Is it logical to think every good quality exists infinitely in God?

[Thomas_Jennings]

Why not reckon God made some good things that were only of finite worth, that are only meant to be around now but shall be got rid of at a latter date? I ask, because I’ve been reading up on some theology and many books seem to suggest that every goodness that exists in this world is reflective of a far greater quantity of the same within the Spirit of God. Fair dos…and I tend to accept this idea as so…but isn’t it also possible that some elements of creation were designed for minor walk on parts rather than principle roles? And are not eternal or infinite but flash in the pans? Or is every good things to God a serious matter? I seem to get mixed responses on this question…some theists seem to think that Worldly joys, like books and films, aren’t about God in anything except the fact they are to be enjoyed and ultimately He is to be enjoyed: and that such beauty as we may find in them are a way of helping make our stay on Earth, to do God’s duty, nice in some ways but they will all end completely, God’s beauty being utterly alien and unlike. I prefer the ‘all values exist in God’ theory but both ideas seem perfectly reasonable. Is it just a choice of which idea we’d prefer to go with or is one answer logical and the other not?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I’m not actually sure that whether all good things being eternal, and whether all good things are a reflection of some part of the ultimate good that is God, are actually related questions.

For example, animals, plants, and inanimate objects exist and are good, but eventually stop existing. Persons are immortal. All of these reflect different aspects of God to different extents.

I would say that God is the perfection of all that is good, and so that everything that is good reflects something of what God is, and also that some good things are transitory.

 

[Justin_W]

Is it logical to think every good quality exists infinitely in God?

I would say: No.

God created physical things, and said that they were Good. But God (as the Father and the Spirit) does not have a physical form at all. And Jesus has only His own body, not every person’s body. So: All Goods may come from God, but not every Good is God.

everything that is good reflects something of what God is, and also that some good things are transitory.

Well said.

I think that in some cases the transitory nature of certain goods enhances their goodness. I’m thinking of snowflakes, and sunrises, aad ice/sand sculptures, and even performance art (e.g. dance/theatre), etc. The fact that something good exists uniquely in all of creation makes it more special and treasured, doesn’t it?

The trick (at least for me) is in not becoming excessively attached to specific transitory or material goods, and in being content to let them go so that new goods can replace them. If I was somehow able to make it so that last night’s sunset would be repeated every night from now on, I’d miss out on all of the other (different) sunsets that God has planned for me.

 

[ChibiViolet]

He has all the BEST qualities–the ones that really matter.

 

[Thomas_Jennings]

He has all the BEST qualities–the ones that really matter.

But doesn’t God traditionally have all that is good as opposed to some/a select few? Is goodness seperate to God (His creation) or Him Himself…in which case, when we praise god for being good are we holding goodness as a sort of diety over Him: saying that He is lovable because He has this ‘other thing’s’ (Goodnesse’s) traits? Surely not! Only He is Good. And therefor are not all other things only good in so much as they are ‘of’ Him…His ‘sunbeams’ if you like: not Him but radiance from Him?

The more I’m pondering my question, the more it appears to me that He is Good and all that isn’t is not reflective of Him. So I wouldn’t say we loose the trees, flowers…or, indeed, books and films!..Via gaining Him: we gain ever more of what was good about those things in the first place, because He is the central neucleus of all value…value is only value because it has a little bit of Him.

I know…I’m a bit of a twit posting the question and then sorting it out for myself! Sorry for that!

 

[Justin_W]

Just had a thought: maybe it is that all Good things are reminiscent of Him, in the way that the memory of the taste of your favorite food is a kind of reflection or shadow of the direct experience of tasting that food. The memory is not really the same as the experience itself, but it shares many similarities.

So all Goods we experience here could be like pale pre-memories/foreshadowing of the real-er Good-ness of God.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’m not actually sure that whether all good things being eternal, and whether all good things are a reflection of some part of the ultimate good that is God, are actually related questions.

