How do we know that God is good?

[frangiuliano115]

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.

Yes Protestor. I understand how it could be taken wrongly. I teach the covenants, so let’s not go to Moses and the Law. I certainly believe in that.

Have you read the books I mentioned? Could God really care bout how you wash your hands? Now I know that it was good because it killed a lot of germs, but it might be a tad overdone?

What do you make of Leviticus? Pretty dar n detailed.

Please don’t misunderstand this to mean I don’t believe the bible is God’s Word. Man might have put a bit of his own in there, maybe.

Fran
P.S. Hope you don’t think I checked my brain at the door - as I hear often. You’re questioning, I could question too!

 

[Wesrock]

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.

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.

You don’t seem to understand the arguments made in the five ways if you believe they are self-refuting or contradict physics in any way. A short book redommendation I’ll make for if you’re curious is Aquinas by Edward Feser. It’s just a high level overview and cut short. Feser himself was a former atheist and critic of the Five Ways and Aquinas before he read more into them.

I’m not sure I’m yet in a position to write a full on essay about them, but I do know enough to ser that you have deep misunderstandings about the argument. Anyway, I won’t push them any further in this topic.

Edit: Here are some blog entries by Feser on various topics. This isn’t to “prove” the Five Ways to you, but maybe you’ll consider them to have more depth than what you’re saying if you read these:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html?m=1

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html?m=1

I won’t argue about them or ask if you read thek or test you on them later. They’re just here if you’re curious, though Feser isn’t interested in making a full case in these particular entries. That requires quite a bit more space, and he has written books on it (such as Aquinas).

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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.

I won’t! How could I, if even your definition of omnibenevolence is not clear to me?

But first I will respond to you, and then I will ask you some questions. My reasoning was rather simple. I thought: if Protestor is actually benevolent, such benevolence is possible only because of His Creator. You see, when I develop something I think on the features and properties which I want it to have. I design it, and then, using the materials that I find appropriate, I built it. The result is close to what I want; but it always happens that the thing comes with some extra properties which are a consequence of my targets. It is so because the construction materials that I use have already a set of properties which do not depend on my will. Some of their possibilities become actualized when I do the assembly. But if I were -in the rigorous sense of the word-, the creator of the construction materials and also of the objects with which the thing will interact, every property of all of them, every possible interaction, would be my design. If God created you as a benevolent person, it indicates to me that He himself is benevolent; at least as benevolent as you are.

Now my first question: When you say that omnibenevolence consists in being the standard for what you consider good or moral, do you mean that you see how God behaves and then you try to imitate Him? Or how does it work?

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

Hi Protestor

I’m not sure what ignorance fallacy is. Does it simply mean that I don’ know what created everything so I assume God did?

Then you go on to ask why we don’t just say “what” created everything instead of “who” created everything.

Oddly enough, when speaking to atheists about these matter, in the limited way that I’m able to (I’m not a physicist or a philosopher) I always refer to God as “what” created everything. Sometimes the Who still slips out because, as christians we see God as a person.

And the reason for that is that we believe that God revealed Himself to us and that He did this through Jesus, who was a real person - and also God unveiled. Not 100%. We cannot know God 100% because He is unknowable.

So was God a Deux Ex Machina ? What if He was? Did you ever hear of Open Theism and Closed Theism? Can’t remember which is which, if you’re interested, please look it up, it’s interesting. One says that God created everything and then left us to ourselves. It’s interesting because this would truly explain away evil since we would have only ourselves to blame for everything. The other says that God created everything and then stuck around to look after the creation to some degree or other. This is problematic because then all the questions of evil come up. Why does God make children get sick, etc. That whole question becomes then: If God is omnipotent AND all good (omnibenevolent, except there’s no such word) why does evil exist? So is He not powerful or is He not good?

What JuanFloencio was saying is interesting because in christianity there is that concept that if man is seeking perfection, it means that perfection must exist. If you can think it, it has to be somewhere. We can only think of things that exist in some form. (then I get replies asking me if Martians exist - you’re intelligent and I’m not spending 2 pp to explain what I mean).

