Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[sojourner]

To say 'God limited God's Self when God created humanity' is incoherent and logically impossible.

we're not talking about logic. We're talking about love.

An omnipotent God is indivisible and immutable: he is what he is, a complete single entity, unchanging and not contingent upon anything.

And this would have...what...to do with choosing to limit oneself in deference to one you love?

As usual you’ve chopped out the rest of the passage to leave one sentence high and dry…you can’t bring subjective beliefs into the experiential world and expect them to be objectively received. And even subjective beliefs must be logically possible.

I think he really does get it. A square peg can't be forced into a round hole. The "experiential world" is not the only world humans live in. We also live in an intuitive world. You can't bring objective evidence into a subjective world and expect them to be received objectively.

Intuition is logical, insofar as we are able to fully understand what we intuit, and insofar as we have adequate language with which to reconstruct the experience. Have you ever tried to tell someone about a really cool dream? And it just ends up sounding lame?

Our experience of God being benevolent, especially in the face of suffering, is more an intuitive experience that is difficult to reconstruct.

1. One can’t love unless there is someone to love. So if God’s love was expressed at the moment of creation it means that prior to our creation God wasn’t all-powerful! Contradiction!

God not only participates in the act of loving, God is love. God is the essence of love. Not a contradiction. Love is an act, but it is also an impulse. That impulse must have been present before creation -- especially given what we believe about God.

2. It also implies that God was compelled to create beings in order to love them and be loved by them. Contradiction!

your fallacy here is the assumption that God had to do anything in order to do or be something. Not a contradiction, given that the impulse of love was already there.

3. It cannot be argued that God brought us into being to love us, because a) There can be no benefit for God, since he is all-sufficient and doesn’t need our love, and (b) we didn’t exist; and what doesn’t exist cannot in any sense be a beneficiary.

God didn't bring us into being to love us. God loved us into being.

Not correct. We exist, the universe exists, and so we cannot say ‘God is not the creator’, but God is under no necessity to create universes or anything else. Test it! Say to yourself: God had to create humans and the universe. In fact try saying God had to do anything.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

Well of course they are inferior when they’re self-contradictory!

We contradict what we don't fully understand. Intuition goes beyond logic, and defies our capacity for adequate language and symbol.

if it can only be argued theologically, why do you try to accommodate it logically.

Because I'm an idiot.

As a matter fact it is absolutely not true that religion can only be argued theologically. Many millions of words have been written on 'natural religion', either in support of revealed religion or to compliment it; some of the arguments are highly compelling and to this day have not been defeated.

We're not dealing with "natural religion" here. We're dealing with a treatment of orthodoxy.

I don’t disrespect theology, but I cannot respect incoherent and self-contradictory arguments, such as the ones you've made here.

They're only incoherent if your premise is true. I don't believe it is.

I’m not asking for ‘proof’ because I don’t accept that your ‘theological understanding’, as you’ve expressed it, corresponds with any truth.

Either my explanation is faulty (which is entirely possible), or your understanding of truth is faluty, or both.

The accusations you made were that my “‘premise’ is false’”, and that my ‘arguments are false’. A demonstration of the falsity in both instances is now required from you.

Refresh and state your premise.

 

[Imagist]

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.

Just because the bible mentions our topic doesn't mean that we have to frame our topic in biblical terms.

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

No matter how you twist it, killing people isn't a way of expressing love.

Actually, nothing is "necessary" to an omnipotent God.

You're right, mistyped.

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.

Right. So if god made the rules, why did he make rules that cause death to those he supposedly loves?

Arguing for a different order (or no order) is to deny existence, as we are aware of it.

No, it's to argue that existence could be better.

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.

I am not denying god at this time. That's another argument for another thread.

Because the universe has order.

And it also has disorder.

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

Do you even read what you say? How is it okay to gamble with human life? Your argument for god being benevolent is seriously that he rolls a die to decide whether to kill us?

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.

I'm not in a position to know that "omnipotent" means "capable of doing anything"?

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?

God doesn't have to roll the dice in the first place. He's omnipotent, right?

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

Right. Significantly better life would exist.

Intuition.

That's not an argument. What makes your intuition inherently better than, say, mine?

No, it shows that the weather kills people.

