How do we know that God is good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Protestor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Protestor

Guest
In most protestant circles we say that God is good because we have defined him as omnibenevolent. In other words he is the standard for what is good or moral. The problem is that God does things we would not consider the most good, and he does not do things that we would consider moral. An example of the former is that he did not give the Jews laws that were the most moral, but only more moral then what they were doing like divorce, slavery. An example of the latter is where if we had the ability to save a persons life from starvation and we did we would be morally good but God does not. So my question is how do we come to the conclusion that God is maximally good?

If you say that the church says he is do not expect a response from me. Also if you say something about slavery being moral don’t expect a response from me.
 
Because we know Jesus and no one truly knew God until Jesus came with the exception of Moses - I sure Moses tryed to explain but the people where not at any point of understanding - God marched them through the desert until the whole generation died because they were all unworthy to enter the promised land and even them the people did not listen to God when they entered the land. I see the old testament as people who truly did not know God except a few - when Jesus came everything was told to the people and Gods true nature was reveiled - Gods word.
 
Our inner experiences.

The Tanya (the books of Chabad) says that this lower world was once all evil, but it could not sustain itself and so God introduced mercy.
 
Glass half empty or glass half full? The world is not perfect, but there is much good in it. If you recognize how good the world is, you see that the Creator is good. If you notice how things are better than they used to be, you see the action of the Spirit which is good. If you read and live the Gospel, you see the goodness of Jesus Christ. Give thanks to the Lord for he is good!
 
It’s very simple, when you get down to basics, evil is stupid. Evil behavior is always destructive, leads to many more long term problems than it solves in the short term, and always results in overall loss. God could not be creative, and at all benevolent, if He were stupid.
 
Thing thing that’s always been the best evidence for me is that “evil” doesn’t have to exist.

Consider light and darkness. Light is a quantitative thing, it fills the spaces its in. Darkness is not. You cannot fill a room with darkness, you can only empty a room of light. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

Similarly, evil is the absence of good, or better yet, the rejection of good. Good actions are measure by their goodness, while evil actions are measured by how severely they violate the Good.

Light can exist without darkness, but darkness cannot exist without light. Good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good (it would destroy itself, not having anything to feed on.) As such, if God created everything, and if good exists as a part of that creation; then that would indicate that God is himself good. If God was evil then he would be omnipotently-evil (omnipotence being a necessary aspect of a being which can create from nothing) , meaning that there would be no good within him. This means that we wouldn’t be able to comprehend good because you cannot create something which you yourself cannot conceive of. If God was "neutral’ (good and evil), then he would be in conflict with himself, which would violate the nature of the Trinity as it has been revealed to us. (Three part in one being in perfect harmony and congruence of will.)
 
I was at a Bible study last night and we were talking about this issue. The priest quoted a book by recently deceased Jesuit Gerald Hughes God of Surprises. You can find it here, but the bottom line is that we can construct an image in our heads of a good God or a wrath-filled God if we want, but ultimately God is love.
 
Protestor said:
In most protestant circles we say that God is good because we have defined him as omnibenevolent. In other words he is the standard for what is good or moral. The problem is that God does things we would not consider the most good, and he does not do things that we would consider moral. An example of the former is that he did not give the Jews laws that were the most moral, but only more moral then what they were doing like divorce, slavery. An example of the latter is where if we had the ability to save a persons life from starvation and we did we would be morally good but God does not. So my question is how do we come to the conclusion that God is maximally good?

If you say that the church says he is do not expect a response from me. Also if you say something about slavery being moral don’t expect a response from me.
Click to expand...
Moses gave the freed Jews laws on divorce and slavery based on what those people could handle at that time. Jesus said because of the “hardness of their heart” in the You Have Heard it Said part of Mathew 5 where Jesus is now going to give instruction on how God meant the laws to be from the beginning. Hardness of heart just means that since people refuse to accept God’s perfect will, He allows them to go ahead and do it their way. As if He were saying: So that’s how you want it?, Okay… But, of course, a modified law is not a perfect law and Jesus did correct this after the Sermon on the Mount.

As far as God not saving everyone, from your example of hunger, for instance - He made us to function autonimously. This is why some happenings are called “miracles”. Because God is interfering with the natural state and causing something unnatural to happen. For instance, a healing, the calming of the waters, etc. We can’t have a miracle every moment of the day because it would turn our lives into a play in which God is the director.

