Is it possible to prove that a good God exists?

[polytropos]

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.

My point is that the problem of evil is an indirect proof. The argument goes something like this: “Even if everything you say about God is true, his existence would be contradicted by evil, so He can’t exist.” (So yes, the third charge of inconsistency above.) The problem is that in showing that Christianity is contradicted by external referents, you (for the sake of argument) cannot rely on, for example, the first charge that the definitions are meaningless, because that is a separate discussion, and if the definitions are truly meaningless, then that is why Christianity is inconsistent, not because of its relationship to external referents (the problem of evil).

What you are assuming in this thread is that some of what I believe about God is false, while other things (that He exists) are true. But that is insufficient. For the problem of evil to succeed, you would have to show that the problem of evil is a problem for Christianity, not some alternative worldview you just created in which “God exists” somehow evaluates to true in spite of an eviscerated, empriricist metaphysics. This is what we call begging the question. We are not discussing whether Aristotelian forms are valid or whether God is Pure Act here, but in Catholicism, they are and He Is. I imagine you disagree with those ideas, but they are not what are at issue, and if you assume they are wrong, then it is rather obvious that you will find Catholicism inconsistent.

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.

I’ve hardly said that you should accept any of my definitions. I’ve only said that if you assume that Aristotelian forms are wrong or that God is not Pure Act, then you have assumed from the start, as far as I’m concerned, that God does not exist. I’m not saying you have to accept them yourself, but you do have to accept them for the sake of the argument from evil (or, if you think they are so incoherent that you can’t even concede them for the sake of argument from evil, then you should go debate those rather than the problem of evil, since you would be unable to make the argument from evil without begging the question).

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.

Comically enough, I provide philosophical reasons, based on my conception of God as Pure Act, for why it would be false to say that God is a moral agent with moral obligations and duties, and then you say that I am the one redefining. Please read what you said over again. “If everything else fails - redefine.” I have not defined God as lacking moral obligations; I’ve shown that it would make no sense, given my beliefs, to conclude that God is a moral agent.

You go on to say, “You cannot solve the problem by making arbitrary redefinitions.” This, right after you tell me what you think a moral agent is. Why should I accept your definition of a moral agent? It is my beliefs that are under the microscope here, not some strange hybrid of your beliefs and what you think Catholicism is. Please don’t tell me what I believe. A moral agent in my belief system is someone who ought to act a certain way according to the final causes inherent in his form.

God is nothing like creation, so please don’t employ any arbitrary definitions to make Him fit your argument.

 

[polytropos]

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.

Except they aren’t contradictions, and you’re just exciting yourself. Aquinas drew a distinction between sin and acts of sin. I will just quote him, since he addressed your contradiction 700 years ago:

Every movement of secondary causes needs to be caused by the first mover . . . But God is the first mover regarding all movements . . . So, since acts of sin are movements of free choice, we need to say that such acts are acts come from God. De Malo III.2

Sin can be called a being and an action only in the sense that something is missing. And this missing element comes from a created cause, i.e., the free will in its departure from order to the First Agent who is God. Accordingly, this defect is not ascribed to God as its cause, but to the free will, just as the limp in a cripple comes from his deformity and not from his power to move even though this power enables him to limp. Hence God is the cause of the act of sinning but not the cause of sin for he does not bring about the defect. Summa Theologiae IaIIae.79.2

God is the first cause of pulling the trigger, of the bullet’s firing, etc. He is even the first cause of the bullet sinking into its target. It does not follow that God is causally responsible for evil.

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.

Uh, no, this does not follow at all from what I’ve said. What is good for you is good because of what you are, not because God willed one thing rather than another to be good. That does not make the good independent from God; the good is still dependent on the forms which are in God’s intellect prior to his act of creation.

The other issue is that, in Thomism, good is being as desirable. It is another aspect of being and is not any different from things succeeding at being what they were meant to be. So it further makes no sense for there to be some “good” above God, since God is Pure Actuality. Insofar that God creates things that have forms, it is possible for them to instantiate those forms more or less perfectly, and so be more or less good. But good is not a “thing” distinct from being. It is being in such and such a way (depending on what the good thing in question is).

