Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Willamena]

Creatures, whether human or otherwise, try to avoid pain, suffering and unhappiness. This is a developed trait that played a major role in survival.

What?? You mean to say their innate seeking out of what is good for them developed into traits? Yeah... so far off the mark.

Go figure.

 

[themadhair]

What?? You mean to say their innate seeking out of what is good for them developed into traits? Yeah... so far off the mark.

I really hope you were trying to be funny here, and didn't just deliberately misrepresent what I said as a means to starting an argument.

 

[Willamena]

I really hope you were trying to be funny here, and didn't just deliberately misrepresent what I said as a means to starting an argument.

My apologies. Sometimes it's irresistible.

 

[cottage]

Sojourner: 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.

Cottage: :clap I’m amused by your little ploys and all the squirming and wriggling. This is what you actually said (go back and check?): "If God is not the expression of love and goodness that is all encompassing, evident in creation, then God is nothing." This fallacious if, then argument is known as Affirming the Consequent because the conclusion is stated before it is found. And the parts 'all encompassing' combined with 'evident in creation' are false.


Quote:
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.

Evil and suffering are universal. There is not a family or individual, anywhere on the planet, that has not experienced evil and suffering. And no, it isn’t true that we can only describe God by the 'state of being we hope for' (regardless of actual existence). Do you hope that the God you believe in is the Creator? God is the Creator.


Quote:
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.
Quote:
The above forms no part of my argument.

Oh?
Quote:
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.


Yes, I am saying that. But I’m not saying ‘evil and suffering are the defining characteristics of our existence.’


Quote:
Actually, I’m not just saying that.

Meaning that you are, in at least part, saying that.
Yes, absolutely! As I said, there’s not just one, but two arguments to consider: logical and evidential.


You make God contingent upon the existence of suffering and evil. That is, for you, where the buck stops.
God isn’t contingent upon anything. But your arguments make God contingent upon human existence.


Quote:
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.
So, if you understand that God cannot be understood, by what argument do you presume to speak on his behalf using logical terms?


Quote:
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.
You cannot believe the logical impossible (just try and picture in your mind a one armed person clapping with both hands) which is why you are here attempting to justify your beliefs to yourself. And it is for that very same reason that theodicy exists.


Quote:
since God of course needs no defending).

apparantly God does, if you're going to insist that we cannot know that God exists.
God needs no defending, but you need to defend your beliefs, ie how you want to understand him.


Quote:
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?
God is defined by his necessary existence and his power to create and sustain the universe. He is no more defined by evil and suffering than he is by love and goodness. And as both conditions exist he cannot have the identity of either. I’ve already covered this point in depth (A=A).


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.
Actually you do arrive at them logically. You say you don't believe it's 'the logical argument that attracts you to these things', as if a sublime revelation of modal logic suddenly popped into your head. You make too much of it. Very simply, any intuition you arrive at will be logical: you cannot conceive what you cannot conceive of. That is a innate intuition, and one we all share.

 

[Willamena]

This fallacious if, then argument is known as Affirming the Consequent because the conclusion is stated before it is found.

That's not affirming the consequent, it's begging the question.

 

[themadhair]

That's not affirming the consequent, it's begging the question.

I was thinking it was both actually.

 

[gzusfrk]

Sorry, but whose lives is God actively working in? It can't be everybody's, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if it isn't everybody's then there isn't a benevolent God.

MIne and my wife, I can think of about a dozen people that would say He is working in their lives,but I'll bet there is more, and God is only working in the lives of those that continually seek Him.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

MIne and my wife, I can think of about a dozen people that would say He is working in their lives,but I'll bet there is more, and God is only working in the lives of those that continually seek Him.

Yes, confirmation bias is quite inspirational.

 

[gzusfrk]

Yes, confirmation bias is quite inspirational.

Well it was ask for.

 

[cottage]

That's not affirming the consequent, it's begging the question.

Yes, absolutely, it is an example of begging the question (or circular reasoning), and God knows how many other fallacies! But the if, then structure is that of of Affirming the Consequent is If A, then B. B, therefore A. (Instead of A, B. A, therefore B)
Non sequitur:
"If God is not the expression of love and goodness, evident in creation, then he is nothing."
So if God is the expression of love and goodness, evident in creation (A), then he is not nothing (B) [excuse terrible grammar]
God is not nothing (B)
Therefore he is the expression of love and goodness, evident in creation (A)
The opening premise presumes to tell us what the argument hopes to conclude. The middle premise, stated as true, informs us God is 'not nothing'. And the conclusion does not follow from God is 'not nothing' that he will be the expression of love and goodness evident in creation.

