Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[sojourner]

I'm sorry to say you have prevaricated and stalled over questions and points that I've put to you. I'm still waiting for an answer concerning the suffering that exists in nature, in other words independent of free will? And, come on, what's with saying you're an 'advocate of the reality of the world'? Evil and suffering, is hardly revelationary, or something you can deny! The question isn't 'Does suffering exist?', but why does it exist if there is a God who is inclusively merciful and everywhere good and benevolent?

'K. Earthquakes, storms, disease. None of these is evil, for there is no intention behind the force. This is just the way nature works. If we didn't have wind, trees wouldn't stand up straight. If we didn't have earthquakes, we wouldn't have mountains to climb.
You seem to be searching for humankind to be perfect -- no illness, no disease, no hurt, no suffering at all. But that begs the question: Perfect, according to whom? Who gets to decide what perfection is? You? Me? Hitler? George W? We live in a world that is as it is -- and it is wondrous, despite its vagaries. So are we!

Suffering exists because we are not perfect. We were not designed to be perfect. If we were perfect, We'd be God, and God would have no one to love.

Look, you and I have been having a discussion based on your refusal to see God as less than all loving and omni-benevolent, despite the evident facts.

You're bending the rules. What we've been having is a conversation based on your refusal to see God as all-loving and omni-benevolent in the face of evil and suffering. The "evident facts" do not pertain to God's benevolence.

 

[sojourner]

So I'm surprised to see you say here that you hope that God comforts you when you suffer. Now you've moved from your previous position to one of uncertainty and hope.

To do anything more than hope would be to take God for granted.

surely you mean you hope one day 'suffering will be no more for all.'

I mean "humanity," but since atheists have no belief, I assumed that they would draw the distinction here between those of us who hope for a perfect eternity, and those who do not.

Sceptics cannot blame God while disbelieving its/his existence.

But you do that very thing by claiming that, since there is suffering, God must be the cause of it.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...this is starting to look like a graffiti contest.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I could, if you had eyes willing to see. As long as you doubt, you will never see.

LOL

Translation: When you decide to believe then -Viola - you will believe.

You are standing there with your open empty lunch box in hand screaming, "Look my lunch really is RIGHT THERE. Cause I BELIEVE it is there."

(Psst quitely now - Harvey isn't REALLY there. You can leave the extra overcoat at home.)

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"I don't know where you got the idea that God abuses us, but it just ain't so. God does not "require us to learn Bible verses."

Your posts are becoming rapidly more caustic, sometimes to the point of being abusive. I can't imagine why you're overreacting.

Maybe you're just hateful by nature. I don't know -- I don't know you. But your posts are becoming less and less logical and objective.

Simmuh down, now."

Yes, that much is true. It was just SO like my dear departed G/M. The old "This hurts me than it hurts you but you'll be the better for it." line.

Mea cupla. :sorry1:

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"But you do that very thing by claiming that, since there is suffering, God must be the cause of it."

No, not quite. We are saying that existence of a benevolent omni-everything god is incompatible with the existence of Evil. We - at root - do not even say there is EVIL. Never mind who/what caused it. The universe is supremely indifferent to us. Events are neither Evil or good but our defining it makes them so.

The death of a child from starvation is no different from the death of any other organism. Happens by the billions every day. WE assign significance to the child's death. But there is nothing intrinsically evil about it - just the way it is.

In that we agree. The universe IS what it IS. We simply accept that as a given. It is you who are not content with that. You create this invisible fairy god-father who will someday somehow make it all better. For the select few.

We say WE will make it better. By learning how the universe operates and using that knowledge to influence events in a manner more to our liking.

I have always found it passing strange that theists never advance this ability of ours to understand the universe as an argument for - at least - a designer. Instead they are wrapped up in foolish symbols of crosses or stars or crescents and the never ending war to compel all others to revere their personal favorites.

You guys could make a half way reasonable case.

