How do we know that God is good?

[Protestor]

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.

What I should say is that the way that I found the five ways as I assume they were translated into english is self refuting. I finally read the article all the way through. I am not saying that these arguments couldn’t be tweaked to be fine but as I found them they suck.

 

[Nixbits]

frangiuliano115:

When we get on an escalator we have faith that it’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.

I’m afraid I can’t agree with your analogy, Fran. When I get on an escalator, I do so with a reasonable expectation that it will take me to the top, based on the immediate evidence of my senses, on a wealth of prior experience built up over many years and on knowledge of how an escalator works. That to me is not the same thing as ‘faith’, as that word is used in a religious context.

 

[Nixbits]

tonyrey:

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

The ‘explanation’ may seem reasonable to you, Tony. That’s fine. My point is that there are many people who have considered this same explanation and their reason has caused them to reject it. Many of them are quite prepared to live their lives with no explanation for these things, although they continue to seek for the correct explanation, rather than accept one that they consider unjustified.

Anyway, I don’t think we’re likely to agree on this, so I’ll confine my future posts to the core issue of this thread.

 

[tonyrey]

The ‘explanation’ may seem reasonable to you, Tony. That’s fine. My point is that there are many people who have considered this same explanation and their reason has caused them to reject it. Many of them are quite prepared to live their lives with no explanation for these things, although they continue to seek for the correct explanation, rather than accept one that they consider unjustified.

Anyway, I don’t think we’re likely to agree on this, so I’ll confine my future posts to the core issue of this thread.

The core issue is “How do we know that God is good?” to which the response is that we know life is immensely valuable for the vast majority and there is good reason to believe the minority will be compensated for their misfortune.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I’m afraid I can’t agree with your analogy, Fran. When I get on an escalator, I do so with a reasonable expectation that it will take me to the top, based on the immediate evidence of my senses, on a wealth of prior experience built up over many years and on knowledge of how an escalator works. That to me is not the same thing as ‘faith’, as that word is used in a religious context.

What would you say the difference is between what I’m calling faith and how I explain it and your explanation of why you think the escalator will get you to the top?

How do you think the word “faith” is used in a religious context? Is faith a feeling? No. Faith is a knowing. Faith, more than anything else, is movement. It’s what drives a christian forward, it’s what makes a christian raise his children as God would want, it’s what makes him do his job well, it’s what makes him help society to whatever degree he is able to either in time or money.

You could not agree with my analogy but it’ll be in many christian theology books as an accepted explanation of faith.

You get on an escalator with a reasonable expectation - Our faith gives us a reasonable expectation that God exists and is a good God.

That it’ll get you to the top - God gets us to the top. He gives us the strength we need to do many things we do that require, I’d say, supernatural strength in many cases.

Based on your immediate evidence of your senses - What is evidence? Is it when you ask God something and He answers you and it works for the rest of your life? Am I not sensing, in a real life way, by my brain and senses that God is present for me?

On a wealth of prior experience - Believe me, I’m not the only one who has had these experiences! There have been many prior experiences. Think of all the miracles in the N.T. (also in the O.T. but it seems so far away) and in real life. God is real. He lets Himself be known to who will accept.

Built up over many years - How does 3,500 years sound?

On knowledge of how an escalator works - Is there not knowledge of how chirstianity works? Are people’s lives not changed? Is the universe not held together by something. (maybe the God particle? Interesting nickname for Higgs Boson). Is the universe not functioning with laws?

What do you think we mean by “faith”?

Fran

 

[Nixbits]

Good questions, Fran. You’ve given me quite a task to formulate a response.

frangiuliano115:

What would you say the difference is between what I’m calling faith and how I explain it and your explanation of why you think the escalator will get you to the top? How do you think the word “faith” is used in a religious context? Is faith a feeling? No. Faith is a knowing.

I can see how you think the analogy is valid. I think there are a couple of differences, though.

You originally said:

When we get on an escalator we have faith that it’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.

When I get on an escalator I’m not certain that it will work. They sometimes break down. It’s not a certainty that it will work that makes me step onto one. It’s the repeated experience that they usually work, and knowledge that the consequences when they don’t work are not too serious.

We may not see the mechanism beneath, but we can see the steps moving up, so we can reasonably infer that there must be a mechanism and it must be working.

Faith, as you describe it, the certainty “of what we do not see”, is, to me, belief without sufficient evidence. It would be like stepping onto an escalator without looking to check whether it’s working or closed for maintenance or that a step is there to step onto. I wouldn’t do that. I suggest that you shouldn’t either.

You said faith is knowing. I wouldn’t agree. To me, knowledge is justified belief that something is true or most likely true. Knowing is like getting onto an escalator after looking to see that it’s working and waiting until a step is there to step onto. Then comes the reasonable expectation that it will probably take you to the top. But not always.

