Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[sojourner]

Death AND life are both parts of human existence.

Forgive me, but don't most atheists view death as the end of our existence? You can't have it both ways.

I have provided sources to show that omnipotence does in fact mean exactly what I have used it to mean.

Except that you're ignoring the parts of the definition that don't suit you...

So far you have claimed that "love" = "relationship", "omnipotence" != "able to do anything", and "life" = "existence".

It does.
No, I never claimed that. But others here (including you) have.
According to most atheists, life does = existence, because death is the end of 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?

Thanks for insinuating that I use drugs. I appreciate the abuse.

Sojourner, I may have had better things do than wade through 58 pages of your drivel,

Drivel?
You're free at any time to go and do them...

I would bet money that I am better-read than you on theological topics any day.

Hmmm... Five years of formal, graduate theological education (and a perfect GPA).
Looks like I stand to make money on this one. Yay!

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 believe, if you were to look at #'s 4 and 5 on Wiki, you would find that they do that very thing.

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.

No, that's why God doesn't "cause death."
But, this is God's world, therefore, we look to God's perspective as definitive.

I will present to readers that this obviously amounts only to a personal attack on my mental faculties.

Says the Pot to the Kettle, in the drug reference, above.

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.

Good! That wasn't the intent.

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.

Here we go with the twisted logic again.
God is omnipotent within the parameters of the universe as we believe it to work. We are not omnipotent in that regard.

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

Because God's not putting us in the pot. God's not even gambling, because we are not at stake. "Roll of the dice" indicates variables and chance occurrence. It's not meant to indicate a literal gambling tactic.

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

You will note that I didn't use the word, "dead." You did.

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.

Malevolent and selfish motivations are not synonymous with a wondrous and varied world.

 

[cottage]

[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.]

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.[/quote]



To cause unnecessary death and suffering is an atrocity.

God is the cause of all things.

God is the cause of all death and suffering, which is a atrocity.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
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.
No we were not!
You said: ‘Again, God limited God’s Self when God created humanity with free will.’ My reply to you was that an omnipotent God is indivisible and immutable.


Quote:
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?
It would have…nothing to do with love. You were arguing for free will. And in any case love isn’t a necessary part of omnipotence. It’s just an add-on that can be denied without contradiction. And an omnipotent God limiting himself and deferring to his imperfect, contingent creation mocks the very concept of God.

Quote:
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.
But unfortunately it appears that you do not. You are the one moment attempting to accommodate your beliefs logically, the next moment you dismiss logic and expect to argue objectively for your subjective beliefs.
A square peg can't be forced into a round hole.
And a creator God who is all-good cannot preside over evil

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.
I’m doing no such thing. And I don’t care what world you live in; I’m saying your arguments are illogical.
And, incidentally, even subjective beliefs must be logical.


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?
If intuition is illogical then it is unintelligible. Any dream you’ve ever experienced may have been nonsense on stilts and inexplicable, but was logically possible and therefore intelligible.


Our experience of God being benevolent, especially in the face of suffering, is more an intuitive experience that is difficult to reconstruct.
That’s not an argument. You are saying nothing.

Quote:
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.
That’s not at all right. The ‘essence of love’ is an entirely meaningless term if there is nobody to love. So any prior attribute of ‘Loving’, is contingent upon a need to create an object for the love, which is imposing conditions upon an all-sufficient God.

Quote:
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.
As I’ve already explained, the contradiction is confirmed by the prior attribute. An all-loving Being isn’t the ‘all-loving Being’ if there is nobody to love but himself. Creation is necessarily implied.


Quote:
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.
That makes no sense, and it certainly isn’t an answer to the response I’ve articulated above.

Quote:
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.
You said God is the ‘necessary Creator’. I’ve given you the means (above) to show how that appellation is misapplied.

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

We contradict what we don't fully understand.
No, no, no! A formal contradiction stands because we understand, intuitively, the simple self-evident structure.

Intuition goes beyond logic, and defies our capacity for adequate language and symbol.
This is more special pleading. Intuition doesn’t go beyond logic; it is subject to it in just the same way as any other act of cognition.



