Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[cottage]

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

Sojourner: 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.

Cottage: That you don’t have a problem with the opposing notions of evil and a benevolent God, even though it is irrational, is fair enough. So, yes, of course, you are entitled to believe or wish what you want. However, your statement that I’m twisting logic is an accusation you need to support with an explanation. So will you please describe how, or in what way, the logic is ‘twisted’?



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

Sojourner: No, it really doesn't. That necessity exists only in your own mind.
Cottage: Actually the problem exists in the mind of every person who considers it, because there is no necessity. And (if there is a God) it can only mean that (1) suffering was caused or permitted to exist by malevolent or indifferent deity, or (2) suffering exists because the benevolent deity lacks power or ability. Which is it to be?

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

Sojournr: 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.
Cottage: You’ve made the argument that suffering exists because humans have free will. So you now need to explain why it occurs in nature. If you don’t know why it occurs in nature then you can’t use the free will defence to explain the existence of suffering! And it is false to say sorrow must exist in order for there to be joy. Happiness is a biological state, caused by the hormone serotonin; and one can be happy for no reason at all, just as one can be unhappy for no reason, as in depression.


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

Sojourner: 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?
Cottage: ‘In what way is God not benevolent?’ Just one example will suffice, as that is all that is required to prove a contradiction. A few months back, in the UK, something happened that is almost too awful to relate here. A baby just a few months old was sleeping in an upstairs room, while the parents were downstairs. Unknown to the parents, a hot water pipe in the baby’s room began leaking and sprayed steam and boiling water over the infant. The parents were completely unaware of what was happening until the ceiling in their lounge began to bulge and hot water dripped into the room. That tiny child, scalded to death, spent its last moments alone and in the most appalling pain. The parents, who were blameless in this terrible tragedy, will suffer that memory until they go to their graves.
And keep in mind that the above is just one solitary example, while your argument is that there is a Benevolent God, that is to say one who is never other than benevolent.




__________________

 

[sojourner]

And (if there is a God) it can only mean that (1) suffering was caused or permitted to exist by malevolent or indifferent deity, or (2) suffering exists because the benevolent deity lacks power or ability. Which is it to be?

First of all, this right here is a real good example of how you twist logic.
Second, you're drawing conclusions that don't necessarily follow, because they're based on assumptions about the conditions on which they're based.

Yes. Suffering is permitted, but even that does not necessarily mean that God is either malevolent or indifferent. It merely means that possibilities exist.

No. God does not lack power or ability. But I think that God limited God's Self when God created humanity. So, in a sense, God "lacks power," but only because God so chooses -- not because of your implied innate inability.

You’ve made the argument that suffering exists because humans have free will. So you now need to explain why it occurs in nature. If you don’t know why it occurs in nature then you can’t use the free will defence to explain the existence of suffering! And it is false to say sorrow must exist in order for there to be joy. Happiness is a biological state, caused by the hormone serotonin; and one can be happy for no reason at all, just as one can be unhappy for no reason, as in depression.

One can also choose to suffer for no reason. and what one person chooses to call suffering, another chooses to see as something else entirely.

Since joy and suffering are closely tied to emotion, then I would still have to say that, in order for there to be a wide range of emotion for us to experience, that we generally reside in the "middle ground." Therefore, extremes exist on either side of that line.

Perhaps you'd prefer that we were all just "comfortably numb?"
That's an alcoholic fallacy.

Maybe you'd prefer that we were all just blissfully happy all the time?
That's the dream of the 417.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
And (if there is a God) it can only mean that (1) suffering was caused or permitted to exist by malevolent or indifferent deity, or (2) suffering exists because the benevolent deity lacks power or ability. Which is it to be?
Sojourner: First of all, this right here is a real good example of how you twist logic.
So explain, please, where the twisted logic is when further down this very page you agree with (2), that God ‘lacks power’, and you even agree that God permits suffering?

Sojourner: Second, you're drawing conclusions that don't necessarily follow, because they're based on assumptions about the conditions on which they're based.
Ahem! It is the ‘conditions’ that bring about the contradiction! I’m sorry, but it is your mistaken assumptions, not mine, that lead you to utter an absurdity.
Read my last paragraph on this page.

Sojourner: Yes. Suffering is permitted, but even that does not necessarily mean that God is either malevolent or indifferent. It merely means that possibilities exist.
I’m amused at the way you say ‘it merely means that possibilities exist’! By that statement you make the argument for me, for since what is actual is also possible it follows necessarily that suffering is permitted or caused.

