Prove that God is good

[Shadowprophet]

Hi ShadowProphet. I respectfully must disagree.

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs | Monticello

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."​

Then respectfully I must show you how wrong you are.. Is is wrong to use the Lords name in Vane.. And in this thread to use Gods name so lightly as to ask people to prove he is good, Is a very vane way to bait people into a topic using Gods name.. Now, accept this truth or deny it.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Isn't this what Satan asked Jesus in the dessert? Jesus said: "It is written - You shall not put the Lord your God to the test."

Just not seeing that being the same as the OP ...

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.​

 

[Shadowprophet]

Seriously, it's a legitimate (if philosophically misguided) question. The question does come up in apologetics generally, so it's not "slanderous" to raise the question.

If you don't like the thread, why are you participating in it? It's like people complaining about violence on television...if you're opposed to it, turn it off and do something else. Your self-righteous "offense" is disingenuous to say the least.

Self righteous? I think not. This is righteousness of and for Gods very name. And I will defend this issue. I disagree with this topic. And I honestly don't care, Here I stand in a room full of people who claim I misunderstand This topic, or that this is allowed in this forum, When the subject is misuse of Gods name, You should Be ashamed, Genuinely...

 

[NightHawkeye]

Then respectfully I must show you how wrong you are.. Is is wrong to use the Lords name in Vane.. And in this thread to use Gods name so lightly as to ask people to prove he is good, Is a very vane way to bait people into a topic using Gods name.. Now, accept this truth or deny it.

Not gonna accept it just because you claim it to be so ... though I'll grant that the OP title may be a little strong.

I've had numerous discussions with Achilles and found him to be questioning and reasoning. Both being good characteristics.

 

[Tree of Life]

Just not seeing that being the same as the OP ...

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.​

Sure it's the same. The devil said: "God said that he would protect you from all harm. So throw yourself off this height and prove that God is good!"

 

[Shadowprophet]

Not gonna accept it just because you claim it to be so ... though I'll grant that the OP title may be a little strong.

I've had numerous discussions with Achilles and found him to be questioning and reasoning. Both being good characteristics.

Be mislead, This is Gods name here, The name so holy we are not to use it in vane. I want no part of this misguided people or it's misguided place., I leave these forums entirely. I don't want your blinded theories and your dangerous ideologies. I deny this place. Goodbye.

 

[Hillsage]

But this is just a logical fallacy. Sickness in biological organisms is not a morally categorizable circumstance; it is merely a fact of biology. To be sick, or to die, is ultimately to occupy one of an infinite number of biological states that are possible within the contingency of the universe. But to assign moral value to any particular state is to completely misunderstand the nature of "good" and "evil".

Merk's Medical manual would tend to differ with your POV. Indeed 80-85% of all diseases listed in that manual have a psychological component associated with them. Components which are also considered the very spiritual roots of many diseases, and the very basis of which, one ministry uses extensively for bringing healing of organic diseases to pass.

The bible also disagrees with your opinion IMO. Scriptures which warn again "fear not", "be anxious for nothing", "forgive or you won't be forgiven"....all can result in physical illness which are psycho somatic in origin.

JOH 5:13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. 14 Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you."

Your quote above is right about one thing....what I've just presented is very much "merely a fact of biology".

 

[Shadowprophet]

I get accused of trying to be self righteous in a place were we are supposed to go to truly be righteous in the name of God. When a person gets accused of being falsely righteous in a church where they are supposed to be righteous. I am certain this is no longer the place for me.. I will defend Gods holy name from misuse. Accuse me all you want. But Gods name is holy, And for it to be used the way it was in the title. And then for me to be accused of being self righteous, for defending Gods name, Oh no,, this is not the place for me.

 

[Razare]

This doesn't prove the existence of "goodness"; all that it demonstrates is that you have been socially conditioned to categorize behavior and circumstances according to a particular moral construct.

But you would have to be a materialist to view things that way. Socially Conditioned - Implies that a person learned from society what is good and evil. This comes from observation. Why did you believe what you observed? Just because you believe what you observed, could you also believe what you do not observe?

