Does God have to be good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hansard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hansard

Guest
Hi all.
Another thread around here recently addressed the existence of God from a philosophical viewpoint (it was a compelling read).

I now pose the questions:

If God exists, does he have to be a God of goodness, benevolence or love?
Does he have to be a god of creation?
Can an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, onmipotent god be an indifferent god, or a malevolent god?
Should moral concepts such as the “goodness of God” even enter the discussion of his existence?

(To state my belief: I personally do not doubt the benevolence of God. I just wonder if we “got lucky” in having a good one!)
 
  • Can an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god be an **indifferent god, or a **malevolent god?
Existence is valuable. It is a source of opportunities whereas non-existence offers nothing! God must be good because we would not exist if He had not created us.

There is also evidence that evil is self-destructive. We see how individuals and empires have disintegrated as the result of moral decadence. It follows that the Creator cannot be evil. If He were evil He would not be eternal or omnipotent.

But the most convincing proof of God’s goodness is the existence of love. How could love exist if it did not come from Love?
 
Any god you want to make up can be any way you want him/her to be. God, on the other hand, is like the concept of truth, something (really someone, Jesus) we assent to. We accept the truth or reject it and replace it with our own version, like “we are lucky to have a good god”. This would be in stark contrast to the Church that God started and the teaching handed down by it. One can accept the teachings of that Church or accept parts or all of the other churches around.

Unlike a “concept” though, a relationship with the God of creation is proof known through faith (not blind faith, but the eyes of faith). So, the Church says yes, God has to be Good because that is who He is by Nature, like a leopard by nature has spots. A leopard is not beholden to it’s spots but can’t be a leopard without them, by nature. Free will says accept or don’t, your prerogative.
 
Thanks for the replies.
I know that God is inherently good, that evil is self-destructive, and so on. I was certainly not being dismissive of the Lord. I’m sure he gave us intelligence so we could wonder about his existence, nature, etc.

This is just a discussion, mind you. My position was stated at the end of my initial post.

I simply mean, logically, does a god have to be good, and more to the point, unchangingly good?
I can’t give chapter and verse, but we all know the bit about God being the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I just wonder if is has to be that way. Is God incapable of changing his nature?

He certainly recognises and allows the presence of evil in his design.

I don’t want to revert to the age-old discussion of “how can God tolerate evil”, but it seems that, if he created everything, he must have created evil or at least the propensity for evil.

What if God decided to change? (He is God after all–He can probably do anything).

You may even quote the bit about “I will be with you always…”. And I believe this. But what if God was capable of changing his mind on a promise? Who could argue with him?

Is there anything in scripture or philosophy that guarantees our security, or God’s promises, or his absolutely unchanging nature?
 
The God I know, my Creator and Savior, to whom I adore is ALL LOVE. His name is LOVE, therefore is goodness itself.
 
Okay, all points read and understood. Many thanks for the thoughtful replies.

Forgive me for labouring my own thread one more time. (I hate doing the “quote” thingy, so please pardon my odd manner of citing previous posters).

"His name is LOVE" posted Norminha.
Is it really? I’ve heard that “God is love”. To me, this means that His nature is love, not his name. Is your reference from scripture? I mean, it could be, for all I know, but can you tell me where?

"…His nature cannot change because He is perfect!" posted tonyrey.
You are assuming one state of perfection. He is perfect as we understand perfection to be. Can there be other states of perfection? Who said that goodness is the same as perfection?

"God can do anything consistent with His goodness and love but to destroy Himself is impossible because to do so would be evil.That does not mean His power is limited because evil is a limitation." posted tonyrey
Why would god destroying himself be evil? I think the whole discussion is really based around our idea of evil. If, for example, God decreed, “A deity can change himself at will and not be regarded as evil”, we would have no answer to that. He would therefore not be evil. The old definition of “evil” would no longer be valid.

"God would not break a promise because to do so is a defect and He is perfect!"
posted tonyrey.
If God decided to break a promise, it would no longer be a defect, if God were perfect. The breaking of a promise would become part of the natural order. There seems no logical reason why promises are eternal or special in any way.