Of course then the question arises: If God is perfect, why aren’t we perfect? I could make the proverbial watch and it would turn out imperfectly, but God is perfect so his watch should be perfect. So why isn’t everything perfect? I think JuanF alluded to his too - can’t reread his post. Or maybe in your reply?? I’m so bad at this.

Here’s the thing Protestor. There are too many questions! They can’t all be answered.
The only thing we can hang onto is that God has to be good. Evil has to come from somewhere else; fallen angels, satan, our inadequacies, our meanness and violence toward man, our incapacity to use our resources for the good of mankind - or is there a good god and an evil god? This concept is not christian, but one has to wonder at times; we’re so desperate for an answer.

Maybe the ignorance Fallacy concept is the way to go?? Just accept!

After all there does have to be a material and efficient cause to everything. What is that cause? It’s God.

Fran

 

[Protestor]

Yes Protestor. I understand how it could be taken wrongly. I teach the covenants, so let’s not go to Moses and the Law. I certainly believe in that. Have you read the books I mentioned? Could God really care bout how you wash your hands? Now I know that it was good because it killed a lot of germs, but it might be a tad overdone? What do you make of Leviticus? Pretty dar n detailed.Please don’t misunderstand this to mean I don’t believe the bible is God’s Word. Man might have put a bit of his own in there, maybe.

If you are asking if I have read the pentateuch the answer is yes I have read the first five books 3 times and genesis 5 or 6 times. I haven’t read most of the minor prophets, Jeremiah, Lamentations, psalms 130-end. I have listened to the whole bible on audiobooks many times.

I don’t know if God really cared about how you washed your hands, but I don’t see any reason why God caring about washing is a problem. So, yes, God could care about how you wash your hands. To tell you the truth I don’t really care about Leviticus. Any book that says bacon and shellfish are not to be eaten should be burned.

 

[frangiuliano115]

If you are asking if I have read the pentateuch the answer is yes I have read the first five books 3 times and genesis 5 or 6 times. I haven’t read most of the minor prophets, Jeremiah, Lamentations, psalms 130-end. I have listened to the whole bible on audiobooks many times.

I don’t know if God really cared about how you washed your hands, but I don’t see any reason why God caring about washing is a problem. So, yes, God could care about how you wash your hands. To tell you the truth I don’t really care about Leviticus. Any book that says bacon and shellfish are not to be eaten should be burned.

Re bacon and shellfish:



Sorry. I thought we were discussing if some of the laws in those books could not have been written by man, and so that would go to your O.P. re God’s laws not being totally moral. Washing of hands doesn’t interest me either! Just an example…

I might have misunderstood.

Fran

 

[tonyrey]

Just because we may not have all the answers to all these questions–yet, doesn’t automatically mean a god did it.

No explanation is not an adequate substitute for an explanation respected by the vast majority of people in the world…

 

[Nixbits]

tonyrey:

No explanation is not an adequate substitute for an explanation respected by the vast majority of people in the world…

Just because an explanation is ‘respected’ by the majority does not mean it cannot be wrong.
Accepting that there is (currently) no explanation is the most intellectually honest response when there is insufficient evidence to support a hypothesis. I realise that some people feel uncomfortable without an explanation for certain things. But accepting an ‘explanation’ that has no explanatory value and doing so on faith alone is not a worthwhile approach in the long term.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . But accepting an ‘explanation’ that has no explanatory value and doing so on faith alone is not a worthwhile approach in the long term.

My view of explanations is that they all fall short.
Seems to me that saying that God is at the basis of some phenomenon is to go to the ultimate explanation for anything.
This obviously is a default position when one does not understand how a particular part of creation fits in with everything else.
To understand that explanations cannot be complete is a basic tenet of science which propels us forward toward greater understanding.
With revealed truth, clearly some people are granted greater gifts of the Holy Spirit (understanding, knowledge, wisdom, counsel) than others.
Our relationship with God would seem an ongoing work in progress, in this life and the next.
Generally speaking, we accept what makes the best sense for the moment and strive to know more.

 

[tonyrey]

Just because an explanation is ‘respected’ by the majority does not mean it cannot be wrong. Accepting that there is (currently) no explanation is the most intellectually honest response when there is insufficient evidence to support a hypothesis. I realise that some people feel uncomfortable without an explanation for certain things. But accepting an ‘explanation’ that has no explanatory value and doing so on faith alone is not a worthwhile approach in the long term.

