-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do most people assume God is benevolent?
- Thread starter rojse
- Start date
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Appeal to consequences? The people not AlsoAnima.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...o-most-people-assume-god-102.html#post1581301
Come now, dont insult the intelligence, yours and mine: you were saying no such thing! Your very words were (post 976):
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...o-most-people-assume-god-102.html#post1581301
Existence, even the existence of suffering for us, is better than non-existence.You were saying: Existence is better than non-existence, and to make the point even more explicit you included a clause, which said
that even if we suffer it is better for us than not existing.
= Existence stands in contrast to nonexistence. I'm saying one is good, and one is not (not anything). There's no hidden meaning intended in my words.
Again, Im sorry but that isnt what you wrote and made explicit (above). And we dont of course need to be told that existence stands in contrast to non-existence. However, if I read you right, I believe you were making an argument for existence over non-existence from the viewpoint that our existing is a good thing and the suffering we experience does not negate that fundamental goodness. I agree. For it is certainly the case that good events outnumber the evil ones, otherwise we would be on a terminally destructive downward spiral. Existence continues, notwithstanding death, decay, catastrophes and every form of evil. So it is true to say that, on balance, existence is good (We will not at this juncture agonise over the meaning of good). But it makes no sense to say that existence, and the goodness it contains, is better than non-existence. And this point is crucial to my argument: We can conceive of the world not existing, without contradiction; and we cannot, without contradiction, conceive of a Supreme Being who was compelled or obliged to cause the worlds existence. So the world, and the evil and suffering it contains, has no necessary existence. Now as the Supreme Being cannot be other than omnipotent, he/it is therefore malevolent, or indifferent to the suffering that prevails.
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...o-most-people-assume-god-102.html#post1581301
Come now, dont insult the intelligence, yours and mine: you were saying no such thing! Your very words were (post 976):
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...o-most-people-assume-god-102.html#post1581301
Existence, even the existence of suffering for us, is better than non-existence.You were saying: Existence is better than non-existence, and to make the point even more explicit you included a clause, which said
that even if we suffer it is better for us than not existing.
= Existence stands in contrast to nonexistence. I'm saying one is good, and one is not (not anything). There's no hidden meaning intended in my words.
Again, Im sorry but that isnt what you wrote and made explicit (above). And we dont of course need to be told that existence stands in contrast to non-existence. However, if I read you right, I believe you were making an argument for existence over non-existence from the viewpoint that our existing is a good thing and the suffering we experience does not negate that fundamental goodness. I agree. For it is certainly the case that good events outnumber the evil ones, otherwise we would be on a terminally destructive downward spiral. Existence continues, notwithstanding death, decay, catastrophes and every form of evil. So it is true to say that, on balance, existence is good (We will not at this juncture agonise over the meaning of good). But it makes no sense to say that existence, and the goodness it contains, is better than non-existence. And this point is crucial to my argument: We can conceive of the world not existing, without contradiction; and we cannot, without contradiction, conceive of a Supreme Being who was compelled or obliged to cause the worlds existence. So the world, and the evil and suffering it contains, has no necessary existence. Now as the Supreme Being cannot be other than omnipotent, he/it is therefore malevolent, or indifferent to the suffering that prevails.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief here....God is not benevolent!
Benevolent is doing good....refraining from doing harm.
The flood that killed everyone,save Noah and company...
Sodom and Gomorrah....
He sent His Son...His Son made a whip and beat the people until they fled the temple....
He instigated what happened to Job....
The plagues upon Egypt....
He is jealous...domineering...vengeful...narcissistic...manipulative....
He will do unto you..as you have done unto others.
Benevolent is doing good....refraining from doing harm.
The flood that killed everyone,save Noah and company...
Sodom and Gomorrah....
He sent His Son...His Son made a whip and beat the people until they fled the temple....
He instigated what happened to Job....
The plagues upon Egypt....
He is jealous...domineering...vengeful...narcissistic...manipulative....
He will do unto you..as you have done unto others.
I'm glad.
The quantity of events is superceded by the quality of each event, for me at least.
The world and all it contains has no necessary existence, right; and if we turn it around and look at the bright side, this is one (lame) argument for the benevolence of "God", though not one I'd have pursued --obviously there is existence, a lot of it good, including existence itself, so if there is a "being-thing" creator it was "nice" enough to give it to us. And now we've intuited a characteristic for this characteristicless being-thing. It's equally an argument for the malevolence of "God".
Since I feel I'm being pressed to actually make a moral argument for the benevolence of "God", I'll ponder it. It may turn into a short novel, though.
Again, Aristotle's First Cause is yet another image of "God".
Of course, everyone's image of God is the "right" image, for purposes of this debate.
slave2six
Substitious
I would alter this slightly and say that humans can be benevolent and they know that to be thus is the best trait of humanity. Look at how we respond when there are floods, fires, and natural disasters. How many people all over the US opened their homes to the victims of Katrina simply because they needed shelter. A lot. Yes. Humans can be benevolent. And we would like to think that God is like that all the time. Of course, we have failed to paint any deity in such a light on a consistent basis...
I'm not so sure about that. Some of the ancient gods were pretty harsh. The Judeo-Christian god does not fit into this idea for sure! I'm still trying to think of any deities that were actually benevolent and I'm coming up blank...
rojse
RF Addict
The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Again, Aristotle's First Cause is yet another image of "God".
Well no, not really. If there is such a thing as cause, and we are caused, then God will be the cause of all causes, which is to say the First Cause. Unless of course your image is that of a god who is himself (or itself) caused?
Of course, everyone's image of God is the "right" image, for purposes of this debate.
Difficult to disagree with that!