How do we know that God is good?

[I_love_rocks]

I think we make the mistake of confusing God’s “goodness” with our own definition of “goodness,” i.e, that we be happy according to what ‘we’ believe will make us happy. As C. S. Lewis says, we don’t want a Father in heaven, we want a Grandfather, a senile benevolence who will give us everything and anything we want and just let us get on with having a good time. And in that light we tend to perceive any loss, pain, hardship, loneliness, or toil as examples that God is not “good” to us.

I don’t mean to get all preachy, but I believe we need to try to understand that God’s Goodness is different. God put us on this earth to love Him, and understand, through faith, how much He has loved us, long before each of us was born. As His creation we are meant to follow His will and keep His commandments, despite the difficulties of life. The hardships, the injustices of life are just that–life, human, frail, sometimes painful life. As hard as it is to understand, and believe me, it IS hard to understand, to believe, to accommodate it, as Catholics we have to recognize that we are meant for more. This life is just a prelude to what our real life is.

God** is** good. He created us. He gave us this earth. And when we messed it all up He gave us His only, beloved Son to be the perfect atonement for all our idiocies. He wants our Love. He wants us to* want* to love Him because that is what will make us happy. As St. Augustine said, “You have made us for Your own: our hearts will not rest until they rest in Thee”. That is God’s Goodness, to lead us back to Himself.

Amen.

 

[sadiebelle]

God is amoral. He’s beyond it - Good and Evil are our delineations. We have finite minds. We are subject to duality. God is not. He is infinite. Without bonds. God is also omnipresent - He is everywhere, He is in everything. Cancer and puppies God is part of it all. You too.

Enjoy the ride. The good and the bad. It’s all a gift. Stop worrying.

I don’t know that I can accept that and stop worrying. I can’t just stop thinking and wanting the truth. I don’t think that God, who created me with this curious brain, would want me to stop using it when it comes to Him.

Is that the only way to be at peace with our faith? To stop thinking and questioning? That seems to be the answer I keep getting over and over. Just stop thinking. Have faith. Ask for faith. Well, I’m doing the last, praying for the second, and don’t think it’s right to do the first. I am seriously stuck.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I don’t know that I can accept that and stop worrying. I can’t just stop thinking and wanting the truth. I don’t think that God, who created me with this curious brain, would want me to stop using it when it comes to Him.

Is that the only way to be at peace with our faith? To stop thinking and questioning? That seems to be the answer I keep getting over and over. Just stop thinking. Have faith. Ask for faith. Well, I’m doing the last, praying for the second, and don’t think it’s right to do the first. I am seriously stuck.

The proof will come from within!

 

[jonfawkes]

I don’t know that I can accept that and stop worrying. I can’t just stop thinking and wanting the truth. I don’t think that God, who created me with this curious brain, would want me to stop using it when it comes to Him.

Is that the only way to be at peace with our faith? To stop thinking and questioning? That seems to be the answer I keep getting over and over. Just stop thinking. Have faith. Ask for faith. Well, I’m doing the last, praying for the second, and don’t think it’s right to do the first. I am seriously stuck.

Sorry - I wasn’t clear. Never stop questioning. Our minds are wonderful things.

It’s just that with our finite minds we can’t grasp the infinite. So just enjoy it. You questioning your faith is part of your journey. Embrace it. Love it. It is part of your gift. Not everything seems like a gift but it is. Stop worming if you are “doing it right” - you are.

 

[edithsteinrocks]

I don’t know that I can accept that and stop worrying. I can’t just stop thinking and wanting the truth. I don’t think that God, who created me with this curious brain, would want me to stop using it when it comes to Him.

Is that the only way to be at peace with our faith? To stop thinking and questioning? That seems to be the answer I keep getting over and over. Just stop thinking. Have faith. Ask for faith. Well, I’m doing the last, praying for the second, and don’t think it’s right to do the first. I am seriously stuck.

:hug3:

I agree with you 100%: I don’t think God wants you to stop using the brain he gave you. He made you that way. He wouldn’t want you to turn it off like a faucet. Lord knows, I still have a ton of questions for him and about him, and I certainly intend to use every ounce of grey matter I was graced with to keep right on questioning. I’m not super-well versed in the theological masters, but wasn’t it Thomas Aquinas who said that reason (i.e. the use of one’s mental faculties) enlightens faith, or something to that effect…?

