Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Thief]

Thief here...oh my God!
This is only the middle!!!!

 

[McBell]

2) You are not in a position to judge the things that God does.

I completely disagree.
I am in the second most important position to judge what god does.
I am a potential follower.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
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.

Sojourner: You're off track. You seem to want there to be no suffering. My answer was that your desire is absurd, because life includes suffering. If we have the capacity to feel anything, that capacity includes a range of feeling, some experienced as better than some others. To argue for such a numbness is to argue for non-existence, which is not only absurd, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're over-analyzing. It's become annoying.
You make terrible arguments and then say that I’m off track. While my ‘desire’ for my fellow man not to suffer is no different from anyone else’s, including yours, it is completely irrelevant to the matter being discussed. The way you say life includes suffering, once again raises the spectre a God who had no choice but to cause unnecessary suffering. You say that to feel anything we have to have a range of feelings, some better than others. Okay. But then you introduce a red herring by presuming that the alternative is numbness, in effect non-existence. One can have a range of feelings without suffering (please say if you want examples). Finally, you didn’t answer the question I asked: How does that which is non-existent benefit from anything?
.


Quote:
We can all conceive of a perfectly good God presiding over our world in which there is no pain and suffering.

More over-analyzation. I can't conceive of such a condition, because that's not the way it is. We don't live in fairy-land. We construct a theology for God in light of the world as it is -- not in light of the world as we would like it to be.
I like the way you say ‘More over-analyzation’ when faced with yet another self-evident premise. Construct any theology you wish, and by all means make God part of, and contingent upon, the material world. That’s your prerogative. But you (anybody) can conceive of a perfectly good God and no evil, pain or suffering, because no contradiction is involved in doing so.


Quote:
Can I make this absolutely plain: I respect your right to your faith,

Why do I doubt that?
Because you find it very difficult to make the distinction between belief and argument? I respect your absolute right to believe as you do, but not the beliefs themselves.

Quote:
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.

One man's trash is another man's treasure. I'm not obligated to formulate a theology based upon what you think makes sense. How egotistical can you be?! You're not obligated to speak to what you perceive as "nonsense." How dare you assume that your skepticism is in any way superior to my faith?
Well of course I assume my logical arguments are superior to your speculative beliefs! Wake up! That’s why we’re having this debate. Are you seriously saying to me that you don’t consider your faith superior to my scepticism? And let me reiterate, where I see nonsense (non-sense) dressed up as argument I will certainly identify it as such, please or offend.

You want to know why this has gotten personal? Read your above post. You want to pretend that you're completely impersonal and sterile. What you don't seem to understand is that I don't perceive God as either as impersonal nor as sterile as you would like to think you are.

If I were to judge you harshly I would say the reason it has become personal is because you don’t know how to conduct yourself properly in a debate.

Sojourner: God is a God "of religion." That's like saying, "You drive a car of transportation, whereas I consider a car of concept." It's ridiculous! In order for God to be God, that God falls within the purview of the religion that helps us conceptualize God. whenever we deal with God, we're dealing with religion, on some level. You can't divorce the two.
I think you mean you cannot divorce the two. Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on the Necessary Being. The difference being that some of us don’t award it with illogical attributes that owe more to self-interest and wishful thinking.



Sojourner: Your objectivity is false, your premise is false, your arguments are false, and none of it informs us of anything important. What's the point? To amuse yourself at our expense?
Come on then, which premise is false, and which arguments are false? I like the ‘amuse yourself at our expense.’ Oh what tender sensibilities you have!

Quote:
It would be better if you were to concentrate on the arguments


It would be better if you were to concentrate on faith.
Faith! In…what…a God of contradiction and absurdities? No thank you.


Quote:
And if a thing is to be taken on faith, may I ask how you propose to show it to me?

No, you may not ask. You may seek for yourself, though. I'm not your personal "life-coach." I'm not here to prove my faith (as if that could even be done!) The problem with skepticism is that it is, essentially, an egocentric practice, whereas God is not an egocentric experience.
With respect, you’ve done nothing but attempt to prove your faith to me. And I’m sorry but I disagree entirely that scepticism is an egocentric practice; ‘scepticism’ means doubt, and can thus be right or wrong, whereas religionists claim certain truth when it is no such thing. Also the Christian religion is about nothing if it isn’t about ‘what God can do for me’.



Quote:
BTW, how come it is me defending God all the time, while you insist upon weakening him?

