Is it possible to prove that a good God exists?

[polytropos]

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.

I could not argue with such a person either, but again, as you’ve failed to make reference to the Thomistic doctrine of analogy, it’s not clear that you know what you’re even arguing against. The Thomistic definition of good (in general or as it applies to God) is not nonsensical, nor is it used in a single context.

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.

Philosophy is just a way of talking about reality. If I define terms one way and express something with them, then they mean what they say. That might mean you can’t equate terms in two different philosophical systems, as you are doing. I guess that’s tough luck.

I’d argue that “good” is not as well-defined as you think. You seem to think that it’s obvious that it is not worth calling something “good” unless it is “morally good,” but that makes relatively little sense. Morally good things are certainly good, but they are not the only good things. (What constitutes moral goodness is also a topic of heated debate, and the concept of moral goodness makes very little sense if you assume a materialist metaphysics.)

Not to mention, St. Thomas borrows his definition of good from Aristotle. Earlier Christian writers, like Augustine, shared a privation view of evil (although, as a neo-Platonist, his overall metaphysics were different). So what I’m proposing is really nothing radical or poorly defined. You just don’t like it because it shows that the problem of evil doesn’t touch Thomism and never has.

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”.

This is pretty obviously not what I am arguing.

You seem to insist that “good” can only be applied to beings that are morally good in the way humans are, which to me seems false, since we do not call things good just because they are morally good.

I have set out very specifically what I mean by “good” in the topic “Being, Good, and Evil.” I even talk briefly about what it means to say that God is good (although that is a broader topic than I get into there). None of what I have said is the caricature you’ve provided here.

 

[polytropos]

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.

Thomism is a consistent philosophy. It is not “official” not because the Church is conceding that it’s inconsistent but because Catholicism is not a philosophy and has no reason to commit to a single method of philosophical inquiry.

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”.

Here you essentially testify that you don’t know what you’re railing against. A soul (anima) is defined as the substantial form of living (animated) things, so to call it the “animating principle” and the “form” is to call it the same thing. This also means that an apple tree, a bear, and a human each have a soul.

Apple trees and bears have vegetative and appetitive souls. Humans have rational souls. It is a rational soul that is, in part, immaterial (though heavily reliant on the material). The idea of the soul as an immaterial substance subject to the mind-body problem is more Cartesian than Aristotelian-Thomistic. (This topic is not really the place to defend the immateriality of the human soul, however. If you’re interested - though I doubt you are - you might take a look at Edward Feser’s work in philosophy of mind.)

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”.

It’s very strange. In all cases in which Thomistic philosophy carefully defines a concept, you just call it undefined.

 

[meltzerboy]

Is it possible to prove that a good God exists?

As opposed to whether G-d exists? Sure it is. What other kind of G-d would put up with my shenanigans?

 

[DanAl]

Is it possible to prove that a good God exists?

Yes, It is part of Catholic Dogma, but Aquina’s ultra-popular arguments are not the best way to prove God’s existence: the premises of the first way are contingent and not necessary, for example. Avicenna, Scotus, Ockham, the pre-critical Kant and others give excellent arguments, though.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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”.

The Church uses truth wherever she finds it to help explain some of the mysteries of Revelation. I think it would be fair to say she uses St. Thomas and St. Augustine mostly. And many Catholics rely strictly on Faith as expounded by the Magisterium.

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”.

This is only partly true. The Council of Vienne Defined solomnly :

We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear. Moreover, with the approval of the said council, we reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic. "

For the rest we rely on the traditional teaching of the Church as found in the Catechism. This is found on the CCC, paragraphs 355-367.

According to this teaching, the soul is the spiritual principle of man, which is also the source of his life. And it is that by which he is made in the image of God.

Since the soul is man’s spiritual principle, and that by which he is the image of God ( endowed with an intellect and will ) and that which gives him life, it is rightly defined as his form, that which, united to his body, makes him a human person

This is all solid Catholic teaching and belief. What more do you want?

As for p(name removed by moderator)ointing the exact moment of ensoulment, there is no Tradition on that. Nor need there be. As Paul the VI said, what is human has always been human. Therefore, if the embryo is living, it must be human. If it is not living, it will be expelled spontaneously. What is so hard to understand about that?

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.

I can see that you have not read the Catechism on the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You should read it, it is pretty clear about moral evil and how to determine what is sin and what is not. It would be interesting for you. You have to read the S.T., part 1, ques 48,49 on evil to understand how evil is a privation. newadvent.org/summa/1048.htm Too deep to go into here.

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”

Correct, the Bible is based on the Tradition of the teaching of the Apostles and Disciples of Our Lord and the totality of Divine Revelation, which they have handed on to the Church and which is taught by the Magisterium in its documents and in the Catechism. Only a portion of this is found int the Bible…

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.

