Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[sojourner]

The facts are that love isn’t inclusive, not in any sense whatsoever, not in experience and not by definition.

You've never experienced love. you may have observed it, but you've never experienced it. Otherwise you could not make such an argument.

To pose the existence of a God with all encompassing love is just a subjective belief that is held in spite of the evidence.

By George, I think he's got it! (Except for the "just" part.) Subjective belief isn't "just" anything -- it's of supreme importance here.

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?

No, it means that, once we were created, then God's love was expressed. And then God diminished God's power by giving some of it away. We don't know what was going on before creation -- nor do we speculate.
We can only know God from our perspective, and we can only talk about God from our perspective. From this side of creation, God was omnipotent in creation. Our endowment has no bearing on what may have come "before."

In the attempt to accommodate illogical beliefs, each of those special pleas just chips away a bit more of God’s necessary identity.

God's "necessary identity" is Creator. And what was created was the capacity for love to be expressed.

 

[sojourner]

the God concept to which I refer is omnipotent, immutable and necessarily existent.

Which is also

a matter of personal opinion

.

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.

m'kay. Opinions vary.

 

[sojourner]

So says the person who attempts a logical argument and then when it fails falls back on speculation and superstition.

So says the person who thinks that intuition and subjective experience are, in some real way, inferior to objective logic. My "fall back" position is warranted, because you drew me into a trap of trying to make a logical argument for something that can only truly be argued theologically.

why don't you do me the common courtesy of answering my responses?

Why don't you do me the common courtesy of respecting theology?

Bad manners aren't a substitute for polite and reasoned argument.

Neither is asking for "proof" a substitute for theological understanding.

You've made accusations, so now be a man and back them up with examples.

Which accusations are you referring to? Please list them one at a time.

 

[themadhair]

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

If you know the future actions of a person then does that person really have free will? You can make the argument for yes even if such knowledge was predetermined.

The problem is that god, by creating, determined those actions. I genuinely cannot see how this scenario of a omniscient creator can be considered compatible with free will.

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.

I don’t see how this is an analogy for the above.

 

[Imagist]

The problem is that god, by creating, determined those actions. I genuinely cannot see how this scenario of a omniscient creator can be considered compatible with free will.

Not necessarily. This assumes that all future actions (our choices) are determined by the initial conditions (the conditions with which god created the universe). I tend toward a deterministic worldview myself, but it isn't proven (nor do I think it is likely to be).

See this thread.

I don’t see how this is an analogy for the above.

I know what my boss will do, but he still has free will.

 

[sojourner]

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.

WE are informed of love through the Bible, which was written in Greek. Therefore, we need to understand what the writer meant by the term. Unfortunately our language provides only one blanket word, that can mean many things. When we deal with Biblical concepts, it's best to assume that we're ultimately going to get to Greek somewhere along the line.

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).

But it does include taking care of those that are loved. Since the Biblical writers had a narrow view as to just who those people were, and also lived in completely different circumstances, it would have been natural for them to have expressed the manner in which God loves them, as saving them from their enemies.
As for the weather, I thought we'd already settled the case.

I only disrespect God because he kills people.

That's the way you choose to see it. But it just doesn't happen that way.

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.

Obviously, for the world to work the way it does, those things are necessary. Please don't engage in fanciful, wishful thinking by saying, "It doesn't have to be this way." It is this way, and it's this way for reasons we might not understand. But to say that "God isn't beneficent, because we have tornados" is as ludicrous as saying that "tornados aren't destructive, because God created them."
Obviously, this is a huge problem. We can't explain why God made nature (or us) the Way God did. But we trust that it was good. And we trust that God takes care of us. We don't know the mind of God fully. Worse, we tend to forget that this is not "the world according to us," it's "the world according to God." So it's unfair for us to project our sensibilities on a world we don not fully grasp, or have ownership of.

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.

How are you so sure? Nature is a pretty intricate beast. Who would have been able to guess that low-interest home loans could cause the collapse of the American automobile industry?

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

No, you're supposed to trust that God has God's purposes in mind -- not ours -- and that those purposes are, ultimately, good.

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.

You'll have to show me where "God kills people" in order for your concept of benevolence to stand up.

 

[themadhair]

Not necessarily. This assumes that all future actions (our choices) are determined by the initial conditions (the conditions with which god created the universe). I tend toward a deterministic worldview myself, but it isn't proven (nor do I think it is likely to be).

I’m not making the claim that the universe is deterministic. I’m making the claim that the universe is deterministic to an omniscient god. In other words god, by being omniscient, would know how the universe would develop and run its course.

While such an omniscient god doesn’t necessarily render free will impossible, the claim of an omniscient creator god does since it set everything in motion knowing how it would play out.

I know what my boss will do, but he still has free will.

Unless you boss is both creator of the universe and omniscient then I’m going to have call this a false analogy.

 

[Willamena]

I know what my boss will do, but he still has free will.

The argument against relies on the prediction being understood as uncertain in outcome, in contrast to knowledge, which is certain of the outcome.