 

[logician]

"Benevolence" is as hard to define as "god", and neither seem to exist from a universal viewpoint.

 

[sojourner]

That last sentence is a huge assumption on your part. I really don't see how you make the leap from what seems to me to be a tautology (i.e. we like things we consider good and dislike things we consider bad) to the idea that this indicates that we're "meant" to be one way or another.

The last statement is based in a theological understanding of who and what we are. We all gravitate and hope for a state of goodness. It's how we're wired. I don't see it as a tautology to make that observation. I further don't think that it's much of a leap to say that, if we all have that common preference, that that's how we're made to be.

Set aside your assumption that the fact that we prefer experiences we like to experiences we dislike is somehow proof of God. If our likes and dislikes are evidence of nothing of cosmic importance or divine will, how could you tell a loving God who grants freedom to all His creation from an apathetic God who can't be bothered to interfere?

Can't do that. If you're going to argue from a theological standpoint, God, of necessity, needs to be part of that argument, if God is your method of theological understanding. Being drawn toward a state of love and goodness is, for me, where God lives. If our propensities are not evidence of divinity, then we no longer have a theological argument, and can no longer discuss God's attributes, because God no longer exists for purposes of the argument.

I'm not asking you to do that.

Yeah, you kind of are!

 

[sojourner]

Why on Earth would you do that?

If we're predicating the existence of things based on our intuition, then there exists a huge army of monsters that hide in dark basements and under beds.

You're misunderstanding, because you're misquoting. I said that we base an existence of God upon our intuition of the "right" way for us to exist. We don't base God on fears, or worries, or anxieties, or wishful thinking. We base God upon how we understand and intuit our "right" condition to be.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"We all gravitate and hope for a state of goodness. It's how we're wired. I don't see it as a tautology to make that observation. I further don't think that it's much of a leap to say that, if we all have that common preference, that that's how we're made to be."

Ah, but we define "goodness" in various ways. Mozart, Milton, Van Gogh, Napoleon, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, and Carrie Nation ALL pursued "goodness."

But each had somewhat different definitions. I doubt that ALL of us would agree they were ALL right.

There is NO innate "goodness" either strived for or as an abstract concept. There only differing definitions of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The last statement is based in a theological understanding of who and what we are.

What you call "understanding", I'd call "conjecture".

We all gravitate and hope for a state of goodness. It's how we're wired. I don't see it as a tautology to make that observation.

No, we don't. As OmarKhayyam pointed out, we each hope for different things. There's no single "state of goodness" that we all "gravitate and hope for". At best, your "observation" devolves into just "we like what we like"... and that's where the tautology lies.

I further don't think that it's much of a leap to say that, if we all have that common preference, that that's how we're made to be.

That's a huge leap. It basically says "'X' exists, therefore 'X' was intentionally made to be the way it is." It's the fallacy that the scientific community jumped on when it was applied to the history of life and labelled "intelligent design".

Can't do that. If you're going to argue from a theological standpoint, God, of necessity, needs to be part of that argument, if God is your method of theological understanding.

But not necessarily the understanding of God that you assume exists. As I said, we're dealing with a hypothetical case. It makes no sense to say "but ____ doesn't work!" when the hypothetical has been set up in the form "given _____, what would happen?"

Can you really not entertain notions that you don't believe are true just for the sake of an argument? If I had asked you how things would be different if the sky were orange instead of blue, would your response just have been "but the sky's blue, not orange!" over and over?

Being drawn toward a state of love and goodness is, for me, where God lives. If our propensities are not evidence of divinity, then we no longer have a theological argument, and can no longer discuss God's attributes, because God no longer exists for purposes of the argument.

Yes. For the purposes of the argument, that God no longer exists. We're talking about a different, hypothetical God with different attributes. That's the whole point.

Yeah, you kind of are!

No, I'm not asking for "every fibre of your being" to long for anything at all. Set aside the idea that "every fibre of your being" longs for anything and I think you'll get to what I'm driving at.

 

[sojourner]

I don't think it is. "I like it when I experience good things" could be considered an observation, but extending it to "I like it when I experience good things, therefore I'm meant to experience good things, therefore God" isn't based on empirical evidence, logic or observation AFAICT.

You're right! It's based on intuition, as I said before.

You are so far off the mark here sojourner it almost hurts. Creatures, whether human or otherwise, try to avoid pain, suffering and unhappiness. This is a developed trait that played a major role in survival. A feedback loop that has been continuously reinforced through generations as it were.

You are simply labelling what is almost a tautological longing for happiness as an intuitive understanding of god without any justification for doing so.