And, please remember, this is just a discussion, and is largely conjectural and speculative.
 
What exactly do you mean by good?

God’s dealings with man has changed dramatically! Read the book of genesis, the first humans
were put in a positive environment
for learning and doing the will of
God. But the man choose disobedience to please his wife.

Look at us today. Far from a garden of eden, there are people
without food and basic needs.
There are people born in wrong religions, God has allowed this extreme change.

Look at abraham, God made a PERSONAL deal with him. Blessing
him so that he was very well of.
Yet another dramatic change when
you look around today.Yes dramatic change.

These changes continue untill we
get to the year 2009. No one special race or nation primarily
used by God. No one special person like abraham or moses.
Even saints with special abilities seem to be very few…unless you
know of a priest with the abilities
of Padre Pio today.

We have to adjust to the times.
It looks like TEACHINGS not members of the Church, are what’s being guided by God.

So we should not expect anything
else.
 
hansard said:
"…His nature cannot change because He is perfect!"
You are assuming one state of perfection. He is perfect as we understand perfection to be. Can there be other states of perfection? Who said that goodness is the same as perfection?
Click to expand...
The issue here is not perfection but absolute perfection - as one might expect where the Supreme Being is concerned. Not only goodness but truth, justice, mercy and love are all aspects of divine perfection.
**"**God can do anything consistent with His goodness and love but to destroy Himself is impossible because to do so would be evil.That does not mean His power is limited because evil is a limitation."
Why would god destroying himself be evil?
Click to expand...
Because God is the Creator not the Destroyer! All ideas are our ideas but that does not mean they are necessarily false.
Our idea of evil stems from our idea of goodness and our idea of goodness is based on the inestimable value.of existence. Evil is the negation of goodness and to destroy is a negative action…
If, for example, God decreed, “A deity can change himself at will and not be regarded as evil”, we would have no answer to that.
Click to expand...
Divine omnipotence implies the power to do anything that is not self-contradictory. It is absurd to suggest that He Who Is can transform Himself into He Who Is Not!
**“God would not break a promise because to do so is a defect and He is perfect!”***If God decided to break a promise, it would no longer be a defect, if God were perfect. *
Click to expand...
Divine omnipotence implies the power to do anything that is consistent with His goodness.Divine goodness implies not disappointing His creatures by being inconsistent.

We have to take a leaf out of God’s book! This is a discussion but we too have to be consistent - in our reasoning in this case. If we accept the existence of the Creator we have to examine the implications of Creatorhood. Our conclusions cannot be arbitrary but must cohere with what we know about existence, e.g. that it has an inestimable value. I don’t claim to be infallible. If there are flaws in my reasoning please point them out! 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
The issue here is not perfection but absolute perfection - as one might expect where the Supreme Being is concerned. Not only goodness but truth, justice, mercy and love are all aspects of divine perfection.

Because God is the Creator not the Destroyer! All ideas are our ideas but that does not mean they are necessarily false.
Our idea of evil stems from our idea of goodness and our idea of goodness is based on the inestimable value.of existence. Evil is the negation of goodness and to destroy is a negative action… Divine omnipotence implies the power to do anything that is not self-contradictory. It is absurd to suggest that He Who Is can transform Himself into He Who Is Not!
Divine omnipotence implies the power to do anything that is consistent with His goodness.Divine goodness implies not disappointing His creatures by being inconsistent.

We have to take a leaf out of God’s book! This is a discussion but we too have to be consistent - in our reasoning in this case. If we accept the existence of the Creator we have to examine the implications of Creatorhood. Our conclusions cannot be arbitrary but must cohere with what we know about existence, e.g. that it has an inestimable value. I don’t claim to be infallible. If there are flaws in my reasoning please point them out! 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s refreshing how logical that post was. I just had to let you know. 👍

I also wanted to throw in that in the case of absolute perfection we have a case of absolute simplicity. That’s another reason we can say that God cannot change his mind or nature. Also the reason we have to be consistent in our definitions of absolute good and absolute evil. Funny how simplicity can become so complicated. Ever hear that the devil’s favorite color is gray?
 
