Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[sojourner]

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)?

I'll get back to you on this. Out of time to post right now.

 

[themadhair]

There are 51 pages on this thread. Has anything related to the following been discussed yet:

Trying to dress it in free will doesn’t work Enoch07 because the concept of free will is not compatible with an omnipotent creator god. If an omnipotent god were to create a person it is also, due to its omnipotence, is determining all that persons future actions in that act of creation. I’ve heard some outrageous mental gymnastics being performed on this one but never heard a decent defence of it.

 

[rojse]

Our knowledge of the Abrahamic God, which comes from the Bible, shows Him to be benevolent.

Because God says he is benevolent, he is benevolent?

 

[McBell]

Our knowledge of the Abrahamic God, which comes from the Bible, shows Him to be benevolent.

Only if you pick and choose those verses that support your theory and ignore the ones that do not.

How exactly does a world wide flood not slap your theory of complete benevolence square in the face?

 

[rojse]

I believe it was you, Rojse, who started this thread? You asked why is it assumed that God is benevolent, and the question was answered in a variety of ways. The general opinion, though, was that nobody wants to believe in a malevolent God. True enough. But what we would like to be true, and truth itself, are very different things.

I started the thread, yes, but only to ascertain the reasoning behind this presumption. I believe I have some idea of why this is because of the responses in this thread, and I done my best to thank those who originally addressed the OP.

The arguments regarding whether God is benevolent or God is malevolent is of little interest to me - I don't believe in God, nor do I agree with the personification of a being far more complex than humans and humanity. If God exists, God is... well, God. Claiming that you know anything more than this is merely giving yourself airs. Trying to put behaviours on God is pointless, except that it temporarily satisfies the person doing it.

I see no point of an argument where both sides have made their own mind up and are unwilling to consider the alternative proposition - both people are wasting their time, and no-one will ever win that sort of argument.

 

[rojse]

There are 51 pages on this thread. Has anything related to the following been discussed yet:

Free will is linked to evil. In order to have free will, we need to be able to make choices, good or bad.

Not that I agree or disagree with this reasoning. It was put up near the start, back when people were actually answering the OP, not arguing about the benevolence/malevolence of God.

 

[cottage]

I started the thread, yes, but only to ascertain the reasoning behind this presumption. I believe I have some idea of why this is because of the responses in this thread, and I done my best to thank those who originally addressed the OP.

The arguments regarding whether God is benevolent or God is malevolent is of little interest to me - I don't believe in God, nor do I agree with the personification of a being far more complex than humans and humanity. If God exists, God is... well, God. Claiming that you know anything more than this is merely giving yourself airs. Trying to put behaviours on God is pointless, except that it temporarily satisfies the person doing it.

You say God is God and we cannot know any more than this. Well, that's not quite correct, for we know that God (if he exists) is the Creator, and that he is omnipotent, or at least sufficiently powerful to cause the universe to exist. We also know that while we are contingent beings, God if he exists, is necessarily existent and immutable. We 'know' these things not because we 'have airs' or claim to have a special understanding denied to others, but because they are true by definition - and, crucially, it is the defintion that believers and sceptics agree on.

But, the defintion apart, people also have their opinions. And that includes yours: '...nor do I agree with the personification of a being far more complex than humans and humanity.' That is your opinion (which I happen to disagree with); but you are certainly entitled to hold that view I don't for a moment believe that it gives you 'airs'.

I see no point of an argument where both sides have made their own mind up and are unwilling to consider the alternative proposition - both people are wasting their time, and no-one will ever win that sort of argument.

I really cannot see why you are complaining. To ask why God is thought of as benevolent invites the question of whether God is benevolent. And I'm a little puzzled that you see the philosophy of religion as something to be won, or that people are wasting their time debating one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theological arguments ever.

 

[cottage]

There are 51 pages on this thread. Has anything related to the following been discussed yet:

"Cottage: First point: What God has set in place is what exists. For nothing - nothing exists but what God causes and conserves. If humans create anything independent of, or in opposition to the deity, then plainly God is not the omnipotent Creator."

