It seems to me that this sort of love is indistinguishable from apathy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do most people assume God is benevolent?
- Thread starter rojse
- Start date
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
BTW, in an odd coincidence Turner Classic Movies ran Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" last nite.
A medieval knight challenges Death to a chess game to save himself and his friends. Cast: Max von Sydow, Bengt Ekerot, Gunnar Bjornstrand. Dir: Ingmar Bergman. BW-96 mins, TV-PG
If you haven't seen it is one the really great "spiritual" moves of all time. Like most Bergman is is FULL of religious symbolism and catholic ritual. You will need to see it several times to get all of it - if you ever do.
But as a statement of the pointlessness and hypocrisy of religion it has no equal. WHATEVER you believe you will never feel the same once you see it. (IF you can follow it at any but the most elemental level.)
The scene in the confessional is just one of many thought provoking images. And full of MORE symbolism. When I was in college we set around the dorm one nite and made 14 different readings of that scene. And all could be defended.
My favorite question is did Death cheat there? And if so might the Knight have won the game? If he just had NOT sought out religion might he have beaten Death?
A medieval knight challenges Death to a chess game to save himself and his friends. Cast: Max von Sydow, Bengt Ekerot, Gunnar Bjornstrand. Dir: Ingmar Bergman. BW-96 mins, TV-PG
If you haven't seen it is one the really great "spiritual" moves of all time. Like most Bergman is is FULL of religious symbolism and catholic ritual. You will need to see it several times to get all of it - if you ever do.
But as a statement of the pointlessness and hypocrisy of religion it has no equal. WHATEVER you believe you will never feel the same once you see it. (IF you can follow it at any but the most elemental level.)
The scene in the confessional is just one of many thought provoking images. And full of MORE symbolism. When I was in college we set around the dorm one nite and made 14 different readings of that scene. And all could be defended.
My favorite question is did Death cheat there? And if so might the Knight have won the game? If he just had NOT sought out religion might he have beaten Death?
Suffering exists. Suffering is either necessary or not necessary. (When I speak of 'necessity' I'm not referring to a thing being indepensible; I'm making the distiction between possibility, probability, and necessity; the latter term excluding the other two, meaning X cannot fail to happen, as in must). We know that suffering is not necessary because there is no contradiction or aburdity in conceiving it to not exist. And it follows that suffering having no necessity means we cannot argue for it from a special plea to circumstance. Suffering, then, is not necessary, and is therefore proved to be unnecessary.
Sojourner: On top of that, Cottage has offered only one real argument.
Cottage: Actually, I am making only one main argument, the logical impossibility of an all-benevolent God! Every point or objection I make is to that end. And what you described as the minutiae were actually comprehensive and properly formulated arguments to address matters that you just breeze over - or answer with circular reasoning.
Sojourner: 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.
The argument is not only valid, but is also sound. You say its false and then immediately confirm its soundness with the self-contradictory God does care, God could fix it but chooses not to which immediately informs us that that there are instances when the all-benevolent God isnt all-benevolent! Further confirmation is provided by God could fix it, which is to say he could but for whatever reason doesnt. You say God deals with it all the time. Leaving aside the question of truth, regarding whether there is actually a God who interacts with the material world, the plain fact of the matter is that he doesnt deal with [suffering] all the time, ie inclusively. He is not therefore an all-benevolent deity. And what greater good can there be that requires great evil and great suffering? Evil stands in opposition to good, and so the greatest possible good is where there is no evil.
Sojourner: 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.
That is not correct. Demonstrable logic is intuitive! Theodicy comprises a number of apologetics, which are systematic ways of logically addressing the Problem of Evil, whether it is the Leibniz free will defence or St Augustines evil is an illusion, or the Irenean soul making idea. Theodicy argues for what is logically possible, exactly the same as any ideology.
Sojourner: Here, logical arguments only serve to obfuscate rather than clarify.