Eli4n4 said:
It’s refreshing how logical that post was. I just had to let you know. 👍
Click to expand...
Many thanks for those kind words! 🙂 We can’t afford to be slack on this forum!
I also wanted to throw in that in the case of absolute perfection we have a case of absolute simplicity. That’s another reason we can say that God cannot change his mind or nature. Also the reason we have to be consistent in our definitions of absolute good and absolute evil. Funny how simplicity can become so complicated. Ever hear that the devil’s favorite color is gray?
Click to expand...
A very good point. I like the description of the diabolical strategy… 🙂
 
One thing I often find lacking in Judaeo-Christian theology is the focus on good vs evil.

I think this distinction is played up as a way to control people. What is marketing, after all, other than make-believe messages of what is “good” (and in smear campaigns, “bad”).

I think there is more truth in Eastern religions/traditions. The 6th century BCE Tao Te Ching, for instance, states:

When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

I know, you’re itching to say “Nonsense! But ABC is bad!” Perhaps this story will explain the idea better than I can:
farawayrockstar.blogspot.com/2008/02/traditional-sufi-story.html

This is a long way of saying that G-d has to be good, and G-d has to be evil. He has to be day, and He has to be night.
 
Thanks for those replies.

Just a few replies or queries:

Not only goodness but truth, justice, mercy and love are all aspects of divine perfection. posted tonyrey.
I just wonder: where this is from, and who said it? What do truth, justice, mercy and love have to do with perfection?

Divine omnipotence implies the power to do anything that is consistent with His goodness.Divine goodness implies not disappointing His creatures by being inconsistent.
This seems to be inventing an argument based on a presupposition of God’s goodness. I’m simply asking you to at least consider the idea that a god (not the God)might not be good, or might be changeable.
Anyway, we’re probably going nowhere at this point. I do appreciate your very articulate and thoughtful responses, tonyrey (and the others, too).

But still fell free to correct, educate or condemn me. 😃
 
I think the problem here is that you aren’t giving enough for us to work with. Is it possible that the God we Catholics love is not Good, etc etc? It’s probably very very unlikely.

Is it possible that an omnipotent and omniscient God exist who is not Good? I suppose, but His existence would denote some drastically different things about the world. I’m not too sure why a distinctly unkind God would bother with human beings in the first place. (This is to elaborate someone else’s point about the “implications of creatorhood”).

Can an omnipotent and omniscience God exist without being either Good or the creator? Again, probably, but, what then, is he to us? This is a bit like a deist God. Deism so flies in the face of Catholic teaching I have a lot of trouble picking apart what it would mean to believe in such a God.

So no, being omnipotence and omniscience aren’t necessary causes for Goodness; being a creator gets us closer, but, again, I think that it’s not a sufficient cause.

But the God which exists for Catholics is not purely described His omnipotence, omniscience or his creatorhood. Rather, he is also described by His Goodness. So yes, Goodness does need to enter into discussions about God’s existence, otherwise it would be like painting a picture of me with only one arm and no eyes. Or whatever.
 
God is awsome, the ultimate in everything!

But we don’t deal with God…we deal with each other. We are not
good, we are greedy selfish people. That’s what we deal with.

Unless you live with God, which I know you don’t because you asked
that question.

The question is what dose Gods
goodness have to do with you?
He gave us the Church, and a chance at life.