Is all moral philosophy a derivative of societal conditioning, or is there moral philosophy apart from all conditioning?

So, no, I reject what you say, because the unseen assumptions behind it are wrong. We can't determine things on materialist philosophy (observation only) because observation is only one piece of reality. Materialism itself opposes strict materialism, because to believe materialism, a person must first believe in observation itself... which is a philosophy believed but not seen. "Observation is true".

And it sucks I have to go that far down the rabbit hole to disagree with you, but basically, I agree to a certain extent. The Bible teaches that men and women learn good and evil from society. Yet what the Bible also teaches is that there is a moral law which exists apart from what men teach, and this moral law never changes.

Yet a person must step apart from society and go find that moral law to realize it is there. If they go by observation only, they will easily conclude as you have, it was just learned. But as I said, there is no reason to believe observation at all without first positing an aspect of this moral philosophy you are arguing against. To say, "Observation is true" is to then say something is true apart from what society teaches. Yet, why is that given statement intrinsically true vs. other statements? Like, "Observation is not true." Or various other statements, and I am somewhere in the middle on that issue, not strictly in either camp.

But this is just a logical fallacy. Sickness in biological organisms is not a morally categorizable circumstance; it is merely a fact of biology. To be sick, or to die, is ultimately to occupy one of an infinite number of biological states that are possible within the contingency of the universe. But to assign moral value to any particular state is to completely misunderstand the nature of "good" and "evil".

Biology arose from God's word, and God's word opposes sickness and disease. In the future, those things will be done away with, and will not exist by God's elimination of evil.

They are evil not by a moral philosophy which is derived from biology.

They are evil by the philosophy which created biology itself. This philosophy is higher than biological knowledge because it created biological knowledge.

 

[Strong in Him]

Fine, you leave me no choice. Here are my thoughts.

If someone can not even see that God who gave them life and the wisdom to understand, and even offered them forgiveness and love, and to boot it all, ever lasting life for those who would accept it. If someone can know those things of God and not see that he is Good. Then those people aren't very intelligent...

The OP says, "what would you say if someone asked you to prove that God is good?"

The someone who asked might be a non Christian who didn't go to church, or know God. They might not believe that God gave them life, and they might not have ever been told that God offers forgiveness - they might just look at all the suffering and disasters in the world and say "where's the proof that God is good?"

Maybe you were assuming that the person who asked you about God's goodness was another born again Christian. If so, your comments make slightly more sense, though I still feel they are a bit harsh.

If someone has to ask if God is Good. then that person is a lost soul..

Not if that person is a non Christian, has no church background, hasn't been taught about God but is just judging him by their own circumstances, which may be dreadful.

someone who is smart enough to get on the internet and join a forum and strike up a debate about God,

I repeat, the question from the OP was "what would you say if someone asked you to prove that God is good?" It was NOT "What would you say if a born again Christian didn't believe that God is good?" nor was it "I am a Christian who cannot believe that God is good."
That suggested to me that the questioner was indeed a non Christian; maybe someone of a different faith or someone who is hostile to Christianity. Maybe the OP is in a debate with such a person and wants help/ideas from his fellow Christians.

Fine HOW DARE SOMEONE QUESTION IF GOD IS GOOD ON A CHRISTIAN FORUM!

They weren't! They were asking what your response would be if someone asked you that.

THEY AUGHT TO BE SMACKED.. Is that any more helpful?

Maybe you should read the thread properly and stop shouting.
And no, your reply isn't any more helpful.

 

[SkyWriting]

What would you say if someone asked you to prove that God is good?

God creates, evil destroys.
Unless you've seen mater being created "naturally"
then where we are, is not with God.

Yet he figured out how to get to us through our Spirit.

 

[SkyWriting]

Seems logical to me. Example: If we were in a room arguing and I picked up a chair and threw it through the glass window behind me....is that good or evil? From your 'immediate temporal' perspective it would probably be considered not only 'bad', but maybe even a little scary as to what I might do next....right? But if you saw what I saw through the window behind you, which was gun toting terrorists heading for the only door to the room we were in....you might be thankful that I just opened an escape route to save 'both' of us...because I really wasn't 'that mad' at you, that I wanted you dead. And my, more 'futuristic temporal' motivation, would supersede your more 'immediate temporal' understanding and experience POV. I hope that analogy helps.