 

[Imagist]

WE are informed of love through the Bible, which was written in Greek. Therefore, we need to understand what the writer meant by the term. Unfortunately our language provides only one blanket word, that can mean many things. When we deal with Biblical concepts, it's best to assume that we're ultimately going to get to Greek somewhere along the line.

1) I wasn't talking biblically at all. I never mentioned the bible.
2) The bible wasn't all written in Greek.
3) Do you know Greek?

But it does include taking care of those that are loved. Since the Biblical writers had a narrow view as to just who those people were, and also lived in completely different circumstances, it would have been natural for them to have expressed the manner in which God loves them, as saving them from their enemies.

So god picks and chooses who he loves? It seems that if he didn't love some of us, he shouldn't have created them.

As for the weather, I thought we'd already settled the case.

Nope.

Obviously, for the world to work the way it does, those things are necessary.

Nothing is "necessary" to an omniscient god. He can make anything necessary or unnecessary as he likes.

Please don't engage in fanciful, wishful thinking by saying, "It doesn't have to be this way." It is this way, and it's this way for reasons we might not understand.

How do you know that there are reasons?

But to say that "God isn't beneficent, because we have tornados" is as ludicrous as saying that "tornados aren't destructive, because God created them."

Please explain how my statement is as ludicrous.

Obviously, this is a huge problem. We can't explain why God made nature (or us) the Way God did. But we trust that it was good. And we trust that God takes care of us.

What do you mean "we", pale-face? You trust those things. I don't, and I'm not sure why you do.

We don't know the mind of God fully. Worse, we tend to forget that this is not "the world according to us," it's "the world according to God." So it's unfair for us to project our sensibilities on a world we don not fully grasp, or have ownership of.

There are a lot of things we don't know. We have no choice but to form our worldview based on what we do know.

I know the following:

1) If an omnipotent god created the world, he could have created it any way he wanted.
2) Therefore, if he created the weather to include natural disasters that cause some of us to die, he did so because he wanted to.
3) He created the weather to include natural disasters that cause some of us to die.
4) Therefore, he wanted some of us to die.
5) Some of us have died.

The above establishes the action and intent necessary to consider god's actions criminal.

How are you so sure? Nature is a pretty intricate beast. Who would have been able to guess that low-interest home loans could cause the collapse of the American automobile industry?

Omnipotence is simple. You either can do everything or you can't. An omnipotent god CAN make nature safe.

No, you're supposed to trust that God has God's purposes in mind -- not ours -- and that those purposes are, ultimately, good.

How do you know?

You'll have to show me where "God kills people" in order for your concept of benevolence to stand up.

The argument about natural disasters is intended to show that god kills people.

 

[sojourner]

The problem is that god, by creating, determined those actions.

There's the fallacy. By creating, God did not determine our actions.

I’m not making the claim that the universe is deterministic. I’m making the claim that the universe is deterministic to an omniscient god. In other words god, by being omniscient, would know how the universe would develop and run its course.

But that result was not up to God -- it's up to us.
You're saying that God painted a piece of wood blue, because blue was the color God used. Therefore, God predetermined the color the wood would be painted.
What we're saying is that God took a variety of paints and threw them at the wood. God knew the wood would get painted, and God is also able to see how it will turn out, but the way it turns out isn't up to God -- it's up to the way the paint lands.

 

[Imagist]

I’m not making the claim that the universe is deterministic. I’m making the claim that the universe is deterministic to an omniscient god. In other words god, by being omniscient, would know how the universe would develop and run its course.

While such an omniscient god doesn’t necessarily render free will impossible, the claim of an omniscient creator god does since it set everything in motion knowing how it would play out.

Unless you boss is both creator of the universe and omniscient then I’m going to have call this a false analogy.

I know about the scope of the choice (I am omniscient in relation to the choice because I know what my boss will choose) and I am the creator of the situation leading to the choice (by not going to work).

 

[themadhair]

There's the fallacy. By creating, God did not determine our actions.

How is this a fallacy? If god is omniscient then, by creating, it knew the future course of that creation would it not? How can this not be considered as god determining the course of the universe, and thus a negation of free will? A simple one-liner in the negative isn’t addressing this.

You're saying that God painted a piece of wood blue, because blue was the color God used. Therefore, God predetermined the color the wood would be painted.
What we're saying is that God took a variety of paints and threw them at the wood. God knew the wood would get painted, and God is also able to see how it will turn out, but the way it turns out isn't up to God -- it's up to the way the paint lands.

But since god knew the way the paint would turn out, and it was the one who threw the paint, how can you argue that god did not determine the way the paint turned out? The paint, in this analogy, has the same lack of free will as I am arguing for if the creator omniscient god is true.

 

[themadhair]

I know about the scope of the choice (I am omniscient in relation to the choice because I know what my boss will choose) and I am the creator of the situation leading to the choice (by not going to work).

Unless you are the absolute creator with absolute omniscience this remains a false analogy.

 

[sojourner]

1) I wasn't talking biblically at all. I never mentioned the bible.
2) The bible wasn't all written in Greek.
3) Do you know Greek?

