Would you prefer if a benevolent god existed?

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

Or then a benevolent god could understand that humans are more comfortable and assured if they can rely on consistency so always does his 'works' consistently, which we have interpreted as the 'laws of physics'. Maybe, without this benevolent god, the universe would simply be chaos.

 

[Lion IRC]

I have a feeling you're taking this in a slightly different direction.

Not really. Christian apologists often try to rationalize the existence of hell and the eternal torment of souls by saying it is a matter of "justice." There HAS to be a heaven and a hell. If God is good, then God MUST ensure some people spend all eternity in hell (those who deserve to be).

Should unrepentant rapists spend eternity with their victims?

That makes absolutely no sense to me at all for a hundred or so reasons.

Hundreds?
How about you list 25 of those?

But what if they actually are right, and I am wrong? That a benevolent god would indeed ensure that some people suffer for all eternity? Anything different from that scenario would be of less overall good.

On standard Christian theology hell is a choice and the gates of hell are locked from the inside.

That scenario again makes no sense to me, but if it somehow was true, I would prefer that. Having the world make sense is a great feeling, but would be a secondary priority to a world that was the best overall (as determined by a benevolent omni-god).

I cant make sense of a scenario where;

- laws are only enforced selectively

- unrepentant evil isn't punished

- the law giver lacks the power to actually enforce that law

- the law giver isnt sufficiently knowledgeable (omniscient) to objectively determine what laws achieve the optimal desired end.

- The definition of evil, sin, right and wrong is in the eyes of the various beholders

 

[rousseau]

If the question is would I rather be deluded and believe in a benevolent God, or not believe but live in a world that made sense - I'd definitely say the latter. The world is far more interesting and appealing knowing it's mechanics.

How about if you were not deluded---that there actually does exist a benevolent God? You cannot just square the existence of such a thing with anything you currently understand about how the world works? Nothing about the universe makes sense anymore, if there is a benevolent God.

Versus...

The mechanics of the universe do make more sense to you if you believe there is not a benevolent God pulling the strings. But at the same time, the universe is indifferent and lethal and suffering exists which will never be remedied in any fashion.

This seems to be a variation of the original question - first you posed that the world actually worked differently, but now we have the same world, but a known source versus no source.

That makes more sense to me as a question, but I suppose I would need to know the exact nature of this benevolent God to have an opinion on it. If they're just there, I don't know anything about them, and everything else is the same, then we find ourselves in the exact situation that we're already in - all we know is the material universe so that is all that's relevant to us. My opinion of my own existence is dictated by my real experience.

And this is where we see the real divergence between people who choose to believe the universe is benevolent, versus those who believe it's random. Of course it feels better to believe everything has a purpose, but that doesn't mean such a belief is logically sound until we actually know of the creator and their logic.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think these are real issues of the question

 

[abaddon]

Think of it a bit like a truly benevolent Santa really existing maybe (and that he brings presents, things people would like, to adults too, and this Santa would bring them even if they weren't good).

Fulfilling wishes even if they weren't good? Is that truly benevolent?

Have you read the stories of genies in bottles? People wish for things they imagine will cure their hardships and suffering, and they end up suffering horribly because of it.

The cure to suffering isn't wish-fulfillment. This is a major problem of the notion of gods and spirits, whether they exist or not. If the god grants you wishes, he's caving to your selfish impulses and you end up stuck inside that problem even deeper. If he says "no, it's better for you that I don't do as your selfish little heart desires" then he comes over as useless or even malevolent.

 

[Brian63]

If they're just there, I don't know anything about them, and everything else is the same, then we find ourselves in the exact situation that we're already in - all we know is the material universe so that is all that's relevant to us. My opinion of my own existence is dictated by my real experience.

That is a good point. The most that we can add in response is to say that this god offered a divine revelation or some other forms of knowledge-gathering to everyone in the universe to inform them that it is benevolent (even when it does not always appear to be). To verify if the god was being truthful though, we would have to again resort to our own senses and perceptions of what a benevolent being would do.

So now I am undecided between:
1. Preferring that there be a benevolent god even if I had to sacrifice all my understanding of how the world works, versus...
2. The question itself being a paradox.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Thanos thought he was benevolent. When he had infinite power, though, the only thing he could think of to extend limited resources was to off half the consumers.

Why not double resources?
Or make all resources sustainable?
With reality-altering power in a comic book universe, maybe planets just sweat resources when desired by a consumer? Savings on production, refrigeration, shipping, waste management and the resources to support all that...

 

[Lion IRC]

satan accuses God of not being benevolent.

...think about that for a minute.

