How do we know that God is good?

[Arcademus]

Let us start with the common Christian assumption that our sense of morals is given to us by God.

Assuming that is true, then it means we’re essentially pre-programmed to define an arbitrary set of behaviors as “good”. It then makes no sense to declare with absolute certainty that God is “good” if our moral programming came from God himself. God could’ve told us to accept evil as good, and we wouldn’t know better.

Given this scenario, “good” is reduced to merely “because God says so” instead of actually being good. What we think of as good might be real good, or it might not be. In fact, there might not be such a thing as “real good” as we commonly know it at all if it's simply dependent on how God is feeling at different times. We’d never know.

Thoughts?

 

[Arcademus]

Um, it looks like I posted in the wrong forum by mistake. Would appreciate it if a moderator moves this thread as necessary, thanks.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let us start with the common Christian assumption that our sense of morals is given to us by God.Assuming that is true, then it means we’re essentially pre-programmed to define an arbitrary set of behaviors as “good”. It then makes no sense to declare with absolute certainty that God is “good” if our moral programming came from God himself. God could’ve told us to accept evil as good, and we wouldn’t know better.Given this scenario, “good” is reduced to merely “because God says so” instead of actually being good. What we think of as good might be real good, or it might not be. In fact, there might not be such a thing as “real good” as we commonly know it at all if it's simply dependent on how God is feeling at different times. We’d never know.Thoughts?

"Good" means things are not being corrupted or destroyed.
"Evil" is the opposite.

Evil is important, but only a tiny fraction
of what is good that has been corrupted.
Moral codes are violations put into words.

 

[juvenissun]

Let us start with the common Christian assumption that our sense of morals is given to us by God.

Assuming that is true, then it means we’re essentially pre-programmed to define an arbitrary set of behaviors as “good”. It then makes no sense to declare with absolute certainty that God is “good” if our moral programming came from God himself. God could’ve told us to accept evil as good, and we wouldn’t know better.

Given this scenario, “good” is reduced to merely “because God says so” instead of actually being good. What we think of as good might be real good, or it might not be. In fact, there might not be such a thing as “real good” as we commonly know it at all if it's simply dependent on how God is feeling at different times. We’d never know.

Thoughts?

Adam did not know what is good or bad, until he ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. (Gen 2, 3)

So, your argument should be modified a little bit. Adam was not "pre-programed" by God to know what is good. The question you should answer is: Why should God be bothered to make this into a two-step and dependent* process, instead of getting it done in a one straightforward step like what you described?

* dependent means that God tells Adam "don't" take the fruit. It means God does NOT want Adam to know what is good. God has no control on if Adam will take the fruit or not.

 

[razeontherock]

Let us start with the common Christian assumption that our sense of morals is given to us by God.

Assuming that is true, then it means we’re essentially pre-programmed to define an arbitrary set of behaviors as “good”.

Eh? This flies right in the face of the what the very first story in the Bible tells us. What we think is good can very well be the only thing that can cause us any harm.

if it's simply dependent on how God is feeling at different times.

This is a senseless statement. There is no way to make it meaningful.

 

[razeontherock]

Adam did not know what is good or bad, until he ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. (Gen 2, 3)

So, your argument should be modified a little bit. Adam was not "pre-programed" by God to know what is good.

Sorry but this is just false. Adam and Eve both knew good and evil in the context you present, as well as the consequences; God spelled it out very clearly for them. You need to have a deeper look at what is meant by the phrase "tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry but this is just false. Adam and Eve both knew good and evil in the context you present, as well as the consequences; God spelled it out very clearly for them. You need to have a deeper look at what is meant by the phrase "tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

If the name of the fruit is called "the knowledge of good and evil", then had Adam not taken the fruit, how would he have the knowledge?

Adam knows obey and disobey. I have no problem with that. If Adam did not sin, why should he know the difference between good and evil?

 

[Hentenza]

Thread moved from Creation to Exploring Christianity and cleaned.

 

[Arcademus]

So, er... Christians, did God give humans morality, or did He not? It looks like the premise my question was based upon is debatable as well.

This is a senseless statement. There is no way to make it meaningful.

I think it's very meaningful. As far as I can tell, God changes his mind a lot, e.g. raining death and destruction in the OT and being all lovey-dovey in the NT, or regretting this and that decision he made.

 

[drich0150]

Let us start with the common Christian assumption that our sense of morals is given to us by God.

Assuming that is true, then it means we’re essentially pre-programmed to define an arbitrary set of behaviors as “good”. It then makes no sense to declare with absolute certainty that God is “good” if our moral programming came from God himself. God could’ve told us to accept evil as good, and we wouldn’t know better.

Given this scenario, “good” is reduced to merely “because God says so” instead of actually being good. What we think of as good might be real good, or it might not be. In fact, there might not be such a thing as “real good” as we commonly know it at all if it's simply dependent on how God is feeling at different times. We’d never know.

Thoughts?

So without an absolute standard that Identifies "good" as indeed being "good" we would have no concept of Good what so ever. So enter the only standard of "good" man has ever known. God's standard. If we measure God by His own standard then He is indeed found to be good. If we do not use His standard then by which standard would we used? Anything we can come up with will inevitably be a variation of His own standard. Now because his standard has already been established we can judge these other "standards" as self serving or bad.

 

[Arcademus]

So enter the only standard of "good" man has ever known. God's standard. If we measure God by His own standard then He is indeed found to be good. If we do not use His standard then by which standard would we used?

Which is exactly my point!

