Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[idea]

According to your superstition. WHY should any be bound to some behaviour - let alone killed - because you believe some foolish myth?

It is not a superstition, nor a myth. Our behaviours, actions, thoughts, hearts - it is about progressing, growing, living - eternal life. Life is something that grows. Following God is the only way to grow, everything else is circular wastes of time.

 

[idea]

And those quotations apply to men - or to God, an all-sufficient and omnipotent being?

God has self-control. Why would He not? He does not ask us to do anything that He has not done Himself.

 

[themadhair]

"If an omnipotent god were to create a person " that's the prob right there. God did not create us. He transforms those who want to be something more than they currently are.

The argument still holds whether you call it ‘create’ or ‘transform’. How can you not see that???

 

[OmarKhayyam]

It is not a superstition, nor a myth. Our behaviours, actions, thoughts, hearts - it is about progressing, growing, living - eternal life. Life is something that grows. Following God is the only way to grow, everything else is circular wastes of time.

And your evidence for these assertions is . . . ?

 

[rojse]

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.

Again, I was after the response of theists posting here. Free will was the most predominant response. To have an expectation of what the answer would be before I get it would defeat the purpose of creating a thread.

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

I didn't know the answer, I got a variety of answers from this thread, as that was what I wrote the OP to solicit. I thought I had made this clear.

 

[rojse]

Thief here...Hey Rojse...
500+ postings and now you fess up your motivation for post#1.

My motivation was to see the variety of answers I would get with the OP question:

Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

How could I could make the motive of this thread clearer, Thief?

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?

I was interested in theist's responses to the question of why there is a presumption of benevolence. It often occured in debates and I did not know why this was so. I was not interested in debating whether these ideas were correct or not.

 

[McBell]

And your evidence for these assertions is . . . ?

Watch out for that Merry-Go-Round!!!

 

[free spirit]

Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

Because they know that the Devil is malevolent

 

[fantome profane]

Because they know that the Devil is malevolent

There isn't any devil, there is only god when he is drunk.

 

[OpenYourEyes]

God has self-control. Why would He not? He does not ask us to do anything that He has not done Himself.

Yeah. He just creates situations to unnecessarily test the humans HE created with prior knowledge of their own capabilities and weaknesses. (i.e. Satan and the Tree of Knowledge)

 

[Thief]

Thief here...are we having fun yet?
Perhaps there is consequence for what we say about an all powerful...
jealous....narcissistic...vengeful...domineering....judgmental....GOD!

 

[Enoch07]

"Of course those that died in the flood would disagree. They were evil. If they were not evil themselves there were indifferent to evil. Which is not much better, some would say it is worse. "

And here is a stark example of what I mean.


EVIL MEN - defined by those who believe in a certain god - are to be destroyed ASAP.

And the survivors will be the better for it.

This how we get 9/11. Exactly this "I'm right and good and god-fearing and you are wrong and an evil heathen fit only for the fire of purification" attitude that flourishes with the belief in supernatural religion.

Except you conveniently forgot that it was men who attacked on 9/11. Men that supposedly defined americans as evil, then attacked.

Where the flood is concerned, God defined the people as evil men, then destroyed them. God does not guess, like man has to. That is the difference.

Try not skipping facts next time.

 

[cottage]

Except you conveniently forgot that it was men who attacked on 9/11. Men that supposedly defined americans as evil, then attacked.

Where the flood is concerned, God defined the people as evil men, then destroyed them. God does not guess, like man has to. That is the difference.

And let us not forget that God's definition of evil happens to include unbelief! Hardly the very apex of the moral high ground, is it?

 

[cottage]

God has self-control. Why would He not? He does not ask us to do anything that He has not done Himself.

God keeping himself in check! <g>

By very definition the term 'self-control' is an absurdity when applied to God, for to use such a term implies the possibility of a contrary position, which is a contradiction if he is the Necessary Being.

