Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Imagist]

Let me guess...you haven't read the thread, have you? This argument was tried several pages ago. It didn't wash then, either.

Let me guess... you actually expect me to read 58 pages of thread to find the one post where you supposedly refuted this? Link or repost, or it didn't happen.

In what way? God is love. Love is a relationship.

No, it isn't. Here are the definitions, neither of which includes the other.

I have relationships with people I don't love (my boss, my tax accountant).

I love people and things which with I don't have a relationship (my president, my country, my guitar).

And this has...what...to do with our relationship with God? What is it that you think battered women are in denial over?

Just as battered women often think that their husbands still love them, you seem to think that your god cares about you and other people.

How do you know that God has not been kind to them in the face of natural disaster?

God created the natural disaster which displaced and/or killed them. What kindness exactly could this god of yours done to make up for that?

And this is cogent...how?
One would think that better arguments could be posited...

God, if he exists, is a provable mass-murderer. The fact that he's nice to you and your friends doesn't prove he's a nice guy.

In other news: your responses so far have been:

1. Read 58 pages! I refuted this somewhere!
2. I can't believe you actually disagree with me!
3. Your argument is wrong, I'm just not going to refute it.

Unless you start coming up with actual attempts at refutations for my points, I have no choice but to conclude that you have no intention of discussing in good faith.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Unless you start coming up with actual attempts at refutations for my points, I have no choice but to conclude that you have no intention of discussing in good faith."

Well that's not quite fair. He has tried to meet Cottage's arguments (see #389 ff) but the best he has is the old 'free will' canard. We create evil and a benevolent god helps us deal with it.

Kinda like, "Go play in traffic and when you get hit I'll come over and kiss it and make it all better."

I really think there is significance in the fact that so many of these religionists call themselves "the children of god."

 

[Imagist]

I intentionally used natural disasters to avoid the free will argument. Human free will did not cause the hurricane that displaced that child, or the earthquake that killed that woman and child.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I intentionally used natural disasters to avoid the free will argument. Human free will did not cause the hurricane that displaced that child, or the earthquake that killed that woman and child.

And he defines "Evil" so as to require intent. Natural disaster has no intent; hence not evil.

 

[Imagist]

And he defines "Evil" so as to require intent. Natural disaster has no intent; hence not evil.

So what exactly did god intend when he created hurricanes and earthquakes? That's like if I released a hungry tiger in an elementary school classroom and then claimed I didn't intend for any of the kids to get hurt.

Furthermore, the topic of discussion is benevolence. Benevolence requires more than just not being evil. A benevolent god not only wouldn't have created hurricanes and/or earthquakes, he would intervene to save people if they had already been created.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

So what exactly did god intend when he created hurricanes and earthquakes? That's like if I released a hungry tiger in an elementary school classroom and then claimed I didn't intend for any of the kids to get hurt.

Like I said, "Go play in traffic . . . "

 

[Imagist]

Like I said, "Go play in traffic . . . "

The difference is that most concepts of gods don't tell their followers to put themselves in harms way. However, most concepts of gods (at least creator gods) released hurricanes and earthquakes on the populace.

 

[sojourner]

Let me guess... you actually expect me to read 58 pages of thread to find the one post where you supposedly refuted this?

Yes, I do! I have.
Especially with the attitude you've presented here. Do your own research.

No, it isn't. Here are the definitions, neither of which includes the other.

Too picayune.

I have relationships with people I don't love (my boss, my tax accountant).

So?

I love people and things which with I don't have a relationship (my president, my country, my guitar).

English is abysmally inadequate when it comes to language for love. You can't take a general term and say that it only means one kind of relationship, when it can mean other kinds of relationships.

God doesn't love us in the same way that we love egg salad.

Just as battered women often think that their husbands still love them, you seem to think that your god cares about you and other people.

Your problem is that you seem to be operating under the delusion that God abuses us. god does not. Hence, the reference is not cogent to the argument.

God created the natural disaster which displaced and/or killed them. What kindness exactly could this god of yours done to make up for that?

God didn't create it. The weather created it. (BTW, this is the same weather that provides sun and rain for growing things, so that we can eat and survive. I'd call that "good" and "kind.")

God, if he exists, is a provable mass-murderer.

Prove it.
Ya can't.
God does exist, and God is a mass-Lover of souls.

The fact that he's nice to you and your friends doesn't prove he's a nice guy.

The fact that God doesn't "live up" to your petty expectations of proof doesn't prove anything. Least of all that God is a mass-murderer.

In other news: your responses so far have been:

1. Read 58 pages! I refuted this somewhere!
2. I can't believe you actually disagree with me!
3. Your argument is wrong, I'm just not going to refute it.

Unless you start coming up with actual attempts at refutations for my points, I have no choice but to conclude that you have no intention of discussing in good faith.

News flash: So far, your responses have been:
1) I don't wanna do my homework!
2) I can't believe everyone doesn't think God is abusive.
3) Your argument is a fairy-tale, but I'm not going to prove that it is.

Unless you start coming up with actual attempts at refutations for my points, I have no choice but to conclude that you have no intention of discussing in good faith.

Your points arent' worth the effort to engage in any in-depth debate. Perhaps if your tone weren't so obviously condescending, or if I felt you actually wanted to learn something, rather than than just take self-righteous cheap-shots ... but as it is? Nah.

