if God is omnipotent, then he created a world with the possibility of suffering and evil because he wanted to. This being the case, God cannot be perfectly benevolent.
You would have to show that creating free-will without evil entails some sort of logical impossibility. I don't think that has been established.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
1) You didn't answer the question.
2) What are your standards for "establishment" of rampant speculation? I mean, come on, none of us really know what we're talking about. We can't comprehend omniscience, or omnipotence, or any of it, no more than we can comprehend the size of the cosmos. All we can do is guess.
3) Several possibilities have been raised and not debunked. Now, I'm not saying that makes them correct (see point 2), but I think it's enough to invalidate the claim that God's omni-whatever is itself a logical impossibility.
4) I'm curious as to your state of mind on this question. Me, I don't believe any of it, but the puzzle intrigues me. I've found a workable solution or two, and I'm happy with that. It doesn't convince me of the veracity of the premises, but that was never the issue. I accept those premises as part of the puzzle, an intellectual challenge in which I delight.
How do you view the question itself? Why do you feel compelled to disprove the premises rather than solve the puzzle? I just don't get it.
Last edited:
'Scuse me butting in. But the answer to that question is 'No'. God can do anything, providing it is logically possible. But if there is a demonstrable God, and the obversion applies, then there is no contradiction in the statement: 'There is no God', which is utterly absurd. No argument in favour of God can be made under those terms as the absurdities would be without limit, and let's not forget that most believers want to argue that their faith is reasoned and intelligible.
Cottage
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If no proof can be had either way (assuming that the same type of argument would be made to disprove God as to prove God), isn't it just as silly to assert that there is no God than to assert that there is a God?
Logically, then, the best anyone can do is to say, "We really don't know."
Logically, then, the best anyone can do is to say, "We really don't know."
But we werent discussing experience or factual knowledge. I was responding to your question: Can God square a circle? Asking the question presupposes Gods existence (even for the sake of argument). And my answer was No for the reasons I gave, which was that if God exists then the statement There is no God may be equally valid. In other words we have one absurdity upon another.
Cottage
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
and just what does God squaring a circle have to do with God's benevolence? And, more importantly, what does the existence argument have to do with God's benevolence? If the debate is over God's benevolence, it necessarily assumes God's existence. The whole existence issue, for purposes of this debate, is moot.
We were discussing the logical argument, and the question of God being able to square a circle has everything to do with Gods benevolence. It is at the very centre of the argument. If God can square a circle, or make a thing all red at the same time that it is all blue, or cause any other logical impossibility, then although that would appear to admit the notion of Gods benevolence it also allows for the non-existence of the Necessary Being. And with regard to existence, I was responding directly to your remark We dont really know by making the point that the logical argument isnt about factual evidence or what can be known.
Cottage
Ah! Possibly. But I thought that I answered your reply to Favlun, re: 'squaring the circle', and then answered Sojourner's two posts referring to 'not knowing' and 'existence', respectively, which followed up the subject. A print out of the posts seems confirm that, although the to-ing and fro-ing can muddle things somewhat.
Cottage
rojse
RF Addict
I'd be interested to see that.
The demonstration, known as the Inconsistent Triad, is the logical impossibility of three premises all being true, in this case: God is benevolent; God is omnipotent*; there is evil in the world. Very simply, then: if God can do nothing to prevent evil then he is not omnipotent, and if God is omnipotent and doesnt prevent evil then he is not benevolent. Epicurus is credited with this particular reductio ad absurdum argument, which is where the conclusion is proved by the implication of an absurdity.
*Omnipresence and omniscience are considered a necessary part of omnipotence.
The importance of this argument cannot be overstated. And the reason I constantly bang on about it is because it is the only argument (that I'm aware of) which demonstrates the impossibility of God (but only where the notion of benevolence is held to be an inerrant or necessary attribute of the Deity). There is a series of arguments (Theodicy), which, while justifying or explaining the presence of evil, fail to overturn the contradiction.
Cottage