God is good

[DanAl]

When classical theists speak of God as being good they refer to the fact he’s perfect and no lacking any perfections. The notion of God as morally good (I.E. morally obligated to do x) became fashionable after Descartes. That God is morally obligated to do something or is forbidden to do some actions like a human is to see in anthropomorphic lenses.

There are good reasons to see why God does not have the same moral obligations as a human. First, It would mean that there’s a standard outside God or a standard more fundamental than God. Neither option is desirable, nothing is more fundamental than God and God is not dependent on something outside himself otherwise God would not be Good or perfect: God would not be God.
Second, many obligations presuppose that we owe something to somebody else (respect to parent for taking care of us, for example) what does God owe to his creatures? nothing.

Nonetheless we can say God is morally good in a qualified sense: God lives up to his own standards, for example, he’s faithful to his promises and he does not lie.

Conclusion, God is good, but not good the way a human being is good.

 

[Protestor]

I have a question I have never put any serious thought into this, but why does God have to be good to be perfect. I have heard the reasoning before God is perfect so he cannot be malicious. This is just begging the question why couldn’t there be a perfectly evil God. I know that it doesn’t match up with the world we live in, but I can think of a world where it doesn’t seem illogical.

 

[DanAl]

I have a question I have never put any serious thought into this, but why does God have to be good to be perfect. I have heard the reasoning before God is perfect so he cannot be malicious. This is just begging the question why couldn’t there be a perfectly evil God. I know that it doesn’t match up with the world we live in, but I can think of a world where it doesn’t seem illogical.

The common and implicit notion behind “evil god” is that god is morally obligated to do something but fails to uphold this standard. Again, if the moral law precedes or is more fundamental than “evil god” or he has to obey a law outside himself he cannot be considered God (notice capitalization) or a being lacking nothing in the first place. When we speak of God we speak of the most eminent being possible. If evil god existed he would be a demiurge at best ( a powerful, but limited being), not a perfect being. He would be god but not God.

 

[edward_george]

To answer the question in response, “a perfectly evil God” is a contradiction in terms. Perfect implies having the fullness of being, hence we say that God is perfect, because he is possessed of all goodness. Evil is a lack of a due good. An evil God would be impossible, since that would imply that the perfect being (God) lacked something, and thus would not be perfect. There is no such thing as “perfectly evil” for the simple fact that the words of themselves necessarily contradict. Of course, the temptation is to label any action willed by God which carries with it some immediately ill effect for us as “evil,” but even with those evils done to us by others (willed by others, since God’s will is only oriented toward the good) God brings good out of them.

-ACEGC

 

[Bagheera]

When classical theists speak of God as being good they refer to the fact he’s perfect and no lacking any perfections.

The word “perfect” is meaningless without qualifications. One cannot be “perfect” without specifying: “in what respect”. Adding “not lacking any perfections” is also unacceptably vague. What are those “any” perfections? Even if one could enumerate them, the list would be a subjective one.

The notion of God as morally good (I.E. morally obligated to do x) became fashionable after Descartes. That God is morally obligated to do something or is forbidden to do some actions like a human is to see in anthropomorphic lenses.

Since Catholics assert that some actions are intrinsically wrong or evil, no matter in what circumstances they occur, or no matter what kind of “end” they are aimed at, or no matter what was the instigating reason for them, this assertion presents a whole truckload of problems when one considers the events in the bible.

Of course this also leads back to the Euthyphro dilemma).

There are good reasons to see why God does not have the same moral obligations as a human. First, It would mean that there’s a standard outside God or a standard more fundamental than God. Neither option is desirable, nothing is more fundamental than God and God is not dependent on something outside himself otherwise God would not be Good or perfect: God would not be God.

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. (Besides, if nothing else, the laws of logic are “outside” and “above” God.)

Second, many obligations presuppose that we owe something to somebody else (respect to parent for taking care of us, for example) what does God owe to his creatures? nothing.