Sojourner: No. God does not lack power or ability. But I think that God limited God's Self when God created humanity. So, in a sense, God "lacks power," but only because God so chooses -- not because of your implied innate inability.
This is devaluing God in order to make him fit with your beliefs. ‘God lacks power’ is exactly the same as ‘God is not omnipotent’. And in any case to say that he ‘limits his power’, a deliberate act, which enables suffering to exist, once more proves the contradiction. And a creator could lack power without the condition being innate, but even a single instance demonstrates an occasion when God is not God, which is an absurdity.
Quote:
You’ve made the argument that suffering exists because humans have free will. So you now need to explain why it occurs in nature. If you don’t know why it occurs in nature then you can’t use the free will defence to explain the existence of suffering! And it is false to say sorrow must exist in order for there to be joy. Happiness is a biological state, caused by the hormone serotonin; and one can be happy for no reason at all, just as one can be unhappy for no reason, as in depression.
Sojourner: One can also choose to suffer for no reason. and what one person chooses to call suffering, another chooses to see as something else entirely.
I’ve already made the point (above) that one can suffer for no reason, although I’m not sure about ‘choosing’ to suffer for no reason. And it’s really just splitting hairs to speak of levels of suffering. More importantly though, you have yet to explain how suffering exists in nature, if our free will is the supposed cause.

Sojourner: Since joy and suffering are closely tied to emotion, then I would still have to say that, in order for there to be a wide range of emotion for us to experience, that we generally reside in the "middle ground." Therefore, extremes exist on either side of that line.

Perhaps you'd prefer that we were all just "comfortably numb?"
That's an alcoholic fallacy.

Maybe you'd prefer that we were all just blissfully happy all the time?
That's the dream of the 417.
Reading the above all I can see is a plea for things being as they are. We know how things are; I’m not disputing what there is. But there are two, and only two possibilities to consider here.
1. The world must be as it is.
2. The world needn’t be as it is.
My argument (2) is that things don’t have to be as they are (suffering). The opposite premise (1) is that things must as they are, which is self-evidently false. There is no contradiction in conceiving a world without suffering, but a contradiction is immediately evident in stating that an omnipotent creator, ie an Absolutely Necessary Being, had no option but to create the world as it is. Thus, if such a Being exists, it is proved that suffering was either caused or permitted. But as you’ve already agreed that ‘suffering is permitted’ by God, one who is the pinnacle of benevolence, from whom there can be no greater mercy, kindness and good will, I think you now see the absurdity of that self-contradictory position.

 

[sojourner]

So explain, please, where the twisted logic is when further down this very page you agree with (2), that God ‘lacks power’, and you even agree that God permits suffering?

No, you said that suffering can only be permitted by a malevolent or indifferent Deity. This is where your conditions are false.
I didn't say that. I claim that a benevolent God permits the existence of suffering.

I’m amused at the way you say ‘it merely means that possibilities exist’! By that statement you make the argument for me, for since what is actual is also possible it follows necessarily that suffering is permitted or caused.

But not by a malevolent or indifferent God.

‘God lacks power’ is exactly the same as ‘God is not omnipotent’.

I didn't say that. I said that God limited God's Self. I didn't say that "God lacks power." To be "not-omnipotent" implies an inherent weakness. The weakness is not inherent, if one allows the condition to happen to oneself.

More importantly though, you have yet to explain how suffering exists in nature, if our free will is the supposed cause.

Most importantly, I didn't say that free will causes suffering. I said that free will causes evil.
Do you not know yet that there is a marked difference between "evil" and "suffering," or are you really that childish?

Reading the above all I can see is a plea for things being as they are. We know how things are; I’m not disputing what there is. But there are two, and only two possibilities to consider here.
1. The world must be as it is.
2. The world needn’t be as it is.

No, there is a third that you have conveniently overlooked:
The world is as it is.

You're engaging in "if wishes were horses." We'd all like for things to be different. But they're not. They are as they are. I seek to discover how God informs that reality. You seem to seek to make God into a genie in a bottle.

 

[Falvlun]

No, there is a third that you have conveniently overlooked:
The world is as it is.

You're engaging in "if wishes were horses." We'd all like for things to be different. But they're not. They are as they are. I seek to discover how God informs that reality. You seem to seek to make God into a genie in a bottle.

sojourner, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the world is as it is. The argument cottage makes has nothing to do with denying the fact that the choice of committing evil exists in the world, nor does it have anything to do with wishing that things were different.