Here’s my daily reality: I doubt. Every darn day, I find something to doubt. I question this. I wonder about that. I struggle. I shake my head. I wrestle and sweat. I want to believe eveything right down to the last word, but I don’t.

But everyday, I keep on praying. Every day, I thank God for the intelligence he gave me so that I may continue to doubt, to ask questions, to ponder, to explore, to get angry at him, etc. Every day I ask him to forgive me all my doubts and to give me the strength to keep on being totally open and honest with Him, and about Him. I thank him when he has shed some light on something for me (which I believe he has done) despite still being totally in the dark most of the time. In other words, I allow myself the dignity of continuing to doubt so that I may continue to seek with an open and honest heart and mind.

If you’re looking for any kind of “demonstrated-through-the-scientific-method” evidence of anything pertaining to the Divine, with a beeker, calculator and bubbling brew, well… I’m sure you already know that’s not likely to happen, although it is possible. Anything is possible.

Faith is a grace, but it is also a choice. It is a choice to persevere or not. To persevere in a desire to seek God. To me, that necessarily involves using my brain and accepting the fact that I doubt. But every day, I choose to persevere. I still doubt, I still question. Every @#$@ day. I probably will until the day I die. Why do I persevere? Because I believe that God is worth it.

I’ll keep you in my prayers. :hug1:

 

[tonyrey]

Life is immensely valuable. Do you regret having been born?

So you would advise everyone not to have children?

Look at it from a “Pascal’s wager” perspective.
God created me (obviously without my consent) I will live for a moment on this Earth then for eternity in either Heaven or Hell.

Jesus indicates in several places most people won’t be going to Heaven. If the terms of the bet were spelled out ahead of time I think any rational person would say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

What gives that impression when Jesus told us that we have a loving Father?

 

[Oreoracle]

The word “good” is interchangeable with the word “perfect”. That being said, that’s why Jesus said no man is good, no not one. But the Word of God tells us that God is good, and perfect. so, it is true because …It is Written… (Meaning, with all the absolute sovereignty with which God has revealed Himself in Sacred Scripture.)

I feel that this quote captures most Christians’ reasoning behind why God is considered good. The problem, though, is that the “Word of God” wouldn’t be a reliable citation of God’s moral status because its source is, well, God. God shouldn’t be allowed to vouch for himself, and if he should, then we should let everyone do it. A murderer could then claim that they are innocent in a courtroom and we would have to take their word for it, right?

And the problem extends beyond that. Since God is supposedly the source of all morality, anything he prefers is good by definition under Christian teachings. If this is so, then God is good simply because it’s logically impossible for him to be evil. This image of God is a far cry from the God who is applauded for possessing certain personality traits that we humans recommend. It wouldn’t matter how vicious, murderous, spiteful, or treacherous God is, because he is virtuous no matter what. How is that for a counterintuitive idea?

 

[tonyrey]

The problem, though, is that the “Word of God” wouldn’t be a reliable citation of God’s moral status because its source is, well, God. God shouldn’t be allowed to vouch for himself, and if he should, then we should let everyone do it. A murderer could then claim that they are innocent in a courtroom and we would have to take their word for it, right?

You are referring to God as if He is just another object whereas He is not in any human category at all. If goodness is a reality it must have a transcendent Source - unless you can explain what else it is…

And the problem extends beyond that. Since God is supposedly the source of all morality, anything he prefers is good by definition under Christian teachings.

You give the impression that God’s preferences are arbitrary - which is absurd. He is not a capricious tyrant but the Source of love.

If this is so, then God is good simply because it’s logically impossible for him to be evil.

Your conclusion is true but your premise is false!

This image of God is a far cry from the God who is applauded for possessing certain personality traits that we humans recommend. It wouldn’t matter how vicious, murderous, spiteful, or treacherous God is, because he is virtuous no matter what. How is that for a counterintuitive idea?

Absurd! False concepts of God have no bearing on His true nature…

 

[Oreoracle]

You are referring to God as if He is just another object whereas He is not in any human category at all.

