Can you be good without God?

[Eryk]

So God is in man, then?

He's omnipresent.

 

[Achilles6129]

He's omnipresent.

So then why do human beings fight one another, then? Is God fighting himself?

 

[Eryk]

So then why do human beings fight one another, then? Is God fighting himself?

That really does not follow from the concept of omnipresence and I do not have the time to explain elementary school catechism topics. Shine on, celestial orb.

 

[Achilles6129]

That really does not follow from the concept of omnipresence and I do not have the time to explain elementary school catechism topics. Shine on, celestial orb.

Sorry, I thought you were saying that God was in man when I asked the question and you replied with "he's omnipresent."

 

[Locutus]

If that's true, then they did good without God, which is logically impossible, since God is the definition of good. That would destroy all of Biblical theology.

Bingo

 

[Locutus]

That depends on your reasons for standing by. Since you can't right any wrong or undo any evil that's been done, I'd have to say that you'd have to have a fairly good explanation. But since God can right wrongs, it's a bit different. God may very well have a good reason to permit evil, especially considering that he can undo its effects.

He gave you the parameter "what if you don't have access to those reasons". Can you now say whether it is good or evil to stand by?

 

[Locutus]

If there is any good in man, then there is God in man, since God is the definition of goodness.

If God did it, then it wouldn't be murder, rape, or genocide, even though you might perceive it that way. And, of course, we're not here to talk about Biblical apologetics, but the Torah absolutely prohibits rape and murder, meaning that God defines himself as prohibiting rape and murder.

Ah, but yes it does. God is the Supreme Being and is therefore in a better position to know about good and evil than anyone else. If you're sick, do you go see a homeless person on the street, or do you go see a doctor? Who would you trust more? Obviously the doctor, because they're in a better position to know what's going on. And in the same way, the Supreme Being would be in a better position than anyone else to know the difference between good and evil.

1) How do you know? By what means did you arrive at the conclusion that the god is the definition of goodness? Are you simply obeying the commandment to believe it, or did you employ your moral faculties to discern it? If the former, then you can't possibly know if the god is good, because you're refusing to employ your moral faculties. It's likely, if so, that you also believe your own moral faculties can't be relied upon (which I've heard many theists claim of humanity). Which brings us to another huge problem ... if you can't rely on your own moral faculties, how can you possibly be trusted to know good from evil? The answer, of course, is that you DO trust your own moral faculties, and merely pretend that you don't - preferring to avoid offence (to the god) by claiming them as your own.

2) So you're suggesting that under certain conditions (when an authority figure is involved) evil is not evil? Where do you draw the line in the sand for this? Is it the Pope? Your pastor? Angels? Prophets? Gods only? How do you manage a life in which it's okay for some to rape and murder (based purely on elevated rank), and not okay for others? How does your moral compass function? Did you break it so that it wouldn't keep trying to point you north?

3) A doctor has tangibly and demonstrably spent years learning her craft. She can be tested, and empirically shown to possess the information and skill so claimed.

 

[chandraclaws]

Only God is infinitely good.

 

[Davian]

So then why do human beings fight one another, then? Is God fighting himself?

In sports, as in war, when both sides pray to the same god, how does he pick which side to support?

The winning side, of course!

 

[Dan Bert]

On works thoughts and actions and words. It depend if the Source is the Spirit of God or if it is from the Ego. Righteousness means doing the right according to God's right not according to our Ego and its limited knowledge of good and evil.

dan

A: No, you cannot. God is the definition of good and in order to be good without God you'd have to have good coming from outside of itself, a logical impossibility. God is the source of good and therefore everything that God proclaims and does is good by definition. Nothing morally good can come from any source outside of God and therefore nothing can be morally good unless God defines it as such. Human beings do not define what moral goodness is; God does.

God knows the true difference between good and evil because God is, by definition, the most intelligent being that there is. Everyone else is of less intelligence, so we should trust what God says about good and evil above everyone else.

Thoughts?

 

[Eudaimonist]

?? I included a reference to what I called a "God connection." You responded by calling such a thing "magic." The two are entirely different concepts.

And the distinction is?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ah, but you're missing the point. If God did it, then it wouldn't be murder, rape, or genocide, even though you might perceive it that way.

So it would just be killing, a hot non-consensual date (she was asking for it), and killing lots and lots of people, respectively?

And, of course, we're not here to talk about Biblical apologetics, but the Torah absolutely prohibits rape and murder, meaning that God defines himself as prohibiting rape and murder.

