The problem with the statement "God is good."

[`mud]

I love arguments between Agnostics, Christians, Judeans,
about how good `God` is ! Forget the Love, good get's it.

 

[blü 2]

If one states that "God is good," there are two possible meanings. Either 1) "good" is some quality outside of God, and thus, one is implying that a morality greater than God exists outside of God itself, or 2) "Good" is simply, by definition, part of God's nature, and thus, the statement is trivial. God is "good" is equivalent to stating "God is God." In other words, either God's goodness is defined by some standard of morality that is outside of God, or "goodness" itself is simply defined as being an attribute of God, that is, whatever God does is good. In this case, God is amoral, because by this definition, God can do whatever God wants, and no matter what it is, it is good, because whatever God does is good.

Put another way, we can either decide that good and evil are outside of God and subject God to a standard of morality outside of himself, or we can define good as being part of God's nature and thus, in essence good = "whatever God does." In this case, as I said before God would be amoral, since "goodness" is simply derived from his actions, whatever they may be. I see this as a problem. If goodness is nothing more than an attribute of God, why should we consider God to be morally good if he never has the choice between good and evil, since whatever he does is good by default? And furthermore, if goodness is outside of God, then what's the point of appealing to God for moral standards?

This question (substituting 'piety' for 'good') was discussed in Plato's dialog Euthyphro.

But if something is good because God does it, then for Jews, Christians and any other believers in the Bible, invasive war, seizure of the lands and goods of others, massacres, mass rape, human sacrifice, slavery, polygamy, and more are all good, since the god of the bible commanded such things.

I happen to disagree with all of those things. But as has already been remarked, there's no objective morality. The closest we get to it is with our evolved genetic tendencies to certain kinds of conduct useful for gregarious mammals : nurture and protection of children, dislike of the person who harms, fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth / virtue through self-denial. And in the manner of tendencies, we each possess each of them to varying degrees.

The rest we get from our culture, education and experience. And watch out for folk who don't have their quota of mirror neurons.

 

[sealchan]

Then the word has no meaning. If "holiness" is an attribute of God, then everything God does is holy because God does it. Thus, God is amoral because whatever he does is good by default.

And whatever occurs in His creation is also good...or not.

 

[sealchan]

If one states that "God is good," there are two possible meanings. Either 1) "good" is some quality outside of God, and thus, one is implying that a morality greater than God exists outside of God itself, or 2) "Good" is simply, by definition, part of God's nature, and thus, the statement is trivial. God is "good" is equivalent to stating "God is God." In other words, either God's goodness is defined by some standard of morality that is outside of God, or "goodness" itself is simply defined as being an attribute of God, that is, whatever God does is good. In this case, God is amoral, because by this definition, God can do whatever God wants, and no matter what it is, it is good, because whatever God does is good.

Put another way, we can either decide that good and evil are outside of God and subject God to a standard of morality outside of himself, or we can define good as being part of God's nature and thus, in essence good = "whatever God does." In this case, as I said before God would be amoral, since "goodness" is simply derived from his actions, whatever they may be. I see this as a problem. If goodness is nothing more than an attribute of God, why should we consider God to be morally good if he never has the choice between good and evil, since whatever he does is good by default? And furthermore, if goodness is outside of God, then what's the point of appealing to God for moral standards?

This discussion is useful to me in my development of an upgrade to the Genesis creation story...in it I have God attempting to prove his own existence by acts of creation. Eventually God succeeds (by His own standards) when He accepts some feedback from his various random creations. That feedback is in the form of some of what He creates can co-exist while some of what He creates destroys created items. This unconscious acceptance of a reality or operating principle which he has "discovered" belies his omniscience, but He allows this to prove He does exist. What He creates that follows the principles of co-existence is Good because it all speaks to His own being, his sacred name "I AM".

Now from the human perspective, it is possible to conceive of the framework of reality as good by necessity. Otherwise, what you have is a validation of those who might choose to ignore reality. But within the sphere of human action their is a value system, a direction of action, which creates a gray scale between good and evil.

So my vote is for God as amoral but through our ever growing mastery of reality through science, we are, as His representatives, the enablement of a power for good and evil which will gradually come into a power to effect the very nature of creation itself.

 

[nPeace]

And whatever occurs in His creation is also good...or not.

Not. Anything against good, is bad.

 

[`mud]

Good, evil, bad, indifferent, loving, none of you really know.
Most of you people are on your own, sans `God` or without.
I hope you will enjoy your `heaven` when you get there,
if and when you ever get there, I'll join you in the Cosmos,
but we won't know it when we get there, will we ?

