If God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be ... Really?
A common line of reasoning against God's presumed omnibenevolence goes like this:
If God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be ... any earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, wars, children with genetic dysfunctions, ... and in general, there wouldn't be any suffering.
But why should the absence of these things be evidence of God's benevolence?
Based on what reasoning should we conclude that the presence of those things is evidence that God (if he exists) is not benevolent?
If God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be ... any earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, wars, children with genetic dysfunctions, ... and in general, there wouldn't be any suffering.
But why should the absence of these things be evidence of God's benevolence?
Based on what reasoning should we conclude that the presence of those things is evidence that God (if he exists) is not benevolent?
Comments (109)
God (if one exists at all) may have entirely different goals (like creativity, experience and novelty) and different methods of achieving those goals like natural process and physical law.
Try the title of Charles Hartshorne's small treatise "Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes"
[quote= Hume]Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?[/quote]
It is true that one could argue, like Leibniz, that it was logically impossible for God to have created the best possible world without the evil it contains, because some greater goods logically depend upon certain evils in order to exist. In this respect however, I agree with Russell's assessment:
The way I see it, if God exists and is omnipotent, then I think he can do as he pleases. He is under no obligation to submit his actions or the motives of his actions to human scrutiny and judgment.
Otherwise, he would become subordinate to the human mind which is absurd. Either he is God or he isn't.
That is not the question. The questioning presupposes goodwill. Then the existence of suffering is illogical.
If God is not benevolent, then it is a different question.
If you ask the wrong question you will inevitably get the wrong answer.
Other than wishful thinking and human anthropomorphism there is absolutely no reason to assume god is omnibenevolent or for that matter omnipotent.
Given the assumption of both omni's (all Christian apologetics and other theological hand waving aside) there is no convincing or satisfactory response to the religious "problem of evil". Thus it becomes a major problem for religion and a major source of disbelief in any form of deity, sacred, holy or numinous entity. That paves the way for a souless universe devoid of any inherent value or purpose. IMHO bad philosophy and bad religion combined.
I'm not the thread opener and I'm just making case distinctions.
Why can't there be a universe WITH souls and WITHOUT gods?
With form (creation) comes opposites:
up down
left right
good bad
You could be right. However, the question is not about any goodwill but about God's goodwill.
And the main attribute of God seems to be that he is omnipotent or powerful:
God – Wikipedia
Concepts of God – SEP
– Oxford English Dictionary
Being that this is a philosophy forum maybe we should try a little philosophical theism and dispense with preconditions or presumptions which cause us profound cognitive dissonance regarding science and experience. Religious discussion on the forum is too often just a repetition of medieval scholastic theology as though the advances of science could or should have no influence on our religious views.
Man is no longer the crown of creation and the earth is no longer the center of the universe, other views of deity seems necessary for the modern time.
[i]From Wikipedia
Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws.
Philosophical theism conceives of nature as the result of purposive activity and so as an intelligible system open to human understanding, although possibly never completely understandable. It implies the belief that nature is ordered according to some sort of consistent plan and manifests a single purpose or intention, however incomprehensible or inexplicable. However, philosophical theists do not endorse or adhere to the theology or doctrines of any organized religion or church.[/i]
It may well be a philosophy forum but we still use words in the sense they are normally understood - unless otherwise stated.
Plus, by defining God as "benevolent" the OP seems to be using conventional terminology.
If God has to allow pain for a greater good, there is still the problem of predestination. Why create people who will go to hell or not ensure that they go to heaven?
If our only choices are God as defined above and your conclusion, I have to agree. It just seems traditional theism and atheism should not be the only possibilities in the philosophy of religion section.
Depends on which 'benevolent' God you are talking about.
If we consider the Christian God:
...not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it. And the very hairs on your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows.” (Matthew 10:29-31)
It would seem to be the opposite of benevolence for God to know about natural disasters and starvation and cancer and suffering and let it go unchecked when suffering can be relieved. If humans are valuable to it then this appears to demonstrate a callous disregard. Is it possible for a non-interventionist god to be benevolent?