Oh, he defines himself that way. I see.

So, God can change his own nature simply by "defining" himself a different way? You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ah, but yes it does. God is the Supreme Being and is therefore in a better position to know about good and evil than anyone else.

That doesn't mean that you don't ask yourself if what he says is really true, or if God is really being honest, or if theologians are correct that God is omniscient, etc.

If you're sick, do you go see a homeless person on the street, or do you go see a doctor?

I go to see a doctor, but I get a second opinion about anything serious, and I make sure the doctor isn't peddling snake oil.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Cadet]

A: No, you cannot. God is the definition of good

Well that's a poor definition of "good". So now instead of good being a word we use to describe things, it instead is a word that is synonymous with another word which describes an entity? Even without going into the implications, that's not a good definition. It makes the term "good" useless, as instead we can just use "God".

But about those implications... You're essentially redefining the word to make an absurd conflation. You're hijacking a word we use to describe happenstances and behaviors we find beneficial or enjoyable, and completely redefining it. I reject your definition of good. It is not "good" when, by divine fiat, we are ordered to sacrifice and eat our own children, or kill others for harmless actions. If your definition demands that, then we clearly are speaking of completely different things when we use the term.

in order to be good without God you'd have to have good coming from outside of itself, a logical impossibility

Reification fallacy. You're conflating an abstract concept with an actual existing entity. Goodness is an abstract concept - it's not something that exists, in and of itself. It comes from us, because it is an abstract concept. This is essentially Platonism. You might as well claim that the number two "exists" as an actual entity, rather than a word we use to describe other things.

This is just muddling words by redefining them in a way that glorifies your god and makes an absolute mess of the words' actual usages.

 

[The Cadet]

A: No, you cannot. God is the definition of good and in order to be good without God you'd have to have good coming from outside of itself, a logical impossibility. God is the source of good and therefore everything that God proclaims and does is good by definition. Nothing morally good can come from any source outside of God and therefore nothing can be morally good unless God defines it as such. Human beings do not define what moral goodness is; God does.

God knows the true difference between good and evil because God is, by definition, the most intelligent being that there is. Everyone else is of less intelligence, so we should trust what God says about good and evil above everyone else.

Thoughts?

It suddenly occurred to me - replace "God" with literally anything else, and the argument is exactly as valid. "Bob is the definition of good and in order to be good without Allah you'd have to have good coming from outside of itself, a logical impossibility. Eudaimonia is the source of good and therefore everything that Shiva proclaims and does is good by definition. Nothing morally good can come from any source outside of Satan and therefore nothing can be morally good unless C'Thun defines it as such. Human beings do not define what moral goodness is; Yogg-Saron does.

Seshat knows the true difference between good and evil because Hermes is, by definition, the most intelligent being that there is. Everyone else is of less intelligence, so we should trust what Baal says about good and evil above everyone else.

Thoughts?"

Well, I think if we're going to assert the existence of a being apropos of nothing and base our definitions on that, we'd better have some darn good evidence for not only that being but also its qualities.

 

[quatona]

If you're sick, do you go see a homeless person on the street, or do you go see a doctor?

Well, the more interesting/relevant/analogous question: If you are sick, do you go to see the doctor or do you go to see God?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

According to mainstream Christianity, nobody can be good. Even the saintliest saint isn't good enough to meet God's requirements.

So the question is pointless.

 

[Belk]

Oh goody. Argument by semantics.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is a difference between good and perfect. The question isn't about "good enough to meet God's requirements." It is simply "good."

If a non-believer helps an old lady across the street, does she experience this event as "good"? I'd say yes and therefore the non-believer has done good.

 

[quatona]

There is a difference between good and perfect. The question isn't about "good enough to meet God's requirements." It is simply "good."

If a non-believer helps an old lady across the street, does she experience this event as "good"? I'd say yes and therefore the non-believer has done good.

But as soon as she learns the helping person was a non-believer she might experience it as "bad".

 

[Albion]

There is a difference between good and perfect. The question isn't about "good enough to meet God's requirements." It is simply "good."

If a non-believer helps an old lady across the street, does she experience this event as "good"? I'd say yes and therefore the non-believer has done good.

What if he helps her across the street in order to make his accomplice have an easier time in stealing her purse? She still wanted to cross the street, and the person assisting her to do that nevertheless accomplished the task that you call good in itself without any qualifications.