Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Storm]

Problem is, there are solutions to the puzzle. It's only impossible if you give up.

 

[sojourner]

We were discussing the logical argument, and the question of God being able to square a circle has everything to do with God’s 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 God’s 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 don’t really know’ by making the point that the logical argument isn’t about factual evidence or what can be known.

Cottage

Oh, this is so much logical pandering. You can cuss and discuss till you're blue in the face. We all know that God is above logic. Logic is like using a 6' tape measure to find out how far it is to the sun.

Why should it even be necessary to discuss whether God could change a circle into a sqaure? That's the same as asking if God could move the earth into a different orbit. God has constrained God's Self to follow the natural laws that God set up. Why should it be necessary to ask whether God could take away suffering? The same rule applies.God could, but it would create chaos. God doesn't create chaos. God creates order out of chaos.

And none of this -- repeat: none of this has anything to do with whether or not God is benevolent. This is just so much "intellectual" smokescreen.
We're the ones who believe in God. We have witnessed God. We believe God to be benevolent. I can't help what you either believe or don't believe. If you want to believe that God is not benevolent and choose to "prove" that by applying "logic," go right ahead and amuse yourself. But it's just so much intellectual masturbation.:ignore:

 

[Storm]

 

[cottage]

Sojourner: Oh, this is so much logical pandering. You can cuss and discuss till you're blue in the face. We all know that God is above logic. Logic is like using a 6' tape measure to find out how far it is to the sun.

Cottage: Actually, ‘"we" don’t all know that God is above logic’. Anselm, Aquinas, Tilloch and many of the other great theologians have stated that God can only do the logically possible.

Sojourner: Why should it even be necessary to discuss whether God could change a circle into a sqaure? That's the same as asking if God could move the earth into a different orbit.

Cottage: No it isn't. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, for God can move the earth into a different orbit. There is nothing logically impossible in that.

Sojourner: God has constrained God's Self to follow the natural laws that God set up.
Why should it be necessary to ask whether God could take away suffering? The same rule applies.God could, but it would create chaos. God doesn't create chaos. God creates order out of chaos.

Cottage: The taking away of suffering is beside the point. The question is why it exists in the first place, if there is a supposed benevolent God? Here you are arguing from the premise that there would be chaos because ‘natural laws’ must exist. They only exist because God caused them to exist, and to say an omnipotent God must cause the existent natural laws is a self-evident contradiction. To create order out of chaos it is necessary for chaos to first exist – and God is the creator of all things.

Sojourner: And none of this -- repeat: none of this has anything to do with whether or not God is benevolent. This is just so much "intellectual" smokescreen.

We're the ones who believe in God. We have witnessed God. We believe God to be benevolent. I can't help what you either believe or don't believe. If you want to believe that God is not benevolent and choose to "prove" that by applying "logic," go right ahead and amuse yourself. But it's just so much intellectual masturbation.

Cottage: It is quite the other way about! If there is a smokescreen it is the one that theists use to cloud the facts and shield their beliefs. The Inconsistent Triad isn’t an exercise in pedantic trickery – it is evidence based. By arguing for a benevolent God in the face of existent evil you are simply restating the problem: There is evil: so where is the benevolent God? You can believe what you want to believe, of course, but you can’t have it both ways. If I said a dog is a cat you would say I’m being illogical, and if I said humans exist without oxygen you would say I’m denying a known fact.

 

[sojourner]

Cottage: Actually, ‘"we" don’t all know that God is above logic’. Anselm, Aquinas, Tilloch and many of the other great theologians have stated that God can only do the logically possible.

"Can" only, or "shall" only? I don't see how they could argue for logic and omnipotence at the same time. If God chooses to operate in certain ways, that's God's business, not ours. You seem to be operating out of the POV that we, in any way, can judge God. We are not "God's boss."

Cottage: No it isn't. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, for God can move the earth into a different orbit. There is nothing logically impossible in that.

Given natural laws, it is impossible.

The question is why it exists in the first place, if there is a supposed benevolent God?

Once again, you can't predicate God's benevolence on the existence of suffering.

to say an omnipotent God must cause the existent natural laws is a self-evident contradiction. To create order out of chaos it is necessary for chaos to first exist – and God is the creator of all things.

I knew this one was coming. That only follows if God created ex nihilo, which we don't believe God did. God created order out of existing chaos -- according to the Biblical account.

