How do we know that God is good?

[Arcademus]

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.

No, not statistically, but directly. Moral standards that are given to us by God cannot be externally verified (or can they?), so yes, it's possible that all those things could be evil and we'd have no way of finding out. Beyond that, the claim that "God is good" loses all meaning.

The only way I can see out of this dilemma is to attack the premise that absolutely objective morals exist and God is the only source of useful moral standards, but I guess those are rejected by Christian teachings. Are there any other possible "escape routes", so to speak?

 

[Hakan101]

No, not statistically, but directly. Moral standards that are given to us by God cannot be externally verified (or can they?), so yes, it's possible that all those things could be evil and we'd have no way of finding out. Beyond that, the claim that "God is good" loses all meaning.

The only way I can see out of this dilemma is to attack the premise that absolutely objective morals exist and God is the only source of useful moral standards, but I guess those are rejected by Christian teachings. Are there any other possible "escape routes", so to speak?

So you are suggesting that God may be lying to us. But we have no way of knowing, nor do we have any reason to believe he would.

 

[Arcademus]

So you are suggesting that God may be lying to us. But we have no way of knowing, nor do we have any reason to believe he would.

Lying is one possible way to look at it, though not what I was suggesting. We're simply stuck in a position where "good" is defined by God who has the final say and there's no way that we can double-check that this "good" is actually good, so saying that "God is good" is quite meaningless.

And if we have no way of knowing, it naturally follows that we don't have any reason to believe that he would. Just like how we don't have any reason to believe he wouldn't, either.

 

[elman]

No, not statistically, but directly. Moral standards that are given to us by God cannot be externally verified (or can they?), so yes, it's possible that all those things could be evil and we'd have no way of finding out. Beyond that, the claim that "God is good" loses all meaning.

The only way I can see out of this dilemma is to attack the premise that absolutely objective morals exist and God is the only source of useful moral standards, but I guess those are rejected by Christian teachings. Are there any other possible "escape routes", so to speak?

Why do you see objective morals with God as the source, as being rejected by Christian teachings?

 

[elman]

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.

I am still not grasping the logic. If God told us evil was good then we would be calling unloving toward others a good thing and would be reasonable in assuming God is unloving.

 

[Arcademus]

Why do you see objective morals with God as the source, as being rejected by Christian teachings?

I don't. I said that throwing that premise away is what's rejected by Christian teachings.

I am still not grasping the logic. If God told us evil was good then we would be calling unloving toward others a good thing and would be reasonable in assuming God is unloving.

What if loving others is actually evil, but God told us it is good? How would we find out?

 

[elman]

I don't. I said that throwing that premise away is what's rejected by Christian teachings.


What if loving others is actually evil, but God told us it is good? How would we find out?

We wouldn't, but God would be evil, in that case, as we now understand evil. That is why I think it is reasonable to assume God is good, because He has written on our hearts that loving others is good.

 

[secondtimearound]

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.

This is simply not true. If you assume that our sense of morals was given to us by God, then that sense is not arbitrary (up to the individual), it is objective, what is arbitrary is our or choice to follow this set of moral values and duties or to defy them.

We are not "pre programmed to define", we are pre programmed with the definition. So it makes non-sense NOT to declare with absolute certainty that God is perfectly good given what our intuitive values are under the assumtion that he gave them to us.

 

[Arcademus]

We wouldn't, but God would be evil, in that case, as we now understand evil. That is why I think it is reasonable to assume God is good, because He has written on our hearts that loving others is good.

Could you rephrase that? And repeat to me what I said in your own words so I know you actually understood it?

 

[Hakan101]

Lying is one possible way to look at it, though not what I was suggesting. We're simply stuck in a position where "good" is defined by God who has the final say and there's no way that we can double-check that this "good" is actually good, so saying that "God is good" is quite meaningless.

And if we have no way of knowing, it naturally follows that we don't have any reason to believe that he would. Just like how we don't have any reason to believe he wouldn't, either.

