Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we know God is "Good"?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 16 of 305 (154022)
10-29-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
10-28-2004 11:23 PM


here's a better answer.
good and evil are things that apply to humans, not gods. god defines good and evil but is above both. god creates good and evil. god has attributes that if we judged with human morality would be good, and some attributes that would be evil.
this is a very traditional dualistic interpretation of god. at some point, it became bad to say that god was evil in some respect, and another entity was elevated to level of opposing god: satan. this probably happened around the time the writings of samuel and chronicles. there's a section is samuel that describes god leading israel to do something the book sees as evil. when chronicles plaigarizes this passage, it changes god to satan.
personally, i'm inclined to take the earlier dualistic view. i think it fits the scripture better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-28-2004 11:23 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-29-2004 3:18 AM arachnophilia has replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 305 (154024)
10-29-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by arachnophilia
10-29-2004 2:57 AM


Hello Arachnophilia
good and evil are things that apply to humans, not gods. god defines good and evil but is above both. god creates good and evil. god has attributes that if we judged with human morality would be good, and some attributes that would be evil.
Fine. God isn't all good. In terms of human morality the Christian God appears to be sometimes good and sometimes evil. So he may actually be just taking the piss afterall.
Maybe God defines good as "being in the state of piss taking".
this is a very traditional dualistic interpretation of god. at some point, it became bad to say that god was evil in some respect, and another entity was elevated to level of opposing god: satan. this probably happened around the time the writings of samuel and chronicles. there's a section is samuel that describes god leading israel to do something the book sees as evil. when chronicles plaigarizes this passage, it changes god to satan.
Doesn't really change much if an omnipotent, omnipresent God created and tolerates the existence of this non-good entity then, does it?
So God is still not good. Also fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 10-29-2004 2:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 10-29-2004 4:38 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 305 (154033)
10-29-2004 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Gilgamesh
10-29-2004 3:18 AM


well that's exactly why i don't subscribe to the second ideology. it still doesn't make sense, and it only weakens and demeans god.
i have no problems with god being seen as good, and no problems with god being seen as evil. it makes no difference to my beliefs, really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-29-2004 3:18 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 305 (154041)
10-29-2004 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Gilgamesh
10-29-2004 2:45 AM


Re: The difference between Man's actions and those random ones.
But is not intent merely a higher cognitive function resulting from intellect?
Of course.
Or maybe the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-29-2004 2:45 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 6:07 PM jar has replied

Bopopop
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 305 (154475)
10-30-2004 6:21 PM


God-good or bad-may be a being. God has done terrible things to people in the bible, and I'll admit it. Many people say that it is against people or for people.

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 21 of 305 (154478)
10-30-2004 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
10-28-2004 11:23 PM


Gilgamesh writes:
In terms of human morality the Christian God appears to be sometimes good and sometimes evil
To who? To unbelievers like you.
Our claim is what Christ said - only one is good - God.
So - it is irrelevant what any human's judge God as. Why? Because our morals (humans) change every day. So they're based on nothing anyway if they are atheistic. Immoral yesterday - would be moral today. Hanging people yesterday - giving them widescreen TVs today.
Lam is right - we say what God is by looking at the bible - and looking at God with us - Jesus Christ - his actions.
As for your strawman fallacy concerning us;
1. We say God is good - not the universe or the world - Christ overcame it - and cast out "indifferent" diseases, like he still does.
Therefore - replacing our position A with your own position B, and refuting B - is strawman fallacy. Refuting B won't refute A.
IF you assume our God, you also have to assume the rest - which you haven't. We believe in heaven, hell and satan - which you conveniently do not include. But that's invalid - we can argue satan and hell and heaven because we also believe in those things.
You can't just attribute bad things to the God of the bible if the God of the bible talks of satan and hell, I mean - do you honestly think christians do not heed Christ's warnings about satan?
If you were talking about any possible deity - fair enough - but you're not - you're targeting ours. Baggage time.
Christians claim God is good, principally because the Bible says so.
Okay - you've declared position A - I admitt guilt, but now you have named "christian" - you must also assume satan. And he IS THE CHRISTIAN EXPLANATION of evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-28-2004 11:23 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 8:10 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 305 (154641)
10-31-2004 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
10-29-2004 5:48 AM


Re: The difference between Man's actions and those random ones.
So the Garden of Eden story is allegory for the point in time when hominids developed enough intellect to form "intent".
Interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 10-29-2004 5:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 10-31-2004 7:19 PM Gilgamesh has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 305 (154649)
10-31-2004 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Gilgamesh
10-31-2004 6:07 PM


