Prove that God is good

[alexandriaisburning]

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.

You already said you were leaving before, but here you are again, back, and continuing the discussion. So much for your "offense"

 

[alexandriaisburning]

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?

And? Obviously moral decisions and beliefs are influenced by social conditioning; we are products of the environments in which we live and are raised. Even if your morality is (supposedly) derived from Scripture, that is another manifestation of the social nature of moral thinking.

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

I would argue that moral philosophy cannot exist apart from social influences; the knowledge that we have of the world is not exclusively that of our own experiences...in fact, very little of it is, especially within the formative years of our lives in which the moral structures of thought are being developed within us.

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".

Which "unseen assumptions" are wrong?

Furthermore, I hardly see why an acceptance of the morality that I have suggested is a necessary capitulation to materialist thinking. The onus would be on you to defend such a far-reaching statement.

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.

The positing of a moral law that exists apart from human thinking is legitimate, philosophically, but can hardly be demonstrated in any meaningful way that impacts actual moral decision making. The wide spectrum of moral interpretation within human history in general, but even more specifically within theistic groups, and yet even more specifically within specific religions would provide a pragmatic check against the feasibility of demonstrating such a hypothesis.

Yet a person must step apart from society and go find that moral law to realize it is there.

Realizing "what" is there? Giving lip service to a transcendantal moral law that applies to the actual outworking of human morality makes for a good sound bite, but what is the content of this transcendental law? What are the rules of its application? How does one defend one's understanding of this law against a rival understanding of someone who claims to assent to the same law?

 

[Achilles6129]

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.

Hello,

Certainly the intent of this thread is not to question the goodness of God. I take the goodness of God for granted, for reasons that I've already described. The question posed in this thread is posed the same reason all questions are posed: to lead us into a deeper understanding of theology.

 

[Achilles6129]

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

The point of all questions regarding theology is a deeper understanding of theology. That's the reason I started a thread about God killing Dathan/Abiram's children.

 

[Achilles6129]

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.

Well, we could cite numerous examples in Scripture where God destroys people. That would seem to contradict your response.

 

[Achilles6129]

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.

Or, the lack of response could demonstrate that the questioner is away at his day job working

 

[Achilles6129]

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.

Ah! So you can't prove it then So let me ask you a question I've raised before in this thread: would you believe that God is good no matter what he does, or is there something that God could do that would make you stop believing that he's good?

 

[OzSpen]

Again, this misses the point of the OP. The OP asked what you would say if someone asked you to "prove" that God is good. Quoting Scriptures that claim that God is good is not proof. The proof they are asking for is illusory, for to prove the goodness of God would require that you can first prove the existence of God. If the person asking has already admitted the existence of God, then no further proof is required as it is a logical necessity to conclude that God is good (if one has already granted the existence of God).

I didn't miss the point at all. I provided Scriptures to back my point about the goodness of God in creating and sustaining our world. In my witnessing I demonstrate the doctrine of providence by practical examples. These could be:

• There would be collapse if gravity was not sustained. Why sustains gravity. To say, 'nature', does not tell us who originated nature. Did it come out of nothing?
• How many planets are there in the solar system? Who sustains them?
• Let me look into your eye? What causes it to function properly? Look at the design of the eye, ear, mouth, tongue, brain, etc. How are they designed to function properly?
• Why is the outback of Australia experiencing severe drought now? Who will break the El Nino?
• Who designed a perm to join with an ovum to produce a child?
  
• Have you ever stopped to think of what causes the crime and violence in our country? Let's get beyond blaming bikies, junkies, etc.

I could go on and on with examples of God's providence in action.

There are plenty of examples of the good God in action in the design and function of the universe. And there's plenty of proof to show what happens when human beings want to take control.

I live in a country that is filled with nonbelievers who doubt the existence of God. I use these kinds of examples as a bridge to the Gospel and God's solution to human depravity and its outworking in our society.