By arguing for a benevolent God in the face of existent evil you are simply restating the problem: There is evil: so where is the benevolent God?

Actually, I don't restate the problem. I don't ask, "Where is the benevolent God in the face of evil?" But I do assert that the benevolent God comes to us and stands with us in the midst of evil.

 

[cottage]

Cottage: Actually, ‘"we" don’t all know that God is above logic’. Anselm, Aquinas, Tilloch and many of the other great theologians have stated that God can only do the logically possible.

Sojourner: "Can" only, or "shall" only? I don't see how they could argue for logic and omnipotence at the same time. If God chooses to operate in certain ways, that's God's business, not ours. You seem to be operating out of the POV that we, in any way, can judge God. We are not "God's boss."
Cottage: ‘Can only’, as in cannot do otherwise. The POE exists because of the logical contradiction. If theologians and believers were happy with the remark ‘God is above logic’, then very obviously there wouldn’t be a theodicy – there wouldn’t be a POE!
If God is the Absolutely Necessary Being, then God cannot be other than what he is, nor can he be both God and not-God. But it seems to me that it is believers who want to prescribe what God is, in less than almighty terms: God constrains himself. ‘God didn’t create the world ex nihilo’. And Chaos pre-existed God!
Quote:
Cottage: No it isn't. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, for God can move the earth into a different orbit. There is nothing logically impossible in that.

Sojourner: Given natural laws, it is impossible.
I was responding to your remark where you stated that God squaring a circle was the same as God moving the earth in a different orbit. They are not the same; since the first example is logically impossible while the second is not. Now you say that, ‘given natural laws’, the second example is impossible. Well, if God is the cause and sustainer of ‘natural laws’ then plainly they can be changed or cancelled by God. But with or without the concept of God there is no ‘impossible’ in the material world. Your ‘natural laws’ are simply facts that have been seen to hold true to date. It is not impossible for the sun not to rise in the morning – or for the earth to move in a different orbit.
Quote:
The question is why it exists in the first place, if there is a supposed benevolent God?

Sojourner: Once again, you can't predicate God's benevolence on the existence of suffering.
Cottage: Yes, yes! That’s precisely what I’ve been saying all along!


Quote:
to say an omnipotent God must cause the existent natural laws is a self-evident contradiction. To create order out of chaos it is necessary for chaos to first exist – and God is the creator of all things.

Sojourner: I knew this one was coming. That only follows if God created ex nihilo, which we don't believe God did. God created order out of existing chaos -- according to the Biblical account.
Cottage: So that’s premise 2 of the Inconsistent Triad re-stated. Problem solved, then! <fanfare>
1. Evil exists because God is not benevolent (indifferent or malevolent)
2. Evil exists because God is not omnipotent (unable or unaware)

Quote:
By arguing for a benevolent God in the face of existent evil you are simply restating the problem: There is evil: so where is the benevolent God?


Sojourner: Actually, I don't restate the problem. I don't ask, "Where is the benevolent God in the face of evil?" But I do assert that the benevolent God comes to us and stands with us in the midst of evil.

Cottage: …which is to perfectly re-state the Problem of Evil, by acknowledging evil and God’s inaction.

Btw, you didn’t address the last passage. Perhaps you would respond to it now? ‘If I said a dog is a cat you would say I’m being illogical, and if I said humans exist without oxygen you would say I’m denying a known fact.’

 

[sojourner]

Cottage: Actually, ‘"we" don’t all know that God is above logic’. Anselm, Aquinas, Tilloch and many of the other great theologians have stated that God can only do the logically possible.

Sojourner: "Can" only, or "shall" only? I don't see how they could argue for logic and omnipotence at the same time. If God chooses to operate in certain ways, that's God's business, not ours. You seem to be operating out of the POV that we, in any way, can judge God. We are not "God's boss."
Cottage: ‘Can only’, as in cannot do otherwise. The POE exists because of the logical contradiction. If theologians and believers were happy with the remark ‘God is above logic’, then very obviously there wouldn’t be a theodicy – there wouldn’t be a POE!
If God is the Absolutely Necessary Being, then God cannot be other than what he is, nor can he be both God and not-God. But it seems to me that it is believers who want to prescribe what God is, in less than almighty terms: God constrains himself. ‘God didn’t create the world ex nihilo’. And Chaos pre-existed God!
Quote:
Cottage: No it isn't. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, for God can move the earth into a different orbit. There is nothing logically impossible in that.