 

[ruby sparks]

I have a feeling you're taking this in a slightly different direction.

Not really. Christian apologists often try to rationalize the existence of hell and the eternal torment of souls by saying it is a matter of "justice." There HAS to be a heaven and a hell. If God is good, then God MUST ensure some people spend all eternity in hell (those who deserve to be).

That makes absolutely no sense to me at all for a hundred or so reasons. But what if they actually are right, and I am wrong? That a benevolent god would indeed ensure that some people suffer for all eternity? Anything different from that scenario would be of less overall good.

That scenario again makes no sense to me, but if it somehow was true, I would prefer that. Having the world make sense is a great feeling, but would be a secondary priority to a world that was the best overall (as determined by a benevolent omni-god).

To me, that's a slightly different direction. I didn't see the question as either relating to Christianity or involving a critique of it, since that's only one possible type of supposed god.

 

[steve_bank]

Lom reads the bi le with his rose colored glasses. The biblical god was not abusive or violent. It is a god of love. Except maybe for the flood. Maybe it thought it was doing us a favor. Tough love, spare the rod and spoil the human race.

 

[ruby sparks]

Think of it a bit like a truly benevolent Santa really existing maybe (and that he brings presents, things people would like, to adults too, and this Santa would bring them even if they weren't good).

Fulfilling wishes even if they weren't good? Is that truly benevolent?

Have you read the stories of genies in bottles? People wish for things they imagine will cure their hardships and suffering, and they end up suffering horribly because of it.

The cure to suffering isn't wish-fulfillment. This is a major problem of the notion of gods and spirits, whether they exist or not. If the god grants you wishes, he's caving to your selfish impulses and you end up stuck inside that problem even deeper. If he says "no, it's better for you that I don't do as your selfish little heart desires" then he comes over as useless or even malevolent.

You may be right. But I'd still give the same answer to the OP.

 

[Tigers!]

It has been years since I have seen the Matrix movies, but that may be a similar analogy. Suffering does not exist in the Matrix, does it?

There may not be suffering in the Matrix but watching it caused me suffering.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

These benevolent and powerful creatures already exist in our culture as our heroes. Do I want Superman to be real? Yes. Do I want Gort to be real? Yes. Pick your hero, there are lots of them, thousands we've never heard of.

Why does it have to be a god? Wouldn't ten million Gort robots do the trick? How about ten million Supermen? Did Gort do anything to not earn our undying devotion? Did Superman do anything to not earn our undying devotion and trust? Why do we have to inject the woo element into these characters, is there something about woo that we just can't give up? Fuck that eternal, human, woo soap-opera merry-go-round.

Yes, I'll take Gort. Give me ten million Gort robots and we'll have a hell of a lot better Earth than we do now. Maybe ten million Gort robots will allow us to keep our focus on the important things. Gort robots are not going to find a cure for a disease but think of the absolutely mind boggling potential that gets unleashed when we don't spend so much of our lives and resources trying to kill each other.

My first thoughts on the subject were along the lines of, Duh, if there's an omnibenevolent creature what's with the dog and pony show? It doesn't make any fucking sense. What's with all the illusion and the smoke and mirrors when all that really matters is knowing that in the end "They all lived happily ever after." What the fuck kind of monstrous stupidity is that?

Fuck the gods. Do you want Gort or don't you? If you don't, then why?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Google youtube, Forbin Project.

 

[funinspace]

Everyday, is already Tuesday, do that forever?

A interesting take on it...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...nds great, right,thing you could ever imagine.

But have you ever really thought about the actual implications of eternal life? I mean, really thought about them, deeply? If not – or even if you have – I strongly recommend Martin Hägglund’s newest book, This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom.
<snip>
Third, if everything and everyone just went on and on forever, all would become nothingness. For the sake of illustration: imagine going to Disneyland with your family, or enjoying an orgasm with someone you love, or making a sculpture with all of your heart, or surfing the perfect wave, or having a wonderful conversation, or hiking in the quiet woods – imagine doing any of these things forever. Imagine experiencing any of them without end. They would lose all of their joy, all of their wonder, all of their meaning. In fact, they would become hellish if they continued to be experienced on and on, eternally. It is the time-bound reality that such experiences start and stop, that they can’t always be achieved or experienced, that they are haunted by impermanence, that they are necessarily limited, that gives them their sweetness.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Everyday, is already Tuesday, do that forever?

A interesting take on it...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...nds great, right,thing you could ever imagine.