Weather which god created in such a way that it kills people.

I am really surprised that you are actually attempting a god-as-twoface defense. (Twoface flips a coin to decide whether or not to kill people.)

 

[Imagist]

Hitler =/= Christians or the Christian God.

You're right, the vast majority if not all Christians on are not as bad as Hitler.

The Christian god, on the other hand, if he exists, has sat by and watched all the atrocities and suffering that has ever occurred, including the Holocaust, in addition to committing and commanding a good many atrocities of his own. So you're right again. The Christian god is much worse than Hitler.

 

[Imagist]

Isn't there a rule of internet debate that says the first to mention Hitler loses?

Godwin's law does not apply given that the comparison is one of god's atrocities to Hitler's:

The corollaries of the law would presumably not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi Germany, or – more debatably – to discussion of other totalitarian regimes.

 

[sojourner]

Just because the bible mentions our topic doesn't mean that we have to frame our topic in biblical terms.

It does if you're talking theology.

No matter how you twist it, killing people isn't a way of expressing love.

God doesn't kill.

Right. So if god made the rules, why did he make rules that cause death to those he supposedly loves?

Death is meaningless to God. We come to understand that, at some point.

No, it's to argue that existence could be better.

Existence has already been declared good. What's to argue about?

And it also has disorder.

But not complete chaos.

Do you even read what you say? How is it okay to gamble with human life? Your argument for god being benevolent is seriously that he rolls a die to decide whether to kill us?

No, I'm arguing that, like any good parent, God kicks us out of the nest and lets us fly where we will.

I'm not in a position to know that "omnipotent" means "capable of doing anything"?

You're in no position to judge what God can and cannot do.

God doesn't have to roll the dice in the first place. He's omnipotent, right?

I think you're taking "omniptence" to an extreme that was never meant in theological circles, and applying it as an empirical absolute.

Right. Significantly better life would exist.

You don't know that. All we know is that life is good.

That's not an argument. What makes your intuition inherently better than, say, mine?

As they say, "It ain't the size, it's how you use it."

Weather which god created in such a way that it kills people.

But not intentionally. And which, BTW, is also created in such a way that it allows people to thrive.

I am really surprised that you are actually attempting a god-as-twoface defense. (Twoface flips a coin to decide whether or not to kill people.)

C'mon! You know that's not what I mean.

 

[sojourner]

The Christian god, on the other hand, if he exists, has sat by and watched all the atrocities and suffering that has ever occurred, including the Holocaust, in addition to committing and commanding a good many atrocities of his own. So you're right again. The Christian god is much worse than Hitler.

You're squeezing assumption and opinion into the box of empiricism again. Your last sentence shows that the practice doesn't work.

 

[sojourner]

Godwin's law does not apply given that the comparison is one of god's atrocities to Hitler's

You're assuming that God is atrocious, based upon a false application of theological writing.

 

[Imagist]

Death is meaningless to God. We come to understand that, at some point.

Death is one of the most meaningful concepts in human life. If god loved us, it would be meaningful to him too.

Existence has already been declared good. What's to argue about?

It's all-too-convenient that the person who stands to gain the most reputation by billions of deaths being acceptable is the one who declares them acceptable.

No, I'm arguing that, like any good parent, God kicks us out of the nest and lets us fly where we will.

Actually, god doesn't give us a nest to begin with.

You're in no position to judge what God can and cannot do.

Is god omnipotent or is he not?

I think you're taking "omniptence" to an extreme that was never meant in theological circles, and applying it as an empirical absolute.

How about you stop making up meanings for words based on your supposed knowledge of Greek and your membership in some unknown theological circle, and speak English.

There is some argument on the finer points of what omnipotence entails, but none of the definitions here or in any other credible source does not allow god to create weather to have whatever traits he wants it to have.

You don't know that. All we know is that life is good.

Maybe for you. But for me, life is not always good, and for some people it's more often bad than good.

As they say, "It ain't the size, it's how you use it."

Again, not an argument. What is better about how you use your intuition than the way I use my intuition?

But not intentionally. And which, BTW, is also created in such a way that it allows people to thrive.

And as I said before, god, being omnipotent, could have created it in such a way that it allows people to thrive without killing some of them.

C'mon! You know that's not what I mean.

