Is it possible to prove that a good God exists?

[Linux]

To resolve this topic, I offer the following proof:

1. God is Pure Actuality.
2. Goodness is convertible with actuality.
3. Therefore, God is Goodness Itself.

What does convertible mean, and how does that prove that the being of God is identical with good?

 

[sealoch]

You don’t believe in God and sin, so I won’t go there.

What I find interesting is the idea of a single error and its consequences.

This summer a local mom was busy doing what mom’s do. In a brief instant of inattention, her three-year-old opened the screen door and jumped into their pool, never to breathe again.

That family is instantly transformed. How can there ever to be joy again?

My friend, you have nothing to offer anyone.

In your quest to deny the consequences of your actions here on earth, you would bring many others with you, depriving them of the solace and ultimate joy that we are offered in Christ.

I do not deny my actions on earth have no consequence. There is the possibility that my actions will definitely have an infinite number of consequences.

I don’t understand what that a woman’s child drowns in a pool because of a screen door being open and the family never having joy again attempts to gain. Are you trying to say that without Christianity you will never again find joy after a tragedy? If that is the case there is an entire human history that would disagree with that statement.

Just because you feel i have nothing to offer does not mean that I do not.

 

[polytropos]

What does convertible mean, and how does that prove that the being of God is identical with good?

Good is the aspect of being as desirable. So it isn’t really to say that “the being of God is identical with good” because good is just an aspect of (another way of viewing) being. Rather the being of God, viewed as desirable (because it necessarily lacks any perfections and because it is the source/efficient cause of all created good), is good inasmuch as it is being.

 

[Tarquin]

I am unsure how it could be all over but that is easily corrected.

I do not believe that their is a personal loving god. And if a god does exist it does not care what happens and does not intervene.

I am relieved in fact that it is so unlikely that a god does exist.

Among your several unproven assumptions is that God is done. He has nothing more to do. He said “Presto” and suddenly everything was done, and what’s on your plate is all you’re going to get. They are different ways to imagine God. One way would be to imagine God as creating progressively over time. In other words, you are judging a product based on completeness, that hasn’t been completed yet. That’s one possible view.

Another way is that we do not see when he does intervene. I see no evidence that he has not intervened, so I withhold my judgement on that. Maybe you have a cosmic view that lets you see from outside the universe so you know exactly what he’s up to and can see very clearly he isn’t doing anything. I lack such a divine talent. My advice would be that you should withhold judgement, too, until you’re certain you are seeing everything clearly. Who know what you might be missing in your premature judgment.

It is also possible that there is no need to intervene. I had a hard time figuring out why people were so hung up on “suffering.” They weep, “Oh, if there was a God, there wouldn’t be any suffering.” “Oh, how I suffer; why doesn’t God help me.” That is a narrow, arrogant, conceited perspective. I have suffered for my children, and I don’t regret one nanosecond of it. I pity people (outside North Korea and similar holcaustic nations) whose main worry in life is about suffering. Is that really a person’s main concern in life? What a disappointment everything, literally everything must be for them. How can they enjoy anything, knowing that at any second, they might suffer again. Life must be hell.

Suffering is a part of life, and I dare say, Suffering is a necessary part of life. Without suffering we would suffer tremendously more than we suffer now. Don’t believe me? When you burn your hand on something, you pull it back, right? What if you didn’t experience that suffering? Why pull your hand back quickly, or at all? Then you’ll wind up with these crispy, smoky, twisted things at the end of your arms, that wouldn’t be as effective as someone who suffered the burn and jerked his hand back. What if it didn’t hurt to look at the sun. It’s so bright. It’s neat to look at. So you go blind, a worse suffering. It’s not that God does fails to prevent suffering, but he allows suffering that will prevent greater suffering.

If there is a God, and if there is an after-life, then it makes sense (to me, at least), that any suffering here has pay-back. Either, as stated above, it saves us from greater, more serious suffering and damage, or it lets us enter that after-life with something – some kind of experiences or something – that makes that after-life richer for us. And I suspect in that after-life the only suffering we will experience will be self-imposed. People who miss the joys of life because they are focused on suffering, and do little to alleviate suffering, they may suffer because of that.

And that is a fourth alternative possibility on why there is suffering. God made man in his image, male and female, man and woman. If God is compassionate, loving and forgiving, then men and women should be likewise. But how are you to show love, forgiveness, and compassion if no one around you needs anything? It may be that suffering was necessary – one of those “negotiated imperfections” that make existence even possible in the first place – and that God gave mankind the responsibility to alleviate the suffering. God will take care of the big things – like the sun going nova, Jupiter-sized asteroids crashing into the earth, a plague exterminating all human life – and people take care of the small things, local things, easy things – like feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, attending the lonely, wiping away tears.

