Omnibenevolent?

[Explosions in the Sky]

Hello everyone!
This is my first post in your forum and I hope I chose the right category (I am kind of overwhelmed by all the subcategories you got...).

There is something I’ve been wondering about for a while now... well, then I thought I might as well just ask people that probably have thought about his for a lot longer. Google helped me find you guys!

I don’t quite know how to put this... my question basically is: Why does God have to be omnibenevolent?

You know, when I read about the key characteristics of God (I can’t think of a better word), I always come across omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
While I understand the first three characteristics, I don’t quite unterstand why God has to be omnibenevolent to do what he did (and does and will do).

I have to admit that I didn’t study the bible much. Thus, I’d be delighted to be pointed to passages that present Him being omnibenevolent or even better, explain why he has to be. However, for me, it’s more about understanding why it has to be one of His core principles.

Thank you for your attention and I am looking forward to hearing from you!

(On a side note, English is not my native tongue and I do not have much experience in religious discussion. I hope my question is clear... if not, feel free to ask and I’ll try elaborate.)

 

[god's_pawn]

I have actually never heard the term "omnibenevolent" used before though i do understand what it means. I have only ever seen God be refered to with the other 3 (omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent). this is not to say, however, that this forth one is not true. I don't think the Bible is as key to understanding this as much as pure logic is. this is to say that if God is the first 3, then He must be the forth and then He even can be the forth. If God is all-knowing, then He knows that love is by far the most important thing there is (the Bible even says that God is love -- 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." and 1 John 4:16 "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him."). A part of loving is not necessarily being nice, but being good. this is to say, not making a person happy for a moment, but activily doing things in that person's favor. Love is a verb, not a noun. It is an action, not a feeling. Another issue with this is that some will argue that God allows bad things to happen and therefore isn't good. this is really a rather fallacious statement. it goes under the assumption that bad things are nothing but bad, but really, a bad thing can easily be turned into something good and even better than what would've happened without the bad thing. Take for instance Christ's death. I dare say most people would call that a bad thing on the surface, but when you only scratch that surface, you see the good. the good which is the ability we now have to fellowship directly with God. I think that with the first 3 "omni"s God has the ability to be omnibenevolent. And if He is love, then He must also be omnibenevolent.

I hope this helps. please feel free to ask any further questions on this ask me to be a little more clear, i sometimes write things in a rather confusing manner...

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Well my view is based on the premise that "being" is inherently good, that evil is only a falling short of a more perfect "beingness" (but any being is better than none).
So to think of an idea of evil, someone being slowly tortured to death, the torture is evil, but the evil of torture is only possible because of the good of existence, and is simply a falling short of the even better good (than mere existence) of existing and being comfortable. A short and painful life is only evil in comparison to a long and satisfying one.

Now this is a big question, because some people will say to live and suffer is worse than never to live at all (or at least if the suffering goes over a certain level). Now I do not think good can be quantified nor evil, each instance of good or evil is independent, good is a quality in itself, evil is simply the state of falling short of that quality.

That being the case, and everything being entirely dependent upon God for its existence, the highest possible good available to all things is that which God grants it. So all good that exists is due to God, and an implication of this is that God is all good (as the sole independent good upon which all dependent good relies).

 

[Explosions in the Sky]

First of all, thank you for your replies. I appreciate that you took the time to think about my question and share your thoughts.

That is a very interesting line of thought, a.d.ivNonasNovembres.

I disagree, however, when you say that good and evil are indepentent states of existences. I agree that good/evil can't be quantified but if you say,

Now I do not think good can be quantified nor evil, each instance of good or evil is independent, good is a quality in itself, evil is simply the state of falling short of that quality.

you contradict yourself, don't you?
Good and evil are independent. But 'evil' is an inferior state of 'good' - therefore requiring 'good' to some extent.

That is like saying light is a quality in itself and darkness is simply the state of falling short of that quality. But that also means that there is no light, when there is darkness.

Also, I want to question your first statement,

Well my view is based on the premise that "being" is inherently good, that evil is only a falling short of a more perfect "beingness" (but any being is better than none).

... if I think about it, there are many evil/bad things that are not there. Doesn't their non-existence make them good, then? I mean, isn't a non-exististing nuclear bomb better than an exististing one? Sometimes, the decision to not make something happen (and thereby come to existence) may be 'good', don't you think?


@ god's_pawn: Yes, this is what didn't make sense to me. And were my logic fell short.
I'll try to explain to you why I don't think that's logic.

God is love. Alright, I can see why that is important. But does the assumption that God is love mean that he can do only good?

If the answer to that question is yes, he is not omnipotent. If he was omnipotent, he could also do evil.

If the answer is no, he is not omnibenevolent. Since his all-powerfulness enables Him to do evil things.

Which, of course, doesn't mean he actually does evil. But he could.

See what I mean?
I, being far from perfect, can also decide (to some extent) whether I do good or evil. I'd even say that only my possiblity to decide really makes one option good and the other evil. And talking about God, an all-knowing being, we can assume that He knows the consequences of his good deeds. The same, however, applies to the evil options he has.
The fact that he then goes for the good option is what makes him good - not doing evil. (If you can only do good, you are not really good because you never had a choice.)