We are, however, to be God’s hands and feet. In our autonomy, we are to seek Him and His will, but autonomous we are. We can accept the Holy Spirit, but He will not force Himself on us.

So hu324b is correct. We know God is good because He revealed Himself in Jesus. Even when God got mad in the O.T. He was good, because His anger was a just anger.
Could you imagine what the world would be like if God wasn’t good? I shutter to think.

And since the essence of God is Love as both Peter26 and John said in his gospel and letters, and God is perfect, and so He is Perfect Love - then He must be good since love is good.

Fran
p.s. There are only 3 omnis: Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient.
 
Jesus to St. Faustina

"If My death has not convinced you of My love, what will?" (Diary, 580)

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Protestor said:
In most protestant circles we say that God is good because we have defined him as omnibenevolent. In other words he is the standard for what is good or moral. The problem is that God does things we would not consider the most good, and he does not do things that we would consider moral. An example of the former is that he did not give the Jews laws that were the most moral, but only more moral then what they were doing like divorce, slavery. An example of the latter is where if we had the ability to save a persons life from starvation and we did we would be morally good but God does not. So my question is how do we come to the conclusion that God is maximally good?
Click to expand...
God is maximally good because the immense value of life far outweighs its advantages, especially when an afterlife is taken into account. It is unreasonable to expect the Jews or anyone else to be infallible. God normally works through the laws of nature so that we can predict most events, survive and enjoy life. If He constantly intervened we would never know what to expect and be aware a benevolent Power is protecting us - which would defeat the purpose of giving us free will so that we can choose what to believe, how to live and who to love…
 
I was thinking of a similar question today. I wasn’t asking how to prove if God is good. I think the answer to that is fairly straight forward from a philosophical point of view. I think Socrates reasoning on that is adequate to prove God is all good. When you think about it the question is really asking is God the Supreme being? Because as Socrates puts it any being worth the title of supreme must be all good for the simple reason that good is better than evil. Thus if the Supreme being is any less than all good he would not be worthy of the title. Since we could imagine a being that is superior to a being that is not all good. Therefore the Supreme being must be good or he can not be supreme.

The question I was thinking of was about whether or not we could consider the morals given to the Church as being as high as is possible. In other words could persons outside the church hold a higher standard of morals than the Church? For example, in the case of slavery today most people would be against it for moral reasons. However, the early Church did not seem to condemn slavery outright. Although Paul writes against the mistreatment to slaves as well as being merciful to them, he doesn’t outright condemn it.

Now it could be that slavery took awhile to abandon because it takes time for change to occur, It could be that God reveals his morality to us in stages. For example, they had the law in the OT, but Jesus came with new commandments to love your enemies and to not only not commit adultery, but to not lust. Because God didn’t just want us to follow the rules, but he wants a change of heart.

This brings me to conclude that God’s morality is of the highest because his teaching by example is to lay down your life for your enemies. This is the most radical form of morality I know.
 
I would say we can know this by the relationship between truth and goodness, or in other words the convertibility of the transcendentals. Of course, goodness and truth are in many ways out of alignment - there are many evils which are true (e.g. murder is evil yet it is true, as in murders really do happen, it isn’t something made up), and there are many goods which are false (e.g. world peace would be a very good thing were it true, but for now at least it is false instead.) However, I would suggest that goodness and truth are linked in such a way that some evils are simply too evil to be true, and some goods are simply so good that they must be true. Goodness and truth must correspond in the limit, even as they fail to correspond in the herenow. On that basis, I would say that an evil god (an evil omnipotent being) is impossible, as something too evil to be true; conversely I would say that a good God is necessary, as something too good to be false.

I would also say that we are morally obligated to believe certain things, and it is rational to believe whatever one is morally obligated to believe. I say this because ethics and rationality ultimately cohere with each other (the convertibility of the transcendentals again); they must ultimately agree with each other. One thing we are morally obligated to believe, is that goodness will triumph in the end (a principle of moral optimism). The final triumph of the good (its triumph in the limit) implies the existence of a good God.