Maybe the reason we can’t see God is because we aren’t enough like him yet, not on the same wave-length. Instead of telling God what he should be doing, we should be attending to our here and now responsibilities, and “let tomorrow take care of itself.” Blaming God for everything is a child’s crutch for doing what he wants with little regard for self-discipline and duty.

 

[Linux]

Good is the aspect of being as desirable. So it isn’t really to say that “the being of God is identical with good” because good is just an aspect of (another way of viewing) being. Rather the being of God, viewed as desirable (because it necessarily lacks any perfections and because it is the source/efficient cause of all created good), is good inasmuch as it is being.

God is identical with what he is and what he does. God’s being is identical with good.

 

[Bagheera]

All this says to me is that you are dancing around the question because you don’t actually have an answer.

I am not responsible for your lack of understanding. I already gave the answer, you simply did not get it. Hint: “an ethical system based upon reciprocity”… do you get it now?

 

[polytropos]

God is identical with what he is and what he does. God’s being is identical with good.

OK, yes. As St. Thomas says, “Goodness and being are really the same. They differ only conceptually.” They are identical in that the difference is conceptual, only in the mind.

 

[polytropos]

I am not responsible for your lack of understanding. I already gave the answer, you simply did not get it. Hint: “an ethical system based upon reciprocity”… do you get it now?

Our relationship with God is in no way reciprocal. We have nothing to offer to God. Our worship improves Him in no way. God has no moral obligations, besides those established in covenants. Our very continued existence is the result only of His continued, gratuitous act.

 

[sealoch]

Tarquin,

I do not blame god for anything actually. I will continue to take responsibility for my actions.

Suffering that people are moaning about is that they feel if a just and loving god were he would just skip over this whole trial life and jump right to the god part. It is usually a plea to logic that if there were a moral loving god that allowed sin and suffering he could just as easily remove it.

Yes suffering is a fact of life i believe it is a motivator for evolution.

I can understand that if you believe in a god their may be an after life. I would also tell everyone that if they suffer here they will reap rewards after death.

If the sun went super nova or an asteroid plowed through Earth, again, would that demonstrate that god was not in control?

Also what evidence would be required to prove something does not exist. I’ll offer that i can not disprove god. I am just merely stating that i do not believe that one exists.

I do enjoy surprises though and look forward to any evidence that would be presented.

 

[Bagheera]

Our relationship with God is in no way reciprocal.

I was not talking about the relationship with God. I was talking about the ethical system which does not equate “love” and “caring” with performing / allowing all those atrocities God performed / allowed. “Love” and “caring” are positive actions, performed on behalf of the loves ones. The point is that most christians exhibit a serious dose of “doublethink”. They say that there is an “absolute” morality - meaning that actions are either moral or immoral regardless of the person committing the act, and then they contradict themselves by adding - EXCEPT for God. A clear case of contradiction. Either there is an “absolute” moral code, without exceptions, or the moral code is relative (depending on the person committing the act), and then we deal with special pleading. True to form, then they deny that there a special pleading, by saying that God is a “special” case. And then they are surprised when people consider them … irrational .

God has no moral obligations, besides those established in covenants.

I disagree. The creator always bears responsibility for the well being of his creation.

Our very continued existence is the result only of His continued, gratuitous act.

That is mythology, and I am not interested in it.

A side remark. I was looking at your signature and I saw your second line, which reads: “The deeper the grief, the close is God”. Does that mean that we should spread misery, misfortune, grief… so that one can feel closer to God? After all to be closer to God is supposed to be a good thing…

 

[bzkoss236]

I am not responsible for your lack of understanding. I already gave the answer, you simply did not get it. Hint: “an ethical system based upon reciprocity”… do you get it now?

I know you meant this, but it is still not an answer. You are offering no proof. You are just saying “This is it” without explaining the how. And I’ve heard the argument before, but that doesn’t negate the fact that as you are making a statement, you have to give the argument for your statement, otherwise we get nowhere. This is how argumentation works. You can’t just claim the answer, not offer proof, and act as if you’ve won. Continue the argument and give the proof for your claim.