Therefore, I'd say that omnipotence makes it impossible for Him to be omnibenevolent. That in turn, makes it possible for Him to be truely good (because he chose for it). And that, I think, is love - chosing good over evil for the sake of others.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

you contradict yourself, don't you?
Good and evil are independent. But 'evil' is an inferior state of 'good' - therefore requiring 'good' to some extent. That is like saying light is a quality in itself and darkness is simply the state of falling short of that quality. But that also means that there is no light, when there is darkness.

I guess it depends on terms. Light/Dark is an analogy that works to some extent, but it is only an analogy.TBH I do not see the contradiction you see.

Also, I want to question your first statement,
... if I think about it, there are many evil/bad things that are not there. Doesn't their non-existence make them good, then? I mean, isn't a non-exististing nuclear bomb better than an exististing one? Sometimes, the decision to not make something happen (and thereby come to existence) may be 'good', don't you think?

A nuclear bomb or anything else is not "evil" in itself, it is only the fact that it causes the destruction of good things that makes it evil. A nuclear bomb in many ways is good - it is a demonstration of human ingenuity, of a desire to protect ones people and a love for them, of a huge and complex working economy - but these goods are corrupted, they fall short of the good they could be by the fact that the nuclear bomb is ultimately a destructive thing whose proper use is for killing and the causing of suffering. The goods that are involved in it's existence are not undone by this terrible purpose, but if the terrible purpose were removed and the goods put to a better purpose then the good would be complete rather than corrupted.

The reason this means that God has to be all good is that if God created the universe, there is no "better state" which the universe could be in, the universe's entire state being dependent upon God. There is nothing God can destroy that He did not bring into being, so it is impossible for God to be a source of corruption.

 

[Explosions in the Sky]

Hello,

the contradiction I saw is this: Two indepentend things requiring each other.

I think, however, that I understand what you mean now. Everything is potentially good because it was created. But it can be used for evil which corrupts its good potential. Is that it?

The reason this means that God has to be all good is that if God created the universe, there is no "better state" which the universe could be in, the universe's entire state being dependent upon God.

If this is the perfect creation, evil seems to be part of it. If not directly from God, at least as an option we can chose.

There is nothing God can destroy that He did not bring into being, so it is impossible for God to be a source of corruption.

But doesn't that mean he is not omnipotent? 'Cause if He was, He could be evil, if he wanted to.

Do you see what I mean? I somehow see 'only being good' as a restriction to omnipotence...

 

[god's_pawn]

god's_pawn: Yes, this is what didn't make sense to me. And were my logic fell short.
I'll try to explain to you why I don't think that's logic.

God is love. Alright, I can see why that is important. But does the assumption that God is love mean that he can do only good?

If the answer to that question is yes, he is not omnipotent. If he was omnipotent, he could also do evil.

If the answer is no, he is not omnibenevolent. Since his all-powerfulness enables Him to do evil things.

Which, of course, doesn't mean he actually does evil. But he could.

See what I mean?
I, being far from perfect, can also decide (to some extent) whether I do good or evil. I'd even say that only my possiblity to decide really makes one option good and the other evil. And talking about God, an all-knowing being, we can assume that He knows the consequences of his good deeds. The same, however, applies to the evil options he has.
The fact that he then goes for the good option is what makes him good - not doing evil. (If you can only do good, you are not really good because you never had a choice.)

Therefore, I'd say that omnipotence makes it impossible for Him to be omnibenevolent. That in turn, makes it possible for Him to be truely good (because he chose for it). And that, I think, is love - chosing good over evil for the sake of others.

there is a difference from being able to do evil and actually doing evil. I wouldn't put it past God to say that He is incapable of doing evil. However, why should He do evil? what possible reason could there be? I would say that God has the ability to do evil but refrains from using that ability. Thus as a loving God, He can and will do good and is therefore omnibenevolent. Plus, it seems to me that good and evil are, to some extent, coexistent. that is too say, that one does not exist without the other. if there was no evil, there could be no good. what would be good, would simply be normal. Is this to say that God is evil? no. it does say though that evil can exist apart form God. I guess you could say that God is only truly good because evil exists.

 

[Explosions in the Sky]

But isn't God potentially evil then? (Which - as I (and you) said - doesn't mean he does evil.)

And I totally agree with you. There can be no good if it wasn't for evil. Therefore, evil should be part of God. The fact that he does good instead of evil, is what makes him good (otherwise - as you said - his goodness would be nothing but normal).

Maybe my problem is that I thought of omnibenevolence as something that excludes evil. That's not quite correct, is it?

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

I am not sure God can be potentially evil. I cannot conceive of that possibility myself.
I do not think that limits His omnipotence though, His power is unlimited, but power is neutral, and since God is also goodness itself (just as He is truth itself, which is related to His omnipotence) that power in a concrete sense can only be used for Good.

 

[Explosions in the Sky]

Thank you guys for your replies. I see this whole issue a lot clearer now.

 

[god's_pawn]

But isn't God potentially evil then? (Which - as I (and you) said - doesn't mean he does evil.)