I am certain any competent theological sophist can make a virtue out of all this.
By the way, I know believers who say that God helps them to get jobs and find parking spaces. That's great. Pity God's inactive on infant leukemia.
If there be a perfect being which infinite power and infinite goodness, then we'd expect to see some effects from that -- that the being would use their power to do good things, for instance.
Perhaps we could take the claim down a notch from your beginning, and just leave it at that.
There is so much evil and suffering in the world that it becomes hard to believe in an all-powerful loving God. Not this or that specific evil, but the overwhelming amount of suffering which has nothing to do with moral worth or goodness.
I think that the problem of natural evil posits that God can not be omniscient, all-powerful, and omnibenevolent simultaneously. If God is merely omnibenevolent, then, he doesn't have to prevent global catastrophes, as he may neither know of them nor be capable of doing so. If God is all of those things simultaneously, then it doesn't make any sense for them to happen.
It goes a bit further in begging the question as to what good a god is who does not possess all of those qualities simultaneously. If a god is omniscient and all-powerful, but not omnibenevolent, then it could be evil. If a god is only all-powerful and omnibenevolent, then it wouldn't know what to put into effect. If a god is omnibenevolent and omniscient, then, what can it do?
It pretty much holds up to this very day. Epicurus was a genius. He even advocated for peace, the freedom from fear, and the absence of pain. Everything is good about Epicurus.
We don't have to delve into the pit of nastiness. It's not hard to find examples.
If one is a massive badass -- excuse the language -- motherfucker, then one can do so.
We humans tend to judge God by our own standards, as different as they might be. So those people who have a humanist worldview tend to be appalled by the idea that God should be viewed as omnibenevolent _and_ omnipotent, given the massive suffering that so many people must endure already here and now (to say nothing of the prospect of eternal suffering). But people with a more Darwinist outlook might be better able to incorporate the way things usually are in this world with the idea that God is omnibenevolent _and_ omnipotent.
That's because the children must pay for the sins of their parents!
If we drop our humanist sensitivities, a whole new world of opens up, a world of new ways of conceiving goodness and justice. Capitalism has been teaching us that for a couple of centuries now, it's time we learned the lesson.
Think of God as a capitalist business owner. It's simply in his best interest to make the world run as he pleases, and he also has the power to make it happen.
It's actually strange that so many secular people have been conceiving of God in, basically, socialist terms; ie. that God should be a socialist, or he doesn't exist.
Suppose he does this. Does he also delegate his responsibility for what people do?
If is actions - giving free will to humanity - result in evil, and he knows this, he remains culpable.
AH, I see - so god is not at all moral. That might work.
The inexistence of nonviolent liberal communism globally is my refutation of the benevolence of God, at least, in so far that God is omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and all-powerful, but, I suppose that God could just merely be benevolent and incapable of either understanding or having any effect upon the world. I must admit that I do feel that way sometimes.
Do you agree?
That is, the key ingredient in humanism is the capacity of people to become better.
The only reasonable conclusion is that there is God by science given radio-astronomy and operationalized God signals through advanced radiology on pc-tablets for mind to mind communication with God. Science implies God, indeed!
Usually theologians say God let's some go to Hell in order to save and make others happy, who are happier because they were chosen and others not. Imagine people being invited to a special party. Those who miss out get a greater punishment and those who are saved a special joy
Sure. I'm saying there are different ideas about what counts as moral.
Morality, as understood from a Darwinist perspective (mainly in the sense of "life is a struggle for survival" and "might makes right"), is how we can make sense of monotheism; it is in this perspective that monotheism is internally consistent morally. A Darwinist monotheist has no qualms with there being suffering, unlike the humanist.
This is a very narrow understanding of Darwinism. Too narrow. But even were it correct, which it isn't, it is still the result of God's actions, so doesn't explain why god is not culpable.