It is unreasonable to believe there is no explanation when one exists! Nor is it based on faith alone because life is immensely valuable. It is an atheist, who has no axe to grind, Thomas Nagel, who has pointed out that life is a source of opportunities for development and enjoyment - and, I would add, for love. Only a cynic believes life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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

Hi Protestor!:

I had not read this post of yours nor many of the other posters. As Fran has suggested, it seems -unless you add information which might be missing- that you are trying to convince your friends about the omnibenevolence of a God whose existence they deny. Nevertheless, I will assume you have already managed to convince them about God’s existence. So, your second step comes (or perhaps you have convinced them about something else too): you want to convince them about God’s omnibenevolence. Apparently this is something you yourself came to accept by faith; but now you want a rational path for your friends, and so far you don’t have it. I guess that is why you are looking for support here, in this philosophy forum.

Several arguments have been offered to you; but in your view they are not rational enough. Maybe you are right, but your attitude (I won’t say it is a bad attitude!) makes me wonder: What kind of arguments are your friends ready to accept? Are they looking for a kind of mathematical proof, or for an experimental procedure based on rigorous scientific methods, or do they accept metaphysical reasonings?.. Deductive proofs or inductive arguments, persuasion?.. What do they expect from you? Once you have convinced them about the existence of God, are they trying hard to know Him? Or are they completely disinterested, ready to refute you whatever you say?

In your effort to convince your good friends, I would suggest you to try this first: Devise a rational way (because you think it is rationality what they are looking for) to convince them about your own benevolence. Convince them irrefutably about it. If they say “ok, Protestor, I believe you are benevolent”, reject it. They will have to see it, rationally, with all evidence, without question, not just believe on it. That will be a good starting point. Once you do it, if you let me know your rational path, I think I could replicate it to convince your friends about God’s benevolence?.. Omnibenevolence? You will need to clarify what it means first… Then, we will see…

 

[Protestor]

I won’t! How could I, if even your definition of omnibenevolence is not clear to me?

But first I will respond to you, and then I will ask you some questions. My reasoning was rather simple. I thought: if Protestor is actually benevolent, such benevolence is possible only because of His Creator. You see, when I develop something I think on the features and properties which I want it to have. I design it, and then, using the materials that I find appropriate, I built it. The result is close to what I want; but it always happens that the thing come with some extra properties which are a consequence of my targets. It is so because the construction materials that I use have already a set of properties which do not depend on my will. Some of their possibilities become actualized when I do the assembly. But if I were -in the rigorous sense of the word-, the creator of the construction materials and also of the objects with which the thing will interact, every property of all of them, every possible interaction, would be my design. If God created you as a benevolent person, it indicates to me that He himself is benevolent; at least as benevolent as you are.

Now my first question: When you say that omnibenevolence consists in being the standard for what you consider good or moral, do you mean that you see how God behaves and then you try to imitate Him? Or how does it work?

Omnibeneveleant- literally means all good, but I use it as a most or a maximally good being(casual agent). By good in this case I mean morally good.
I think what you are saying sounds wrong because I keep thinking you are using the fallacy of division but I am pretty sure you aren’t. my problem is that we don’t have to have the same properties as the things that we create, except in the cases where we use part of ourselves. Like when 2 people have a child. I am horrible with analogies but here it goes. God created me hungry does that mean that He is at least as hungry as I am.

To answer your ?s. I don’t think that I ever said that about omnibenevolence. I would say that apart from my doubts that God is omnibenevolent, but this isn’t very helpful. I don’t hold myself to a standard of perfection nor do I think that moral perfection is accomplishable. I am not even sure that it would be appropriate to try and emulate the moral “decisions” of God. So no I don’t try to see how He behaves and then imitate Him. I wouldn’t even normally call only one action good and all the others bad. Even if these other actions were less good than the pinnacle of moral action. Also the pinnacle of moral action for a specific scenario may have multiple equally moral actions. Another way to put this is I don’t define “good” like I do for “straight”. In the definition of straight be without curve or angle. So I would normally say there is a continuum of moral actions for any scenario and not just one good action and the rest bad.

P.S. I could have just said that I do not define morally good as morally perfect. At least not for humans.