I live in a post-Christian country and I wouldn't be so stupid as to roll out these biblical verses to demonstrate the goodness of God. However they do support God's goodness in the design and function of the universe and human beings.

Oz

 

[Shadowprophet]

Look I've been having a difficult time lately, While I don't agree with this thread, This thread is not as critical an issue as I made out out to be. Times are difficult right now, And it spilled out on to the forums. My apologies..

 

[derpytia]

Well not ALL humans have been wiped off the face of the earth yet which is what we all probably deserve since we are not only killing each other but killing the earth itself. That's pretty good if you ask me. If we held God by human standards, we'd say, almost too good. I also would point out that no other parent I know would give up the life of one of their children willingly to save a whole bunch of people who are far more "evil" than that child.

Also, since God created the heavens and the earth, it reasons to stand that the concept of 'goodness' is also of his design. So really, applying our limited and very human concept of 'goodness' to God isn't going to work so well I think.

 

[Vicomte13]

The point of all questions regarding theology is a deeper understanding of theology. That's the reason I started a thread about God killing Dathan/Abiram's children.

Alright then, so you are seeking a deeper understanding of theology.
Very well, then, let's go deep.

Your question was "What would you say if someone asked you to prove that God is good?"

I would start by saying that there are four key words in the question we have to define if we are to have any hope at answering it. Otherwise we may be talking past it.

The first word is "prove".
The second word is "God".
The third word is "is".
And the fourth word is "good".

To start with the first word, "prove" means three things: "test" (as in "proving grounds"), and it means to present arguments that support a role (to present ones "proofs"), and in the strictest mathematical sense, it means to present mathematical statements in logical order, each following necessarily from the last, that ultimately arrive at an inescapable conclusion assuming the postulates. Even the most rigorous geometric proof requires that one accept the postulates as a given. If one rejects the postulates of geometry, than nothing can be proven.

When speaking of theology in particular, however, most non-religious people have in a mind a fourth meaning of "proof". What they really mean is "Demonstrate to me, using only facts that I accept as facts, and logical arguments that I accept, each following necessarily from the last, whereby any doubt whatever can be removed from a particular statement concerning a divine being or beings. This means that necessarily you must first prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, using only evidence admissible in my court, and answering every objection that I raise, that God exists at all. And then, having proven that God exists, you must then prove to my full satisfaction that God exhibits the trait that I demand you prove, to wit: goodness."

This is a tall order. It may or may not be impossible, depending on the willingness of the demander to accept certain representations as facts.

Which is why the definition of the word "is" is primordial, for if one cannot prove in the first instance that God is at all, then obviously one cannot prove that such God is good, or bad, or indifferent, or purple.

So, before we can define what good is, let alone what God is, we have to first define what IS is. (The legal defense of a US President against an accusation of perjury once reposed on the statement "It all depends on what is is.")

When speaking of God, it's not surprising that one of the dialogues that the Hebrew God gave, to Moses, reposed upon the verb "to be", and that in the text this God stated his name in reference to this verb: "I am", or "I will be what I will be" are some of the variant definitions of this name, as is "I am what I am" (God is Popeye?) and "I will be what I choose to be".

If one takes the word "to be" in English and tries to define it, one ends up in a quick circle: "to be" is "to exist", to exist is to be. In Hebrew, the concept of "to live" is tied into "to be"/"to exist", such that "to be", "to exist" and "to live" are all the same word. We, of course, separate "live" out as a biological function, but ancient Hebrew, where we have to look to see ancient writings supposedly revealed by this God that Westerners mostly talk about, does not make the distinctions we make.

So then we have to decide if we're going to stick with what the Hebrew means, or if we're going to insist on our meaning and distinctions.

Of course the hostile questioner is not going to permit the vagueness of "to live" to be included in "to be", and is going to stick with the modern understanding that "living" is a biological subset of "being". Perhaps the rocks and stars live in Hebrew, but they don't in English, and the person asking the question is not going to adjust his thinking about the meaning of words in order to try to see from a viewpoint that he would find cranky in the first place.

