There is no benevolent god...

[George S]

How benevolent are humans? The vast majority of humanity does not go around killing other humans. But let's be generous and say that 1% do kill or order others to kill.

When we assume that gods, too, just like humans, would be kind when their doing so would not harm them in any way, we find a 99% Bayesian prior probability of a given god (just as a given man or woman) being benevolent, neither killing nor ordering same.

 

[skepticalbip]

I hate to say it but this seems to be a strawman argument. It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it. There are any number of reasons that such a fictional being (if existing) would not give a shit about humanity or humanities' ideas. At best, the argument destroys the general claims that most religions make about their gods.

 

[bilby]

I hate to say it but this seems to be a strawman argument. It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it. There are any number of reasons that such a fictional being (if existing) would not give a shit about humanity or humanities' ideas. At best, the argument destroys the general claims that most religions make about their gods.

That's a pretty good 'best' though.

If we eliminate the majority of religious claims about God, we are left with an idea that nobody seriously seems to consider; for which there is no evidence; and to which we need therefore pay no attention at all.

Unless or until some actual evidence comes to light.

 

[skepticalbip]

I hate to say it but this seems to be a strawman argument. It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it. There are any number of reasons that such a fictional being (if existing) would not give a shit about humanity or humanities' ideas. At best, the argument destroys the general claims that most religions make about their gods.

That's a pretty good 'best' though.

If we eliminate the majority of religious claims about God, we are left with an idea that nobody seriously seems to consider; for which there is no evidence; and to which we need therefore pay no attention at all.

Unless or until some actual evidence comes to light.

Well, not exactly nobody but, admittedly, not a lot of people. I do know some Deists who believe that some "big guy" started everything with the big bang and hasn't interfered since. Apparently some just don't like the answer, "we don't know yet", to the question of how it all started.

 

[George S]

I hate to say it but this seems to be a strawman argument. It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it. There are any number of reasons that such a fictional being (if existing) would not give a shit about humanity or humanities' ideas. At best, the argument destroys the general claims that most religions make about their gods.

How shall we judge morality (~evil) except by human standards? If a god has non-human standards and is not benevolent, then why worship him? Pick a benevolent god if such there be.

Sure, a given god may be claimed to be evil, but that is not the point. Who would worship an evil god? Would an evil person?

There is a very small likelihood of the existence of the benevolent god described in the three Abrahamic religions--one worship-worthy.

In our experience almost all of the entities that judge morality are not evil. Given our prior experience with such individuals (using humanity as our guide) we submit to Bayes Theorem.

P(~evil judger) = 99% in our experience. Suppose that in our experience of (descriptions of) gods we find 1% to be evil (or tricksters). This parallels human experience quite well.

Now shall we calculate with a given "excuse" for an apologist's god being correct? The problem is that there are literally hundreds of entirely different apologetics for any given problem verse. What is the probability that a given apologist is correct and all the other apologists wrong is 1/(number of apologetics).

This actually lowers the probability of a good god. .99/(number of apologetics).

When there are a 3 apologists who disagree on a given apologetic the probability of a benevolent god becomes .33. When those same 3 differ on a different verse the probability of one of them being right is .33 x .33. Each different interpretation of another verse multiplies the probability by 1/3.

When those 3 disagree on yet another verse .11.

Consider the apologists for YHVH coming from the three Abrahamic religions, all of which claim a benevolent god and do the math.

 

[credoconsolans]

It depends on what the god is capable of.

If she's say, a powerful god who is in charge of fertility of plants, it would behoove people dependent on successful agriculture to worship and honor such a goddess, even if she doesn't seem particularly friendly. And why? Because if momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

 

[George S]

That's a pretty good 'best' though.

If we eliminate the majority of religious claims about God, we are left with an idea that nobody seriously seems to consider; for which there is no evidence; and to which we need therefore pay no attention at all.

Unless or until some actual evidence comes to light.

Well, not exactly nobody but, admittedly, not a lot of people. I do know some Deists who believe that some "big guy" started everything with the big bang and hasn't interfered since. Apparently some just don't like the answer, "we don't know yet", to the question of how it all started.

God as creator is a common trope. It is the last place that there could be a god at all.

