Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Willamena]

Thief here...so Willamena...
Biblical accounts are myth?

Another misinterpreted myth.

Fine...let's run with that.

Having set aside biblical accounts....do we proceed that God is a myth?

More properly, including biblical stories, we could proceed that "God" is a mythic image.

If so...this thread....all of it...is a fraud.

Hardly. Only if you want to devalue "myth".

If we retain God as real...then this thread does not require proof of His existence.

Whether we retain God as real... agreed.

Seeing that God does exist...

...if you say so.

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?

No arguement there.

Oh, wait... is it a rhetorical question?

 

[sojourner]

we could proceed that "God" is a mythic image.

I would add "mythic Being."

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Because I don't know why God created the way God did, I should just give up and assume that God was {not?} in any way involved? How does that course of action make sense?"

Because it reflects the reality we see around us, duh???

"The meaning is not found in the method, or even particularly in the reason. The meaning is found in our wonder at our place in it."

Our “place” is one primate species on one insignificant planet in a universe of billions.

"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."

BULL! While I certainly am dependent on millions of my fellows for the simplest of my needs that fact in NO way allows or justifies the “community” telling ME what MY life means.

"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"

Yes well, duh? So-o-o Wh-a-a-t? WHY are you imposing a meaning - formed in your imagination as you admit - on the universe that has neither care nor concern for any "meaning" YOU may assign to it?

 

[McBell]

Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

In my opinion it is because they were taught from birth that good/evil is always black/white.
The whole "you are either with us or against us" mentality that far to many theists display in their actions and speech.

 

[McBell]

Thief here...Mestemia....
Your rebuttal was shallow....care to upgrade?

So sorry.

Upgraded answer:

If you want to dismiss the whole thread, by all means go right ahead.
However, don't think that no one was able to get anything from it.

You project to much.
Or is it transference...?
Hells bells, I always get those two mixed up.
​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I haven't read the book, so I don't really see how the analogy is relevant.

Actually, apathy, indifference, or ambivalence is the opposite of love. It's not apathy, it's giving room to grow and be.

Okay... let's see where this goes. Take a hypothetical situation: say that rather than having a God who loves us and expresses this love by "giving room to grow and be", we have an apathetic God. How would things be different?

 

[rojse]

Thief here....and the flip side of your last post would be...
God's perception of you.

That's a matter for a different thread entirely, but I would like to believe that if God existed, he would judge me on my actions in life rather than the methodology of my worship.

 

[free spirit]

Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

This is a useless question if you do not know God Character

Therefore we must extablish this very inportant point first.

I believe that God is spirit, we cannot see him nor touch him but he sorround us and we cannot escape him.

I belive also that God is the LAW OF THE UNIVERSE, this law is good and bad, if we obey the law the law works for us for good, but if you break the law we are punished, same as our justice sistem, with a difference, for no matter what we cannot escape God's justice.

 

[Buttons*]

This is a useless question if you do not know God Character

Therefore we must extablish this very inportant point first.

I believe that God is spirit, we cannot see him nor touch him but he sorround us and we cannot escape him.

I belive also that God is the LAW OF THE UNIVERSE, this law is good and bad, if we obey the law the law works for us for good, but if you break the law we are punished, same as our justice sistem, with a difference, for no matter what we cannot escape God's justice.

Most people here are aware of the nature of the Christian God. Learn to use spellcheck.

 

[cottage]

Sojourner: 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.

Cottage: That, with respect, is wrong (the fallacy of Assuming the Consequent and a false premise). You are saying: ‘If God is not the expression of love and goodness that is all encompassing, evident in creation (A), then God is nothing’ (B) [which would mean (B) that God is nothing.] But love and goodness is all encompassing therefore (A). Not only are you affirming the consequent (A) but the premise is also false because there is evil and suffering, and so God’s expression of love and goodness isn’t ‘all-encompassing’.



This is the argument correctly laid out:


If God is not the all-encompassing expression of love and goodness (A) then God is nothing (B) >
God is not the all-encompassing expression of love and goodness (A), therefore God is nothing (B).




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.

Actually, I’m not just saying that. There are two arguments to consider, the evidential argument and the logical argument. The evidential argument is predicated upon the factual existence of evil and suffering, which you’ve conceded many times throughout this thread, and the logical argument is predicated upon the self-evident truth that what is all good is not evil, the truth of which obtains independent of experience.

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.

No, not ‘in other words’! The above forms no part of my argument.


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."

Mystical beliefs are not divorced from what you call ‘logical terms’. You can’t believe a logical impossibility, which is why theodical arguments exist. It is also the reason we see so many circumlocutory explanations, here and elsewhere, defending the believers’ standpoint (since God of course needs no defending).


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."

Please read again what you’ve written above. You are quoting logic at me, the very thing you dismiss when it suits your arguments from subjectivity and mysticism.

 

[Thief]

Thief here..Hey Rojse...
Have you seen the answer you were expecting?
Have you seen any surprises?
Have you decided if God is benevolent or not?

After 700+postings...there must be some consensus to fix upon.
What say ye?

 

[sojourner]

Because it reflects the reality we see around us, duh???

WE don't see all of reality with physical eyes. duh!

Our “place” is one primate species on one insignificant planet in a universe of billions.

and what does that mean? Can you sufficiently explain, such that we are satisfied?

BULL! While I certainly am dependent on millions of my fellows for the simplest of my needs that fact in NO way allows or justifies the “community” telling ME what MY life means.

Your avatar and your quotation of literature would tell us otherwise...

Yes well, duh? So-o-o Wh-a-a-t? WHY are you imposing a meaning - formed in your imagination as you admit - on the universe that has neither care nor concern for any "meaning" YOU may assign to it?

Because thinking human beings assign meaning to the universe, just as we assign meaning to words on a page.

