P
Protestor
Guest
Faith and experience are integral to this discussion for sure, thanks for reminding me.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
carn
Guest
I presumed the definition of maximally good to be:The court analogy is good but limited. In the USA our courts are set up to evaluate the claim of guilt not of innocence. So I think your response should be that you find God not guilty of being maximally good.
Innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever, although theoretically capability to act exists.
On that basis the court analogy would fit rather well. To show God not to be maximally good, we would have to find him guilty of a single wrong doing/crime. If we cannot find Him guilty of any wrong doing/crime, it has to be presumed that he did not commit any wrong doing/crime.
I know, based on this definition we would have to presume all non-convicted humans to be also maximally good, as no wrong doing has been proven. But as no single sane human does claim that during his/her entire conscious life he/she did not commit any wrong doing whatsoever, we can avoid that conclusion.
For God, as we can neither prove Him to be guilty of anything, nor can conclude from His own words that He commited some wrong doing, the presumption of innocence remains, as no clear evidence of wrong doing exists.
(Although i admit, i am highly curious how all that leaving a critical tree unobserved with foreknowledge of potential bad consequences, flooding, razing two cities, killing first borns, renewing an old promise of land to Israelites, while the land is currently inhabitated by other humans potentially unaware of Israelite old claims, waiting at least 1500 years before going in “full salvation mode”, etc. could be done without any wrong doing whatsoever, i realy cannot imagine how it could be achieved; but in dubio pro reo)
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
I concur. And I believe Jesus did too!A fascinating analysis! I think the weakest part of an otherwise excellent survey is the claim that “the suspect supposedly devised as part of his grand plan a for our standards rather bizzare plan to GET HIMSELF SENTENCED TO DEATH ALTHOUGH INNOCENT AND GET HIMSELF TORTURED AND HORRENDOUSLY MURDERED ALTHOUGH INNOCENT” which suggests that self-sacrifice is an arbitrary means of solving the problem of evil. It raises the problem of an alternative way of liberating the human race from their addiction to the acquisition of power and wealth at the expense of others.
“Hence, it has to be presumed that the suspect truly acted out of the belief that some not so nice plan was necessary to correct some serious problem and acted out of the belief that the least bad of potential plans unfortunately required suffering of innocents and seemingly tried to provide evidence and testimony for this written in his own innocent blood.”
There was (and is) undoubtedly an urgent need for a revolution that transforms our indifference into concern and action for everyone who needs our help. Could it be that supernatural love is the only solution to the law of the jungle?
Fran
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
Well then, WHO did? That’s my whole point.Just because we may not have all the answers to all these questions–yet, doesn’t automatically mean a god did it.
.
I’m saying that christianity answers these questions the best.
I have a big problem with evil, as I’m sure all christians do, we just don’t know everything and I certainly don’t know why we don’t know. Maybe we just couldn’t grasp it. I like to go to my ants understanding humans concept. God is too big.
However, all revelation of God is that He is good. If He were evil, who would worship Him? Except the idiots like we christians…according to atheists.
Read 1 Corinthians 2:5-16.
Jesus didn’t seem like an evil person to me. He was a proper representation of God. He died for God. Would an evil person do this? Would a good person die for an evil one?
You should also watch Signs. Mel Gibson - you can’t go wrong! But you really have to pay attention. It’s not about extra-terrestrials.
Of course, the best way to know God would be to encounter the Holy Spirit. But you have Him locked out and He’s not forcing His way in.
Fran
P
Protestor
Guest
I think what DaddyGirl is trying to get at is that they don’t know. An appealWell then, WHO did? That’s my whole point. I’m saying that christianity answers these questions the best.
P
Protestor
Guest
Edited version of the above post
This will get off topic in a hurry. So don’t expect a lot of responses from me on this subject.
I think what DaddyGirl is trying to get at is that they don’t know. What you are saying basically is or will boil down to an argument from ignorance fallacy. Furthermore God serves as no more than a Deus ex Machina at least when it comes answering the question who created the everything. Even the use of who is strategic here. Why does it need to be who? Why not just what created everything? Basically, what are the material and efficient causes of everything?Well then, WHO did? That’s my whole point. I’m saying that christianity answers these questions the best.
This will get off topic in a hurry. So don’t expect a lot of responses from me on this subject.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
We know God is good because if God was evil life would be hell on earth.
Bad as life is for some people, they strive to stay alive because God has given us life as a gift, not as a curse, as life would have been if God was evil.