By suggesting we even need to check if "good is actually good", you seem to be implying one of these things: either that God is lying to us, or that there is a being or power that *truly* defines what good is, and that this is higher than God. We have no reason to believe either idea according to what we know about God, rather what we know about God gives us reason to believe he is in fact the highest and he does not lie. So both are nothing but pure conjecture.

 

[Arcademus]

By suggesting we even need to check if "good is actually good", you seem to be implying one of these things: either that God is lying to us, or that there is a being or power that *truly* defines what good is, and that this is higher than God. We have no reason to believe either idea according to what we know about God, rather what we know about God gives us reason to believe he is in fact the highest and he does not lie. So both are nothing but pure conjecture.

By suggesting we don't need to check if "good is actually good", you seem to be implying one of these things: either that God is not lying to us, or that there is no being or power that *truly* defines what good is, and that this is higher than God. We have no reason to reject either idea according to what we know about God, rather what we know about God gives us no reason to believe he is in fact the highest and he does not lie. So both are nothing but pure conjecture.

 

[Hakan101]

Very mature of you, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. All that we know about God tells us he is the highest authority, he creates all things, that he is good and loving and does not lie. If you were to say God simply doesn't exist, you have something, but to suggest He exists but is not the highest and does not decide morality is based on nothing, and is conjecture. It's no less ridiculous than to suggest we are all butterflies dreaming that we are men. What you've done is the very thing Atheists so often accuse Christians of doing: making claims without a scrap of evidence.

 

[Arcademus]

Very mature of you, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. All that we know about God tells us he is the highest authority, he creates all things, that he is good and loving and does not lie. If you were to say God simply doesn't exist, you have something, but to suggest He exists but is not the highest and does not decide morality is based on nothing, and is conjecture. It's no less ridiculous than to suggest we are all butterflies dreaming that we are men. What you've done is the very thing Atheists so often accuse Christians of doing: making claims without a scrap of evidence.

So it works for you Christians when you dream up baseless conjectures in favor of your religion, but it's not when the tables are turned and things go the other way?

How more hypocritically deluded can you possibly get?

If there's no way we can verify God's claims, then it makes every sense to entertain the possibility that He's lying and to explore the question. What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence. That's how things work. Besides, I'm not even making claims, I'm merely asking a question. How do you know your God is good?

 

[drich0150]

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?

Your looking at Good as a stand alone standard in which to measure somethings worthiness.

The statement "God is Good" tells us God, and what He does is the standard. Not that God is being deemed worthy by some arbitrary system. That is why I have said from the beginning their is no good with out God. Plus, any "good" standard you create is subjective to the argument you are trying to apply to God.

X is not being compared to X. X defines X. or so says Christ in Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

 

[Arcademus]

X is not being compared to X. X defines X.

Which doesn't answer the question either. Going back to my robot analogy; if I as a programmer define murder as good in my robot's programming, how would the robot possibly know otherwise?

I know you Christians accept your religion's teachings without question, but if I was looking for blind faith as an answer there wouldn't have been the need to ask questions in the first place, so I'm hoping for something better than blind faith and baseless assertions here.

 

[drich0150]

Which doesn't answer the question either. Going back to my robot analogy; if I as a programmer define murder as good in my robot's programming, how would the robot possibly know otherwise?

The reason you do not see an answer is because you see "good" as a standard that can exist outside of what our "programmer" as given us.

Someone has to set a bench mark for our understanding of that term. We only have two options. We can set it or God can set it, and I have explained the differences between the two.

I know you Christians accept your religion's teachings without question, but if I was looking for blind faith as an answer there wouldn't have been the need to ask questions in the first place, so I'm hoping for something better than blind faith and baseless assertions here.

Good even your understanding of the term is based on what God has given us. If you seek the definition of that term then you must turn to the origins of that word. If you seek a good beyond that then know that what you find will be based in your own righteousness and will not be a "standard" of any kind.