Since human beings are diverse biological entities, with diverse needs, this is again meaningless.

This changes nothing about the basic ends of humans.

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 does not actively commit evil. Evil occurs but is in no way caused for God. I don’t know why it occurs, but God, having no moral obligations, does not have to answer for it and, being Pure Actuality, could not causally produce it (since it is a privation).

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”.

It does follow that anything directly willed by God is good. Nothing which God wills can produce an evil, since an evil is a lack.

I’ve never claimed that “anything…indirectly allowed is ‘good’ for the subjects of the will.” The proposition actually does not make sense. If something is indirectly allowed, then it is not willed at all.

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.

I do not apply “love” to God in that sense.

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.

I don’t intend to offer theodicies. They all imply that God has a moral case to answer for, and He doesn’t.

Free will is, I think, a good when it is used properly, but evil occurs that is not the result of free will. And as I mentioned before, stubbing my toe is pointless suffering, so I would not insist that there is always a greater good. But such arguments are not needed to explain the problem away because the problem need not be explained at all, since God is not morally obligated to get rid of evil.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If God created us, and we cling to life as something good, isn’t God good to create us?

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

I am not sure one can “prove” that God exists.

BTW, is anyone seriously interested in just having proof. I want contact with those I love and love me, not just proof of their existence.

In terms of ideas and philosophies, I believe St Thomas “cheated”. God revealed Himself and it was fairly easy for the Saint’s brilliant mind to develop his arguments with that vision before him.

We come to know God through the Holy Spirit. As we utilize His gifts, they grow within us and we come ever closer to God.

If people are ready and wanting to hear, they will hear.

 

[polytropos]

:twocents:

I am not sure one can “prove” that God exists.

BTW, is anyone seriously interested in just having proof. I want contact with those I love and love me, not just proof of their existence.

In terms of ideas and philosophies, I believe St Thomas “cheated”. God revealed Himself and it was fairly easy for the Saint’s brilliant mind to develop his arguments with that vision before him.

I agree that God revealed Himself to us and St. Thomas had faith in God before he devised his proof, but that does not mean the proofs are bad or incomplete. Whatever Aquinas’s motivations or other background knowledge, if the proofs are successful, then they are successful.

We come to know God through the Holy Spirit. As we utilize His gifts, they grow within us and we come ever closer to God.

If people are ready and wanting to hear, they will hear.

I also agree, but the proofs can, I think, be useful for those who think that belief in God is intellectually nonviable.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is exactly why i will not believe I believe that it is immoral to create something and then demand worship.

You have the wrong idea there. God doesn’t demand worship. That is something we owe Him for having created us and for giving us the opertunity to spend eternity with Him. However, He will not force us to accept His offer. If we reject it He will honor our request and leave us to our own devices, but without Him, for all eternity.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

polytropos

**I also agree, but the proofs can, I think, be useful for those who think that belief in God is intellectually nonviable. **

What’s really nonviable is the claim that God does not exist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

sealoch

This is exactly why i will not believe I believe that it is immoral to create something and then demand worship.

Is it moral to be created and then tell your Creator he is immoral?

Sounds more like ingratitude to me.

 

[Bagheera]

My point is that the problem of evil is an indirect proof. The argument goes something like this: “Even if everything you say about God is true, his existence would be contradicted by evil, so He can’t exist.”

Actually you are mistaken. The argument is this: “Considering the alleged tri-Omni attributes of God and the undeniable existence of evil behavior, either his existence would be contradicted by the existence of evil - or some of the tri-Omni attributes are incorrect.” This, of course presupposes that the tri-Omni attributes are meaningful. And herein lies the problem. You define “good” and “evil” in a special way, which has nothing to do with their actual meanings. As such you wish to create a “special” argument, which is only applicable to God. Of course “good” and “evil” are not ontological objects, they are adjectives, describing someone’s behavior. When we talk about the existence of “evil”, we employ a somewhat sloppy way of describing someone’s behavior. You explicitly say it here:

God is nothing like creation, so please don’t employ any arbitrary definitions to make Him fit your argument.