Imagine if I'm a murderer, thief, and rapist. I then create a robot and program it with "murder, stealing, and rape is good". The robot would then identify me, a murderer thief and rapist, as good. How would the robot know any better?

 

[juvenissun]

Which is exactly my point!

Imagine if I'm a murderer, thief, and rapist. I then create a robot and program it with "murder, stealing, and rape is good". The robot would then identify me, a murderer thief and rapist, as good. How would the robot know any better?

Not so fast. The robot you made will simply DO those things. It does not care if it is good or bad.

If you want the robot be able to agree with you, you have to make it be able to think independently.

 

[Arcademus]

Not so fast. The robot you made will simply DO those things. It does not care if it is good or bad.

If you want the robot be able to agree with you, you have to make it be able to think independently.

As I've mentioned in the first post, I'm working under the common Christian assumption that our morals come from God. If that's true, then we're just as programmed as the robot is. We may be able to think in other areas not related to morality, but in the end we're still saying that God is good based on God's moral standards.

 

[solarwave]

Well I don't agree that the good is chosen by God, as if some other set of values could have been chosen. I think good is a real thing, or (which makes more sense to me) God and goodness are the same thing. The problem probably comes in thinking that God is a giant man in the sky who makes choices like we do. It is my belief that God, Reality and morality are all the same thing and the foundation of existence and that the nature of each are unchangeable. So good is good not because God chooses it to be good, but because it is the intrinsic nature of God and Reality.

 

[drich0150]

Which is exactly my point!

Imagine if I'm a murderer, thief, and rapist. I then create a robot and program it with "murder, stealing, and rape is good". The robot would then identify me, a murderer thief and rapist, as good. How would the robot know any better?

Keep reading my orginal post and you will find my exact point.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Let us start with the common Christian assumption that our sense of morals is given to us by God.

Assuming that is true, then it means we’re essentially pre-programmed to define an arbitrary set of behaviors as “good”. It then makes no sense to declare with absolute certainty that God is “good” if our moral programming came from God himself. God could’ve told us to accept evil as good, and we wouldn’t know better.

Given this scenario, “good” is reduced to merely “because God says so” instead of actually being good. What we think of as good might be real good, or it might not be. In fact, there might not be such a thing as “real good” as we commonly know it at all if it's simply dependent on how God is feeling at different times. We’d never know.

Thoughts?

If, on the other hand, ontological goodness is rooted in the nature and being of God then saying, "God could have declared X good instead" becomes in some sense moot since if, for example, altruistic behavior is the good (as opposed to, say, rape, murder or genocide), and if it is as such due to the word/will of God then that is ultimately an ontological goodness rooted in the being and nature of God.

Something is not good by the whim of divine fiat; nor because of a higher moral law which God subscribes to. Rather, what is good is the substance, nature and being of the Good, that is to say, God. Which is to say, if such-and-such is good (such as altruism and not murder) it's not due to a higher moral law which God must subscribe to, nor due to divine whimsy: rather it is because such is intrinsic to the being and existence of God; and as such has true ontological existence because it's grounded in Being Itself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Which is exactly my point!

Imagine if I'm a murderer, thief, and rapist. I then create a robot and program it with "murder, stealing, and rape is good". The robot would then identify me, a murderer thief and rapist, as good. How would the robot know any better?

Assuming the robot had conscience and will, presumably by encountering something better and discovering that the programming was flawed--perhaps by discovering something greater than its programmer.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Arcademus]

Keep reading my orginal post and you will find my exact point.

Oh, I understood your exact point better than you appear to believe. Your "answer" is in fact nothing but a fancy rewording of my original question.

It is my belief that God, Reality and morality are all the same thing and the foundation of existence and that the nature of each are unchangeable. So good is good not because God chooses it to be good, but because it is the intrinsic nature of God and Reality.

Something is not good by the whim of divine fiat; nor because of a higher moral law which God subscribes to. Rather, what is good is the substance, nature and being of the Good, that is to say, God. Which is to say, if such-and-such is good (such as altruism and not murder) it's not due to a higher moral law which God must subscribe to, nor due to divine whimsy: rather it is because such is intrinsic to the being and existence of God; and as such has true ontological existence because it's grounded in Being Itself.

I wasn't aware of that school of thought. Thanks. But having said that, I think we're no closer to an answer. The problem still remains: we're evaluating God's morality using God's own standards, and coming to the conclusion that He is good. That's not very helpful.

For the statement "God is good" to mean anything useful, we need to be able to somehow verify the standards that God has given us. Unfortunately, according to the Christian religion, this is not possible. Or is it?

 

[juvenissun]

As I've mentioned in the first post, I'm working under the common Christian assumption that our morals come from God. If that's true, then we're just as programmed as the robot is. We may be able to think in other areas not related to morality, but in the end we're still saying that God is good based on God's moral standards.

1. Parents tell the child: egg is a good food.
2. So the child knows that egg is a good food.
3. And when the child grew up, he agrees that egg is a good food.

What if the parents told the child: fat is a good food. Would the child agree with it in step 3?

God can program us on what is good. But we have to agree with it when we become able to think and experience. God tells us many good things in the Scripture (for example, man should not marry to a man). However, many people do not agree with what God says.

The idea that we are God's robots just does not work.

 

[drich0150]

Oh, I understood your exact point better than you appear to believe. Your "answer" is in fact nothing but a fancy rewording of my original question.

Which points to the futility of identifying "good" outside of the standard of God.

God is "good" because He said he was "good."