God is good

[Bagheera]

This is begging the question though, Bagheera. You can’t know that God doesn’t fix all of this homeless man’s problems when he is granted eternal life.

In fact, He does. Infinitely better than you can.

There is no “undo” button on God’s computer either. What is done is done, and it cannot be remedied later. To be clear, “even giving eternal life will not UNDO the bad things, here and now”.

And since you do not help every single bad that exists, where I’m sure you could, then by your own reasoning you are not a decent person. (If one is to subscribe to your argument).

I only help those “bad things” which I can without inconveniencing myself, and never said otherwise. It is nice of you to imagine “unlimited power” on my side, and even be “sure” about it, but unfortunately it is not so. And you really should look up the fallacy of “question begging”. It means to include the end result in your prerequisites.

It is my assertion that God could give that eternal life, on the top of helping that homeless person here and now - without inconveniencing himself.

From our limited perspective it may appear as if God is standing by and allowing pain and suffering, but we don’t see the bigger picture.

Imagine if you were a 5 yr old child at the pediatrician’s office. Your father is standing by while 2 big ladies hold you down to give you 5 painful stabs with a sharp needle. From your perspective it appears as if your father is standing by doing nothing (in fact, he* is* standing by and permitting this suffering). But you don’t get it. Because you only see the world through your 5 yr old lenses. You are incapable of understanding the intricacies of immunology and B-cell generation and conjugate vaccines being superior to polysaccharide vaccines, etc etc etc.

You just see your father as a big meanie who is standing by doing nothing.

Ah, the argument of the fifth officer again. Read it and weep

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is something that needs to be added.

Consider a homeless person. You are not responsible at all for his situation. If you have some extra money, you can decide to help him out with a few bucks, or you can just walk on. Giving those few bucks in no way would inconvenience you. If you give, you are decent person. If you do not, then you do not qualify to be called a “good” person. God has infinite resources. Giving some help in no way would “inconvenience” him.

So God cannot even be called a “decent” guy.

It is not clear to me that “giving a few bucks” makes you good, except in your own mind. In fact, giving the homeless person a few bucks might be the very thing that gets him a drug fix that ends up killing him. How do you know? You simply can’t know, which means your version of what “being good” is cannot be the version that applies necessarily to anyone, especially not God.

God, being omniscient, would have access to factuals that are unavailable to you, so your assessment of what God ought to do fails at that level. You are not omniscient.

You also do not have access to the internal world of the homeless man. Ascetics and hermits have claimed intimacy with God and the experience of beatitude. You do not know the extent to which this particular homeless man is on the verge of a far greater happiness than you can imagine and his material deprivation may be precisely what got him there. Again, you do not know.

For all you know, the man may be God himself sitting there putting your moral sensitivities in the forefront of your imagination to see how you will come to terms with his eyes looking into your soul wondering how you will reconcile his state of existence with yours.

Furthermore, it is not clear to me that God has an obligation to fulfill all human desires. Wealthy, adored, talented, physically endowed and successful “celebrated” individuals frequently end up dead by their own hand or the result of some addiction. To provide material success does not, therefore, seem an obligation of God, despite what we humans think, given that it could well end up creating ghosts in human flesh, or, in grannymh’s words, “decomposing anatomy.”

Perhaps, it would be an interesting idea …

… that those persons who are looking at the workings of a material world, including our decomposing anatomy, from the point of view of our decomposing anatomy and fickle natural phenomena should stop for a few moments and look at human life from the point of view of a transcendent, i.e., a supernatural Creator.

If and when that interesting idea, mentioned in the very long yet very thoughtful statement beginning this post, ever becomes possible, may I thoughtfully suggest reading Romans 8: 31-39.

 

[Bagheera]

It is not clear to me that “giving a few bucks” makes you good, except in your own mind. In fact, giving the homeless person a few bucks might be the very thing that gets him a drug fix that ends up killing him. How do you know? You simply can’t know, which means your version of what “being good” is cannot be the version that applies necessarily to anyone, especially not God.

Why help then anyone, under any circumstances? Why is the “good Samaritan” held up as a virtuous person? For all we know his interference just made the victim’s situation much worse - according to your “reasoning”! The catholic church praises those who are helpful to ones in need. **We need to act according to the information available to us. **The fallacy you commit here is called “argumentum ad ignoratiam”.