Bad as life is for some people, they strive to stay alive because God has given us life as a gift, not as a curse, as life would have been if God was evil.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
Hi Protestor,Edited version of the above post
I think what DaddyGirl is trying to get at is that they don’t know. What you are saying basically is or will boil down to an argument from ignorance fallacy. Furthermore God serves as no more than a Deus ex Machina at least when it comes answering the question who created the everything. Even the use of who is strategic here. Why does it need to be who? Why not just what created everything? Basically, what are the material and efficient causes of everything?
This will get off topic in a hurry. So don’t expect a lot of responses from me on this subject.
I forget what a Deus ex Machina is. God is in there somewhere.
Yes. I know atheists don’t know who or what created everything. I find it difficult to discuss anything with them UNLESS they want to discuss who or what created everything.
If they don’t believe in God, what exactly are we debating? Where natural law comes from? Whether values are absolute or relative? of course our views are going to be diametrically opposed. The only reason, that I can see, of debating a non believer is to get them to think about who or what created everything.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “what”. I’m hoping you mean some kind of intelligent power - which I would call God. I’m hoping you’re not talking about gases and the such.
What is a deux ex machina?
Fran
I used to know!
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The ancient Greek playwrights believed the gods were active in human affairs and that they had their favorites and intervened on behalf of their favorites. In order to represent the gods they had to be flown in on the stage, so machinery was developed to get them from a height above the stage down onto the platform.What is a deux ex machina?
Fran
I used to know!
Literally *deus ex machine *means “god from the machine.”
So the explanation of a God creating the universe is viewed by atheists as nothing more than an illusory machine invoked to explain how God’s providence is at work in human history.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
Thanks. Okay.The ancient Greek playwrights believed the gods were active in human affairs and that they had their favorites and intervened on behalf of their favorites. In order to represent the gods they had to be flown in on the stage, so machinery was developed to get them from a height above the stage down onto the platform.
Literally *deus ex machine *means “god from the machine.”
So the explanation of a God creating the universe is viewed by atheists as nothing more than an illusory machine invoked to explain how God’s providence is at work in human history.
Fran
T
tonyrey
Guest
What is your explanation?Just because we may not have all the answers to all these questions–yet, doesn’t automatically mean a god did it.
R
Richca
Guest
Well, firstly, divine revelation, Holy Scripture, says God is good, Jesus said “Why do you call me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.” In the creation of the world by God in Genesis, it is written “And God saw that it was very good.” That God is good is found all over in Scripture and he commands us to do good and avoid evil.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.
Philosophically, Aristotle says “goodness is what all desire.” For we do something or desire something because we see it as good, desirable, whether real good or apparent good. Good is also convertible with being for whatever is, is good, in so far as it has being. God is being itself, possesses the fullness of being, is supremely and maximally being. Accordingly, God is supremely, essentially, and maximally good. There is not the slightest trace of evil in God because evil is the absence of being and good. But, God possesses the fullness and perfection of being. Since God is absolute Goodness, He is supremely desirable. God also possesses all perfections in an infinite degree. Whatever we attribute or deny of God, must fit in with our proper idea of God and God is an infinitely perfect being.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
I mulled over the following but never posted.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.
Just a couple of thoughts, if you’re still out there in cyberland.
Going back to the O.T. - Did you not sometimes wonder if maybe Moses and the Israelites who came after him, maybe made up some of those laws themselves believing it might be what God wanted? I mean, just read some of them… (exodus, deuteronomym, leviticus).
The ability to save from hunger and the such: Did you ever hear of satan?
I can’t remember if I had brought up the idea of evil and how God is not going to be doing miracles every moment of the day.
Fran
W
Wesrock
Guest
Are you familiar with Aquinas’ five ways. His cosmological argument doesn’t see God as a clockmaker and the universe as an artificat that once created continues to exist. A better analogy is that God is a musician, and the universe is his music. Without the musician, the music would stop. It’s not that God’s work coupd be done, but that the universe would immediately end if God did not continue to sustain it. This isn’t just an arbitrary analogy that comes from nowhere. He makes a strong argument based off of observation of the world and of the nature of being, no divine revelation attached. They also argue for why God must be all good, and why God must have an intellect and will (all really the same within God, these terms are just analgous concepts when compared to human intellect, will, good, etc…)Edited version of the above post
I think what DaddyGirl is trying to get at is that they don’t know. What you are saying basically is or will boil down to an argument from ignorance fallacy. Furthermore God serves as no more than a Deus ex Machina at least when it comes answering the question who created the everything. Even the use of who is strategic here. Why does it need to be who? Why not just what created everything? Basically, what are the material and efficient causes of everything?