Quote:
if it can only be argued theologically, why do you try to accommodate it logically.
Because I'm an idiot.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
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.
Please don’t squirm away from what you said, which was that religion could only be argued for theologically. That’s not at all true. Natural religion comprises arguments, logical and inferential, for the existence and nature of God. For example: William Paley’s Evidences for Christianity (1794), and Natural Theology (1802); Descartes’ The Meditations; and works by Tilloch, Leibniz, Locke, Aquinas, Anselm et al.


Quote:
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.
A God (the essence of goodness, the cause and sustainer of existence itself) and evil is contradictory notion and therefore impossible. And that premise is true because it cannot be false.


Quote:
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.
Truth is either factual or demonstrable. And an all-benevolent God is neither.


Quote:
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.
It you who needs to explain. I’ve quoted exactly what you said, no more and no less, from your post dated 2nd June. There are no ommisions and I haven’t chopped those words out of a passage, or quoted you out of context. So now I’m asking you again, what examples of falsity does this refer to, or was it just an angry and ill-conceived outburst?

 

[sojourner]

To cause unnecessary death and suffering is an atrocity.

How do we know these deaths are "unnecessary?" We don't have any idea what God has designed for our own good, and how the intricacies and variances of life converge and separate for our own good.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

How do we know these deaths are "unnecessary?" We don't have any idea what God has designed for our own good, and how the intricacies and variances of life converge and separate for our own good.

And now you have morphed into Dr. Pangloss.

From Harvey and 2 overcoats to a naive and mindless optimism. So progresses(?) our Friend SJ.

 

[sojourner]

Cottage:

You're arguing with a basic, human intuition. We have intuited that these things are absolute: Goodness and love. Otherwise, what's the point of anything? These are the ideals we hope for and work toward. These are the absolutes toward which we turn for meaning. These are the things that must be the very essence of our creation. We see them as our Beginning and our End. The mythos we use to "flesh out" this intuition is God. If God is not the expression of love and goodness that is all-encompassing, evident in creation, then God is nothing.

It seems as if that's what you're trying to prove. That God is nothing, because it's "quite evident" that love is not universal, that goodness does not prevail, that neither one is all-powerful. You have posited several logical arguments to show that love and goodness cannot be omnipotent, due to the existence of evil and suffering. You have concluded that either God is not good, or God is not omnipotent -- and if God is not omnipotent, then God can't be God.
In essence, what you're saying is that the existence of evil and suffering is irrefutable empirical evidence that God cannot be God, as we define God.

So, in other words, evil and suffering -- not love and goodness -- are "where the buck stops" -- are the "standard" for you. Evil and suffering are what you have chosen as the defining characteristics of our existence -- the absolutes by which everything else is measured.

You clothe that in "logical terms," thus divorcing it from anything looking like "belief" and proceed to tell us that we're all wrong. "If God were benevolent and all-powerful, it would logically follow that evil and suffering would not exist."

Let me ask you this:
How is that statment any different than this: "If evil and suffering are absolute, it logically follows that love and benevolence would not exist."

it all comes down to the definition of "absolute" -- omnipotence, if you will. What does "absolute" mean for us, and what is the absolute by which we define our existence?

Obviously evil and suffering are not absolute, for if they were, love and goodness would not exist. The opposite is also true. If love and goodness were absolute, evil and suffering would not exist. They all exist. Therefore, none of them can be "omnipotent." So, "absolute" must be something other than how we've defined it here.

The sound barrier used to be an absolute too. Until we learned how to go fater than that without disintegrating. People used to think that going faster than 30 mph would cause us to disintegrate, too.

So, what is absolute? I posit that what we intuit is absolute. We hope for, long for, work toward, set our sights on -- love and goodness. We seek to find love and goodness wherever we are -- whatever the circumstances. In the face of disaster, we turn to the bravery and selflessness of the rescue workers. In the face of death, we turn to the miracle of survival. In the face of loss, we turn to the hope of reconciliation. These things are what must be absolute, or there is no meaning -- no reason.

These things are absolute -- omnipotent -- not because they overshadow and eradicate evil and suffering, but because that's what we always turn toward in defining ourselves and our existence. Things are "right" when goodness and love prevail. The standard by which life is measured, then, is love and goodness.