Furthermore, it is not clear to me that God has an obligation to fulfill all human desires.

No one talks about “ALL” the desires, and no one talks about “OBLIGATIONS”.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no “undo” button on God’s computer either.

You are correct.

What is done is done, and it cannot be remedied later.

Of course God can make up any suffering a homeless man has here on earth. The sufferings of today are to be compared to one night’s stay in a bad motel, compared to the joys that can be experienced in eternity, as St. Teresa said.

To be clear, “even giving eternal life will not UNDO the bad things, here and now”.

It’s just one night’s stay in a bad motel.

I only help those “bad things” which I can without inconveniencing myself, and never said otherwise.

Wow. Is it really inconvenient to write a check to a charity? Do you do this every time you hear about any tragedy? Do you watch the news? Read the newspaper?

The fact that you don’t do this, yet expect God to do what you won’t do is astonishing.

And you really should look up the fallacy of “question begging”. It means to include the end result in your prerequisites

Yes, and here you are doing it again.

It is my assertion that God could give that eternal life, on the top of helping that homeless person here and now - without inconveniencing himself

Ok.

And the fact that God allows us one night’s stay in a bad motel compared to an infinite stay at the Ritz has caused you to reject Him?

That seems rather puerile and expectful.

Ah, the argument of the fifth officer again. Read it and weep

 

[Bagheera]

Of course God can make up any suffering a homeless man has here on earth. The sufferings of today are to be compared to one night’s stay in a bad motel, compared to the joys that can be experienced in eternity, as St. Teresa said.

One ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

It’s just one night’s stay in a bad motel.

That is not an excuse. In the greater scheme of things it does not really matter when a child skins his knee falling off a bike. It will be gone by itself in a few days. Yet, good and loving people apply an ointment to stave off a possible infection, then put a Band-Aid on the wound and most importantly - comfort that child. All this comes from love and caring. An uncaring person looks at the child, maybe remarks that it is no big deal and walks on. A hypocritical person does the same and then bangs his chest with a brick, and proclaims how “loving and caring” he is…

Wow. Is it really inconvenient to write a check to a charity?

I only give directly to the ones who are in need.

The fact that you don’t do this, yet expect God to do what you won’t do is astonishing.

I do not expect God to do anything. I simply point out the discrepancy in the belief system of christians.

And the fact that God allows us one night’s stay in a bad motel compared to an infinite stay at the Ritz has caused you to reject Him?

I do not reject God. I reject the illogical and irrational picture that the believers paint about God. Do you understand the difference?

By the way, I would appreciate if you did not include those nauseating pictures, which carry no information pertaining to the subject. Of course, you can do what you want.

 

[PRmerger]

One ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

That was ruined, sadly, by Adam and Eve.

In the greater scheme of things it does not really matter when a child skins his knee falling off a bike. It will be gone by itself in a few days. Yet, good and loving people apply an ointment to stave off a possible infection, then put a Band-Aid on the wound and most importantly - comfort that child. All this comes from love and caring. An uncaring person looks at the child, maybe remarks that it is no big deal and walks on. A hypocritical person does the same and then bangs his chest with a brick, and proclaims how “loving and caring” he is…

All the above is quite correct.

I only give directly to the ones who are in need.

So give directly to all the ones in need that you know of. Do that first, then criticize God for not doing what you’re doing.

I do not expect God to do anything. I simply point out the discrepancy in the belief system of christians.

But you have not correctly articulated the belief system of Christians.

I do not reject God. I reject the illogical and irrational picture that the believers paint about God. Do you understand the difference?

Again, you have not provided a correct explication of Catholic theology.

Do that first, then we can discuss.

By the way, I would appreciate if you did not include those nauseating pictures, which carry no information pertaining to the subject. Of course, you can do what you want.

Perhaps you should help her out, directly? Do you not feel compassion for her?

 

[Bagheera]

That was ruined, sadly, by Adam and Eve.

Why? God could have forgiven them and allowed them a fresh start. This type of “one strike and you are out” strategy is not “loving”.

All the above is quite correct.

**Then what I are you talking about? ** If even the small inconveniences should be “fixed” in the name of “love and caring” (not out of “obligation”), then you don’t have a leg to stand on. Then the “one night in a roach hotel” cannot be justified with the long (eternal?) stay in the Ritz.