This is yet another example of your provocative MO. I'm only "weakening" God in your opinion. How do you think you can come off thinking that your objective "understanding" of God is superior to mine, in any way?
Reviewing past responses I would say my conception of God, as the Absolutely Necessary Being, is superior to your understanding, as you’ve expressed it, in every way. And that is not to claim extraordinary or special knowledge; I go with St Anselm and St Thomas on this matter and refer to the proper meaning of omnipotence and benevolence.

Your "understanding" of God is not so advanced as you might think. An objective observance of God will only get you the tip of the iceberg that you can see. But, as history has taught us, it's the 90% you can't observe that will act upon your life to transform it.
When you learn that the relationship is the thing to be understood, and not the empirical "evidence," then you will understand that God is not being "weakened" here.
I disagree. My understanding of God stands or falls with the arguments and counter arguments I’ve put forward.
And it is the very nature of the supposed ‘relationship’ that weakens God, the three people who are saved and the twenty-seven who burn to death, trapped in a blazing building. No ‘relationship’ can reverse what has occurred. Even Almighty God cannot undo the past or rewrite history. And incidentally, your 90% argument takes its lessons from…where? Answer: ‘empirical evidence’!

 

[Buttons*]

I'm just grateful that that little god b*****t that Christians call God doesn't exist.

.... rude much?

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eople-assume-god-post1565703.html#post1565703
Then he is not omnipotent, because self-evidently he cannot be limited and without limit at the same time. And if he is not omnipotent he is therefore not 'God', which leaves room for a true God, one who is always omnipotent and always benevolent.

Sojourner: Bull****!

To love of necessity limits one's power, because love is inclusive of the other and makes space for the other.
What on earth is the ‘love of necessity’? Lol!
The facts are that love isn’t inclusive, not in any sense whatsoever, not in experience and not by definition.
That relationship defers power to the other. What that means is not that God is not omnipotent, but that God has drawn us into that sphere of omnipotence with God.
If there is no love, there is no benevolence. If there is no love, there is no true power, for one who is neither loved, nor loving, will work with the other, but will oppose the other. If God has been rendered "not-God," it's because of those who don't embrace the relationship. The doubters are the ones who weaken God and make God impotent.
To pose the existence of a God with all encompassing love is just a subjective belief that is held in spite of the evidence. To say the Supreme Being cannot exist, cannot be omnipotent, and cannot be the Creator, are all contradictions; but no contradiction is involved when we say ‘God is not omni-benevolent, or ‘God is Love’ is false. And there is no warrant at all for the outlandish proposition: ‘If there is no love there is no true power’. The very idea of a God who is dependent for his power on a relationship with the beings he created takes us to a new level of madness, as it would mean that before our creation God wasn’t omnipotent. See what I mean by weakening God? In the attempt to accommodate illogical beliefs, each of those special pleas just chips away a bit more of God’s necessary identity.

 

[cottage]

I like how you suddenly seem to be the only one who has the "correct" definition of God. You certainly do like to use the "if-then" statements. You decide what God "must be," and then try to hold us hostage to that definition.

It is a matter of personal opinion who has the correct definition of God. But the God concept to which I refer is omnipotent, immutable and necessarily existent. You are perfectly free to conceive of a lesser being, of course.

You don't think God gave up some control when he created humanity?
And if you do, somehow you see that as a bad thing. Might I suggest that the Genesis theology sees breath as evidence of life. God gave up some of that breath to make us live. In doing so, God gave up some of God's power to us. That represents some loss of of self-control, I should think, because in that act, God allowed us a modicum of control.

That is your belief. And just as you are entitled to it, so I am entitled to disagree with it, which of course I do - profoundly. And no, if there is a God I don't think he gave up any control.

 

[cottage]

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."

So says the person who attempts a logical argument and then when it fails falls back on speculation and superstition. Instead of complaining, why don't you do me the common courtesy of answering my responses? Bad manners aren't a substitute for polite and reasoned argument. You've made accusations, so now be a man and back them up with examples.

 

[sojourner]

"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:

No, spoken as one who has become thoroughly frustrated with the method of argument. I don't have either the time or the inclination to sift back through pages of posts (most of which are ponderous and convoluted with minutae) in order to refute one-line statements, or even sometimes particular words that "he said" or "she said." We've got so many side-arguments going that it's impossible to focus on the main points. To me, it seems like pointed distraction to make others look foolish.

Not only are we arguing about whether God is benevolent, we're also arguing over the term "benevolence." Plus, we're arguing over the fine distinctions between "evil" and "suffering." Then, at the same time, we're arguing the necessity of suffering. And then, we're arguing the nature of evil. Plus, we're arguing about omnipotence. Then, we're arguing about the level of God's omnipotence. Then, we're arguing about the nature of free will. Then, we're arguing about the weather. Plus, all at the same time, I have to deal with side comments from everyone else.