The common denominator -- "where the buck stops" -- the "standard" by which existence is measured, is God. That's why we say that God is good, that God is love, that God is omnipotent, because those are the things we intuit to be "right" for us.

It's a theological argument -- not a logical argument. I showed the fallacy of that in paragraphs 4 and 5. The question doesn't, finally, lie in what God "should' or "shouldn't" do, or even how the created order "works," but in who God must be.

 

[sojourner]

And now you have morphed into Dr. Pangloss.

From Harvey and 2 overcoats to a naive and mindless optimism. So progresses(?) our Friend SJ.

:super:

 

[Imagist]

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.

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.

Death and suffering isn't atrocious?

If we can't agree on that simple concept, then there certainly won't be any headway in a discussion, so I again present to anyone reading that sojourner's idea of god's innocence is based on the idea that death and suffering aren't atrocities.

 

[Imagist]

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?

You have to have storms, but you DON'T have to have giant storms that cause floods. Is that such a difficult difference to see?

 

[Imagist]

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.

So basically, you present the argument that murder is okay if god does it?

 

[Willamena]

Death and suffering isn't atrocious?

They are not inherently atrocious. We make the "atrocious" and stick it onto them.

 

[Imagist]

Forgive me, but don't most atheists view death as the end of our existence? You can't have it both ways.

Since when is "the end" not a part of something?

Except that you're ignoring the parts of the definition that don't suit you...

Please point out which parts I am ignoring.

It does.
No, I never claimed that. But others here (including you) have.
According to most atheists, life does = existence, because death is the end of existence.

Life and existence are not equivalent terms. There are plenty of things that exist that aren't alive (rocks, tables, computers) and plenty of things that are alive that don't exist (unicorns, dragons, griffins).

If you can find an atheist who doesn't make that distinction, I'd be curious to meet this person.

Thanks for insinuating that I use drugs. I appreciate the abuse.

I apologize, I was frustrated.

However, I still want you to tell me what dictionary and/or language you are using. It's difficult to have a discussion if we are using different definitions of words than I am accustomed to.

Hmmm... Five years of formal, graduate theological education (and a perfect GPA).
Looks like I stand to make money on this one. Yay!

Schooling is not the same as education or being well-read.

I believe, if you were to look at #'s 4 and 5 on Wiki, you would find that they do that very thing.

Okay, let's look at this critically.

4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that god's nature is benevolent, then it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against his own natural law of benevolence by causing death and suffering (however indirected by chance that causation is). So either god is not benevolent (causing death and suffering IS part of his nature) he has a good reason for going against his laws (no such reason has yet been provided) or he isn't omnipotent by definition 4.

5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan

If god is benevolent, then his worldplan would not include causing death and suffering. So either god isn't benevolent, or he isn't omniscient by definition 5.

Any questions?

No, that's why God doesn't "cause death."

Your insistence that he gambles with life only means that he causes it indirectly. This is still causation. Can we agree on that?

Says the Pot to the Kettle, in the drug reference, above.

The drug insinuation was a frustrated utterance, not the core of my argument. You insist that you "know" things by intuition as a core of your argument.

Good! That wasn't the intent.

Here we go with the twisted logic again.
God is omnipotent within the parameters of the universe as we believe it to work. We are not omnipotent in that regard.

So god can't do anything he didn't do? That would actually make us MORE powerful than god, then, since we at least have the power of choice.

Because God's not putting us in the pot. God's not even gambling, because we are not at stake. "Roll of the dice" indicates variables and chance occurrence. It's not meant to indicate a literal gambling tactic.

So our lives WEREN'T in danger when god created weather and released it's chance occurrence? Then why have so many of us died?

You will note that I didn't use the word, "dead." You did.

In context, you included dead people in the category of people who god supposedly was keeping safe.

Malevolent and selfish motivations are not synonymous with a wondrous and varied world.

What exactly prevents god from making a wondrous and varied world without the death and suffering?

 

[Willamena]

You have to have storms, but you DON'T have to have giant storms that cause floods. Is that such a difficult difference to see?

Floods are not inherently bad, either. If not for the flooding at river deltas, we humans would probably never have invented civilization.

