God is Good

[quatona]

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

The problem, I think is: Are you really claiming that there is something to be understood [i.e. that there exist criteria or an intelligible ethical and meta-ethical system (albeit beyond our current understanding)], or are you claiming that it needs to be accepted - because it is the standard.

Another problem:
Why would I call something "good" even though in my current understanding it is not good?`I.e. what would prompt me to base my valuations upon something that I don´t and can´t understand, and why would I base my behaviour in this world upon them, even though it would cause damage in this world? And why would I accept criteria as authoritative even though they are beyond me? I mean, we don´t even ask lab rats to cooperate with our goals towards a greater good both of which are beyond their knowledge and understanding.

To make it simple: Assuming e.g. that God orders or commits genocide (and assuming this serves a "greater good" beyond my understanding - how can I be expected to cooperate or even only change my value system according to unknown criteria?

Another problem: Assuming that - as you say - our understanding of "good" and this supposedly existing "greater good" may be conflicting concepts, I think it´s careless to use the same word for them.

 

[asherahSamaria]

In any case, even the Bible says God created evil (Isaiah 45:7) so for him to have (hypothetically) actually done that he must have understood it and therefore can't be "wholly good".

Given the Biblical narrative there is a much much stronger case for a "Biblical God is evil" stance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

That is demonstrably false.

We consider slavery immoral - god doesn't have a problem with it.
We consider public execution immoral - god doesn't have a problem with it.
We consider the "inheritability" of guilt to be immoral - god doesn't have a problem with it.
We consider genocide immoral (always) - god doesn't always have a problem with it and in some cases even commands his sheep to engage in it.
We consider the killing of innocent children immoral - god doesn't have a problem with it and even has ordered to do it.
We consider taking humans as "spoils of war" to be immoral - god doesn't have a problem with it.


I could go on. But I don't think I need to.

Our 21st century western morals are vastly superior to the shenannigans we find in the bronze age bible.

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 .

No.

250 years ago, slavery wasn't considered immoral.
Today it is illegal and considered wildly immoral throughout the western world.

Clearly, morals aren't "absolute". If they were, we'ld still live by the "morals" from the biblical bronze age. But we don't. Not even remotely. We consider a lot of the practices of that age to be nothing short of cruel and barbaric.

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.

So, do you think slavery is okay?
Genocide?
Killing innocent women and children?
Public execution?
Burning witches?
Killing gays?
Stoning adulterers?
Stoning disobedient children?
Taking humans as spoils of war?

No?

Then you do not live by the morals exhibited in the bible.

And if you are going to say "well, that's the OLD testament!!!!", it still won't win you the argument.

Because if the morals of this god are "absolute", then they are unchanging. Old or new - irrelevant.

Not to mention that the commands to engage in genocide etc came from this god as well. They are either "absolute" or they aren't.

If they are, then old or new doesn't matter.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Dave-W]

That is demonstrably false.

We consider ...
We consider ...
We consider ...

I could go on. But I don't think I need to.

Our 21st century western morals are vastly superior to the shenannigans we find in the bronze age bible.

"We consider..?" Who made us bigger than God?
Why do we get to be the final arbiter of morality? Why should we consider modern sensibilities to be "vastly superior?"

Because if the morals of this god are "absolute", then they are unchanging. Old or new - irrelevant.

You got one point right.

 

[quatona]

"We consider..?" Who made us bigger than God?
Why do we get to be the final arbiter of morality?

Let´s say God does it His way (we leave the slavery, genocide, stoning and child abuse part to Him - I mean we don´t want Him to end in cognitive dissonance or something), and we´ll keep doing it our way.
I guess His power determines that He will be the final arbiter, but in the meantime we´ll keep striving for that which is demonstrably beneficial and avoid that which is demonstrably harmful to others.

(Assuming for a moment Biblegod exists, that is.)

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

God is the author of 'good' and 'evil'.

I know that may be difficult to understand, but God is the divine Principle. There is no authoritative ideology or substance above His own.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I have a problem with the phrase, "God is good."

If God is good, then goodness must be greater than God. Or at the very least, it must be external to God.

If you make the claim that God is good, then you must be comparing Him to some standard of goodness that is beyond Him. A set of moral attributes that can be objectively looked at and said to be good without an appeal to God for what is good or right or wrong. Otherwise you are judging God by His own standards that He made up, and let's be honest, anyone can pass their own standards of what's right and wrong, especially if you made them up.

I guess my main point is: Is goodness good because it is inherently good, or is it good because God says (or make it) so? If it is because God said so, then what standard is God using to determine right and wrong? Himself? Then the question becomes, how would we know if what God is doing is actually good?

