S
sealoch
Guest
Thankyou for the welcome.
- Status
B
bzkoss236
Guest
While they may be blamed, they are not held accountable for the actions of their children. They are not put in jail along side their child because it was not them who committed the crime, it was their child.
And people blame God for their misfortune too. Is it God’s fault? No, it is ultimately Man’s fault for the problems of the world.
You might try to put blame on God for not stopping all the suffering and evil doing, but in doing so, God would impede on the free will of Man, which is something that is considered evil (sinful). So, a good God would not impede on the free will of Man. If one is given free will, he/she must be allowed to exercise it, otherwise it has no use and one simply becomes a slave.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I answer that, To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good “as by Whom all things subsist.”
Reply to Objection 1. To have mode, species and order belongs to the essence of caused good; but good is in God as in its cause, and hence it belongs to Him to impose mode, species and order on others; wherefore these three things are in God as in their cause.
Reply to Objection 2. All things, by desiring their own perfection, desire God Himself, inasmuch as the perfections of all things are so many similitudes of the divine being; as appears from what is said above (Question 4, Article 3). And so of those things which desire God, some know Him as He is Himself, and this is proper to the rational creature; others know some participation of His goodness, and this belongs also to sensible knowledge; others have a natural desire without knowledge, as being directed to their ends by a higher intelligence. ( S.T., Part 1, ques 6, art 1 ) ( art 2-4 discusses further )
newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm
Linus2nd
B
Bahman
Guest
I don’t think if we could provide a logical prove for God existence since it neither could be experienced directly (at least in state of nature that we are embedded into) nor we have/experienced anything else more fundamental than God, with known attributes, that its existence could be used as a base to provide a proof for God existence. Our experiences of good and evil cannot be used to provide a proof for God as they are not even as fundamental of God.
We can however assume that God exist, assigning some attribute to it and see what would be the consequence of those attributes to creation, if those attribute are consistent with creation and are anomaly free. However we cannot even prove if God is evil or good, assuming it existence, based on our current state of being that we experience (state of nature) which is almost neutral. Heaven, we have never been there, but don’t forget that there is a Hell which is opposite of Heaven meaning that metaphysical world is also neutral when it comes to experience different qualities, unless one argues that state of being in Hell is good.
S
sealoch
Guest
You started with the presumption that god was good because of desire, and then nature is naturally good? There is no evidence for this given.
Secondly would it be impossible for people to achieve a good workable moral code without the bible?
B
Bahman
Guest
What is wrong with a God eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly neutral (could be good or evil depending on the situation and could create good and devil such as Heaven and Hell)?
B
Bahman
Guest
Who said or have any proof that God is sustaining the universe? It seems that God rather observing the scene since a lots of good and bad is going around. Have you seen God intervention in a situation with such a strong evidence that show that God sustaining the universe?
S
sealoch
Guest
A neutral God would not be one that would be interested in a personal loving relationship.
E
empther
Guest
This is a classic of rhetoric. 
Notice the standard atheist technique:
He ignores the fact that the universe could not have started itself and God had to create it.
Having cut our faith off at the knees, supposedly
, he brings up another point not apropos the thread’s topic,
which is similarly cut off at the knees without even mentioning it.
It’s like Al Gore arguing for global warming. In his movie* An Inconvenient Truth*, he showed a South Pacific island where the water is creeping close to the doors of houses built a hundred years ago. The implication is that ocean levels are rising. He “forgot” to mention that a rising ocean will creep close to the doors of houses on all islands. He “forgot” to mention that islands rise and fall geologically.
Welcome to the world of rhetoric.
Notice the standard atheist technique:
Did you see it?
He ignores the fact that the universe could not have started itself and God had to create it.
Having cut our faith off at the knees, supposedly
, he brings up another point not apropos the thread’s topic,which is similarly cut off at the knees without even mentioning it.
It’s like Al Gore arguing for global warming. In his movie* An Inconvenient Truth*, he showed a South Pacific island where the water is creeping close to the doors of houses built a hundred years ago. The implication is that ocean levels are rising. He “forgot” to mention that a rising ocean will creep close to the doors of houses on all islands. He “forgot” to mention that islands rise and fall geologically.
Welcome to the world of rhetoric.
B
Bahman
Guest
What do you mean with relationship? We could establish a loving but evil relationship with neutral God or choose/be chosen otherwise. State of being in hell is not very loving as far as I understand. How a loving God could establish such a relationship with its creature?
S
sealoch
Guest
Actually there is a pretty large discussion on the everywhere stretch idea. That the universe being infinite and not having a before time.This is a classic of rhetoric.
Notice the standard atheist technique:
Did you see it?
He ignores the fact that the universe could not have started itself and God had to create it.
Having cut our faith off at the knees, supposedly
which is similarly cut off at the knees without even mentioning it.
Really less of a technique more of a hypothesis.
Also his actual point was more that even if it were created what would prevent the god being more of a voyeur and not interacting with the experiment.
S
sealoch
Guest
Besides all current models do not demonstrate a continuous mover at the center.
E
empther
Guest
Does anybody follow that?
I predicted the thread would quickly turn to this.
S
sealoch
Guest
Have you ever looked into it?Does anybody follow that?
I predicted the thread would quickly turn to this.
B
Bagheera
Guest
That is the trick.
All you need to do is employ a “special” definition… and you are home! Of course, if “goodness” is compatible with ACTIVELY drowning the whole population (and the innocent animals) and permitting the actions like the Holocaust then one must use the word “good” in a very strange fashion… somehow only christians use that kind of “definition”.There is no real difference. If you have the ability to prevent something and you fail to do it, you are just as responsible as if you actually performed the act.