 

[elman]

Could you rephrase that? And repeat to me what I said in your own words so I know you actually understood it?

You said: "What if loving others is actually evil, but God told us it is good? How would we find out?"

I responded we would not find out, but then what we now know to be good would be evil and we would assume God is evil as we now understand evil to be--unloving.

 

[Arcademus]

You said: "What if loving others is actually evil, but God told us it is good? How would we find out?"

I responded we would not find out, but then what we now know to be good would be evil and we would assume God is evil as we now understand evil to be--unloving.

Okay.

So we would not find out.

Er... was there supposed to be an answer to my question in your reply? Or did I just miss it?

 

[Hakan101]

So it works for you Christians when you dream up baseless conjectures in favor of your religion, but it's not when the tables are turned and things go the other way?

How more hypocritically deluded can you possibly get?

If there's no way we can verify God's claims, then it makes every sense to entertain the possibility that He's lying and to explore the question. What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence. That's how things work. Besides, I'm not even making claims, I'm merely asking a question. How do you know your God is good?

Here's where you're wrong. Our knowledge of God is not baseless, it is based on the Bible. Which is valid because your question doesn't argue against God's existence, it presupposes he exists and then asks how we can verify his morality. All that we know of God and his morality comes from the Bible, to use any other kind of source outside of it is purely shooting in the dark. If we're talking about the God of the Bible, it follows that you use the Bible to discern things about him.

And the question implies good is something apart from God, or that God might be lying to us. I'm answering you in regards to these implications. We cannot verify if God is "actually good", but that is irrelevant because based on what we know about God, we have absolutely no reason to believe those implications are true based on our knowledge of Him.

You're right, the idea that he's lying and actually having us do evil and evildoers doing good is worth nothing more than "entertaining the possibility." I could also entertain the possibility that God is in fact a giant turtle who got sick one day and vomited the universe into existence. Both ideas are completely baseless conjecture, purely speculation, nobody would take them seriously and you know it.

 

[Arcademus]

The reason you do not see an answer is because you see "good" as a standard that can exist outside of what our "programmer" as given us.

It can, or it can not. Part of the purpose of my question is to find out if we can determine which is it.

Someone has to set a bench mark for our understanding of that term. We only have two options. We can set it or God can set it, and I have explained the differences between the two.

And neither benchmark appears to be useful for determining whether God is good, which means that "God is good" is an empty conclusion.

Good even your understanding of the term is based on what God has given us. If you seek the definition of that term then you must turn to the origins of that word. If you seek a good beyond that then know that what you find will be based in your own righteousness and will not be a "standard" of any kind.

In short, your answer is: "Just take God's word for it."

That's not even an answer at all. Remember, I'm not a Christian who's already bought the whole spiel hook, line, and sinker. The very reason I asked this question is to find out if we can verify what God is saying. You'll have to do better than that.

Here's where you're wrong. Our knowledge of God is not baseless, it is based on the Bible. Which is valid because your question doesn't argue against God's existence, it presupposes he exists and then asks how we can verify his morality. All that we know of God and his morality comes from the Bible, to use any other kind of source outside of it is purely shooting in the dark. If we're talking about the God of the Bible, it follows that you use the Bible to discern things about him.

Except that the Bible, too, comes from God. I'm not trying to discern God. I'm trying to verify God, at least in the morals department. There's a big difference.

And the question implies good is something apart from God, or that God might be lying to us. I'm answering you in regards to these implications. We cannot verify if God is "actually good", but that is irrelevant because based on what we know about God, we have absolutely no reason to believe those implications are true based on our knowledge of Him.

Our knowledge of God is based purely on what he tells us, and nothing we can actually verify. The implications are irrelevant to those who wish to simply accept the current state of things as they are and not probe further for fear of finding out the truth, but it's obviously relevant to me. Why else do you think I'm asking it?

So if you can't answer the question and have nothing better to contribute other than poor attempts to dismiss the question, please go away and stop spamming my thread with useless replies, thanks.