But have you ever really thought about the actual implications of eternal life? I mean, really thought about them, deeply? If not – or even if you have – I strongly recommend Martin Hägglund’s newest book, This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom.
<snip>
Third, if everything and everyone just went on and on forever, all would become nothingness. For the sake of illustration: imagine going to Disneyland with your family, or enjoying an orgasm with someone you love, or making a sculpture with all of your heart, or surfing the perfect wave, or having a wonderful conversation, or hiking in the quiet woods – imagine doing any of these things forever. Imagine experiencing any of them without end. They would lose all of their joy, all of their wonder, all of their meaning. In fact, they would become hellish if they continued to be experienced on and on, eternally. It is the time-bound reality that such experiences start and stop, that they can’t always be achieved or experienced, that they are haunted by impermanence, that they are necessarily limited, that gives them their sweetness.

Makes a lot of comforting sense to a rational mind. To a mind that is based in woo not so much, probably doesn't even make the radar.

 

[Angry Floof]

Currently I am watching a video interview of Jon Steingard, the former singer of the Christian band Hawk Nelson but recently came out as a nonbeliever. He has written or said at times that he is hopeful that a benevolent god exists, and I find that interesting.

I very confidently believe that no supernatural god exists of any kind. The world makes so much more sense to me if there is no such thing, and the fact that the world makes so much more sense is very satisfying and comforting and appealing to me.

What about the alternative though? Suppose there actually is a completely benevolent god who does exist and does indeed act in mysterious ways to benefit humans and other animals, even if those ways make no sense and are completely incomprehensible to you (or me). Would you (or I) prefer that?



Which of those 2 scenarios would be more appealing?

The existence of a benevolent god that somehow and confusingly rectifies all suffering, or the non-existence of such a being but instead the existence of a universe that is more comprehensible?

I think I would opt for the former and sacrifice the latter. The latter just seems so much more obviously true, however.

I have no desire for supernatural beings with human minds that we give magical traits to. I do find even an incomprehensible universe far more interesting.

The universe is what it is, and human existence is what it is, no matter what is true about the universe. I don't see the point of gods except for escapism or at best a literary tool for exploring what does exist and our place in it.

 

[Brian63]

One of my favorite deconversion testimonies is that of Michal Pleban at The Clergy Project:

https://clergyproject.org/michal-pleban/

He closes with the following thoughts:

Leaving faith in personal God was an unimaginable relief. For the first time in my life, the world started to make sense without resorting to hundreds of self-contradicting excuses. For the first time, I found a worldview that matches the world as it is, not as I wanted it to be. I don’t have to fight facts anymore. I don’t have to find excuses for God anymore. This whole big layer of spirituality, which was supposed to be comforting, turned out to be simply confusing. The world is much more beautiful when you are actually able to understand it.

After I rejected god-belief I had a similar sensation, in that I no longer had to futilely try and reconcile these 2 competing worldviews in my head that were constantly at war with each other. The one of a benevolent god who existed versus the one that was more sensible to me.

If I did return back to belief in the same benevolent god, then that mental stress would accompany it.

On the whole though, it is small price to pay compared to simply having a benevolent god.

 

[steve_bank]

That is how I feel after the years of debate here, relived I managed to avoid it.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I very confidently believe that no supernatural god exists of any kind. The world makes so much more sense to me if there is no such thing, and the fact that the world makes so much more sense is very satisfying and comforting and appealing to me.

What about the alternative though? Suppose there actually is a completely benevolent god who does exist and does indeed act in mysterious ways to benefit humans and other animals, even if those ways make no sense and are completely incomprehensible to you (or me). Would you (or I) prefer that?

Which of those 2 scenarios would be more appealing?

The existence of a benevolent god that somehow and confusingly rectifies all suffering, or the non-existence of such a being but instead the existence of a universe that is more comprehensible?

I think I would opt for the former and sacrifice the latter. The latter just seems so much more obviously true, however.

Kind of like asking me to consider if when I wake up on some fine morning I might decide to become a heroin addict. Even if it meant I could be spared all of life's aches and pains I don't think I could accede to living in a world that made no sense. Of course circumstances can change things and therefore we have our myths and incantations. But having a God for the ultimate explanation of everything would kind of put a cork in the bottle.

ETA - Maybe you mean to ask whether I would like there to be a benevolent God conditioned on there never being a way to know if that was true. Kind of like being a heroin addict without the withdrawal symptoms.

 

[Angry Floof]

That is how I feel after the years of debate here, relived I managed to avoid it.

"Belief in God" isn't really a thing except for a tiny fraction of religious believers. Beyond that, theism is nothing more than tribalism, cultural conditioning, identity. A lot of people can realize their lack of belief but still remain religious in terms of defending religious culture and ignoring what makes religion so insidious and detrimental to human well being in the first place.