Then again, I’ve always had trouble seeing the distinction between “good” and “evil” as so clear, so black-and-white. Think about it. If, instead of a God of complete benevolence, I’d been arguing about a Satan of complete evilness, I’d have made about the same argument: clearly, the universe is NOT created/run by a totally-evil Satan. If Satan HAD tried to create such a universe, the black-and-whiteness of his views would have stymed him. For example, the proper “totally evil” response to nice people is to kill them all. But the problem with that is that, if you take it far enough, a totally evil universe would have NOTHING IN IT. Or, at least, nothing alive. (Human morals, at least, don’t lay down mandates on whether destroying a rock is good or evil.)

The point is, that’s not our universe. Obviously, given that I’m typing this (and, while female and therefor inherently evil, I am NOT Satan!). So I feel pretty safe in saying that the creator of our universe is NOT a completely-evil Satan anymore than that it was a completely-benevolent God.

So what you’re left with is a Creator who seems to allow both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in the world. Now, the easy way to look at this problem is to claim that there are two ‘sides’ to the good/evil dichotomy and thus two Creators: God and Satan. That’s what most (Western) relgions claim. This is a solution that is easy to understand from a human perspective (everyone’s been in an ‘us-versus-them’ situation before). An ongoing battle between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ easy to explain, even to small children, and makes really nice Tolkein stories.

But that doesn’t mean it’s right.

Another option is that the Creator is a more neutral character. Presumably, given that we’re alive, he wants us to live. Also presumably, given the predictable pattern of nature (which humans define by laws of physics), he wants us to have some control over our environment. To me, that makes him rather more benevolent than malicious, but as a human benefitting from those rules, I have to admit a certain bias in my judgement.

But then, while it’s possible that a fairly-benevolent God put us in this neutral world (or allowed us to grow here), it’s possible to imagine a fairly-cruel Satan putting us in a neutral world and then laughing at all the mistakes and pains we put ourselves through. After all, there’s something decidedly satisfying about giving your enemy enough rope to hang himself, and a certain pride in the fact that you didn’t have to do the dirty deed yourself. Maybe Satan agrees.

So yes, I agree that there’s no more proof that the Creator was a fairly-benevolent God than a fairly-evil Satan. I think there’s excellent proof that whoever the Creator is/was, he isn’t completely good or evil (at least as we think of it, in the short run), but that doesn’t rule anything else out.

And, changing the topic a bit, let me ask a question to all you atheists out there: If some sort of God didn’t create the universe (or at least the laws behind it), then what DID? How did our universe get here? And, by the way, the answer, “It’s always existed,” isn’t an answer at all. After all, that’s the same as saying, “God’s always existed,” and if a good atheist can’t believe that, then he shouldn’t believe “the universe’s always existed” anymore!

But the more I think about all the questions you brought up, the less sense this discussion makes from either direction. What I mean is that it seems impossible to disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God… but it also seems impossible to disprove the existence of an equally powerful yet utterly malevolent deity.

That’s one of the reasons I don’t find the problem of evil very compelling. It can’t even rule out the possibility that Satan’s already pulled off a successful coup d’état, so how could it ever rule out the existence of God?

(Note that I’m saying I disagree with Stephen Law’s assessment of the winner of his fictional debate about the malevolent God of Eth. I actually think Booblefrip won, at least in the sense that he showed that his deity’s existence couldn’t be ruled out.)

You were discussing “omnibenevolence” earlier (which is a pretty cool term, I might add). I think Dumb Scientist had it right (or, at least, had a reasonable answer which MIGHT be right!) when he wrote that maybe God made the universe “as benevolent as practical” while still allowing for a dynamic world and free will.

Well, I’ve a question. Assuming that there IS a God out there, one who cares about us and is watching, what makes you think that a perfect, static world is one He would consider benevolent? I’d argue that one of the CRUELEST things a God could do to intelligent people is to create a universe of perfect benevolence (as humans define the word)! After all, what would a perfectly “benevolent” world be like? Well, I don’t know entirely, but this comes to mind right away:
1.) No one ever gets physically hurt.
2.) No one ever gets emotionally scarred.
3.) Everyone always has enough of all the physical resources they require.
The trouble is, none of these things are conducive to life as an INTELLIGENT species. Or, really, even a non-intelligent one.

What are you going to eat, if no living thing on the planet can get hurt? Okay, let’s say you can “eat” via photosynthesis. I could ask what’s going to happen when the sun runs out of fuel and if that would be “harmful”, but ignore that for now.

How are people (or creatures) going to have children, in this perfectly benevolent world? After all, even the physical act of propagating the species involves giving something that is “yours” up for the child. And for most animals, that loss doesn’t stop at birth. For intelligent creatures who need to teach their children something, those pains can be emotional as well as physical. But are they all BAD? Kids can make cruel comments which sear their parents to the bone… and yet, that’s often one of the ways they learn things.

In a truly “benevolent” world, there could be no “learning from your own mistakes”, because mistakes cause pain. Yet, people (and especially little children) do most of their learning via the old trial-and-error method. The argument that a truly benevolent God wouldn’t allow anything to go wrong for His People has never made much sense to me.

Should God have stopped Hitler from brutally murdering so many people? Many would say yes. Yet… was Hitler really the one pulling the trigger behind all those deaths? Would so much attention now be focused on equality if not for this terrible tragedy? Did nothing good come of even these atrocities?