 

[polytropos]

I was not talking about the relationship with God. I was talking about the ethical system which does not equate “love” and “caring” with performing / allowing all those atrocities God performed / allowed. “Love” and “caring” are positive actions, performed on behalf of the loves ones. The point is that most christians exhibit a serious dose of “doublethink”. They say that there is an “absolute” morality - meaning that actions are either moral or immoral regardless of the person committing the act, and then they contradict themselves by adding - EXCEPT for God. A clear case of contradiction. Either there is an “absolute” moral code, without exceptions, or the moral code is relative (depending on the person committing the act), and then we deal with special pleading. True to form, then they deny that there a special pleading, by saying that God is a “special” case. And then they are surprised when people consider them … irrational .

For the special pleading charge to hold water, it would have to be shown that theist’s reasons for claiming God as exempt from the moral law is arbitrary. The simple fact that God is exempt would be insufficient.

Moral obligations and duties (on the Aristotelian-Thomistic view) follow from a thing’s substantial form. God, whose essence is his existence, has no substantial form (while humans do). Hence, he has no moral obligations.

The bolded statement is a false dichotomy, in any case. Human morality is absolute, but that means it applies to all humans, not that it applies to God. This is not special pleading in the slightest. Human morality does not apply to cheetahs, who do not sin when they sink their teeth into gazelles, because it is natural for them to do so. For God to have different (or, indeed, no) moral obligations is not something that should surprise anyone. To say that God has moral obligations would be to imply that there is something above him which he must conform to… which is to say, it’s nonsense.

I disagree. The creator always bears responsibility for the well being of his creation.

This is just an assertion. There are philosophical reasons for God’s lack of moral obligations. (It is also biblically supported. In the Old Testament, God protects the Jews, those with whom He has a covenant, when they obey their side of the covenant. In the New Testament, Jesus completes the new and everlasting covenant - but no part of that deal is that humans remain untouched by evil.)

That is mythology, and I am not interested in it.

Actually, it’s philosophy. God is Pure Act and it makes no sense to imply that there is some moral force binding Him to act one way or the other.

A side remark. I was looking at your signature and I saw your second line, which reads: “The deeper the grief, the close is God”. Does that mean that we should spread misery, misfortune, grief… so that one can feel closer to God? After all to be closer to God is supposed to be a good thing…

Of course not. It is meant to imply that, even when we are suffering, God is with us. The quote is from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, who was something of a Christian existentialist (albeit not Catholic). In The Brothers Karamazov, he grapples more specifically with atheism and the problem of evil.

 

[bzkoss236]

I was not talking about the relationship with God. I was talking about the ethical system which does not equate “love” and “caring” with performing / allowing all those atrocities God performed / allowed. “Love” and “caring” are positive actions, performed on behalf of the loves ones. The point is that most christians exhibit a serious dose of “doublethink”. They say that there is an “absolute” morality - meaning that actions are either moral or immoral regardless of the person committing the act, and then they contradict themselves by adding - EXCEPT for God. A clear case of contradiction. Either there is an “absolute” moral code, without exceptions, or the moral code is relative (depending on the person committing the act), and then we deal with special pleading. True to form, then they deny that there a special pleading, by saying that God is a “special” case. And then they are surprised when people consider them … irrational .

All this is under the assumption that morality is somehow above God, that God is subject to it, which would therefore mean that God isn’t really God because then he wouldn’t be above all.

The fact is that this isn’t so, and as I’ve stated before which people seem to have ignored. God is the source of morality. What he will is considered good, and what goes against his will is considered bad/evil. This is the basis for Christian morality and why God is “exempt” (even though the word exempt doesn’t really fit in this context).

The problem with relative morality is that it is up to humans to define what is good, of which people will disagree. If female oppression is seen as good in one culture, then wouldn’t it be wrong to impose our morality on others? Or, if we feel our morality is more “right”, that seems to lead to the idea that what is moral is beyond the ideas of humans and something we are subject to.

 

[Bagheera]

Moral obligations and duties (on the Aristotelian-Thomistic view) follow from a thing’s substantial form. God, whose essence is his existence, has no substantial form (while humans do). Hence, he has no moral obligations.

Which is irrelevant for all those who do not subscribe to the A-T concept of “forms”.

The bolded statement is a false dichotomy, in any case. Human morality is absolute, but that means it applies to all humans, not that it applies to God. This is not special pleading in the slightest. Human morality does not apply to cheetahs…

I expected better from you. Cheetahs are not moral agents. If there is such a thing as absolute moral code then it is applicable to all moral agents. Your attempt to carve out a special case for God is unacceptable.

For God to have different (or, indeed, no) moral obligations is not something that should surprise anyone. To say that God has moral obligations would be to imply that there is something above him which he must conform to… which is to say, it’s nonsense.