He need not be human for my arguments to be valid. It is sufficient that he is personal, since this means he has a personality, motives, etc. The bottom line is that we can’t take someone’s word for it when they attest to their own virtue, whether that someone is God or otherwise. The evidence must be external and unbiased, and a personal testimony is neither.

If goodness is a reality it must have a transcendent Source - unless you can explain what else it is…

I’m not obligated to offer an explanation to counter yours. You are obligated to substantiate your own claim; namely, that the “source” of morality must be transcendent. If you can demonstrate why that might be the case, I’ll offer a rebuttal.

You give the impression that God’s preferences are arbitrary - which is absurd.

I beg to differ. A decision is arbitrary if it is made without purpose–which in this case I take “purpose” to mean “moral guidance”. While Christians claim that God’s moral imperatives give our actions purpose, God is not subject to any such rules. Indeed, God is not obligated to anyone or anything, and so there isn’t really anything he ought to do or ought not do. Thus, his decisions, actions, etc., are made without purpose, and are therefore arbitrary.

He is not a capricious tyrant but the Source of love.

Whether he is or not is irrelevant. The point is that Christian morality dictates that God is good no matter how he acts. Christianity necessitates that you admit that it doesn’t matter whether God is a capricious tyrant or not, because you would have to deem him “good” anyway.

Absurd! False concepts of God have no bearing on His true nature…

I am only emphasizing the point that God is considered good for no real reason. He isn’t considered good for his beliefs, for his motives, or for his deeds. He is considered good for goodness’s sake, and if that isn’t arbitrary, I don’t know what is.

 

[Benadam]

I am only emphasizing the point that God is considered good for no real reason…

Are we talking about the creator of all that is?

 

[Oreoracle]

Are we talking about the creator of all that is?

You make it sound as though he’s considered good for that reason. But remember that God was not obligated to create us, and therefore Christianity would consider him good even if he created nothing.

You can’t have it both ways. If God is good for a particular reason, he wouldn’t be good if that reason weren’t the case, and Christianity does not support that reasoning. God is good for no reasons, and so he doesn’t have to do anything to gain that status.

 

[Benadam]

]You make it sound as though he’s considered good for that reason.

I do

God was not obligated to create us, and therefore Christianity would consider him good even if he created nothing.

I’m not understanding this hypothetical.

You can’t have it both ways. If God is good for a particular reason, he wouldn’t be good if that reason weren’t the case, and Christianity does not support that reasoning. God is good for no reasons, and so he doesn’t have to do anything to gain that status./

I wouldn’t call it a particular reason. Must the creator of a thing be ruled by it? What you’re thinking seems to touch on absolute freedom though.

 

[tonyrey]

You are referring to God as if He is just another object whereas He is not in any human category at all.

If God is not virtuous virtue is an illusion. In an amoral universe virtues are human inventions.

If goodness is a reality it must have a transcendent Source - unless you can explain what else it is…

I’m not obligated to offer an explanation to counter yours. You are obligated to substantiate your own claim; namely, that the “source” of morality must be transcendent. If you can demonstrate why that might be the case, I’ll offer a rebuttal.

If you believe in goodness and cannot explain its origin your faith is irrational.

You give the impression that God’s preferences are arbitrary - which is absurd.

I beg to differ. A decision is arbitrary if it is made without purpose–which in this case I take “purpose” to mean “moral guidance”. While Christians claim that God’s moral imperatives give our actions purpose, God is not subject to any such rules.

God does not need rules because He is the ultimate Reality. Rules presuppose an external constraint.

Indeed, God is not obligated to anyone or anything, and so there isn’t really anything he ought to do or ought not do. Thus, his decisions, actions, etc., are made without purpose, and are therefore arbitrary.

A lack of obligation does not entail a lack of purpose. Moreover God does not need obligations because He is Love and everything He does is motivated by love.

The point is that Christian morality dictates that God is good no matter how he acts. Christianity necessitates that you admit that it doesn’t matter whether God is a capricious tyrant or not, because you would have to deem him “good” anyway.

God is good because nothing would exist without Him and existence is valuable.

False concepts of God have no bearing on His true nature…

I am only emphasizing the point that God is considered good for no real reason.

