Without Human Existence, Does God Need to Be Good?

[2PhiloVoid]

Since humanity has already done enough through the millennia to erase God from the moral picture, I thought it might be interesting to place the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and conceptually erase humanity from God's moral picture (which in essence gives us God as He may have been before imputing to Him any concept of 'Creation').

So, if we entertain this moral 'thought project,' we might find some interesting questions coming to our minds. One path of inquiry that comes to my mind is that I wonder what need God has for morality if---alone as the Ground of Being (as Tillich might say), outside of, and without, time, and not in any way, shape, or form contesting His existential Ground, or competing with any other force---He has no lesser beings to commune with or to instruct. The question then might be articulated as:

Without Human Existence, Does God Need to Be Good?

...and where does this question take us philosophically?

2PhiloVoid

 

[The Antigrrrl]

Do you need darkness to have light exist or does the darkness only make the presence of light more evident? Is the nature of the light changed in the absence of darkness or does its reality remain the same?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you need darkness to have light exist or does the darkness only make the presence of light more evident? Is the nature of the light changed in the absence of darkness or does its reality remain the same?

Those are good questions, Antigrrrl, and I'm not brushing aside what you've asked here. But, I'm not seeing how light as a physical property necessitates an understanding that 'good' is also present with an entity. So, if God is 'good' in His own person, to what outside of His own self can that 'good' be expressed which demonstrates (within our 'thought project' and somehow meaningful to us here) that God is indeed acting, or being, 'good'? Remember, in this scenario, God sits by Himself without human existence (or Creation) to keep Him company?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[jayem]

Whether human life exists or not, why would any kind of god-entity be either good or bad? Why would it have any moral nature at all?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about me says the goldfish? And the chimpanzee. God, wouldnt he need to be moral to animals too.

If "theology is anthropology" (or in some way reflects it) if we have a duty towards them, why not God?

 

[Larniavc]

Is God actually good? The Bible tells us he's engaged in some visibly anti human activities over the years.

He also allows terrible things to happen every day.

Can an entity that acts this way be considered good?

If we take humans out of the picture any notion of good or bad becomes irrelevant as it is humans that define morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whether human life exists or not, why would any kind of god-entity be either good or bad? Why would it have any moral nature at all?

Ok, Jayem. Those are pertinent questions, so let’s take a look at them at little closer.

In your queries you seem to infer that a god-entity could be an amoral, impersonal force. Sure, that’s possible, and if this same entity exists, ‘It’ wouldn’t by necessity of existence have to evince any kind of moral quality, which is part of what I’m getting at in my OP. I’m glad you see that aspect.

As to whether an isolated god-entity would be intrinsically good or bad is something I don’t think any of us can know one way or the other, especially if we assume that none of us exists in my hypothetical scenario, and in which case we wouldn’t be around to experience good or bad so as to make any kind of evaluation about the god-entities’ moral make-up.

However, if we consider the converse of my scenario--that human beings do exist, and if they hypothetically exist as some kind of creation established by the god-entity, then might we be tempted to think the god-entity has some kind of positive disposition toward his creations? Might we also be inclined to think that some level of good is, at the least, posited in the direction of humanity, although any one of us could still surmise otherwise?

What I’m getting at here is that if a god-entity creates lesser beings, that act in and of itself seems to imply that some type of positive quality is intrinsically present in the intent to create and extrinsically present in the results of the creative process. And if there is a good intent, might there be a ‘goodness’ within the god-entity?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What about me says the goldfish? And the chimpanzee. God, wouldnt he need to be moral to animals too.

If "theology is anthropology" (or in some way reflects it) if we have a duty towards them, why not God?

Hi GrowingSmaller,

I guess the goldfish are 'people' too in this case, as are the chimps...

I suppose God could be expected to have a 'duty' toward the animals, but since nature seems to be "red in tooth and claw," how might we assume that we have a duty to animals any greater than what God may be optimally showing in nature?

Thanks for your questions.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is God actually good? The Bible tells us he's engaged in some visibly anti human activities over the years.

He also allows terrible things to happen every day.

Can an entity that acts this way be considered good?

If we take humans out of the picture any notion of good or bad becomes irrelevant as it is humans that define morality.

Larnievc, if we stick to the idea that God was 'still' existing in eternal isolation, then I'm not sure we can justifiably conclude that God is good (or bad). But if a God had the intention to create us, despite whatever suffering He might have to see us endure, his intention can still, at minimum, demonstrate some level of intrinsic 'good,' however ineffectual we might deem it to be otherwise.