 

[Protestor]

Sorry. I thought we were discussing if some of the laws in those books could not have been written by man, and so that would go to your O.P. re God’s laws not being totally moral. Washing of hands doesn’t interest me either! I might have misunderstood.

I think that this is a perfectly acceptable answer to the laws part of my question, but I don’t know how catholic it is.

 

[Protestor]

Hi Protestor!:

I had not read this post of yours nor many of the other posters. As Fran has suggested, it seems -unless you add information which might be missing- that you are trying to convince your friends about the omnibenevolence of a God whose existence they deny. Nevertheless, I will assume you have already managed to convince them about God’s existence. So, your second step comes (or perhaps you have convinced them about something else too): you want to convince them about God’s omnibenevolence. Apparently this is something you yourself came to accept by faith; but now you want a rational path for your friends, and so far you don’t have it. I guess that is why you are looking for support here, in this philosophy forum.

Several arguments have been offered to you; but in your view they are not rational enough. Maybe you are right, but your attitude (I won’t say it is a bad attitude!) makes me wonder: What kind of arguments are your friends ready to accept? Are they looking for a kind of mathematical proof, or for an experimental procedure based on rigorous scientific methods, or do they accept metaphysical reasonings?.. Deductive proofs or inductive arguments, persuasion?.. What do they expect from you? Once you have convinced them about the existence of God, are they trying hard to know Him? Or are they completely disinterested, ready to refute you whatever you say?

In your effort to convince your good friends, I would suggest you to try this first: Devise a rational way (because you think it is rationality what they are looking for) to convince them about your own benevolence. Convince them irrefutably about it. If they say “ok, Protestor, I believe you are benevolent”, reject it. They will have to see it, rationally, with all evidence, without question, not just believe on it. That will be a good starting point. Once you do it, if you let me know your rational path, I think I could replicate it to convince your friends about God’s benevolence?.. Omnibenevolence? You will need to clarify what it means first… Then, we will see…

Thanks for the encouragement.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Omnibeneveleant- literally means all good, but I use it as a most or a maximally good being(casual agent). By good in this case I mean morally good.
I think what you are saying sounds wrong because I keep thinking you are using the fallacy of division but I am pretty sure you aren’t. my problem is that we don’t have to have the same properties as the things that we create, except in the cases where we use part of ourselves. Like when 2 people have a child. I am horrible with analogies but here it goes. God created me hungry does that mean that He is at least as hungry as I am.

To answer your ?s. I don’t think that I ever said that about omnibenevolence. I would say that apart from my doubts that God is omnibenevolent, but this isn’t very helpful. I don’t hold myself to a standard of perfection nor do I think that moral perfection is accomplishable. I am not even sure that it would be appropriate to try and emulate the moral “decisions” of God. So no I don’t try to see how He behaves and then imitate Him. I wouldn’t even normally call only one action good and all the others bad. Even if these other actions were less good than the pinnacle of moral action. Also the pinnacle of moral action for a specific scenario may have multiple equally moral actions. Another way to put this is I don’t define “good” like I do for “straight”. In the definition of straight be without curve or angle. So I would normally say there is a continuum of moral actions for any scenario and not just one good action and the rest bad.

P.S. I could have just said that I do not define morally good as morally perfect. At least not for humans.

I think I understand what you say… and you might be right again, Protestor. If there is nothing which can be predicated from us and from God univocally or at least analogically, my reasoning would be entirely sophistic. It seems clear that God cannot be as hungry as you are; and that clarity makes us doubt if God can be as benevolent as you are. Perhaps He is not benevolent at all. Perhaps “benevolence” is not something which can be predicated from Him. Every word we say refers to our experience of the objects surrounding us; and we have not experienced God. Nevertheless we insist on using the language we use to describe our experience of the world when we talk about God. So, you ask: “Is God ‘morally good’?” And obviously “morally good” refers to one of your worldly experiences. You pretend to apply the same expression to God, which might be a complete nonsense. Morally good is a person who follows the rules of the community. Do you think this applies to God?