In a religious context, I would say faith is belief based on what the believer’s consider to be sufficient evidence, but which non-believers consider to be insufficient evidence or no evidence at all.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Good questions, Fran. You’ve given me quite a task to formulate a response.

I can see how you think the analogy is valid. I think there are a couple of differences, though.

You originally said:
When I get on an escalator I’m not certain that it will work. They sometimes break down. It’s not a certainty that it will work that makes me step onto one. It’s the repeated experience that they usually work, and knowledge that the consequences when they don’t work are not too serious.

We may not see the mechanism beneath, but we can see the steps moving up, so we can reasonably infer that there must be a mechanism and it must be working.

Faith, as you describe it, the certainty “of what we do not see”, is, to me, belief without sufficient evidence. It would be like stepping onto an escalator without looking to check whether it’s working or closed for maintenance or that a step is there to step onto. I wouldn’t do that. I suggest that you shouldn’t either.

You said faith is knowing. I wouldn’t agree. To me, knowledge is justified belief that something is true or most likely true. Knowing is like getting onto an escalator after looking to see that it’s working and waiting until a step is there to step onto. Then comes the reasonable expectation that it will probably take you to the top. But not always.

In a religious context, I would say faith is belief based on what the believer’s consider to be sufficient evidence, but which non-believers consider to be insufficient evidence or no evidence at all.

Hi Nexbits,

We’ve done some thinking. it’s good!
Have you ever pondered what makes our heart beat? Could it really be explained? Have you ever really pondered conception? Could it really be explained?

So much can’t really be explained unless you defer to the God reason. As I see it, both atheists (I assume you’re either agnostic or an agnostic atheist) and theists have a big problem.

Theists want to believe that God created everything. Whatever or Whoever that God may be. But, who created God? I know He’s the first cause, but where DID he come from? Just telling me He’s the first cause is not very satisfying. What caused that first cause?

Atheists say they don’t believe in God. So they believe everything just kind of evolved or exploded into existence. That’s a problem too. The big bang. Gases got everything going. But where did the gases come from? The conditions had to be perfect or the mass that was the universe would have just imploded at the moment of explosion. How could it be that the conditions were so perfect as to allow the expansion of the universe? And any scientist will tell you that something could not come from nothing.

So, we both have a problem. Maybe it’s just easier for me, or it makes more sense, to accept scenario no. 1. Maybe it just makes all the answers of life easier.

I still think the analogy of the escalator is good, but let’s leave that alone. I have a better reason why I could believe in God. He revealed Himself to us. This is the crux of christianity Nexbits. The resurrection. Is it true or not? If it’s not true, we’ve all been duped. If it is, we should all reconsider. So that’s the question - is it true or not? The rest falls into place. Did you ever read Who Moved the Stone? The resurrection seems very reasonable to me. And what about those Apostles and writers of the New Testament? Were they just crazy people out to get themselves killed because they believed in this Jesus fellow?

So yes, for me it’s as easy as that.

I mean, it’s a bit unfair to compare an escalator to God. Of course an escalator can break down, but can God break down?? There are repeated experiences in church of how God works. Miracles can be witnessed. I wish I could tell you of an experience my brother had years ago. Many mysteries that cannot be explained unless we believe in a God.

You say:

We may not see the mechanism beneath, but we can see the steps moving up, so we can reasonably infer that there must be a mechanism and it must be working.

You’re explaining christianity again! Please read John 3: 1-14. Especially verse 8. Jesus is talking about the wind with a Pharisee named Nicodemus. At night because Nicodemus doesn’t really want to be seen with Him out of fear, mabye. You cannot see the wind (the mechanism) but you see its effects (the movement). God is never closed for maintenance Nexbits! And it’s faith that makes you take that first step.

So I guess you could say that the certainty of what I do not see is based on my belief that Jesus was God - I believe I have sufficient evidence. I’d go so far as to say that my faith is based on a person, and not on any knowledge.

I, of course, agree with you that the evidence might be sufficient for me and not for you. Trying to understand why is a goal of mine - but I’m afraid I may never know the reasons.

I know that God is good because He revealed Himself, He didn’t have to. Because He gave His Son for us. I believe this goodness of His has helped us as a people.

I know I’m not going to convince you, just to let you know how I feel about faith.

Fran

 

[onenow1]

I mulled over the following but never posted.

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

This is good, God gave Moses ten commands the,613 rules, I believe to be added on, some good some not so good. So Jesus came personally to instruct us by saying love your neighbor as yourself, and above all love God. If you respect and love all you can do no harm to anyone; and as a result have obeyed the ten commandments. I think we know there were additions because the Pharisees condemned as a sin; Jesus healing and doing good on the Sabbath.