Don’t you consider your life or the life of anyone else to be valuable?

He isn’t considered good for his beliefs, for his motives, or for his deeds. He is considered good for goodness’s sake, and if that isn’t arbitrary, I don’t know what is.

God is considered good because He has created the universe and everything that we cherish.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m not understanding this hypothetical.

The hypothetical situation is thus: God exists, but he has created nothing. He is drifting in a void, so to speak. The question is: Would God be good in spite of creating nothing? I think the Christian description of God mandates that he be good regardless of his actions or inaction. And for this reason his actions are not the cause of his goodness. As I said before, he is essentially described as being good for goodness’s sake.

I wouldn’t call it a particular reason. Must the creator of a thing be ruled by it?

I’m not suggesting that he would have to be ruled by it, I’m just saying that claiming God is good because of certain actions and then admitting that he would be good even if he didn’t perform those actions is a dishonest tactic. Suppose people declared me to be a good person because they thought I donated to charities, and then later on they discovered those donations never happened and were just rumors. If they persisted in thinking that I were a good person in spite of this, you would infer that they believed I am good for an entirely different reason, and that their previous “reason”, which was discovered to be fabricated, was nothing more than an excuse to deem me “good”. In other words, they would be masking the real reason, or the lack thereof.

Christians do the same thing with God. They say he’s good because he did such-and-such, but their belief system necessitates that God would be good even in the absence of those things, and so God’s lauded actions aren’t the “real reasons” for his supposed goodness.

If God is not virtuous virtue is an illusion.

I don’t follow. Why is God being virtuous any more significant than the virtue of humans? Why is human virtue unsatisfactory to you?

If you believe in goodness and cannot explain its origin your faith is irrational.

I guess it’s a good thing that I do have an explanation for my belief, then, and I never said I lacked an explanation. But see, I am not obligated to explain because you’re the one that started making claims, and so the burden is on you to explain yourself. I haven’t made claims about morality yet in this thread. I’m simply regurgitating Christian morality for you. If you don’t like it, I must ask: Why are you a Christian, then?

God does not need rules because He is the ultimate Reality. Rules presuppose an external constraint.

That is true for descriptive rules, but not necessarily prescriptive rules. We don’t make certain actions in sports illegal because players are constrained. In fact, it’s the other way around–we make the rules so they will serve as constraints. Prescriptions are used because without obeying them, we are not obligated to be constrained.

A lack of obligation does not entail a lack of purpose.

As I said, when I used “purpose” I meant “moral guidance”. The point is that when humans act, we can explain that we were doing what was moral. But since no actions are required of God, he acts according to his own caprice. He cannot justify motivations by saying that he was following orders because he has no orders to follow. God’s justification for acting would be something along the lines of “I did it because I felt like it.” That is arbitrary.

God is good because nothing would exist without Him and existence is valuable.

So you would agree that if God hadn’t created the universe, he wouldn’t be good? If you address only one question in this post, please answer that one. It summarizes the whole gist of my argument.

Don’t you consider your life or the life of anyone else to be valuable?

Again, this is missing the point. Christian morality considers God’s creation of life to be a supererogatory action; he would be good without life existing, or without anything existing for that matter.

God is considered good because He has created the universe and everything that we cherish.

I repeat the question I asked two quotes ago: If God hadn’t created the universe, would he be good or not?

 

[MarcoPolo]

But, see, that’s the problem. Anyone can write a book saying they are good. How do we know that it is true? He could be a powerful, but fallible or even dishonest God and have inspired the Scripture to say that He is good. How do we know that that isn’t the case?

I think the only way to get to that point is to recognize Christ as God Incarnate who gave the gesture of sacrificing His life under pain and torture at the hands of His own creatures - and He did this for the sake of mankind. You can derive the crucifixion from the historical record and not just Scripture.

So even if you don’t know “how” He’s good, I think His incarnate gesture is reason to give your trust that He is good serious consideration.

 

[jonfawkes]

I think the only way to get to that point is to recognize Christ as God Incarnate who gave the gesture of sacrificing His life under pain and torture at the hands of His own creatures - and He did this for the sake of mankind. You can derive the crucifixion from the historical record and not just Scripture.

