I believe a perfect Goodness exists...but does it logically and inevitably follow that this Goodness cares about us wee things?

[Thomas_Jennings]

After all Goodness (God) is fully good being goodness…He has nothing to gain through us.

I ask because we obviously experience something of goodness and, because I feel it occasionally, I know (as you do) that it is none material. Religion often insists that God is more than an impersonal energy and that we are more than just meat that’s evolved to detect this energy…but, whilst I’m sure you’re right n’ all, can I please have an absolute reason that this is the case?
Goodness being fully good (a fully reasonable truth) would not logically seem to necessitate our ability to partake in it any more than we do or stake a claim of its attentions.

(I realise this is basically the repeat of a question I’ve already asked…but my question was a rather small footnote in a larger text among other questions- so I thought I’d ‘replant it’ where it might be more prominent!)

 

[atassina]

Yes God loves us and cares about us. I too have felt his love. Myriads upon myriads have felt it and celebrated his love for us and his goodness. He loves what he created out of love. Therefore, it logically follows that he loves us.

Do you personally feel indifference to someone your helped create out of love?

 

[Memaw]

After all Goodness (God) is fully good being goodness…He has nothing to gain through us.

I ask because we obviously experience something of goodness and, because I feel it occasionally, I know (as you do) that it is none material. Religion often insists that God is more than an impersonal energy and that we are more than just meat that’s evolved to detect this energy…but, whilst I’m sure you’re right n’ all, can I please have an absolute reason that this is the case?
Goodness being fully good (a fully reasonable truth) would not logically seem to necessitate our ability to partake in it any more than we do or stake a claim of its attentions.

(I realise this is basically the repeat of a question I’ve already asked…but my question was a rather small footnote in a larger text among other questions- so I thought I’d ‘replant it’ where it might be more prominent!)

Didn’t Jesus Christ dying on the Cross for our sins, prove to us that we were LOVED by “Perfect goodness”?? God Bless, Memaw

 

[eightydeuce82]

After all Goodness (God) is fully good being goodness…He has nothing to gain through us.

I ask because we obviously experience something of goodness and, because I feel it occasionally, I know (as you do) that it is none material. Religion often insists that God is more than an impersonal energy and that we are more than just meat that’s evolved to detect this energy…but, whilst I’m sure you’re right n’ all, can I please have an absolute reason that this is the case?
Goodness being fully good (a fully reasonable truth) would not logically seem to necessitate our ability to partake in it any more than we do or stake a claim of its attentions.

(I realise this is basically the repeat of a question I’ve already asked…but my question was a rather small footnote in a larger text among other questions- so I thought I’d ‘replant it’ where it might be more prominent!)

The simple fact that I woke up, got a cup of coffee, got on my Motorcycle and came to work is a pretty good sign that God loves me. If he didn’t love us we would not exist.

We must be obedient to his will…free will interferes with this our fallen nature and original sin put a damper on this grace (love) that flows to us. Although we might never achieve the innocence and grace we once had before the fall we within Christ can receive grace once more. this is all dependent on our obedience to what he has placed before us and what he has left behind for us namely his Church which calls us to obedience so that we may experience his goodness (grace) through his sacraments.

 

[vsedriver]

After all Goodness (God) is fully good being goodness…He has nothing to gain through us.

Goodness being fully good (a fully reasonable truth) would not logically seem to necessitate our ability to partake in it any more than we do or stake a claim of its attentions.

(I realise this is basically the repeat of a question I’ve already asked…but my question was a rather small footnote in a larger text among other questions- so I thought I’d ‘replant it’ where it might be more prominent!)

Goodness is not about gaining but about giving. A fully good being would by nature be giving. Love can’t exist in isolation. Love is the greatest good. Perfect love must be shared.

 

[ccmcmg]

God loves us as if we were the only person on earth, His only child. His Love for us is infinite, as is His Mercy. Had there only been one of us, He would have died on the Cross for us. That’s some pretty big love, and pretty important.

God created us in His image. Why wouldn’t He care about each of us? He knows every hair on our head, knows us better than we know ourselves. He sees me with eyes of love, of a mother and father, a best friend, our spouse, our infants.

No, God doesn’t care if I discover my favorite milkshake in a town across the country, but He does care about me and my happiness and joy, especially when I use it to honor and bless Him. Praise Him in all that is good, big and small, and you will receive even more fruits of His Love.