The definitions are not arbitrary. They are THE definitions we all use.

I have not defined God as lacking moral obligations; I’ve shown that it would make no sense, given my beliefs, to conclude that God is a moral agent.

Now, if that would be an acceptable way of arguing, then you certainly lost your epistemological right to say that “God is good”. If God is not moral agent, then he cannot be either morally good or morally evil. As such you refuted the assertion that “God is good”, since “(morally) good and bad” are inapplicable to non-moral agents.

It is my beliefs that are under the microscope here, not some strange hybrid of your beliefs and what you think Catholicism is.

Strangely enough Catholicism has no explicit, official philosophical underpinning. There is collection of mutually inconsistent philosophical arguments, some taken from Aristotle, some from Aquinas, others taken from Molina, or Duns Scotus, etc… but there is no coherent “catholic” philosophy. Since the selected arguments were never submitted to a formal “proofreading” process to weed out the contradictory elements, the apologists always pick and choose whatever seems to support their view, and declare the rest as incorrect.

 

[Bahman]

Evil is not a positive thing, it is the absence of a good that should be there. God is good because all that he created is good. All evil is the failure of people to recogize their true good. They all desire the good, but many mistake the object which will provide that good. But God has promised to bring good out of evil.

Linus2nd

First, you haven’t mentioned what is logically wrong with the picture of evil God I provided.

Second, your statement contradict itself: first, “Evil is not a positive thing”, second, “God has promised to bring good out of evil”.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . your statement contradict itself: first, “Evil is not a positive thing”, second, “God has promised to bring good out of evil”.

Think:
good = light & bad = dark
Darkness = absence of light
God brings light into the darkness (created by sin)

In this good universe you choose whether you will play the part of a Peter or a Judas (from CS Lewis). God brings about a good from any evil.

 

[Bahman]

Think:
good = light & bad = dark
Darkness = absence of light
God brings light into the darkness (created by sin)

In this good universe you choose whether you will play the part of a Peter or a Judas (from CS Lewis). God brings about a good from any evil.

Why perfect good God should await us in suffering, doubt…? Why God doesn’t shine on our souls and heart to clear all of us from evil? Why God doesn’t shine on our minds to clear our minds from any doubts about absolute truth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera

**Strangely enough Catholicism has no explicit, official philosophical underpinning. There is collection of mutually inconsistent philosophical arguments, some taken from Aristotle, some from Aquinas, others taken from Molina, or Duns Scotus, etc… but there is no coherent “catholic” philosophy. **

This is a strangely absurd statement to make. What is incoherent about Catholic philosophy?

If anything, it is atheistic philosophy that is incoherent. Look at Nietzsche, Sartre, and Bertrand Russell, and tell me what is coherent about their philosophies taken as a whole.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bahmam
**
First, you haven’t mentioned what is logically wrong with the picture of evil God I provided. **

God gives us life. We cling to life as a precious gift. That makes God good, not evil. If God was evil, life would be sheer torture and we would all commit suicide as fast as we could.

**Why God doesn’t shine on our minds to clear our minds from any doubts about absolute truth. **

He does. But you are wearing blinders.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by Bahman
Lets assume that God exist as I personally don’t have any problem with this assumption. The assumption that God is good however contradict our current metaphysical state that you can find both evil and good in it. Moreover the fact that God sent some prophet to guide us to do good does prove that God is intrinsically good.

I don’t see how it contradicts our experiences in this life. Of course things happen which we regard as evil, forces of nature, accidents, the activities of some men and women and even nations and institutions. That does not mean that God is evil or that there is an evil god competing with a Good God.

Of course Divine Revelation is a fact, the proof is overwhelming. Christ was Who He said He was. Christ was the summation and completion of Divine Revelation. And Divine Revelation proves that God is All Good and is not the source of evil. Have you ever read the Bible? It might be good for you. But read the New Testament first.

Lets imagine for a second that God is evil and prefer devil over good. This God could fool some individuals by sending some fake messages that it/he/she (God) prefer good over bad. Those who obey blindly eventually get punished. The purpose to fool some individuals and punish them is an evil act and could only be done through fooling them which in fact is evil action as well so there is no problem anywhere.