Logic clarifies propositions and identifies errors and falsity.
Sojourner: 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.
Utter rubbish. A red herring is a diversionary tactic that is used to divert attention from the problem or discussion in hand. And the problem, lest you forget, is the logical contradiction posed by the inconsistent triad (more commonly known as the Problem of Evil), which is what we are discussing.
Cottage: Actually, I am making only one main argument, the logical impossibility of an all-benevolent God! Every point or objection I make is to that end. And what you described as the minutiae were actually comprehensive and properly formulated arguments to address matters that you just breeze over - or answer with circular reasoning.
Sojourner: 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.
The argument is not only valid, but is also sound. You say its false and then immediately confirm its soundness with the self-contradictory God does care, God could fix it but chooses not to which immediately informs us that that there are instances when the all-benevolent God isnt all-benevolent! Further confirmation is provided by God could fix it, which is to say he could but for whatever reason doesnt. You say God deals with it all the time. Leaving aside the question of truth, regarding whether there is actually a God who interacts with the material world, the plain fact of the matter is that he doesnt deal with [suffering] all the time, ie inclusively. He is not therefore an all-benevolent deity. And what greater good can there be that requires great evil and great suffering? Evil stands in opposition to good, and so the greatest possible good is where there is no evil.
Sojourner: 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.
That is not correct. Demonstrable logic is intuitive! Theodicy comprises a number of apologetics, which are systematic ways of logically addressing the Problem of Evil, whether it is the Leibniz free will defence or St Augustines evil is an illusion, or the Irenean soul making idea. Theodicy argues for what is logically possible, exactly the same as any ideology.
Sojourner: Here, logical arguments only serve to obfuscate rather than clarify.
Logic clarifies propositions and identifies errors and falsity.
Sojourner: 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.
Utter rubbish. A red herring is a diversionary tactic that is used to divert attention from the problem or discussion in hand. And the problem, lest you forget, is the logical contradiction posed by the inconsistent triad (more commonly known as the Problem of Evil), which is what we are discussing.
Sojourner: 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.
Cottage: The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is special pleading. And we know nothing of the Supreme Being, other than if he/it exists certain attributes will necessarily apply. Anything else is just belief as faith. And the major premise of my argument is very simply that good is not evil, a statement that is true by its very definition.
You point you are missing is that you cannot argue from a subjective (True for me) belief.
Sojourner: "Show me proof." I can't show you proof. "Then it's only a fairy-tale." See what I'm up against?
Not from me you arent. And I hope youre not implying that Ive made those remarks, or anything similar?
Sojourner: 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.
Some examples here would be helpful.
Sojourner: 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.
That is an outrageous statement. What is self-serving (and not a little foolish) is your attempt to defend a mystical belief against logic, when you have been using logic to make arguments in this debate! And please dont just make airy assertions. State the particular premise that you claim is wrong.
Sojourner: 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.
I have absolutely no disagreement with what you say above, and I certainly wouldnt presume to tell you what you may or may not believe. My disagreement is with your statements and contradictory arguments.
Sojourner: If he wants to actually argue theology, we can do that.
I have been arguing from natural theology throughout this debate! I have argued for the Supreme Being concept against your undermining arguments while you have been defending your beliefs.
Sojourner: But arguing logic in the theodicy problem is so much intellectual masturbation, because it really doesn't impart understanding.
In that case all theologians and religious philosophers theodicy arguments are intellectual masturbation.
God's benevolence has nothing to do with the existence of suffering and evil.
That is an utterly nonsensical statement. If a perfectly good God's benevolence has nothing to do with suffering and evil then what has it got to do with?
God's benevolence isn't subject to an if/then proposition.
Special pleading again, I see! By what argument do you make such an adamant assertion, especially condsidering that you've used such yourself to defend that very point in contention?
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?