But you never do.

 

[logician]

The more logical answer is that there is no god, and suffering is a natural ocurrence of living, no input needed from outsiders.

 

[sojourner]

LOL

Translation: When you decide to believe then -Viola - you will believe.

You are standing there with your open empty lunch box in hand screaming, "Look my lunch really is RIGHT THERE. Cause I BELIEVE it is there."

(Psst quitely now - Harvey isn't REALLY there. You can leave the extra overcoat at home.)

The lunch box only looks empty to you, because you're looking for a Happy Meal. :drool: God can only be seen with eyes of faith. God cannot be proven through empirical methods. I can't help it if you don't have eyes of faith...

 

[sojourner]

The death of a child from starvation is no different from the death of any other organism. Happens by the billions every day. WE assign significance to the child's death. But there is nothing intrinsically evil about it - just the way it is.

Unless someone intentionally starves the child -- or through greed prevents a system from feeding its children (as in Haiti). Then it is evil writ large.

 

[sojourner]

You create this invisible fairy god-father who will someday somehow make it all better. For the select few.

I didn't create God. God created me.
And with regard to your last sentence: For everyone.

We say WE will make it better. By learning how the universe operates and using that knowledge to influence events in a manner more to our liking.

We say WE will make it better (God will perfect us someday). By learning how the universe operates and using that knowledge to influence events in a manner more to God's liking.

I have always found it passing strange that theists never advance this ability of ours to understand the universe as an argument for - at least - a designer. Instead they are wrapped up in foolish symbols of crosses or stars or crescents and the never ending war to compel all others to revere their personal favorites.

Well, I think some of us do make a good case. It's too bad the majority have to screw it up for everyone. It's my belief that we do improve ourselves. But then, I believe that we are the best expression of God in the universe. In essence, we are God's hands and feet. If God shows mercy, it's because we show mercy. If God alleviates suffering, it's because we alleviate suffering.

Personally, I think that our religions are just types that we are capable of understanding. And so is science, and so are the arts. Truth is bigger than any of us, so we have to deal with what we can know the best we can. I don't care, really, if it's a cross, or a crescent, or Santa Claus. A human system of expressing truth can never be all-encompassing. That's why I don't buy the "I am the way..." statement. We've all got an equal chance, because we are all loved equally -- even the non-believers.

Evil is a problem for we who believe in a benevolent God. Either we're wrong, or we don't fully understand how it all works for our ultimate good. The best I can do is to keep believing that God is there, even when we suffer. Logical or not, that's it for me.

 

[sojourner]

The more logical answer is that there is no god, and suffering is a natural ocurrence of living, no input needed from outsiders.

Suffering is a natural occurance of living. But for me, logic isn't the answer. Faith is the answer.

 

[cottage]

Beliefs are what count, my friend. God cannot be proven. God must be believed.
God has not "brought peace to the world," because we, in our free will, keep screwing up. Ultimately, that freedom is more important to our well-being than God making decisions for us. The peace I was talking about was peace of heart and mind.

Mystical beliefs aren't truths. We don't 'screw up' when nature causes suffering; in fact it is on those occasions when we are at our, admittedly limited, best. I'm surprised at the way you keep making my argument for me by confirming that God considers free will to have higher moral value than preventing the evil that stains and contradicts his supposed goodness. And there most certainly is not a universal peace of mind.

You're not making sense. If we were perfect and omni-anything, God would not be God. We would be God.

Well, I don't know where you've got that from! I've never said or implied that humans are or should be perfect or or 'omni-anything'.

God has not presented a "demonstrable failure," because, in the face of evil and suffering, love and goodness prevail.

Time after time you miss the point, either intentionally or perhaps because you haven't yet grasped it. God's has failed because he is (supposedly) perfectly good and all benevolent. Your use of the word 'prevail' makes the point perfectly (even though the application of the term is debateable) because it demonstrates that an all loving God doesn't inclusively minister to all of his creation all of the time.

