Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[sojourner]

Question 1: How do we know that God is our defining characteristic?

If God is our Creator, and we are created in God's image, it's pretty evident.

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?

Because we understand ourselves to be in God's image. Since we are the only "we" we have, and if theology is one way of understanding who and what we are, we can only understand God relative to our own common experience.

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.

I think that we have to posit God within the theology through which we understand God. We construct an image of God through theological understanding. Since it is love and goodness we desire, we untuit (and trust) that God must be that kind of spirit, especially since it is God whom we desire to be united with.

See? We can't construct an image of God through a certain theological understanding, and then argue that "God can't be that particular image" based upon another theological understanding. The theology has to remain consistent. That's how we're able to say that the parts of the Bible that depict God as drowning and incinerating people isn't really God. We have a different theological construct.

If you want to argue God's benevolence with a person who has such a construct, go ahead. But the question, "why do most people..." assumes the greatest-accepted theological construct, which does not embrace a violent God.

So to construct a "hypothetical" situation, as 9/10's was trying to do, doesn't work, because it doesn't address the extant theology. It assumes a different theology. And then Cottage hopes to construct a logical argument based upon this different theology, which is not the theology that informs our understanding of God, divorcing the logic from the theological construct out of which we work.

Theologically speaking, other conclusions can't be drawn, for that is the conclusion of the theology out of which we work.
The OP states a question of theology, and we can only answer out of the extant theology.

 

[Falvlun]

If God is our Creator, and we are created in God's image, it's pretty evident.
Because we understand ourselves to be in God's image. Since we are the only "we" we have, and if theology is one way of understanding who and what we are, we can only understand God relative to our own common experience.

Ok, I understand what you are getting at. You are not saying that God is love and goodness because that is what we desire. We desire love and goodness because God is love and goodness, and since we are made in his image, so would we too desire love and goodness. I was misunderstanding your cause and effect.

I think that we have to posit God within the theology through which we understand God. We construct an image of God through theological understanding. Since it is love and goodness we desire, we intuit (and trust) that God must be that kind of spirit, especially since it is God whom we desire to be united with.

Just to clarify: By "we" do you mean fellow Christians, or do you mean fellow humans?

The issue with your approach is that one theology must be chosen from which to construct one's God image. How do we choose which theology is correct?

You claim that because we desire love and goodness, we must therefore intuit a benevolent God. What of the Norse, Romans, Greeks, etc? There are many cultures that "intuited" gods and goddesses that were not benevolent, even though, ostensibly, these people also desired love and goodness.

See? We can't construct an image of God through a certain theological understanding, and then argue that "God can't be that particular image" based upon another theological understanding. The theology has to remain consistent. That's how we're able to say that the parts of the Bible that depict God as drowning and incinerating people isn't really God. We have a different theological construct.

If you want to argue God's benevolence with a person who has such a construct, go ahead. But the question, "why do most people..." assumes the greatest-accepted theological construct, which does not embrace a violent God.

So to construct a "hypothetical" situation, as 9/10's was trying to do, doesn't work, because it doesn't address the extant theology. It assumes a different theology. And then Cottage hopes to construct a logical argument based upon this different theology, which is not the theology that informs our understanding of God, divorcing the logic from the theological construct out of which we work.

Theologically speaking, other conclusions can't be drawn, for that is the conclusion of the theology out of which we work.
The OP states a question of theology, and we can only answer out of the extant theology.

I believe you have answered the OP completely and beautifully, despite all the debate in between. Yes: People believe God is benevolent, because within their theology, that is the most logically consistent answer.

However, it does not provide insight into the actual world; it simply states that their theology supports a benevolent God, and therefore, God is benevolent. The actual world may indeed contain such a God, but arguing from theology does not prove it.

I suppose it's like arguing whether Frodo is the Ring-bearer, or not. If you have only read the Hobbit, you might argue that Bilbo is the Ring-bearer. Of course, if you are reading Lord of the Rings, then you know that Frodo is the Ring-bearer. If you have read neither, you might simply ask "Where is this Frodo? Let's just have him come on over and see if he is bearing any rings or not and settle this question with our own eyes, rather than the writings of others."

 

[sojourner]

Just to clarify: By "we" do you mean fellow Christians, or do you mean fellow humans?

I mean the people who espouse the theology.

The issue with your approach is that one theology must be chosen from which to construct one's God image. How do we choose which theology is correct?

