Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Imagist]

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

Reading 58 pages to get to one post is a very poor research-to-learning ratio, and is not worth the time.

Too picayune.

Sorry, just because you used the word "picayune" doesn't mean you get to redefine the words to make them less picayune. Words sometimes have trivial meanings.

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.

No, "love" isn't the same thing as "a relationship". That was my entire point. If you insist on using the terms as equivalents, then you aren't speaking English and one of us will have to learn the other's language before we can continue this conversation.

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

True. He loves us in the same way that Hitler loved Germans; he killed a bunch of them.

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.

I've given two examples of abuse. Can you please explain to me how releasing hurricanes and earthquakes on us is not abusive?

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.")

It's true that the weather does good things, but you can't just credit god with the good things and ignore the bad things.

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

I already have. God created weather, both good AND BAD weather, and released it, including the bad weather, on the world.

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.

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.

Actually, my arguments have been:

1) I am not going to waste my time attempting to refute arguments that you won't present.
2) God has created many natural phenomenon that kill and harm humanity, and therefore is not benevolent, at least toward those who are killed by his creations.
3) Furthermore, even if you claim that god didn't create those things, a benevolent god would intervene to save people from them because it would be effortless for him to do so.

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.

I have been nothing but civil to you. If you feel that anything I have said so far has been a cheap shot, please point it out.

 

[Imagist]

Weather. What did you think?

I was just feeding the tiger! What did you think I was doing?

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.

So you're saying that people intentionally got their homes destroyed by the hurricane? Or that they just walked into that earthquake? You're blaming the natural disasters on the victims?

 

[Imagist]

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?

I don't complain to god. I merely am pointing out that if your god exists, you're certainly wrong about him being benevolent.

 

[Willamena]

So you're saying that people intentionally got their homes destroyed by the hurricane? Or that they just walked into that earthquake? You're blaming the natural disasters on the victims?

How do you jump to these very unlikely analogies? They seem to go way off the mark.

 

[Imagist]

How do you jump to these very unlikely analogies? They seem to go way off the mark.

My understanding was this:

Imagist: God isn't benevolent; he kills people with earthquakes and hurricanes.

sojourner: God isn't to be blamed for hurricane or earthquake victims.

Imagist: So it's okay that he released hurricanes and earthquakes on the world? That would be like releasing a hungry tiger into a classroom full of kids. It's obvious that the hurricane/earthquake/tiger is going to kill people, and those deaths are the fault of whoever releases it.

sojourner: No, it's just weather. More like if a kid wanders into a tiger cage.

Imagist: So you think that it's the hurricane/earthquake victims' fault?

Where did I miss the mark?

 

[Willamena]

Where did I miss the mark?

sojourner: "God" made the weather. The weather can be good or bad, but suggesting that "God" not "release hurricanes and earthquakes on the world" is like suggesting that "God" cut off the legs of a child because those legs just might bring the child to harm.

It seems to me an incredible leap to:
Imagist: So you think that it's the hurricane/earthquake victims' fault?

 

[Imagist]

sojourner: "God" made the weather. The weather can be good or bad, but suggesting that "God" not "release hurricanes and earthquakes on the world" is like suggesting that "God" cut off the legs of a child because those legs just might bring the child to harm.

It seems to me an incredible leap to:
Imagist: So you think that it's the hurricane/earthquake victims' fault?

That's not the part of what sojourner said that I was responding to. I was responding to where he said:

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

... (snipped, he split my post up a bit) ...

No, it's more like if a child wanders into the enclosure of a hungry tiger. We would expect the child to be eaten.

 

[Willamena]

That's not the part of what sojourner said that I was responding to. I was responding to where he said:

That's the same post I referenced, except, it would seem, that you read only one line out of context.

 

[Imagist]

That's the same post I referenced, except, it would seem, that you read only one line out of context.

What about the context would change what was said?

 

[cottage]

Sojourner: This is absurd. Your posts are ponderous.
It is true that my responses are lengthy, and that is because I endeavour to answer every point that has been made to me as fully as possible.
You're thinking everything to death. Do you not see that we do crave the status quo?
Tell that to folk who have terminal cancer, and then tell it to their nearest and dearest! People don’t ‘crave’ their pain and wretchedness, but wish for a better world.
Sojourner: 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.
The above is yet another delightful example of question begging (the fallacy where the assumed premise appears again in the conclusion). You are calling upon the existence of suffering in order to justify suffering.

Sojourner: You don't understand relationship. That much is very, very apparent by your posts.
And you very obviously are unable to distinguish between argument and a speculative belief.
Sojourner: 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.
Above anything else, love is about care and concern for the loved. A ‘relationship’ where one party suffers because the other has imposed conditions isn’t a loving relationship but an arrangement that serves the dominant. The self-contradiction apart, the very notion of God limiting himself is disproved by the one sided relationship where humans love God and God lets them suffer in return. And I’ve never in my life heard such nonsense, where you say ‘if not for us, God could not be who God is.’ So, the Supreme Being is now dependent upon his creation is he? Exquisite! The ‘Creator is not the Creator if there is no creation’ is just a tautology. Where worlds exist, God will be their creator, but the Necessary Being lies under no necessity to cause their existence.