Here is a simple argument that takes away the need for a creator god. Suppose that the universe is expanding exponentially (Wiki: "In models where dark energy is a cosmological constant, the universe will expand exponentially with time from now on, coming closer and closer to a de Sitter spacetime.").

Let S(t) be the size of the universe over time. S(t) = ke^t. k needs to be tiny so that our current expansion rate is almost linear (which was prior thought). Set t to zero and we find S(0) = 1. When the universe began its size was 1. There is a sense of "before" t₀ only if negative time is allowed. If we start with the universe at size 1 and run time in the positive direction it expands exponentially. If we start with the same conditions and run time from 0 to -1, -2, and so on (invoking symmetry) we may well expect that the universe running backwards from our duration direction would expand in exactly the same way.

 

[George S]

It depends on what the god is capable of.

If she's say, a powerful god who is in charge of fertility of plants, it would behoove people dependent on successful agriculture to worship and honor such a goddess, even if she doesn't seem particularly friendly. And why? Because if momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Agricultural_gods. In this article we are directed to 73. Prior probability of 1/73. Is that enough?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I hate to say it but this seems to be a strawman argument. It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it. There are any number of reasons that such a fictional being (if existing) would not give a shit about humanity or humanities' ideas. At best, the argument destroys the general claims that most religions make about their gods.

The problem is, most major religions claim revelations that supposedly give us reliable information about God's nature. The Bible assures us God IS just, IS merciful, IS compassionate, IS fair, LOVES us and on and on. The other irritating thing about many religious people is they try to tell me the good is something mysterious we cannot hope to understand when it comes to God, ignoring these explicit sub-goodnesses that the Bible makes claim for. God as a concept doers not work and all that can be offered as explanation is a bait-and-switch concept of God.

 

[DBT]

The bible even goes to some length in order to define love:

''Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' 1 Corinthians 13;

''Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.'' 1 John 4:7-8;

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I hate to say it but this seems to be a strawman argument. It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it. There are any number of reasons that such a fictional being (if existing) would not give a shit about humanity or humanities' ideas. At best, the argument destroys the general claims that most religions make about their gods.

Well, if we're talking about the Christian god, then he specifically said that we have the same ideas about good and evil that he does after eating the apple so we can judge him by our standards without any of that relativistic nonsense. If we're talking about some other god, then why are we talking about that god? His followers aren't trying to fuck with our laws, so he can just go off and have his weirdo morality without us caring.

 

[bilby]

That's a pretty good 'best' though.

If we eliminate the majority of religious claims about God, we are left with an idea that nobody seriously seems to consider; for which there is no evidence; and to which we need therefore pay no attention at all.

Unless or until some actual evidence comes to light.

Well, not exactly nobody but, admittedly, not a lot of people. I do know some Deists who believe that some "big guy" started everything with the big bang and hasn't interfered since. Apparently some just don't like the answer, "we don't know yet", to the question of how it all started.

A God starting everything is a valueless proposition. If God is surmised to be eternal, then why bother with God - just surmise an eternal universe.

If God is not eternal, then postulating Him does nothing to help - because we are still no wiser as to where and how God came to be.

So in summary, an extant interventionist worshipful God is impossible; and a creator God is valueless as an explanation for anything.

That leaves very few, if any, current God concepts that are actually possible and/or explanatory in any way.

It's almost as if the world's religions were total bullshit.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well, not exactly nobody but, admittedly, not a lot of people. I do know some Deists who believe that some "big guy" started everything with the big bang and hasn't interfered since. Apparently some just don't like the answer, "we don't know yet", to the question of how it all started.

A God starting everything is a valueless proposition. If God is surmised to be eternal, then why bother with God - just surmise an eternal universe.

If God is not eternal, then postulating Him does nothing to help - because we are still no wiser as to where and how God came to be.

So in summary, an extant interventionist worshipful God is impossible; and a creator God is valueless as an explanation for anything.

That leaves very few, if any, current God concepts that are actually possible and/or explanatory in any way.

It's almost as if the world's religions were total bullshit.

"Almost"?

 

[dystopian]

It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it. There are any number of reasons that such a fictional being (if existing) would not give a shit about humanity or humanities' ideas.

