Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Falvlun]

Just because you find them unconvincing doesn't make them convoluted.

It has nothing to do with whether they are convincing or not. They are convoluted because they are not simple or intuitive, and require assumptions that are just as unfounded as the idea they are trying to defend.

In my theology, God is our reality, including us, so this idea doesn't touble me.

Arguning a more typical God, I see it as possible, but not necessary.

The point was that if evil is necessary, then God, in order to be perfect, must have evil in him. I would think that having a little evil in you means that you are not perfectly good.

Besides, doesn't it seem a little strange to you that a God, who abhores evil, would create a universe in which evil must exist?

By saying that "well, this is reality, so why argue it" rather begs the question. You are essentially defending your version of reality by saying "because that's reality." Now, that's not a very convincing argument.

Maybe for the same reason He can't make a square circle. For us to have a real choice, their must be real options. It's definitive.

Creating a world with options, and without evil, is not logically impossible.

I find it interesting that you define a "real choice" exclusively as being a choice between good and evil. Why couldn't a "real choice" be between going to college or taking over your dad's mechanic garage? Why couldn't a "real choice" be between rocky road or moose tracks? Why couldn't a real choice be between going to lunch with your sister or walking your dog?

I can only assume that's because you haven't experienced it. Once you have, it's undeniable.

Does it occur as an event in your life? How do experience "God's goodness"?
Yes, good things have happened in my life. So have bad things. Have I then experienced God's goodness AND God's badness?

What is intuitive isn't always correct. Geocentrism and a flat earth are intuitive.

I agree that intuitive is not always correct. Simpleness does not guarantee the right answer. However, there is something to be said for Occam's Razor, as well as the idea that something that has no objective evidence must be defended by a complex rationalization in order to maintain the idea of its existence.

 

[Falvlun]

Additionally, is the "good" provided by the existence of free-will greater than the evil its existence (supposedly) necessitates?

Sorry, I just didn't want this idea to get lost, as I don't think I've heard it argued before.

Supposedly "free-will" provides some sort of good, otherwise God wouldn't have such a staked interest in it. But, according to the argument, free-will necessitates the existence of evil. Thus, for there to be a net gain of good in the world, the good provided by free-will must be greater than the cost of introducing evil to the world.

Does this seem likely?

 

[Falvlun]

Also, note, that if God exists, I don't discount the idea that s/he/it is benevolent. I just don't think that s/he/it can be perfectly benevolent.

 

[cottage]

That's not what I said. But, look around you! Obviously, evil exists. And the preponderance of it is humanity-driven. If we made good choices, the evil would diminish. But we don't make good choices. That's one of the points of the creation narrative. Because we have free will, many times, we will choose evil (or at least make poor choices that allow evil to prosper).

Of course not! Look at the creation narrative again. No problem with the conception of a world free of evil. Evil is a concept. It doesn't have to exist ... but it does! The reality is that evil does exist. and it is largely due to our free will.

It is especially noted that you say that the 'preponderance of it [evil] is humanity-driven', and that it is 'largely due to our free will. Well, leaving aside for the moment the blindingly self-evident point that evil can only occur if God permits it to occur, the free will defence does not provide an answer to the so-called natural or metaphysical evils. Volcanoes erupt notwithstanding human activity and pathogens and bacteria have always existed. In all living things cells thrive and then die, and humans suffer as a natural consequence. But if the contingent world doesn't exist necessarily, then it follows that neither do any natural consequences.

Cottage

 

[sojourner]

That's not what I said. But, look around you! Obviously, evil exists. And the preponderance of it is humanity-driven. If we made good choices, the evil would diminish. But we don't make good choices. That's one of the points of the creation narrative. Because we have free will, many times, we will choose evil (or at least make poor choices that allow evil to prosper).

Of course not! Look at the creation narrative again. No problem with the conception of a world free of evil. Evil is a concept. It doesn't have to exist ... but it does! The reality is that evil does exist. and it is largely due to our free will.

It is especially noted that you say that the 'preponderance of it [evil] is humanity-driven', and that it is 'largely due to our free will. Well, leaving aside for the moment the blindingly self-evident point that evil can only occur if God permits it to occur, the free will defence does not provide an answer to the so-called natural or metaphysical evils. Volcanoes erupt notwithstanding human activity and pathogens and bacteria have always existed. In all living things cells thrive and then die, and humans suffer as a natural consequence. But if the contingent world doesn't exist necessarily, then it follows that neither do any natural consequences.

Cottage

That's one of the problems of theodicy: How doe explain natural disaster, disease, and the general vagaries of life, itself? Not sure anyone can answer that question. Human beings assign meaning to life's experiences. To reduce that meaning to "that's just the way it is" is a cop-out.

 

[Storm]

It has nothing to do with whether they are convincing or not. They are convoluted because they are not simple or intuitive, and require assumptions that are just as unfounded as the idea they are trying to defend.