Quite right . We invented that the issues of theodicy by imagining a God with all powers, like a person, only unqualifiedly more. These notorious "omni's" create contradictions, but they are no more than logical constructions: manufactured ad absurdum.
Sixty generations have passed since the fall of Rome for instance, which is a very tiny time frame compared to billions of years. In this tiny time frame, only I have more descendants than there are people on earth today. If only one of these was missing, I wouldn’t have been born. Yet it’s just a tiny time frame. What of this enormous chance can be explained with, one is proportional to infinity, if not with argument, there’s no past, present, and future, that is, what we call time is an illusion, and we circulate in a matrix indefinitely, living the same life over and over again. Of course this alone does not prove anything, but this may be at least as probable as a ratio of infinity to chance. This argument leaves the atheists speechless by the way, since even a God has better chance to exist than we have at this moment. Perhaps we all live in delusion with regards to time, life, and mortality.
SP
God cannot be held accountable to us.
Because God, by definition, precedes us, contextualizes us, and makes us possible in the first place.
My point is that judging God by human standards is in conflict with the basic definition of God. One cannot hold, even if just for the purposes of argument, that God is omnimax, and then judge God, and still think one is being consistent. Either one ditches the standard definition of God, or one abstains from judgment of God. But one cannot retain both, and still be consistent.
IOW, atheists and other critics of God operate with their own idiosyncratic definitions of God, thus making their criticism of God a strawman.
The way I see is that if everything was utopian and perfect, the concept of benevolence would be meaningless. As meaningless as trying to conceive of “absolute nothingness” as a “something” in a universe that “exists” - also somethingness. We cannot imagine it. Everything we think of is something.
In order for there to be benevolence there MUST be an antithesis, a contrast to give it dimension. If everything was dark we wouldn’t call it darkness because we never knew what light is.
This is why Abrahamic religions as well as Buddhism, Taoism etc have to recognise the existence of suffering and malevolence as an irrefutable facet of being. A god couldn’t be good if they didn’t have something to act against. If there’s no choice how can one choose to be/ act or behave in any specific way?
Any self respecting deity, should there be any, would permit suffering so that we could experience pure love, ecstasy and joy by contrast. And know it by referencing the opposite.
The question would really be “ would you rather live in a state of absolute numb unfeeling emptiness or would you choose a life equal parts bad and good so that you might experience the full spectrum?
Further more if everything truly has an equal and opposite, if everything is down to probabilities that balance out, then your joy, your abundance and prosperity, your wealth and happiness is someone else’s suffering and poverty. It’s impossible for everyone to have everything all the time. So could you live with being eternally happy if it meant someone else eternally suffered to balance the books?
For me I would rather go through the motions of good and bad experience, as life has always intended. A beautiful and constant struggle.
If that's the case (and I am not sure what version of God you are applying this too and how you know this, but you could be correct) - we can't make any comment about God at all (good or bad) since it transcends human experience and understanding. We can't know anything about it and it would be better to remain silent about the subject.
No, such a claim of the total incapacity of humans to comment on God could be overreaching. Perhaps some humans in fact do have the proper knowledge of God, perhaps God did reveal himself to them, so they can speak with certainty.
I'm pointing toward an option that is repugnant to humanists: namely, the possibility that God is pretty much like major monotheistic religions describe him, and that the state of the world (with all its strife and suffering) is an argument precisely in favor of God's existence.
Oh, and I obviously mean Social Darwinism. When your buddies talk of this or that being "Darwinist" or "Darwin" this, "Darwin" that, you correctly understand it in terms of Social Darwinism.
So the suffering and cruelty of 'creation' is reflective of a cruel God who behaves like a Mafia boss in scripture? I think a lot of humanists have identified this scenario. It certainly makes sense that if there is a god he is either non-interventionist or 'evil' as far as human morality is concerned.
Nevertheless, the intrinsic goodness of God is central to most traditions I am aware of and human beings are supposed to please god by being good also. I guess, at a pinch, good could be interpreted as obedient and long suffering.
No, it wasn't obvious. God is a Social Darwinist and so somehow evades responsibility for his actions.