Sojourner: Given natural laws, it is impossible.
I was responding to your remark where you stated that God squaring a circle was the same as God moving the earth in a different orbit. They are not the same; since the first example is logically impossible while the second is not. Now you say that, ‘given natural laws’, the second example is impossible. Well, if God is the cause and sustainer of ‘natural laws’ then plainly they can be changed or cancelled by God. But with or without the concept of God there is no ‘impossible’ in the material world. Your ‘natural laws’ are simply facts that have been seen to hold true to date. It is not impossible for the sun not to rise in the morning – or for the earth to move in a different orbit.
Quote:
The question is why it exists in the first place, if there is a supposed benevolent God?

Sojourner: Once again, you can't predicate God's benevolence on the existence of suffering.
Cottage: Yes, yes! That’s precisely what I’ve been saying all along!


Quote:
to say an omnipotent God must cause the existent natural laws is a self-evident contradiction. To create order out of chaos it is necessary for chaos to first exist – and God is the creator of all things.

Sojourner: I knew this one was coming. That only follows if God created ex nihilo, which we don't believe God did. God created order out of existing chaos -- according to the Biblical account.
Cottage: So that’s premise 2 of the Inconsistent Triad re-stated. Problem solved, then! <fanfare>
1. Evil exists because God is not benevolent (indifferent or malevolent)
2. Evil exists because God is not omnipotent (unable or unaware)

Quote:
By arguing for a benevolent God in the face of existent evil you are simply restating the problem: There is evil: so where is the benevolent God?


Sojourner: Actually, I don't restate the problem. I don't ask, "Where is the benevolent God in the face of evil?" But I do assert that the benevolent God comes to us and stands with us in the midst of evil.

Cottage: …which is to perfectly re-state the Problem of Evil, by acknowledging evil and God’s inaction.

Btw, you didn’t address the last passage. Perhaps you would respond to it now? ‘If I said a dog is a cat you would say I’m being illogical, and if I said humans exist without oxygen you would say I’m denying a known fact.’

:ignore:
this whole argument is completely pointless. God is omnipotent. God is benevolent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. God is Creator. Evil exists. Somehow, I don't have a problem with any of these statements.

Evil exists because humanity exists in a state of free will.

A dog is a dog, because humanity has chosen to identify a dog in the way it has. People do exist w/o oxygen. There's no oxygen in space, and yet, people exist.
We don't need oxygen in order to exist. We need oxygen in order to survive.

God is these things because that is the way God has revealed God's Self to humanity.
God doesn't need evil to be non-existent in order to be benevolent. God is perfectly capable of loving us in spite of evil, just as we are capable of loving our own children in spite of evil.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"this whole argument is completely pointless. God is omnipotent. God is benevolent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. God is Creator. Evil exists. Somehow, I don't have a problem with any of these statements. "

And that is because you have assumed a priori the existence of your concerned and loving invisible fairy god-father and NOTHING - not evidence, not argument, not logic will shake that initial ASSUMPTION.

"God is these things because that is the way God has revealed God's Self to humanity."

And that statement is demonstrably false. Your invisible friend MAY have revealed itself to some select few among us. But that revelation is not verifiable reproducible or even describable in terms that those of us not so chosen (or so deluded) can understand. Unless, of course, you have decreed that those of us not as privileged as you are NOT part of humanity. (And I am quick to concede that possibility.)

As for your argument it is circular. God exists because you say he exists and you say he exists because - he exists.:cover:

Cottage has taken your lunch and eaten it in front of you and you are still standing there, empty lunch box in hand, screaming your lunch is REALLY there.:sad4:

 

[sojourner]

And that is because you have assumed a priori the existence of your concerned and loving invisible fairy god-father and NOTHING - not evidence, not argument, not logic will shake that initial ASSUMPTION.

Nothing -- not evidence, not argument, not logic will show that the assumption is false, either.

And that statement is demonstrably false.

I'd love to see you "demonstrate" that. It'd end up being quite the "logical" dog-and-pony show we've come to expect from skeptics who are so bent on being skeptical that they can't see that their smoke-and-mirrors approach to logic doesn't fool anyone.

But that revelation is not verifiable reproducible or even describable in terms that those of us not so chosen (or so deluded) can understand.