They are simple. They're not intuitive, I'll grant, but they are simple.

The point was that if evil is necessary, then God, in order to be perfect, must have evil in him. I would think that having a little evil in you means that you are not perfectly good.

Besides, doesn't it seem a little strange to you that a God, who abhores evil, would create a universe in which evil must exist?

Define "perfection." I tend to avoid the word, myself. For that matter, define "good."

As I said, arguing a typical God, I don't see why it would be necessary. He's not setting this stuff up for Himself, after all.

By saying that "well, this is reality, so why argue it" rather begs the question.

Where did I say that?

You are essentially defending your version of reality by saying "because that's reality." Now, that's not a very convincing argument.

No, I'm saying that believers, especially those with personal experience, have to reconcile conflicting sets of data. I'm not promoting any solution to the puzzle.

Creating a world with options, and without evil, is not logically impossible.

I disagree.

I find it interesting that you define a "real choice" exclusively as being a choice between good and evil. Why couldn't a "real choice" be between going to college or taking over your dad's mechanic garage? Why couldn't a "real choice" be between rocky road or moose tracks? Why couldn't a real choice be between going to lunch with your sister or walking your dog?

If our choices do not include defying God, we have no choice at all.

Does it occur as an event in your life? How do experience "God's goodness"?

It was part of the experience of my theophany.

Yes, good things have happened in my life. So have bad things. Have I then experienced God's goodness AND God's badness?

According to my theology, yes.

I agree that intuitive is not always correct. Simpleness does not guarantee the right answer. However, there is something to be said for Occam's Razor, as well as the idea that something that has no objective evidence must be defended by a complex rationalization in order to maintain the idea of its existence.

Again, these theodicies are simple. Counterintuitive =/= convoluted.

As for complex rationalization, what do you call philosophy?

 

[Storm]

Additionally, is the "good" provided by the existence of free-will greater than the evil its existence (supposedly) necessitates?

Sorry, I just didn't want this idea to get lost, as I don't think I've heard it argued before.

Supposedly "free-will" provides some sort of good, otherwise God wouldn't have such a staked interest in it. But, according to the argument, free-will necessitates the existence of evil. Thus, for there to be a net gain of good in the world, the good provided by free-will must be greater than the cost of introducing evil to the world.

Does this seem likely?

It does to me, now that I've thought about it. I cited this passage to Beaudreaux already, but I think it bears repeating:

From Jacob's brilliant recap of Serenity on TWoP:

The Operative pulls his huge sword, and Mal pulls...a tiny screwdriver. It's a tiny visual joke on the way to a vicious fight, this way and that on the broadcast platform, before the Operative stabs him (outside the frame, because if we saw him get stabbed as bad as he just did, we'd assume he was dead). "Do you know what your sin is, Mal?" Mal smiles. "Aw hell. I'm a fan of all seven." And Joss makes an interesting point here, which is that this is a literal response, and not a quip: "sin" as a concept is meaningless when the defining authority is as crazy -- and as demonstrably evil by the categorical imperative -- as the Operative and his bosses.

But even then, there's a higher point, which is that "sin," in the sense that the Operative means, and means to enforce here as he did in the beginning, is in itself the most sinful concept imaginable. Imposing their lack, through Pax, through legislation, through signing subjective moral concepts into law, circumvents God's plan entirely, and means taking on God's role and making of oneself an idol. It perverts religion and politics, and all of us love one more than the other. Without pride and the choices it presents, there can be no faith: no assertion that one's relationship with God, against all reason, is imperative and real. Without envy, there is no hope, no comparison, no competition, no dissatisfaction, no reason to try, to succeed. Without gluttony, in a world where greed is eliminated, there is no way to choose charity. Without lust, we all die, and without acknowledgement of lust's universality, there is no fortitude. Without anger, without the holy anger of the proletariat, of the people against the unlawful, there can be no justice. Without greed or sloth, there is no moderation, no temperance or prudence -- we are unable to look at ourselves critically and see long-term v. short-term effects. We stop growing them when the state mandates these lacks, takes away these choices: we all go to sleep. And we don't wake up. And Oceania keeps fighting, and the signal is silenced.

I think I just became a ******* Libertarian. And possibly a Christian.
page 42
​

The existence of evil, of sin creates virtues that could not exist otherwise. Suffering gives us the ability to choose compassion.

 

[cottage]

Define "perfection." I tend to avoid the word, myself.

I'm at one with you here. Generally I too try and avoid the term. It is of course correct to say a perfect thing cannot be imperfect, and the tautology stands regardless of what it is we understand the term to actually mean. For we can just as easily take the meaning to be complete, finished, entire, or exactly correct for the purpose. Indeed, it might be argued that everything that exists is precisely as it is meant to be, and that is to say perfect. Or perhaps not!