Sojourner: We are better off for being brought into being.
Oh really! <laughs> How does that work then?
Sojourner: 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.
I’m categorically not saying (and have never said) to you that non-existence is better for us, as that is just another piece of nonsense and of the same ilk as saying existence is better than non-existence. And as for your saying it would negate any reason for being, it seems we’re back to the old question begging again.

Sojourner: 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.
Well, I’ve certainly got your attention, that’s for sure! And I have to say I’m flattered that you seem to think the Problem of Evil and the Inconsistent Triad owe their inception to me. But in truth I cannot take credit for them. But seriously, if the subject is worthy of discussion by some of the greatest theologians in Christian history, such as St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine, and some of the most esteemed philosophers, such Epicurus and David Hume, then I’m sure my modest offerings of their words also have their place.

Sojourner: 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.
It is not a matter for dispute that God has been kind to you. But let me remind you for the umpteenth time that the controversy isn’t about you, and nor is it about those whom you’ve met. It is about the unnecessary existence of pain and suffering. But you are certainly correct in respect of the question ‘would we really be better off as non-creations’, by describing it as an ‘absurdity’. It is utterly absurd, and I’ve never said it.

 

[Willamena]

What about the context would change what was said?

Perhaps it's telling that in failing to recognize this particular context, sojourner's point about not taking the Bible literally is emphasized.

The line "a child wanders into the enclosure of a hungry tiger. We would expect the child to be eaten..." is just the beginning of a narrative, a story with which the point of his reply is made. The story is a vehicle. In itself, it isn't the reply.

 

[sojourner]

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.

There's a problem, though. Yes, I believe that God does know the "future" state, but not based upon mathematical data. God exists outside linear time. As such, God sees human existence in one whack. But, having "set things up," God allows the scene to play out fully. If God intervened, then free will would be curtailed. As it is, once again, free will is necessary for us to be in a love relationship with God. And, as I've already pointed out, when God gave love, God gave up omnipotence.

 

[sojourner]

Reading 58 pages to get to one post is a very poor research-to-learning ratio, and is not worth the time.

Then, by all means, don't do it. But don't gripe at me.

Sorry, just because you used the word "picayune" doesn't mean you get to redefine the words to make them less picayune. Words sometimes have trivial meanings.

Problem is that the definition provided does not speak to the Greek term we use for love of God. If we're going to define things, we need to define them correctly.

No, "love" isn't the same thing as "a relationship". That was my entire point. If you insist on using the terms as equivalents, then you aren't speaking English and one of us will have to learn the other's language before we can continue this conversation.

Love is a relationship, because love, properly expressed is not a feeling, but an action, or a course of actions, toward the loved, and in response to the lover. Love can never be one-sided, for love demands to be known and to know. One-sided love is usually called "infatuation." Which isn't the same thing as what we're talking about here. Love is opening oneself to another (which demands a relationship on some level).

True. He loves us in the same way that Hitler loved Germans; he killed a bunch of them.

No need to be a jerk. Don't make me pull the laptop over and come back there! You can at least be respectful, even if you disagree.
God didn't kill anyone. God didn't manipulate anyone.

I've given two examples of abuse. Can you please explain to me how releasing hurricanes and earthquakes on us is not abusive?

God doesn't "release" earthquakes and hurricanes. The weather does. And since the weather isn't sentient, it cannot be abusive.

It's true that the weather does good things, but you can't just credit god with the good things and ignore the bad things.

I'm not ignoring the bad things. But in order for the weather to be flexible enough to do the good things it does, and to provide the seasonable conditions, it needs to be able to do the bad stuff, too.

I already have. God created weather, both good AND BAD weather, and released it, including the bad weather, on the world.

Again, God doesn't "release" the weather. God created the weather and called it good.

Actually, my arguments have been:

1) I am not going to waste my time attempting to refute arguments that you won't present.
2) God has created many natural phenomenon that kill and harm humanity, and therefore is not benevolent, at least toward those who are killed by his creations.
3) Furthermore, even if you claim that god didn't create those things, a benevolent god would intervene to save people from them because it would be effortless for him to do so.

Fine. My responses are these:
1) My arguments are just fine. Nobody's twisting your arm to make you respond.
2) You are not in a position to judge the things that God does.
3) You obviously have no idea what a benevolent God would do.

I have been nothing but civil to you. If you feel that anything I have said so far has been a cheap shot, please point it out.

Try your summation of my arguments, for starters.

 

[sojourner]

I was just feeding the tiger! What did you think I was doing?



So you're saying that people intentionally got their homes destroyed by the hurricane? Or that they just walked into that earthquake? You're blaming the natural disasters on the victims?