That is a bare assertion. The parents owe their children a decent life, caring, because they were responsible for the children’s existence. This responsibility ends when the children reach the same level of existence as the parents do. (If the child is seriously retarded, the responsibility never ends). If God created us, therefore he is responsible for our well being. Since we shall never reach God’s level of existence, this responsibility never ends.

Nonetheless we can say God is morally good in a qualified sense: God lives up to his own standards, for example, he’s faithful to his promises and he does not lie.

According to this assertion the Devil is “good” because he lives up to his own standards. Besides, God lied many times. He had a covenant (according to the mythology) with the Jews, but never kept his side of the “deal”. As a matter of fact, the Jews set up a trial, and convicted God (in absentia, of course).

Conclusion, God is good, but not good the way a human being is good.

Well you managed to conclude with two fallacies. One is the “fallacy of the stolen concept” and the other is the “fallacy of special pleading”. Conclusion: the expression: “God is good” is a meaningless term.

 

[Bagheera]

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.

 

[grannymh]

God is a transcendent Pure Spirit, that is, He is super-natural. As Creator, He is beyond the limits of His creation.

Humans are unique in that our own human nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. Thus, we can know God but not completely. Our descriptions of God are born in our material world and thus cannot reach the infinite depths of a Pure Spirit Who is beyond our world. Yet, we know the goodness of God in our own creation which is directed to the goal of joy eternal in God’s presence.

We need not compare God’s goodness with our goodness which includes the limitations of a created material world. Yet, because of our spiritual principle, our spiritual rational soul, we can seek our Creator and choose to love God Who loved us first.

Love is the basis for morality in our material environment. Within us, because of our spiritual soul in the “image” of God, we seek perfect spiritual love which can only be that of our Creator. We seek to share that spiritual love with others by treating them as worthy of profound respect.

The above is not a complete answer to any question about God being good. It simply is a reasonable beginning.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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.

God could easily supply all the needs for all of us, just as Christ seemed to find it almost effortless to heal the sick, make the deaf hear, the blind see, the lame walk etc.

Clearly He doesn’t. He expects us to do so, and in doing so, find out what goodness is. If He did everything for us, how would we every learn what good and evil are? We’d be on a par with a two year old spoilt brat, expecting Mum and Dad to do the lot.

And as for the homeless person, you may be partly responsible for supporting a system that is careless of human welfare. What about your role? What are you going to do about that? Or are you just going to blame God?

 

[Bagheera]

Yet, we know the goodness of God in our own creation which is directed to the goal of joy eternal in God’s presence.

Even if one considers the “joy” in being in God’s presence, that is not much of a “love”. Love is supposed be unconditional. True goodness would be to be created in God’s actual presence, without any conditions and prerequisites. .

We need not compare God’s goodness with our goodness which includes the limitations of a created material world.

Since the “good people” among us give to those who are in need, and God does not, our “goodness” is superior to God’s.

 

[Bagheera]

God could easily supply all the needs for all of us, just as Christ seemed to find it almost effortless to heal the sick, make the deaf hear, the blind see, the lame walk etc.

Clearly He doesn’t. He expects us to do so, and in doing so, find out what goodness is. If He did everything for us, how would we every learn what good and evil are? We’d be on a par with a two year old spoilt brat, expecting Mum and Dad to do the lot.

And as for the homeless person, you may be partly responsible for supporting a system that is careless of human welfare. What about your role? What are you going to do about that? Or are you just going to blame God?

How typical! I did not insinuate that God take care of ALL our needs. And of course, the immediate attack that WE are responsible for the situations of those who are need. When I see a homeless person, I give as much as I can. If I had more resources, I would give more. If I could prevent rapes and murders, I would, and I would not care one iota about the “free will” of the psychopaths. To paraphrase the saying: “To whom much is given, much is expected”. And no one is “given” (not literally) as much as God.