There are at least two things you have to do to accomplish your objective: a) Define God, and b) define reasonably well what “Omnibenevolence” is. If you want to deduce if God is omnibenevolent you need to start with good definitions. From them and with a set of rules of inference it might be possible for you to get to your conclusion. If what you want is not a deduction, but a kind of experimental verification, you will need those definitions to guide your experimental research.

 

[Nixbits]

tonyrey:

It is unreasonable to believe there is no explanation when one exists! Nor is it based on faith alone because life is immensely valuable. It is an atheist, who has no axe to grind, Thomas Nagel, who has pointed out that life is a source of opportunities for development and enjoyment - and, I would add, for love. Only a cynic believes life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

Aah, perhaps we were talking at cross-purposes. I was suggesting that it’s perfectly reasonable, in fact preferable, for a person to accept that we don’t have an explanation for certain things at the moment. I was not suggesting that no explanation exists, just that we might not have one yet.

Take, for example, the question of whether or not intelligent life exists somewhere else in the universe. I suggest that we don’t yet have sufficient evidence that life definitely does, or that life does not, exist elsewhere. Until the time when we have compelling evidence, the sensible thing to do is admit that we don’t know.

I confess that I have no idea how you got from this discussion about explanations to your comments about life being immensely valuable.

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is unreasonable to believe there is no explanation when one exists! Nor is it based on faith alone because life is immensely valuable. It is an atheist, who has no axe to grind, Thomas Nagel, who has pointed out that life is a source of opportunities for development and enjoyment - and, I would add, for love. Only a cynic believes life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

I don’t think Nexbits was saying the above; about life being valueless, etc.

Maybe he already answered - can’t go thru and then come back to this -it takes forever.

I think he meant that no explanation has to be accepted as a reality when there is no explanation available that makes sense.

I’d like to just say that, isn’t this what faith is all about? When we get on an escalator we have faith that ti’ll take us to the top. How could we know for sure? Because we are certain of what we do not see - the mechanism underneath , the wheels and pullies.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This jis what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

In other words, all was made with nothing. and we have faith because we don’t see God, the mechanism, but we see the result. I guess I’m agreeing with Aloysium.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think Nexbits was saying the above; about life being valueless, etc.

Maybe he already answered - can’t go thru and then come back to this -it takes forever.

I think he meant that no explanation has to be accepted as a reality when there is no explanation available that makes sense.

I’d like to just say that, isn’t this what faith is all about? When we get on an escalator we have faith that ti’ll take us to the top. How could we know for sure? Because we are certain of what we do not see - the mechanism underneath , the wheels and pullies.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This jis what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

In other words, all was made with nothing. and we have faith because we don’t see God, the mechanism, but we see the result. I guess I’m agreeing with Aloysium.

Fran

I love this analogy of the escalator! I have been needing one like this for a long time, thanks!

 

[tonyrey]

It is unreasonable to believe there is no explanation when one exists! Nor is it based on faith alone because life is immensely valuable. It is an atheist, who has no axe to grind, Thomas Nagel, who has pointed out that life is a source of opportunities for development and enjoyment - and, I would add, for love. Only a cynic believes life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

But we do have an explanation of the universe and our existence - and it is eminently reasonable.

Take, for example, the question of whether or not intelligent life exists somewhere else in the universe. I suggest that we don’t yet have sufficient evidence that life definitely does, or that life does not, exist elsewhere. Until the time when we have compelling evidence, the sensible thing to do is admit that we don’t know.

We do know that life exists on this planet and that is all that matters for the purposes of this topic.

I confess that I have no idea how you got from this discussion about explanations to your comments about life being immensely valuable.

The topic is “How do we know that God is good?”

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think Nexbits was saying the above; about life being valueless, etc.

Maybe he already answered - can’t go thru and then come back to this -it takes forever.

I think he meant that no explanation has to be accepted as a reality when there is no explanation available that makes sense.

I’d like to just say that, isn’t this what faith is all about? When we get on an escalator we have faith that ti’ll take us to the top. How could we know for sure? Because we are certain of what we do not see - the mechanism underneath , the wheels and pullies.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This jis what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

In other words, all was made with nothing. and we have faith because we don’t see God, the mechanism, but we see the result. I guess I’m agreeing with Aloysium.

Fran

My response is that we do have a perfectly reasonable explanation of our existence and there is no reason to reject it. That is the teaching of the Church.