Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[cottage]

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

Cottage: Well, you can shoot the messenger, but the problem remains for all to see: there is evil and there is no benevolence.



Sojourner: 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.

Cottage: You are missing the point here. No absurdity, logical contradiction or paradox is evident in the concept of evil; it only poses a problem if we suppose an all-benevolent God.



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

Cottage: It doesn’t matter in the least what you or anybody believes. It is the cold, hard facts of our world, the evil that exists, which is contrary to the belief that there is a supposedly benevolent God. So, ‘There is no evil in the world because of a benevolent God’ is self-evidently false. It all comes down to simple truths that cannot be denied.



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.

Cottage: The problem of evil is about the existence of suffering, when God is said to be all loving and merciful. You need to address the fact that disasters and catastrophes have caused countless deaths and suffering. And the only ‘thought processes’ involved were in the form of mental anguish, suffered by the loved ones who survived the victims.



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

Cottage: The point is that one moment your argument is that God is ‘above logic’, and the next moment you’re trying to find a way to accommodate your beliefs within the very logic you’ve dismissed! If you remember, my words were: ‘If I said a dog is a cat you would say I was being illogical’. You came up with a variety of offerings including ‘a dog is a dog, because humanity has chosen to identify it that way’ (completely missing the point that cats and dogs have their own identities, i.e. because they’re entirely different animals!), and the reply above, that Negroes were once considered not human, which is nothing more than ignorant, unintelligent, and prejudiced opinion.



Sojourner: But it is a fine line of distinction. We owe our survival -- not our existence -- to oxygen.

Cottage: May I remind you again that my exact words were: ‘If I said humans exist without oxygen you would say I was denying a known fact.’ So did you want to say humans exist without oxygen?




Sojourner: 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.

Cottage: ‘Oxygen didn’t create us’! That makes no sense at all, and it doesn’t serve as an answer to anything I’ve said. And I most certainly have not said or implied that humans are or should be immortal! Nor have I said that we should exist without suffering. As a matter of fact I have stated that there is no reason why we should exist period.



Sojourner: My, but you people are egocentric!

Cottage: I’m not the one defending a dogmatic belief. I am a sceptic and while I believe there to be no personal God, no heaven, no hell, no covenants made with the deity, no supernatural events or miracles, I accept that those things are logically possible; and so the difference between us is that while I might be utterly and completely wrong in my beliefs, you in your dogmatism cannot (at least publicly) allow such an admission. All that I can know to be true is exactly the same as every other person, which is that things true by definition cannot be false, and that a thing cannot at the same time be and not be.



Sojourner: 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.

Cottage: First point: What God has ‘set in place’ is what exists! For nothing - nothing exists but what God causes and then conserves. If humans create anything independent of, or in opposition to the deity, then plainly God is not the omnipotent Creator. And as you are on record as stating that God did not create the world ex nihilo, it is therefore twice confirmed that there is no omnipotent God. Second point: Humans did not create the so-called natural evils that cause so much suffering, and so you have to account for those instances too. Third point: God being there to pick us up ‘when we fall’ is false, both logically and evidentially. It follows logically that in having to ‘pick us up’ there must be prior suffering (when we fall), which proves the contradiction, and there is no disputing the evidence that we do in fact fall (suffer).



Sojourner: [Love is] a relationship of mutual affinity, wherein one allows the other to be just who (s)he is, exhibited by selfless acts toward the other.

Cottage: Love isn’t definitively a relationship of mutual affinity. One can love another without the feeling or expression being returned. And as love is also about satisfying one’s own needs and desires it isn’t selfless by any means. In a perfect sense, though, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say it is a care and concern for the loved, as a charitable, unconditional affection, which is deep, genuine and unremitting? That is exactly how most people would like to think of God. Alas this benevolent Being doesn’t exist, or if he does he’s impotent in displaying those qualities

 

[sojourner]

there is evil and there is no benevolence.

I would answer that this statement is one opinion, formed largely by one's perspective. I see benevolence everywhere

it only poses a problem if we suppose an all-benevolent God

.
I didn't say there was. You said there was. I said there wasn't. I don't have a problem with the existence of evil and the existence of a benevolent God. God is benevolent in the face of evil.

It is the cold, hard facts of our world, the evil that exists, which is contrary to the belief that there is a supposedly benevolent God.

No. It's not. At all. You want it to be contrary, but it just isn't. The contrariness is a fabrication.

