Why would you make that assumption?

Even if you had evidence of such a Creator telling us that they're good and intend good for us, what evidence do you have of that actually being true?

They have stories, lots of magical wonderful stories. One includes a get out of jail free card, another a golden ticket.

(don't pay attention to the naughty bits)

A good deity for many is that which punishes one's enemies.

(July 29, 2021 at 11:28 am)Ten Wrote: Why would you make that assumption?

Even if you had evidence of such a Creator telling us that they're good and intend good for us, what evidence do you have of that actually being true?

None.

If they claim this alleged God can do what he wants, you have no way of knowing.

If you claim this alleged God is "all powerful" that has to include the capability of lying and cruelty. If you claim he cant do that, then he is not "all powerful". 

If you claim "God works in mysterious ways" or "God has a plan" again, you have no data driven control group to prove it.

---

(July 29, 2021 at 11:39 am)Foxaire Wrote: A good deity for many is that which punishes one's enemies.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." Susan B. Anthony ..

I was watching a recent episode of the AXP with Seth Andrews and Matt Dillahunty and Seth brought up this point(OP). It seems like anytime there's a conversation about an almighty creator God, it is automatically assumed that we are a treasured thing that was made. With all the suffering in the world and the way this earth moves and riots against us at times, I have to agree, the evidence of our existence and this space we were put in does not jibe with a being that wants the best for us or has any love for us.

One could argue that the existence of this world is evidence of a benevolent creator. Things like free will and beauty exist which would not exist without creation. One can argue whether on balance things are good or bad, but like the free will defense, the argument that it's possible that these things demonstrate a benevolent god cannot be argued away just by disagreeing on particulars.

(July 29, 2021 at 12:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote: One could argue that the existence of this world is evidence of a benevolent creator.  Things like free will and beauty exist which would not exist without creation.  One can argue whether on balance things are good or bad, but like the free will defense, the argument that it's possible that these things demonstrate a benevolent god cannot be argued away just by disagreeing on particulars.

Have you heard the argument that postulates a malevolent creator god? It's a thought experiment designed to demonstrate how weak the responses to the problem of evil are.

It goes something like:

A: This world was created by an omni-malevolent deity.

B: But there's so much good in the world! That can't possibly be!

A: Yes, but, in order for the world to be truly evil, the malevolent god created good so we can see how utterly evil the world really is by comparison.

etc. etc. etc.

For me personally, I never thought the problem of evil was a good sticking point. It's good to arouse thought in those who are utterly convinced of a good god. But there are plenty of reasons evil might exist. A good dungeon master puts traps and dragons in his dungeon, but only to make his world more interesting, after all.

(July 29, 2021 at 12:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote: One could argue that the existence of this world is evidence of a benevolent creator.  Things like free will and beauty exist which would not exist without creation.  One can argue whether on balance things are good or bad, but like the free will defense, the argument that it's possible that these things demonstrate a benevolent god cannot be argued away just by disagreeing on particulars.

That is like arguing, you can't have Superman without Lex Luther. 

Even if humans never evolved, real astrophysics, and evolution proves that violence and death will always be part of life. 


I don't see volcanos or earthquakes as benevolent. I simply see them as part of a natural process. I don't see COVID or cockroaches or childhood cancer as benevolent either. They are all simply unfortunate realities humans have to deal with.

I don't see how one can argue that humans are the center of reality, the center of a cosmic super cognition, knowing that our universe is mostly violent, 13.8 billion years old, and locally in our solar system, which is only 4 billion years old, on a planet that has had 5 mass extinction events, to which, humans have only been around 200 thousand years in that time, how anyone could claim there was a God that gave one shit about our species. 

Even Thomas Jefferson, although I would argue with him to if I could, even he thought this "God" started everything and stepped aside and left us to our own devices. I wonder what Jefferson would have though if he lived at the same time of Hawking when Hawking said "A God is not required" knowing Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear."

The problem of evil refers to a constellation of asserted attributes. Not benevolence in and of itself. A benevolent but incompetent god is a logical possibility.

If we were being very accurate, it’s -the- view of god botherers. There’s always some stupid reason their good guy god can’t do something. Each an explanation of specific incompetence.

Job 38 seems like the most fitting reply to the OP. I do not think I could improve on its basic call for epistemic humility.