On top of that, Cottage has offered only one real argument. And that is that it must be that God either doesn't care, can't fix it, or won't deal with it. Problem is, he presents that as a valid argument, which is patently false. God does care, God could fix it, but chooses not to in favor of the greater good, and God deals with it all the time.

Here's the problem. We have to deal with God theologically, not logically. Theodicy is a theological, not a logical problem, because it depends upon things not easily accessible to logic, such as intuition.

Here, logical arguments only serve to obfuscate rather than clarify. So, in dealing with sticking fingers in the logical dam that's leaking like a sieve, we forget to argue the theology. But, being a fundamentally theological argument, theology sneaks in to the debate. I tend to gravitate to the theological arguments. Cottage tends to gravitate to the logical arguments. And we get lost in sidebar.

Cottage's argument is a logical one. But the logic is a red herring presented as absolute truth. The premise is simply wrong, and refutes everything we know about God. What we know about God is largely subjective and intuitive, not objective and empirical. That doesn't make the knowledge any less valid. But those who argue logic assume that the only things that "count" are objective and empirical. "Show me proof." I can't show you proof. "Then it's only a fairy-tale." See what I'm up against?

It's not a fairy tale. There are things that we experience and know subjectively and intuitively that are just as valid (maybe more valid) than than what we know objectively and empirically. Just because some deny that doesn't mean that it's not so. You don't have a corner on the truth market.

So my assessment stands. Cottage overloads us with heaps of what amounts, in this case, to be crap, because it's a self-serving argument, posited from the wrong premise.

What I know is not naive and childish. it is deep and profound. I don't "want" to believe it -- but I do believe it because I have seen it. I have zero empirical and objective evidence (which isn't the only kind that counts), but I do have evidence. I cling to it, not so much because it gives me hope and assurance, but because it resonates with what I understand truth to be.

If he wants to actually argue theology, we can do that. But arguing logic in the theodicy problem is so much intellectual masturbation, because it really doesn't impart understanding.

So, gloat if you feel you must. But nothing's been won here. All that's happened is that the problem has been covered over with a paint that doesn't match the rest of the decor. Underneath, the problem still remains. But you conveniently don't have to look at it, so that makes it OK.

 

[sojourner]

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

No, it means that God is omniscient.

God interfered the moment it created.

What a stupid statement. What exactly did God "interfere" with? Our non-existence? we exist because of God. And we were created by free will, and with free will.

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

Nor can you assume compulsion in order to refute an argument against compulsion.

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

yes it does matter, because what matters is not the impulse of creation, but what was created.

 

[sojourner]

I completely disagree.
I am in the second most important position to judge what god does.
I am a potential follower.

Even followers don't really judge.
None of this is predicated on judgment. It's predicated on belief.

 

[sojourner]

I'm just grateful that that little god b*****t that Christians call God doesn't exist.

I'm just grateful that God exists.

 

[Imagist]

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.

So your "correct" definition is Greek? I thought that "love" was an English word. If you wanted to convey the meaning of the Greek word, you should have used the Greek word, or at least said that you intended "love" in the sense of the Greek word.

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).

Okay. But "love", even in this sense, doesn't include killing the other person or doing something that leads to their death (such as creating hurricanes and earthquakes).

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 don't mean any disrespect to you. I only disrespect God because he kills people.

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

The weather releases natural disasters because god created the weather in such a way that it does that. God could have created weather that was only good, but he didn't. He created weather that releases hurricanes and tornadoes that kill people and destroy homes. God didn't have to create tectonic plates at all, but he created tectonic plates that cause earthquakes and volcanoes.

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.

No, it doesn't. If god is really omnipotent, he could have made if flexible enough to do the good things without having to do the bad things.

2) You are not in a position to judge the things that God does.

So we're just supposed to assume that god is good without actually looking at what he does?

3) You obviously have no idea what a benevolent God would do.

I know that a benevolent god wouldn't kill people. That's really all I need to know to prove that god isn't benevolent.

 

[themadhair]

No, it means that God is omniscient.

Then you are back to the same problem. If god is omniscient then it knew the way its creation would turn out – contradicting free will.

What a stupid statement. What exactly did God "interfere" with?

Will all due respect this ‘stupid statement’ was in response to your stupid statement that god didn’t interfere so as to preserve free will. The problem is, as I have repeatedly stated, god interfered when it created. An omniscient creator is not compatible with free will. I’m a little ****** off you label that statement stupid given the comment it was responding to.

we exist because of God. And we were created by free will, and with free will.

