How do we know that God is good?

[Arcademus]

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?

That depends. I'm going to assume that this is a rhetorical question and the answer is "no". The difference here is that the child will be able to externally verify his parents' teachings by studying nutritional science. Like I asked in post #18, is there any way we can externally verify the moral standards that God gives us?

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.

Without trying to discuss anything about homosexuality, the fact that we disagree with a moral standard doesn't necessarily mean it's not "good". People like Adolf Hitler and Osama apparently disagreed with the moral standards most people live by, but that by itself doesn't invalidate the majority moral standard and make it not "good".

Christians claim that there is an objective standard of morals, and that standard is the one God has given us. In other words, whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant, and God's standard is still "good" with or without our approval. In fact, I believe it's the argument that Christians use to condemn non-believers for subscribing to "worldly", "self-centered" morals. The robot analogy wasn't meant to illustrate the argument that we're robots to God. It was meant to illustrate the point of: if the only useful moral standard we have comes from God, then how can we tell if God is really Good?

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

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

No offense, but this is the third time you've proven that you have either no ability or no intent (or both) to contribute anything useful to this thread. Please stop posting here, thank you.

 

[drich0150]

No offense, but this is the third time you've proven that you have either no ability or no intent (or both) to contribute anything useful to this thread. Please stop posting here, thank you.

What I have done is shown that without God's standard of "Good" we have nothing to measure "good" by. Because with out the absolute God provides your standard of "good" is as arbitrary as you would like us to believe God's standard to be.

Is this the truth you did not want revealed?

 

[Arcademus]

What I have done is shown that without God's standard of "Good" we have nothing to measure "good" by.

Is this the truth you did not want revealed?

No, that was (part of) the question. Thanks for displaying for the fourth time that you have either no ability or no intent (or both) to contribute anything useful to this thread, but I get it already, so you can stop doing it now.

 

[drich0150]

No, that was (part of) the question. Thanks for displaying for the fourth time that you have either no ability or no intent (or both) to contribute anything useful to this thread, but I get it already, so you can stop doing it now.

You asked for "thoughts." is it truly incomprehensible that a we came to the same conclusion? Do you somehow own this revelation? Will not not allow anyone else to explore the "good" you have found??

 

[juvenissun]

That depends. I'm going to assume that this is a rhetorical question and the answer is "no". The difference here is that the child will be able to externally verify his parents' teachings by studying nutritional science. Like I asked in post #18, is there any way we can externally verify the moral standards that God gives us?

Definitely yes. Human has interactions to each other and has interactions to the nature. This provides many many opportunities to check the value of any (moral) teaching. And this type of interaction/consequence can not be pre-programed.

 

[Arcademus]

You asked for "thoughts." is it truly incomprehensible that a we came to the same conclusion? Will not not allow anyone else to explore the "good" you have found??

It appears that you're just as confused about this issue as I am. Feel free to explore it with other knowledgeable Christians who are actually giving useful replies here then.

Definitely yes. Human has interactions to each other and has interactions to the nature. This provides many many opportunities to check the value of any (moral) teaching. And this type of interaction/consequence can not be pre-programed.

Except that the only useful moral standards that other humans have were given to them by God as well, so they're just as much "in the dark" as we are.

 

[elopez]

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.

First, saying that God is good is to say that good is found in God's nature. That is, good qualities such as fairness, compassion, generosity, etc, are essential to God's existence. God posses moral qualities essentially and necessarily, implying there is no possible world in which God could not posses any one of those good qualities. These are not contingent properties so they do not happen to be a certain way "arbitrarily." The thing is God has differentiated good from evil and we understand that, or at least us moral agents do. If God told us to accept evil as good would that mean we should be in agreement with the question, "Is child abuse moral?" We comprehend that it's wrong, so I do not see how our moral compass could be deceived by God. It's just that when we experience or observe child abuse it is the abuser that disagrees and has a different value system than us who view child abuse as wrong and children intrinsically worthy.

Second, I think it would be a mistake to assume God directly programs morality into us. We inherit our human nature from our parents and so on back till Adam who tainted human nature with the first sin. We also articulate our human nature by giving into our sinful desires in which we allow sin to overcome us. Our comprehension of good therefore becomes obscured and man commits those horrendous acts of child abuse.

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 again, good is not something that is as simple as God "saying so." It is because good is essential to God, and so if something appears to us as not good we would be able to recognize it. The goodness of God does not change, it is immutable as His nature is immutable.

 

[drich0150]

It appears that you're just as confused about this issue as I am. Feel free to explore it with other knowledgeable Christians who are actually giving useful replies here then.

Thanks for the permission, but here is where we part company. Although we came to the same revelation, you found a puzzle and I found an answer. The point and purpose of my "thoughts" were to show you that this revelation is not only a question but also it's own answer. In that our measure of "good" is our creator's measure of good. Anything more or less is considered self righteousness. Why? because we do not have the fore-site or understand the long term implications of our own version "good" actions on others.

 

[Arcademus]

Thanks for the permission, but here is where we part company. Although we came to the same revelation, you found a puzzle and I found an answer. The point and purpose of my "thoughts" were to show you that this revelation is not only a question but also it's own answer. In that our measure of "good" is our creator's measure of good. Anything more or less is considered self righteousness. Why? because we do not have the fore-site or understand the long term implications of our own version "good" actions on others.