To be is to exist, and that which exists, is. "Is" means that which exists. It is not limited to what we perceive or know exists, but what really exists independent of observation. Using this concrete "hard" concept of existence, then, the answer to the question "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it", is "Of course - physics dictates the creation of vibrations from the fall, which move air molecules and create what would be perceived as sound, and it is that vibration that is sound, irrespective of the fact that there is a sensing organ there to hear it or not."

Our questioner has a firm sense of reality, and reality is generally that which can be perceived, measured and detected. Of course, he is not willing to bind himself to that position, because he is willing to entertain the concept of multidimensional string theory as a real feature of the universe, and an explanation therefor, even though there is no means at present to detect any such dimensions. The fact that they can be mathematically diagrammed and the logic of the mathematics upholds their possibility, and the logical way that they are thought to interact seems to give a rational, non-imaginary way by which the existence of the universe can be explained. Therefore, pure logic, derived mathematically but otherwise not empirically testable is, after all, acceptable to our questioner. He will not throw out the possible reality of string theory just because it is (at present) completely speculative, because the speculation follows logically and mathematically from that which is perceived.

I mention this because it demonstrates the two ways that one could prove the existence of God to the questioner, and after all, God's mere existence must be satisfactorily proven first before there can be any meaningful discussion of his attributes (such as goodness). Otherwise we would be spending time discussing the color of the gill slits of nargals and the piebald patterning of bandywomps. The "two ways" are:
(1) Prove God through logic and empirical observation, scientifically, or
(2) God proves himself by making a direct theophany to the questioner and revealing himself as God. (Of course, in such instance, the revelation might be overwhelming, but might not actually be God, but some other, much more powerful being masquerading as God in order to obtain followership from the questioner. The questioner could legitimately wonder why such a powerful being would even want the followership of such a lesser developed creature as himself.)

(2) is up to God to do if he chooses. Sometimes he does. Until that moment, we are left with (1) as our only option.

It would be swell, because it would be easier, if we could just confine ourselves to the concept of the Abrahamic God, to discuss whether He exists or not, but that assumption - that if there is a God at all, the Abrahamic God would "obviously" be Him - assumes far too much that our interlocutor will not accept - or at any rate should not accept if he is really seeking a rigorous proof of God's existence (or lack thereof).

To prove God is a thing at all, one needs to begin with the prospect of what God would have to be like so that, if you found something with those properties, you would not only be able to say "Yes, I have found God", but would be compelled to say it.

"Goodness", a subjective quality that would depend on the position of the observer (what is "good" to the lion is often suboptimal for the antelope), would not be a fundamental property necessary to establish the existence of God - it is possible to conceive of (and human history is full of the tales of) a god or gods that were quite "evil" (another subjective term).

So, stripped of value judgments about good and evil, what would something have to be for you to consider that thing "God", and be willing to call it that.

I would say that "God", as you mean the term, would have to have four essential properties:

(1) Omnpotence
(2) Omnipresence
(3) Timelessness ("Eternality" ought to be a word, but it isn't, so "timelessness" will have to suffice)
(4) Omniscience.

If I were to show you a thing that had those four properties, you would agree that I had shown you God as a matter of definition, yes?

That's a question. If I show you something that is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and omniscient, would you agree that I have shown you God?

If so, we could then look at that thing to determine whether or not it met whatever our criteria was of good.

So, please let me know the answer to that question: If I demonstrate something that is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and omniscient, have I presented you God as a sort of geometric proof: here is a thing that has all of the necessary attributes of God, therefore, this is God, by definition?

Put differently, IF God is those four things, THEN that which is demonstrated to have those four things is God.
Is that an acceptable strategy for a definition of God, and a set of criteria necessary to complete a proof for you?

I've tried to phrase this as a yes or no question, because, after all, you asked for the proof of God's goodness. To prove that, I first have to prove God exists in the first place, and that can be reduced to a set of definitions, I believe.

"God is that which is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and omniscient." Agreed?