And how could there be two Gods? That is certainly an impossibility. So your scenario could not happen. Therefore the source of moral evil is our own failure to follow God’s will. Natural evils have other causes, but ultimately they are traceable to our own sins as well, as explained in Revelation.

Philosophically, Thomas Aquinas explains the problem of evil in many places. For example in S.T., Part 1, Ques 48, 49. They are pretty deep, I won’t go into them here but you can read them online. newadvent.org/summa/1048.htm. They are sort of summarized below.

Evil is not a positive thing, it is the absence of a good that should be there. God is good because all that he created is good. All evil is the failure of people to recogize their true good. They all desire the good, but many mistake the object which will provide that good. But God has promised to bring good out of evil.

Linus2nd

 

[davidv]

{snip}
Strangely enough Catholicism has no explicit, official philosophical underpinning. There is collection of mutually inconsistent philosophical arguments, some taken from Aristotle, some from Aquinas, others taken from Molina, or Duns Scotus, etc… but there is no coherent “catholic” philosophy. Since the selected arguments were never submitted to a formal “proofreading” process to weed out the contradictory elements, the apologists always pick and choose whatever seems to support their view, and declare the rest as incorrect.

Why is this strange? The foundational underpinning of Catholicism is a person, her founder, Jesus. It isn’t based on a philosophy nor a concept.

 

[Bagheera]

Why is this strange? The foundational underpinning of Catholicism is a person, her founder, Jesus. It isn’t based on a philosophy nor a concept.

I have no problem with what you say, but in that case there should be no attempts to refer to philosophy as a tool to support the faith. In about 2000 years the church could have developed a consistent philosophy. Stay with “faith” and forget about philosophy. With “faith” you cannot go wrong. Borrow the slogan from the bumper sticker: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it”.

Even one of the basic concepts: “the soul” does not have a coherent definition (much some evidence that the human “soul” exists and it is immortal). For some it is an “animating principle”, for others it is a “form” (whatever that is )… for yet others it is an immaterial “something” which nevertheless interacts with the physical body in some unexplained and inexplicable way. The church is unable to p(name removed by moderator)oint the moment of “ensoulment”.

Then there is no coherent concept of what “evil” would be. In real life we talk about “evil” as a malevolent, wicked, vicious behavior - not some undefined “privation”. So the apologists behave like an eel in bucket of slime, picking so-called arguments, and then later their opposites, depending on the subject.

Hey, not even the Bible has an official annotated version, where one could find out, which verses are to be understood literally and which ones are only allegorical. Sometimes the myth of Adam and Eve is taken in a literal fashion with a talking snake… but other times it is simply an allegory, where there was no “tree”, no “commandment”, no “disobedience”.

Not even the fate of the unborn who die in the womb is clarified. Jesus said: “send me the children, do not hinder them”, but the church is unable to figure out what happens to the unbaptized fetuses and zygotes (who never get implanted in the wall of the uterus). What is the fate of the unbelievers? It used to be clear-cut: if you are not a catholic, you go to hell… no ifs ands and buts… not any more.

 

[polytropos]

Actually you are mistaken. The argument is this: “Considering the alleged tri-Omni attributes of God and the undeniable existence of evil behavior, either his existence would be contradicted by the existence of evil - or some of the tri-Omni attributes are incorrect.”

Some of the “tri-Omni attributes” that you refer to are correct, because the God you are disproving is not the God that I worship. God’s attributes can only be understood through negative theology and the doctrine of analogy, to which you’ve made no reference.

This, of course presupposes that the tri-Omni attributes are meaningful. And herein lies the problem. You define “good” and “evil” in a special way, which has nothing to do with their actual meanings. As such you wish to create a “special” argument, which is only applicable to God. Of course “good” and “evil” are not ontological objects, they are adjectives, describing someone’s behavior. When we talk about the existence of “evil”, we employ a somewhat sloppy way of describing someone’s behavior.

