How do you know God is good?

[Bradskii]

To make the highest good to come out of it in the end.

Do I understand all of it right now, all the exact specific details of every exact specific detail right now, no I don't, cause then I'd be God, but I know that is the reason.

Are you saying that other people can be fooled, but Christians can't?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But maybe the potter is us. We dreamed up the pot and decided to worship it. And I’m wondering if our pot is sound and holds water.

Based on the 'before and after' in my own life I can assure you that it does.

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In my earlier post, I forgot to ask a question. If the Biblical god is the one, true God—who loves and desires a relationship with mankind—why would these angels be allowed to pose as false gods? Paul wrote that God is not the author of confusion. It doesn’t make logical sense that a multiplicity of imposter gods are permitted to confuse and deceive so many people.

The trend in the west is to be 'spiritual' but not 'religious'. In the east people are born and die, steeped in their ancestral religions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But consider option #3—God is evil, but deceptive. We know from experience and observation that there is much inexplicable pain and misfortune in world. Young children below the age of accountability are abused, become sick, and die miserably. The wicked often prosper while the righteous suffer. This would be expected if God is evil. But if God is also deceptive, he would allow some mercy, love, beauty, happiness, and answered prayers. All to disguise his true nature. Even the Jesus narrative could be deceptive. His birth, ministry, death, and resurrection could have happened exactly as the gospels describe. But it’s all a ruse to dupe believers. An evil God doesn’t need a reason to do this. It’s just his inherent nature to be evil and duplicitous. The world could look the same as it does now. Other than by faith, how can you know God if good, evil, or both?

Most understand that if they change their behaviors, in accord with God's will, good things would happen. That they choose not to is on them. What more is needed? Regarding the innocent; children are sanctified by believing parents. Of course 'time and chance' can happen to them as well.

 

[Amoranemix]

[5]You are mistaken. At best you can say that a necessary condition for a real marriage would be to make sure we have free will. That is however, not a sufficient condition, as the lack of such free marriage demonstrates. Morever, there is no requirement that God's wishes be fulfilled.
Furthermore, what evidence can you present that the ability to choose evil to the actual extent is an inevitable consequence of free will ?

Since I never claimed his to be a truth and in fact reject it wholeheartedly, I see no reason to try to make up any evidence it is true.[28]
From the very definition of a free will there can be inevitable result!

The lack of evidence presented in this thread supports the idea that God's goodness is not evidence based.
[28] Aha. So, according to you, free will makes the ability to choose evil inevitable, but not to the actual extent. Hence, free will cannot explain why there is so much ability to choose evil. Hence, the claim that a good god would not give is some many evil choices, remains unchallenged.

[6] There are other ways than mind control to prevent evil. In addition, what God envisioned is irrelevant in relation to whether he is good according to himself. You a merely arguing that he was wise, not that he was good.
Moreover, scenarios with an evil god allowing good in order to have real, genuine rejection can be invented.

Anything can be invented as Satan proved when testing Christ but it is meaningless to to waste time on them.

You committed a straw man fallacy, for no one is suggesting we waste time on that. Presumably you are assuming that an evil god must be an invention, while a good one must be real. However, no justification for such distinction has been provided.

So far, no one has been able to prove there is such a thing as some kind of overarching, ruling idea of the “GOOD”.

Yeah..................that's what I was saying.

That is not what you said and most Christians disagree with that claim.

To make the highest good to come out of it in the end.

That point lifts up and redefines what good is. It means everything is good for those who love God. There is no evil if God is loved.[29] Just as at the beginning when God judged everything is good. It still is depending on our relationship with it's source. I'm reminded of something the Roman neighbors of persecuted Christians wrote. I paraphrase. " The Christians rejoice when persecuted for the opportunity to forgive, knowing forgiveness adds power to their prayers." [ . . . ]

[29] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

Right, of course. And what impact does this 100% guaranteed reciprocated love have on God's free will? Is his love not genuine because it won't happen any other way?

Ok, I amend what I wrote: No, He will not reciprocate our love when we love HIM because HE ALREADY LOVES US FIRST!.[30] If reciprocation means that HE responds to our love with a love that was not there before ours, it is the wrong word to use.