The proper understanding of a fallacy is never evident in your responses. It is you who assigns properties and values to God's omnipotence and benevolence, ones that cannot be reconciled with those terms. Free will is subject to God's will; and if God were the epitome of goodness and benevolence, evil and suffering wouldn't even be an anathema to God - they would be impossible.
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?
I didn't say that, either. God chooses to limit God's Self, to operate within those parameters.
There isn't a God and 'God's Self'. God is entire, indivisible and immutable. Omnipotence means power without limit and 'immutable' means unchanging. So, by defintion, God's power cannot be augmented or lessened, and God cannot change.
That is an utterly nonsensical statement. If a perfectly good God's benevolence has nothing to do with suffering and evil then what has it got to do with?
God's benevolence isn't subject to an if/then proposition.
Special pleading again, I see! By what argument do you make such an adamant assertion, especially condsidering that you've used such yourself to defend that very point in contention?
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?
The proper understanding of a fallacy is never evident in your responses. It is you who assigns properties and values to God's omnipotence and benevolence, ones that cannot be reconciled with those terms. Free will is subject to God's will; and if God were the epitome of goodness and benevolence, evil and suffering wouldn't even be an anathema to God - they would be impossible.
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?
I didn't say that, either. God chooses to limit God's Self, to operate within those parameters.
There isn't a God and 'God's Self'. God is entire, indivisible and immutable. Omnipotence means power without limit and 'immutable' means unchanging. So, by defintion, God's power cannot be augmented or lessened, and God cannot change.
Francis
UBER-Christian
Well, Cottage, God COULD fix all of our problems with a snap of His fingers. But then, we wouldn't learn anything. Even so, He could just give us the knowledge, right? yes, He could. however, finding the knowledge through pain changes us a little, usually for the better. You know, "builds character". God wants us to build character. And, He's not just gonna give it to us. That could be considered and infringement of our free will. Peace!
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
I personally would assume most people assume the 'God' is benevolent because of(most likely) tradition. Saying 'God' is benevolent within ones religion for over a few 100 years and so people assume that he/she/it, is because it's become tradition.
IMHO.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Because there is meaning.
Because I don't know why God created the way God did, I should just give up and assume that God was in any way involved? How does that course of action make sense?
The meaning is not found in the method, or even particularly in the reson. The meaning is found in our wonder at our place in it.
...to you.
Only the part about misinterpreted myths.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
First of all, you're forgetting that "no man is an island." We are communal creatures, and we largely find meaning within community. "I" takes second seat to "we."
Second, the universe is bigger than just "me." The universe is bigger than "we." We intuit meaning that is broader than ourselves, because the world in which we live is bigger than ourselves.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Kahlil Gibran talks about love in his book The Prophet. He says (paraphrased) that love is like two pillars that hold up a roof. They of necessity stand not too close to each other, or they won't hold the weight. He also speaks of love as trees that grow near, but not too near each other, so that they don't choke each other out.
Actually, apathy, indifference, or ambivalence is the opposite of love. It's not apathy, it's giving room to grow and be.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief here...so Willamena...
Biblical accounts are myth?
Fine...let's run with that.
Having set aside biblical accounts....do we proceed that God is a myth?
If so...this thread....all of it...is a fraud.
If we retain God as real...then this thread does not require proof of His existence.
Seeing that God does exist...then His interaction with Man is real.
If His interaction with Man is real....should we then examine ALL of that interaction...or just the ones you say are not myth?
Biblical accounts are myth?
Fine...let's run with that.
Having set aside biblical accounts....do we proceed that God is a myth?
If so...this thread....all of it...is a fraud.
If we retain God as real...then this thread does not require proof of His existence.
Seeing that God does exist...then His interaction with Man is real.
If His interaction with Man is real....should we then examine ALL of that interaction...or just the ones you say are not myth?
McBell
Unbound
Seeing as this is only an assumption on your part...
The rest must be a fraud...
McBell
Unbound
Perhaps then you should not start tangents you have no desire to pursue.