Quote:
Creating a world with options, and without evil, is not logically impossible.
I disagree.

Oh really! On what grounds?

Cottage

 

[Storm]

Oh really! On what grounds?

I've already answered that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Creating a world with options, and without evil, is not logically impossible.

I disagree

You may not find this consistent with your philosophy, but, strictly speaking, it isn't logically impossible, as we can define many options which do not involve evil whatsover. You would have to point out how a world with options and without evil would lead to a logical contradiction.

 

[Storm]

Who are you addressing, stranger?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Who are you addressing, stranger?

The sexy individual whom I quoted.

 

[cottage]

That's one of the problems of theodicy: How doe explain natural disaster, disease, and the general vagaries of life, itself? Not sure anyone can answer that question. Human beings assign meaning to life's experiences. To reduce that meaning to "that's just the way it is" is a cop-out.

But the question has been answered! If the statement 'God cannot not be God' is necessarily true, then 'A wholly good God can send evil into the world' is necessarily false. And forgive me, but assigning meaning to life with metaphysical explanations in the face of a clear contradiction is, by far, the greater cop-out in my view.

Cottage

 

[Storm]

The sexy individual whom I quoted.

Now I'm really confused. You quoted Falvlun, who agrees with you, but stated it as disagreement.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Now I'm really confused. You quoted Falvlun, who agrees with you, but stated it as disagreement.

I'm enigmatic like that.

Sorry - fixed.

 

[cottage]

I've already answered that.

Can't seem to find any explanation why a world without evil is logically impossible. Could you point me in the right direction, or just post a quick summary here? Thanks.

Cottage

 

[Storm]

OK, thanks.

You may not find this consistent with your philosophy, but, strictly speaking, it isn't logically impossible, as we can define many options which do not involve evil whatsover. You would have to point out how a world with options and without evil would lead to a logical contradiction.

As I already said, if we cannot choose to disobey, we have no real choice. For us to choose to disobey a "good" God, whatever that means, we must be able to choose something "not good," aka evil.

Someone brought up the example of choosing flavors of ice cream. If my options are limited to eating chocolate or vanilla ice cream, but I cannot choose "no ice cream," I don't have a meaningful choice at all.

 

[Storm]

Can't seem to find any explanation why a world without evil is logically impossible. Could you point me in the right direction, or just post a quick summary here? Thanks.

Cottage

Not just a world without evil. A world without evil AND with meaningful choices.

 

[Falvlun]

Define "perfection." I tend to avoid the word, myself. For that matter, define "good."

Does anyone else notice that debates seem to invariably descend into a semantics argument? I do understand that it is helpful to know what people mean when they say something, especially in regards to something with as variable definition as God.

But, will you believe me when I say that I am simply using the concepts of "perfect" and "good" in the normal, every-day usage of the words? (And, I suppose, in this particular case, using them in the normal, everyday way they are used to describe the Judeo-Christian God.)

As I said, arguing a typical God, I don't see why it would be necessary. He's not setting this stuff up for Himself, after all.

Why what would be necessary? I am confused as to what this refers to... could you clarify? :sorry1:

By saying that "well, this is reality, so why argue it" rather begs the question.

Where did I say that?

Again confusion: I thought that's what this meant: "In my theology, God is our reality, including us, so this idea doesn't touble me." This was your response to "Why would a God who abhores evil make evil necessary?" Again, could you clarify what you meant?​

If our choices do not include defying God, we have no choice at all.

Does defying God have to be evil? Or, in other words, does evil have to exist in order for one to be able to defy God?

 

[Storm]

Does anyone else notice that debates seem to invariably descend into a semantics argument? I do understand that it is helpful to know what people mean when they say something, especially in regards to something with as variable definition as God.

But, will you believe me when I say that I am simply using the concepts of "perfect" and "good" in the normal, every-day usage of the words? (And, I suppose, in this particular case, using them in the normal, everyday way they are used to describe the Judeo-Christian God.)

My point was that they're virtually useless words. Morality is relative and perfection undefinable. I can't remember why I said it, though....

Why what would be necessary? I am confused as to what this refers to... could you clarify? :sorry1:

I don't see why it would be necessary for God to include evil. Just to be absolutely clear, I don't mean that He couldn't, just that I don't see why He must.

Again confusion: I thought that's what this meant: "In my theology, God is our reality, including us, so this idea doesn't touble me." This was your response to "Why would a God who abhores evil make evil necessary?" Again, could you clarify what you meant?

Ah, ok. I wasn't trying to say "This is inarguable reality, deal with it." I was pointing out that in my theology our reality IS God. Our planet, our bodies, our very thoughts are manifestations of God. Since this obviously includes things we consider evil, I was acknowledging that, yes, my God encompasses evil. Sorry for the confusion.

Does defying God have to be evil? Or, in other words, does evil have to exist in order for one to be able to defy God?

Assuming God's way is good, yes.