Look. We work from a theological understanding that God created us, that God created us in God's image, and that God created us good. We know that we long for love and goodness -- that, when possible, that is the state of being we return to. I think that's a marvelous justification for God. since we understand that God is our beginning and our end, and since we long to return (and thus "end up" in a state of love and goodness), it only follows that God, being our end, must also be love and goodness.

 

[Falvlun]

You're misunderstanding, because you're misquoting. I said that we base an existence of God upon our intuition of the "right" way for us to exist. We don't base God on fears, or worries, or anxieties, or wishful thinking. We base God upon how we understand and intuit our "right" condition to be.

A couple comments with this argument:

You've used the concept of intuition to support your stance a couple of times. Sure, perhaps your intution has lead you to believe in a benevolent God. But my intuition leads me to believe that God, should he exist, is not omni-benevolent. Way back when I first leapt into this debate, that was my original argument: all defenses of God's omni-benevolence are not really intuitive. The intuitive answer is that God is not omni-benevolent. Intuition apparently doesn't give a universal answer to all people; therefore, how does it support your argument any more than it supports mine?

Secondly, you seem to argue that because we desire "goodness", therefore, the intuitive God for us to believe in is a benevolent one. Yet, how does this explain all of the Norse, Greek, Roman, etc gods? These weren't exactly the nicest group of gods and goddesses, and yet, they are what the ancient peoples "intuited" to exist.

 

[sojourner]

This is what you actually said (go back and check?):"If God is not the expression of love and goodness that is all encompassing, evident in creation, then God is nothing."

And this:

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.

Once again, is what I meant to say.

This fallacious if, then argument is known as Affirming the Consequent because the conclusion is stated before it is found. And the parts 'all encompassing' combined with 'evident in creation' are false.

So it's not evident in the created order that the desire of human beings to be in a state of goodness is a universal human trait?

Evil and suffering are universal. There is not a family or individual, anywhere on the planet, that has not experienced evil and suffering.

They are only universal, in that we universally do not desire to experience them, or to sustain them. Evil and suffering are not universal human traits of desire.

no, it isn’t true that we can only describe God by the 'state of being we hope for' (regardless of actual existence).

so we describe a supreme Being by the things we want to do away with? When God is described as Beginning and End, what we mean by that is that evil and suffering are the "right" ways in which we exist, and to which we long to return? I don't think so!

Do you hope that the God you believe in is the Creator? God is the Creator.

And God is love. And God is good. And God created us good. If you're going to use one Biblical descriptor, you have to remain constant with the theology that's presented.

God is nothing, because it's "quite evident" that love is not universal, that goodness does not prevail, that neither one is all-powerful.

Yes, I am saying that. But I’m not saying ‘evil and suffering are the defining characteristics of our existence.’

But that's not my argument. My argument is that the "universal nature" of love and goodness are defined, not by their existence in a pure state, but by their being the state we naturally want to return to.
I'm saying that love and goodness are the defining characteristics of our existence (especially as we intuit them to be desirable for us). Since That is what we desire for ourselves, and, further, since God is our "defining characteristic," what follows? That God is love and goodness.

God isn’t contingent upon anything. But your arguments make God contingent upon human existence.

From a human perspective (which, from our understanding, is the only species that understands theologically), if not for humans, who else would embody such an understanding?

So, if you understand that God cannot be understood, by what argument do you presume to speak on his behalf using logical terms?

You're misquoting me again. I didn't say that "God cannot be understood." I said that "God goes beyond our ability to logically understand."

You cannot believe the logical impossible (just try and picture in your mind a one armed person clapping with both hands) which is why you are here attempting to justify your beliefs to yourself. And it is for that very same reason that theodicy exists.

I can and I do believe that God is benevolent, especially in the face of the existence of evil and suffering. Yet, you tell me that's "logically impossible..."

And as both conditions exist he cannot have the identity of either. I’ve already covered this point in depth (A=A).

it doesn't matter what conditions exist. It only matters what conditions are "right" for us.

Very simply, any intuition you arrive at will be logical: you cannot conceive what you cannot conceive of. That is a innate intuition, and one we all share.

I can intuit and conceive of a beneficent God, especially in the face of the existence of evil and suffering. Therefore, it must be logical.

 

[Falvlun]

My argument is that the "universal nature" of love and goodness are defined, not by their existence in a pure state, but by their being the state we naturally want to return to.
I'm saying that love and goodness are the defining characteristics of our existence (especially as we intuit them to be desirable for us). Since That is what we desire for ourselves, and, further, since God is our "defining characteristic," what follows? That God is love and goodness.