‘There is no evil in the world because of a benevolent God’ is self-evidently false.

Once again, I didn't say that. You said that. it's a straw man. You set up a fallacy, then knock it down and claim that you've proved something. I've always said that there is evil in the world, and God is benevolent. God's benevolence has nothing to do with the presence of evil.

The problem of evil is about the existence of suffering, when God is said to be all loving and merciful.

Once again, it's a false construct. The problem of evil has nothing whatsoever to do with God being loving and merciful. No matter how much you want it to be the other way. Evil causes suffering, but suffering is not inherently evil.

Negroes were once considered not human, which is nothing more than ignorant, unintelligent, and prejudiced opinion.

So is calling a dog a "cat." But none of this has anything to do with God being benevolent.

May I remind you again that my exact words were: ‘If I said humans exist without oxygen you would say I was denying a known fact.’ So did you want to say humans exist without oxygen?

This is a distraction. Oxygen has nothing to do with God's benevolence, either.

‘Oxygen didn’t create us’! That makes no sense at all, and it doesn’t serve as an answer to anything I’ve said. And I most certainly have not said or implied that humans are or should be immortal! Nor have I said that we should exist without suffering. As a matter of fact I have stated that there is no reason why we should exist period.

Neither did the statement that precipitated that answer. (Read answer above).

I’m not the one defending a dogmatic belief.

But:

I believe there to be no personal God, no heaven, no hell, no covenants made with the deity, no supernatural events or miracles

Alllrighty, then.

All that I can know to be true is exactly the same as every other person, which is that things true by definition cannot be false, and that a thing cannot at the same time be and not be.

Yet you resort to false if/then statements about God, and present it as some kind of logical statement that can be known to be true.

If humans create anything independent of, or in opposition to the deity, then plainly God is not the omnipotent Creator.

Not so. We are created in God's image. That means that we have free will and a creative spirit. Neither of those negates God being the omnipotent Creator.

as you are on record as stating that God did not create the world ex nihilo, it is therefore twice confirmed that there is no omnipotent God.

No. Whether or not God created ex nihilo has no bearing on God's omnipotent existence. Why do you insist on these false criteria for God?

Humans did not create the so-called natural evils that cause so much suffering, and so you have to account for those instances too.

Once again, evil is intention in it's design to cause harm. Nature is not intentional in that way.

God being there to pick us up ‘when we fall’ is false, both logically and evidentially.

You cannot know that.

It follows logically that in having to ‘pick us up’ there must be prior suffering (when we fall), which proves the contradiction, and there is no disputing the evidence that we do in fact fall (suffer).

It doesn't prove the contradiction, since suffering has nothing to do with God's benevolence, either, except that God suffers with us when we suffer (which, BTW, is a benevolent act).

Love isn’t definitively a relationship of mutual affinity. One can love another without the feeling or expression being returned.

In this case, it is. Since the English language does not differentiate between the different types of love, by utilizing different words, we need to be specific about the kind of love we're discussing. God is charis, which requires relationship.

as love is also about satisfying one’s own needs and desires it isn’t selfless by any means.

Wrong. Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous, boastful, or rude. It does not insist on its own way. Love does not rejoice in wrong, but always rejoices in right.

wouldn’t it be more accurate to say it is a care and concern for the loved, as a charitable, unconditional affection, which is deep, genuine and unremitting?

I don't see a great difference between the two statements. But neither one of them exhibits the satisfaction of one's own needs, in any case.

That is exactly how most people would like to think of God. Alas this benevolent Being doesn’t exist, or if he does he’s impotent in displaying those qualities

No, God's not impotent in displaying those qualities. God is only impotent in displaying those qualities to your satisfaction, which begs the question, "Who died and elected you king?"

 

[Falvlun]

1) You didn't answer the question.

I was jumping the gun a little, wasn't I?

My answer, then, is No. Not being able to make a square circle does not disprove the possibility of God being omnipotent.

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.

Agreed. But based upon the knowledge we do have, we can still debate why people, with the same knowledge, would believe God to be benevolent. Based upon current knowledge, making square circles is a logical impossibility, but creating free-will without evil has not been given such status.

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.

Neither do I. I can't afford to deal in absolutes. However, I think the PoE does present pretty strong evidence in favor of the idea that God is not omni-benevolent. (As much as I admire Cottage's dealing of this subject, I still disagree that one instance of evil means that no degree of benevolence is possible.)