For example, animals, plants, and inanimate objects exist and are good, but eventually stop existing. Persons are immortal. All of these reflect different aspects of God to different extents.

I would say that God is the perfection of all that is good, and so that everything that is good reflects something of what God is, and also that some good things are transitory.

But we have to separate what we subjectively consider good from what is actually good, since those things do not necessarily match up. This causes two problems when using the measure “perfection of all that is good.”

1. We could be mistaken about which things are good.
2. We could be mistaken about what makes those things perfect (i.e. best (i.e. good-est.))

For example, consider genocide: the killing of an ethnic group or people. In our subjective experience, this is a bad thing. However, it turns out that, at least in some cases, it is actually good. For example, 1 Samuel 15:1-9

Therefore, I say that before we go asserting that God has every good quality infinitely, we need to have a solid definition of what goodness is. If we define “goodness” as “qualities that God has,” then the statement is nearly tautological: God has every quality that God has, infinitely. However, we haven’t really established any criteria that would let us know what those qualities actually are.

 

[ynotzap]

But we have to separate what we subjectively consider good from what is actually good, since those things do not necessarily match up. This causes two problems when using the measure “perfection of all that is good.”

1. We could be mistaken about which things are good.
2. We could be mistaken about what makes those things perfect (i.e. best (i.e. good-est.))

For example, consider genocide: the killing of an ethnic group or people. In our subjective experience, this is a bad thing. However, it turns out that, at least in some cases, it is actually good. For example, 1 Samuel 15:1-9

Therefore, I say that before we go asserting that God has every good quality infinitely, we need to have a solid definition of what goodness is. If we define “goodness” as “qualities that God has,” then the statement is nearly tautological: God has every quality that God has, infinitely. However, we haven’t really established any criteria that would let us know what those qualities actually are.

All that God creates is good, because existence makes it good. Even Satan’s existence is good, because he is an angel (even though fallen) Existence is God’s Essence, as are all His attributes. To be good a thing has to have being, to have being is to exist All existing things reflect God’s glory.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

All that God creates is good, because existence makes it good. Even Satan’s existence is good, because he is an angel (even though fallen) Existence is God’s Essence, as are all His attributes. To be good a thing has to have being, to have being is to exist All existing things reflect God’s glory.

Sure, the problem is that this is basically tautological.

“God has all the properties God has perfectly” and “A property is perfect when it is identical to a property God has.” This leads to: “God has all the properties God has in such a way that they are identical to the property God has.”

You are basically asserting that existence is synonymous with goodness. But if that were the case, why would God ever seek to destroy what he had created?

And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

[oldcelt]

Sure, the problem is that this is basically tautological.

“God has all the properties God has perfectly” and “A property is perfect when it is identical to a property God has.” This leads to: “God has all the properties God has in such a way that they are identical to the property God has.”

You are basically asserting that existence is synonymous with goodness. But if that were the case, why would God ever seek to destroy what he had created?

This conversation has continually avoided the creative responsibility of the Christian God. That God supposedly created all with absolute foreknowledge…including Satan and the other fallen. The explanations for this are, at best, contorted.

John

 

[ynotzap]

Sure, the problem is that this is basically tautological.

“God has all the properties God has perfectly” and “A property is perfect when it is identical to a property God has.” This leads to: “God has all the properties God has in such a way that they are identical to the property God has.”

You are basically asserting that existence is synonymous with goodness. But if that were the case, why would God ever seek to destroy what he had created?