Simon
 
tonyrey said:
God is maximally good because the immense value of life far outweighs its advantages, especially when an afterlife is taken into account. It is unreasonable to expect the Jews or anyone else to be infallible. God normally works through the laws of nature so that we can predict most events, survive and enjoy life. If He constantly intervened we would never know what to expect and be aware that a benevolent Power is protecting us - which would defeat the purpose of giving us free will so that we can choose what to believe, how to live and who to love…
Click to expand...
Correction: The immense value of life far outweighs its disadvantages!
 
fisherman_carl said:
I was thinking of a similar question today. I wasn’t asking how to prove if God is good. I think the answer to that is fairly straight forward from a philosophical point of view. I think Socrates reasoning on that is adequate to prove God is all good. When you think about it the question is really asking is God the Supreme being? Because as Socrates puts it any being worth the title of supreme must be all good for the simple reason that good is better than evil. Thus if the Supreme being is any less than all good he would not be worthy of the title. Since we could imagine a being that is superior to a being that is not all good. Therefore the Supreme being must be good or he can not be supreme.

The question I was thinking of was about whether or not we could consider the morals given to the Church as being as high as is possible. In other words could persons outside the church hold a higher standard of morals than the Church? For example, in the case of slavery today most people would be against it for moral reasons. However, the early Church did not seem to condemn slavery outright. Although Paul writes against the mistreatment to slaves as well as being merciful to them, he doesn’t outright condemn it.

Now it could be that slavery took awhile to abandon because it takes time for change to occur, It could be that God reveals his morality to us in stages. For example, they had the law in the OT, but Jesus came with new commandments to love your enemies and to not only not commit adultery, but to not lust. Because God didn’t just want us to follow the rules, but he wants a change of heart.

This brings me to conclude that God’s morality is of the highest because his teaching by example is to lay down your life for your enemies. This is the most radical form of morality I know.
Click to expand...
Well, you’ve asked and answered your own question Fisherman Carl - and very well, I might add!

I touched on slavery is post 8. We can only understand what we can understand at the time. Which is why some church dogma has evolved too. Our understanding becomes greater and clearer with time.

Fran
 
Protestor said:
In most protestant circles we say that God is good because we have defined him as omnibenevolent. In other words he is the standard for what is good or moral. The problem is that God does things we would not consider the most good, and he does not do things that we would consider moral. An example of the former is that he did not give the Jews laws that were the most moral, but only more moral then what they were doing like divorce, slavery. An example of the latter is where if we had the ability to save a persons life from starvation and we did we would be morally good but God does not. So my question is how do we come to the conclusion that God is maximally good?

If you say that the church says he is do not expect a response from me. Also if you say something about slavery being moral don’t expect a response from me.
Click to expand...
Well to begin with we do not have the mind of God to even understand the greatness of his goodness. With that said, what you seem to be doing is blaming God for the sins of others.

Let me explain, to begin with he did give the Jews laws on divorce, But as Jesus said, you forced the hand of Abraham to let you have a decree of divorce, but as Jesus said because as your hard of hearts. Then Jesus says, more or less no divorce.

Slavery was not to be a bad thing, God taught to be kind and fair to them, feed them well and give them a fair days wage.

I do not understand your last line, could you explain it better?

I think what you are saying is why does God let some people starve to death? That answer is simply sin and free will. There is no reason in this world why people should starve to death. It is the sins of others who let that happen. God gave us plenty in this world, and we could share with others. But we only think of ourselves and not others.

But God cannot give us free will to sin or not to sin, without the consequences of sin. And usually it is the innocent that pay for the sin of the sinner. But as we are shown with the rich man how he mistreated the poor, and then paid the price.
 
I think that these reasons are good for me, but I am a christian. It seems like whatever I am question I have about christianity will have one or a few answers that speak to me. It is different though answering someone who is inside the faith then people outside. It isn’t that you didn’t give good answers it’s just that I know the responses that atheists would give, because most of my friends are atheist. The answers seem to lack force(cogency) or they are all in the form of “faith seeking understanding”.

Thanks
 
Protestor said:
I think that these reasons are good for me, but I am a christian. It seems like whatever I am question I have about christianity will have one or a few answers that speak to me. It is different though answering someone who is inside the faith then people outside. It isn’t that you didn’t give good answers it’s just that I know the responses that atheists would give, because most of my friends are atheist. The answers seem to lack force(cogency) or they are all in the form of “faith seeking understanding”.

Thanks
Click to expand...
How does “the immense value of life far outweighs its advantages” lack force(cogency) or imply "faith seeking understanding? It is a purely secular observation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top