Quoting baker
...and your subservient pandering to a tyrant god is not at all idiosyncratic.
Not by human morality, but by humanist morality.
Sure. But again, it's not supposed to be goodness by humanist standards, but by God's standards.
No. The reason why God cannot be held accountable is because he is God, not because he is a Social Darwinist.
God couldn't be held accountable even if he was a humanist.
Ah. I'm trying to make sense of the God idea. This doesn't automatically include that I take for granted that God is on my side or that he will be or could be. Quite the contrary, actually.
I agree but since we don't (can't?) know God's mind, how could anyone assume to know if God's standards based on the information available?
By the way, what is a humanist standard of good? Isn't this largely Christianity without Jesus?
And in doing so you renege on your responsibility to decide right from wrong.
A benevolent parent does not spoil their child, does not wrap them in cotton-wool but pushes them towards independence and responsibility.
@jorndoe Jorndoe Trilemma
1. Q knows X
2. Q doesn't like X
3. Q can prevent X
Ergo,
4. Not X
But,
5. X
Ergo,
6. Q doesn't know X OR Q likes X OR Q can't prevent X
For us, this means:
7. God knows there's evil (Ominscient)
8. God doesn't like evil (Omnibenevolent)
9. God can prevent evil (Omniptent)
Ergo,
10. Evil shouldn't exist
But,
11. Evil exists
Ergo,
12. God is not omniscient OR God is not omnibenevolent OR God is not omnipotent.
The Jorndoe Trilemma is our good ol' Epicurean paradox but with a Star Trek, futuristic, twist.
As will be obvious to you, the existence of evil doesn't imply god isn't omnibenevolent. It's possible that God's either not omnipotent or not omniscient or both.
That basically means God could be the quintessential child: good at heart but hopelessly naive and utterly powerless ( :sad:). Jesus was precisely that despite his 30 or so years: a good person who didn't have the slightest inkling of how devious people could be and, last but not the least, he was weakness personified, mercilessly tortured and then to add insult to injury, crucified till life itself jubilantly embraced death!
Maybe you in particular don't know God's mind, but who's to say nobody else does either?
The power of God belief, as far as it concerns interpersonal interactions, is precisely in one party having more uncertainty about God than the other person.
No.
Humanism.
Exactly, which is the justification for a Social Darwinist monotheism.
If there is objective morality, my decision about morality is moot.
If there is no objective morality, my decision about morality is irrelevant.
You're simply taking your brand of morality for granted, as if it was objective, absolute.
I know plenty of people who say they know God's mind. Pity they disagree with each other.
Do you know God's mind or are you more like me on this matter?
What do you think has driven monotheistic conquerors to kill, rape, and pillage, if not the conviction that they have God on their side?
Well yes, this is a familiar and dare I say Hitchensesque argument and one I have certainly adopted form time to time. But human beings justify bad actions using a variety of means. Politics is another good one.
I have to say the more I think about this idea of a god the less coherent and comprehensible I find it. If you reduce the idea to an anthropomorphized cartoon - a fundamentalist style of deity - it become more coherent, if less believable to me.
Do you have a view about what the most plausible form of deity could be? What do you think of the Paul Tillich style 'ground of being' conception?
The God of the Taliban.
That it's impotent.
At the end of the day, life is a struggle for survival. If a concept of God doesn't reflect that and doesn't help one to get the upper hand in said struggle, then it's impotent.
Cool. Coherent but unlikely.
For me if God is the jealous, dictatorial, error-prone fuck-knuckle he appears to be in the Old Testament, then we should blow a raspberry in his direction.
This is what God loves and rewards:
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
Quoting tim wood
Quoting James Riley
It's because right-wingers are doing so good in life that one should believe in God, _their_ God. They always win.
Quoting Tom Storm
And how is that supposed to help you?
Indeed. But there appears to be no such causal link.
Other than perhaps -- "God lets us suffer because he wants us to be happy."
I rarely think in terms of help.