I don't know anything of the sort. How does your concept of "don't blame the result of the die on the hand that throws it" differ from "don't blame the result of the coin on the hand that throws it"?

 

[Imagist]

You're assuming that God is atrocious, based upon a false application of theological writing.

I have assumed the following:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God created the world, including meteorological and tectonic systems.
3. Meteorological and tectonic systems cause natural disasters.
4. Natural disasters often cause death and suffering.

If any of those assumptions are incorrect or "false applications of theological writing", please correct them.

If you can point out any other assumptions that I have made, please do so.

 

[gzusfrk]

I have assumed the following:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God created the world, including meteorological and tectonic systems.
3. Meteorological and tectonic systems cause natural disasters.
4. Natural disasters often cause death and suffering.

If any of those assumptions are incorrect or "false applications of theological writing", please correct them.

If you can point out any other assumptions that I have made, please do so.

He made rocks too does that mean if you trip and crack your skull on one its His fault?

 

[sojourner]

Death is one of the most meaningful concepts in human life. If god loved us, it would be meaningful to him too.

Those who trust God, learn that there is really no such thing as death. Death means nothing to God, because God is life. By embracing God, we embrace life, too.

 

[sojourner]

It's all-too-convenient that the person who stands to gain the most reputation by billions of deaths being acceptable is the one who declares them acceptable.

Wrong premise, again. God didn't declare death good. God declared life -- existence -- good.

Actually, god doesn't give us a nest to begin with.

God gives us a "nest" when God places us in the womb.

Is god omnipotent or is he not?

Omnipotence doesn't mean what you're trying to twist it to mean.

How about you stop making up meanings for words based on your supposed knowledge of Greek and your membership in some unknown theological circle, and speak English.

How about you learn the theological concepts that have been posited, before you begin to misapply them and then refute them?

none of the definitions here or in any other credible source does not allow god to create weather to have whatever traits he wants it to have.

You've got an apparent double-negative going on here -- I can't tell what you mean to say. Try again.

Maybe for you. But for me, life is not always good, and for some people it's more often bad than good.

I would posit that it's God's creation, God's universe, and so it's God's perspective -- not your's -- not mine -- that counts. Our job is to trust God.

Again, not an argument. What is better about how you use your intuition than the way I use my intuition?

It is an argument, because it's apparent, from your posts, that you're not using your intuition.

And as I said before, god, being omnipotent, could have created it in such a way that it allows people to thrive without killing some of them.

As I said, before, omnipotence, as understood by the traditional Church, assumes that God is constrained to the way God does things.

I don't know anything of the sort. How does your concept of "don't blame the result of the die on the hand that throws it" differ from "don't blame the result of the coin on the hand that throws it"?

God doesn't gamble with our lives. God leaves our circumstances to the chances of the universe God created, knowing that, ultimately, we are in God's hands and, thus, safe.

 

[Imagist]

He made rocks too does that mean if you trip and crack your skull on one its His fault?

No, that's entirely different. It's not like people go out and accidentally walk out into an earthquake or a hurricane. If you're careful, you won't trip on rocks, but no amount of care can provide complete protection from natural disaster.

 

[sojourner]

[QUOTEI have assumed the following:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God created the world, including meteorological and tectonic systems.
3. Meteorological and tectonic systems cause natural disasters.
4. Natural disasters often cause death and suffering.

If any of those assumptions are incorrect or "false applications of theological writing", please correct them.

If you can point out any other assumptions that I have made, please do so.][/QUOTE]
You're assuming that points 1, 2, and 3 atrocious, based upon #4. While #4 can be perceived as atrocious, 1, 2, and 3 cannot, since #4 is not universally perceived as atrocious.

 

[sojourner]

No, that's entirely different. It's not like people go out and accidentally walk out into an earthquake or a hurricane. If you're careful, you won't trip on rocks, but no amount of care can provide complete protection from natural disaster.

None of which specifically defines God as either atrocious or malevolent.
Except by you.

 

[Imagist]

Those who trust God, learn that there is really no such thing as death. Death means nothing to God, because God is life. By embracing God, we embrace life, too.

Bull. I have lived around Christians all my life and they still don't want to die and still are sad at the death of loved ones.

Furthermore, by your reasoning, murder isn't wrong as long as everybody trusts god.