You answer your own question, in a manner of speaking, here:

There are many cultures that "intuited" gods and goddesses that were not benevolent, even though, ostensibly, these people also desired love and goodness.

First of all, as I said before, we're not discussing these other gods. We're discussing the Abrahamic God, and from a uniquely "Christian" POV.
Secondly, these gods do represent a different theological construct. In the end, the construct is not true, of its own accord. Theology is a tool that informs our understanding of who and what we are from a spiritual perspective. If the theology is helpful, we espouse it. If not, we find one that works for us.

However, it does not provide insight into the actual world; it simply states that their theology supports a benevolent God, and therefore, God is benevolent. The actual world may indeed contain such a God, but arguing from theology does not prove it.

Those Xians who travel in my circles don't imbue their theology with a trait of absoluteness. The theology isn't seen so much as "the real way the world is," but helps us to understand that world and our place in it from a spiritual, not a physical, perspective.

I suppose it's like arguing whether Frodo is the Ring-bearer, or not. If you have only read the Hobbit, you might argue that Bilbo is the Ring-bearer. Of course, if you are reading Lord of the Rings, then you know that Frodo is the Ring-bearer. If you have read neither, you might simply ask "Where is this Frodo? Let's just have him come on over and see if he is bearing any rings or not and settle this question with our own eyes, rather than the writings of others."

One has to be familiar with the theology in order to argue that theology. One can't argue "Lord of the Rings" from the standpoint of "At Home in Mitford," except on a very general level, which does not include the question asked in the OP.

 

[themadhair]

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.

I’ll repeat what I said as it appears you missed the crucial bit:

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.

To be blunt about it, in a hypothetical universe with no god can you give a compelling reason (or any reason for that matter) why creatures, through the natural process of surviving over generations, would not develop the instinct to seek out happiness (broadly defined)?
Assuming you can find no compelling reasons for the above, is not then pointless to label a trait that life, over generations, gravitates towards simply by surviving as having anything to do with a ‘theological understanding’?

 

[cottage]

Sojourner: 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?
Cottage: Correct. It is not evident that love and goodness is all encompassing, or that a state of goodness is a desired, universal human trait. There is one trait evident in all animals and all human beings, and that is the consideration for prior self.

Quote:
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.
This is what you said: “Your evidential argument cannot be true, because evil and suffering are not universal for humanity.” Now you’re saying the evidence of evil and suffering exists but can’t be true because we don’t desire those things.


Quote:
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!
You are trying to say if we can’t describe God by the state of being we hope for then we can only describe God by the things we want to do away with. That is a completely false argument, and a deliberate misrepresentation.
We can only describe God by the attributes that are necessary to the concept, that he is the creator, necessarily existent, omnipotent, etc.

Quote:
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.
I think you know that God the ‘creator’ isn’t an exclusive biblical description. It is also describes the God of Islam and other religions, as well as being defined by the concept itself.

 

[cottage]

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

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

Sojourner: But that's not my argument.
Cottage: But it was! You said I was defining evil and suffering as a characteristic of our existence.
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.
It does not follow at all. Love and goodness are not the defining characteristics of our existence. A desire for happiness is pretty much universal, but while one person’s happiness might be good for them it is frequently at the expense of others. What we desire for ourselves is…whatever it is we desire! We bow logically to the prior self. So if God follows from that, the errant benevolence is entirely explicable.


Quote:
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?
I can’t make out what it is you are saying here.

Quote:
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."
There is no distinction to be made between the two. Something understood is logical. Explain to me how they are different? (BTW when else have I misquoted you?)
Quote:
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..."
Yes, I am. When you say ‘you believe God is benevolent in the face of evil and suffering’, all you are doing is making a statement similar to ‘A one armed man can clap with two hands’. You can say it – but you can’t conceive of it. And just as you cannot conceive of the clapping amputee, neither can you conceive of evil being good, or some being all.

Quote:
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.
I wasn’t referring to the empirical world. I was replying to the passage where you introduced the notion of God being defined by the presence of evil and suffering, which doesn’t follow from the rejection of subjective beliefs, and it certainly isn’t an argument that I would wish to be associated with. I replied, thus:
‘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).’



Quote:
Very simply, any intuition you arrive at will be logical: you cannot conceive what you cannot conceive of. That is an 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.
You cannot hold in your mind any imagery where a thing is wholly one thing and partly another, both at the same time. Try it? And because it cannot be done is reason for theodicy – and this very debate!

 

[sojourner]

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.