I find some error when you say “God has all the properties God has that they are indentical to the properties God has” God HAS no properties, God IS His attributes
If God has properties, then He is not His attributes. In God there are no parts or composition. All goodness eminates from Him as it’s source. It is not tautological, a repetition, but it is ontological, the science of being. God is one with His essence, Existence is His essence. Ontologically, what ever exists is good because it exists. There is relative good in created things.
God does not seek to destroy what He created, although it is in His Power to do so. God’s act of creation is eternal, He does not create to un-create or annihilate. That which He creates is not eternal in it’s nature, but is sustained in existence eternally by God. God in no way is subject to creation that it has to be destroyed, for He can draw good from evil. Evil is the absence of good. God is like white light when refracted it becomes many colors in created things (an analogy)

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I find some error when you say “God has all the properties God has that they are indentical to the properties God has” God HAS no properties, God IS His attributes
If God has properties, then He is not His attributes. In God there are no parts or composition. All goodness eminates from Him as it’s source. It is not tautological, a repetition, but it is ontological, the science of being. God is one with His essence, Existence is His essence. Ontologically, what ever exists is good because it exists. There is relative good in created things.
God does not seek to destroy what He created, although it is in His Power to do so. God’s act of creation is eternal, He does not create to un-create or annihilate. That which He creates is not eternal in it’s nature, but is sustained in existence eternally by God. God in no way is subject to creation that it has to be destroyed, for He can draw good from evil. Evil is the absence of good. God is like white light when refracted it becomes many colors in created things (an analogy)

Then we can trivially amend it to:

God is all the attributes God is, in such a way that the attributes are identical to the corresponding attributes God is.

The problem arises from defining goodness in terms of God, and then turning around and defining God in terms of goodness. As in the title of this thread:

“Is it logical to think every good quality exists infinitely in God?”

If goodness is defined as “that which God is” and “infinite extent” is defined as “identical to the way it exists in God” then the original question is:
“Is it logical to think every -]good/-] quality that God is exists -]infinitely/-] identically to the way it exists in God in God?”

 

[Richca]

Why not reckon God made some good things that were only of finite worth, that are only meant to be around now but shall be got rid of at a latter date? I ask, because I’ve been reading up on some theology and many books seem to suggest that every goodness that exists in this world is reflective of a far greater quantity of the same within the Spirit of God. Fair dos…and I tend to accept this idea as so…but isn’t it also possible that some elements of creation were designed for minor walk on parts rather than principle roles? And are not eternal or infinite but flash in the pans? Or is every good things to God a serious matter? I seem to get mixed responses on this question…some theists seem to think that Worldly joys, like books and films, aren’t about God in anything except the fact they are to be enjoyed and ultimately He is to be enjoyed: and that such beauty as we may find in them are a way of helping make our stay on Earth, to do God’s duty, nice in some ways but they will all end completely, God’s beauty being utterly alien and unlike. I prefer the ‘all values exist in God’ theory but both ideas seem perfectly reasonable. Is it just a choice of which idea we’d prefer to go with or is one answer logical and the other not?

God is goodness itself and it exists in him infinitely. Creatures participate in God’s goodness in a more or less finite way. Every perfection though is found in God in an infinite degree as Vatican I declared:
“The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.”

 

[ynotzap]

Then we can trivially amend it to:

God is all the attributes God is, in such a way that the attributes are identical to the corresponding attributes God is.

The problem arises from defining goodness in terms of God, and then turning around and defining God in terms of goodness. As in the title of this thread: If goodness is defined as “that which God is” and “infinite extent” is defined as “identical to the way it exists in God” then the original question is:
“Is it logical to think every -]good/-] quality that God is exists -]infinitely/-] identically to the way it exists in God in God?”

A person or thing that acts is called an agent and all agents act to an end,and that end is a good. eg. the appetite for food is good for the body, it sustains life, the appetite for the human mind is truth, the appetite for the human will is the good, happiness, we desire happiness. Every agent tends to something definite and that which is appropriate to it. What is appropriate to it is recognized as a good. so every agent acts for a good. That toward which a thing or person strives towards is called an end. So the end of this striving is the good When the agents attains the good it rests in it. The highest good is God, for God is the cause of goodness in things, and He is the cause of every end that is an end, and it is an end because it is good. (It is crucial to understand the following statement ) The CAUSE of an attribute’s inherence in a subject always itself (the cause) inheres in the subject more firmly then does the attribute, therefore God is obviously the end of all things, and the end of all things is Good(God)
If God is not His attributes, and attributes are something assigned to or ascribed to, then someone else other than God had to do the assigning or ascribing. If that were the case, than God wouldn’t be God, He would not contain all Being, or Perfection. And this is a contradiction. God is His Essence, and His Essence is Existence, and He is one with all His attributes, He is the Ultimate and Complete Good, Perfection. The answer to the original post is “It is logical to think every good quality exists infinitely in God.”

