# Is it wise to assume God is benevolent? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 4, 2006, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wise-to-assume-god-is-benevolent/338388 "2006-01-04T13:13:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wise-to-assume-god-is-benevolent/338388/41 "2006-01-06T23:45:43Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, they are definitions — specifically, copulas. Let x = 1 defines x as 1. See, for example, oh I don’t know, any mathematics or logics textbook. Unless someone comes along and defines x as 3.8 instead. That’s what makes them assertions, in this case - there is no reason to believe your “definitions” are better than anyone elses. Besides, they don’t make much sense. > [@Liberal](#): > > What you mean by “hang together” is anybody’s guess. The statements don’t lead one to the other. > [@Liberal](#): > > Actually, assertions with no evidence are called “premises”. And a meaningless distinction is called a “nitpick”. > [@Liberal](#): > > I did not define goodness as an abstract concept; I defined it as that aesthetic which edifies. If you wish to use your own definitions, then get out of my argument, or else use mine. I did. An “aesthetic which edifies” is quite abstract. > [@Liberal](#): > > I did not say that love is goodness, and in fact, the term even as ordinarilly used has quite many definitions… You did : > [@Liberal](#): > > Let love be those acts which are Godly (i.e., which facilitate goodness). > [@Liberal](#): > > We are made in His likeness in the sense that we are spiritual beings. We aren’t; we are physical ones. There’s no evidence that _anything_ is “spiritual”. > [@Liberal](#): > > If you mean to say that my answer does not satisfy you personally, then that is what you ought to say. But to declare that I have not answered the question when I did so absolutely directly and in excruciating detail is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. Your “answer” made no sense; that’s not an answer. > [@Liberal](#): > > I don’t know who your “we” is, but count me out. I meant “we” as in "humans. > [@Liberal](#): > > You seem to be in a world all your own. Hardly. There a lot of people who agree with me; every non-monotheist on Earth, to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wise-to-assume-god-is-benevolent/338388/42 "2006-01-08T20:02:02Z")
[quote] Please explain which premises you found to be arbitrary. Unless you meant the copulas, in which case I can only say that every definition is arbitrary. That’s what definitions are for: to orient us together in a mutual understanding of one another.[/quoet] Then you are abusing that understanding, because the way you use definitions above is to stash away all the stuff you don’t actually want to discuss. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wise-to-assume-god-is-benevolent/338388/43 "2006-01-09T04:33:13Z")
> [@](#): > > He could be perfectly evil. The existence of good in the world could be a sham, designed to make it worse when the good are all thrown into hell, and the evil all sent to heaven. In that case there is nothing to debate. The assertion is similar to some fundamentalists’ claims reduting evolution; they explain away all the evidence in favor of evolution as created by God at the moment of creation some 4000 years ago (or, more hilariously, the devil–in order to steer us away from God). > [@](#): > > More seriously, I don’t think the concept of “perfect” really applies to a being, even a superior one. Perfection is for simple things with rigid definitions, like equations and spheres. “Perfect” is derived from the Latin word meaning “complete”. That which is perfect is complete in the sense that it is not lacking as to fulfillment of its purpose. It is difficult (I might even argue impossible) to conceive of perfection in tangible objects, and I agree it is most readily apparent in things like equations and spheres. But I believe these items can be perfect not because they are simple but because they are abstract. A mathematical argument such as [Wiles proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem](http://www.mbay.net/~cgd/flt/flt08.htm) is certainly not simple, but I would argue (assuming it’s correct; has it been adequately accepted?) that it is perfect in fulfilling its purpose (i.e. proving x^n + y^n = z^n is not solvable in integers for n\>2). Many claim to know God in a personal way, and from this derive their faith in his goodness. However the point of my argument is that this is not necessary assuming the existence of God and the assuption of generally held beliefs about God (perfection, unity, etc.). Mine is a philosophical argument, not a religious one. > [@](#): > > No, an evil thing is still evil even if the result is a greater good. It would no doubt help here to put some kind of box around the term “evil”. My sense from this statement is that, for you, it is not just the opposite of good. However this thread is not about the nature of good and evil, so let’s just leave this for another time:-) ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wise-to-assume-god-is-benevolent/338388/44 "2006-01-09T07:53:36Z")
At the risk of jumping into an arguement and being completely outclassed, I have to chime in in regards to something that **Der Trihs** said. > [@](#): > > A straightforward one would just toss everybody into Hell; one with a nasty humor might toss in just the Christians, just so he can laugh in their faces for believing he was a good guy. This reminds me of something that comedian/actor Rowan Atkinson said during one of his stand-up specials. He’s wearing a red smoking jacket, red horns, and carrying a clipboard. Welcoming the new entrants to Hell. Taking roll. At one point, he says, “Fornicators? My God, there are a lot of you[…]Christians? Christians? Are you here? Yes, I’m sorry…I’m afraid the Jews were right.” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wise-to-assume-god-is-benevolent/338388/45 "2006-01-09T08:22:57Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > This reminds me of something that comedian/actor Rowan Atkinson said during one of his stand-up specials. He’s wearing a red smoking jacket, red horns, and carrying a clipboard. Welcoming the new entrants to Hell. Taking roll. > > At one point, he says, “Fornicators? My God, there are a lot of you[…]Christians? Christians? Are you here? Yes, I’m sorry…I’m afraid the Jews were right.” I remember that ! “The French ? Are you here ?” “Fornicators, please form a line before the minature guillotine.”. ---
**Author:** ![FlyingRamenMonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@FlyingRamenMonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingRamenMonster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wise-to-assume-god-is-benevolent/338388/46 "2006-01-11T00:27:56Z")
So, I am back and I see it is already too late for me to join back in ☹ Oh well. Have fun, guys. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wise-to-assume-god-is-benevolent/338388.md?page=2)