 

[Vicomte13]

Look I've been having a difficult time lately, While I don't agree with this thread, This thread is not as critical an issue as I made out out to be. Times are difficult right now, And it spilled out on to the forums. My apologies..

All is forgiven - seventy times seven. Try to get some sleep tonight. Sleep relieves stress.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, we could cite numerous examples in Scripture where God destroys people. That would seem to contradict your response.

On earth is not with God. People always get that backwards
claiming that when we die, we are leaving Heaven.

 

[Hawkins]

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

Christ is the image of God. So by Christ's teachings we can tell that God is good. God has written a set of Law in our hearts which becomes our conscience. That says our basic judgement of good from evil is ultimately from God. To a certain extent, Law defines God's likes and dislikes.

Even our legal system tells that God is good. The laws used by our countries are written in a thick book which only the lawyers may read. People in majority don't read law books in order to abide by most of the laws, because God placed the set of Law in our hearts such that we can tell the basic good from evil without reading any law books.

 

[ianb321red]

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

What would I say? I would focus largely on Jesus Christ.
Keep it simple - don't get dragged in to what "good" necessarily means or how it is defined.
Good in the biblical sense means complete or perfect, and this is one of the main attributes we can identify with Jesus

 

[alexandriaisburning]

This is a tall order. It may or may not be impossible, depending on the willingness of the demander to accept certain representations as facts.

It is not possible, and is a fool's errand to undertake the task. The only "god" that you will end up proving is one that is the product of one's own imagination.

Which is why the definition of the word "is" is primordial, for if one cannot prove in the first instance that God is at all, then obviously one cannot prove that such God is good, or bad, or indifferent, or purple.

Based on the OP's question, the questioner is at least granting the existence of God. So going backward to beyond this assumption is not very useful, at least not in addressing the question (it *is* useful in avoiding the question).

Of course the hostile questioner is not going to permit the vagueness of "to live" to be included in "to be", and is going to stick with the modern understanding that "living" is a biological subset of "being". Perhaps the rocks and stars live in Hebrew, but they don't in English, and the person asking the question is not going to adjust his thinking about the meaning of words in order to try to see from a viewpoint that he would find cranky in the first place.

To prove God is a thing at all, one needs to begin with the prospect of what God would have to be like so that, if you found something with those properties, you would not only be able to say "Yes, I have found God", but would be compelled to say it.

God is not a "thing" in the sense that other "things" are "things". God does not belong to or participate within the general classification of existence in the same way that that which is contingent upon God participates. God both exists, but is also the sheer act of existence itself. As such, there is no possibility of the "property analysis" which you suggest, as God is not only transcendent of contingent be-ing's ability to comprehend, but--and perhaps more importantly--does not belong exclusively to the domain of existence in which such an analysis of properties would take place.

"Goodness", a subjective quality that would depend on the position of the observer (what is "good" to the lion is often suboptimal for the antelope), would not be a fundamental property necessary to establish the existence of God - it is possible to conceive of (and human history is full of the tales of) a god or gods that were quite "evil" (another subjective term).

Another failure in logic. Goodness, from the perspective of human thinking, is certainly a subjective analysis, as it will be based on the moral assumptions we have about the universe. When spoken of in relation to the nature of God, however, goodness is not a subjective reality, for there is no standard or measure external to or differentiated from the same existence of God by which God would be evaluated as "good". God is good because God exists, not because God does "x, ", and z" and "x", "y" and "z" are good. If we speak of God's goodness, therefore, we are speaking of God qua God, not our evaluations of the "goodness" of God's actions.

(1) Omnpotence
(2) Omnipresence
(3) Timelessness ("Eternality" ought to be a word, but it isn't, so "timelessness" will have to suffice)
(4) Omniscience.

These are probably the least important attributes regarding the nature of God. The very utilization of these words tends toward a break-down in our understanding of the aseity of God, for it mingles our fundamental understanding and conception of God with the assumption of the existence of that which is not God. By defining God on the basis of that which is not God, we cease to speak of God as simplicity, and introduce composite parts to cobble together an understanding which ultimately results in little more than the "biggest" human.