It's not designed to, and I, for one, am glad it doesn't. That way, I get to discover God for myself.

As for your argument it is circular. God exists because you say he exists and you say he exists because - he exists.

I believe God exists. I have experienced that existence. somehow, I don't think that's circular. I can't explain it. I don't have to. I'm not going to try. Mystery is OK, you know.

Cottage has taken your lunch and eaten it in front of you and you are still standing there, empty lunch box in hand, screaming your lunch is REALLY there.

Huh. All he has eaten is the bare wrapper, and puked it up. The good stuff is still intact, inside my "Buddy Jesus" lunchbox.
God cannot be shown to be non-benevolent because of the existence of evil.

And you think we talk in circles. That's funny. You've turned so many circles that your posts are practically nonsense.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"I believe God exists. I have experienced that existence. somehow, I don't think that's circular. I can't explain it. I don't have to. I'm not going to try. Mystery is OK, you know."

And if I say that the owl who frequents a tree in my back yard is really Athena and that she suggests things to me as I write - you would recommend I seek professional assistance.

But your delusion is evidence of a superior understanding not given to the rest of us to either experience or understand.

Of course.

BTW, is the name of your invisible friend Harvey?

 

[cottage]

Sojourner: this whole argument is completely pointless. God is omnipotent. God is benevolent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. God is Creator. Evil exists. Somehow, I don't have a problem with any of these statements.


But surely there is problem for you with those statements, otherwise you wouldn’t be responding to them? And clearly the argument can’t be pointless because the POE has bedevilled believers and theologians for centuries. The point being that it is understood by all that two opposing notions cannot be ascribed to the God they believe in.


Sojourner: Evil exists because humanity exists in a state of free will.


Cottage: Evil does not exist because of free will, but because of how the world is made. Are you seriously saying a newborn baby suffers cancer because it made a bad choice? And does our free will cause tempests, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunami, as well as every single human infirmity and every single instance of suffering?


Sojourner: A dog is a dog, because humanity has chosen to identify a dog in the way it has.


Cottage: It doesn’t make any difference at all what we call a dog; change the name by all means. What I’m saying is that if it is a dog then it cannot be cat, in the same way that a fish cannot be mammal and a human cannot be an elephant.



Sojourner: People do exist w/o oxygen. There's no oxygen in space, and yet, people exist.
We don't need oxygen in order to exist. We need oxygen in order to survive.


Cottage: I notice from your arguments here that you recognise the logical problem, and your attempts to avoid the trap of self-contradiction acknowledge that very principle, which is the crux of the main argument that you want to deny! As I’ve said, you cannot have it both ways. But anyway, people exist in space because they have a supply of oxygen. Humans cannot survive without oxygen, and if no humans survived then the human race wouldn’t exist.




Sojourner: God is these things because that is the way God has revealed God's Self to humanity.
God doesn't need evil to be non-existent in order to be benevolent. God is perfectly capable of loving us in spite of evil, just as we are capable of loving our own children in spite of evil.



Cottage: That’s the misleading parent/child analogy again! We love our children in spite of evil because we just happen to exist in a world that contains evil. But parents can’t eradicate the existence of evil; - and now replace the word ‘parents’ with ‘a benevolent, omnipotent God’ and we have the contradiction. Finally, please give me your understanding of the term ‘love’?

 

[sojourner]

"I believe God exists. I have experienced that existence. somehow, I don't think that's circular. I can't explain it. I don't have to. I'm not going to try. Mystery is OK, you know."

And if I say that the owl who frequents a tree in my back yard is really Athena and that she suggests things to me as I write - you would recommend I seek professional assistance.

But your delusion is evidence of a superior understanding not given to the rest of us to either experience or understand.

Of course.

BTW, is the name of your invisible friend Harvey?

Straw man! (And I thought you were above all that!) We know that owls do not "suggest things" to us as we write. They're animals. We know that. Big difference between talking owls and Deity.

Point the finger of delusion at me? Guess what! there are three pointed right back at ya.

 

[sojourner]

But surely there is problem for you with those statements, otherwise you wouldn&#8217;t be responding to them?

No, my problem is with you asserting that evil has a bearing on who God is.

And clearly the argument can&#8217;t be pointless because the POE has bedevilled believers and theologians for centuries.