No, it's innate. Babies don't "learn" how to desire good. Babies innately desire good.

 

[sojourner]

Correct. It is not evident that love and goodness is all encompassing, or that a state of goodness is a desired, universal human trait.

I disagree.

This is what you said: “Your evidential argument cannot be true, because evil and suffering are not universal for humanity.” Now you’re saying the evidence of evil and suffering exists but can’t be true because we don’t desire those things.

So? That doesn't refute the fact that you said that evil and suffering are universal, even though they're really not.

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

Sorry. From a theological argument, it is true.

You are trying to say if we can’t describe God by the state of being we hope for then we can only describe God by the things we want to do away with. That is a completely false argument, and a deliberate misrepresentation.
We can only describe God by the attributes that are necessary to the concept, that he is the creator, necessarily existent, omnipotent, etc.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we cannot describe God by the things we want to do away with -- that God must be defined by what we determine to be our innate state of being.
Love and goodness are necessary to the theological concept.

I think you know that God the ‘creator’ isn’t an exclusive biblical description. It is also describes the God of Islam and other religions, as well as being defined by the concept itself.

I think you know that we're not discussing Allah, nor are we discussing god. We're discussing God. And that discussion, of necessity, involves a specific theological construct, by which those who understand themselves in relationship to God also seek to understand God. "Creator" is central to that theology, as well as the way in which we are created.

It does not follow at all. Love and goodness are not the defining characteristics of our existence.

Yes, they are, since that is how we define our "normal" existence -- the existence to which we desire to return after we experience evil and suffering.

A desire for happiness is pretty much universal, but while one person’s happiness might be good for them it is frequently at the expense of others.

We experience happiness when we abide in love and goodness. That love and goodness are not at the expense of others. Rather, they are best expressed by selflessness.

I can’t make out what it is you are saying here.

We are the only species that constructs concepts of God and thinks theologically. Since we are the only species imbued with God's spirit, and the only species created in God's image, from our theological POV, if humans didn't exist, God would not be conceptualized.

There is no distinction to be made between the two. Something understood is logical.

Not necessarily. How does bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ? Not logical, yet we understand it. How can a person be born twice? Not logical, but we understand it.
Logic is not the be-all-end-all of human understanding. How can a young woman become pregnant by the Holy Spirit? Not logical, yet we understand it.

Yes, I am. When you say ‘you believe God is benevolent in the face of evil and suffering’, all you are doing is making a statement similar to ‘A one armed man can clap with two hands’. You can say it – but you can’t conceive of it.

I can't help it if you can't conceive of it. But, happily, you don't get to project your blindness onto me. I do conceive of it. You'll have to prove that I can't...which (logically) is impossible for you to do.

And just as you cannot conceive of the clapping amputee, neither can you conceive of evil being good, or some being all.

Sorry. I can conceive of that, too. God can make it happen. But you probably don't see that, either, because you're not thinking theologically. Just as you cannot see that God is benevolent because you don't think theologically.

I never said evil was good. Nor did I say "some" was "all."

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

God is not defined by the conditions that humans experience, but by the conditions of human desire.

I replied, thus:
‘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).’

And I clarified by saying that God isn't defined by the existence of these things, but by what we intuit is "right" for us. I've covered this point in depth.

You cannot hold in your mind any imagery where a thing is wholly one thing and partly another, both at the same time.

God's benevolence, especially in the face of suffering and evil is not conceiving of God as wholly one thing and partly another, at the same time. At all.

 

[sojourner]

To be blunt about it, in a hypothetical universe with no god can you give a compelling reason (or any reason for that matter) why creatures, through the natural process of surviving over generations, would not develop the instinct to seek out happiness (broadly defined)?
Assuming you can find no compelling reasons for the above, is not then pointless to label a trait that life, over generations, gravitates towards simply by surviving as having anything to do with a ‘theological understanding’?

Again, any discussion involving God is, of necessity, a theological discussion. Any theological discussion, of, necessity, revolves around God. So trying to have a theological discussion about a hypothetical situation in which God is not in the equation isn't a theological discussion. It might be a philosophical discussion. But that's not theology. Therefore, it's theologically impossible to talk about God as if God were not here.

Since we are specifically discussing God's attributes, I don't see what possible progress could be made by talking as if God doesn't exist. I'm not interested in a hypothetical universe without God, and that's not the point of this thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, any discussion involving God is, of necessity, a theological discussion. Any theological discussion, of, necessity, revolves around God. So trying to have a theological discussion about a hypothetical situation in which God is not in the equation isn't a theological discussion. It might be a philosophical discussion. But that's not theology. Therefore, it's theologically impossible to talk about God as if God were not here.