 

[rojse]

You say God is God and we cannot know any more than this. Well, that's not quite correct, for we know that God (if he exists) is the Creator, and that he is omnipotent, or at least sufficiently powerful to cause the universe to exist. We also know that while we are contingent beings, God if he exists, is necessarily existent and immutable. We 'know' these things not because we 'have airs' or claim to have a special understanding denied to others, but because they are true by definition - and, crucially, it is the defintion that believers and sceptics agree on.

If we go with the presumption that God exists, we don't know if God is omnipotent. In fact, there are many deities who are not omnipotent. We don't know if he caused the universe to exist, because there are many gods who did not cause the universe to exist. In fact, all of those statements seem to be presumptions that seem to stem from Catholic theology.

But, the defintion apart, people also have their opinions. And that includes yours: '...nor do I agree with the personification of a being far more complex than humans and humanity.' That is your opinion (which I happen to disagree with); but you are certainly entitled to hold that view I don't for a moment believe that it gives you 'airs'.

I can see why God might be viewed as simple; many of God's followers do their best to try and make it seem so.

I suppose if you wish to view God as a projection of the ideals of his followers, God could be viewed as quite simple, but I do not suspect you were viewing God in that manner.

I really cannot see why you are complaining. To ask why God is thought of as benevolent invites the question of whether God is benevolent. And I'm a little puzzled that you see the philosophy of religion as something to be won, or that people are wasting their time debating one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theological arguments ever.

The question of why there is a presumption of the benevolence of God was the OP. Whether God is benevolent or not is irrelevant to that question. If someone stated "I believe God is benevolent because of the Free Will argument", that would have addressed the OP. A clarification of the Free Will argument would have addressed anyone who did not know what the Free Will argument was at the time (such as myself when beginning this thread). The argument on whether the Free Will argument is a legitimate reason to assert God's benevolence would have been better-addressed in another thread.

The argument is pointless because no one here is willing to change their minds. I highly doubt anyone except myself and the participants are viewing this thread, so it does not have any meaning in regards to educating other readers of this debate. No one here is trying to consider the other point of view, so there is no point in that regard.

I would say the same thing if the two proponents were arguing about abortion, euthenasia, or who is the best sports player to ever have lived.

 

[cottage]

Free will is linked to evil. In order to have free will, we need to be able to make choices, good or bad.

Not that I agree or disagree with this reasoning. It was put up near the start, back when people were actually answering the OP, not arguing about the benevolence/malevolence of God.

While you may not agree or disagree with that reasoning, others are perfectly entitled to the views they've expressed on the subject. Mine being that free will isn't linked to evil necessarily, since no contradiction is implied in conceiving it devoid of evil. But I'm sorry, I can't see the point you are wanting to make here.

 

[rojse]

While you may not agree or disagree with that reasoning, others are perfectly entitled to the views they've expressed on the subject. Mine being that free will isn't linked to evil necessarily, since no contradiction is implied in conceiving it devoid of evil. But I'm sorry, I can't see the point you are wanting to make here.

TheMadHair was asking if his point had been addressed. I responded with a synopsis of the basic argument used previously, because I do not understand the argument fully enough to be able to go any deeper.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...do-most-people-assume-god-51.html#post1565322
You say God is God and we cannot know any more than this. Well, that's not quite correct, for we know that God (if he exists) is the Creator, and that he is omnipotent, or at least sufficiently powerful to cause the universe to exist. We also know that while we are contingent beings, God if he exists, is necessarily existent and immutable. We 'know' these things not because we 'have airs' or claim to have a special understanding denied to others, but because they are true by definition - and, crucially, it is the defintion that believers and sceptics agree on.



Rojse: If we go with the presumption that God exists, we don't know if God is omnipotent. In fact, there are many deities who are not omnipotent. We don't know if he caused the universe to exist, because there are many gods who did not cause the universe to exist. In fact, all of those statements seem to be presumptions that seem to stem from Catholic theology.
Far from going with the presumption that God exists, all my arguments are subject to the legend: if God exists. Secondly, if there is a God, an Absolutely Necessary Being there cannot be other gods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...do-most-people-assume-god-51.html#post1565322
I really cannot see why you are complaining. To ask why God is thought of as benevolent invites the question of whether God is benevolent. And I'm a little puzzled that you see the philosophy of religion as something to be won, or that people are wasting their time debating one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theological arguments ever.