God bless
onenow1

 

[frangiuliano115]

This is good, God gave Moses ten commands the,613 rules, I believe to be added on, some good some not so good. So Jesus came personally to instruct us by saying love your neighbor as yourself, and above all love God. If you respect and love all you can do no harm to anyone; and as a result have obeyed the ten commandments. I think we know there were additions because the Pharisees condemned as a sin; Jesus healing and doing good on the Sabbath.

God bless
onenow1

Good!

It’s difficult to believe God actually commanded all the rules in Leviticus. Maybe man got a bit carried away - it’s so easy to make regulations.

The pharisees were condemned by Jesus in Mathew 23:13, The Woes.
And they got really upset with him because He was picking at wheat and eating it in the fields on the Sabbath.

The two great commandments cover ALL as you say:
Love God with all your heart, mind and soul
And love your neighbor as yourself.

If you follow these, as you said, all will be followed.
And wasn’t Jesus the best psychologist of all?

He mentions the soul. The soul is what you use to WILL something; like something you’d like to do, or a commitment you need to make - like to a marriage for instance. Your heart is the love center and your mind is the reasoning power given to humans by God.

Love your neighbor as yourself. We need to love ourselves before we could love anyone else.

Now we have self-help books. it took 2,000 years for this idea to become popular!

Fran

 

[guanophore]

 Good!

It’s difficult to believe God actually commanded all the rules in Leviticus. Maybe man got a bit carried away - it’s so easy to make regulations.

What you are saying is that the Scripture is not REALLY the inspired, inerrant Word of God, as the Church teaches, and that it is not really reliable because God is not REALLY the primary author. Somehow in your world, man is more powerful than the Holy Spirit, so that “man got a bit carried way” and made too many rules and regulations, but it is not really God speaking.

The pharisees were condemned by Jesus in Mathew 23:13, The Woes.

And they got really upset with him because He was picking at wheat and eating it in the fields on the Sabbath.

Because they exchanged the letter of the law for the Spirit of the law. Not because the law was contaminated.

And wasn’t Jesus the best psychologist of all?

 

[frangiuliano115]

**What you are saying is that the Scripture is not REALLY the inspired, inerrant Word of God, as the Church teaches, and that it is not really reliable because God is not REALLY the primary author. Somehow in your world, man is more powerful than the Holy Spirit, **so that “man got a bit carried way” and made too many rules and regulations, but it is not really God speaking.

Because they exchanged the letter of the law for the Spirit of the law. Not because the law was contaminated.

Guanophore,

You’re confusing me because I think you’re on every thread I’m on and I cannot remember when I told you what.

There you go again telling me what I believe instead of just stating what YOU believe. You say:

What you are saying is that the Scripture is not REALLY the inspired, inerrant Word of God, as the Church teaches, and that it is not really reliable because God is not REALLY the primary author. Somehow in your world, man is more powerful than the Holy Spirit,

So now I’m a humanist. Don Giovanni won’t be too happy to hear about this!

Okay. So explain this to me: ( and I might have brought this up in a different thread already)

The church teaches that divorce is not acceptable. (except in very few cases).
Jesus teaches that divorce is not acceptable.

Read Genesis 2:22-24
“And the man said, Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh
She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man
For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother
and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh”

Jesus said many times that divorce was not acceptable, check out Mathew, maybe 5, also Mark 10.

But wait. Moses allowed divorce! In his parting words he gave many instructions to the Israelites. The book of Deuteronomy is based on his teachings.

Read Deuteronomy 24:1

It says that a husband may abandon his wife by giving her a certificate of divorce thus ending the marriage relationship.

So which is it??

The only explanation is that man put his two cents in. Now, I understand why Moses allowed this, but wouldn’t you say that it could be said that it is NOT the Word of God??

Fran

 

[guanophore]

 Guanophore,

You’re confusing me because I think you’re on every thread I’m on and I cannot remember when I told you what.

It really does not matter which thread you were on when you contradicted what the Church believes and teaches. It is a problem no matter where it happened.

There you go again telling me what I believe instead of just stating what YOU believe. You say:

What you are saying is that the Scripture is not REALLY the inspired, inerrant Word of God, as the Church teaches, and that it is not really reliable because God is not REALLY the primary author. Somehow in your world, man is more powerful than the Holy Spirit,

So now I’m a humanist. Don Giovanni won’t be too happy to hear about this!

This is how your post came across.

Okay.  So explain this to me: ( and I might have brought this up in a different thread already)

The church teaches that divorce is not acceptable. (except in very few cases).
Jesus teaches that divorce is not acceptable.

Read Genesis 2:22-24
“And the man said, Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh
She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man
For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother
and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh”

Jesus said many times that divorce was not acceptable, check out Mathew, maybe 5, also Mark 10.

But wait. Moses allowed divorce! In his parting words he gave many instructions to the Israelites. The book of Deuteronomy is based on his teachings.

Read Deuteronomy 24:1

It says that a husband may abandon his wife by giving her a certificate of divorce thus ending the marriage relationship.