Unless you feel that's bad, too.

 

[sojourner]

Death and suffering isn't atrocious?

If we can't agree on that simple concept, then there certainly won't be any headway in a discussion, so I again present to anyone reading that sojourner's idea of god's innocence is based on the idea that death and suffering aren't atrocities.

How is death atrocious? We're just doing what all living things do eventually. Death isn't atrocious, unless you're subscribing some foreign concept to death that flies in the face of common philosphy surrounding death.

 

[sojourner]

So basically, you present the argument that murder is okay if god does it?

No, I'm saying that our lives are "on loan" from God. God doesn't murder. Murder is a definable crime, practiced only by human beings. God does not defer to intricacies of human law.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Floods are not inherently bad, either. If not for the flooding at river deltas, we humans would probably never have invented civilization.

Unless you feel that's bad, too.

Remains to be seen, but not looking too good so far.

 

[sojourner]

Schooling is not the same as education or being well-read.

In my case, it is.

Life and existence are not equivalent terms. There are plenty of things that exist that aren't alive (rocks, tables, computers) and plenty of things that are alive that don't exist (unicorns, dragons, griffins).

If you can find an atheist who doesn't make that distinction, I'd be curious to meet this person.

Fine. We'll substitute the term "life" where we find the term "existence," for purposes of our argument here.

Please point out which parts I am ignoring.

Already answered, but I believe they were points 4 & 5.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that god's nature is benevolent, then it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against his own natural law of benevolence by causing death and suffering (however indirected by chance that causation is). So either god is not benevolent (causing death and suffering IS part of his nature) he has a good reason for going against his laws (no such reason has yet been provided) or he isn't omnipotent by definition 4.

God's benevolence has nothing to do with the existence of suffering and evil.

If god is benevolent, then his worldplan would not include causing death and suffering. So either god isn't benevolent, or he isn't omniscient by definition 5.

Any questions?

God's benevolence isn't subject to an if/then proposition. The world is created with the variety it has. And God is benevolent.
The fallacy here is that you're assigning properties and values, both to God's omnipotence and to God's benevolence that just simply are not so.
Any questions?

Your insistence that he gambles with life only means that he causes it indirectly. This is still causation. Can we agree on that?

I insisted that God doesn't gamble with us. you insist that I do insist that.
The dice reference was a metaphor.
Can we agree on that?

So god can't do anything he didn't do? That would actually make us MORE powerful than god, then, since we at least have the power of choice.

I didn't say that, either. God chooses to limit God's Self, to operate within those parameters.

So our lives WEREN'T in danger when god created weather and released it's chance occurrence? Then why have so many of us died?

Only in a physical sense. In a spiritual sense, we do not die.

In context, you included dead people in the category of people who god supposedly was keeping safe.

In context, I was including living souls -- not physical bodies. I hope that clarifies. I should have been clearer.

What exactly prevents god from making a wondrous and varied world without the death and suffering?

I don't know. The world isn't that way, and God didn't create that way.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"We seek to find love and goodness wherever we are -- whatever the circumstances. In the face of disaster, we turn to the bravery and selflessness of the rescue workers. In the face of death, we turn to the miracle of survival. In the face of loss, we turn to the hope of reconciliation. These things are what must be absolute, or there is no meaning -- no reason. "

One, I don't see how that follows unless you simply dogmatically assert it, as you have done.

But more importantly even if true - so-o-o wha-a-a-t?

It is still MY life to which I assign whatever meaning or purpose I chose. WHY do I need to refer to any other thing, person, god, myth or "mystical experience" to find and/or validate MY meaning?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"What exactly prevents god from making a wondrous and varied world without the death and suffering?
I don't know. The world isn't that way, and God didn't create that way."

Then WHY assume there IS any god involved? The universe it supposedly designed is indifferent to us. It follows its own laws and always forces us to do likewise. Other than that it simply does not CARE what when or IF we do anything.

Why do you feel this need to construct and impute meaning when clearly there IS NONE?

Are you REALLY Dr. Pangloss and just cannot face the simple fact that the only intelligence anywhere that gives a r*A* about you or your doings is YOU?