Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Luke]

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?

if a god he i s benevoliant like you say, why do mankind suffer? if a god create mankind, why then he abandon him here i n this strida? this is not justice.

 

[cottage]

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

By that statement you confirm the contradiction!

You are saying that God is more concerned for his contingent, finite, imperfect and error-prone creation's autonomy than he is for their welfare and suffering. And since suffering exists quite regardless of our decision making, the apologetic fails in that respect as well.

 

[logician]

The argument that suffering "proves" a benevolent god is pure nonsense, it doesn't prove anything about a god, including its existence.

 

[Enoch07]

if a god he i s benevoliant like you say, why do mankind suffer? if a god create mankind, why then he abandon him here i n this strida? this is not justice.

Mankind suffers because we bring it onto ourselves. We murder, rape, steal, and spread disease amongst ourselves. Because we are expected to make our own decisions (free will) we are expected to be able to control ourselves. The only injustice is the injustice mankind inflicts upon itself.

 

[cottage]

Mankind suffers because we bring it onto ourselves. We murder, rape, steal, and spread disease amongst ourselves. Because we are expected to make our own decisions (free will) we are expected to be able to control ourselves. The only injustice is the injustice mankind inflicts upon itself.

Mankind suffers because of the way the world is, the concept of freewill notwithstanding!

We happen to share the planet with pathogens, which outnumber humans, and we can't 'decide' not to be immune to them. But I agree entirely with your last sentence, though.

 

[Falvlun]

Mankind suffers because we bring it onto ourselves. We murder, rape, steal, and spread disease amongst ourselves. Because we are expected to make our own decisions (free will) we are expected to be able to control ourselves. The only injustice is the injustice mankind inflicts upon itself.

This argument has oft been trotted out, but it does not take into account natural disasters or disease, etc, nor does it explain why innocents (ie, children) are subjected to suffering that they have not yet had a chance to cause.

You also ignore the fact that an omniscient God would have known that the humans that he created would not have the ability to fully control themselves. Essentially, God created man faulty, and then you exonerate God from the existence of suffering by blaming it on the faulty man. Shouldn't you go to the source?

You also deny God's omnipotence by claiming he could not have reconciled free-will with an evil-less world.

 

[rojse]

Is everyone tired of running in circles, or will this keep on going? No one is going to change their mind, no one has learnt anything, nor does anyone wish to learn anything.

"There's evil in the world. A benevolent God can't exist."
"A benevolent God would allow evil."
"There's evil in the world. A benevolent God can't exist."
"A benevolent God would allow evil."

Repeat, repeat, repeat...

 

[sojourner]

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

God comforts our spirits, strengthens our resolve, and brings peace. God surrounds us with people who love and care for us -- should we care (and choose) to recognize it.

 

[sojourner]

By that statement you confirm the contradiction!

You are saying that God is more concerned for his contingent, finite, imperfect and error-prone creation's autonomy than he is for their welfare and suffering. And since suffering exists quite regardless of our decision making, the apologetic fails in that respect as well.

Yes! He can be taught! God is more concerned about our autonomy than God is about our suffering, because suffering is transitory. It passes. But freedom is a necessary component of love.

What about our decision to keep a certain mind set in the face of adversity?
I know a young man who was recently paralyzed. His mind-set is far different from his parents'. They choose how they respond, and that dictates whether one perceives suffering or something else, such as opportunity or simply adversity.

 

[sojourner]

Please answer the two questions I asked you.

Because God loves us. But you won't be happy with that, I'm sure. You're too much of a detached skeptic.

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.

Benevolence is not finally defined by the non-existence of suffering. Benevolence is defined by the kindness that is shown in the face of suffering. Freedom is ultimate benevolence, because, if God took away our freedom just to alleviate our suffering, we would only suffer more, because we would be in bondage. A gilded cage is still a cage.

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?

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

We are discussing ‘what is’

Oh?

But there doesn’t have to be free will!

But what is is that free will exists.

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?

No. Because evil does not = suffering. Evil is intentional and thought out. Suffering is not.

I’m sorry but this is complete rubbish.

I'm sorry you can't see it. You seem to want to make a god out of non-suffering. You're like an aspirin commercial. Suffering is not necessary. But then, neither are zebras. And we know that zebras aren't evil.

The fact is that suffering is here. The fact is that, in order for humans to experience a range of emotion, there must exist feeling on either side of what is "normal." The fact is, freedom is more important to God than non-suffering, for reasons I have already stated.

If God is love, then our freedom is paramount. Sometimes, in a world of variety, that freedom embraces things that cause us to suffer. God knows this, so God is with us, especially when we suffer. Why? Because God loves us.

Again, I'm sorry you can't see that. But all the logic in the world cannot explain why I love my wife. All the logic in the world cannot explain why I would throw myself in front of a bus for my kids. Love is not logic, nor is it logical. Since God is love, our system of logical thought only works to a point. In the end result, God is God, regardless of how we understand God.

 

[logician]

God comforts our spirits, strengthens our resolve, and brings peace. God surrounds us with people who love and care for us -- should we care (and choose) to recognize it.

You're getting rather preachy.

 

[sojourner]

You're getting rather preachy.