So which is it??

Both. I think you are suffering from that black and white thinking again.

The fact that Moses wrote it does not exclude that it is part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

The only explanation is that man put his two cents in. Now, I understand why Moses allowed this, but wouldn’t you say that it could be said that it is NOT the Word of God??

Fran

Have you appointed yourself as the arbitor of which parts of the Scriptures “come from man” and which are the Word of God? This is a common protestant practice.

 

[Nixbits]

Frangiuliano, thank you for your measured and thoughtful responses. You’re right that we’ll have to agree to differ, but it’s been an interesting exchange nonetheless. Thank you.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Frangiuliano, thank you for your measured and thoughtful responses. You’re right that we’ll have to agree to differ, but it’s been an interesting exchange nonetheless. Thank you.

Thank YOU Nixbits. It’s nice when two people could exchange their views without it having to turn into a sparring match. Which I wouldn’t have done anyway!

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

It really does not matter which thread you were on when you contradicted what the Church believes and teaches. It is a problem no matter where it happened.

This is how your post came across.

Both. I think you are suffering from that black and white thinking again.

The fact that Moses wrote it does not exclude that it is part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

Have you appointed yourself as the arbitor of which parts of the Scriptures “come from man” and which are the Word of God? This is a common protestant practice.

You said a lot, but you didn’t reconcile Deuteronomy 24:1

with Mathew 5:31-32
and Mark 10:1-12

Regarding divorce.

Please look into it and let me know what you make of it.

 

[guanophore]

You said a lot, but you didn’t reconcile Deuteronomy 24:1

with Mathew 5:31-32
and Mark 10:1-12

Regarding divorce.

Please look into it and let me know what you make of it.

Fran, I don’t need to reconcile them, because I do not see them as contradictory. Both passages are part of the inspired, inerrant Word of God, delivered to us for our instruction.

I am not the one who believes that the Holy Spirit fell down on the job, and allowed human weakness to contaminate the Scriptures.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Fran, I don’t need to reconcile them, because I do not see them as contradictory. Both passages are part of the inspired, inerrant Word of God, delivered to us for our instruction.

I am not the one who believes that the Holy Spirit fell down on the job, and allowed human weakness to contaminate the Scriptures.

Oh, but there IS a contradiction. You’re saying I don’t believe the bible is the Word of God, which could not be FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

So, yes, you are going to have to explain this:

Genesis says woman was made from man and they are to leave their families and cleave to each other.
Genesis 2:22-24

Then Moses says divorce is okay! The husband just has to give a Certificate of Divorce.
Deuteronomy 24:1

Then Jesus comes along and says that divorce is NOT allowed:
Mathew 5:31-32
Mark 10:1-12

So Moses said divorce is allowed. Was he mistaken? Did God decree this and then change His mind?

You see guanophore, I’m very careful when I state things. I was very careful in how I worded my thoughts on Leviticus. I did NOT say it wasn’t the Word of God. I said something different. If I can believe in the resurrection, it must mean I believe the bible is the Word of God, no?

Please check out the above passages and reconcile the obvious conflict.

Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

Oh, but there IS a contradiction.

It is not a contradiction, Fran, it was a concession.

You’re saying I don’t believe the bible is the Word of God, which could not be FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

Ok. You believe it is the Word of God, containing some occasional human errors contaminating the text, such as those laws in Leviticus and Moses allowing divorce.

And you have reserved the right to decide where the contamination exists?

So, yes, you are going to have to explain this:

Fran, you have perceived what you believe is a contradiction in the Scriptures, and you are assigning me to “explain” what you think is a contradiction.

My explanation is that you suffer from black and white thinking. Things that you seem to think are mutually exclusive are not.

You see guanophore, I’m very careful when I state things. I was very careful in how I worded my thoughts on Leviticus. I did NOT say it wasn’t the Word of God. I said something different.

LOL. Yes, you suggested that the person writing it had inserted his own human errors into the text.

I guess that means you believe that God inspired human errors to be placed in the Scriptures?

If I can believe in the resurrection, it must mean I believe the bible is the Word of God, no?

No, but I will accept whatever you claim to believe. Your posts contradict what the Church teaches about the nature of the Scriptures.

Please check out the above passages and reconcile the obvious conflict.

I do not see an obvious conflict, sorry.

 

[guanophore]

It's difficult to believe God actually commanded all the rules in Leviticus.  Maybe man got a bit carried away - it's so easy to make regulations.

Fran

 You're saying I don't believe the bible is the Word of God, which could not be FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

Perhaps there is something I overlooked. Perhaps your definition of Word of God is different than what the Church teaches? Perhaps it does not contain the concepts of inspired or inerrant?

it seems that your understanding of Word of God includes the possibility that “man got a bit carried away” making rules and regulations other than what God intended.