 

[sealchan]

Not. Anything against good, is bad.

Black and white thinking? Almost never true unless you are taking a true or false exam.

When one traces out the cause/influence for an act and then traces out the full consequences of an act there is always a mix of good and bad.

 

[nPeace]

Black and white thinking? Almost never true unless you are taking a true or false exam.

When one traces out the cause/influence for an act and then traces out the full consequences of an act there is always a mix of good and bad.

If the cause for an act is bad, can it be good? I don't think so.
The consequences of an act leads to bad, but yes, there can be some good that comes out of it, only because there is good, not in the cause of bad, but in the cause of good.

 

[sealchan]

If the cause for an act is bad, can it be good? I don't think so.
The consequences of an act leads to bad, but yes, there can be some good that comes out of it, only because there is good, not in the cause of bad, but in the cause of good.

Of course a bad cause can lead to a good outcome...you can't think of an example? Have you read the gospels...lately?

 

[nPeace]

Of course a bad cause can lead to a good outcome...you can't think of an example? Have you read the gospels...lately?

I didn't disagree. I mentioned the only reason why anything bad leads to a good outcome, is because good exists. The force for good, is the reason any good comes out of the bad cause. It's not due to the bad cause.

To elaborate... Satan's works, no matter how bad, will not prevent good from winning out in the end, and his works always seem to backfire, because of the force for good at work - God.

 

[nPeace]

Good, evil, bad, indifferent, loving, none of you really know.
Most of you people are on your own, sans `God` or without.
I hope you will enjoy your `heaven` when you get there,
if and when you ever get there, I'll join you in the Cosmos,
but we won't know it when we get there, will we ?

I don't hope to go to heaven. I hope to live here on earth, when God, through his son, makes a separation between those that know, and obey, and those that don't know, and don't obey the good news of our lord Jesus Christ.
If I obey what I believe I do know, then I know I will get to savor the endless variety of juicy fruit, and veggies, with the thousands of taste buds the creator has endowed his creation with.

Can you imagine what a life like that would be forever, without our bodies deteriorating? The thought is making me hungry.

 

[`mud]

nPeace,
I truly respect your ignorance of the reality of life.
It's a shame that you won't realize your wishes.
Good luck in your journeys.

 

[nPeace]

nPeace,
I truly respect your ignorance of the reality of life.
It's a shame that you won't realize your wishes.
Good luck in your journeys.

Oh. I didn't realize you knew the reality of life.
You spoke as though you didn't know.

If you had said you knew, then I would have asked you to share it with, not just me, but all of us here.
Then if we can verify that what you know is true, then you would also know that nPeace is not just ignorant, but willfully ignorant.
Do you care to share what you know about the reality of life?
Or perhaps nPeace is just too ignorant to understand anything 'mud says.
For this I beg your pardon, and wish you peace in your last few moments of your journey.

 

[`mud]

Yes...I understand the difference here.
I believe in the Stuff of life, the reward of it's giving.
I believe that I will leave my `beliefs` with my body.
I believe that my death will further my spirit on.
To where? not certain, cognizance? maybe not.
But my spirit will be there, in spite of my ignorance.
The reality is life itself, in spite of my ignorance of it.
But in death I'll release my conscientious and cognizance.
My true spirit will be on it's own, sans ignorance of it.

 

[`mud]

hey nPeace,
enjoy that hotdog !

 

[nPeace]

Yes...I understand the difference here.
I believe in the Stuff of life, the reward of it's giving.
I believe that I will leave my `beliefs` with my body.
I believe that my death will further my spirit on.
To where? not certain, cognizance? maybe not.
But my spirit will be there, in spite of my ignorance.
The reality is life itself, in spite of my ignorance of it.
But in death I'll release my conscientious and cognizance.
My true spirit will be on it's own, sans ignorance of it.

"Stuff of life"? I think I heard that expression before. Not sure how people apply it though - physical or otherwise. What do you mean by it?
What is spirit, and do you know you have it, and... anything about it?
You seem certain of what will happen at death. How so?
I thought the only thing about death people were sure of, was that their body rots in the dirt as the maggots consume it, leaving it's bare bones to disintegrate.

Hotdog??? Thanks.