The point is that, if God is the omnipotent Creator, then he created the world as it is. In other words, the world is as it is because that is how God created it.

The possibility of suffering and evil exists because (an omnipotent creator) God wanted those possibilities to exist. We may argue about whether the reasons for God's creation of evil were benevolent or malevolent, but if you take the concept of an omnipotent Creator God at face-value, then you cannot argue that God did not create the possibility of evil and suffering.

 

[theonepaladin]

God is Love.

God Created all of us individually and when one of His Followers dies, He raises them up to Heaven.

Benevolance is being of a good nature. God is Justice.

How isn't He benevolant?

 

[sojourner]

sojourner, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the world is as it is. The argument cottage makes has nothing to do with denying the fact that the choice of committing evil exists in the world, nor does it have anything to do with wishing that things were different.

The point is that, if God is the omnipotent Creator, then he created the world as it is. In other words, the world is as it is because that is how God created it.

The possibility of suffering and evil exists because (an omnipotent creator) God wanted those possibilities to exist. We may argue about whether the reasons for God's creation of evil were benevolent or malevolent, but if you take the concept of an omnipotent Creator God at face-value, then you cannot argue that God did not create the possibility of evil and suffering.

Did you see what I posted above?

I claim that a benevolent God permits the existence of suffering.

 

[sojourner]

God is Love.

God Created all of us individually and when one of His Followers dies, He raises them up to Heaven.

Benevolance is being of a good nature. God is Justice.

How isn't He benevolant?

Apparently because suffering and evil exist. The (weak) argument is that, if God were benevolent, then God wouldn't allow suffering and evil to exist.

 

[cottage]

Apparently because suffering and evil exist. The (weak) argument is that, if God were benevolent, then God wouldn't allow suffering and evil to exist.

The self-evident argument is this.

God is the omnipotent creator of all that exists. As the Necessary Being, his existence cannot be contradictory: he is eternal and cannot not exist anymore than he cannot not be God; he is immutable.

Now if God, the omnipotent creator of all that exists, were perfectly good and benevolent, the opposite conditions could not exist. So if God the creator is perfectly good there can be no evil and no suffering. Yet there is evil and suffering, and so God isn't perfectly good and benevolent - or he isn't omnipotent. But God is omnipotent by definition, and so no contradiction is demonstrated by the existence of evil and suffering. So it is only when we say 'God is benevolent' that a contradiction is involved, and by that utterence God is made logically impossible and an absurdity.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
So explain, please, where the twisted logic is when further down this very page you agree with (2), that God ‘lacks power’, and you even agree that God permits suffering?

Sojourner: No, you said that suffering can only be permitted by a malevolent or indifferent Deity. This is where your conditions are false.
I didn't say that. I claim that a benevolent God permits the existence of suffering.
I’m sorry but it is your conditions that are false, and utterly incoherent. Just how is God always kind, always merciful and compassionate, never failing to care for his creation’s well being - when millions are suffering daily?
God 1: creates a world with no suffering.
God 2: creates a world with some suffering.
So which God is all-benevolent, 1 or 2?

Quote:
I’m amused at the way you say ‘it merely means that possibilities exist’! By that statement you make the argument for me, for since what is actual is also possible it follows necessarily that suffering is permitted or caused.

Sojourner: But not by a malevolent or indifferent God.
If there is some suffering allowed by God, which there is, then God is indifferent to it, at the very least. Think about it. People are suffering, and God isn’t wringing his hands saying ‘I wish I could prevent it’, since he can do just that, if he so chooses. He doesn’t. Therefore by his deliberate inaction he has demonstrated his indifference or malevolence to the people he created.

Quote:
‘God lacks power’ is exactly the same as ‘God is not omnipotent’.

Sojourner: I didn't say that. I said that God limited God's Self. I didn't say that "God lacks power." To be "not-omnipotent" implies an inherent weakness. The weakness is not inherent, if one allows the condition to happen to oneself.
Okay, I totally accept that an omnipotent God can permit evil. So if that is your argument then you have my explicit agreement, as there is no logical contradiction and the factual evidence supports that notion.


Quote:
More importantly though, you have yet to explain how suffering exists in nature, if our free will is the supposed cause.