On Intent
IMHO, intent is one of the major defining features of Humans. A second major feature is expanded empathy.
I believe these two things, intent and empathy that reaches beyond individual, beyond group, beyond immediate needs are the key things that make us human.
In an earlier thread you mentioned several of the things that can effect life (and non-life as well) that make this a random universe. There are tectonic events, weather events, viral events. But each of those are undirected, they happen. As you said, they are random.
I mentioned that there were also signs of directed events from other critters than humans. There are ants that build farms, bees that build hives, termites that design in airconditioning, beaver making ponds. But all of these are simply to improve the habitat of the critter itself.
There are examples of critters doing things that benefit species other than their own. There is the polination by bees, the distribution of seeds that are consumed and then dropped as dung. But these are not intentional.
Humans are different. We can have campaigns to save the whales, dolphin or gorilla. We can have conservation. We can feed those starving even if they are a continent away. We can feel sorry for the suffering of those who are not even part of our species, much less family, clan or pack. We can plan for the future, not just the immediate future as in time to move from high to lower pastures, but for decades and millenia ahead.
Intent and Empathy.
IMHO that is the meaning of the Garden of Eden. It is not some fall from grace, some lost perfection. Rather it is is the first itteration of the message later reafirmed by Jesus; "Love others as you love yourself".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 6:07 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 8:35 PM jar has replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 305 (154660)
10-31-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mike the wiz
10-30-2004 7:33 PM


Mike wrote:
Our claim is what Christ said - only one is good - God.
You cannot define the word "good" as meaning "God". We are talking about human concepts here, defining the word good as God is about as useful as saying the God is God, or God is "wubble". Likewise it is of no use to define "evil" as being "satan".
Humans are capable of being good, as we humans define it, just as they are of being evil.
Yes, we are trying to make a value judgement of God, and this is the intention of Christians when they claim God is good. If not, they are being very misleading and are talking no-sense.
Good is defined in terms such as: Being positive or desirable in nature, Worthy of respect; honorable, Of moral excellence, Benevolent; kind, etc, etc.
Mother Teresa and Gandhi were often "good".
So now we can stop the usual Christian game of let's make up new definitions for existing words.
So - it is irrelevant what any human's judge God as. Why? Because our morals (humans) change every day. So they're based on nothing anyway if they are atheistic. Immoral yesterday - would be moral today. Hanging people yesterday - giving them widescreen TVs today
This is a daft attempt to demean the fact that morality derives from humans themselves. Yes, morality does change, even the morality people claim comes from God (just study the history of the Christian church). But some elements of morality have been fairly static: the killing of innocent children for the purported infractions of their ancestors is probably always going to be not-good.
We can apply even our slowly evolving concept of morality to any entity. So is God good, in any way us human's presently define it? How do you know?
Lam is right - we say what God is by looking at the bible - and looking at God with us - Jesus Christ - his actions.
The Bible merely says God is good, but then it paints a very unpleasant picture of him just about everywhere else. Likewise God or Jesus deals out good no more through the lives of Christians than non-Christians. Christians still experience a sizeable amount of non-good.
As for your strawman fallacy concerning us;
1. We say God is good - not the universe or the world - Christ overcame it - and cast out "indifferent" diseases, like he still does.
Therefore - replacing our position A with your own position B, and refuting B - is strawman fallacy. Refuting B won't refute A.
Position B is the propoisition God is "Being positive or desirable in nature, Worthy of respect; honorable, Of moral excellence, Benevolent; kind, etc, etc". That's the point you do not wish to defend.
Your position A, is merely God is "wubble".
If you don't actually want to make a qualitative assessment of the nature of your God, then so be it. Stop using the word good and make up another one, because your God of the Bible and the world is far from good in the way us human's define it.
IF you assume our God, you also have to assume the rest - which you haven't. We believe in heaven, hell and satan - which you conveniently do not include. But that's invalid - we can argue satan and hell and heaven because we also believe in those things
And how does adding "Satan" is not "wubble" assist? Are humans capable of evil, or are you defining evil as satan?
You can't just attribute bad things to the God of the bible if the God of the bible talks of satan and hell, I mean - do you honestly think christians do not heed Christ's warnings about satan?
If you were talking about any possible deity - fair enough - but you're not - you're targeting ours. Baggage time.
This is incomprehensible bollocks. As stated with Arachnophilia above, your omnipotent, imnipresent God cannot escape culpability for evil because of your claims of the existence of satan.
Who killed the innocent children in the OT? Who caused the flood?
Once again, do you claim that the Christian God is "good", as we human's define it? If so, please evidence it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 10-30-2004 7:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 305 (154664)
10-31-2004 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
10-31-2004 7:19 PM