Not nonsense at all. The laws of logic are “superior” to God, for example. This whole problem is just a variant of the Euthyphro dilemma. I am using the simple concept that creation brings along responsibility. In the Oriental ethics there is a moral obligation which says: “If you save someone’s life, you assume obligation for that person’s continued well-being”. A very wise concept it is.

Actually, it’s philosophy. God is Pure Act and it makes no sense to imply that there is some moral force binding Him to act one way or the other.

“Pure Act” is just another meaningless utterance. Also it is contradicted by the concept that 1) we are free agents, and 2) God actively participates in all of our actions, and therefore 3) God’s actions are contingent upon our actions.

Of course not. It is meant to imply that, even when we are suffering, God is with us.

Too bad he is not there to wipe the tears of the sufferers. But joking aside the quote implies the following syllogism:

1. It is good to be close to God.
2. Suffering brings us closer to God.
3. Therefore it is good to increase suffering so it will bring us closer to God.

 

[Bagheera]

All this is under the assumption that morality is somehow above God, that God is subject to it, which would therefore mean that God isn’t really God because then he wouldn’t be above all.

Euthyphro dilemma.

The fact is that this isn’t so, and as I’ve stated before which people seem to have ignored. God is the source of morality. What he will is considered good, and what goes against his will is considered bad/evil. This is the basis for Christian morality and why God is “exempt” (even though the word exempt doesn’t really fit in this context).

Which means that throwing infants into a furnace is “good” when God orders it. Which means that “morality” is the whim of God. Which means that morality is arbitrary… what is so difficult to understand here?

The problem with relative morality is that it is up to humans to define what is good, of which people will disagree.

What is physically good is determined by biology. Do you understand that? I wonder…

 

[polytropos]

Which is irrelevant for all those who do not subscribe to the A-T concept of “forms”.

Yes, but you are (I am assuming) trying to show that Christian’s beliefs are inconsistent. I don’t really care what your beliefs are. I happen to think Aristotelian metaphysics are pretty defensible, but that is not what is at issue here. An atheist would have to accept the metaphysical claims of Christianity at least for the sake of argument. Otherwise you are begging the question against Catholicism.

I expected better from you. Cheetahs are not moral agents. If there is such a thing as absolute moral code then it is applicable to all moral agents. Your attempt to carve out a special case for God is unacceptable.

Precisely the point. Cheetahs are not moral agents and so have no moral obligations. God is not a moral agent and so has no moral obligations. Only humans are moral agents.

Not nonsense at all. The laws of logic are “superior” to God, for example. This whole problem is just a variant of the Euthyphro dilemma. I am using the simple concept that creation brings along responsibility.

The Euthyphro dilemma is not really an issue for Thomism. God does not will morality by arbitrary divine fiat, nor is there a standard of morality above God. The forms of things exist in God’s intellect, and God wills things to exist by giving them an act of existence (esse). He does not then order that certain acts are moral and others immoral; what is moral and immoral follows from the forms of the things he has created.

“Pure Act” is just another meaningless utterance.

Again, just an assertion. The term is quite well-defined in Thomism. To claim that it’s meaningless is another topic entirely. For the purposes of the problem of evil, it is simply question begging to reject it. If God does not exist as Pure Act, then I’m not interested in believing He exists at all. And you very well might disagree that, for instance, Aquinas’s First Way proves that God is Pure Act; but if your argument from evil is contingent upon that disagreement and you concede that the problem of evil is resolved if God is Pure Act, then there is no problem of evil at all.

Also it is contradicted by the concept that 1) we are free agents, and 2) God actively participates in all of our actions, and therefore 3) God’s actions are contingent upon our actions.

Not at all. God has willed us to exist and has given us free will, so it is true that God will be the first cause of all of our actions, but we only exist and will things ourselves because God wills us to exist and voluntarily decides to let us make decisions. So this would essentially amount to saying that God’s actions are contingent on God’s will (which is unremarkable).

Too bad he is not there to wipe the tears of the sufferers. But joking aside the quote implies the following syllogism:

1. It is good to be close to God.
2. Suffering brings us closer to God.
3. Therefore it is good to increase suffering so it will bring us closer to God.

I think you’re making a bit much of a quote from a novel that was written by a non-Catholic with often unorthodox views on suffering and sin. (I’d also submit that Dostoevsky was not making a universal statement. When I stub my toe it brings me no closer to God, and it is pointless suffering.) Nevertheless, 3). does not follow. If suffering brings us closer to God and it is good to be close to God, it would still be morally reprehensible for me to make someone else suffer so that they might be closer to God, because I have moral obligations not to do things like that.