God is one of my favourite characters from literary fiction.
Why? To what end?
That's lame then, to combine mere curiosity with matters of life and death.
As it is, you appear to rest comfortably in the idea that God is a mere paper tiger.
I believe that if God exists, he is a Trumpista, a Social Darwinist. I guess this makes me a resentful prospective theist.
Yeah, I think curiosity about matters of life and death is lame too.
The issue was mere curiosity.
Matters of life and death, given that they are matters of life and death, should be approached with the according earnestness, as opposed to treating them as a mere hobby.
I'm glad you feel that way. But that's your business. I don't think you are in a position to judge another - unless you are trying to emulate the punishing captious God you seem to want to bring into being.
"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci
Hatred does not justify love. Love, however, can justify hatred.
"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci
Brilliant. You hate me out of love.
And I still won't defend things you merely imagine I said or defend stances you merely imagine I hold.
You don't even care enough to hate me for the things I said. You hate me for the things you imagine I said.
Now that's righteousness! That's what God loves!!!!!
Yes, love for my family, love for Americans, and love for my country. You are an enemy. I hate you. And I hate Trump and all who support him.
Quoting baker
And here you are, pretending to tell me why I hate you. Pot, kettle, black.
Publicly disavow Trump, disavow the Republican Party, distance, mask, and vax. Then we can try to love. It's going to take a better man than me to love. Where the hell is that Jesus fella when you need him?
You would be far more convicing if you wouldn't behave exactly like a Trumpista.
And you're just providing yet more evidence for God being a Trumpista.
Quoting baker
In order to speak about "omnibenevolence" ("unlimited, infinite benevolence"), we must first speak about "benevolence", which is "The quality of being well meaning; kindness" (common definition). This is something that makes sense, and it is real for most of us, since we are all human beings, i.e., entities of the same kind. However, when we start talking about God (or a "god"), we are bringing in an entity that is of a totally different kind and about which we know very little (for a lot, even nothing). How can we then know 1) if what we call "benevolence" exists for God and 2) assuming that it does, what would that mean to Him? In short, how can we know what does God consider as "benevolent"? Because only then we could judge whether everything that happens here, on our miniscule planet, created by God, as most people believe, can be considered "benevolent" or is in accordance with a benevolent plan.
But we don't have to go that far. Here's a more "earthly" example. Quite often, it is necessary to punish children, always in good will, so that they can really undestand the severity of a mistake they made. However, in doing this, we appear to be "mean" to them. Yet, they usually understand later that we did that in good will and it was a correct decision.
Your argument would have me be far more convincing if I rolled over and let the Trumpista's have their way. Then I could be righteous in my martyrdom. You must be a Michelle Obama lover: "When they go low, we go high." Fuck that. I'd rather give them some of their own medicine. After all, Republicans and conservatives never learn until the chickens come home to roost (Nancy Reagan, Jim Brady, Jim Baker, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, et al).
I don't know where you get the God/Trumpista shit. I'm not in that argument and don't know and don't care what you are talking about. Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person.
Then by what standards shall he be judged if not by humanist standards?
There is no standards (that we can know about) outside human standards (by definition). So if we are going to judge God, it can only be by these standards.
There can be no other meaning to “omnibenevolent” other than “omnibenevolent by humanist standards”. There are no other standards that we can use. What else do you think omnibenevolent meant?
Quoting baker
Yes one can
No, this is backwards. We start off with a definition of God, and God is, by definition, omnibenevolent. We then proceed to interpret the world in line with that definition.
Anything can be justified that way. Anything.
Also, I don't know if there exists a study on this, but I bet that children are punished the most for not respecting certain societal taboos.
This is true goodness. True goodness. True human goodness. The role model of human goodness you are.
Indeed. Again, if we think of God as a capitalist businessman, the Abrahamic narrative and the way things are in the world (with all the pain, suffering, injustice) make sense.
Also, if we see God as a tribalist, preferring one tribe over others, so that good is whatever is good for the chosen tribe (even if that means death to other tribes).