[30] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

][7] All failures to love us are his, not ours.
[8] How so ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

To be a true free will, it is an absolute necessity that every and any option pertinent to the choice must be available to be chosen...[31]

IF love is to be real, the ability to reject love must be available.
IF a real marriage is available, rejection of the marriage proposal must be available.[32]
IF holy righteousness is available to be chosen then totally corrupt eternal evil must be available to be chosen by the rejection of righteousness.[33]
This is why GOD allowed evil to be created by the free will of HIS creation - it was an absolute necessity for the others to be able to respond freely to HIS loving proposal of marriage.[34]

[31] Are you going for the no true Sottsman fallacy ? Is it not true free will unless it meets the criteria that suit your beliefs ?
Why should people have true free will ?
[32] What relevance does that have ? How would absense of false gods make the millions of marriages yearly forced ?
[33] Why should that be ?
[34] Why would that be an absolute necessity ?

So God automatically loves everyone even if they don't love Him back, guaranteed 100%. Same question. Does that 100% guaranteed love mean that it isn't genuine because it won't happen any other way?

This question is so important to you that you are not following...there is no implication in this that GOD has no free will.
GOD loved all of his creation equally and fully.[35]
When some introduced evil into HIS creation by their free will choice to rebel, HE stopped loving them and started to hate them [36]:
Ps 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Psalm 11:5 The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked; His soul hates the lover of violence.
Psalm 10:3 For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. to abhor is to regard with extreme hate, repugnance and loathing...
Then some of those He still loved chose to follow the ones HE hated into sin but HE did not start to hate them because HE had already chosen them for salvation because they had already put their faith in HIM as their God and Saviour before they sinned.[37]
Then when these sinful elect have their eyes opened to their evil and they become ashamed and repent, their rebirth restores their free will and their ability to love and they start to seek HIM in truth, He still loves them.[38] [ . . . ]

[35] That is not the impression the Bible gives.
[36] If you are right, then you dispelled the myth of God being love.
[37] How did sinning cause them to lose free will ?
[38] I assume you mean ashamed of their sins and repent for their sins. What does evil have to do with this ? What if these sinners don't open their eyes to evil, but still repent for their sins ?

Most understand that if they change their behaviors, in accord with God's will, good things would happen. That they choose not to is on them. What more is needed?[39] Regarding the innocent; children are sanctified by believing parents. Of course 'time and chance' can happen to them as well.

[39] The one thing Christians can't provide : evidence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[39] The one thing Christians can't provide : evidence.

Not if you redefine 'evidence' like skeptics did 'design'.

 

[jayem]

The trend in the west is to be 'spiritual' but not 'religious'.

I agree 100%. And I hope that trend continues. I’m not a spiritual person, but as I stated several times, I cannot argue against sincere personal faith. What I don’t like is organized religion. As I see it, all the rituals, doctrines, and dogmas are more about enforcing conformity than satisfying spiritual needs. And in this thread, I’m trying to show that religious dogma doesn’t always make logical sense.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I agree 100%. And I hope that trend continues. I’m not a spiritual person, but as I stated several times, I cannot argue against sincere personal faith. What I don’t like is organized religion. As I see it, all the rituals, doctrines, and dogmas are more about enforcing conformity than satisfying spiritual needs. And in this thread, I’m trying to show that religious dogma doesn’t always make logical sense.

Part of the religious experience is conformity to the traditions, rituals, doctrines, and dogmas. There is great comfort in these structural aspects of one's religion. Of course it is understood that true religion occurs outside of the formal worship rituals.

 

[jayem]

Part of the religious experience is conformity to the traditions, rituals, doctrines, and dogmas. There is great comfort in these structural aspects of one's religion. Of course it is understood that true religion occurs outside of the formal worship rituals.

No doubt. Everyone is different. What’s comforting to one person may be attempted mind control to someone else.

 

[TedT]

The lack of evidence presented in this thread supports the idea that God's goodness is not evidence based.

Yo must mean that the AWARENESS OF GOD'S GOODNESS IS NOT EVIDENCE BASED... especially to sinners who cannot understand spiritual things because of our assessment by sinfulness and their love for sin...as most readily exlained int Rom 1.

Aha. So, according to you, free will makes the ability to choose evil inevitable, but not to the actual extent. Hence, free will cannot explain why there is so much ability to choose evil. Hence, the claim that a good god would not give is some many evil choices, remains unchallenged.