So give directly to all the ones in need that you know of. Do that first, then criticize God for not doing what you’re doing.

I do that. And I do not criticize God.

But you have not correctly articulated the belief system of Christians.

The believers did that. I simply accept what they say. Of course it is tricky, since they sometimes say “A” and other times they say “not A”, depending on the circumstances.

 

[PRmerger]

Why? God could have forgiven them and allowed them a fresh start. This type of “one strike and you are out” strategy is not “loving”.

God did do this, Bagheera. It began 2000 years ago at the Incarnation. And was completed at the Resurrection.

 

[PRmerger]

**Then what I are you talking about? ** If even the small inconveniences should be “fixed” in the name of “love and caring” (not out of “obligation”), then you don’t have a leg to stand on. Then the “one night in a roach hotel” cannot be justified with the long (eternal?) stay in the Ritz.

Of course it can be justified. “I will allow you to spend one night in a roach motel. Then you get to spend eternity at the Ritz”.

What’s so unfair about that?

I do that. And I do not criticize God.

Excellent.

 

[PRmerger]

The believers did that. I simply accept what they say. Of course it is tricky, since they sometimes say “A” and other times they say “not A”, depending on the circumstances.

Yes, I suggest you look to the Catechism, rather than what others say.

scborromeo.org/ccc/index/a.htm

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why help then anyone, under any circumstances? Why is the “good Samaritan” held up as a virtuous person? For all we know his interference just made the victim’s situation much worse - according to your “reasoning”! The catholic church praises those who are helpful to ones in need. **We need to act according to the information available to us. **The fallacy you commit here is called “argumentum ad ignoratiam”.

No one talks about “ALL” the desires, and no one talks about “OBLIGATIONS”.

I agree, we “need to act according to the information available to us,” and making judgements is an aspect of acting. Therefore, by your own premise you ought not judge God’s action or inaction precisely because you do not have full access to the information about the circumstance that God would have, given omniscience. To make a judgement about God’s duty would be judging (which is also an action) far in excess of the information available to us, which is why such a judgement is audacious at best.

You have an obligation to act morally to the best of your ability, but you do not have an obligation to act according to God’s capacity, that is why you would not be culpable for giving the homeless man the money, despite your best intention, that ended his life. Nor do you have a right to criticize God’s action precisely because you are not in a position to do so.

 

[grannymh]

Pardon me. I do not mean to be rude by interrupting the preceding conversations.

It occurs to me that the difference between the status of God the Creator and the status of human the creature has been obliterated. :sad_yes:

 

[tonyrey]

You shot yourself in the foot., since you failed to substantiate your assertion when you said:

You are forgetting your statements:

Moral obligations apply to moral beings. The definition of a moral being (or moral agent) is someone who knows the difference between good and bad, and who is aware / understands if an action is good or bad.

and:

The parents owe their children a decent life, caring, because they were responsible for the children’s existence.

In other words you assumed the validity of the distinction between good and evil without substantiating it.

 

[Bagheera]

I agree, we “need to act according to the information available to us,” and making judgements is an aspect of acting. Therefore, by your own premise you ought not judge God’s action or inaction precisely because you do not have full access to the information about the circumstance that God would have, given omniscience. To make a judgement about God’s duty would be judging (which is also an action) far in excess of the information available to us, which is why such a judgement is audacious at best.

That is acceptable.

Of course, using the same line of reasoning, you are not “authorized” to say that “God is good”. All we can say is that using the available evidence and the our limited amount of information we cannot say that “God is good”, because based upon our understanding “God does not act as a good person would and should act”. At best we are at an impasse - you cannot say that God is good, and I cannot say that God is not good - but, of course God’s indifference (lack of interference) is beyond questioning. Whether that indifference is “good” or “bad” is up for grabs - subject to personal interpretation.

 

[Bagheera]

Yes, I suggest you look to the Catechism, rather than what others say.

scborromeo.org/ccc/index/a.htm

I am an avid reader of the catechism. The funny thing is that both catholic parties can support their view by selectively taking carefully selected texts from the catechism. Just like the bible, the catechism can be used to “prove” whatever you wish to “prove” by carefully selecting supporting texts. And that is NOT my fault…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sorry, my friend. The God you describe is an idiot. **Whatever I say about God (aloof and uncaring) **can never be as “disrespectful” as your description of God.