This is the problem. An omniscient god would know how its creation would turn out when it created. It determined the future course of that creation in the moment of creation – this isn’t compatible with free will.

Nor can you assume compulsion in order to refute an argument against compulsion.

??? Seriously, I don’t get what this has to do with highlighting that assuming free will cannot be used to refute an argument against free will.

yes it does matter, because what matters is not the impulse of creation, but what was created.

But god, being omniscient, must know how that creation would turn out – that isn’t compatible with free will.

 

[Imagist]

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.

There isn't a single place in the world that is safe from nature. Between drought, floods, snow, extreme cold, extreme heat, earthquakes, volcanoes, lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfire, and hail, NOWHERE is safe.

Besides, many people are too poor to move, or disabled or old and can't move. Many people don't choose to live where they live because "it's pretty there". Many people don't have a choice at all.

 

[Imagist]

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

Because killing people is unacceptable, no matter what good things you do. One could equally say of Hitler, "Why dwell on the genocide and war? Why not think about the economic renewal he brought about?"

 

[Imagist]

My son ate a buttload of burritos the other night. Our toilet is not as full of crap as this post.

And you accused me of being disrespectful?

 

[Imagist]

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?

I read the initial few posts to get the premise of the debate, and some of sojourner's more recent posts to find out where the debate is now.

If sojourner really refuted my point as he claims he did, he can post a link to the refutation. Since he can't post a link to the refutation, we can only assume that he didn't refute my point.

 

[Imagist]

.... rude much?

Would you be polite to Hitler?

 

[Imagist]

Then you are back to the same problem. If god is omniscient then it knew the way its creation would turn out – contradicting free will.

I disagree with this argument. By what mechanism does foreknowledge prevent choice?

If I stop going to work, I know my boss will fire me. But my boss still has a choice. He could keep paying me to do nothing if he wanted to. He just won't.

 

[sojourner]

The way you say life includes suffering, once again raises the spectre a God who had no choice but to cause unnecessary suffering.

God had a choice. God chose good.

But you (anybody) can conceive of a perfectly good God and no evil, pain or suffering, because no contradiction is involved in doing so.

Conception isn't up to us. It's up to God. We either buy into it, or we don't.

I respect your absolute right to believe as you do, but not the beliefs themselves.

Belief is, to a very great extent, how the believer identifies her or himself. Respecting the "right" is fine. But you should also respect the person. Because you should always honor love.

Well of course I assume my logical arguments are superior to your speculative beliefs!

Herein lies the kernal of truth that precipitates the problem. You believe that objective empiricism is superior to subjective intuition when it comes to matters of Spirit.

If I were to judge you harshly I would say the reason it has become personal is because you don’t know how to conduct yourself properly in a debate.

You just did.

I think you mean you cannot divorce the two. Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on the Necessary Being. The difference being that some of us don’t award it with illogical attributes that owe more to self-interest and wishful thinking.

Divorcing God from religion is like trying to divorce bacon from pork. Of course religion has a monopoly on God, because any time one deals with God, one deals with religion, on some level, because God is the essence of religion.

What about those of us who award it with intuition and compassion?

Come on then, which premise is false, and which arguments are false?

The ones that force logic on a concept that is intuitive.

Faith! In…what…a God of contradiction and absurdities? No thank you.

I never said that.

religionists claim certain truth when it is no such thing. Also the Christian religion is about nothing if it isn’t about ‘what God can do for me’.

Ah, the wolf finally steps out of the sheep's clothing of detached disinterest. I knew there was an agenda here. Your beef is that you think we claim absolute truth, when, in fact, what we claim is an absolute God.
You know so little of Christianity. yet you debate as if you were an authority. In reality, Christianity is about nothing if it isn't about "what can God, through us, do for others?"

Reviewing past responses I would say my conception of God, as the Absolutely Necessary Being, is superior to your understanding, as you’ve expressed it, in every way. And that is not to claim extraordinary or special knowledge; I go with St Anselm and St Thomas on this matter and refer to the proper meaning of omnipotence and benevolence.

Reviewing your past response, above, I would say that your conception of your understanding is overblown. I doubt you really understand St. Anybody, given what you have presented about your understanding of the religion they represent.

My understanding of God stands or falls with the arguments and counter arguments I’ve put forward.

Be sure to pick up your mess when you leave.

your 90% argument takes its lessons from…where? Answer: ‘empirical evidence’!

We are spiritual beings living in a physical world. Therefore, some empiricism is necessary. But, then, so is intuition. I posit that, in this case, the 90% is the intuition that will shed light on the nature of God.