 

[cottage]

1) Our welfare is best served by our being free to make choices. So God's concern for our welfare is paramount in God's giving us free will. The "abstract concept" is made concrete in our praxis of loving.

This is a false argument if you are saying, or implying, that free will cannot exist without evil.

2) Freedom is a necessary component of love. If love is forced, it is not love -- it's coersion. Love must be freely given and accepted on both sides. We're not talking about being in prison. We're talking about having no choice but to love.

I don't see the point you are wanting to make. Who is talking about forcing love, or coersion? Not me!


3) Once again, I don't see how you've shown that non-suffering is necessary for God to be benevolent, especially in light of the fact that I've shown that our freedom to make our own choices is benevolence.

Should a child be allowed to play in traffic? Should a person with a serious mental debilitation be given firearms? Is it benevolent to permit anyone to do exactly as they please, regardless of the circumstances? Of course it isn't! One man's freedom is another's persecution, and God ought to be aware of that. Further more, to be free doesn't imply licence to cause harm or spread evil and suffering. There is nothing contradictory about living free and in living in harmony.

God has always been, is now, and shall always be ... benevolent. If God is love (and God is) then God can be nothing else but benevolent.

It's just a belief! There is no argument that demonstrates the existence of a perfectly good God. Not a single one of the classic proofs for the existence of God so much as hints at benevolence, whilst the contradiction is inescapable. Even before the question of God's existence arises there are logical premises applying to God that even the atheist cannot deny - but pefect goodness and benevolence are not among them - for reasons that should be self-apparent.

 

[cottage]

Come on! You know as well as I that a non-existent thing has no qualities. Now you're grasping at straws. By definition, love cannot be indifferent, for ambivalence is the polar opposite of love.

Why do you insist upon chopping my responses, leaving just a couple of words hanging meaninglessly in the air? This is what I wrote:
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?
So yes, your words 'a non-existent thing has no qualitities' is my argument exactly. The rest of what you say is entirely irrelevant.

 

[cottage]

I could, if you had eyes willing to see. As long as you doubt, you will never see.

Mumbo jumbo. Look, if a thing is true it cannot be contradictory. You are confusing 'True for Me',(belief as faith) with an objective statement or proposition.

 

[cottage]

I could, if you had eyes willing to see. As long as you doubt, you will never see.

LOL! More gobbledegook! Just explain exactly what you mean by that. It make no sense at all, especially when you yourself have doubts about what you believe.

 

[cottage]

To do anything more than hope would be to take God for granted.

Belief in the Christian God is that he has done and will do particular things. As I understand it they are not there to be speculated upon. If it is made clear that evil is to cease one day then to hope it will cease is to admit doubt.

I mean "humanity," but since atheists have no belief, I assumed that they would draw the distinction here between those of us who hope for a perfect eternity, and those who do not.

'Humanity' certainly reads as being more Christian.

But you do that very thing by claiming that, since there is suffering, God must be the cause of it.

Here I think you're confusing an academic examination with an emotional attachment to the subject.
For example, when I say God cannot be other than omnipotent, I am not by that statement declaring that there is an existent being with that attribute. I'm am only saying if God is God, then he is omnipotent. Similarly, if God is the cause of all that exists, and evil exists, then God will be its cause. It's an analytical proposition, and we don't have to go outside the proposition to discover its truth; it is true because it cannot be false. D'you see now?

 

[cottage]

Evil is a problem for we who believe in a benevolent God. Either we're wrong, or we don't fully understand how it all works for our ultimate good. The best I can do is to keep believing that God is there, even when we suffer. Logical or not, that's it for me.[/quote]

How can I possibly disagree, or find fault with that? I cannot! There is no proposition asserted there, which may be true or false. So if that is your belief then I must respect it.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Please answer the two questions I asked you.