It is pointless, because it's made up in our heads. It's a mystery that we will not solve. We want to ask, "why evil?" I think that's the wrong question to ask. That question causes the problem.

The point being that it is understood by all that two opposing notions cannot be ascribed to the God they believe in.

I don't apply two opposing notions to God. Maybe you do ... but then, you don't believe in God.

Evil does not exist because of free will, but because of how the world is made. Are you seriously saying a newborn baby suffers cancer because it made a bad choice? And does our free will cause tempests, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunami, as well as every single human infirmity and every single instance of suffering?

Let's be careful about throwing the term "evil" around, loosey-goosey. Cancer is a disease. Weather is a natural phenomenon. Evil is a thought-process. It's intentional. Disease and weather are not.

It doesn&#8217;t make any difference at all what we call a dog; change the name by all means. What I&#8217;m saying is that if it is a dog then it cannot be cat, in the same way that a fish cannot be mammal and a human cannot be an elephant.

Yeah, and in the past, Europeans didn't recognize the Negro race as human, either. What's your point?

I notice from your arguments here that you recognise the logical problem, and your attempts to avoid the trap of self-contradiction acknowledge that very principle, which is the crux of the main argument that you want to deny! As I&#8217;ve said, you cannot have it both ways. But anyway, people exist in space because they have a supply of oxygen. Humans cannot survive without oxygen, and if no humans survived then the human race wouldn&#8217;t exist.

But it is a fine line of distinction. We owe our survival -- not our existence -- to oxygen. Oxygen didn't create us -- God did. And God gave us oxygen so that we could survive.
I guess I just don't understand why someone should think that human beings should be immortal, or that we should exist without suffering -- and why any of that "proves" that God is not benevolent. My, but you people are egocentric!

That&#8217;s the misleading parent/child analogy again! We love our children in spite of evil because we just happen to exist in a world that contains evil. But parents can&#8217;t eradicate the existence of evil; - and now replace the word &#8216;parents&#8217; with &#8216;a benevolent, omnipotent God&#8217; and we have the contradiction.

The fallacy you present is curious. Evil exists. Why should God change what God has set in motion, just to eradicate what we create? Like any good parent, God holds us accountable for our actions. And God will be there when we fall to pick us up.

please give me your understanding of the term &#8216;love&#8217;?

It's a relationship of mutual affinity, wherein one allows the other to be just who (s)he is, exhibited by selfless acts toward the other.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Big difference between talking owls and Deity."

Really?

Did Harvey tell you that?

IAC do expand on how you would KNOW that what I claim is the spirit of Athena is delusion but your Harvey is really RIGHT THERE!

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Let's be careful about throwing the term "evil" around, loosey-goosey. Cancer is a disease. Weather is a natural phenomenon. Evil is a thought-process. It's intentional. Disease and weather are not."

This gets curiouser and curiouser.


Nothing is Evil but thinking makes it so.

Is that your position?

 

[sojourner]

"Big difference between talking owls and Deity."

Really?

Did Harvey tell you that?

IAC do expand on how you would KNOW that what I claim is the spirit of Athena is delusion but your Harvey is really RIGHT THERE!

You can't set up a straw man by making God out to be a delusion. it won't work. I won't bite.

 

[sojourner]

"Let's be careful about throwing the term "evil" around, loosey-goosey. Cancer is a disease. Weather is a natural phenomenon. Evil is a thought-process. It's intentional. Disease and weather are not."

This gets curiouser and curiouser.


Nothing is Evil but thinking makes it so.

Is that your position?

No. Evil is intentional about causing suffering and harm. Weather is not intentional about suffering and harm. Disease is not intentional about suffering and harm.

 

[logician]

You can't set up a straw man by making God out to be a delusion. it won't work. I won't bite.

Prove god isn't a delusion.

 

[free spirit]

Prove god isn't a delusion.[/quote

TO LOGICIAN;

Those unbelievers who argue about the existence of God, deep down want's desperately to believe, hoping that someone will convince them. :candle:
But logician that impossible to do, because finding God is like an inventor at work, he has to have faith in his theory then invest time and work on the teory and when he is through he gets the reward.:candle:
on the other hand there is the real unbeliever; who consider those who believe foolish, but he does not argue with them: for you have to be foolish to argue with the foolish. :candle:

 

[sojourner]

Prove god isn't a delusion.

Prove that God is! I dare ya!