So? Call it whatever you want if it will allow you to answer the question.

Since we are specifically discussing God's attributes, I don't see what possible progress could be made by talking as if God doesn't exist. I'm not interested in a hypothetical universe without God, and that's not the point of this thread.

I think it has a direct bearing on the point of the thread. You say that God is benevolent... well, how do you know? You say that God lets us exercise our free will out of love... well, how would we humans be able to see the difference between that and letting us exercise our free will out of apathy? We can't peer into God's mind ourselves; all we can see from here is that God doesn't intervene. He doesn't intervene to smite people and he doesn't intervene to help them, either. You say that this is an expression of love, but you, like any other human, is incapable of actually perceiving God's motivations. All we know is that God doesn't intervene; this can just as easily be chalked up to God's apathy or non-existence as it can be to love.

 

[Falvlun]

First of all, as I said before, we're not discussing these other gods. We're discussing the Abrahamic God, and from a uniquely "Christian" POV.

Well, to be fair, we are discussing any theology that espouses a benevolent God. But I am trying to see this from your POV, so Christian theology it is.

Secondly, these gods do represent a different theological construct. In the end, the construct is not true, of its own accord.

Are you saying that any theological construct that represents God as not perfectly benevolent is not true?

Theology is a tool that informs our understanding of who and what we are from a spiritual perspective. If the theology is helpful, we espouse it. If not, we find one that works for us.

Those Xians who travel in my circles don't imbue their theology with a trait of absoluteness. The theology isn't seen so much as "the real way the world is," but helps us to understand that world and our place in it from a spiritual, not a physical, perspective.

How can something help you understand the world if it doesn't represent the way you think the real world is?
To return to benevolence, we are in agreement that Christian theology leads one to the belief that God is benevolent. If God is not actually benevolent, would not the belief that he is benevolent hinder one's understanding of our place in the spiritual world?

 

[blackout]

Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

Who really wants to believe the worst, right?

Most people aren't even willing to consider it. :no:
(the worst, that is.)

 

[sojourner]

[QUOTSo? Call it whatever you want if it will allow you to answer the question.E][/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter what I call it. We can't have a theological discussion without including God.
We can't have a discussion that's not theological when we include God. Since it's God's attributes at stake, this is, by definition a theological discussion. Leaving God out would get us nowhere. It's a moot point.

You say that God is benevolent... well, how do you know?

Already answered that.

You say that God lets us exercise our free will out of love... well, how would we humans be able to see the difference between that and letting us exercise our free will out of apathy?

Since we do desire a "return" to an innate state of love and goodness, apathy (from our perspective) is not present, but desire. Since we know that God always initiates, being the Creator, God does not initiate apathy, but relationship, which, by what we evidence, is one of love.

all we can see from here is that God doesn't intervene.

Not true. We can see that God has initiated a relationship.

you, like any other human, is incapable of actually perceiving God's motivations.

Not true. We perceive that we crave love and goodness. That would be God's impetus -- not ours. God invites us to return to that state. And since God is our Beginning and our End, what we crave must be God.

All we know is that God doesn't intervene; this can just as easily be chalked up to God's apathy or non-existence as it can be to love.

That's not all we know.

Plus, I'm not sure it's fair to assert that "God doesn't intervene." God interacts with us all the time. While God doesn't fiddle with the progression of things, God does transform us, for that is God's "function."

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying that any theological construct that represents God as not perfectly benevolent is not true?

No, I'm saying that any construct is not, in and of itself, a truth.

How can something help you understand the world if it doesn't represent the way you think the real world is?

Through metaphor and allegory. A person named "Eve" didn't factually, in human history, listen to a talking snake and eat a piece of fruit. That's not the way the world *is*. But that allegory helps us to understand our place in the world.

If God is not actually benevolent, would not the belief that he is benevolent hinder one's understanding of our place in the spiritual world?

If we didn't have our innate desire for love and goodness, then I suppose I could agree with that. That being said, though, since those things are understood by us to be our "right" state of being, benevolence is comprised of love and goodness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Doesn't matter what I call it. We can't have a theological discussion without including God.
We can't have a discussion that's not theological when we include God. Since it's God's attributes at stake, this is, by definition a theological discussion. Leaving God out would get us nowhere. It's a moot point.