Re: On Intent
Hello Jar. Hope you had a good weekend.
IMHO, intent is one of the major defining features of Humans. A second major feature is expanded empathy.
It would be hard to argue that either of these characteristics do not appear in advanced, if not most, animals to some extent.
As far as empathy is concerned, have you ever tried making crying sounds around a pet dog? They'll nuzzle you to death with licks and sometimes howl along with you.
Humans are different. We can have campaigns to save the whales, dolphin or gorilla. We can have conservation. We can feed those starving even if they are a continent away. We can feel sorry for the suffering of those who are not even part of our species, much less family, clan or pack. We can plan for the future, not just the immediate future as in time to move from high to lower pastures, but for decades and millenia ahead.
Intent and Empathy.
But we differ in those qualities only to the extent of our superior intellect. They aren't supernatural qualities.
A lot of religious arguments are founded on the emotionally appealing idea that we humans are somehow special or gifted. I don't find them very compelling.
Have you read anything by Australian author Paul Davies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 10-31-2004 7:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 10-31-2004 9:20 PM Gilgamesh has replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 305 (154667)
10-31-2004 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
10-28-2004 11:23 PM


God is good by definition
Hello! Long time no chat. It's been almost a year since I visited but thought I'd stop in. Looks like alot of my old buddies are still here.
We know God is good for a couple reasons.
1) He says He is.
2) The only way we can define something as "good" is if God does exist and He is good in the absolute sense. Most accept that the concept of "good" exists. We don't debate this - not too often at least. We only question whether or not the Christian God is good. This provides evidence of our rebellious nature toward the most holy. Ultimately you and I both want to be God. We deny His very goodness in an attempt to make ourselves god -some even deny His existance.
God is good because He says He is good and because in order for you to even define "good" you must borrow from the Christian worldview.
Regards...

"The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things that are objects of moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations. And therefore it must chiefly constist in giving due respect to that Being to whom most is due; for God is infinitely the most worthy of regard. The worthiness of others is as nothing to his; so that to him belongs all possible respect. To him belongs the whole of the respect that any intelligent being is capable of. To him belongs ALL the heart. Therefore, if moral rectitude of heart consists in paying the respect of the heart which is due, or which fitness and suitableness requires, fitness requirees infinitly the greatest regard to be paid to God; and the denying of supreme regard here would be a conduct infinitely the most unfit. Hence it will follow, that moral rectitude of the disposition, inclination, or affection of God CHEIEFLY consists in a regatd to HIMSELF, infinitely above his regard to all other beings; in other words, his holiness consists in this" J. Edwards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-28-2004 11:23 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 10:23 PM grace2u has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 305 (154673)
10-31-2004 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Gilgamesh
10-31-2004 8:35 PM


Re: On Intent
Have you read anything by Australian author Paul Davies?
The astrobiologist? Some.
It would be hard to argue that either of these characteristics do not appear in advanced, if not most, animals to some extent.
Well, it would make an interesting thread. I think I can make a case that it is greater than many might think.
As far as empathy is concerned, have you ever tried making crying sounds around a pet dog? They'll nuzzle you to death with licks and sometimes howl along with you.
Ah, but that is why I include extent. Humans are different in the magnitude when it comes to empathy, intent, scope and extent. The pet dog does not become concerned over the fate of dolphin. It does not show empathy for the starving in the house next door.
But we differ in those qualities only to the extent of our superior intellect. They aren't supernatural qualities.
Again, that would make for a great thread. There are hints of it in some of the things we're learning about learning. While we are learning more and more about the HOWs of thought, that does not answer the whole question. Maybe someday we'll understand all of the mechanisms involved in color, math, even art. Maybe we will be able to show that certain areas of the brain light up under each and every known stimulus. Maybe we'll someday understand all the mechanics.
But will that answer all the questions? Will that explain love, or beauty, honor or sorrow? Even if we know exactly what happens, will that explain the why or the reality of love?
A lot of religious arguments are founded on the emotionally appealing idea that we humans are somehow special or gifted. I don't find them very compelling.
Well, I hope that when I speak of being special that I can also explain exactly how and in terms that others can understand. I hope that I can at the least present my view of religion in compelling arguments even if others may disagree with my conclusions.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 8:35 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 10:47 PM jar has replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 305 (154692)
10-31-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by grace2u
10-31-2004 8:57 PM


