God is Good

[SteveB28]

OR - it is just enumerating one of HIS attributes.

Which means some outside agency determines his 'goodness'.

 

[SteveB28]

I do not need something bigger than or external to the Universe to determine it is BIG.

Similarly we do not need something bigger than or external to God to determine He is good.

Big is an attribute of the universe. Good is an attribute of God.

But you don't have to go to the universe to understand what 'big' is. We understand it as a concept independent of any entity to which we apply it as a descriptor.

 

[SteveB28]

Where you err, is saying that there must be some standard above God. God IS the standard because he is the first cause of the Universe coming into existence along with his prescription of absolute moral laws inscribed on our very fibre. When you talk about anything ethical or moral, you are deciding on which is right from wrong based on the very person of Gods character and makeup --- there is none higher or beyond God. Where the Unbeliever shows hypocrisy on the matter of morals is : The person says there are no absolute moral laws to live by , yet, the same person expects and demands absolute moral laws be shown him by Others concerning interaction . So, we can sum up all of this accordingly : Truth means fidelity to the original (according to Websters) , and, the original is God himself because he existed before anything else did.

Horn 2: if goodness is whatever God determines it to be, then there can be no reliable way of assessing it. If God determines that a man should slaughter his son, or keep slaves, or stone an adulterer, or destroy those who don't worship him, then these must be, by necessity, 'good' things. Goodness becomes a whim of God.

 

[SteveB28]

I have my problems with this statement, as well - but different ones than you have.
It seems to me that your argument rests on the idea that "X is good" must be a conclusion or the result of (possibly comparative) experience or investigation. This, however, is not necessarily so: As far as I can tell, believers typically declare this as a premise. IOW: they determine what´s good by what God is, does or says. They simply declare God the standard of "good". This is - linguistically and semantically - possible. "God is good" then is not a description of God (nor a description of good) - it´s more like two terms mutually defining each other.

That's horn 2.

 

[SteveB28]

God is good because out of the sum who deserve nothing He gives much. He has provided the means of redemption to a fallen race of disobedient and ungrateful men.

You have made an independent evaluation here of what you consider to be 'good'. Welcome to horn 1.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I heard a preacher once talk about "measuring up." The analogy he used was a wall marked with increments to show heights. Picture a "you must be this tall to go on this ride" sign. He said God does not step up to the wall to show that He measures up. He IS the wall. By this I gather that He is good by His own standard as He sets it. JMO.

 

[fhansen]

God is goodness-and so the source of all good.

 

[SteveB28]

I heard a preacher once talk about "measuring up." The analogy he used was a wall marked with increments to show heights. Picture a "you must be this tall to go on this ride" sign. He said God does not step up to the wall to show that He measures up. He IS the wall. By this I gather that He is good by His own standard as He sets it. JMO.

That's the second horn.

 

[SteveB28]

God is goodness-and so the source of all good.

That also is the second horn of the dilemma.

 

[fhansen]

That also is the second horn of the dilemma.

Another way to put it: God is love. That should define goodness more specifically, less arbitrarily.

 

[quatona]

That's horn 2.

So?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IIRC in medieval theology theres the analogy of proportion (ie god is good like a good person, but more so) or the analogy of kind (god is good like a heathy climate is good i.e. causes health (or has good effects)).

If you say analogy of kind, God is the cause of goodnedss and therefore is good in that way, I thin the issue disappears. Moral goodness may belong to the creation in relation to conscious creatures, and Gods treatment of them. And not be a "pure, independent" quality of god himself....thoughts?

Like God is greater, (allahu akbar) seems to make sense relationally. greater than creation and other things worshipped. Not just greater as an abolute property.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

So?

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing.

 

[SteveB28]

Another way to put it: God is love. That should define goodness more specifically, less arbitrarily.

No, it doesn't really. This "goodness" on the one hand exhorts people not to kill one another. On the other, it tells a man to slaughter his son.

 

[SteveB28]

So?

"So", we are presented with an entirely arbitrary definition of 'good'. And what value is there in that?

 

[quatona]

"So", we are presented with an entirely arbitrary definition of 'good'. And what value is there in that?

I didn´t say it had any value as a definition (it´s two terms mutually defining each other, which means: no epistemological progress at all). I also said it has no descriptive power. Please reread my post #14.
Its value is basically the same as referring to the "original meter" when you are asked how a meter is defined. Now, the "original meter" may have some arbitrariness to it itself, but that doesn´t render the answer wrong or pointless, even though it´s not illustrative. What the answer tells you is where to look.

 

[quatona]

If you make the claim that God is good, then you must be comparing Him to some standard of goodness that is beyond Him.

Something about this statement can´t be quite accurate - unless your position is that there can never be a standard for anything.
You are postulating an infinite regress. Assuming for a moment there is such a standard external to (or beyond) God - it will suffer from the same problem: It´s either "arbitrary" (in that it has no standard beyond itself) or it requires a standard beyond itself.

 

[GillDouglas]

Question: Why would you say these things He does (gives much to those who deserve nothing, provides a means of redemption... etc.) are good? Are these things "good things" on their own? Let's say those things could be provided without God. Would they still be "good things"?

Sorry, that's a more than one question! But I think this gets to the point I'm trying to make.

I do not see why they wouldn't be good even if they could come by other means. I can think of the many things my wife does and gives to me not deserving any of it yet consider them to be good. But as @TheyCallMeDave said, the basis for what is good is God, the original in this world.

 

[GillDouglas]

"So", we are presented with an entirely arbitrary definition of 'good'. And what value is there in that?

We cannot understand why an act, that certainly seems anything but good, is good because we lack the view of the grand scheme.

 

[asherahSamaria]

We cannot understand why an act, that certainly seems anything but good, is good because we lack the view of the grand scheme.

The old "God work's in mysterious ways" line. I always see that as "I can't justify something so I'm just going to try and ignore it".