 

[sojourner]

I haven't read the book, so I don't really see how the analogy is relevant.


Okay... let's see where this goes. Take a hypothetical situation: say that rather than having a God who loves us and expresses this love by "giving room to grow and be", we have an apathetic God. How would things be different?

Then God wouldn't be God. god would be something other than God.

 

[sojourner]

I haven't read the book, so I don't really see how the analogy is relevant.

You don't need to read the book. The relevant part is posted for you.

 

[gzusfrk]

Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

Because they know He is actively working in their lives.

 

[Willamena]

But most of the posters on here have broken away from tradition, and are able to question their beliefs. Why not benevolence?

I still think my answer was the best of the lot.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey Willamena...
Would you mind a repeat of your viewpoint?

And is your viewpoint from a 'just me' perspective as indicated by your logo?

 

[sojourner]

Cottage: That, with respect, is wrong (the fallacy of Assuming the Consequent and a false premise). You are saying: ‘If God is not the expression of love and goodness that is all encompassing, evident in creation (A), then God is nothing’ (B) [which would mean (B) that God is nothing.] But love and goodness is all encompassing therefore (A). Not only are you affirming the consequent (A) but the premise is also false because there is evil and suffering, and so God’s expression of love and goodness isn’t ‘all-encompassing’.



This is the argument correctly laid out:


If God is not the all-encompassing expression of love and goodness (A) then God is nothing (B) >
God is not the all-encompassing expression of love and goodness (A), therefore God is nothing (B).

Nope. Not what I said. At all. I do "affirm the consequent," because those things are universally hoped for and worked toward within humanity. I didn't say that "God is the all-encompassing expression of love and goodness." I said that love and goodness are all-encompassing hopes and goals for humanity.
If God is not the expression of that all-encompasing love and goodness, made evident by our nature, then God is nothing.

The evidential argument is predicated upon the factual existence of evil and suffering, which you’ve conceded many times throughout this thread,

Your evidential argument cannot be true, because evil and suffering are not universal for humanity. God is not defined by what is not universal. How can we define God by the things that we'd like to do away with? We can only describe God by the state of being that we hope for.

and the logical argument is predicated upon the self-evident truth that what is all good is not evil, the truth of which obtains independent of experience.

I look around, and I don't see any good that is evil. I don't see any comfort that is suffering.

The above forms no part of my argument.

Oh?

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.

Actually, I’m not just saying that.

Meaning that you are, in at least part, saying that.

You make God contingent upon the existence of suffering and evil. That is, for you, where the buck stops.

Mystical beliefs are not divorced from what you call ‘logical terms’.

They are, in that we understand that God goes beyond our ability to logically understand.

You can’t believe a logical impossibility, which is why theodical arguments exist.

We can, and we do, because we understand that God exceeds our ability to understand God.

since God of course needs no defending).

apparantly God does, if you're going to insist that we cannot know that God exists.

Please read again what you’ve written above. You are quoting logic at me, the very thing you dismiss when it suits your arguments from subjectivity and mysticism.

I quote this to illustrate how logic can twist an understanding of God that must be ultimately intuited.
If God is defined by the presence of evil and suffering, then it must follow that evil and suffering are universal, if God (universal by definition) is to exist. But evil and suffering are not universal, since love and goodness exist, therefore rendering your argument moot. See how silly it is?

The reason I say that we must intuit God is because we intuit those things toward which we strive. We don't arrive at them logically, although we can construct logical arguments for them. but, ultimately, I don't believe it's the logical argument that attracts us to these things. It's an innate intuition.

 

[rojse]

Thief here..Hey Rojse...
Have you seen the answer you were expecting?
Have you seen any surprises?
Have you decided if God is benevolent or not?

After 700+postings...there must be some consensus to fix upon.
What say ye?

Again, there is no expected answer. I want to see what everyone else has to say about the subject, and there's no point in learning about what people think if I presume what they think before they start, otherwise I will only get the results I expect.

There's no consensus from the posters, either. It is what I expected; people like to be on these forums because they have opinions.

Here's a highlight of the first five pages (if I have missed someone, it is either because the post was too complex to shorten into a line or two, or because it closely mirrored that of a previous post):

Because the major religious factions make us think like that [God is benevolent] to make themselves look better for following such a character

Because the only thing worse than thinking that the sum total of all your life experiences were for absolutely nothing is to think that the Creator (at best) doesn't care one whit what happens to you or (at worst) actually derives much pleasure from your suffering.

Because it's more comforting than assuming god is malevolent or even indifferent.

I choose to believe that God is benevolent because if God does exist, I would WANT God to be so.

as a Muslim I believe that god is benevolent and we can t number his bounties . god gives us some simple things but very valuable for example eyes nose mouth hands food and also the ability of forgetting ........

I think god is indifferent. Just as nature is indifferent.

I don't think most people give it much thought, really. They just go with what they're told.

Well . . . because one of the psychological purposes of maintaining belief in "God" is to foster a sense of positive purpose and reduce the perception of the chaos in the universe. It's comforting. If one's "God" is also filled with chaos, that would defeat one of the big selling points for "God" in the first place.

I think lots of people assume that God is benevolent because that's how their religion has defined Him.

Yahew is not benevolent. He doesn't even claim to be.

I could continue going through the next five, ten, twenty pages in the thread, but I see no point. Each of these opinions (and several others that I did not include for various reasons, without saying anything negative about the poster or their post) venture to explain this question, from a variety of religious viewpoints.

 

[gnomon]

Why would a God have to be benevolent?

I see nothing in ancient myths, those religions predating Christianity, Zoroastrianism, etc. stating that God's must be benevolent?

I'm lazy and do not feel like reading past those posts since my last. Perhaps I should create a thread?