How about those who suffer an accident in the wilderness, cut off from human help, since no one is even aware of the problem? How about trapped miners? People collect all the possible resources, and try to rescue, but fail.

Clearly it indicates that God does not care. The expression that “God is good” is not even false, it is meaningless.

 

[DanAl]

The word “perfect” is meaningless without qualifications. One cannot be “perfect” without specifying: “in what respect”. Adding “not lacking any perfections” is also unacceptably vague. What are those “any” perfections? Even if one could enumerate them, the list would be a subjective one.

Don’t worry if I need to qualify a term I’ll let you know beforehand. For the meantime just stick for the common definition of God: perfect, good, one, omniscient, etc.
Oh, and why would a definition of God’s perfections be subjective?

Since Catholics assert that some actions are intrinsically wrong or evil, no matter in what circumstances they occur, or no matter what kind of “end” they are aimed at, or no matter what was the instigating reason for them, this assertion presents a whole truckload of problems when one considers the events in the bible.

So, some actions are intrinsically wrong for humans…where’s the problem?
I don’t see why you drag “ends” or telos here. It is irrelevant to what I said.
I am not sure what the “truckload of problems” are but, hey, I am no mind reader.

Of course this also leads back to the Euthyphro dilemma).

And the problem is…

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. (Besides, if nothing else, the laws of logic are “outside” and “above” God.)

I’ll cut to the chase: how do God’s commandments bind God? I don’t know why the laws of logic are outside or above god. I hope you’re not doing what you accuse me of, namely, making bare assertions.

That is a bare assertion. The parents owe their children a decent life, caring, because they were responsible for the children’s existence. This responsibility ends when the children reach the same level of existence as the parents do. (If the child is seriously retarded, the responsibility never ends). If God created us, therefore he is responsible for our well being. Since we shall never reach God’s level of existence, this responsibility never ends.

You mean that we don’t have duties to our parents when become adults? Like taking care of them when elderly and sick? I don’t know what you mean by reaching “their level of existence” (whatever that means) or how that creates duty. A bum does not have my “level of existence” and neither does a dog, am I bound to take care of them?

According to this assertion the Devil is “good” because he lives up to his own standards.

Well, the devil broke God’s commandments , or so catholic are told,so I have no inkling as to how he could be “good” in any form.

Besides, God lied many times. He had a covenant (according to the mythology) with the Jews, but never kept his side of the “deal”. As a matter of fact, the Jews set up a trial, and convicted God (in absentia, of course) .

You got me there. Can you give me examples of this?

Well you managed to conclude with two fallacies. One is the “fallacy of the stolen concept” and the other is the “fallacy of special pleading”. Conclusion: the expression: “God is good” is a meaningless term.

Stolen concept, you’re not seriously implying that words have some sort necessary meaning attached to them? Do you? As for special pleading…:whacky:

 

[Bob_Crowley]

How typical! I did not insinuate that God take care of ALL our needs. And of course, the immediate attack that WE are responsible for the situations of those who are need. When I see a homeless person, I give as much as I can. If I had more resources, I would give more. If I could prevent rapes and murders, I would, and I would not care one iota about the “free will” of the psychopaths. To paraphrase the saying: “To whom much is given, much is expected”. And no one is “given” (not literally) as much as God.

How about those who suffer an accident in the wilderness, cut off from human help, since no one is even aware of the problem? How about trapped miners? People collect all the possible resources, and try to rescue, but fail.

Clearly it indicates that God does not care. The expression that “God is good” is not even false, it is meaningless.

It doesn’t indicate God doesn’t care. It means He chooses not to rescue that person in that circumstance. He lets the natural order of things follow the course of physical laws. It’s what we call Mother Nature that doesn’t care. “She” allows the physical course of events to follow their inexorable chain of events. When the tsunami hit in 2004, killing nearly 300,000 mostly poor people, that was lovely Mother Nature in action, and “she” didn’t care one whit.