Should God stop a man from raping his unwilling girlfriend? Many would say yes. But is stopping the act sufficient? What is causing the thoughts behind the act? Is it the act or the thoughts that ought to be changed?

Should God stop a woman from jilting her fiance at the altar? Some might say a truly benevolent, forward-looking God would, surely, since the man will be hurt by it! And yet… would forcing the woman into an unwilling marriage be better?

Should God stop a drunk teen from jumping in the car? Some might say yes, since he might hurt himself or someone else. And yet, sober people have accidents too. A truly benevolent God would prevent all of them In such a case, drunkenness is just an excuse for what a benevolent God should do anyhow.

Should God stop a small child from putting her hand on the stove? Some might say He should, since the child is too ignorant and innocent to be hurt badly. And yet, going to far this way will lead the entire race into utter ignorance. Is ignorance better than a few burned fingers?

Which of the above would an omnibenevolent God prevent? Why? And what would the repercussions be of a God who does everything for His People every time that things get a little rocky? What incentive would we have to grow, or change, or learn… or be responsible, decent people? After all, a benevolent God could hardly HURT someone Himself, no matter what they did, right?

I’d argue that “benevolence” of that sort is anything but. Yes, a God who takes a “hands off” approach must allow some tragedies to occur. But a God who steps in with complete benevolence makes His People nothing more than toys. How cruel would it be to know that if you tried to do ANYTHING that God didn’t like, you would be stopped immediately? What would you learn from it, besides to be a good little sheep? What kind of life would that be? What kind of God would allow it?

Whatever else God is, whether he really thinks we should eat pigs or pray five times a day or cross ourselves left-to-right versus right-to-left, SURELY the Creator of our universe understands the value of creativity. After all, how could someone with all the creativity it must have taken to create this universe not have realized how precious that free will — that chance to try and fail and try again — really is? If there is a God, His efforts to create the universe demonstrate His creativity and free will. I find it difficult to believe that He would think taking those gifts away from others would be considered “benevolent”.

I almost rejected your ad, but I try not to judge a book by its cover. I am happy that I came to read all you have said. It’s a very well-written article.

I agree with you that the concept of God doesn’t make much sense. A friend of mine recently pointed out that this is actually a distinct position: ignosticism.

I actually think I’m more of an ignostic than an agnostic, but I don’t really feel like defining that term everytime someone asks me about my position on religion. :)

But I still think God could be omnibenevolent, at least as long as His omnipotence isn’t so vast that He could say “1+1=3,” and make it true somehow. There are at least two types of evil, and as far as I can tell neither one disproves an omnibenevolent, (somewhat) omnipotent God:

1. God allows “natural” evil such as tsunamis and plagues. Why? Perhaps it’s logically impossible to make a more comfortable universe. Maybe it’s just not possible to create a habitable planet with no tectonic activity, or to create life without allowing for viruses.

   Furthermore, how far should He go to remove natural evil? Should roses not have thorns? Should the Grand Canyon be filled to the brim with Nerf balls so that it’s not dangerous?

   There has to be some point at which God says “okay, that’s safe enough.” Perhaps He’s already done that– maybe previous versions of the universe had far more supernovae, making life really miserable– if not downright impossible.

2. God allows “human” evil. This one is easier to reconcile, I think. God allows humans to have free will, and interfering would remove that free will.

I agree that a perfectly omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God who shares my moral code wouldn’t allow the Holocaust. But what if God has to work within His own rules– what if it’s literally not possible for Him to create a universe completely devoid of evil? Would that being no longer qualify as God?

Okay, being a self-identified atheist, raised in an atheist household, I have plenty to say; the way I think about it, due to a lifetime’s experience, the introduction of God as a concept isn’t based on direct personal evidence. It’s alot like looking at a rainbow and saying “But what if there’s, like, some *other color*, dude?”

As re: Einstein and God. When he spoke of God, he was talking about mathematical equations, rather than miracles. It’s important to consider that.

Lastly, in the above paragraph , it’s really only the omnibenevolent that I take issue with; so long as God’s one mean motherf**ker, there’s plenty of reason to think he exists.

First of all, God’s morality may be quite different than our own. He is, after all, a supernatural Being who exists “outside” of our own reality (whatever that means). It’s true that the Bible describes God acting cruel in many instances. But– at best– this only shows that omnibenevolence is in the eye of the beholder, or that the most egregious stories are false.

Secondly, the extent of God’s omnipotence has always been unclear to me. Most people would agree that God can make the sun stand still in the sky, flood the earth, heal the sick, etc. I’m not really impressed- these seem like examples of technologies the human race may one day invent, assuming that such wonders are allowed by the laws of physics.

But what about something more impressive? For example, can God violate the actual laws of physics? (Note that this would be the only way to distinguish literal omnipotence from highly advanced technology, but it’s nearly useless because there’s no way to be sure that we’ve uncovered the actual laws of physics rather than mere approximations to those laws.)

Furthermore, can God violate the laws of math? Can He decree that 1+1=3? Omnipotence of that magnitude, power so mind-bogglingly vast that math itself is… pliable, just plain screws with my head. It seems to me that God’s omnipotence must be limited in at least some sense, otherwise I might as well check into an insane asylum right now.

I agree that a perfectly omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God who shares my moral code wouldn’t allow the Holocaust. But what if God has to work within His own rules– what if it’s literally not possible for Him to create a universe completely devoid of evil? Would that being no longer qualify as God?