The only reason you "found" an "answer" is because your intention here is to force the conclusion that God is "good" and dismissing everything else instead of looking for a real answer. As you've yet again demonstrated, you have a complete lack of ability or intent or both of providing any useful contribution to this thread. The fact is that the conclusion of "God is good" is meaningless when we're judging using God's standards. If we judge X using X's standards, X will always be good, which gives us no useful information.

 

[drich0150]

The only reason you "found" an "answer" is because your intention here is to force the conclusion that God is "good" and dismissing everything else instead of looking for a real answer. As you've yet again demonstrated, you have a complete lack of ability or intent or both of providing any useful contribution to this thread. The fact is that the conclusion of "God is good" is meaningless when we're judging using God's standards. If we judge X using X's standards, X will always be good, which gives us no useful information.

Then by all means provide us with a substitute standard in which to judge the Good standard provided by God.

My purpose is not to deem God "good or bad. My expressed purpose was to point out we can not know of any "good" other than what God has provided. If we do indeed go off reservation and create some new version of "good" then, we can trace the source of this standard back to your own version of "righteousness," or as it is more commonly known as Self righteousness.

So whether God's version of "good" is indeed good, or isn't good. it can not be determined by us, simply because we do not know of any other type or standard of "goodness" besides the standard in which God's righteousness is based.

Which leaves self righteousness to look to as your new measure. You can do this, but know it can not be a true standard simply because self righteousness varies from person to person culture to culture. Making it a variable and not a standard. So if you are looking to self righteousness to help you find this new standard to question or judge the "goodness of God" then know you have a complete lack of ability or intent or both of providing any useful contribution to this thread. Because after all, "we" are exploring Christianity and not the depths of your own self righteousness.

So sorry to derail your repeated/failed attempt at a quick dismissal, but in order for you to judge the goodness of God, you will indeed have to come to this discussion with something stronger than your self righteous interpretation of what "Good" is.

 

[Arcademus]

Then by all means provide us with a substitute standard in which to judge the Good standard provided by God.

For the umpteenth time: That's the bleeping problem! According to the Christians we don't have any substitute standards, and hence we're stuck with a meaningless conclusion.

Are you done spamming this thread with useless posts yet?

 

[drich0150]

For the umpteenth time: That's the bleeping problem! According to the Christians we don't have any substitute standards, and hence we're stuck with a meaningless conclusion.

Are you done spamming this thread with useless posts yet?

I am glad to see that you agree.

 

[Arcademus]

I am glad to see that you agree.

Funny that now you say I'm agreeing with you, given how that has been my question since the very first post. Given the Christian premise that our only useful moral standard comes from God, the conclusion that "God is good" is apparently quite meaningless. But I'm glad to see that you've gotten the point as well, maybe that means you can finally stop spamming useless replies.

 

[elman]

Funny that now you say I'm agreeing with you, given how that has been my question since the very first post. Given the Christian premise that our only useful moral standard comes from God, the conclusion that "God is good" is apparently quite meaningless. But I'm glad to see that you've gotten the point as well, maybe that means you can finally stop spamming useless replies.

It is not meaningless that being good is feeding the hungry and being bad is killing people.

 

[Arcademus]

It is not meaningless that being good is feeding the hungry and being bad is killing people.

Which, uh, wasn't my question.

 

[drich0150]

Which, uh, wasn't my question.

What was you question again?

 

[Arcademus]

What was you question again?

Well, that's great. You mean to say that after spamming my thread full of useless posts, you don't even know what I'm asking?

My question is this. I start with the Christian premise that our only useful moral standard comes from God. It then follows that the statement "God is good" doesn't tell us anything meaningful, because there's no point in judging X using standards as defined by X. It doesn't give us any useful information.

Is it then possible for us to determine whether God really is good? If so, how?

 

[elman]

Well, that's great. You mean to say that after spamming my thread full of useless posts, you don't even know what I'm asking?

My question is this. I start with the Christian premise that our only useful moral standard comes from God. It then follows that the statement "God is good" doesn't tell us anything meaningful, because there's no point in judging X using standards as defined by X. It doesn't give us any useful information.

Is it then possible for us to determine whether God really is good? If so, how?

If we know feeding a hungry person is good and if there is a Creator, why would it not be reasonable to assume this information came along with others things as we were created and if so--God would be good to have created us recognizing what good is.

 

[Arcademus]

If we know feeding a hungry person is good and if there is a Creator, why would it not be reasonable to assume this information came along with others things as we were created and if so--God would be good to have created us recognizing what good is.

elman, I can tell that you're not quite grasping the logic yet.

According to the Christians our ability to recognize 'good' comes from God. God could've told us to recognize evil as 'good' and we'd never know any better. "But of course we can recognize good and evil!", you may cry. Except that, of the Christian premise is correct, it logically follows that we can't. All we can do is follow the moral compass that God gave us and assume that it's good.

 

[Hakan101]

elman, I can tell that you're not quite grasping the logic yet.

According to the Christians our ability to recognize 'good' comes from God. God could've told us to recognize evil as 'good' and we'd never know any better. "But of course we can recognize good and evil!", you may cry. Except that, of the Christian premise is correct, it logically follows that we can't. All we can do is follow the moral compass that God gave us and assume that it's good.

So you're suggesting that when we feed a hungry person, take in the fatherless children, humble ourselves to God and admit we did wrong, we could be doing evil?

I suppose statistically, anything is possible.