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.

Same here: it's an intellectual puzzle that I revel in. I actually enjoy the challenge of getting the Christian God out of scrapes (like the free-will and omniscience one), but this is one that I think he's firmly mired in.

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.

Because no matter how valid the argument, the soundness of the argument is based upon the truth of premises.
Why do you characterize my position as not solving the puzzle? Perhaps I too have solved it to my satisfaction... I just came to a different conclusion than yours.

 

[logician]

The only assumption I make about gods is that there is no proof any exist.

 

[rojse]

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:

He must be serious - he's making his argument in larger red text because someone might miss it if he posts with the default font.

 

[sojourner]

The only assumption I make about gods is that there is no proof any exist.

You may also assume that there is no proof to suggest that God doesn't exist.

 

[Storm]

Falvlun, thanks for your answers.

Because no matter how valid the argument, the soundness of the argument is based upon the truth of premises.
Why do you characterize my position as not solving the puzzle? Perhaps I too have solved it to my satisfaction... I just came to a different conclusion than yours.

Because when you attack the premises, you give up on finding a solution. It's not that you disagree with me - I do respect your stance - but that you're simply not going with the rules of the game, so to speak. It's not a criticism, btw.

 

[Imagist]

You may also assume that there is no proof to suggest that God doesn't exist.

You may also assume that there is no proof to suggest that leprechauns, dragons, unicorns, faeries, or Zeus don't exist, but most people don't go through all the trouble to please these creatures that you go through to please your maniacal god.

 

[Imagist]

Prove that God is! I dare ya!

It's not necessary to prove that something does not exist. Try proving that leprechauns do not exist. It's not possible. But if you see leprechauns, you are delusional.

 

[Imagist]

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.

If a human created a disease and released it on the world, we would call him a bioterrorist. Why is god exempt from this accusation? If you're telling me that he had no idea that bubonic plague and smallpox would kill people when he created them, then he's obviously not omniscient or omnipotent.

 

[sojourner]

You may also assume that there is no proof to suggest that leprechauns, dragons, unicorns, faeries, or Zeus don't exist, but most people don't go through all the trouble to please these creatures that you go through to please your maniacal god.

My God isn't maniacal. And is wholly different from the mythical creatures you mention here. Except possibly Zeus.

 

[sojourner]

It's not necessary to prove that something does not exist. Try proving that leprechauns do not exist. It's not possible. But if you see leprechauns, you are delusional.

It is if one makes an absolute statement. We can't be absolute about what we don't know.

 

[sojourner]

If a human created a disease and released it on the world, we would call him a bioterrorist. Why is god exempt from this accusation? If you're telling me that he had no idea that bubonic plague and smallpox would kill people when he created them, then he's obviously not omniscient or omnipotent.

Once again, the intent has to be there. Thalidamide and lobotomy were therapies designed to help, not harm. They ended up harming, even though the intent was not there to begin with.

Obviously, God didn't create diseases with the intent of killing us. God created all kinds of possibilities, so that other possibilities could take place. Some of those possibilities manifested as disease. I just don't see a problem here.:sarcastic

 

[cottage]

Quote:
there is evil and there is no benevolence.

Sojourner: I would answer that this statement is one opinion, formed largely by one's perspective. I see benevolence everywhere
Cottage: This is the most crucial point of all, because like the rest of us you also see pain and suffering everywhere. God is supposed to be all benevolent, not sometimes benevolent. And if God’s identity is the epitome of goodness, love and mercy he cannot be sometimes benevolent and sometimes not. More concerning this matter further on.

Quote:
it only poses a problem if we suppose an all-benevolent God

.
Sojourner: I didn't say there was. You said there was. I said there wasn't. I don't have a problem with the existence of evil and the existence of a benevolent God. God is benevolent in the face of evil.
Cottage: Well of course you have a problem with it, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion!
‘God is benevolent in the face of evil’ is a perfectly logical statement, but the deity in question cannot under those terms be a benevolent God. Anyone who understands English will know the meaning of the term benevolent. One who has this characteristic attributed to them is thought of as being kindly and charitable, showing compassion and good will to others. Human persons may also have this characteristic, but inevitably they cannot maintain a benevolent attitude to all their fellow men every minute of their short lives. But God, being incorporeal and omnipotent, suffers no such constraints. So God’s goodness isn’t a characteristic, which may or may not obtain, but an immutable identity. Therefore the concept of benevolence is without limit or constraint. This concept of all encompassing goodness or omni-benevolence is not demonstrated in experience, and hence we have the contradiction. Is that clearer now? If not, please see my summary of the argument at the bottom of the page.