Do we define morality? Is what you mean by defining morality an objective act, or a subjective one? I think you've posed a good question about relevancy and human definition of morality, but I'm not clear as to what it specifically denotes. Care to explain a bit more, Larnievc?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Winken]

Good Grief. Hypothetical oxymoronism coming from posters who identify themselves as Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good Grief. Hypothetical oxymoronism coming from posters who identify themselves as Christian.

Winken, if philosophy isn't your thing, then you don't have to participate... Thanks

 

[tansy]

Since humanity has already done enough through the millennia to erase God from the moral picture, I thought it might be interesting to place the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and conceptually erase humanity from God's moral picture (which in essence gives us God as He may have been before imputing to Him any concept of 'Creation').

So, if we entertain this moral 'thought project,' we might find some interesting questions coming to our minds. One path of inquiry that comes to my mind is that I wonder what need God has for morality if---alone as the Ground of Being (as Tillich might say), outside of, and without, time, and not in any way, shape, or form contesting His existential Ground, or competing with any other force---He has no lesser beings to commune with or to instruct. The question then might be articulated as:

Without Human Existence, Does God Need to Be Good?

...and where does this question take us philosophically?

2PhiloVoid

I think that possibly, if God weren't 'good' but were 'evil', then He would ultimately destroy himself, because it seems to me that 'evil' destroys things

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that possibly, if God weren't 'good' but were 'evil', then He would ultimately destroy himself, because it seems to me that 'evil' destroys things

That's an interesting thing to say, tansy. I hadn't thought of that before...

Perhaps evil does destroy itself in the end; so, from what you're saying, if God were evil, He would probably do Himself in since 'evil' destroys things. For this to be the case, though, I think we'd have to assume an Augustinian approach to evil in which we categorize evil as a lack of good qualities rather than an opposite to good itself.

Additionally, I think we'd have to also assume that the god-entity was unhappy with and within himself, because in the case of my scenario of an isolated god-entity, there are no human beings, or creation, upon which to express other acts of evil.

On top of all of this, we might keep in mind too that a Good God could be open to "destroying things," and we might think this as a reflection of our expectation that good could ultimately overcome, displace, (and/or destroy) evil. [Obviously, from a Christian perspective, we believe this definitely will be the case, but for this thread, I'm trying to keep the theology more abstract.]

Lots to think about, tansy. Thanks for spurring on our thoughts here...however odd or uncomfortable these may be for some.


Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[heatedmonk]

When God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and predestined the world, and our lives before he created the earth, what's the whole point of righteousness, damnation, and redemption or condemnation roads on our part, when it is all pre-planned by God before we come to exist in the life that is judged by his rules? Set into place over a plan he's designed before we were born with us in mind as individuals living our unique lives according to plan.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Does this question imply that god has to be good with humans in the picture?

The OP seems to imply the answer is yes.....I'm just not sure why we're assuming that to begin with.

 

[jayem]

However, if we consider the converse of my scenario--that human beings do exist, and if they hypothetically exist as some kind of creation established by the god-entity, then might we be tempted to think the god-entity has some kind of positive disposition toward his creations? Might we also be inclined to think that some level of good is, at the least, posited in the direction of humanity, although any one of us could still surmise otherwise?

What I’m getting at here is that if a god-entity creates lesser beings, that act in and of itself seems to imply that some type of positive quality is intrinsically present in the intent to create and extrinsically present in the results of the creative process. And if there is a good intent, might there be a ‘goodness’ within the god-entity?

Yes, one could conclude that a god who created the universe and any life therein is a moral entity having a benevolent attitude toward said creation. But that also could just be wishful thinking. A creator god could very well be a sort of cosmic black box which creates matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Everything after that is nature taking its course. This would be a god-machine which sets the universe in motion and does nothing else. Kind of hyper-deistic. I can understand that it is psychologically comforting to think that a beneficent Supreme Being loves us and created us for a purpose. But I see no grounds to believe it, other than it satisfies an emotional need.

 

[quatona]

Without Human Existence, Does God Need to Be Good?

Does he need to be good with human existence?

It seems to me that the only reason why God might need to be good is the fact that believers have declared him the standard of goodness. And not even that would be a good reason...

Also: when you say "being good", are you referring to a state of mind (which actually wouldn´t need to manifest) or are you referring to "goodness" in action?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does he need to be good with human existence?

It seems to me that the only reason why God might need to be good is the fact that believers have declared him the standard of goodness. And not even that would be a good reason...

Also: when you say "being good", are you referring to a state of mind (which actually wouldn´t need to manifest) or are you referring to "goodness" in action?