 

[polytropos]

Which means that throwing infants into a furnace is “good” when God orders it. Which means that “morality” is the whim of God. Which means that morality is arbitrary… what is so difficult to understand here?

Let the Thomist response I gave to the Euthyphro dilemma be substituted here. What is good is not good because God wills it. God could not will that throwing infants into a furnace is good. God wills certain forms (like those of human beings) to exist, and what is good for human beings to do depends on what human beings are, not what God wills to be good for them. God, by metaphysical necessity, only wills what is good for things, but what is good for things is not good as a consequence of his willing it; it is a consequence of what things are.

 

[tonyrey]

Those who deny that a good God exists need to explain the origin of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. Otherwise their objections are worthless…

 

[Bagheera]

Yes, but you are (I am assuming) trying to show that Christian’s beliefs are inconsistent.

There are three different ways that a belief system can be inconsistent.

One is if the belief system contains meaningless definitions.
The second is if the basic premises are meaningful, but internally contradictory.
And the third is if the basic premises are internally consistent, but they are contradicted by their external referents (reality).

As a matter of fact all three are present within the basic premises of Christianity. However, in this thread only the third one is disputed explicitly.

I don’t really care what your beliefs are. I happen to think Aristotelian metaphysics are pretty defensible, but that is not what is at issue here. An atheist would have to accept the metaphysical claims of Christianity at least for the sake of argument. Otherwise you are begging the question against Catholicism.

Not so. You demand that non-christians MUST accept meaningless definitions, mutually inconsistent definitions and utterances at variance with reality - otherwise their arguments are discarded as “question begging”. That is not the way the cookie crumbles.

Precisely the point. Cheetahs are not moral agents and so have no moral obligations. God is not a moral agent and so has no moral obligations. Only humans are moral agents.

If everything else fails - redefine. A moral agent is someone who is aware of “right” and “wrong” and who is able to act accordingly. Therefore God is most definitely a “moral agent”. You cannot solve the problem by making arbitrary redefinitions.

Not at all. God has willed us to exist and has given us free will, so it is true that God will be the first cause of all of our actions, but we only exist and will things ourselves because God wills us to exist and voluntarily decides to let us make decisions. So this would essentially amount to saying that God’s actions are contingent on God’s will (which is unremarkable).

It is not that simple. One of the assertions is that God actively sustains the universe. The individual objects would “disappear” if God would not actively maintain them. And if that is the case, then

1. we make certain free decisions (shooting a bullet aimed at killing someone)
2. those decisions have physical consequences (the bullet is maintained by God on its course)

and as such God’s action of maintaining that bullet is contingent upon our will to shoot it. You see, my friend, the whole catholic belief system is so convoluted and rife with contradictions that it is a child’s play to pick those contradictions.

Let the Thomist response I gave to the Euthyphro dilemma be substituted here. What is good is not good because God wills it.

In which case the “good” is superior to God. You cannot have it both ways. Either there is a “good” independent from God, and then God is not supreme, or whatever is good is decided by God’s opinion.

God could not will that throwing infants into a furnace is good. God wills certain forms (like those of human beings) to exist, and what is good for human beings to do depends on what human beings are, not what God wills to be good for them.

Since human beings are diverse biological entities, with diverse needs, this is again meaningless. However, even accepting your premise you are confronted with a contradiction. If it is not “good” for humans to be drowned en-masse, then God’s active will to drown them was not “good” even by your Tomistic standards. If it is not good for humans to be thrown into gas-chambers, then God’s permissive will to allow the Nazis to do that, was not “good”.

God, by metaphysical necessity, only wills what is good for things, but what is good for things is not good as a consequence of his willing it; it is a consequence of what things are.

Even if one would accept God as a metaphysical necessity (which rests on fallacious reasoning) it does not follow that anything directly willed or indirectly allowed is “good” for the subjects of that will - using your Tomistic definition of “good”. Since “love” and “caring” means to act in the best interest of the “loved ones”, and since God actively commits and passively permits acts which are not “good” for humans, God cannot be said to be “loving” and “caring”. Q. E. D.

Of course this is the moment when all the nonsense arguments about “free will” and / or “greater good” are usually introduced with the intent to explain away the problem.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course this is the moment when all the nonsense arguments about “free will” and / or “greater good” are usually introduced with the intent to explain away the problem.

It is nonsense to believe the principle of the greater good does not apply to Creation - an assumption which reveals ignorance of the nature of omnipotence.