This non-sequitur is meaningless...the ability to make a free will choice is driven by what the person wants which is an open option with no coercion of any kind in the least to choose good or bad...so there is nothing inevitable about the choice to force evil, ie, it is only possible, not inevitable. A leap over the garden fence doesn't make that place a gate...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No doubt. Everyone is different. What’s comforting to one person may be attempted mind control to someone else.

True that some are vulnerable to mind control. In my church if the pastor said something in a sermon that doesn't sit right he would have a gaggle of people questioning him about it right after services.

My mother was a lifelong Lutheran. When my brother asked her a bible question about something she believed she responded, "I don't get my religion from the bible. I get it from Reverend (so and so)."

 

[TedT]

You committed a straw man fallacy, for no one is suggesting we waste time on that. Presumably you are assuming that an evil god must be an invention, while a good one must be real. However, no justification for such distinction has been provided.

I said it was a waste of our time...

The justification for the difference between a benevolent GOD and an evil god has been well documented elsewhere and rejected, but...

rejecting a doctrine of faith does not prove the object of that faith cannot be real. The life of Christ is enough for many people to understand that GOD is good but hey, we know any and every doctrine can be disqualified endlessly...blah blah blah so to speak. We know how non-believers think - we were, for the most part, all non-believers at one time or another, why keep harping on things outside of your experience that we have experienced that gave us the impetus we need to believe?

 

[Chriliman]

Other than having faith in the Bible, and religious tradition, is there any way to know that the biblical God is morally good? Based solely on observation, it’s far more logical to believe that God—if one even exists—is one of 3 possibilities:

1) Dualistic. Sometimes good, sometimes evil. Or possibly 2 gods—one good, and one evil, in constant struggle with each other.
2) Morally neutral and uninvolved.
3) Morally evil and deceptive.

I think there’s a good chance this world is a result of a battle between good and evil. Or simply a result of eternal undirected forces, hopefully shapeable for good.

 

[TedT]

TedT 156 to Moral Orel said:
To be a true free will, it is an absolute necessity that every and any option pertinent to the choice must be available to be chosen...[31]

IF love is to be real, the ability to reject love must be available.
IF a real marriage is available, rejection of the marriage proposal must be available.[32]
IF holy righteousness is available to be chosen then totally corrupt eternal evil must be available to be chosen by the rejection of righteousness.[33]
This is why GOD allowed evil to be created by the free will of HIS creation - it was an absolute necessity for the others to be able to respond freely to HIS loving proposal of marriage.[34]

[31] Are you going for the no true Sottsman fallacy ? Is it not true free will unless it meets the criteria that suit your beliefs ?

The no true Scotsman idea does not deny that there is truth to some facts by definition...water IS wet! A free will must be FREE from constraint and coercion or it can't be free.

[31]Why should people have true free will ?

In the Christian system a free will is an absolute necessity for GOD to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation, the heavenly marriage with those of HIS creation who wanted to join HIM in that marriage...as I've said a number of times already.

[31] Are you going for the no true Sottsman fallacy ? Is it not true free will unless it meets the criteria that suit your beliefs ?

The no true Scotsman idea does not deny that there is truth to some facts by definition...water IS wet! A free will must be FREE from constraint and coercion or it can't be called called FREE.

This only matters to Christians who know we need a free will but who also know we are born sinful, that is, enslaved to sin which implies we have no free will will so they invent all kinds of doublethink to solve their cognitive dissonance about the need for reconciliation.

[32] What relevance does that have ? How would absense of false gods make the millions of marriages yearly forced ?

I neither said that nor implied that... and it is so far out in left field I have no idea how to answer... wowser.

 

[TedT]

The one thing Christians can't provide : evidence.

There is much evidence - that you discount this evidence does not destroy its evidentiary value, it only proves you are not convinced by the evidence... Iow, evidence rejected is NOT a lack of evidence!

1st. The evidence of the Bible and the life of Christ has moved millions.

2nd. The evidence of the witness of the Holy Spirit indwelling us - a fact of evidence a non-believer cannot fathom so must denigrate or gaslight but no believer can ignore as a weird voice in their head.