I believe it is very hard for us to accept that kind of love, as we are incapable of loving that much. But let us not put human constraints on our God. He is not made in OUR image. He is with us 24/7 and beyond. He doesn’t depart when we think we don’t need Him. He is in every breath we take (every move we make?).

 

[JapaneseKappa]

After all Goodness (God) is fully good being goodness…He has nothing to gain through us.

I ask because we obviously experience something of goodness and, because I feel it occasionally, I know (as you do) that it is none material. Religion often insists that God is more than an impersonal energy and that we are more than just meat that’s evolved to detect this energy…but, whilst I’m sure you’re right n’ all, can I please have an absolute reason that this is the case?
Goodness being fully good (a fully reasonable truth) would not logically seem to necessitate our ability to partake in it any more than we do or stake a claim of its attentions.

(I realise this is basically the repeat of a question I’ve already asked…but my question was a rather small footnote in a larger text among other questions- so I thought I’d ‘replant it’ where it might be more prominent!)

In order for your question to be meaningful, you need to define either God or Goodness in a way that doesn’t refer to the other. In other words, when you use these sorts of statements:

God is defined as perfect goodness.
Goodness is defined as what God is perfectly.

You’ve learned nothing about goodness, God, or what might actually exist. We could stick any other definition on top of “goodness” without contradicting those two definitions. For example, I could say: In addition to those definitions, goodness is also defined as acting entirely in your own self interest. This does not invalidate the previous definitions.

Then you might retort:
“But goodness is not the same thing as selfishness.”
To which I would respond:
“But your definition of goodness didn’t say anything about selfishness.”

So you might go on to say:
“but God isn’t selfish!”
To which I would respond:
“But your previous definition of God didn’t say anything about selfishness”

And so then we would be right back at “Yes it did, goodness is not the same thing as selfishness.”

And so you can see, the circular definitions let you assert that God and goodness are whatever you want without contradiction. Your assertion that God and goodness are not selfish are just as logically consistent as my proposition that they are.

 

[tonyrey]

“wee things” gives the game away. It suggests we are such minute specks in the immense universe we are insignificant. Yet size has nothing whatsoever to do with significance. A member of this forum recently pointed to the billions of years that elapsed before man appeared as evidence of our insignificance. Yet time or space or any other physical factor has nothing whatsoever to do with significance! One single thought is more valuable and meaningful than all the galaxies put together. The very fact that we have been given the power of reason demonstrates that God cares about us because otherwise we would be incapable of love - and that is even more precious and important than all the intellectual, scientific, artistic and technological achievements in the world…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

After all Goodness (God) is fully good being goodness…He has nothing to gain through us.

I ask because we obviously experience something of goodness and, because I feel it occasionally, I know (as you do) that it is none material. Religion often insists that God is more than an impersonal energy and that we are more than just meat that’s evolved to detect this energy…but, whilst I’m sure you’re right n’ all, can I please have an absolute reason that this is the case?
Goodness being fully good (a fully reasonable truth) would not logically seem to necessitate our ability to partake in it any more than we do or stake a claim of its attentions.

(I realise this is basically the repeat of a question I’ve already asked…but my question was a rather small footnote in a larger text among other questions- so I thought I’d ‘replant it’ where it might be more prominent!)

It seems to me that what you are really asking is, " Does God Exist? " and " What is his nature, what is he like? " Is that right?

Linus2nd

 

[J_Peterson]

You’ll never get to the personal Christian God using philosophy and/or logic. The Catholic Church teaches that we can know about God through reason and revelation.

The idea of a personal God and all that goes with it was a huge stumbling block for me. God had to tap me on the shoulder personally for me to get it. Keep yourself open to it even if it doesn’t currently make sense.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You’ll never get to the personal Christian God using philosophy and/or logic. The Catholic Church teaches that we can know about God through reason and revelation.

The idea of a personal God and all that goes with it was a huge stumbling block for me. God had to tap me on the shoulder personally for me to get it. Keep yourself open to it even if it doesn’t currently make sense.

Certainly philosophy isn’t for everyone but some find it very useful.And St. Thomas and St. Paul would disagree with you. St. Thomas was able to demonstrate the existence of God and that he was a personal God. And the God of St. Thomas is certainly the Christian God, although only Revelation as interpreted by the Church can tell us all we can know about God. ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q2_A2.html

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

You’ll never get to the personal Christian God using philosophy and/or logic. The Catholic Church teaches that we can know about God through reason and revelation.