Quote:
It is the cold, hard facts of our world, the evil that exists, which is contrary to the belief that there is a supposedly benevolent God.

Sojourner: No. It's not. At all. You want it to be contrary, but it just isn't. The contrariness is a fabrication.
Cottage: It isn’t fabrication; it is demonstration. And to say I ‘want it to be contrary’ is a peculiar remark to make. If I want anything at all it would be, like every other sane person on the planet, an end to suffering.

Quote:
‘There is no evil in the world because of a benevolent God’ is self-evidently false.

Sojourner: Once again, I didn't say that. You said that. it's a straw man. You set up a fallacy, then knock it down and claim that you've proved something. I've always said that there is evil in the world, and God is benevolent. God's benevolence has nothing to do with the presence of evil.
Cottage: Quite correct, I did! And it is a self-evident premise upon which my general argument is built. The Problem of Evil is the existence of suffering in the world in the presence of a supposed loving God who causes/allows it. And that is the contradiction that you are attempting to refute. No evil in the world is logically possible. But to say God’s benevolence has no relevance to the presence of evil is an absurd statement. For if God is not benevolent towards those who suffer, then what precisely is he benevolent towards? If you want to say that benevolence doesn’t include charity, mercy, care, affection and good will, then you are completely misrepresenting the term.

Quote:
The problem of evil is about the existence of suffering, when God is said to be all loving and merciful.

Sojourner: Once again, it's a false construct. The problem of evil has nothing whatsoever to do with God being loving and merciful. No matter how much you want it to be the other way. Evil causes suffering, but suffering is not inherently evil.
Cottage: The Problem of Evil is about suffering - suffering and the absence of a supposedly all-loving God’s benevolence. For example, consider the so-called Seven Deadly Sins: pride; gluttony; envy; lust; anger; greed; sloth – or any other evils you can think of. Now if suffering didn’t follow as a consequence then there would be no Problem of Evil. And suffering is inherently evil because there is no necessity for its existence in the first instance. Certainly a lesser suffering can be used to overcome or prevent a greater suffering, but that is a necessary evil due to the way the world is made; it is not a necessary concept for worlds, nor is the Creator under any logical compunction to create evil.
‘Benevolence’ means care, kindness, charity and good will. You say evil causes suffering, well, we know that suffering has no necessary existence; so any suffering is unnecessary, deliberately caused and therefore evil. Thus if God is the cause of this he is malevolent, or, at the very least, indifferent to his creation’s suffering. And if God isn’t the cause of this, then something else is, in which case God might be benevolent but cannot be the omnipotent Creator.

Quote:
Negroes were once considered not human, which is nothing more than ignorant, unintelligent, and prejudiced opinion.

Sojourner: So is calling a dog a "cat."
Cottage: Of course it isn’t an opinion!! It’s illogical, a contradiction.

Sojourner: But none of this has anything to do with God being benevolent.
Cottage: Oh yes it does, in the same way that God cannot make a circle square, create a rock too heavy for him to lift – or cause/allow suffering when he his perfectly good and benevolent.

Quote:
May I remind you again that my exact words were: ‘If I said humans exist without oxygen you would say I was denying a known fact.’ So did you want to say humans exist without oxygen?

Sojourner: This is a distraction. Oxygen has nothing to do with God's benevolence, either.
Cottage: Oh come on, you know full well how we came to discuss this point, and it was because you were attempting to find a way around the question of logic that I put to you above, in order to maintain your illogical argument that evil is compatible with a perfectly good and benevolent and omnipotent creator.


Quote:
‘Oxygen didn’t create us’! That makes no sense at all, and it doesn’t serve as an answer to anything I’ve said. And I most certainly have not said or implied that humans are or should be immortal! Nor have I said that we should exist without suffering. As a matter of fact I have stated that there is no reason why we should exist period.

Sojourner: Neither did the statement that precipitated that answer. (Read answer above).
Cottage: I posed a question with the same logical structure as the contradiction you want to deny. You replied with an assortment of remarks, including ‘people do survive without oxygen’, as well as the rather confused ‘Oxygen didn’t create us’.