This will get off topic in a hurry. So don’t expect a lot of responses from me on this subject.
The biggest mistake is to assume that the Christian God is a God of the gaps. This is completely counter to theistic thought for most of the last two thousand years and classical theism. It starts anthropormophizing God as some bearded man in the sky who throws thunderbolts.
S
smaw8
Guest
It’s hard to believe someone could ask this question. I never doubted that God is all good, even when I was drifting away from the Church. What many people don’t seem to get though, is that God is a just God. That makes me want to look in the mirror more and be my own first critic.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
It seems that once you have defined God as omnibenevolent you find that your definition is not good enough. Then, before your eyes, it appears that you are more benevolent than God. But as you are one of His creatures, that is to say, He is your creator, He is at least as benevolent as you are. And if in the world you find someone more benevolent than you. Then you can accept that God too is more benevolent than you.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.
The other day a friend of mine hired an architect to do some modifications in his house. It was a beautiful house already, but my friend had new plans. The architect and his team started working, and after two weeks we went to see the progress. What I saw was terrible. There was such a disorder and dirty that I felt pity towards my friend and thought that the architect was not so good. But my friend was calm. He said: “it’s normal; the work is on-going”. It was true: in the end, the house looked much more beautiful than before, and my friend was very satisfied.
I believe the world is on-going too, as Saint Paul says: “For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.” (Romans 8: 22-23).
Perhaps your faith could grow in you as it was for Saint Paul, and then you might develop a more positive impression about God’s benevolence, even without definitions.
P
Protestor
Guest
I don’t know exactly what you mean by “made up”. The way I read your statement you are implying that the law of Moses wasn’t from God and/or that the books you mentioned are not theopnuestos. I thought you were catholic is there room for this within the RCC? I’m not saying that I don’t think this at least somewhat. It just raises issues of canon or at the very least interpretations we can use. Those two aren’t the only things that can be inferred from what you said but they are were the first to come to mind.Going back to the O.T. - Did you not sometimes wonder if maybe Moses and the Israelites who came after him, maybe made up some of those laws themselves believing it might be what God wanted? I mean, just read some of them… (exodus, deuteronomym, leviticus).
P
Protestor
Guest
Why do people keep bringing up these 5 ways like they are helpful? The italicized section was done to point out that this is why intuition can lead to false conclusions especially when you are talking about physics.Are you familiar with Aquinas’ five ways… This isn’t just an arbitrary analogy that comes from nowhere. He makes a strong argument based off of observation of the world and of the nature of being, no divine revelation attached. They also argue for why God must be all good, and why God must have an intellect and will (all really the same within God, these terms are just analogous concepts when compared to human intellect, will, good, etc…) The biggest mistake is to assume that the Christian God is a God of the gaps.
I really didn’t want to deal with these 5 ways, but since so many people have brought them up I thought it was necessary that I at least say something. If you want to have a full on discussion about these start another thread. I won’t answer any questions about this unless you specifically quote Aquinas and make it clear how it applies and why I am wrong. If you can figure out what I am saying, anyway here it goes briefly. First way unmoved mover, wrong because physics. Second way first cause, wrong it is literally self negating. Third way necessary being, wrong conclusion doesn’t follow form the premises. Fourth way absolute being, wrong again physics(heat). Fifth way not even sure, wrong again self refuting.
I think you may be forgetting first that this was a response I made for someone else that I literally just assumed what they would reply with. I haven’t assumed any God of the gaps I did imply that someone was at least bordering upon using this fallacy, if I remember correctly.
P
Protestor
Guest
No, I find that God doesn’t meet my definition. I don’t get how you are arriving at the conclusion that “He is at least as benevolent as you are” pls provide better reasoning. I don’t know that I have a problem with God being more benevolent than me, but I don’t see how you are going to get to omni from more.It seems that once you have defined God as omnibenevolent you find that your definition is not good enough. Then, before your eyes, it appears that you are more benevolent than God. But as you are one of His creatures, that is to say, He is your creator, He is at least as benevolent as you are. And if in the world you find someone more benevolent than you. Then you can accept that God too is more benevolent than you.
P
Protestor
Guest
Welp, welcome to the site. :hug3: As far as I am concerned no doctrine is above being questioned. Especially ones that are integral to the christian position and yet have not been adequately supported by the church or God.It’s hard to believe someone could ask this question.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.