The idea of a personal God and all that goes with it was a huge stumbling block for me. God had to tap me on the shoulder personally for me to get it. Keep yourself open to it even if it doesn’t currently make sense.

It doesn’t make sense to believe persons are derived from mindless particles!

 

[J_Peterson]

It doesn’t make sense to believe persons are derived from mindless particles!

I wasn’t making any kind of statment about us being made of mindless particles but…Why not? I don’t believe that we are just a pile of atoms as they say but the possiblity is there and it is valid. Are dolphins just a pile of atoms, how about dogs or lower apes? They are not mindless by any means but they don’t have an immortal soul so we can conclude that mindless particles can make up a mind. Computers may very well prove this at some point too (although I’m very skeptical of that).

 

[Flopfoot]

This is a philosophy forum not a theology forum meaning we approach God from the outside, not the inside.

So say we assume there’s a God and he is good. What’s it mean to be good - does calling God good mean the same thing as when you call a human good? Could a human be considered good if he didn’t care about other humans?

There are two arguments I could think of that God could be good without caring about humans -

1. Humans are not that important, or
2. “Caring” is not necessary, it is sufficient to simply not cause harm to humans.

I think #1 doesn’t work. All our moral systems are based on the idea that humans are important - if we didn’t assume that, then anything would be allowed (murder, stealing, etc). We’re not aware of anything in the universe more important than us, and “of all things the measure is man.”

For #2 we would have to then try to figure out what makes God different from inanimate objects that neither care about us nor willingly harm us. This is a tricky one because it dips its toe into the problem of evil: is God not considered good because he does not prevent a hurricane from harming humans even though it should be within his power to prevent it? Does God have some extra responsibility because he created us, thus putting us in a situation where we could potentially be harmed? Most people would say that if God has a good reason for not stopping the hurricane then it is okay. but if he just didn’t care then it isn’t okay. (I know this is not a philosophical proof but it’s something to think about).

 

[tonyrey]

I wasn’t making any kind of statment about us being made of mindless particles but…Why not? I don’t believe that we are just a pile of atoms as they say but the possiblity is there and it is valid. Are dolphins just a pile of atoms, how about dogs or lower apes? They are not mindless by any means but they don’t have an immortal soul so we can conclude that mindless particles can make up a mind. Computers may very well prove this at some point too (although I’m very skeptical of that).

Your scepticism is justified because a mechanistic explanation doesn’t account for any of the most precious aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and - above all - love. For any unbiased person the truth of Christ’s teaching is unquestionable. Even Dawkins admits it is ahead of its time…

 

[tonyrey]

This is a philosophy forum not a theology forum meaning we approach God from the outside, not the inside.

So say we assume there’s a God and he is good. What’s it mean to be good - does calling God good mean the same thing as when you call a human good? Could a human be considered good if he didn’t care about other humans?

There are two arguments I could think of that God could be good without caring about humans -

1. Humans are not that important, or
2. “Caring” is not necessary, it is sufficient to simply not cause harm to humans.

I think #1 doesn’t work. All our moral systems are based on the idea that humans are important - if we didn’t assume that, then anything would be allowed (murder, stealing, etc). We’re not aware of anything in the universe more important than us, and “of all things the measure is man.”

For #2 we would have to then try to figure out what makes God different from inanimate objects that neither care about us nor willingly harm us. This is a tricky one because it dips its toe into the problem of evil: is God not considered good because he does not prevent a hurricane from harming humans even though it should be within his power to prevent it? Does God have some extra responsibility because he created us, thus putting us in a situation where we could potentially be harmed? Most people would say that if God has a good reason for not stopping the hurricane then it is okay. but if he just didn’t care then it isn’t okay. (I know this is not a philosophical proof but it’s something to think about).

The Catechism has the answer:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

God works through the laws of nature which cannot possibly cater for every contingency.
We cannot expect to have everything for nothing. Every gift has its price and every advantage a corresponding disadvantage. The more sensitive we are the more we can enjoy life but also the more we can suffer. Jesus died to show us that love is more important than anything else. St Ignatius of Loyola gave us this beautiful prayer:

Teach us, good Lord, to serve you as you deserve;** to give and not to count the cost**; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to toil and not to seek for rest; to labour and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing that we do your will.

Amen