 

[sojourner]

Kinda like, "Go play in traffic and when you get hit I'll come over and kiss it and make it all better."

I really think there is significance in the fact that so many of these religionists call themselves "the children of god."

I suppose you'd prefer that we didn't have legs to get us into the traffic -- or motorized transportation, for that matter. Because that's the alternative. (BTW, God didn't invent motorized transportation. We did. To make our lives better. Guess we don't know it all!

Better to be a child of God than a master of rampant skepticism.

 

[sojourner]

So what exactly did god intend when he created hurricanes and earthquakes?

Weather. What did you think?

That's like if I released a hungry tiger in an elementary school classroom and then claimed I didn't intend for any of the kids to get hurt.

No, it's more like if a child wanders into the enclosure of a hungry tiger. We would expect the child to be eaten. Stupid God! Giving that poor child legs with which to walk! Didn't God know that the kid would wander into the tiger cage, after all! It would be far more benevolent if children couldn't run and play. If they didn't have legs, they could just lay there all the time in their own filth. That would be better.
Such a waste of an argument.

Furthermore, the topic of discussion is benevolence. Benevolence requires more than just not being evil. A benevolent god not only wouldn't have created hurricanes and/or earthquakes, he would intervene to save people if they had already been created.

Nobody cares about your opinion of how God should act. You don't even believe in God.
This is a weak argument at the very best. At the worst it's an annoyance. What it really is, is an excuse.

 

[sojourner]

The difference is that most concepts of gods don't tell their followers to put themselves in harms way. However, most concepts of gods (at least creator gods) released hurricanes and earthquakes on the populace.

Which is precisely why his argument is poor. God doesn't tell us to put ourselves in harm's way. God created weather. Weather can be gentle, or it can be devastating. That's just how it is. If you don't like the weather, why are you complaining to a non-existent god? Why don't you complain to a real entity?

 

[McBell]

God does exist, and God is a mass-Lover of souls.

So the times he kills or orders others to kill for him are what, an off day for him?

Least of all that God is a mass-murderer.

I disagree.
The Flood comes to mind.

 

[sojourner]

So the times he kills or orders others to kill for him are what, an off day for him?


I disagree.
The Flood comes to mind.

These are Biblical arguments. There are several problems with using a Biblical argument.
First, the Bible was written by believers, for believers. A non-believer making an agnostic or atheistic argument from a Biblical stance is like a mechanic trying to repair a car with surgical instruments. They don't work in that context. Neither does a Biblical argument work in an atheistic context.

Second, the stories of God ordering death and the flood story are told from the perspective of the remnant that was saved, and told in an ancient context. You can't use the story from a point of advocacy for the "other side." Also, I'm fairly certain that if these stories of providence were told today, we wouldn't talk about God killing people.

Third, the stories are just that -- stories. They're not news articles. I'm not sure even the ancients took them as historical "fact." Especially not in the way we conceptualize historical fact.

To put it bluntly, your argument doesn't hold water for several reasons.

 

[McBell]

These are Biblical arguments. There are several problems with using a Biblical argument.
First, the Bible was written by believers, for believers. A non-believer making an agnostic or atheistic argument from a Biblical stance is like a mechanic trying to repair a car with surgical instruments. They don't work in that context. Neither does a Biblical argument work in an atheistic context.

Second, the stories of God ordering death and the flood story are told from the perspective of the remnant that was saved, and told in an ancient context. You can't use the story from a point of advocacy for the "other side." Also, I'm fairly certain that if these stories of providence were told today, we wouldn't talk about God killing people.

Third, the stories are just that -- stories. They're not news articles. I'm not sure even the ancients took them as historical "fact." Especially not in the way we conceptualize historical fact.

To put it bluntly, your argument doesn't hold water for several reasons.

So are you claiming that God did not flood the whole earth or order his followers to kill off an entire village like it says he did in the Bible?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So are you claiming that God did not flood the whole earth or order his followers to kill off an entire village like it says he did in the Bible?

Hey, it's a metaphor, except for when it isn't.

 

[sojourner]

So are you claiming that God did not flood the whole earth or order his followers to kill off an entire village like it says he did in the Bible?

Yes. I'm claiming that God didn't really do those things. They're stories. Not news articles.

 

[sojourner]

Hey, it's a metaphor, except for when it isn't.

Who told you!

 

[McBell]

Yes. I'm claiming that God didn't really do those things. They're stories. Not news articles.

So how do you decide which is which?

 

[sojourner]

So how do you decide which is which?

By engaging in some serious literary criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and historical criticism.

The texts look like, act like, read like, and are treated like allegory. Some of them also bear great resemblance to earlier myth-writings of cultures that are close at hand.

 

[themadhair]

We changed the direction of motion.

Care to elaborate?

It's a simple idea and I may not be communicating it properly. Let me try another method of expressing it.

Under Newtonian mechanics it was believed by some that if you knew exact state of the universe you could calculate any future state (this actually false due to Newtonian mechanics being non-deterministic but bear with the analogy). If god was omnipotent then it would know the current state of the universe and, in a ‘similar’ way to the above, be able to calculate all its future states.

Here is the problem – god, if it was a creator, set up the first state. God choose that initial state for the universe, and in doing so predetermined the future states of the universe (since god could make that calculation). This renders free will an illusion.

The reason I bring this up is because free will is often used as an argument to defend god’s benevolence. The way I see it, free will cannot be compatible with an omnipotent creator.