 

[`mud]

hey nPeace,
I'll give you a copy from one of my posts in answer to the `spirit` Stuff.
Remember...the `spirit` is totally separate from Life and Stuff.
Spirit is born with us, and continues after death, forever.
And as to this spirit...ongoing:
Spiritual evolution...how do spirits become aged, how do they get more mature ? From where does the spirit come ? Are we born with this entity ?
Now...the spirit evolves...how, exposed to what influences, maybe because of nature, or maybe religion ? I'd give nature the edge here,
the Stuff of the Earth and the other plants and animals around. Being born and dying in the natural progression of Life and death generating the Stuff's real evolution. It's not poetic but it is the natural evolution that is Life. Religion provides hope and worship of invincible `gods` and death, from which the spirit goes forwards into unknowable finalities.
The spirit is forever, no matter what form it possesses or becomes.
Sooo...Join you all in the Cosmos, wherever that is !

 

[`mud]

hey nPeace,
I'll be cremated, thank you. Scatter my ashes to add to the Stuff of Earth.
That Stuff from we all come, to turn into Life eventually, thank you.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Oh. I didn't realize you knew the reality of life.
You spoke as though you didn't know.

If you had said you knew, then I would have asked you to share it with, not just me, but all of us here.
Then if we can verify that what you know is true, then you would also know that nPeace is not just ignorant, but willfully ignorant.
Do you care to share what you know about the reality of life?
Or perhaps nPeace is just too ignorant to understand anything 'mud says.
For this I beg your pardon, and wish you peace in your last few moments of your journey.

He doesn't know, and neither do you, or I. But if I had to bet, I would guess that modern science is closer to finding the answers than bronze-age goat herders were.

 

[nPeace]

hey nPeace,
I'll give you a copy from one of my posts in answer to the `spirit` Stuff.
Remember...the `spirit` is totally separate from Life and Stuff.
Spirit is born with us, and continues after death, forever.
And as to this spirit...ongoing:
Spiritual evolution...how do spirits become aged, how do they get more mature ? From where does the spirit come ? Are we born with this entity ?
Now...the spirit evolves...how, exposed to what influences, maybe because of nature, or maybe religion ? I'd give nature the edge here,
the Stuff of the Earth and the other plants and animals around. Being born and dying in the natural progression of Life and death generating the Stuff's real evolution. It's not poetic but it is the natural evolution that is Life. Religion provides hope and worship of invincible `gods` and death, from which the spirit goes forwards into unknowable finalities.
The spirit is forever, no matter what form it possesses or becomes.
Sooo...Join you all in the Cosmos, wherever that is !

Ah. Greek philosophy, it sound like.
So Greek philosophy is the reality of life for you. In that case, you are right - nPeace is ignorant, and will remain ignorant to that concept.
So long as 'mud realizes that it's not the reality of life.

Where did this spirit come from, do you suppose?

The so-called myth of the Bible, seem to make more sense to me.
The creator who is from everlasting to everlasting, formed man from the stuff of the earth, and put spirit - the force of life - within him, so that man lives.
After man dies, and the stuff of the earth returns whence it came, the creator who has that one's memories, and personality recorded, recreates that one, from the stuff of the earth, and gives that one spirit, along with that one's own memories and personality.

Hey, you know what? That doesn't sound very far from your philosophy, except for a few things...
1. Your spirit seems to come out of/from nowhere, and is undirected, and random, whereas my spirit is from an eternal creator, who gives his creation his qualities.
2. Your stuff of life has no maker, so somehow it magically creates itself, whereas my stuff of the earth has a maker.
3. Your spirit travels... where? until it find some magically formed life to inhabit. My spirit goes nowhere (it really is with its giver), but it is from the creator, who gives it to the body he forms.

Don't forget, if you go with your philosophy, you add more questions.
Where did the stuff of life come from? Why does stuff of life need spirit, if it's stuff of life? Is there more stuff of life out there - another earth, that life came from?

Soooo. Hows about you join me now, where you no longer have to ask those questions.
...how do spirits become aged, how do they get more mature ? From where does the spirit come ? Are we born with this entity ?

No. Spirits do not age, nor mature - they just live on and on, but those are spirit beings, or celestial beings that dwell in heaven, not disembodied souls - they don't exist.
The spirit - that is, the life force, or force of life, what keeps the body alive - comes from the creator... the source of life - the ultimate energy source.
Yes. We are born with spirit. Otherwise, we are dead.

Straight out the Bible - true as John 3:16.
This picture looks so real and promising.
Especially when it is put to the test.
So... you with me?

He doesn't know, and neither do you, or I. But if I had to bet, I would guess that modern science is closer to finding the answers than bronze-age goat herders were.

Really? Closer to finding answers, doesn't sound better than, have found the answers. If the answers were not there already, why, I'd be like you too - guessing.
However, maybe I am not thinking about the same questions you are thinking of, so you might need to clarify, so that I am sure I am not misunderstanding you.