Conclusion: the expression: “God is good” is a meaningless term.

So God cannot even be called a “decent” guy.

**And I do not criticize God. **

So you need to retract your criticisms, since you agree that “God does not act as a good [human] person would and should act.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is acceptable.

Of course, using the same line of reasoning, you are not “authorized” to say that “God is good”. All we can say is that using the available evidence and the our limited amount of information we cannot say that “God is good”, because based upon our understanding “God does not act as a good person would and should act”. At best we are at an impasse - you cannot say that God is good, and I cannot say that God is not good - but, of course God’s indifference (lack of interference) is beyond questioning. Whether that indifference is “good” or “bad” is up for grabs - subject to personal interpretation.

Actually, to clarify your claim here…

Your hidden premise is that human determinations of “good” are the standard by which good is to be judged. Unfortunately, that has not been granted.

We can say “God does not act as a good [human] person would and should act,” but that does not entail that a standard of “good” that applies to human persons is the de facto standard by which all good is determined. You made a leap of logic, there.

God may, in fact, be the standard by which all good is judged, even though we could not use that supreme standard to judge human behaviour, because it would not be applicable. Unfortunately for you, we do not have the right to judge “the good” according to our human moral standards, either.

Essentially, this means we could still be obligated to a higher good beyond our own capacity to determine, if that standard has been “passed down” to us from the higher source of good.

We would have no means or right to evaluate it, but we could still be obligated to it. That could also be why it is obligatory instead of merely “if you wish.”

Humans, not being the standard by which to judge good, could not impose our “determination” of it, either.

 

[PRmerger]

I am an avid reader of the catechism. The funny thing is that both catholic parties can support their view by selectively taking carefully selected texts from the catechism. Just like the bible, the catechism can be used to “prove” whatever you wish to “prove” by carefully selecting supporting texts. And that is NOT my fault…

Can you give an example of Catholics using the Catechism to support view A, while other Catholics using the Catechism to support Anti-A?

 

[Bagheera]

So you need to retract your criticisms, since you agree that “God does not act as a good [human] person would and should act.”

Not really. When I use the term God, I refer to the hypothetical being which you believe in. You (generic) all give a differing description of this assumed being, mostly contradictory. That is not my fault.

Your hidden premise is that human determinations of “good” are the standard by which good is to be judged. Unfortunately, that has not been granted.

It is not “hidden”. And it is you (the apologist) who wishes to establish a whole different standard for God. This attempt is called “double standard”, or “special pleading”. And that is not granted to you. For all moral beings there is only one standard of “goodness”. Before you start to argue, a “moral agent” is the one who knows the difference between good and bad, who is aware if an act is good or bad, and who can act on this knowledge.

You said that I don’t have the necessary information to declare that God is not good. If that is the case, then you don’t have the necessary information to say that God is good.

However, I argue upon the platform of reality. We do have all the necessary information that God does not interfere, and does not help (sporadic and not substantiated miracles notwithstanding). I make my judgment call based upon that information.

You argue on the platform of blind faith. You have no information that God exists, or that there is a heaven and hell. You have no information that God’s non interference policy is the “best” way to go. You (generic) say that “maybe” that homeless person will be rewarded in that hypothetical afterlife. Apart from the fact that the past cannot be “undone”, and thus later rewards cannot undo the prior sufferings, this raises two more questions. One is that this homeless person may have committed all sorts of mortal sins, so there will be no reward in the afterlife. The other is that EVEN IF that person will be rewarded with eternal bliss, then God is not good, because it would be in the best interest of that person to be lifted into the afterlife RIGHT NOW. It is not a sign of “love” to make him wait and expose him to the possibility to commit mortal sins.

But let me grant you that God indeed exists, that there is a heaven with eternal bliss. In this case the only “good” way for God would be to have every newborn to be baptized (to get rid of that hypothetical original sin ) and then immediately smite it, so it will have no chance to commit sins, and thus would directly go to heaven (do not pass GO, do not collect 200 bucks ).

 

[Bagheera]

Can you give an example of Catholics using the Catechism to support view A, while other Catholics using the Catechism to support Anti-A?

I will collect some examples.