That just means the argument in the OP is incomplete; simply add a line about; "If god doesn't give a shit about us or our ideas of evil, then why worship him?"

 

[George S]

It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it. There are any number of reasons that such a fictional being (if existing) would not give a shit about humanity or humanities' ideas.

That just means the argument in the OP is incomplete; simply add a line about; "If god doesn't give a shit about us or our ideas of evil, then why worship him?"

Because he is the literal Godfather. Because if I don't kiss his metaphorical ring he will torture me. Forever.

By the way, you compacted the essence of my OP to one sentence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I hate to say it but this seems to be a strawman argument. It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it.

Well if the human word 'benevolent' doesn't describe his actions and motivations, then he's not a benevolent god by human standards.

Self-Mutation was always trying to say that there is an omnibenevolent God, but God's definition of benevolent meant something else, something convenient to Self in order to match God's apparent inaction with the violence and suffering we see in the world.
It wasn't that Self really had a clear idea of God's alien-to-us goals and standards, but he was super-attached to being able to label God as benevolent, even if the label became meaningless in his application.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Right to the point: the deity described in the Bible authorizes and carries out genocide and infanticide. It (the deity) allows beatings to the point of death for slaves. It mandates the death penalty for a couple of dozen offenses, including being a bride who, on her wedding night, cannot physically demonstrate her virginity (while the groom can have already ploughed through all of the local hillbilly women.) Etc - etc - etc; anyone on this website can list hundreds of other examples of primitive Bible laws and events.
When Christian apologists deal with this 'problem' with their Love God, they assert that there is no problem at all. Various comebacks from the religionists: God tolerated slavery because man was a primitive being (which makes God a situational ethicist, and also makes God's other onerous restrictions on behavior to be inconsistent and nonsensical); the people who were exterminated in Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, etc, were actually as evil as the Bible makes them out to be. The ultimate 'save' for the religionists is to tell us that God cannot be judged by man's standards. In that case, though, it also makes no sense whatever to call God just, loving, merciful. And by the human applications of justice, love, and mercy, the Biblegod is a Hebrew war deity -- and one who demands blood sacrifice, which puts it on the same level as the Aztec gods.

 

[skepticalbip]

It assumes that, if there is a god, then this god would have the same ideas about "evil" as us humans do and that he would want to eliminate it. There are any number of reasons that such a fictional being (if existing) would not give a shit about humanity or humanities' ideas.

That just means the argument in the OP is incomplete; simply add a line about; "If god doesn't give a shit about us or our ideas of evil, then why worship him?"

But the gods of religions are assumed for much, much more than for asking favors from. The main purpose of creating gods is as an explanation for how the universe works. Many religions have destroyer gods, trickster gods, and malicious gods. Worship covers much more than adoration and seeking protection or favors. Fear and/or awe of these invented gods also inspire worship. Worship doesn't just mean, "oh, everything thy doest is perfect", worship can also mean, "damned you scare the shit out of me with your omnipotence and random nonsensical actions".

 

[Underseer]

Tracie Harris has what I think is the best formulation of the  Problem of Evil: "If I could stop a man from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your god."

I find that this makes it easier to point out that theists have to weaken their claims about omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence in order to "resolve" the Problem of Evil. For example, the most common attempt is the old free will canard.

If god doesn't stop the man from raping the child because it would violate that man's free will, then I shouldn't stop men from raping children because I would also be violating their free will, and god is not benevolent because he created a universe in which we cannot stop each other from doing terrible things because doing so destroys free will. If I can stop a man from raping a child without destroying his free will, then I can do something that god cannot, and thus god is not omnipotent.

 

[dystopian]

Fear and/or awe of these invented gods also inspire worship. Worship doesn't just mean, "oh, everything thy doest is perfect", worship can also mean, "damned you scare the shit out of me with your omnipotence and random nonsensical actions".

The question still stands though. I mean, when we see a woman get beaten by her husband on a regular basis, do we not ask her "why the fuck do you stay with that bastard?"

Just because there's a psychological reason she stays with him doesn't mean it's a *good* reason.

It's the same with god. If god is an evil bastard who can smite us whenever he wants then maybe some people are scared by that into worshipping him... but while I understand that the fear motivates them, it isn't the correct response.