So? it's the truth.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

God comforts our spirits, strengthens our resolve, and brings peace. God surrounds us with people who love and care for us -- should we care (and choose) to recognize it.

I'll give you this SJ. In all this dodging and dancing away from the FACT of EVIL SUFFERING you have proved one thing.

Marx was right about religion.

Take 2 of your religious aspirin and call me in the morning.

 

[Buttons*]

I'll give you this SJ. In all this dodging and dancing away from the FACT of EVIL SUFFERING you have proved one thing.

Marx was right about religion.

Take 2 of your religious aspirin and call me in the morning.

It's a shame he was wrong about economics

Besides, any idea is an opiate, *oooooh* existentialist power!

 

[logician]

It's a shame he was wrong about economics

Besides, any idea is an opiate, *oooooh* existentialist power!

Evidently, so too are the capitalists.

 

[sojourner]

I'll give you this SJ. In all this dodging and dancing away from the FACT of EVIL SUFFERING you have proved one thing.

Marx was right about religion.

Take 2 of your religious aspirin and call me in the morning.

I've never danced away from either evil or suffering. In fact, I've been the one to advocate the reality of the world: There is evil, and there is suffering. That has never been at tissue with me. Y'all seem to be the ones who want to take the opiate and say, "But...it doesn't have to be this way!":sad4:

The thing we Xians have that you non-believers will never have, is hope. While you all are stuck in the hopelessness of despair (in the meantime covering it all up by playing games with "blaming" "God" for your suffering), we maintain hope that God comforts us when we do suffer, and that, one day, suffering will be no more for us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The thing we Xians have that you non-believers will never have, is hope. While you all are stuck in the hopelessness of despair (in the meantime covering it all up by playing games with "blaming" "God" for your suffering), we maintain hope that God comforts us when we do suffer, and that, one day, suffering will be no more for us.

Speak for yourself. I have plenty of hope.

Not hope in God, but that's not the only hope going.

 

[Falvlun]

I've never danced away from either evil or suffering. In fact, I've been the one to advocate the reality of the world: There is evil, and there is suffering. That has never been at tissue with me. Y'all seem to be the ones who want to take the opiate and say, "But...it doesn't have to be this way!":sad4:

The fact that there is evil and suffering in this world has not been debated by us either.

I think it legitimate to question why a supposedly omnibenevolent and omnipotent Being would create a world in which evil and suffering exists. I hardly see how this line of questioning is an "opiate".

No. Because evil does not = suffering. Evil is intentional and thought out. Suffering is not.

I'm sorry you can't see it. You seem to want to make a god out of non-suffering. You're like an aspirin commercial. Suffering is not necessary. But then, neither are zebras. And we know that zebras aren't evil.

I agree with you that not all suffering is evil. But I do not see how you can divorce evil from suffering. What makes a decision or action evil except that it causes suffering? When you steal, you deprive someone of his property, causing him to suffer its loss; when you murder, you deprive someone of his life, causing suffering; when you abuse a child, you cause suffering. Can you name one thing that is evil that does not cause suffering of some sort? It is the suffering that makes a thing evil, otherwise it would not be evil. Evil would not exist if suffering did not.



As far as can see, the free-will defense boils down to the idea that God wanted humans to have free-will. There is no inherent goodness or badness associated with free-will except that which God chose to ascribe it. In other words, free-will is not necessarily good; God only chose for it to be so. God also decided that evil and suffering were necessary for free-will to exist. This was a deliberate choice, since there are no "natural laws" just floating out there except that which God himself created. The whole thing boils down to "this is how God wanted it". If this is how God wanted it, then yes, I think his omni-benevolence can seriously be questioned.

 

[sojourner]

I think it legitimate to question why a supposedly omnibenevolent and omnipotent Being would create a world in which evil and suffering exists. I hardly see how this line of questioning is an "opiate".

We don't believe God did create a world in which evil existed. Suffering is another matter. Asking "why" is pointless. It is as it is. Now, on the other hand, asking where God is in the midst of it, or asking how God deals with our suffering -- those are legitimate questions.

 

[sojourner]

I agree with you that not all suffering is evil. But I do not see how you can divorce evil from suffering. What makes a decision or action evil except that it causes suffering?

But suffering is not dependent upon evil. While evil always causes suffering, suffering is also caused by other things that are not evil. suffering and evil are not necessarily synonymous.

As far as can see, the free-will defense boils down to the idea that God wanted humans to have free-will. There is no inherent goodness or badness associated with free-will except what God chose to characterize it as. In other words, free-will is not necessarily good; God only chose for it to be so. God also decided that evil and suffering were necessary for free-will to exist. This was a deliberate choice, since there are no "natural laws" just floating out there except that which God himself created. The whole thing boils down to "this is how God wanted it". If this is how God wanted it, then yes, I think his omni-benevolence can seriously be questioned.

But I think you're mistaken. In order for love to exist, there must be free will. Therefore, free will is "good." Since love is the highest "good" imaginable, any suffering that might be alleviated by the curtailing of free will would just subvert love, which is the ultimate Law. Suffering is transitory. It passes. Love is eternal. In order for us to love God, we have to be free to love, which opens us up also to the possibility of suffering.

God allows that suffering, so that we can continue to be free to love. We believe, however, that God comforts us during our suffering. In this way, God can be said to be benevolent.