God made it quite clear through his Son that we would suffer in this life. God has never pretended we would not suffer.

But He also made it clear that after death, there is judgement and resurrection.

Or put it this way. There’s a war on, and your son has volunteered to fight on the front lines, with a very good chance of being killed or badly wounded. You can’t do anything about it, once he’s made his decision, but does that mean that you don’t care? He knew before he went there was a risk. All you can do is sit there in frustrated helplessness.

If God’s going to allow this world any freedom of action,*** that’s the position He’s in all the time.*** Caring, but by allowing us the freedom to choose, He’s unable to act.

Personally I think He’d suffer immense frustration - He’d see a child whom He had big plans for aborted by his mother. He’d see a young boy whom He intended to use for good having his confidence completely destroyed by his own cruel, stupid father. He’d see a young woman whom He had lined up for a good marriage, destroyed by her own cupidity and the callousness of a young Lothario.

He’s in that situation all the time. But if He’s going to allow us any freedom, then He has to suffer it.

I’m also quite sure that judgement catches up with all parties when they die (and not before). However we don’t see that - we just see what happens in this physical world. And it often seems very unfair, and is. In fact, I know the judgement catches up with us in the end - I had the experience of my own father appearing in my room the night he died. And my very last memory of him was a terrifying scream, just before he vanished again. He incidentally was the “cruel, stupid father” I used as an example above. He did a lot of damage, and now he’s paying for it, along with every other human being who thought other people and other lives didn’t matter, and has since died.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera

Clearly it indicates that God does not care. The expression that “God is good” is not even false, it is meaningless.

Well for you it certainly is false and meaningless because it seems you don’t even believe in God. Correct me if I’m wrong.

If you believed in the Christian God, you would be dazzled by our God’s heroic sacrifice on the cross to open the gates of heaven. To you all that matters is what what is on earth. After that, you die. So your Mother Nature is cruel indeed, or indifferent as you probably believe. But our God offers more than wine, women, food, and long life. We live for what he offers above, rather than for what in your religion amounts ultimately to no more than shoveling the earth over our carcass and a meal for the worms…

 

[Bagheera]

Don’t worry if I need to qualify a term I’ll let you know beforehand. For the meantime just stick for the common definition of God: perfect, good, one, omniscient, etc.

I cannot stick with meaningless terms. If you wish to stipulate “perfection” in some abstract sense, then you need to define it.

Oh, and why would a definition of God’s perfections be subjective?

Because the apologists choose a few aspects, which are “good to have” and blow them out of proportion. If there would be a feline race, then their “perfect” being would be voracious and bloodthirsty.

So, some actions are intrinsically wrong for humans…where’s the problem?

Again, the “special pleading”.

I’ll cut to the chase: how do God’s commandments bind God?

I am not talking about God’s alleged commandments. I am talking about the fully secular concept of “good”. It has nothing to do with God’s alleged commandments.

I don’t know why the laws of logic are outside or above god.

The law of non-contradiction is binding on everyone. No exceptions.

You mean that we don’t have duties to our parents when become adults? Like taking care of them when elderly and sick?

No, it is not a duty. They should make their own preparations for their old age. By that time, we have the duty to take care of our children. Nevertheless, if we have the ways and means to take care of our parents, then it is a good action to take care of them. Not out of duty, or obligation, but out of love and caring. And this also underlines the fact that even if God would not have the obligation to take care of its creation, he could do it out of his alleged" love" - if he deserved to be called “good”. I wonder if you realize that you started to argue my side. I don’t think you did…

I don’t know what you mean by reaching “their level of existence” (whatever that means) or how that creates duty.

Do you intentionally play “dumb”? The duty ceases when they become self-sufficient adults themselves. Since we shall never reach God’s self-sufficiency, therefore God’s obligation never stops.