I disagree... unless by "moot point", you mean you'll continue to find excuses to evade the question I asked.

Tell you what - don't get caught up on the word "God". We can call the hypothetical entity "Squiggly" if you want. With that in mind, spelling things out more precisely for this hypothetical scenario:

- Squiggly exists. Squiggly (whatever Squiggly is) is all-powerful and created a universe.
- Squiggly's universe looks and feels like our universe, but for whatever reason, Squiggly no longer cares about it. Maybe Squiggly got bored with it. Whatever the reason, Squiggly doesn't do anything for anybody anymore.
- Despite Squiggly not caring, for whatever reason, we still like good things and dislike bad things. We can chalk it up to evolutionary adaptation if you want a more concrete explanation.

Taking all this as a given, you are yanked out of this universe with its loving God and plunked down on the counterpart for Earth in Squiggly's universe. You open your eyes, look around, go for a stroll and interact with the inhabitants of Squiggly's universe. How would things be different from the universe you left behind? How would the people be different? What signs would there be that in this universe that aren't present in this universe that show that its creator just doesn't care?

 

[themadhair]

No, it's innate. Babies don't "learn" how to desire good. Babies innately desire good.

You are still missing the point sojourner, and I’m beginning to suspect deliberately so. Do you know how many generations passed before a human baby is born? Do you know the effect that environmental pressures have had on those generations? Do you realise that the instinct to desire happiness (broadly defined) is a result of those environmental pressures over those generations?

You are attributing to god an instinct that is an almost inevitable result of life. Organisms that better survive to reproduction get to pass on their traits. The selective pressure for such a happiness-seeking-instinct has been present for every single generation ever born on this planet. I would love to hear a valid reason from you why such an instinct could not develop in the absence of god(s).

Again, any discussion involving God is, of necessity, a theological discussion. Any theological discussion, of, necessity, revolves around God. So trying to have a theological discussion about a hypothetical situation in which God is not in the equation isn't a theological discussion. It might be a philosophical discussion. But that's not theology. Therefore, it's theologically impossible to talk about God as if God were not here.

Absolute rubbish sojourner and I suspect you are aware of such. When you make the unfounded conjecture that the desire for seeking good is due to a god, then it logically begs the question of whether such a desire would arise regardless of god’s existence. I present the above mentioned points as evidence that such a desire is entirely possible, if not outright inevitable, in a non-god universe.

When you ascribe traits to god that would arise regardless of god’s existence then I think I’m entitled to call you on it. When you then cop out of answering this criticism by claiming such a discussion is in the domain of theology, rendering any non-god discussion impossible despite it’s direct relevance to the point at hand, then I think I’m entitled to call utter vacuous bs.

Since we are specifically discussing God's attributes, I don't see what possible progress could be made by talking as if God doesn't exist.

Actually in our case we were not discussing god’s attributes but an attribute that life has. You tried to pull a fast one and label that attribute of life to god.

I'm not interested in a hypothetical universe without God, and that's not the point of this thread.

Not interested in answering reasonable criticisms to points you have made more like.

I repeat the two pertinent questions below. Feel free to weasel out of answering them again. Or, better yet, retract as vacuous and unfounded your claim that ”That intuition [of desiring good] is fleshed out in our understanding of God”.

To be blunt about it, in a hypothetical universe with no god can you give a compelling reason (or any reason for that matter) why creatures, through the natural process of surviving over generations, would not develop the instinct to seek out happiness (broadly defined)?
Assuming you can find no compelling reasons for the above, is not then pointless to label a trait that life, over generations, gravitates towards simply by surviving as having anything to do with a ‘theological understanding’?

 

[Willamena]

Do you realise that the instinct to desire happiness (broadly defined) is a result of those environmental pressures over those generations?

How does that differ from "innate happiness"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How does that differ from "innate happiness"?

It doesn't - that's the point. The desire for "innate happiness" doesn't necessarily point to God.

 

[themadhair]

How does that differ from "innate happiness"?

When you use ‘innate’ it has the connotation that such a trait was always there. There was a time, the earliest life, when such a trait would not have been present. It is only though the effect of environmental attrition acting upon many generations that led to the trait being developed. Essentially the use of the word ‘innate’ is pulling a fast one by setting the trait itself up to be ascribed to god(s).

That make sense?

 

[Willamena]

It doesn't - that's the point. The desire for "innate happiness" doesn't necessarily point to God.

Neither does sojourner's argument about "innate happiness". It assumes God.