Rojse: The question of why there is a presumption of the benevolence of God was the OP. Whether God is benevolent or not is irrelevant to that question. If someone stated "I believe God is benevolent because of the Free Will argument", that would have addressed the OP. A clarification of the Free Will argument would have addressed anyone who did not know what the Free Will argument was at the time (such as myself when beginning this thread). The argument on whether the Free Will argument is a legitimate reason to assert God's benevolence would have been better-addressed in another thread.

I am extremely interested in your response. You didn’t like some of the conclusions, and you were definitely looking for what you consider to be the right answer. In the above paragraph you’ve used the term ‘Free Will’ no less than four times. It is also noted that you give it special significance by use of capitalisation. The extent to which you consider free will to be the correct conclusion is made evident by the way you want to dismiss any criticism of it by waving it away, to be debated on another thread.
If the OP is asking ‘why there is a presumption of the benevolence of God’ it can only be because it isn’t clear that God is benevolent: ‘Why, when there is so much evil and suffering is God assumed to be benevolent?’ So, despite the free will defence that you so desperately wanted vindicated, it is perfectly legitimate to identify the contradiction that is evident in a loving God allowing evil, notwithstanding any apologetic justification.

Rojse: The argument is pointless because no one here is willing to change their minds. I highly doubt anyone except myself and the participants are viewing this thread, so it does not have any meaning in regards to educating other readers of this debate. No one here is trying to consider the other point of view, so there is no point in that regard.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? What, exactly, are we to change our minds to – accepting the free will defence, perhaps? And do people passionately argue over abortion, euthanasia, the nuclear deterrent, their political affiliation or anything else and then, suddenly, after a few exchanges, say ‘Now I’ve changed my mind!’ And it is nonsense to say nobody is considering the other’s point of view. One can’t develop or construct an argument without considering an adversary’s position. And I have to be honest with you, what you say here on this particular point doesn’t carry much weight because you’ve made it plain that you have your own fixed point of view.

 

[rojse]

Quote:Far from going with the presumption that God exists, all my arguments are subject to the legend: if God exists. Secondly, if there is a God, an Absolutely Necessary Being there cannot be other gods.

Sorry about missing that "if". That was quite careless - I usually try to be more careful with other's semantics.

There are many other religious mythologies besides Christianity, and few of them have such rigid views regarding Godhood. A lot of older religions have a pantheon of gods.

I am extremely interested in your response. You didn’t like some of the conclusions, and you were definitely looking for what you consider to be the right answer. In the above paragraph you’ve used the term ‘Free Will’ no less than four times. It is also noted that you give it special significance by use of capitalisation. The extent to which you consider free will to be the correct conclusion is made evident by the way you want to dismiss any criticism of it by waving it away, to be debated on another thread.

No correct (or incorrect) conclusion at all. I was quite interested in the responses, except when this thread became a "free will versus omnipotent God", because that was not what this thread was intended for (see, I can use lower-case too)

I am interested in what people think about this question, not whether this relates to my opinion (being an atheist), and as such, there is no "right argument" or "wrong argument". As a matter of fact, if I were theistic, I would have to ask some serious questions before I would presume God is benevolent. But that is irrelevant - it's why theists presume the benevolence of God.

Some of the other posters presented the "free will" argument in the context of this thread, and not having encountered it before, made some impression on me. I gave this as an example to support my post, since it was by far the most prevalent response, and thought it formal theological proof (deserving of capitals, regardless of my personal opinions of said proof).

If the OP is asking ‘why there is a presumption of the benevolence of God’ it can only be because it isn’t clear that God is benevolent: ‘Why, when there is so much evil and suffering is God assumed to be benevolent?’ So, despite the free will defence that you so desperately wanted vindicated, it is perfectly legitimate to identify the contradiction that is evident in a loving God allowing evil, notwithstanding any apologetic justification.