A bum does not have my “level of existence” and neither does a dog, am I bound to take care of them?

You are obtuse. You did not create the bum, or the dog. I was pretty clear that the obligation comes from being the “creator” of the children. It is pretty boring to try to have a conversation with someone who keeps changing the subject. I am rapidly losing interest. Nevertheless, if you have the excess “funds” to help out that “bum” or that dog, then it would be praiseworthy to do it, over and beyond the call of duty. That is what good people do.

Well, the devil broke God’s commandments , or so catholic are told,so I have no inkling as to how he could be “good” in any form.

Totally irrelevant. You offered the definition that God is good, because he lives up to his own standards. If this is a general definition, then the devil (and the psychopath) is also good according to it. If it only pertains to God, you are again guilty of special pleading.

You got me there. Can you give me examples of this?

It happened after the Holocaust. Google: “holocaust jews put god on trial”.

Stolen concept, you’re not seriously implying that words have some sort necessary meaning attached to them? Do you?

No, I don’t. Words have meanings because we agree on them. And the word “good” cannot mean two diametrically opposite things when we talk about “human goodness” or “divine goodness”. It would be correct if the “divine goodness” would contain the “human goodness” as a subset. If God’s goodness would be partly human goodness, and then more. But if there are actions which are mandatory for human goodness, but not mandatory for divine goodness, then the “divine goodness” is meaningless.

As for special pleading…:whacky:

It is all over the place. It is unacceptable to take some fully defined words, twist them out of their meanings and apply them to God. Intellectual dishonesty is the phrase that describes the process.

 

[Bagheera]

It doesn’t indicate God doesn’t care. It means He chooses not to rescue that person in that circumstance. He lets the natural order of things follow the course of physical laws. It’s what we call Mother Nature that doesn’t care. “She” allows the physical course of events to follow their inexorable chain of events. When the tsunami hit in 2004, killing nearly 300,000 mostly poor people, that was lovely Mother Nature in action, and “she” didn’t care one whit.

The phrase “mother nature” is just a euphemism. When something “good” happens, people praise God for it. When something “bad” happens, they blame “mother nature” for it. The word you should be using is: “hypocrisy”. Besides, you forget that God is directly involved in every event. Without God’s constant “tinkering”, the universe would simply disappear into nonexistence. (Catholic dogma!)

God made it quite clear through his Son that we would suffer in this life. God has never pretended we would not suffer.

But He also made it clear that after death, there is judgement and resurrection.

Theology / mythology is irrelevant when one contemplates the fully secular concept of goodness.

If God’s going to allow this world any freedom of action,*** that’s the position He’s in all the time.*** Caring, but by allowing us the freedom to choose, He’s unable to act.

That is ridiculous. No good person would allow a child to stick his fingers into a power outlet and get electrocuted. No good person would allow a terrorist to blow up a building, if he could prevent it.

He’s in that situation all the time. But if He’s going to allow us any freedom, then He has to suffer it.

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.

 

[Bagheera]

Bagheera

Clearly it indicates that God does not care. The expression that “God is good” is not even false, it is meaningless.

Well for you it certainly is false and meaningless because it seems you don’t even believe in God. Correct me if I’m wrong.

If you believed in the Christian God, you would be dazzled by our God’s heroic sacrifice on the cross to open the gates of heaven. To you all that matters is what what is on earth. After that, you die. So your Mother Nature is cruel indeed, or indifferent as you probably believe. But our God offers more than wine, women, food, and long life. We live for what he offers above, rather than for what in your religion amounts ultimately to no more than shoveling the earth over our carcass and a meal for the worms…

Ah, I see you still use the fruits of that “useless and delusional empirical science” (namely computers and the internet). Shame, shame… why are you such a hypocrite?

 

[tonyrey]

References to “good” and “evil” are senseless and worthless in a Godless universe!

 

[Bagheera]

References to “good” and “evil” are senseless and worthless in a Godless universe!