 

[lmelahn]

Why not reckon God made some good things that were only of finite worth, that are only meant to be around now but shall be got rid of at a latter date? I ask, because I’ve been reading up on some theology and many books seem to suggest that every goodness that exists in this world is reflective of a far greater quantity of the same within the Spirit of God. Fair dos…and I tend to accept this idea as so…but isn’t it also possible that some elements of creation were designed for minor walk on parts rather than principle roles? And are not eternal or infinite but flash in the pans? Or is every good things to God a serious matter? I seem to get mixed responses on this question…some theists seem to think that Worldly joys, like books and films, aren’t about God in anything except the fact they are to be enjoyed and ultimately He is to be enjoyed: and that such beauty as we may find in them are a way of helping make our stay on Earth, to do God’s duty, nice in some ways but they will all end completely, God’s beauty being utterly alien and unlike. I prefer the ‘all values exist in God’ theory but both ideas seem perfectly reasonable. Is it just a choice of which idea we’d prefer to go with or is one answer logical and the other not?

Well, God is the cause and origin of all things. That implies, among other things, that God must be the “model” or “exemplar” of everything He creates.

So, if a property is attributable to a creature, and it does not imply imperfection per se, then yes, it must be found in God in an eminent way.

For example, justice is a characteristic of good men; in and of itself, justice does not imply an imperfection. It follows that God is supremely just—indeed, Justice Itself.

On the other hand, a characteristic like physical volume is intrinsically tied to matter, and so it cannot be attributed to God.

(It goes without saying that only good things can be attributed to God, because evil is ipso facto an imperfection.)

 

[oldcelt]

Well, God is the cause and origin of all things. That implies, among other things, that God must be the “model” or “exemplar” of everything He creates.

So, if a property is attributable to a creature, and it does not imply imperfection per se, then yes, it must be found in God in an eminent way.

For example, justice is a characteristic of good men; in and of itself, justice does not imply an imperfection. It follows that God is supremely just—indeed, Justice Itself.

On the other hand, a characteristic like physical volume is intrinsically tied to matter, and so it cannot be attributed to God.

(It goes without saying that only good things can be attributed to God, because evil is ipso facto an imperfection.)

Let me see if I have your argument straight. God is the cause and origins of all things, with infallible foreknowledge. Good so far?
Yet somehow, that God, who created all things shares no responsibility for the imperfections of his foreseen creation?
It sounds a bit circular to me.

 

[lmelahn]

Let me see if I have your argument straight. God is the cause and origins of all things, with infallible foreknowledge. Good so far?
Yet somehow, that God, who created all things shares no responsibility for the imperfections of his foreseen creation?
It sounds a bit circular to me.

Rather than re-open the problem of providence, I will simply observe that “imperfection” here is not the same thing as “privation.”

Only God is absolutely perfect in every way. Creatures, by the very fact of being creatures, are necessarily less perfect than their creator. (Otherwise they could not be distinct from their Creator.) That kind of “imperfection” is good to have—it is the necessary condition for being a creature—but it cannot (for that very reason) be attributed to God.

But a creature that fails to reach its fulfillment or realization—a stunted tree, for example, or an immoral man (each one in a different way, of course)—suffers a privation. That creature, in a way, ought to reach a certain level of development or realization but fails to do so. Evil, in particular, is a kind of privation.

God, of course, does not have to “fulfill” Himself—He already has everything He needs, so to speak—so there can be no privation in Him, of any kind.

In neither case can imperfection be attributed to God.