Thoughts?

You cannot logically get from your premise statement to your conclusion statement. The verb will not allow that. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"We consider..?" Who made us bigger than God?

The enlightment age?

Why do we get to be the final arbiter of morality?

Because we are the ones with the brains who get to reason about it.

Why should we consider modern sensibilities to be "vastly superior?"

For the same reason that we get to point at ISIS and judge their actions.

You got one point right.

So, I guess this means that you consider all of the examples I gave to be a-okay?

You should move the some hole in the middle east where ISIS is waving its flags. You'ld feel right at home.

 

[Dave-W]

The enlightment age?

Ah - the en-LIE-tenment age.

Where mankind deceived itself into thinking we can get all the answers ourselves.

 

[durangodawood]

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

The universe is BIG compared to you and the things that make up your normal experience. It is not simply "big".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ah - the en-LIE-tenment age.

Where mankind deceived itself into thinking we can get all the answers ourselves.

Right, right... in "reality" we actually became dumber then.

Let's ignore the technological revolution that followed.

 

[Dave-W]

Right, right... in "reality" we actually became dumber then.

No - deceived does not mean less intelligent.

 

[GillDouglas]

The problem, I think is: Are you really claiming that there is something to be understood [i.e. that there exist criteria or an intelligible ethical and meta-ethical system (albeit beyond our current understanding)], or are you claiming that it needs to be accepted - because it is the standard.

Another problem:
Why would I call something "good" even though in my current understanding it is not good?`I.e. what would prompt me to base my valuations upon something that I don´t and can´t understand, and why would I base my behaviour in this world upon them, even though it would cause damage in this world? And why would I accept criteria as authoritative even though they are beyond me? I mean, we don´t even ask lab rats to cooperate with our goals towards a greater good both of which are beyond their knowledge and understanding.

To make it simple: Assuming e.g. that God orders or commits genocide (and assuming this serves a "greater good" beyond my understanding - how can I be expected to cooperate or even only change my value system according to unknown criteria?

Another problem: Assuming that - as you say - our understanding of "good" and this supposedly existing "greater good" may be conflicting concepts, I think it´s careless to use the same word for them.

It's a matter of perspective, you may and can deem something not good even if it is. Again, that would be because we lack the understanding to know why that event, action, etc. is good in the big picture.

 

[GillDouglas]

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".

I don't ignore it, I accept it because I trust He knows what He is doing.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I don't ignore it, I accept it because I trust He knows what He is doing.

So you accept that 9 million children die every year before the age of 5? You just think "Oh, God knows what he's doing"? You're being offered a psychotic and psychopathic moral attitude. That's a failure to reason rationally and care sufficiently about the suffering of other people.

 

[Tree of Life]

I have a problem with the phrase, "God is good."

If God is good, then goodness must be greater than God. Or at the very least, it must be external to God.

If you make the claim that God is good, then you must be comparing Him to some standard of goodness that is beyond Him. A set of moral attributes that can be objectively looked at and said to be good without an appeal to God for what is good or right or wrong. Otherwise you are judging God by His own standards that He made up, and let's be honest, anyone can pass their own standards of what's right and wrong, especially if you made them up.

I guess my main point is: Is goodness good because it is inherently good, or is it good because God says (or make it) so? If it is because God said so, then what standard is God using to determine right and wrong? Himself? Then the question becomes, how would we know if what God is doing is actually good?

Thoughts?

"God" and "good" are roughly equivalent. Goodness is whatever resembles God in its respective way. Badness is whatever ceases to resemble God.

So the phrase "God is good" is not philosophically precise. It's more colloquial. Its meaning would depend on the context.

 

[dayhiker]

For good to be greater than God then one would say, Good is God.

 

[Strathos]

The universe is BIG compared to you and the things that make up your normal experience. It is not simply "big".

This analogy could actually be the key here. A standard may exist other than God, but it is not independent of God, just like small things exist within the universe and not independently from it, and yet they don't diminish the 'bigness' of the universe. It's a fallacy of division problem (assumption that each component of a whole must have all of the traits of that whole).

 

[quatona]

It's a matter of perspective, you may and can deem something not good even if it is. Again, that would be because we lack the understanding to know why that event, action, etc. is good in the big picture.

Yes, that was - by and large - the statement I responded to in my last post. Do you want me to copy/paste my reply, and so on?
Or are you going to address my points?

 

[quatona]

God is the author of 'good' and 'evil'.

I know that may be difficult to understand, but [...]

That´s a phrase that I read as "I myself have no clue what the following might mean, but I´ll say it anyway."