Only for the hopelessly ignorant. (Especially for those who end 90+% of their sentences with an exclamation point.)

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The phrase “mother nature” is just a euphemism. When something “good” happens, people praise God for it. When something “bad” happens, they blame “mother nature” for it. The word you should be using is: “hypocrisy”. Besides, you forget that God is directly involved in every event. Without God’s constant “tinkering”, the universe would simply disappear into nonexistence. (Catholic dogma!)

I’m well aware that “Mother Nature” is a euphemism. I’d have thought that was very clear by the use of my quote symbols. Apparently you didn’t have the intelligence to recognise that.

As for God’s “tinkering”, I’d suggest you look up “Zero Sum Energy Universe” on the net, and when you find out the sum total is zero energy, or “nothing”, then you might wonder what’s keeping this “nothing” going.

Theology / mythology is irrelevant when one contemplates the fully secular concept of goodness.

Theology is quite relevant when it comes to recognising what Divine Goodness might be. As we understand it, God’s “goodness” is eternal, infinite, absolute Holiness, compared to which the self-declared, self importance of short lived primates may not amount to much.

And Christ is not a myth.

That is ridiculous. No good person would allow a child to stick his fingers into a power outlet and get electrocuted. No good person would allow a terrorist to blow up a building, if he could prevent it.

No good person would allow a child to stick his fingers in a power outlet if he could prevent it. If however he prevents it and the child persists while he’s not looking, that’s another matter. If a man goes down into a mine, knowing full well there’s always a risk of death or injury in the event of an accident, then that’s his choice. And who is he going downt he mine for? Other human beings, who want the raw materials that he excavates from the ground.

As for the terrorist, he is resposible for his own actions. But suppose both he and his victims die in the blast, and they all front up for judgment together. What do you think happens to him then, with his mass murders to answer for, and his victims right there to accuse him?

Incidentally why has earth got so many different raw materials in such relative abundance, such that industrial man not only has the fossil fuels he needs to get himself into a relatively comfortable state, but also all the other material items he wants. Just a coincidence? Or was it planned that way?

I’m Catholic, but there’s one issue I disagree with and that’s the ban on the Contraceptive Pill. I think it was God’s idea given just at the very time when population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world.

But** NOTE,** we weren’t allowed the technology to develop it,** UNTIL **population pressures were becoming a real problem. Take at a look at the following population graph, and plot where the contraceptive pill came in. Another coincidence? Don’t forget we had to get to a certain point in our technological development before it could be developed. The two go together.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileopulation_curve.svg

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.

No, He’s not an idiot. But He’s not soft either. Pain is there for a reason - it’s a warning when things go wrong with out bodies. But it’s also a warning of the judgment. After all why should such a small bio-electric current be so unpleasant and terrible, when it’s at its full capacity?

Who designed the phenomen of pain?

 

[Bagheera]

Theology is quite relevant when it comes to recognising what Divine Goodness might be. As we understand it, God’s “goodness” is eternal, infinite, absolute Holiness, compared to which the self-declared, self importance of short lived primates may not amount to much.

The concept of “good” is much more ancient that Christianity, and it is not a religious concept. The christian version “borrowed” it, tried to apply to God, and when it did not “fit”, twisted it into something nonsensical.

No good person would allow a child to stick his fingers in a power outlet if he could prevent it. If however he prevents it and the child persists while he’s not looking, that’s another matter.

When is the time that God is not looking?

If a man goes down into a mine, knowing full well there’s always a risk of death or injury in the event of an accident, then that’s his choice.

Irrelevant. Accident happen, and people do all their best to rescue the trapped miners. God looks down, and does not help even when the mission is hopeless.

The point is that a “good” whoever helps when help is needed. Especially when it does not “cost” him anything.

I’m Catholic, but there’s one issue I disagree with and that’s the ban on the Contraceptive Pill.

Glad to hear it, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.