Quote:
I’m not the one defending a dogmatic belief.

Sojourner: But:
Quote:
I believe there to be no personal God, no heaven, no hell, no covenants made with the deity, no supernatural events or miracles

Sojourner: Alllrighty, then.
Cottage: It would be more honest had you quoted my words in full and not chopped out the key points you knew was making, which was this:
‘I accept that those things are logically possible; and so the difference between us is that while I might be utterly and completely wrong in my beliefs’, you in your dogmatism cannot (at least publicly) allow such an admission.’

 

[cottage]

All that I can know to be true is exactly the same as every other person, which is that things true by definition cannot be false, and that a thing cannot at the same time be and not be.

Sojourner: Yet you resort to false if/then statements about God, and present it as some kind of logical statement that can be known to be true.
Read the above again and then apply it to this:
Good and evil exist
Evil is the opposite of good
If everything thing is good then nothing is evil
There is evil, therefore not everything is good.
God created and conserves all that exists.
God is the creator and conserver of evil.
God is not the perfectly good Creator.


Quote:
If humans create anything independent of, or in opposition to the deity, then plainly God is not the omnipotent Creator.

Sojourner: Not so. We are created in God's image. That means that we have free will and a creative spirit. Neither of those negates God being the omnipotent Creator.
Cottage: Not correct. God is the Absolutely Necessary Being and we are contingent beings, therefore our will is subject to God’s will. If we can oppose or challenge God’s will it is because he is not omnipotent.

Quote:
as you are on record as stating that God did not create the world ex nihilo, it is therefore twice confirmed that there is no omnipotent God.

Sojourner: No. Whether or not God created ex nihilo has no bearing on God's omnipotent existence. Why do you insist on these false criteria for God?
Cottage: I’m saying to you that if God isn’t the Absolutely Necessary Being, the eternal, immutable Creator who caused the existence of the world from nothing, there is room for another - one who actually is!


Quote:
Humans did not create the so-called natural evils that cause so much suffering, and so you have to account for those instances too.

Sojourner: Once again, evil is intention in it's design to cause harm. Nature is not intentional in that way.
Cottage: So, you still need to account for the suffering that occurs in nature and explain why a benevolent God causes or allows it.

Quote:
God being there to pick us up ‘when we fall’ is false, both logically and evidentially.

Sojourner: You cannot know that.
Cannot know…what? (!)


Quote:
It follows logically that in having to ‘pick us up’ there must be prior suffering (when we fall), which proves the contradiction, and there is no disputing the evidence that we do in fact fall (suffer).

Sojourner: It doesn't prove the contradiction, since suffering has nothing to do with God's benevolence, either, except that God suffers with us when we suffer (which, BTW, is a benevolent act).
Cottage: Oh do be serious! The problem of suffering has everything to do with God’s benevolence, or rather the lack of it. And you are only making an argument from a doctrinal belief; for if God is the Necessary Being, which means we are contingent beings, he cannot suffer, be angry, be disappointed or be sad – or be in any way influenced or emotionally affected by his dependent creation. Obviously!

Quote:
Love isn’t definitively a relationship of mutual affinity. One can love another without the feeling or expression being returned.

Sojourner: In this case, it is. Since the English language does not differentiate between the different types of love, by utilizing different words, we need to be specific about the kind of love we're discussing. God is charis, which requires relationship.
Cottage: That is only your belief. The Absolutely Necessary Being, by definition does not require a relationship. So let’s have your argument and I will be very pleased to dispute that ill-conceived notion with you.



Quote:
as love is also about satisfying one’s own needs and desires it isn’t selfless by any means.

Sojourner: Wrong. Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous, boastful, or rude. It does not insist on its own way. Love does not rejoice in wrong, but always rejoices in right.
Cottage: The very essence of love is satisfying an emotional need. And love doesn’t ‘rejoice’.

Quote:
wouldn’t it be more accurate to say it is a care and concern for the loved, as a charitable, unconditional affection, which is deep, genuine and unremitting?

Sojourner: I don't see a great difference between the two statements. But neither one of them exhibits the satisfaction of one's own needs, in any case.
Cottage: The difference is that my example is the one that people attribute to God - and there is no evidence at all that those omni-attributes are applied in fact.