Evil is destructive of that which is good, including lives and windows.

 

[Vicomte13]

What would you say if someone asked you to prove that God is good?

First, I would ask "Why do you ask this question?

 

[Vicomte13]

Be mislead, This is Gods name here, The name so holy we are not to use it in vane. I want no part of this misguided people or it's misguided place., I leave these forums entirely. I don't want your blinded theories and your dangerous ideologies. I deny this place. Goodbye.

God's name is not "God".

 

[LamarHourglass]

I get accused of trying to be self righteous in a place were we are supposed to go to truly be righteous in the name of God. When a person gets accused of being falsely righteous in a church where they are supposed to be righteous. I am certain this is no longer the place for me.. I will defend Gods holy name from misuse. Accuse me all you want. But Gods name is holy, And for it to be used the way it was in the title. And then for me to be accused of being self righteous, for defending Gods name, Oh no,, this is not the place for me.

Brother, I understand what you're saying and you are right. In this context though, how else is a non-believer supposed to ask this question.

 

[EmmaCat]

What would you say if someone asked you to prove that God is good?

You mean here in my neighborhood? Where I live? In a Fundamentalist Christian Bible Community? If so, I'd say, "You're not from around here, are you?"

All good things
Emmy

 

[mikpat]

Any of the attributes of God, whether goodness, truthful, justice, mercy, infinite, all- knowing etc. cannot be proven. If we believe that God is perfection and excludes all deficiencies and that God is infinite in all His perfection, truth, justice, goodness, then we can say that God is infinitely good.

Can I prove it———not really…..since it's a matter of faith. if we have faith, then maybe we can with some human reason describe his attributes. if God is perfect in goodness, then nothing evil can proceed from God.

 

[Vicomte13]

What would you say if someone asked you to prove that God is good?

The answer to my "Why are you asking?" question is non-trivial, because the motive of the questioner in asking the question is pivotal. A believer in pain may be asking seeking solace, a curious believer may be seeking to strengthen his faith, a seeking non-believer may be trying to find some reason to believe, an angry unbeliever may be seeking to vent against your religion, while a wily unbeliever may be laying verbal traps that he can use against your religion in later discussions.

Also, by asking a question in response to the question, you are establishing a tone for the conversation, and establishing that it will be conducted on a basis of equality, two people discussing a matter of interest over a glass of tea, as it were, as opposed to a judge demanding information from a petitioner. The questioner certainly gets to ask questions, but the respondent may ask questions also in his turn.

Further, the response to my question will allow me to gauge the interest and sincerity of my questioner. An earnest seeker who really wants an answer will answer with alacrity. A troublemaker will ignore it, seeing that he too will have to answer questions and may have to defend his view.

So, the proper first response to "What would you say if someone asked you to prove that God is good?" is "Why are you asking?" The response to that question determines the tone of the conversation. The lack of a response demonstrates that the questioner never intended to have a conversation at all, but merely proposed to sit back as a sort of judge, playing gotcha and swatting like flies the Christians who earnestly come before him to answer.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What would you say if someone asked you to prove that God is good?

I would say that having made the step of faith to believe in God, its a simple step of faith to also believe He is good.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Self righteous? I think not. This is righteousness of and for Gods very name. And I will defend this issue. I disagree with this topic. And I honestly don't care, Here I stand in a room full of people who claim I misunderstand This topic, or that this is allowed in this forum, When the subject is misuse of Gods name, You should Be ashamed, Genuinely...

You're overreacting to a legitimate question that is not "baiting" anyone into anything, other than offering myself and others and opportunity to explicate the reasons behind the formulation of how we understand God to be "good".

Again, if you are so offended by the topic, go somewhere else. Your insistence on participating despite your alleged "outrage" is bordering on voyeurism.