Thomism is pretty clear about what it means to say that God is good. “Good” and “evil” are also well-defined within its metaphysics (and I have defended the distinction elsewhere, in the Being, Good, and Evil thread). You are using the colloquial usage of the terms, which is useless for the purposes of philosophy.

The definitions are not arbitrary. They are THE definitions we all use.

Evidently not.

Now, if that would be an acceptable way of arguing, then you certainly lost your epistemological right to say that “God is good”. If God is not moral agent, then he cannot be either morally good or morally evil. As such you refuted the assertion that “God is good”, since “(morally) good and bad” are inapplicable to non-moral agents.

God is not morally good, nor is He morally bad, nor is He morally neutral, because He is not a moral agent. I do not affirm the proposition “God is morally good.” Moral goodness is a type of goodness which can only be spoken of with reference to moral agents. God is not a creature, so it makes no sense to say He is morally good. God is good. That has another meaning (one which you here demonstrate no awareness of), since the proposition “God is good” does not depend on the proposition “God is morally good” (which is incoherent).

Strangely enough Catholicism has no explicit, official philosophical underpinning. There is collection of mutually inconsistent philosophical arguments, some taken from Aristotle, some from Aquinas, others taken from Molina, or Duns Scotus, etc… but there is no coherent “catholic” philosophy. Since the selected arguments were never submitted to a formal “proofreading” process to weed out the contradictory elements, the apologists always pick and choose whatever seems to support their view, and declare the rest as incorrect.

Catholicism is not a philosophy. Its truths may be expounded upon by other philosophies. I believe Thomism is the most cogent philosophy for that purpose (Thomism is just Aristotelianism expounded upon). I do not declare the others incorrect (if I did, point me to where I did); some of them are capable of expressing the same truths, some are not cogent enough to express all the truths that Thomism can. I am a Thomist, so I refer to St. Thomas on most questions (it helps that he basically addressed every question). I am pretty consistent about that.

 

[Bagheera]

Some of the “tri-Omni attributes” that you refer to are correct, because the God you are disproving is not the God that I worship.

Well, this was a pretty interesting, though a futile discussion. I cannot argue with someone who uses nonsensical definitions, which are only used in one specific context, and which have no meaning outside that context.

You are using the colloquial usage of the terms, which is useless for the purposes of philosophy.

Untrue. Your particular variant of philosophy may use a special meaning, but that is not “THE” meaning of the terms employed. There are other kinds of philosophies (not necessarily atheistic ones) where the terms “good” and “evil” happen to coincide with the colloquial usage. As a matter of fact, there is a philosophical term for what you do… it is called the “fallacy of the stolen concept”, where you use a well-defined term outside its meaning.

God is good.

This is the quintessential meaningless statement since the term “good” is inapplicable in other context different from God. To make it simple, I suggest that you employ a variant of the following little sign:

1. The boss is always right.
2. In the case of differing state or affairs, refer to rule #1.
   The modified version would be:
3. God is good.
4. In the case of differing state of affairs, refer to rule #1.
   And the discussion will be over, with you emerging as a “winner”.

Of course you can worship whatever God you wish to. It does not have to a meaningful endeavor for others, it is enough that it is meaningful to you. Have fun.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera

**I have no problem with what you say, but in that case there should be no attempts to refer to philosophy as a tool to support the faith. In about 2000 years the church could have developed a consistent philosophy. Stay with “faith” and forget about philosophy. With “faith” you cannot go wrong. Borrow the slogan from the bumper sticker: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it”. **

Jesus taught us what we needed to know for our salvation. However, he didn’t tell us everything we should learn by our own wits. Philosophy is the application of reason to reality and the application of wisdom to life. There are many types of wisdom that are not referenced by Jesus, yet he gave us the foundational premises by which to pursue our own philosophy as opposed to the philosophies of atheists and others. You seem content to box Christians in to living only according to Scripture. Why do you feel that way? Hasn’t it been the complaint of many non-Christians that Christians can’t think? Of course they can. That is why Christian philosophy excels atheistic philosophy or any other kind of philosopher. Christian philosophy is Christ thinking through us.