Hey Quatona,

I had in mind the latter option: "goodness" in action. Because a god-entity who exists with no social interaction has nothing else upon which to exert acts of "goodness." So, it seems strange to me to contemplate whether a god-entity is good or not intrinsically without some other 'thing' or some other 'somebody' to which the good can be applied.

What this means for us, I think, on a humanly conceptual scale is that when we try to conceive of a god-entity as good, and this is done without considering His relation to an 'other,' we really have little to nothing by which to define what either a god-entity is (or should be), or as to what 'good' is (which as its own concept apart from theology is hard enough to figure out).

Does this make sense?

Thanks for your response,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, one could conclude that a god who created the universe and any life therein is a moral entity having a benevolent attitude toward said creation. But that also could just be wishful thinking. A creator god could very well be a sort of cosmic black box which creates matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Everything after that is nature taking its course. This would be a god-machine which sets the universe in motion and does nothing else. Kind of hyper-deistic. I can understand that it is psychologically comforting to think that a beneficent Supreme Being loves us and created us for a purpose. But I see no grounds to believe it, other than it satisfies an emotional need.

[edited for clarity]

Hey Jayem,

Sure, I suppose all of this could just be wishful thinking, reflection on a 'black-box' which we can neither confirm or disconfirm to our liking. And yes, I agree, that it appears hyper-deistic, if we are looking only at what we wish a god-entity would be, or what we would wish 'It' would do for us.

The thing is, with my OP above, I'm not trying to focus so much on whether or not a god-entity exists, but rather on the conceptual praxis we apply in trying to decide 1) what a god-entity is, and 2) what the supposed nature of 'good' is (objectively, rather than what we each individually 'think' it should be.)

So, by removing humanity from the moral picture (kind of like the 'brain in a vat' analogy is used in epistemology), I'm trying to move us to think about the nature of axiological aspects of what we think a god-entity is or could be, as well as how we relate that concept to what we think the value of 'good' is, or should be. [And not because I've got a specific or solid conclusion about the matter, other than that I think these related issues are more complex than what they've been credited as being.]

Does this make any sense?

I appreciate your thoughts on this, Jayem.

2PhiloVoid

 

[quatona]

Hey PhiloVoid,

thanks for considering my remarks and questions.

Before I respond to your post in its entirety, allow me to give some thoughts, questions, caveats and objections on single statements (which might appear nit-picking - but I think it´s good to keep things precise, especially when we don´t know yet where all this might be leading).

Hey Quatona,

I had in mind the latter option: "goodness" in action.

Ok. So does that mean that God wasn´t good prior to creation?

Because a god-entity who exists with no social interaction has nothing else upon which to exert acts of "goodness."

For that it needn´t be "interaction". It could as well be one way action, no?
And of course this/these other being(s) needn´t be human. They would just have to be sentient beings of whatever sort (aliens...?). (Just so anthropocentrism isn´t creeping in without need.)

So, it seems strange to me to contemplate whether a god-entity is good or not intrinsically without some other 'thing' or some other 'somebody' to which the good can be applied.

Well, yes, but then again if there isn´t such a sentient "somebody" or "somebodies" (e.g. humans) - which is your hypothetical - there isn´t anyone to contemplate on this question, in the first place.

What this means for us, I think, on a humanly conceptual scale is that when we try to conceive of a god-entity as good, and this is done without considering His relation to an 'other,' we really have little to nothing by which to define what either a god-entity is (or should be), or as to what 'good' is (which as its own concept apart from theology is hard enough to figure out).

Does this make sense?

Yes, sure - and that is exactly what frustrates a lot of people about the "God is good; but God´s goodness is beyond our comprehension and doesn´t necessarily match our concepts of goodness" theology: It´s a premise bare of any frame of reference. It claims to provide us with "meaning" - but at the same time it asserts that this "meaning" doesn´t mean anything to us.
It´s basically the attempt to have two terms defining each other mutually - without either of them clarifying or explaining anything about the other. It´s an epistemological dead end right from the start. We don´t learn anything.

Not sure if that´s got much to do with what you are thinking?

Anyway, once we assume the action-, interaction-, contemplation- and/or even communication-aspect to be crucial, we don´t get anywhere unless we assume the goodness of God´s actions to be intelligible and/or experiencable to those "somebodies". IOW God´s "goodness" must match (or at least sufficiently resemble) the "goodness"-concept of the "somebodies".

(On a side-note: I always have problems with the assertion that an eternal, atemporal infinite, unchanging God acts. So the idea of a "God in action" doesn´t sit well with me, in view of mainstream Christian tenets. I think such a God cannot act. Which would mean your postulation puts us between a rock and a hard place: For God´s goodness to be of any relevance, God would have to act, but God is defined in a way that makes it impossible for him to act.)