That’s more then anyone else has ever given you or me.
 
tonyrey said:
  • Can an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god be an **indifferent god, or a *malevolent god?
or a neutral god.
Click to expand...
Existence is valuable.
Click to expand...
What is that value to the non existent? It is valuable to the existing.
It is a source of opportunities whereas non-existence offers nothing!
Click to expand...
It offers non intrusiveness to other states and contentment for the conceptual in it’s state.
God must be good because we would not exist if He had not created us.
Click to expand...
The evil god would have no being to project that evil on, so purposeful creation could have an evil intent in the long run.
There is also evidence that evil is self-destructive. We see how individuals and empires have disintegrated as the result of moral decadence.
Click to expand...
Not consistent. Your applying the case of fallible creatures to make your case for a powerful God. The desimilarities are astronomical.
It follows that the Creator cannot be evil. If He were evil He would not be eternal or omnipotent.
Click to expand...
In other words a Creator cannot be evil because he would not have absolute power. I would need to know the relation between power and evilness.

Consider. Could it be that non existence irks us in some way, a thorn in our skin?. Because it is outside the bounds of control there’s a jealousy of sorts? Could it be that because it is a parallel state, that we feel the need to compete, to find an opposite, to create a villan where non exists.? How does this attitude differ from waring states of today who wish to substitute peaceful coexistence with aggression?

Just wondering.

Andy
 
I think the answer to the OP’s question, is hypothetically can God be both creator and malevolent…I don’t see why not. However, such a god would have to be malevolent by his own objectivity, for without a standard to go off, there is no good or evil.
 
AndyF said:
What is that value to the non existent? It is valuable to the existing…

It offers non intrusiveness to other states and contentment for the conceptual in it’s state…

The evil god would have no being to project that evil on, so purposeful creation could have an evil intent in the long run…

Consider. Could it be that non existence irks us in some way, a thorn in our skin?. Because it is outside the bounds of control there’s a jealousy of sorts? Could it be that because it is a parallel state, that we feel the need to compete, to find an opposite, to create a villain where non exists.? How does this attitude differ from waring states of today who wish to substitute peaceful coexistence with aggression?
Just wondering.

Andy
Click to expand...
I am somewhat confused by parts of this post… non-existence is not a “state” parallel or otherwise, there is no “state of non-being”, that is an oxymoron, a conceptual joke - everyone understands this, yes? I don’t understand the comparison to warring nations…

Second - the notion of a malevolent deity similar to God creating beings to project evil upon seems contradictory, at least from a Judeo-Christian perspective in which existence is “good” as revealed in Scriptures (and without existence, “bad” does not exist, so the notion is logically sound). A malevolent deity who creates beings to do evil upon them must continually do “good” by creating and sustaining…
I suppose the deity could be mean to certain creatures, fill their lives with suffering, or perhaps constantly tease them with joy only to snatch it away…
But this seems so minor and petty, as if the deity has power to hurt but not destroy utterly. The creatures must be given a sense of “good” so that they fully recognize the “evil” being done to them - could a malevolent deity do this?
Finally, just a question of concept - what is the worst evil, how would this deity culminate its work of cruelty?
I do enjoy the thought-game, it’s almost relaxing 🙂
 
Hi Hansard, I just read your posting. About your core question of “Does God have to be good?”, the short answer is yes. The reason is because God is goodness itself and what we understand for “good” is whatever God’s qualities happen to be. If God had qualities different from the ones He has, whatever those qualities were, that is what we would understand as “good”.

I am not saying that God could have been any different, but what I am saying is that your question answers itself since instead of asking “Does God have to be good?” you could just as well have asked “Does Goodness have to be good?”. That is, God is not defined based on what “good” is, but “good” is defined based on what God is.
 
Chiral:

Good points. But there is a caveat.

Such is the expected when dealing with the mystical. But none of this should be seen as didactic, nor is it meant to unsettle or unseat De Fide beliefs that are well grounded in a person, and here perhaps it would not benefit some persons.

I would prefer to have some learned clergy in discussions such has this as a guide. Perhaps their absence is significant, I can’t say. Better than these discussions, and maybe even as pre-requisites to them, are readings by St. Augustine’s, Cassiciacum dialogues, (Contra Academicos), and his Encheridion (catholictreasury.info/books/enchiridion/index.php). I think an opinon from a clergy would be a good idea also.

Andy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top