It's not clear there is any reason why we shouldn't view God as a capitalist businessman or a tribalist.
God's standards.
Think of God as a capitalist businessman or a tribalist. Now, because he's God, his perspective is all that counts, and if he happens to be a capitalist businessman or a tribalist, then this passes for omnibenevolence.
How??
As I said, we don't know those. So anyone who pretends to judge God by God's standards is bullshitting. He has no clue if he's correct or not.
Quoting baker
Doesn't follow. And even if it did, again, we don't know said perspective. So we have to make due with what we have, which is our own standards to judge by.
Quoting baker
Again, what does God being God with a capital G have to do with us being unable to judge him?
Perhaps you don't, but that doesn't mean everyone else is the same as you.
If God is a tribalist, and a particular person is a member of the chosen tribe, then they very much have the clue.
Because, by definition, God precedes and contextualizes us, makes us possible. Thus, whatever we do, is made possible by God.
How might one go about finding out God’s standards?
Quoting baker
Or they’re just insane. How do they know it’s not that?
Quoting baker
Right. Where does this preclude us from judging said God? God seems to have even made it possible seeing as how we can easily iudge him.
By being a member of the chosen tribe. IOW, it's not up to one's own choice.
Sure. But we might still go to hell.
Here's you, baker, being the passive aggressive fascists racist that you are: https://chrismaleyblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/devils-advocate-white-guy-3.jpg
Quoting khaled
Quoting baker
So one can consistently hold that God is omnibenevolent and judge him.
I guess insane people can be consistent like that ...
People like you make the world not worth saving.
I would place the burden of proof upon you but even I am not that mean. That would call upon you to go back and find the impetus for my contempt of you. You could not be expected to find where you refused to deny that you were a fascist or a racist, for that would be you proving yourself wrong and you can't be expected to do that. After all, you are Baker.
Quoting baker
So long as Jesus loves me, we're all good, right?
When was the last time you asked God how it is? has it been well?
Minds need is not universes need. God is real. People are looking for way out, to be taken care of, propaganda to ensure fear and following.
Mind creates dream like state of world and it's wishful for better future.
Yet it fails to understand that it's not unique and it's death would mean nothing.
Guilty until proven innocent? It's not you who needs to prove your accusation, it's I who needs to defend myself against it and convince you otherwise?
See, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes you a Trumpista. De Torquemada would be happy to have you on his team.
I don't exist. I am whatever you say that I am. I think whatever you say that I think. My intentions are whatever you say that my intentions are. I am a figment of your imagination. I don't exist.
Hell, Baker, we can settle this right now. All you have to say is:
I am not a racist and I hate racism.
I am not a fascist and I hate fascism.
Pretty simple really. I think that is pretty close to what I asked before but you did the two-step shuffle and squirmed your way around it. Hence the nomenclature.
Frankly James Riley is correct.
Talking about other man morals while not knowing him or understanding his creations, not wanting to become better just to feel better and above everyone else. Funny world.
He started this. He started this with misrepresenting me viciously and refusing to desist. He has always treated me like I am his underling and that I am committing a grave offense for not submitting to him. He wants me to acknowledge him, while he refuses to acknowledge me. He wants to set the terms. He wants to rule over me.
You had your chance and you wasted it.
I don't think there is any. The presence of those things means God IS benevolent. He looks kindly on the micro-organisms that eat human flesh. Sounds pretty benevolent to me.
So, you don't deny that you are a racist and a fascist. It's settled. Now the only question is, are you? When we empanel a jury, as finders of fact, they are called upon to bring their life experience to the consideration of the veracity of witnesses and to draw conclusions regarding demeanor. I sit in the jury box. I have observed your defense of individuals who's conduct I deem to be fascist and racist. Were you to be an attorney, advocating for them in a demand that the burden of proof be met by the state, then I'd toss you a bone. But I'm not the state. I'm on the jury. And you're not their attorney. You are, at best, your own counsel. Pleading the Fifth? LOL! I can decide on the record.