Re: God is good by definition
Hello grace2u. Things have gotten a little quiter around here, but otherwise many of the familiar names are still about.
We know God is good for a couple reasons.
1) He says He is.
This doesn't really cut it. First you have to establish the Bible as a valid source of his words, secondly you have to deal with the fact that his actions (and the Bible) negate these words.
You can't declare yourself good (as we human's define good) and then proceed to slaughter innocent children. That's not good as we human's define it; that is something very different.
2) The only way we can define something as "good" is if God does exist and He is good in the absolute sense. Most accept that the concept of "good" exists. We don't debate this - not too often at least. We only question whether or not the Christian God is good. This provides evidence of our rebellious nature toward the most holy. Ultimately you and I both want to be God. We deny His very goodness in an attempt to make ourselves god -some even deny His existance.
Why do we need are God to exist to determine if something or someone is "Being positive or desirable in nature, Worthy of respect; honorable, Of moral excellence, Benevolent; kind, etc, etc"?
Apply those terms to anyone you know, and presto, you have just attempted to define someone as good.
Good doesn't exist in an objective sense. I don't dig a hole and find good. Something is good if we interpret it as good. An entity that kills innocent children is not good. If you insist your God is good nevertheless you are either appealing to a completely uncommon definition of good or you are making up another meaning for the word.
God is good because He says He is good and because in order for you to even define "good" you must borrow from the Christian worldview.
If you killed innocent children, I'd confidently wager that everyone on this forum would define you as not good. God is that sort of not-good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by grace2u, posted 10-31-2004 8:57 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by grace2u, posted 10-31-2004 11:19 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 305 (154697)
10-31-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
10-31-2004 9:20 PM


Re: On Intent
Jar wrote:
Ah, but that is why I include extent. Humans are different in the magnitude when it comes to empathy, intent, scope and extent.
By a magnitude proportionate to greater cognitive function.
We can out-empathy dogs by some order of magnitude. Alternately dogs can out-sniff us by some ridiculous amount.
Again, that would make for a great thread. There are hints of it in some of the things we're learning about learning. While we are learning more and more about the HOWs of thought, that does not answer the whole question. Maybe someday we'll understand all of the mechanisms involved in color, math, even art. Maybe we will be able to show that certain areas of the brain light up under each and every known stimulus. Maybe we'll someday understand all the mechanics.
But will that answer all the questions? Will that explain love, or beauty, honor or sorrow? Even if we know exactly what happens, will that explain the why or the reality of love?
We are doing a pretty dam good job of understand this stuff already. Just because we comprehend some of the mechanisms behind what is the human experience it doesn't make it any less compelling.
I know that love is merely an evolutionary compulsion and a product of the chemical state of my brain. Scientist claim that intense love really only lasts about 3 years, and this just happens to conincide with the most common time it takes for relationships to disolve. Doesn't mean I don't want to feel love, that I don't actively seek and that I'm knocked off my feet when I feel it.
Back to the topic:
So God's goodness is evidenced by some human traits, which you, as a person who subscribes to the evolutionary explanation of life, accept have come about through the natural processes of this universe?
So then God's goodness is evidenced by the initial act of creating the universe containing these processes?
I don't want to put words in you mouth, so please correct me if I am wrong.
At least such a distant and impersonal God is not intertwined with the very non-good acts of human history. Such a God could possess just about any qualities, but indifference would have to be one of them.
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 10-31-2004 10:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 10-31-2004 9:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 10-31-2004 11:04 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 305 (154703)
10-31-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Gilgamesh
10-31-2004 10:47 PM


Re: On Intent
So then God's goodness is evidenced by the initial act of creating the universe containing these processes?
That's close and accurate as far as it goes but I personally believe that GOD does go further. However, GOD is something beyond testing and is a matter of faith. I cannot prove GOD.
I know that love is merely an evolutionary compulsion and a product of the chemical state of my brain.
Knowing that love is but the chemical state of your brain says no more about what love is than analyzing the brushstrokes of George de la Tour's Girl with Candle explains the emotion and effect of the painting.
We can out-empathy dogs by some order of magnitude. Alternately dogs can out-sniff us by some ridiculous amount.
True but not pertinent. Empathy, when combined with intent, extent and scope is what allows us, unlike any other creature, to plan for the good of others, even those not yet born or of different species. We can build machines to outsniff dogs, but can we build a machine to provide empathy?
So God's goodness is evidenced by some human traits, which you, as a person who subscribes to the evolutionary explanation of life, accept have come about through the natural processes of this universe?
Yes, but I also see things that seem to go beyond the natural processes, that are something more than just the sum of the processes, as a painting is more than the sum of the brushstrokes.
I do not see GOD as distant or impersonal. In fact, I see GOD as very personal. Would I be able to convince you of that? Probably not by words or discussion. But perhaps, through my behaviour, I might someday at least make you consider.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 10:47 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024