Ok, this helps, since it's a pretty clear outline of your argument.

Question 1: How do we know that God is our defining characteristic?
Question 2: You consistently ascribe characteristics to God that are contingent upon his creation (us). For example: Because we seek out love and goodness, therefore God must be love and goodness. Doesn't that seem backwards? Why should our existence dictate what God is or isn't?
Question 3: Couldn't God be a malevolent spirit that hard-wired us to desire something (love and goodness) that we could never fully recieve? Wouldn't that give a malevolent Being the ultimate pleasure? This might seem a silly scenario, but the point being is that you drew one conclusion from an observation (humans seem to univerally seek out love and goodness), when other conclusions can also be drawn.

 

[sojourner]

Ah, but we define "goodness" in various ways. Mozart, Milton, Van Gogh, Napoleon, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, and Carrie Nation ALL pursued "goodness."

No, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy and Carrie Nation all pursued selfish ends.
Makes no difference, though. We define God in different ways, too. As I've said, intuition doesn't always lend itself to logical language.

There is NO innate "goodness" either strived for or as an abstract concept.

So... we don't all hope for a state of being that is "right" for us? (Assuming that we're all healthy -- mental disability insures that all bets are off)

What you call "understanding", I'd call "conjecture".

"Conjecture" isn't part and parcel of theological language, now, is it?

No, we don't.

Name one sane person who hopes for a "wrong" state of being.

As OmarKhayyam pointed out, we each hope for different things.

We each see different versions of God.

There's no single "state of goodness" that we all "gravitate and hope for".

Of course there is. The way we describe that state is based upon limited understanding of what that state might specifically entail, but that's more a construct than an intuition, isn't it!

At best, your "observation" devolves into just "we like what we like"... and that's where the tautology lies.

Only if you take too far on a tangent.

That's a huge leap. It basically says "'X' exists, therefore 'X' was intentionally made to be the way it is." It's the fallacy that the scientific community jumped on when it was applied to the history of life and labelled "intelligent design".

I'm not lending any intentionality here. I'm merely saying that that's how it is. It's how we're made.

But not necessarily the understanding of God that you assume exists.

I can only argue from my own understanding.

we're dealing with a hypothetical case.

Why not just deal with reality? Why set up a straw man to knock down?

It makes no sense to say "but ____ doesn't work!" when the hypothetical has been set up in the form "given _____, what would happen?"

It makes no sense to set up a hypothetical, when the real deal will work for us just fine.

just for the sake of an argument?

Is that really all this is about? Just for the sake of an argument?

If I had asked you how things would be different if the sky were orange instead of blue, would your response just have been "but the sky's blue, not orange!" over and over?

You didn't ask me that. You asked me what amounts to "what if your existential impetus were not based upon theology?" And then expected a theological argument. I can't answer from a theological standpoint, if theology doesn't exist.

Yes. For the purposes of the argument, that God no longer exists. We're talking about a different, hypothetical God with different attributes. That's the whole point.

But then we don't have a theological argument, for theology is based upon That God -- not some other, hypothetical god. It seems that what you want is to argue philosophy and not theology.

No, I'm not asking for "every fibre of your being" to long for anything at all. Set aside the idea that "every fibre of your being" longs for anything and I think you'll get to what I'm driving at.

again, to assume that is to assume a non-theological argument.

You've used the concept of intuition to support your stance a couple of times. Sure, perhaps your intution has lead you to believe in a benevolent God. But my intuition leads me to believe that God, should he exist, is not omni-benevolent. Way back when I first leapt into this debate, that was my original argument: all defenses of God's omni-benevolence are not really intuitive. The intuitive answer is that God is not omni-benevolent. Intuition apparently doesn't give a universal answer to all people; therefore, how does it support your argument any more than it supports mine?

I don't think you and I are using the term "intuition" in the same way. When you put your hand on a hot stove, or touch a live electrical wire, what's your natural reaction? To want more of that sensation? No! What's you're natural reaction when someone hits you, or slings a cutting insult? To desire more of the same? No! That's the innate intuition I'm talking about.
Sane people don't use drugs in order to develop a debilitating habit. They use drugs in order to feel good. That universal intuition with regard to our state of being is what informs who God is for us.

Secondly, you seem to argue that because we desire "goodness", therefore, the intuitive God for us to believe in is a benevolent one. Yet, how does this explain all of the Norse, Greek, Roman, etc gods? These weren't exactly the nicest group of gods and goddesses, and yet, they are what the ancient peoples "intuited" to exist.

We're not talking about Mercury, Loki, or Mars. We're talking about God.