 

[cottage]

It is not a superstition, nor a myth. Our behaviours, actions, thoughts, hearts - it is about progressing, growing, living - eternal life. Life is something that grows. Following God is the only way to grow, everything else is circular wastes of time.

With respect, it is superstition, a mystical belief. I certainly accept that for some people it may very well be a way of understanding the world. And it may even be true that it helps them to progress and grow. But the statement 'Following God is the only way to grow...' is isn't a truth, not demonstrably or in experience. It is just a belief.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey everyone...
This reality cannot exist without restraint on God's part.
Creation is an act of self denial.
Once the 'item' is in motion...tampering....changes the nature of it.

There has been denial.
The flood you have mentioned...changed the 'natural' course of Man's progress.
So did the events in Chapter Two of Genesis.
So forth and so on.

Interfering....changes everything....but does so in quick gestures.
Like throwing one seed into a fertile field...knowing the result...if you do nothing...for centuries.

I suspect restraint...in this thread...is being mistaken for benevolence.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Except you conveniently forgot that it was men who attacked on 9/11. Men that supposedly defined americans as evil, then attacked.

Where the flood is concerned, God defined the people as evil men, then destroyed them. God does not guess, like man has to. That is the difference.

Try not skipping facts next time.

No, some men wrote that god called these people evil.

Just as some men said god called some people evil on 9/11. Allegedly the SAME god.

Try not skipping facts next time.

 

[sojourner]

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?

This is absurd. Your posts are ponderous. You're thinking everything to death. Do you not see that we do crave the status quo? Do you not see that the conflicts we have are constructed in order to maintain the status quo? To give up the status quo is to give up our comfort zone.
You may marry whom you like, but what if you marry an abuser, and then suffer at the hands of your spouse? If there were no possibility of suffering, you might not be allowed to marry whom you wish.
You don't understand relationship. That much is very, very apparent by your posts. Your thinking is very independent. But if God is love, then a relationship must exist, because love is a relationship. And that relationship demands that one make room for the other. That is precisely why God limited God's Self when God created humanity: We needed a voice and a say in the relationship. If not for us, God could not be who God is: Creator. For Creator is not Creator if there is no creation.
We are better off for being brought into being. Only if we are created, can we love. I don't understand how anyone could argue that non-existence would be better for us. That's completely absurd, first of all because it's a non-argument. We do exist. Secondly, because it would completely negate any reason for being. And if there were no reason for being, we wouldn't need to even entertain the question of whether or not we'd be better off not-existing.
Your arguments, while perhaps mildly entertaining, are absolutely pointless. This is nothing more than argument for the sake of argument. It has not enlightened anyone here, and has done nothing more than muddy the waters of the OP.
God is benevolent, because we who are tuned in to God, believe God to be benevolent. It's that simple. If the relationship is there (and it is), then we do have a say in that relationship. And we say that God is benevolent.
You can call it circular logic all you want to, but you'll be yelling red-faced, trying to get someone to listen to you. God is kind. God has been nothing but kind to me, and to everyone I've ever met.
I'm really tired of being drug into quasi-intellectual discussions that end up with absurdities like "would we really be better off as non-creations."
To finally answer the OP, most people assume that God is benevolent because that is the experience most folks have in their relationship with God.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"God is benevolent, because we who are tuned in to God, believe God to be benevolent. It's that simple. If the relationship is there (and it is), then we do have a say in that relationship. And we say that God is benevolent."

Its this way because I say its this way.

Still carrying that extra overcoat I see.

 

[Enoch07]

No, some men wrote that god called these people evil.
Just as some men said god called some people evil on 9/11. Allegedly the SAME god.

Try not skipping facts next time.

Haha nice try at twisting it around. Did men cause the flood? No. God did. Why? Because God saw that they was evil. So he whacked em! Men had nothing to do with the decision of the flood.

As for 9/11. Men decided some people was evil, then attacked them. You think evil people can't lie?!?!?!?!? I mean mass murder is one thing, but surely they would not stoop so low as to lie! If you really believe they did it because God said so. Then you have responded to terrorism just the way they wanted you to.