If you want a place to start with defining God, start with the notion of divine simplicity. The Angelic Doctor can get you on more solid ground in this regard.

If I were to show you a thing that had those four properties, you would agree that I had shown you God as a matter of definition, yes?

No, I would agree that you've only shown me the best product of human imagination, of what we'd consider "god" to be if we are to imagine ourselves as such a being.

If so, we could then look at that thing to determine whether or not it met whatever our criteria was of good.

Yes, and that's precisely the point. By looking at "that thing", we should--with only a smattering of theological knowledge and philosophical training--realize that we are not looking at God, but at a superman.

Put differently, IF God is those four things, THEN that which is demonstrated to have those four things is God.
Is that an acceptable strategy for a definition of God, and a set of criteria necessary to complete a proof for you?

It is an extremely poor and naive proof, as these attributes have very little to do with defining the nature of God. We could, after all, imagine these attributes applied to anything within the creation; such imaginings, however, do not produce anything other than that which resembles the grandest imaginings of our own selves.

"God is that which is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and omniscient." Agreed?

Frankly, there are not many (alleged) theological statements with which I would more heartily disagree.

 

[Vicomte13]

It is not possible, and is a fool's errand to undertake the task. The only "god" that you will end up proving is one that is the product of one's own imagination.

It may be possible. It's not a fool's errand. It may prove the real God.

Based on the OP's question, the questioner is at least granting the existence of God. So going backward to beyond this assumption is not very useful, at least not in addressing the question (it *is* useful in avoiding the question).

The original question does not grant the existence of the Christian God. It is necessary to first define God to be able to answer the question. The question is not answered by bulling forward, as you do, ignoring the aspects of the question that are outside of Christianity. Allah and Vishnu are also "god" to people who believe them. The question dealt with an aspect of God. To answer it, what God is must first be demonstrated.

God is not a "thing" in the sense that other "things" are "things".

God is a thing.

God both exists, but is also the sheer act of existence itself.

Gratuitous assertion. Prove it.

As such, there is no possibility of the "property analysis" which you suggest, as God is not only transcendent of contingent be-ing's ability to comprehend, but--and perhaps more importantly--does not belong exclusively to the domain of existence in which such an analysis of properties would take place.

Says you. Why should I believe you? Prove your assertions.

Another failure in logic. Goodness, from the perspective of human thinking, is certainly a subjective analysis, as it will be based on the moral assumptions we have about the universe. When spoken of in relation to the nature of God, however, goodness is not a subjective reality, for there is no standard or measure external to or differentiated from the same existence of God by which God would be evaluated as "good". God is good because God exists, not because God does "x, ", and z" and "x", "y" and "z" are good. If we speak of God's goodness, therefore, we are speaking of God qua God, not our evaluations of the "goodness" of God's actions.

You are redefining the word "good". On what authority do you do so? None. "Good" means what it means in English. If we have to redefine the word "good" to talk about God, then the original question "prove God is good" is meaningless.

These are probably the least important attributes regarding the nature of God.

These attributes are important. A thing that lacks them is not God. A thing that has all of them is God, by definition. In Scripture, God thought his almightyness, eternity, omniscience and omnipresence were important enough to include them in various passages from his own mouth. Christian prayers have noted those things since time immemorial. They are important.
You say they are not important, and dismiss my attention to them, preferring to substitute what you think is important. That's swell, but it isn't persuasive.

The very utilization of these words tends toward a break-down in our understanding of the aseity of God, for it mingles our fundamental understanding and conception of God with the assumption of the existence of that which is not God.

Funny, then, that God spoke of these attributes so often in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. They seem to have been more important to the writers of Scripture, and to the God who spoke in Scripture, than they are for you. I suppose it is good for you that you are "past all that" and focused on some higher intellectual construct of God. I'm still back in the terms that God expressed about himself.