Sojourner: Because God loves us. But you won't be happy with that, I'm sure. You're too much of a detached skeptic.
I asked how God is always kind, always merciful and compassionate, never failing to care for his creation’s well being, when millions suffer daily?

Quote:
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.

Sojourner: 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.
You keep making two completely false arguments. One is that freedom has a moral value that dictates conditions to an omnipotent, perfectly good and all loving God. And the other is that freedom is dependent upon suffering. The first is false because it is a self-evident contradiction, and the second is false because suffering is not necessary to the concept of freedom.



Quote:
But there doesn’t have to be free will!

Sojourner: But what is is that free will exists.
‘But only by the will of God – or did you want to disagree? You said God cannot prevent evil without ‘comprising our free will’. That is incorrect on two counts. 1) There is no contradiction in conceiving free will with out evil, and (2) an omnipotent God is not constrained in any way by the concept.


Quote:
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: No. Because evil does not = suffering. Evil is intentional and thought out. Suffering is not.
I’m not saying evil equals suffering. What I am saying to you is that without suffering there is no Problem of Evil. You will agree that to cause unnecessary suffering is evil, and we know that suffering has no necessary existence; therefore, if unnecessary suffering was caused/allowed by an omnipotent God, then that was an evil act.


Sojourner: 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.
You seem to be missing the point, which is that there need be no facts. The PoE exists because there is, supposedly, an omnipotent and all loving God, a supernatural creator being, who can do anything that is logically possible; and that being the case you can’t expect to make some sort of argument for things being the way they are.

Sojourner: 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.‘Freedom embraces things that cause us to suffer’.
You say this as if it were a state that an omnipotent God simply had to go along with. Freedom doesn’t imply necessary suffering, and self-evidently God is under no obligation to cause or allow its existence. And the statement ‘God loves us’ is the same as ‘the man Jesus is the Son of God’; it is only your belief, not a truth.

Sojourner: 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.


Demonstrable logic does not ‘explain’ unknown things, or give us information about what exists. It is concerned with the truth or falsity of propositions, and as religious belief is propositional it right to apply it to those mystical claims that are made as if they were true. But in the sense of you loving your wife or giving up your own life for your children, the reasons are perfectly logical, since there is no action, by any living form, that doesn’t have a selfish element to it. It is instinct. Animals also risk their lives protecting their young, and sometimes die in the attempt. I’ll await your response before giving you my take on this subject, in which I will show how loving a spouse or dying for one’s children is in the same class as wanting there to be a benevolent God.

Sojourner: ‘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.’
You say logic only works to a point, and presumably that point will be where it disagrees with what you want to believe! But I really could not agree more that ‘God is God’ regardless of how we want to understand God. And since we wholeheartedly agree on this matter, perhaps you would care to explain how logic only ‘works to a point’, considering that you also agree with the Law of Identity (A=A)?

 

[sojourner]

Mystical beliefs aren't truths.

They are if they're true.

We don't 'screw up' when nature causes suffering; in fact it is on those occasions when we are at our, admittedly limited, best.

Sometimes we do. We have the choice to not live in flood zones, or on fault lines. We have the choice to not encroach on alligators' habitat.

Well, I don't know where you've got that from! I've never said or implied that humans are or should be perfect or or 'omni-anything'.

Look here:

But now you say he surrounds us with contingent, imperfect humans who, for all their evident good will and intent must fall short of omnibenevolene and omnipotence.

Like you think God should have created us to be those things.

it demonstrates that an all loving God doesn't inclusively minister to all of his creation all of the time.

Of course God does! What are you saying? Just because God doesn't operate when, where and how you want God to, doesn't make God a failure. But it does show a phenomenal lack of faith on your part.

This is a false argument if you are saying, or implying, that free will cannot exist without evil.

It's not a false argument, as long as evil remains one of the choices we can make.

I don't see the point you are wanting to make. Who is talking about forcing love, or coersion? Not me!