So even if you don’t know “how” He’s good, I think His incarnate gesture is reason to give your trust that He is good serious consideration.

But for an infinite being it’s not much of a gesture really. What is the span of a human life to an infinite omnipotent being. A human life isn’t even significant on a planetary time level. Also, although painful the passion wasn’t the worst fate a human ever has suffered.

 

[Benadam]

The hypothetical situation is thus: God exists, but he has created nothing. He is drifting in a void, so to speak. The question is: Would God be good in spite of creating nothing? I think the Christian description of God mandates that he be good regardless of his actions or inaction. And for this reason his actions are not the cause of his goodness. As I said before, he is essentially described as being good for goodness’s sake.

Sounds like you’re saying that because God’s act’s are absolutely free God’s acts can’t be the cause of good, or can’t cause God’s goodness?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like the programmes a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature. To which I reply and say, “Well, it’s funny that the people, when they say that this is evidence of the Almighty, always quote beautiful things. They always quote orchids and hummingbirds and butterflies and roses.” But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball, turning him blind before he’s five years old. And I reply and say, “Well, presumably the God you speak about created the worm as well,” and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful God with that action. And therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of this thing.

– Sir David Attenborough

 

[Oreoracle]

Sounds like you’re saying that because God’s act’s are absolutely free God’s acts can’t be the cause of good, or can’t cause God’s goodness?

I don’t know what you mean by “absolutely free”.

I didn’t say that God can’t cause good things to happen, but this description would be trivially true because God’s actions are good by definition according to Christianity.

I agree that God’s actions wouldn’t cause his goodness. This is because God is considered good whether he acts or not. And you didn’t answer my question: If God had refrained from creating anything, would he have still been good?

 

[tonyrey]

If God is not virtuous virtue is an illusion.

The issue is how virtue originated in an impersonal, purposeless universe.

If you believe in goodness and cannot explain its origin your faith is irrational.

I guess it’s a good thing that I do have an explanation for my belief, then, and I never said I lacked an explanation. But see, I am not obligated to explain because you’re the one that started making claims, and so the burden is on you to explain yourself. I haven’t made claims about morality yet in this thread. I’m simply regurgitating Christian morality for you. If you don’t like it, I must ask: Why are you a Christian, then?

Your reluctance to give an explanation puts you in a very weak position. It makes you invulnerable but also incoherent. To ask questions without giving any answers leads nowhere and makes others wonder whether you really have any…

God does not need rules because He is the ultimate Reality. Rules presuppose an external constraint.

That is true for descriptive rules, but not necessarily prescriptive rules. We don’t make certain actions in sports illegal because players are constrained. In fact, it’s the other way around–we make the rules so they will serve as constraints. Prescriptions are used because without obeying them, we are not obligated to be constrained.

Once again you are putting God into a human category which does not apply to the Creator of everything.

A lack of obligation does not entail a lack of purpose.

As I said, when I used “purpose” I meant “moral guidance”. The point is that when humans act, we can explain that we were doing what was moral. But since no actions are required of God, he acts according to his own caprice.

God is motivated by love - which is not capricious but consistent and compassionate.

He cannot justify motivations by saying that he was following orders because he has no orders to follow. God’s justification for acting would be something along the lines of “I did it because I felt like it.” That is arbitrary.

You are confusing originality with anarchy! God does not need orders because He creates order, harmony and beauty.

God is good because nothing would exist without Him and existence is valuable.

So you would agree that if God hadn’t created the universe, he wouldn’t be good? If you address only one question in this post, please answer that one. It summarizes the whole gist of my argument.

God is the Creator by definition but out of all possible forms of reality this particular universe need not have been created. God is not the Supreme Machine but the Supreme Artist!

Don’t you consider your life or the life of anyone else to be valuable?

Again, this is missing the point. Christian morality considers God’s creation of life to be a supererogatory action; he would be good without life existing, or without anything existing for that matter.

I agree but He is not only good but perfect. As King Lear said, reason not the need… God is not limited by our concepts. Ultimately no human definitions are adequate because the Creator is infinite.

God is considered good because He has created the universe and everything that we cherish.

I repeat the question I asked two quotes ago: If God hadn’t created the universe, would he be good or not?

Good.