By defining God on the basis of that which is not God, we cease to speak of God as simplicity, and introduce composite parts to cobble together an understanding which ultimately results in little more than the "biggest" human.

No, you end up with God. A big human is not omnipresent or omniscient or eternal or omnipotent.

If you want a place to start with defining God, start with the notion of divine simplicity.

What does that even mean? Christianity (mostly) asserts that God is a Trinity - and the Trinity is a mystery. There isn't any simplicity at all in eternity, or omnipresence. God is not simple. The Christian God isn't even a monad. Divine simplicity does not exist. If God were easy, people would not spend years of their life studying him.

No, I would agree that you've only shown me the best product of human imagination, of what we'd consider "god" to be if we are to imagine ourselves as such a being.

You have prejudged the case. This saves you the time of having to discuss it with me.

Yes, and that's precisely the point. By looking at "that thing", we should--with only a smattering of theological knowledge and philosophical training--realize that we are not looking at God, but at a superman.

If your "philosophical training" leads you to that conclusion, it wasn't very good.

It is an extremely poor and naive proof, as these attributes have very little to do with defining the nature of God.

Too bad for you, then, that the Hebrew and Christian God described himself so often precisely in terms of these unique attributes. I'll stick with the God of Job, who has stretched out the sky and knows where Leviathan roams, and with the God of Jesus, who has numbered every hair of your head, who knew the prophets in their mother's wombs and who makes the deer calve. No superman can do those things.

We could, after all, imagine these attributes applied to anything within the creation; such imaginings, however, do not produce anything other than that which resembles the grandest imaginings of our own selves.

No we can't. We can't imagine two omnipotences. It doesn't work, by definition. Omnipresence. Eternity. How does on "imagine" these things, let alone apply them to ourselves? You have asserted a fact that is not true. We cannot, after all, imagine the attributes of eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience to anything in creation. Whatever unified those four attributes would of necessity by God. The best we could do is note the apparent omnipresence, eternity and omnipotence of an abstract blind "natural law" like the pantheists and natural evolutionists do, but in this natural law, omniscience is still absent. You are right that, in the literally true sense, natural law + omniscience IS God, by anybody's definition, but the fact of omniscience removes the randomness and blindness from it, turning pantheism into highest order monotheism. And to talk with a secular scientist that is what you would have to do to prove God to him. He's already got natural law, which is random but real, everywhere, controlling all things. He's three quarters of the way there. You would have to prove omniscience to him. That's the hard part. The miracles God has left for all to look at help.

Frankly, there are not many (alleged) theological statements with which I would more heartily disagree.

Yes. It is apparent that you and I share nothing whatever in common in our religious views. It is also apparent, by your overbearing tone and insult, that you do not view me as your intellectual equal, and cannot resist talking down to me in every other sentence. In this, I am sure that you are only following the instructions of your God for interacting with other people. For my part, I find it unpleasant, and since we do not share anything in common, and you think that there is no value whatever in my approach to these questions, it would be best - certainly easiest - for us to simply cease talking to each other.

 

[blessedbeyondbelief]

Opportunity to experience love, joy, happiness, pleasure is good. That's what comes with life. That was given by God. Pain, anguish, suffering, and hatred do exist. But they are the by product of goodness existing. You can't have one without the other. But having the chance to exist, is good. And God gives that chance.

 

[Achilles6129]

Opportunity to experience love, joy, happiness, pleasure is good. That's what comes with life. That was given by God. Pain, anguish, suffering, and hatred do exist. But they are the by product of goodness existing. You can't have one without the other. But having the chance to exist, is good. And God gives that chance.

So do you believe that pain, anguish, suffering, etc., existed in the garden of Eden?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ah! So you can't prove it then So let me ask you a question I've raised before in this thread: would you believe that God is good no matter what he does, or is there something that God could do that would make you stop believing that he's good?

It is my faith that God will always do the good thing. However, men can ascribe acts to God that are not His acts.