Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Quagmire]

I had always wondered why people said "why me?" I think the better question would be "Why not me?"

I thought "why not you"? was the answer (it's the one I usually get anyway).

 

[Quagmire]

Every moment of this life is suffering (see Buddhism's 3 types of suffering) so if a God were to exist he'd be a sadist.

for all we know, this is exactly what we signed up for.

 

[Rakhel]

I thought "why not you"? was the answer (it's the one I usually get anyway).

So I'm beating them to the punch. LOL My family suffers from Murphy's law. "If it can happen it will." So we stopped asking "Why me?" a long time ago.

 

[cottage]

how so?

The free will defence, as an attempt to explain the Problem of Evil, fails for a number of reasons.

1) It is immoral because in order to accommodate evil it makes the notion of free will more important than the alleviation of suffering. And on this account a loving God is the champion of free will rather than love and benevolence.

2) It is also immoral because it assumes evil when evil isn't necessary to the concept of free will; there is no contradiction in conceiving free will without the possibility of suffering. Therefore an existence without suffering is logically possible, and the free will defence must bow to that truth.

3) The supposed free will isn't actually free will at all: it was preordained! We simply did what was known and expected of us.

4) The Bible (for example) establishes the principle that there did not have to be either free will or any suffering. How? Well, if heaven is free of evil and suffering then why not earth?

It is plain that the notion of free will was introduced for no other reason than to address the uncomfortable fact of evil in the presence of a supposedly good and wise God; it has no other purpose. The Bible's writers knew they could say or claim anything: talking snakes, a man rounding up two of every animal on the globe and putting them in a boat, feeding five thousand with five loaves and two fish, etc, etc, but for all their creativity they couldn't deny the unfortunate fact of evil. The New Testament and Jesus was an imaginative attempt to deal with the problem - but it only compounded it. Jesus came and went and suffering continues unabated.

We don't have a choice. There never was any 'choice'. We are error-prone, imperfect creatures who acted exactly as God knew we would. The choice was simply a mechanism contrived by believers to insulate God from the evil in the world. And it fails because the world is God's creation: no God, no world, no evil.

Cottage

 

[Buttons*]

Every moment of this life is suffering (see Buddhism's 3 types of suffering) so if a God were to exist he'd be a sadist.

Someone's missing the point

Know a lot about Buddhism do we?

 

[sojourner]

I'll answer that by quoting a theist, St Thomas Aquinas:

"Just as God not only gave being to things when they first began, but is also the cause of their being as long as they last...so he not only gave things their operative powers when they were first created, but is always the cause of these in things. Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to him as a cause." (Summa contra Gentiles, III, 67).

That's fine, but one of the operative powers God gave us is choice. You can't tell me that God is the root of a desperate, poverty-stricken, unwed mother throwing a baby in a dumpster. That's a poor choice that she made, as a result of other poor choices that she made.

I happen to disagree with Thomas here. Plus, I don't think he's the be-all-end-all of the theodicy argument.

 

[sojourner]

The free will defence, as an attempt to explain the Problem of Evil, fails for a number of reasons.

1) It is immoral because in order to accommodate evil it makes the notion of free will more important than the alleviation of suffering. And on this account a loving God is the champion of free will rather than love and benevolence.

2) It is also immoral because it assumes evil when evil isn't necessary to the concept of free will; there is no contradiction in conceiving free will without the possibility of suffering. Therefore an existence without suffering is logically possible, and the free will defence must bow to that truth.

3) The supposed free will isn't actually free will at all: it was preordained! We simply did what was known and expected of us.

4) The Bible (for example) establishes the principle that there did not have to be either free will or any suffering. How? Well, if heaven is free of evil and suffering then why not earth?

It is plain that the notion of free will was introduced for no other reason than to address the uncomfortable fact of evil in the presence of a supposedly good and wise God; it has no other purpose. The Bible's writers knew they could say or claim anything: talking snakes, a man rounding up two of every animal on the globe and putting them in a boat, feeding five thousand with five loaves and two fish, etc, etc, but for all their creativity they couldn't deny the unfortunate fact of evil. The New Testament and Jesus was an imaginative attempt to deal with the problem - but it only compounded it. Jesus came and went and suffering continues unabated.

We don't have a choice. There never was any 'choice'. We are error-prone, imperfect creatures who acted exactly as God knew we would. The choice was simply a mechanism contrived by believers to insulate God from the evil in the world. And it fails because the world is God's creation: no God, no world, no evil.