I am an atheist. I have no view that I wish vindicated. I merely wanted to see where the initial presumption of benevolence came from.I believe that the variety of responses I received gives me some idea of this.

Why do you expect people to change their minds? What, exactly, are we to change our minds to – accepting the free will defence, perhaps? And do people passionately argue over abortion, euthanasia, the nuclear deterrent, their political affiliation or anything else and then, suddenly, after a few exchanges, say ‘Now I’ve changed my mind!’

Perhaps I did not get my point across as well as I would like. When I post on here, I like to view the support for an alternative viewpoint. I disagree with capital punishment, for example, but the responses that argue against me interest me far more than my own do or those that are similar to my own. I know what I think, I know the logic behind it, but I want to see what and why others think the way they do.

And it is nonsense to say nobody is considering the other’s point of view.

Have you heard the theory that when you are having a discussion with someone else, you use the time that they are talking to think about what you are going to say next? I see it vindicated every day (sometimes by myself).

One can’t develop or construct an argument without considering an adversary’s position. And I have to be honest with you, what you say here on this particular point doesn’t carry much weight because you’ve made it plain that you have your own fixed point of view.

My fixed point of view: if God exists, he hasn't seen fit to reveal himself to me, so all theological arguments are irrelevant, except to see why theists believe the conclusions of their arguments, in order to learn more about theism.

BTW, can you please break up your arguments by copying the arguer's open quote(quote=cottage;1565359) and the close quote (\quote), (use square brackets, obviously) and inserting where you wish to make comments? Makes it much easier to have an extended discussion such as this, and a lot neater, too.

 

[cottage]

Sorry about missing that "if". That was quite careless - I usually try to be more careful with other's semantics.

There are many other religious mythologies besides Christianity, and few of them have such rigid views regarding Godhood. A lot of older religions have a pantheon of gods.

Sure. My point was that if we're arguing about theism, then there are no other gods.


No correct (or incorrect) conclusion at all. I was quite interested in the responses, except when this thread became a "free will versus omnipotent God", because that was not what this thread was intended for (see, I can use lower-case too)

So you wanted to steer the discussion in a particular direction (free will), to the exclusion of other conclusions? If free will is an answer then it is one that legitimately poses other questions.

I am interested in what people think about this question, not whether this relates to my opinion (being an atheist), and as such, there is no "right argument" or "wrong argument". As a matter of fact, if I were theistic, I would have to ask some serious questions before I would presume God is benevolent. But that is irrelevant - it's why theists presume the benevolence of God.

Yes, precisely - why assume God is benevolent? Why make that assumption in the face of the evidence? Cue the Inconsistent Triad!

Some of the other posters presented the "free will" argument in the context of this thread, and not having encountered it before, made some impression on me. I gave this as an example to support my post, since it was by far the most prevalent response, and thought it formal theological proof (deserving of capitals, regardless of my personal opinions of said proof).



I am an atheist. I have no view that I wish vindicated. I merely wanted to see where the initial presumption of benevolence came from.I believe that the variety of responses I received gives me some idea of this.



Perhaps I did not get my point across as well as I would like. When I post on here, I like to view the support for an alternative viewpoint. I disagree with capital punishment, for example, but the responses that argue against me interest me far more than my own do or those that are similar to my own. I know what I think, I know the logic behind it, but I want to see what and why others think the way they do.

Okay.



Have you heard the theory that when you are having a discussion with someone else, you use the time that they are talking to think about what you are going to say next? I see it vindicated every day (sometimes by myself).

I have an entirely different approach, one that I've used now for several years. I don't generally do instant responses. I work on the other person's argument to see how it can be developed before I give my reply.



My fixed point of view: if God exists, he hasn't seen fit to reveal himself to me, so all theological arguments are irrelevant, except to see why theists believe the conclusions of their arguments, in order to learn more about theism.

The fixed point of view I referred to was the one of wanting, or expecting, contributors to restrict their views to the free will defence. It is not implied that you have a religious or mystical belief.