No one is forced to live in an earthquake zone, or in a hurricane and flood area. But we insist because "it's pretty there." So, we roll dice and takes our chances.
We gotta remember one important thing:
This is not our world. We treat it as such -- but it's not ours -- it's God's. After the way we've treated it, I'm surprised worse things haven't happened. That right there is ample evidence of God's benevolence -- to be so forbearing with us.

 

[sojourner]

I don't complain to god. I merely am pointing out that if your god exists, you're certainly wrong about him being benevolent.

So why dwell on the hurricanes? Why not think about the breeze and the sunshine and the rain and feel blessed by those things?

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner: This is absurd. Your posts are ponderous.
It is true that my responses are lengthy, and that is because I endeavour to answer every point that has been made to me as fully as possible.
You're thinking everything to death. Do you not see that we do crave the status quo?
Tell that to folk who have terminal cancer, and then tell it to their nearest and dearest! People don’t ‘crave’ their pain and wretchedness, but wish for a better world.
Sojourner: 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.
The above is yet another delightful example of question begging (the fallacy where the assumed premise appears again in the conclusion). You are calling upon the existence of suffering in order to justify suffering.

Sojourner: You don't understand relationship. That much is very, very apparent by your posts.
And you very obviously are unable to distinguish between argument and a speculative belief.
Sojourner: 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.
Above anything else, love is about care and concern for the loved. A ‘relationship’ where one party suffers because the other has imposed conditions isn’t a loving relationship but an arrangement that serves the dominant. The self-contradiction apart, the very notion of God limiting himself is disproved by the one sided relationship where humans love God and God lets them suffer in return. And I’ve never in my life heard such nonsense, where you say ‘if not for us, God could not be who God is.’ So, the Supreme Being is now dependent upon his creation is he? Exquisite! The ‘Creator is not the Creator if there is no creation’ is just a tautology. Where worlds exist, God will be their creator, but the Necessary Being lies under no necessity to cause their existence.

Sojourner: We are better off for being brought into being.
Oh really! <laughs> How does that work then?
Sojourner: 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.
I’m categorically not saying (and have never said) to you that non-existence is better for us, as that is just another piece of nonsense and of the same ilk as saying existence is better than non-existence. And as for your saying it would negate any reason for being, it seems we’re back to the old question begging again.

Sojourner: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.
Well, I’ve certainly got your attention, that’s for sure! And I have to say I’m flattered that you seem to think the Problem of Evil and the Inconsistent Triad owe their inception to me. But in truth I cannot take credit for them. But seriously, if the subject is worthy of discussion by some of the greatest theologians in Christian history, such as St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine, and some of the most esteemed philosophers, such Epicurus and David Hume, then I’m sure my modest offerings of their words also have their place.

Sojourner: 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.
It is not a matter for dispute that God has been kind to you. But let me remind you for the umpteenth time that the controversy isn’t about you, and nor is it about those whom you’ve met. It is about the unnecessary existence of pain and suffering. But you are certainly correct in respect of the question ‘would we really be better off as non-creations’, by describing it as an ‘absurdity’. It is utterly absurd, and I’ve never said it.

My son ate a buttload of burritos the other night. Our toilet is not as full of crap as this post.
It's pointless to debate with you, because you insist on setting up false premises, spamming up your posts with ponderous answers that are hopelessly convoluted with unimportant minutae, and presenting those premises as irrefutable truth, all under the guise of having an "intellectual discussion."

 

[Thief]

Thief here...
Let's say Man was created in God's image.
Then let's say we really ARE a reflection of God.
Then let's back up and read all 600+ posts...and call this godly.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"It's pointless to debate with you, because you insist on setting up false premises, spamming up your posts with ponderous answers that are hopelessly convoluted with unimportant minutae, and presenting those premises as irrefutable truth, all under the guise of having an "intellectual discussion.""

Spoken as one who has been throughly and soundly whacked by superior argument and logic and now just wishes to forget the whole bloody thing.

Not that I blame you. He has revealed - or more accurately has forced you to reveal - that you believe this naive and childish stuff because you WANT to believe it. You have zero objective evidence for it and cling to it solely because doing so gives you "hope" and "blessed assurance."

And that's 30 for me.:run:

 

[themadhair]

As such, God sees human existence in one whack.

That would render god knowing how it would play out when he created. Doesn’t that render free will false?

If God intervened, then free will would be curtailed.

God interfered the moment it created.

As it is, once again, free will is necessary for us to be in a love relationship with God.

You can’t assume free will in order to refute an argument against free will/

And, as I've already pointed out, when God gave love, God gave up omnipotence.

Doesn’t matter what god gave up. If it was omnipotent at the moment of creation then free will cannot exist.

 

[rojse]

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.

You don't expect to jump in the middle of a debate and not even do a cursory reading of the debate until now, do you?