Sojourner: Most importantly, I didn't say that free will causes suffering. I said that free will causes evil.
Do you not know yet that there is a marked difference between "evil" and "suffering," or are you really that childish?
Ooh! A sharp little personal remark! Have I rattled you? ROFL! We were having an enjoyable discussion; so let’s keep it that way, shall we?
Okay, the Problem of Evil exists because of suffering: no suffering, then no evil and thus no problem! So now please explain how suffering exists in nature?

Quote:
Reading the above all I can see is a plea for things being as they are. We know how things are; I’m not disputing what there is. But there are two, and only two possibilities to consider here.
1. The world must be as it is.
2. The world needn’t be as it is.

Sojourner: No, there is a third that you have conveniently overlooked:
The world is as it is.
I haven’t conveniently overlooked anything. The ‘world is as it is’ is not in dispute; and it is nothing more than a tautology that just repeats the meaning, previously stated. So the possibilities remain 1 or 2, as above. If 1, then a contradiction, as it absurdly imposes necessity on the Necessary Being. If 2, no contradiction implied. Therefore suffering exists only by the will of God, the Necessary Being. And according to you, God, the Necessary Being, is benevolence itself, from whom there can be no greater mercy, kindness and good will – yet he permits suffering, a state devoid of his mercy, kindness and good will!!

Sojourner: You're engaging in "if wishes were horses." We'd all like for things to be different. But they're not. They are as they are. I seek to discover how God informs that reality. You seem to seek to make God into a genie in a bottle.
Hmm, I’m sorry but I think you’ve muddled supposed emotional states with argumentation. Yes, as you say, we’d all like things to be different, but I’ve not come here to plead for an end to suffering. All I’m doing is simply showing how your particular arguments are illogical and confused. My position is one of disinterest, and I assure you that I can argue for a God just as well as I can against the concept. The only criterion that applies as far as I’m concerned is intelligibility, and ‘A benevolent God permits suffering’ is like saying you are a Christian and not a Christian’, or that Sojourner both believes and does not believe in God at the same time.

__________________

 

[cottage]

Sojourner: I claim that a benevolent God permits the existence of suffering.

As you're talking nonsense, in what way, then, does God's supposed benevolence allow him to be non-benevolent to those who suffer? How is God benevolent, in what way and to whom?

 

[Thief]

Thief here...what a mess....
Is God benevolent? No.

The flood that killed all.... except Noah and company.
God repented His evil and promised not to do it again.

Sodom and Gomorrah....but supposedly they had it coming.

He sent His Son...and the Son made a whip of knotted cord...
and beat the people until they fled the temple.

And if you take the time to look there are more occasions than listed here.

Evil is the doing of harm....it tends to be intentional.

 

[logician]

Sojourner: I claim that a benevolent God permits the existence of suffering.

But why would a benevolent god permit "needless suffering" of which there is much in the world.

 

[rojse]

But why would a benevolent god permit "needless suffering" of which there is much in the world.

Watch the merry-go-round spin!

 

[sojourner]

Just how is God always kind, always merciful and compassionate, never failing to care for his creation’s well being - when millions are suffering daily?

I'm sorry that you don't choose to believe that God takes care of us -- especially when we suffer.

since he can do just that, if he so chooses.

No, God can't, without compromising our free will. Our free will is, ultimately, more of a "good" than preventing our suffering.

Okay, the Problem of Evil exists because of suffering:

Once again, no. Evil does not exist because of suffering. Evil exists because of free will.

I haven’t conveniently overlooked anything. The ‘world is as it is’ is not in dispute

Great! Then the other two possibilities are wishful thinking, and philosophical masturbation, as they really don't get us anywhere. The world just is as it is. Why do we even have to consider that it could be something else? It's not something else. it is what it is. Why don't we just discuss what is? Seems like that would be more beneficial.

‘A benevolent God permits suffering’ is like saying you are a Christian and not a Christian’,

Only if you see suffering as evil. Suffering is not necessarily evil. If someone has crooked teeth and has to have corrective surgery done, that person will suffer through the effects of surgery. But that kind of suffering isn't evil. Yet, it is suffering.

God allows us to suffer, so that we can be free. In order for us to not suffer, many possibilities would have to be taken away from us, therefore binding us. The possibility of freedom is better than the non-possibility of evil. It goes right back to my argument that feeling nothing is not preferable, in the long run, to feeling pain.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner: I claim that a benevolent God permits the existence of suffering.