The Church trusts in the mercy of God in such instances. Perhaps some day there will be a Solomn teaching on the matter. And if you are not Catholic, salvation is still a possibility. This is also covered in the Catechism. God is just and merciful and gives every person a decent chance of salvation. Although, the chances are better if one knows what God has Revealed as his plan for our salvation. And this is best learned through the Church and best assured by making use of the Sacramental sources of grace which the Church offers through the mercy of Christ.

Linus2nd

 

[DanAl]

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

“Good” as used here means being perfect. When something is good or perfect it means that the thing in questions does not lack anything in being the sort of thing it is. Obviously God does not lack perfections so we can say that he’s “good” or perfect.

 

[Bagheera]

I’d argue that “good” is not as well-defined as you think. You seem to think that it’s obvious that it is not worth calling something “good” unless it is “morally good,” but that makes relatively little sense.

No, my view is not as simplistic as you imagine. Though it is true that I did not express my view in detail. So, here comes.

There is physically “good”, which forms the basis of “morally good”. Mentally good is only a subset of physically good.

Physically good = physically useful, beneficial, favorable. Something that promotes life or increases its quality.
Physically bad = physically harmful, negative, unfavorable. Something that negates life or decreases its quality.

These both come from biology. They only apply to living systems. Life is defined as “entities, which attempt to maintain their homeostasis in variable conditions”, or “complex responses to complex stimuli”. Both these definitions come from biology, the science that studies life. Biology has way surpassed the primitive speculation of “animating principles”. In a lifeless environment there are no “good” or “bad” effects or events. In a solar system without life, if the star goes nova and burns up the system, it is neither good nor bad.

Moral goodness is an active, conscious promotion of physical goodness. It is inapplicable for non-sentient beings. (Synonym: benevolent, loving, caring, decent, etc…)
Moral badness (which is called “evil” for the sake of brevity) describes the active, conscious promotion of “physically bad” actions or events. Also inapplicable for non-sentient beings. (Synonym: malevolent, wicked, vicious, etc…)

It is unfortunate that there is no simple phrase to describe “moral goodness”. It is inconvenient to have only “good, bad and evil”, without having distinct phrase for “physically good and morally good” persons. Only a sentient being can be morally good or evil. If a sentient being would not be aware of physically good and bad actions or events, then this sentient being is not qualified as a “moral agent”. Example: small children, who can be very “vicious”, since they have no idea that their actions are physically bad. (Also seriously mentally retarded people fall into this category.) So, being sentient is only a necessary, but not sufficient condition for becoming a moral agent. This is expressed in the law as well, which recognizes the condition of “not guilty due to reason of insanity”.

From this it logically follows that every sentient being, which is able to recognize and differentiate between physically good and bad actions or events is a moral agent, and must be evaluated accordingly.

God is supposed to be a sentient being, and also supposed know the difference between good and bad. One of the tri-Omni attributes is Omni-benevolent, which is a synonym to morally good. Therefore God is a moral agent - which, by the way, is the only similarity between God and humans, which is expressed in the teaching that we are created in the image or likeness of God. There is no other similarity between humans and God.

What constitutes moral goodness is also a topic of heated debate, and the concept of moral goodness makes very little sense if you assume a materialist metaphysics.

That only means that you don’t know what materialist metaphysics is all about. Just read the previous paragraph.

 

[polytropos]

No, my view is not as simplistic as you imagine. Though it is true that I did not express my view in detail.

That is fine. I based what I said off of this point: “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.”

There is physically “good”, which forms the basis of “morally good”. Mentally good is only a subset of physically good.

Physically good = physically useful, beneficial, favorable. Something that promotes life or increases its quality.
Physically bad = physically harmful, negative, unfavorable. Something that negates life or decreases its quality.

These both come from biology.

It seems more like they use biology as a metric, rather than “come from” it, ie. you can tell what is physically good and bad based on its effect on life. But it is not clear how these emerge through life when they were not there before; they seem more like axioms.

So, being sentient is only a necessary, but not sufficient condition for becoming a moral agent.

Here, I mostly agree with you.

God is supposed to be a sentient being, and also supposed know the difference between good and bad.

But this is false. God is not sentient (“having the power of sense perception or sensation; conscious”). Sense perception and sensation are material phenomena, on which humans, but not God, rely for learning about the world. Consciousness, also, cannot apply to a being which is eternal, since it implies change (a stream of consciousness).

Now, perhaps this is just a semantic mistake, and you did not mean sentient. But it would seem that your argument precludes God from being a moral agent, since he lacks the necessary condition.

One of the tri-Omni attributes is Omni-benevolent, which is a synonym to morally good.

I think you are pulling from a non-Catholic source (or, to be broader, a source outside of the classical theistic tradition) here. This and this are articles on the divine attributes. You can search through for “good” and none of the references refer to moral goodness. (Searching for “benevolent” or anything similar does not come up with anything.)

This is not surprising, since the idea that God is morally good is a relatively modern phenomenon that has unfortunately colored so much discussion on the problem of evil.