Bad analogy! The parents cannot control the behavior of their ADULT children. However they can control their small children, and they are definitely held criminally responsible for the actions of those children - and they should be!
B
bzkoss236
Guest
The problem with the original question is that asking if you can prove a good God exists implies that goodness is something external that can be applied to God as if to say that God is not the ultimate existence and that the existence of goodness is superior to God. This is not how Christians look at it.
God is good because God is the source of goodness. God is good because we define goodness to be that which God wills. Goodness is not external to God, but comes from God. Evil is the absence of this goodness; the absence of God’s will or that which is against God’s will.
If God exists (which of course I believe he does), then given the above definition of good, God must be good by definition.
Then you get to the question of “does God exist?” And there are various ways to look at that question:
The Ultimate Cause (Unmoved Mover) Argument
The Objective Morality Argument
and I believe there are others which I cannot think of right now
God is good because God is the source of goodness. God is good because we define goodness to be that which God wills. Goodness is not external to God, but comes from God. Evil is the absence of this goodness; the absence of God’s will or that which is against God’s will.
If God exists (which of course I believe he does), then given the above definition of good, God must be good by definition.
Then you get to the question of “does God exist?” And there are various ways to look at that question:
The Ultimate Cause (Unmoved Mover) Argument
The Objective Morality Argument
and I believe there are others which I cannot think of right now
B
bzkoss236
Guest
He’s asking for an answer on a Christian forum. This is how Christians define ‘good’. How do you define ‘good’? What makes something ‘good’?That is the trick.
So, your saying that if God exists then we should all be zombies with no real will just doing what we’re told? And if God wants us to love him, he should make us love him? Is that really love? If your program a robot to ‘love’ you, is that really love?
Really? When was the last time a parent went to jail for the actions of their child? Seems to me that the parent would go to jail if they were somehow involved, whether by negligence or willfully assisting, but I have never seen a parent go to jail for something that their child did that in no way involved the parent. So, source, please?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The proof is that no one, nothing living, desires what is against its own perfection. And since we are God’s effects we naturally desire him because to possses God completes our perfection, which is good. Therefore God is good.
Nature, in general, always desires its perfection. Therefore it always desires what is good. The perfection of nature, its good, is what God has planned for it. Therefore God is good.
Secondly would it be impossible for people to achieve a good workable moral code without the bible?
To be more precise, it would be impossible without following the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, which has given the Scriptures to the world. The Bible was the result of the Traditional teaching of Christ being written down by those who heard it or who got it from others who heard it or say it. Even St. John said it would be impossible to write down everything Christ said or did.
Further, Christ did not give the Keys of the Kingdom to a book, but to a man, Peter. And he did not promise to give us an authoritative book, he gave us a Chruch, to whom he promised to send the Sprit of Truth Who would keep it from error until the end of time.
But that Church, in her wisdom, has determined that certain writings of the Israelites and of those who were Apostles and Disciples were inspired and free from all errors in Faith and Morals. It did not say that these Writings contained all truth in Faith an Morals. It contains only those truths which were written down. But it is the Church Herself who determines the meaning of those Sacred Writings and Who discloses to us other truths in Faith and Morals which must be accepted and lived.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I took the question to mean: given that God exists, can we prove he is good? The O.P. is frequently vague in what he is saying
. It would be a help to know just what the question really is.But to answer your question. Yes we can know with certitude that God exists. The universe exists. It could not have created itself, it could not be responsible for its own existence. I did not make myself, you did not make yourself, nothing in the universe does. Therefore, there is an ultimate cause for the existence of the universe which is not caused itself. And this Being must have all the characteristics we attribute to God. ( please don’t ask me to prove each one becuase then I will simply refer you the the entire Corpus of Thomas Aquinas.).
From the fact that such a Being exists we can determine that He is Good by the effects He has created. His effects are good first in that they exist and in so far as they follow the plan of their nature, in so far as they fulfill the proper functions of their natures. They are good, in addition, because all the creatures in the universe work for the benefit of all the others, and especially of man. We could go on with this line of thinking but there is no need to elaborate the point.
Finally, it is reasonable to assume that such a Good Creator would not leave us in ignorance as to His identity, nor to explain to us why he created us. It is reasonable to assume that he would Reveal Himself to us and tell us Who He is and what he means by His creation. And He has done that. First He revealed Himself through his works, then Verbally to the Children of Israel, to Abraham, the other Patriarchs, the Prophets and finally through His Son and then through His Church and the Holy Spirit. We are not alone!!! We have a personal and loving God, a Father Who loves us and has laid out His desires and plans.
Linus2nd
B
Bagheera
Guest
If you don’t understand that “goodness” does not allow indiscriminate drowning of people and animals, then I will not waste time on trying to explain.
Since love is an emotion, it is not subject to volitional control. I have seen severely retarded people (literally “zombies”), who exhibited behavior which is commensurate with the love they seemingly felt. However, to turn a sociopath into a “zombie” is vastly preferable than allowing it to roam free… ever heard of jails where socially dangerous individuals are held? I suggest to investigate the issue.
Which part of SMALL don’t you understand? Try to give a 3 years old a loaded gun and tell him not to shoot his brother… and when he does, try to defend your action by saying: “but I told him not to pull the trigger!!!”… and the difference between God and us is MUCH greater than the difference between a parent and a toddler. As long as you have the ways and means of controlling your SMALL child’s action, you are responsible for the misdeeds he might do. Of course most parents are responsible and do not leave loaded guns around.
- Status