We're talking about how God is love. That is a Biblical concept, posited and explained by the Bible. You were speaking Biblically, whether you realized it, or not.

The parts of the Bible that speak specifically to love are in Greek.

I know enough for purposes of this particular argument.

So god picks and chooses who he loves? It seems that if he didn't love some of us, he shouldn't have created them.

No, God loves everyone. But not everyone either knows that, or expresses that in the same way.

Nothing is "necessary" to an omniscient god. He can make anything necessary or unnecessary as he likes.

Actually, nothing is "necessary" to an omnipotent God.
If God had made the weather different, the world (including the good stuff we like) would be completely different. In order for things to work together, there has to be a relationship between them. Since God created order out of chaos, God constrained God's Self to certain rules for that order. Arguing for a different order (or no order) is to deny existence, as we are aware of it. There just comes a point where God and God's acts must be seen as absolute, if we are going to argue for God. If you don't want to argue for God, that's fine. But you can't not argue for God and then say that "the world as it is, is proof of God's non-existence." Because the other side can just as easily argue the opposite. You can't deny God and then make an argument about God.

How do you know that there are reasons?

Because the universe has order.

Please explain how my statement is as ludicrous.

Because you're blaming the outcome of a roll of the dice on the hand that threw them.

What do you mean "we", pale-face? You trust those things. I don't, and I'm not sure why you do.

"We" = "those who believe in God," Cochise.

There are a lot of things we don't know. We have no choice but to form our worldview based on what we do know.

I know the following:

1) If an omnipotent god created the world, he could have created it any way he wanted.
2) Therefore, if he created the weather to include natural disasters that cause some of us to die, he did so because he wanted to.
3) He created the weather to include natural disasters that cause some of us to die.
4) Therefore, he wanted some of us to die.
5) Some of us have died.

The above establishes the action and intent necessary to consider god's actions criminal.

1) You don't know that. You're not in a position to know that. you may think it, but that don't make it so.
2) This doesn't follow if 1 isn't true. You're assuming.
3) Ok.
4) BZZZZT. How do you know "God wanted us to die?" Maybe God wishes that none of us would die, but the roll of the dice didn't land that way?
5) Ok.
No, the above establishes that God's creation of the order God created was a crap-shoot.

Omnipotence is simple. You either can do everything or you can't. An omnipotent god CAN make nature safe.

Sure God could. But then life as you know it wouldn't exist.

Dow do you know?

Intuition.

The argument about natural disasters shows that god kills people.

No, it shows that the weather kills people.

 

[sojourner]

How can this not be considered as god determining the course of the universe, and thus a negation of free will?

We're looking at two different "strata" here.
The universe -- creation -- centers in God, is determined by God, and operates because of God. Therefore, any egocentric POV on our part is ... sin -- a turning aside from God.
God created us to have that capacity. But God also created us to have the capacity to "turn again." Ultimately, we will do that. Because, as we came from God, we must return to God. It's how we're made. God is such that no human being can ultimately resist God -- so great and pure is the love that is God, all of us desire that love. how we become part of that, though is up to us. In a manner of speaking, we can do it the "big-boy, grown up way," or we can do it the "kicking-and-screaming, small child way."

God is. The world is. On some level, we just have to accept it and live within it. That is the ultimate choice we do not have. In that stratum, we do not have free will. We must exist in this universe, according to the rules set forth.

In another stratum, we do have free will, for we choose the way in which we will respond to that reality in which we live.

But since god knew the way the paint would turn out, and it was the one who threw the paint, how can you argue that god did not determine the way the paint turned out? The paint, in this analogy, has the same lack of free will as I am arguing for if the creator omniscient god is true.

Because God didn't throw the paint, determining how it would land -- even though God knew how it would land.

 

[themadhair]

We're looking at two different "strata" here.
…
In another stratum, we do have free will, for we choose the way in which we will respond to that reality in which we live.

You merely decreed free will here without addressing the actual argument. Why do that?

Because God didn't throw the paint, determining how it would land -- even though God knew how it would land.

God did throw the paint. Or, more specifically, set in motion the sequence of events that led to the pain being thrown while knowing how that sequence of events would operate.

 

[sojourner]

You merely decreed free will here without addressing the actual argument.

I did address the argument. Read it again.

God did throw the paint. Or, more specifically, set in motion the sequence of events that led to the pain being thrown while knowing how that sequence of events would operate.

You read this wrong, too. =)

 

[themadhair]

I did address the argument. Read it again.

No you didn’t. You merely made assertion after assertion before decreeing free will to exist rather than address the argument.

You read this wrong, too. =)

Unless you are implying god not to be the creator then I fail to see the point here.

 

[McBell]

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

Really?
My experience has been the exact opposite.
That most of them judge and do so in a most hypocritical manner at that.

Though I will concede that most of them are far to busy making justifications for their deity than they are judging their deity by its own standards.

 

[Buttons*]

Would you be polite to Hitler?

Hitler =/= Christians or the Christian God.