 

[gzusfrk]

No, that's entirely different. It's not like people go out and accidentally walk out into an earthquake or a hurricane. If you're careful, you won't trip on rocks, but no amount of care can provide complete protection from natural disaster.

You have to have storms, they bring rain, these natural disasters have to happen in order for the earth system to work. So rain brings flood some people could die, and thats Gods fault?

 

[Imagist]

Wrong premise, again. God didn't declare death good. God declared life -- existence -- good.

Life and existence are also not equivalent terms. Death AND life are both parts of human existence.

Omnipotence doesn't mean what you're trying to twist it to mean.

I have provided sources to show that omnipotence does in fact mean exactly what I have used it to mean. So far you have claimed that "love" = "relationship", "omnipotence" != "able to do anything", and "life" = "existence". Could you please tell me what dictionary and/or language and/or drugs you are using so that we can at least use the same words to have the same meaning? I am (roughly) adhering to Merriam-Webster and/or Wikipedia, U.S. American English, and am not using any mind-altering substances.

How about you learn the theological concepts that have been posited, before you begin to misapply them and then refute them?

Sojourner, I may have had better things do than wade through 58 pages of your drivel, but I HAVE read extensively about religion and theology, particularly Christianity. I was raised Christian, and for years I wanted desperately to believe that there was a god but could not find any credible evidence for that assertion. I have spent years of my time and hundreds (possibly even thousands) of dollars on books toward that purpose. So accuse me of being wrong, accuse me of stupidity, accuse me of nearly anything, but don't you dare accuse me of not doing my homework on this subject. I would bet money that I am better-read than you on theological topics any day.

You've got an apparent double-negative going on here -- I can't tell what you mean to say. Try again.

The double negative in fact indicates a positive, a correct usage of the double negative. However, I can see how it is unclear, so I'll reword.

No definition of "omnipotence" here or in any other credible source prevents god from creating weather with whatever traits he wants it to have.

I would posit that it's God's creation, God's universe, and so it's God's perspective -- not your's -- not mine -- that counts. Our job is to trust God.

Ownership over the setting doesn't give anyone the right to cause death. Ethics does not allow one to exert ownership over a sentient being, certainly not to the point of causing their death.

It is an argument, because it's apparent, from your posts, that you're not using your intuition.

Given that, as always, the purpose of debate is to convince your audience, not your opponent, I will present to readers that this obviously amounts only to a personal attack on my mental faculties. It in no way proves that sojourner is able to know that "it's [the weather is] this way for reasons we might not understand" based on his intuition.

As I said, before, omnipotence, as understood by the traditional Church, assumes that God is constrained to the way God does things.

Please provide a reference for this definition. I, for one, have a hard time believing that anyone would use the word in such a meaningless way. By that definition, you and I are also omnipotent, since, for each of us, omnipotence is constrained to the way we do things.

God doesn't gamble with our lives. God leaves our circumstances to the chances of the universe God created, knowing that, ultimately, we are in God's hands and, thus, safe.

How exactly does "leaves our circumstances to the chances of the universe" differ from "gambles with our lives"?

And generally, the definition of the world "safe" does not include "dead".

Furthermore, you merely said that god doesn't gamble with our lives, you didn't answer how what god does is different from what Twoface does. So again I ask: How does your concept of "don't blame the result of the die on the hand that throws it" differ from "don't blame the result of the coin on the hand that throws it"? Both god and a batman super-villain create situations where the life or death of a person is determined by random chance: in one case the weather, in the other case a coin.

 

[sojourner]

Bull. I have lived around Christians all my life and they still don't want to die and still are sad at the death of loved ones.

Furthermore, by your reasoning, murder isn't wrong as long as everybody trusts god.

It's not up to us to take life, for life is not ours to take. It's God's.
Of course no one wants to die. Of course we mourn. It's a loss to our physical selves. But then, we're not completely created, either, at this point.

 

[rojse]

(Seems to have been removed)I'm just grateful that that little god b*****t that Christians call God doesn't exist.

.... rude much?

Would you be polite to Hitler?

Godwin's law does not apply given that the comparison is one of god's atrocities to Hitler's:

I don't see any mention of Hitler's atrocities in this discussion.