__________________

 

[cottage]

Quote:
That is exactly how most people would like to think of God. Alas this benevolent Being doesn’t exist, or if he does he’s impotent in displaying those qualities

Sojourner: No, God's not impotent in displaying those qualities. God is only impotent in displaying those qualities to your satisfaction, which begs the question, "Who died and elected you king?"
Cottage: With respect, you keep saying things such as ‘God is not this’ or ‘God doesn’t do that’, but you never come up with any arguments to support what you claim. My argument is that a benevolent and omnipotent creator, ie a deity with that identity, cannot not be non- benevolent; he cannot both have and not have that identity, in the same way that dog cannot sometimes be a cat. The literally countless instances of suffering prove the contradiction, which is that on those occasions the creator was not benevolent, which demonstrates that there is no creator who has the identity of (omni) benevolence.

And it isn’t to my satisfaction that God is evidently omnipotent, but to all those who suffered and suffer still.
__________________

 

[cottage]

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

An assumption is the inference that a hypothesis is true, and the hypothesis in this case takes for granted premises that have been proved demonstrably false.



Sojourner: 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.

Cottage: If you don’t mind me answering this…the demonstration is two-fold: logical and factual. And demonstrable logic isn’t ‘smoke and mirrors’, it is intuitively certain, and the same logic you apply in your everyday life and which, incidentally, you yourself have called upon to defend your beliefs. My view is that the bare bones concept of God is logically possible, and my critiques are strictly limited to dogmatic beliefs that don’t make sense and absurd or contradictory statements.


Sojourner: God cannot be shown to be non-benevolent because of the existence of evil.

Cottage: You contradict yourself! The charge of non-benevolence is demonstrated in experience by the lack of benevolence. Can you not see that it is the missing benevolence that makes the charge stick?

 

[cottage]

Neither do I. I can't afford to deal in absolutes. However, I think the PoE does present pretty strong evidence in favor of the idea that God is not omni-benevolent. (As much as I admire Cottage's dealing of this subject, I still disagree that one instance of evil means that no degree of benevolence is possible.)

Hi Falvlun, may I make it clear, in case I haven't made it clear elswhere, that I am absolutely not disputing the possibility of a God who shows or has shown benevolence. That is the crucial point to bear in mind. What I am asserting is that because of the existence of suffering, even as a single instance, it is demonstrated that there is no Benevolent God. For example, there are people in prison who have been convicted of the most appalling crimes against their fellow men, yet nobody would declare as a general principle that never in their lives have those people shown good will or benevolence to any member of the human race. The point here is that the benevolence or kindness they may have shown to others at some point in their lives doesn't make them benevolent people. Unlike the prisoners (and the rest of us), God is always God; his identity is immutable.

Same here: it's an intellectual puzzle that I revel in. I actually enjoy the challenge of getting the Christian God out of scrapes (like the free-will and omniscience one), but this is one that I think he's
firmly mired in.

Yes, I too enjoy defending theism. On one religious forum I was regularly called a 'closet theist'! I've spent time on the Problem of Evil and I flatter myself that I came up with some fairly creative and original explanations. I conceded defeat to myself in the end because the contradiction cannot be overturned without dropping one or more of the premises.



Because no matter how valid the argument, the soundness of the argument is based upon the truth of premises.

Precisely that! And I would spell it out like this:

'An omnipotent being is all benevolent' isn't a statement necessary to the concept of God, but it is valid nevertheless, since the concept of omnipotence allows for that. But 'An omnipotent being is benevolent in the presence of evil and suffering' is unsound because the concept of benvolence is contradicted by the presence of suffering.

Cottage

 

[sojourner]

Well of course you have a problem with it, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion!

Let me spell this out real clear:
I don't have a problem with evil and a benevolent God existing. My problem is with your twisting of logic.

The problem of suffering has everything to do with God’s benevolence, or rather the lack of it.

No, it really doesn't. That necessity exists only in your own mind.

you still need to account for the suffering that occurs in nature and explain why a benevolent God causes or allows it.

No, I don't. But apparently, you do. I don't know why suffering occurs, except that to say for joy to be a possibility, sorrow must also be a possibility.

The charge of non-benevolence is demonstrated in experience by the lack of benevolence.

Let's get down to brass tacks: In what way(s) is God not benevolent? What non-benevolent experiences can you point to with any objective certainty?

 

[logician]

If there is a supposed god, he allows an incredible amount of needless suffering.

Of course, there isn't , so don't worry about it.