Cottage

I disagree. Both free will and suffering are evident parts of the human equation. Part of our theology says that God does not intervene in the manner of taking our suffering away, but God does enter our suffering with us. The Bible is very clear at the beginning that we cannot cross the line between humanity and Divinity. Only God can do that. And God did do that, in the Person of Jesus.

The Bible doesn't attempt to bypass evil. The writers acknowledge the existence of evil. And they don't attempt to provide answers to the problem of evil, but they do attempt to wrestle with the question. Which is all any of us can do.

 

[Storm]

Every moment of this life is suffering (see Buddhism's 3 types of suffering) so if a God were to exist he'd be a sadist. [emphasis added]

No, it isn't.

 

[cottage]

I disagree. Both free will and suffering are evident parts of the human equation. Part of our theology says that God does not intervene in the manner of taking our suffering away, but God does enter our suffering with us. The Bible is very clear at the beginning that we cannot cross the line between humanity and Divinity. Only God can do that. And God did do that, in the Person of Jesus.

The Bible doesn't attempt to bypass evil. The writers acknowledge the existence of evil. And they don't attempt to provide answers to the problem of evil, but they do attempt to wrestle with the question. Which is all any of us can do.

I don't really have a problem with anything you've said above. But what I'm saying is that there is no omnibenevolent, all-loving deity.

Cottage

 

[Willamena]

I can imagine far far better places to be. Can't you?

Anywhere I can imagine is "here".

 

[Willamena]

And this single datum is enough to prove the complete and utter goodness of God, even were we to make a quite large presupposition that this also proves that God exists?

If it isn't, for you, then Brad bless...

 

[cottage]

That's fine, but one of the operative powers God gave us is choice. You can't tell me that God is the root of a desperate, poverty-stricken, unwed mother throwing a baby in a dumpster.

I'm afraid that really is what I'm saying.

If everything created by god was good then no existent thing created by God was evil. Yet there is evil! Therefore if some existent things are evil then not everything created by God was good.


That's a poor choice that she made, as a result of other poor choices that she made.

Okay, let's say the example you used was actual (and sadly, such examples are not entirely unknown). Now, since what is actual is also possible, the possibility must have pre-existed the event itself. And the possibility only exists because the Creator made it so.


I happen to disagree with Thomas here. Plus, I don't think he's the be-all-end-all of the theodicy argument.

I'm not sure it's a theodicy, as St Thomas explains it. Rather than being an apologia for the POE, he is giving and explanation for secondary causation, which by definition is an effect, since God is the First Cause.

Cottage

 

[rojse]

I had always wondered why people said "why me?" I think the better question would be "Why not me?"

You mean, if someone is suffering, and they ask "why me?", you would respond, "why not me?" Wouldn't this mean that you want to suffer instead?

 

[rojse]

If it isn't, for you, then Brad bless...

I'll argue with you on whether Brad exists or not as well...

 

[Willamena]

I'll argue with you on whether Brad exists or not as well...

I could give you his phone number.

 

[sojourner]

I don't really have a problem with anything you've said above. But what I'm saying is that there is no omnibenevolent, all-loving deity.

Cottage

You're free to believe that, if you wish. And I respect your position. But I don't share it.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, let's say the example you used was actual (and sadly, such examples are not entirely unknown). Now, since what is actual is also possible, the possibility must have pre-existed the event itself. And the possibility only exists because the Creator made it so.

The "possibility" is called "free will." God gave us the capacity to make choices, whether for good or evil. In fact, some believe that humanity created evil, by making choices that turn them away from God. While I think that's a little too myopic, I tend to be in that camp. The Creator made it possible, because we were created with the capacity for choice. But, we made it happen. If we use your POV, then gun makers would be the ones sent to jail, because they made it possible for the shooter to kill someone. There has to be a point at which we stop blaming God for everything and take responsibility for our actions. (BTW, don't we call that practice "ethics?") To blame God for the evil is misplaced.

 

[sojourner]

Anywhere I can imagine is "here".

There you are!

 

[Ringer]

For me the best "proof" I can give that God is benevolent is the fact that we humans seem to follow an innate moral law.

 

[Falvlun]

I think it is telling that convoluted arguments have to be made in order to maintain the concept of a benevolent God.