BTW, can you please break up your arguments by copying the arguer's open quote(quote=cottage;1565359) and the close quote (\quote), (use square brackets, obviously) and inserting where you wish to make comments? Makes it much easier to have an extended discussion such as this, and a lot neater, too.

Because I have to be in front of this computer, the majority of posts I copy and paste, and then save into Word. This is so that throughout the day I can jump backwards from work to play. The quote thing doesn't seem to work when I do that. Unless of course I'm doing something wrong?

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Mystical beliefs aren't truths.

Sojourner: They are if they're true.
So the matter is easily settled then, isn’t it? Please demonstrate the truth of your claim?

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

Sojourner: 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.
‘Sometimes’! Then my point is well made!

Quote:
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'.

Sojourner: Look here:
Quote:
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.

Sojourner: Like you think God should have created us to be those things.
I’m saying the very opposite! Please read the highlighted part again and pay special attention to the words ‘must fall short of’. Also, I suggest you read your own words that triggered the response. I referred to your example of God’s watered down benevolence, in which you said he surrounds us with our peers. So I made the point that we necessarily fall short of omni-benevolence and omnipotence (by definition, since humans are contingent), for it is only God who can be those things. It follows therefore that we cannot receive the benefit of God’s supposed omnipotent and pluralistic benevolence when it is limited to human ministrations.

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

Sojourner: 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.
Actually, it has nothing whatever to do with what I want God to do. I was referring to your own words, when you said: ‘love and goodness prevail’. If goodness is merely prevailing then it cannot be universal and total, obviously!




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

Sojourner: It's not a false argument, as long as evil remains one of the choices we can make.
That doesn’t address what I’ve said above. If it remains as one the choices we have to make then that leads us straight back to the Inconsistent Triad, ie, God is unable, unaware or unwilling.

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

Sojourner: 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.
Okay, have your love by all means, but don’t tell me that love cannot exist without evil and suffering.

Quote:
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.

Sojourner: 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.
This is wrong. You keep arguing from nature and the material world as if God’s omnipotence is curtailed or obligated to it in someway. The world didn’t exist until God created it. And as it wasn’t incumbent upon God to cause the world to exist, it cannot be incumbent upon him to cause anything within it. He did, though, and therefore he is implicated.

Sojourner: 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.
That surreal statement of yours amuses me: ‘forcing people to live in harmony’.
Were we to conduct a straw poll, inviting the peoples of the world to say whether they would rather live harmoniously with their neighbours, with an end to all conflict and bloodshed, or keep the status quo, I’m certain their combined voices would call for the former alternative.
I may read study what I like; marry if I wish; eat and drink according to my needs; make my views known, whether they be subjective or objective; share what I have with others; enjoy my hobbies; own a pet; love my family. None of those things are made impossible by the deletion of pain and suffering.
And this ‘relationship’ with God doesn’t make complete sense – actually, it doesn’t make any sense at all! It is nonsensical to say God created us to love us. For we know that God, the Necessary Being, is all-sufficient and doesn’t have needs, and so the very idea of him craving love from his created dependents is comical and absurd. Nor can it be said that we humans are the beneficiaries of this love, for as formerly non-existent beings how could we be better off by being brought into existence. I invite you to explain how existence superior to non-existence?

 

[cottage]

Quote:
It's just a belief!

Sojourner: 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.
My dispute with you is that you say things as if they were a truth, when they are not. (Neither ‘God exists’ nor ‘There is no God’ are demonstrably true.) But I think your remark: ‘But don’t dis the rest of us for holding them and striving for meaning and improvement’ is out of order. You’ve no cause whatsoever for saying such a thing.


Quote:
for reasons that should be self-apparent.

Sojourner: 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?
What’s with this ‘wallowing’, and the hand-wringing ‘why did God allow this to happen?’ Such emotional (and irrational) stuff forms no part of my argument at all. The difference between us is that you argue for the God of religion while I’m arguing disinterestedly for a possible God.