As you're talking nonsense, in what way, then, does God's supposed benevolence allow him to be non-benevolent to those who suffer? How is God benevolent, in what way and to whom?

God isn't "non-benevolent" to those who suffer. God cares for us especially when we suffer.
God supports us, God strengthens us, God comforts us, God accompanies us. What more do you want???

 

[sojourner]

But why would a benevolent god permit "needless suffering" of which there is much in the world.

For the same reason that God permits us to make our own decisions, of which there is also so much in the world.

 

[cottage]

God isn't "non-benevolent" to those who suffer. God cares for us especially when we suffer.
God supports us, God strengthens us, God comforts us, God accompanies us. What more do you want???

E-v-i-d-e-n-ce!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But why would a benevolent god permit "needless suffering" of which there is much in the world.

1) God is not omnipotent;
2) God is not all-loving; or
3) There is no god

Well, at least these are the only logical conclusions.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Just how is God always kind, always merciful and compassionate, never failing to care for his creation’s well being - when millions are suffering daily?

Sojourner: I'm sorry that you don't choose to believe that God takes care of us -- especially when we suffer.
Please answer the two questions I asked you.

Quote:
since he can do just that, if he so chooses.

Sojourner: No, God can't, without compromising our free will.
But there doesn’t have to be free will! God cannot be other than omnipotent, but the concept of free will doesn’t have to exist.
Sojourner: Our free will is, ultimately, more of a "good" than preventing our suffering.
You are saying that an omni-benevolent God decreed that free will has a greater moral worth that the alleviation of suffering, which is a self-contradiction since you are explicitly admitting that benevolence takes second place. And it is absurd to make an argument for ‘good’ by instantiating evil as a necessary condition for achieving ‘good’: for if you are saying ‘good’ needs evil then self-evidently it isn’t good at all.

Quote:
Okay, the Problem of Evil exists because of suffering:

Sojourner: Once again, no. Evil does not exist because of suffering. Evil exists because of free will.
That’s not my argument at all. Please would you quote me in full, instead of chopping the end off the sentence. This is what I wrote: ‘Okay, the problem of Evil exists because of suffering: no suffering, then no evil and thus no problem.’ Please will you now provide your explanation for the suffering that exists in nature, independent of free will?

Quote:
I haven’t conveniently overlooked anything. The ‘world is as it is’ is not in dispute

Sojourner: Great! Then the other two possibilities are wishful thinking, and philosophical masturbation, as they really don't get us anywhere.The world just is as it is. Why do we even have to consider that it could be something else? It's not something else. it is what it is. Why don't we just discuss what is? Seems like that would be more beneficial.
We are discussing ‘what is’, in this case the self-contradictory premise that a benevolent God permits evil and suffering. And, with that absurdity in mind, surely it is the theist who is guilty of ‘wishful thinking’ and ‘philosophical masturbation.’ I’m generally sympathetic to religious beliefs, and acknowledge the logical possibility of God, but I find it surprising the way some people suspend their rational thinking in order to accommodate a particular doctrine using truly awful, unstructured arguments and fallacious reasoning, which just serves to confirm what they deny.


Quote:
‘A benevolent God permits suffering’ is like saying you are a Christian and not a Christian’,

Sojourner: Only if you see suffering as evil. Suffering is not necessarily evil. If someone has crooked teeth and has to have corrective surgery done, that person will suffer through the effects of surgery. But that kind of suffering isn't evil. Yet, it is suffering.
I explained this an earlier post and didn’t have a response. So here it is again:
If suffering didn’t exists there would be no PoE. But because unnecessary suffering exists in our world, a lesser suffering is frequently necessary to prevent even greater suffering. But suffering is evil because we know there is no logical necessity for its existence. It didn’t have to exist at all. So all suffering, including the evils necessary in our contingent world, is evil. Do you see it now?

Sojourner: God allows us to suffer, so that we can be free. In order for us to not suffer, many possibilities would have to be taken away from us, therefore binding us. The possibility of freedom is better than the non-possibility of evil. It goes right back to my argument that feeling nothing is not preferable, in the long run, to feeling pain.
I’m sorry but this is complete rubbish. The moment you say [a benevolent] ‘God allows us to suffer’ is the same moment you contradict yourself. And freedom isn’t contingent upon evil and suffering, and to say it is better to feel pain than to feel nothing is a further nonsense. God created us, prior to that we were non-existent and we felt nothing. And we felt nothing because we were nothing. So just explain to me how non-existent creatures can benefit from anything?