The point I'm making is simply that free will is the paramount good, and takes precedent over our propensity to suffer. Because free will is what allows us to love.

Should a child be allowed to play in traffic? Should a person with a serious mental debilitation be given firearms? Is it benevolent to permit anyone to do exactly as they please, regardless of the circumstances? Of course it isn't! One man's freedom is another's persecution, and God ought to be aware of that. Further more, to be free doesn't imply licence to cause harm or spread evil and suffering. There is nothing contradictory about living free and in living in harmony.

Those limits cannot apply to our nature, though. If our nature were curtailed -- that is, if we didn't really have free will, then we would not be able to love. Free will is an absolute. Either we have it, or we don't. There are no conditions.
While there is nothing contradictory about living free and living in harmony, we choose to not do that. If that choice were taken away -- if we were forced to live in harmony, what would we really profit? We'd be like the Borg. Ultimately, we have to be held responsible for our own actions. Ultimately, we have to be left to approach God on our own terms -- or the relationship is moot.

It's just a belief!

So? Don't believe it if you don't want to. But don't dis the rest of us for holding them and striving for meaning and improvement.

for reasons that should be self-apparent.

Only if you choose to wallow in the mind set of "why did God allow this to happen?" That's not hope -- that's despair. Why would you want to wallow in despair? Why not abide in the hope and assurance that God is good -- that God embodies love, and gives us love as a gift?

to say it is better to feel pain than to feel nothing is a further nonsense.

How is it nonsense?

if a thing is true it cannot be contradictory.

You're the one twisting things into a contradiction by insisting that God's benevolence is contingent upon the non-existence of suffering, when I've shown that it is not.
It depends on your POV. I could show you, but instead of believing, you'd continue to be skeptical. I seriously think that if God showed up right in front of your nose, you'd find some reason to remain skeptical. The ID could be forged, or God's not what you thought God would look like, or it's a case of mistaken identity, or other nonsense.

This whole argument prevails because you don't give a tinker's dam* about belief. You dismiss it completely because it cannot be "proven."
But what we can know about God is limited. What we are able to prove about God is limited. Why? Because we are unable to stand at such a perspective where we can view God objectively all at once.

Therefore, we rely on intuition (which you also probably dismiss) to help us. We rely on faith (which you dismiss). You just go on about the business of "measuring God," then. You'll never get the job done. In the meantime, the rest of us will bask in God's love and goodness.

More gobbledegook! Just explain exactly what you mean by that. It make no sense at all, especially when you yourself have doubts about what you believe.

Actually, it's the same sentence. Look at my statement above.

If someone suffers, and a stranger does something nice for them, to help alleviate the suffering -- just some little thing -- I look at that and say that God was working through that stranger to effect a kindness. But you look at it and readily say, "Bull crap! The person wanted to do something nice."
I don't think you'd be happy unless a full-fledged come-to-Jesus miracle occurred -- and even then you'd try to explain it away.
That's what I mean. The things that I could show you must be taken on faith.

Here I think you're confusing an academic examination with an emotional attachment to the subject.
For example, when I say God cannot be other than omnipotent, I am not by that statement declaring that there is an existent being with that attribute. I'm am only saying if God is God, then he is omnipotent. Similarly, if God is the cause of all that exists, and evil exists, then God will be its cause. It's an analytical proposition, and we don't have to go outside the proposition to discover its truth; it is true because it cannot be false. D'you see now?

Oh, I see, all right. Have all along. What you will not see is that, while suffering exists, and God created that possibility, the existing of suffering serves God's good purposes more fully than we are generally capable of recognizing, because we cannot step that far outside ourselves. In other words, suffering has been defined as "bad." Because it hurts. I don't think suffering is inherently "bad." It's the way life is, in order for us to be free. And I believe that God is aware of our suffering, cares, and is present to us when we suffer. But God will not remove the capacity to suffer, for that would limit us, in more ways than one.