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

Sojourner: How is it nonsense?
I wrote: ‘God created us, and prior to that we were non-existent and felt nothing. And we felt nothing because we were nothing.’ I then asked how that which is non-existent could benefit from anything? So, therefore, it is nonsense to say it is better to feel pain than to feel nothing.


Quote:
if a thing is true it cannot be contradictory.

Sojourner: 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.
This is just denial of the meaning ‘benevolence’. We can all conceive of a perfectly good God presiding over our world in which there is no pain and suffering. There is no contradiction or any other absurdity involved in that conception. Such a God would be benevolent in accordance with the proper understanding of the term, whereas your God, by your own admission, is instrumental in the way suffering occurs.

Sojourner: 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.
I’m disappointed that your responses have become rather intemperate and now seem to be focussed on me personally, rather than on what I have to say. Can I make this absolutely plain: I respect your right to your faith, and I am aware that people derive great comfort from their beliefs. Now as a sceptic I may be entirely wrong in my arguments, or I may be correct. But, where I see you, or anyone else, speaking patent nonsense or referring to an incoherent belief as the truth, then as an everyday, knowledge-seeking human being, I’m obliged to take those nonsense statements to task.



Quote:
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.

Sojourner: 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.
It would be better if you were to concentrate on the arguments, instead of putting words in my mouth or presuming to say what I would or would not do. And if a thing is to be taken on faith, may I ask how you propose to show it to me? If an atheist said he could show you God doesn’t exist is true, but his non-existence must be taken on faith, you would rightly chide him for uttering such nonsense. Where then lies the difference?


Quote:
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?

Sojourner: 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.
Okay, we’re not ‘generally capable of recognising God’s purpose’ and ‘we cannot step outside ourselves’ to establish what this purpose is. So…that being the case, how do you know suffering serves God’s ‘good purpose’? Seems to me to be an outlandish example of begging the question.
Sojourner: 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.
No, suffering in this case is defined as bad because it has no logical necessity and it is unnecessary, unless of course you wanted to say God had to cause it? And ‘God will not remove the capacity to suffer (knowing God’s mind now are we?) because that would limit us’ actually has the effect of limiting God! I’m sure you will come to the same conclusion after a bit more thought. BTW, how come it is me defending God all the time, while you insist upon weakening him? :yes:

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey Rojse...
500+ postings and now you fess up your motivation for post#1.
I suppose that's alright.
As an atheist, you might have a casual curiosity for religion.
Debate with believers will strengthen you stance as 'proving' is word play at best.

But if you really are an atheist...why do you bother?
Inciting a lengthy discussion is all fine and good...when seeking resolve.
Where conflicting ideas come together...some surrender is expected...one way or the other.

You however...have just confessed...it doesn't really matter to you.
You are not interested in changing your mind.
So why did you bother?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Not to speak for anyone else but this is an answer.

Religion or more specifically the belief in “god(s)” is a source of much conflict and evil in the world; and has been for thousands of years. We continue this conflict even though there is little evidence that belief is god(s) is justified. So the evil that these beliefs inspire continues.

These discussions bring to light the powerful arguments against these ancient superstitions. To that extend they may serve to weaken the belief in god(s) and/or supernatural religion. And in some degree they HAVE.

I would argue that the history of Western Civ for the past 1,000 is largely the history of two changes; the steady erosion of belief in supernatural religion as a controlling force in society and the equally steady decline in the power and privilege of the few. And I would argue those trends are NOT unrelated.

We have become more caring about our fellows in the same proportion as we have become less god-fearing.

It’s a good thing.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...okay Omar
I really can see...that a reduction of religion would reduce conflict.
Without the premise...I'm a servant....and you're not.....there would be a lot less tension between cultures and men.

But without religion, there is little restraint when dealing with your fellow man to your own advantage.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you....Could be taught as a social axiom.
But that I have faith, takes that axiom to the next level up.
I WILL be dealt with...as I have dealt with others.

The Angels wait patiently to do so.

 

[sojourner]

There are 51 pages on this thread. Has anything related to the following been discussed yet:

Just because God knows about it, doesn't mean that god determines it.