And I totally agree with you. There can be no good if it wasn't for evil. Therefore, evil should be part of God. The fact that he does good instead of evil, is what makes him good (otherwise - as you said - his goodness would be nothing but normal).

Maybe my problem is that I thought of omnibenevolence as something that excludes evil. That's not quite correct, is it?

no, this isnt so. being good requires only that evil somewhere exists. the only reason why good exists is because it can be contrasted with evil. God is good. He is so, because he can be contrasted with the evil that does exist. evil has no part in God, otherwise, He could not be omnibenevolent.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

no, this isnt so. being good requires only that evil somewhere exists. the only reason why good exists is because it can be contrasted with evil. God is good. He is so, because he can be contrasted with the evil that does exist. evil has no part in God, otherwise, He could not be omnibenevolent.

God existed before all things.
God was good before all things.
Are you saying evil "somewhere existed" before all things to enable God's goodness?

 

[Explosions in the Sky]

evil has no part in God, otherwise, He could not be omnibenevolent.

Alright, wait a second. This is what I thought in the first place and what made me think that he is not omnipotent if he is omnibenevolent. We seem to have the same definition of omnibenevolence after all then. However, if you say that and,

being good requires only that evil somewhere exists.

you imply that there is an independent entity embodying evil. Or do I not get it?

And do you mean that evil preceded God temporally?

 

[god's_pawn]

God existed before all things.
God was good before all things.
Are you saying evil "somewhere existed" before all things to enable God's goodness?

if there was ever evil in existence then God is good. God could not be good if evil had never existed. however evil exists now and therefore God is good now. if He is good now then He has always been good. it's not necessarily the coexistence of evil but more the concept of evil (perhaps at least once embodied, though not necessarily so) that allows something to be good.

 

[god's_pawn]

Alright, wait a second. This is what I thought in the first place and what made me think that he is not omnipotent if he is omnibenevolent. We seem to have the same definition of omnibenevolence after all then. However, if you say that and,

you imply that there is an independent entity embodying evil. Or do I not get it?

And do you mean that evil preceded God temporally?

yes, that is roughly what i am implying. I believe God can be evil if He so chose, but obviously that would be stupid. good is the prefered disposition in everything i think and therefore God is good by His own choice. also, i do not believe that allowing evil necessarily makes one evil. this is not to get into that whole "end justifies means" deal but I think that by God allowing evil (which, again, i don't believe is necessarily evil), He has made true good possible.

 

[Explosions in the Sky]

That line of thought would explain his omnibenevolence indeed. However, only if you accept that allowing evil is not necessarily evil. Since he has the power to extinguish evil because he is omnipotent.

However, is there evil in heaven then? Because, using your explaination, good can only be good if there is evil. But why should I want to go to heaven if evil still exists there?

 

[god's_pawn]

That line of thought would explain his omnibenevolence indeed. However, only if you accept that allowing evil is not necessarily evil. Since he has the power to extinguish evil because he is omnipotent.

However, is there evil in heaven then? Because, using your explaination, good can only be good if there is evil. But why should I want to go to heaven if evil still exists there?

evil was in heaven once (Satan) but was kicked out. and again, all evil has to do is exist but once and good can then exist (even for eternity). we all know what evil is, therefore we can know what good is. heaven is good not because there is evil there, but because evil has existed somewhere. and i guess in a sense God didn't allow evil as much as He allowed us as well as Satan and his angels the choice to do evil.

 

[Explosions in the Sky]

Okay, I think I understand your point about the evil-in-heaven-buisness. I got another question, though. (I don't want to get on your nerves, I find this very interesting and would love to understand how you guys think about it...)

Is evil part of the creation? I mean, if God existed before all things and is all-good, where did evil come from? Is there a source of evil that is independent from God and has its own will etc.? And if you, has it been there before the creation or did it come into existence with the creation?

By the way, I wish you all a merry Christmas!

 

[god's_pawn]

Okay, I think I understand your point about the evil-in-heaven-buisness. I got another question, though. (I don't want to get on your nerves, I find this very interesting and would love to understand how you guys think about it...)

Is evil part of the creation? I mean, if God existed before all things and is all-good, where did evil come from? Is there a source of evil that is independent from God and has its own will etc.? And if you, has it been there before the creation or did it come into existence with the creation?

By the way, I wish you all a merry Christmas!

boy, i'm not so sure on this one. supposedly evil originated from the rebelion of Lucifer (Satan) when he sought to replace God on the throne of heaven. that would be one explanation. another might be the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which God created in the garden of Eden. The deal with that is that this only had the knowledge of good and evil. which is to say that it itself wasn't evil but it gave the knowledge and therefore the ability to do evil. that's about all i can offer here.

and Merry Christmas to you too!

 

[Explosions in the Sky]

The tree of knowledge version is less logical, imo. Since God would have needed to create evil with the tree (otherwise the tree would have no meaning). And that contradicts his omnibenevolence and is not really an explaination.

The Lucifer/Satan-version does not really make sense either because Lucifer was part of God's creation, wasn't he? I mean, he wasn't just there and God invited him in.

Hmm. This is tricky.