Therefore God is a moral agent - which, by the way, is the only similarity between God and humans, which is expressed in the teaching that we are created in the image or likeness of God. There is no other similarity between humans and God.

As we’ve seen, God is not a moral agent, nor has that ever been considered the basis for saying that we are made in the image and likeness of God. We are made in the image and likeness of God because we are intellectual and God is Supreme Intellect.

(We are also, notably, rational, but it would not make sense to call God rational since God does not need to use reason, as that would imply that he would have to go through the process of reasoning, which would imply that he can change.)

That only means that you don’t know what materialist metaphysics is all about. Just read the previous paragraph.

The definitions of physical and moral good that you’ve provided seem more like axioms necessary to establish any sort of materialist ethics. They don’t show how moral good is a concept that necessarily emerges from a materialist conception of the universe. They have no ontology, as far as I can tell, and are merely conventional.

 

[Bagheera]

It seems more like they use biology as a metric, rather than “come from” it, ie. you can tell what is physically good and bad based on its effect on life. But it is not clear how these emerge through life when they were not there before; they seem more like axioms.

There are no axioms outside the formal systems. Change exists apart from living beings, too. A volcano may erupt, a star may go nova, they are have an effect on the environment. But it would be irrational to say that one state of affairs is “better”, or “more desirable” than the other (even if one accepts the Aristotelian definition of “desirable”). But you may say that this definitions of “physically good” and “bad” are basic principles, coming from simple, rational understanding of reality.

But this is false. God is not sentient (“having the power of sense perception or sensation; conscious”). Sense perception and sensation are material phenomena, on which humans, but not God, rely for learning about the world. Consciousness, also, cannot apply to a being which is eternal, since it implies change (a stream of consciousness).

The word sentient means much more than just having a sense perception. It also includes awareness, self-awareness, understanding, knowledge, intelligence, etc… If one would limit “sentience” to having sensory perception and some very limited awareness, then animals would also qualify as “sentient” beings, and no one ever uses “sentience” in that fashion. As such your objection is incorrect. God has all the necessary attributes to be considered a “moral agent” (or maybe an “immoral agent”, if you prefer )

You also said that “God has no obligation” to “fix” things, to make them “better”. I might agree with this (only for the sake of discussion), but it comes with a heavy price concerning the “goodness” of God. (By the way, the adjective “good” is inapplicable to God in your metaphysics, since God does not “tend to move toward its natural end”.) I have no “obligation” to help a homeless person. Yet, I give them a few bucks when I see them. I don’t even “love” them, but I do feel sorry for their situation. If I had more ability, I would help more. Again, not out of some sense of “obligation”.

Simply because I employ the one and only rational principle which will lead to “morally decent” behavior: the principle of reciprocity. I look at a homeless person, I know that I would not wish to be in his place, therefore I do whatever little help I can provide to improve his life. Since God has “infinite amount of resources”, and yet fails to use them, he cannot claim to be “morally good”… I know you agree so far, but the story does not end here. NOT to help when you have superfluous resources is “morally reprehensible”, even if you are under no obligation to help. The concept of **empathy **also must be considered. There can be no “reciprocity” in relation to an injured animal, yet one feels the need to alleviate its suffering if possible.

This is not surprising, since the idea that God is morally good is a relatively modern phenomenon that has unfortunately colored so much discussion on the problem of evil.

You mean, because people started to realize that the “picture” is more complicated? In the old times, the concept of “omnipotence” was taken and literally being able to do “everything”, logically impossible as well… then people gained more understanding and modified their definition. The same is applicable to the evolution of “morality”.

Of course the traditional teaching is that “all morality comes from God”, and that presupposes that the source of morality is also moral.

(We are also, notably, rational, but it would not make sense to call God rational since God does not need to use reason, as that would imply that he would have to go through the process of reasoning, which would imply that he can change.)

And God definitely “changes”. Any action and activity implies a “change”. Also the bible is choke full of stories where God assumes a physical “form”, visibly interacts with the physical reality, employing physical means. Jesus was also interacting with us (allegedly). He underwent certain changes. The point is that you would need to discard almost all of the bible, if you wanted to argue that God is outside time, God is unchanging… As a matter of fact, the “God of the philosophers” has nothing in common with the “God of religion”.

The definitions of physical and moral good that you’ve provided seem more like axioms necessary to establish any sort of materialist ethics. They don’t show how moral good is a concept that necessarily emerges from a materialist conception of the universe. They have no ontology, as far as I can tell, and are merely conventional.

Not axioms, rather basic principles. True, that the moral good does not emerge “necessarily” from existence. If we were self-sufficient, if we were not both individuals and herd-animals (biology - not metaphysics! - raises its head again), there would be no need for interaction, for cooperation, no recognition of others, no need for empathy, and finally - there would be no need for morality. Being somewhat rational, many people realize that they can raise the overall quality of their life via cooperation, and cooperation necessitates a good balance between selfishness and selflessness. It is biology, which is the ultimate foundation for morality.