3d. The reborn changed life of the believer such that they KNOW they are a new person and everyone who knows them well tells the same story about them.

This is about evidence, not proof. Just as atheists have no proof there is no GOD, Christians have no proof that there is, but we put our FAITH, an unproven hope, in the evidence that it is true and we will inherit HIS promises.

So, seek God HIMself and HE will reveal HIMself. Seek proof and listen to the crickets.

 

[mindlight]

Other than having faith in the Bible, and religious tradition, is there any way to know that the biblical God is morally good? Based solely on observation, it’s far more logical to believe that God—if one even exists—is one of 3 possibilities:

1) Dualistic. Sometimes good, sometimes evil. Or possibly 2 gods—one good, and one evil, in constant struggle with each other.
2) Morally neutral and uninvolved.
3) Morally evil and deceptive.

Because if not for God there is no possibility of a benchmark of goodness. We all know deep down that evil is absurdity so there must be a standard of goodness. Since finite, imperfect, and mortal beings like you or I cannot hope to define that standard from our own experiences or decisions we need a Being that survives all our poor criticisms. Only an Almighty, Eternal, and All-knowing God could also by definition define goodness.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because if not for God there is no possibility of a benchmark of goodness. We all know deep down that evil is absurdity so there must be a standard of goodness. Since finite, imperfect, and mortal beings like you or I cannot hope to define that standard from our own experiences or decisions we need a Being that survives all our poor criticisms. Only an Almighty, Eternal, and All-knowing God could also by definition define goodness.

Unfortunately it looks like it’s just us kids, and we’re dong all right.

 

[jayem]

1st. The evidence of the Bible and the life of Christ has moved millions.

Nearly 2 billion people in the world have been moved by the Koran. Some have sacrificed themselves in the belief they’re acting according to Allah’s will. Not to mention that a billion or so people revere the Bhagavad Gita. And many millions observe the teachings of the Buddha in the Tripitaka.

2nd. The evidence of the witness of the Holy Spirit indwelling us - a fact of evidence a non-believer cannot fathom so must denigrate or gaslight but no believer can ignore as a weird voice in their head.

3d. The reborn changed life of the believer such that they KNOW they are a new person and everyone who knows them well tells the same story about them.

That’s quite subjective. But many people feel their lives have been changed by becoming Mormons. IIRC, the LDS church is one of the fastest growing denominations worldwide. I had a co-worker who believed she was being spiritually enlightened by Scientology.

This is about evidence, not proof. Just as atheists have no proof there is no GOD, Christians have no proof that there is, but we put our FAITH, an unproven hope, in the evidence that it is true and we will inherit HIS promises.

No argument about that. Ultimately, it comes down to faith.

 

[Bradskii]

...the ability to make a free will choice is driven by what the person wants which is an open option with no coercion of any kind in the least to choose good or bad...

Strictly speaking, that's not possible. We are all coerced in some ways. Either by other people's opinions, the current conditions, our own opinions (which are based on previous experiences which were tempered by previous condition and other people's opinions etc) and so on. None of us make a decision in a vacuum. There is always a reason for it.

And if those reasons dictate our decisions in every case then it could be said that we have no free will in that sense.

 

[Bradskii]

Nearly 2 billion people in the world have been moved by the Koran. Some have sacrificed themselves in the belief they’re acting according to Allah’s will. Not to mention that a billion or so people revere the Bhagavad Gita. And many millions observe the teachings of the Buddha in the Tripitaka.

That’s quite subjective. But many people feel their lives have been changed by becoming Mormons. IIRC, the LDS church is one of the fastest growing denominations worldwide. I had a co-worker who believed she was being spiritually enlightened by Scientology.

No argument about that. Ultimately, it comes down to faith.

Almost word for word matching what I was going to write. So you saved me some typing.

I would add that there is no-one who is likely to convince me that if your average Christian who claims witness to the spiritual aspect of her religion and shows uncontrovertable proof that she is a changed person - for the better, would not claim exactly the same had she been born into a Muslim or Hindu family and surrounded by similarly religiously minded friends and family.

I wish people would realise that we are all prisoners of time and geography and that we are a lot more maleable than we'd wish to admit. It's quite a struggle admitting that to oneself in the first instance. And trying to extricate oneself from that position is well nigh impossible.