How do you know God is the good guy?

[The Happy Humanist]

In another thread, I was told that true morality is found by following God. God, we are told, is the source of absolute morality, the final arbiter of good and evil in the universe.

How do we know this? How do we come to assume that God's good is really good? Sure, we are told as much by the Bible. But it's one thing to accept the Bible as God's word...but what if he's lying?

What I'm asking is, what is it about God that makes you so sure he's the good guy, the one you should be following? And how can you trust your instincts in this regard, when you believe he is the source of your moral compass in the first place? Would it not be possible for a Supreme Being to plant a moral compass in you that automatically registers his words as "good", no matter what?

So? Discuss!

[qstns]

I hope you can follow my above post. I am new to this forum and not familiar with all the factus of posting.

[The Happy Humanist]

I kinda thought this would be your answer. I did not want to assume so and go on with a thought until I had your answer. If you do not belive in an absolute good, then it will be hard for us to ever come to an agreement. I also believe that you can not ask the question that you posed without a belief in good. Your question has a presub that good is constant. It also, says God is real.

Of course, it's your job to show me the "light!" I am familiar with the concept of Absolute Good, and can certainly model it in my head whilst you explain things.

Let me ask you this, though, do you see Absolute Good as a separate entity from God, a universal standard that even he must live up to? Or do you see them as one and the same, as in "God IS Goodness" or "God is the source and definition of Goodness."

May I also assume you do not belive in logic?

You may not. Of course I believe in logic.

May I also assume you do not belive in right and wrong?

You may not. I may define them differently than you, however.

What is knowledge to you, and how do you go about acquiring it?

Knowledge is the sum total of facts and inferences we have accumulated about existence, whether individually or collectively. It is always tempered by the "fact" that we cannot know if reality is being presented to us as Things Really Are, and thus knowledge is always tentative and subject to amendment. We acquire knowledge through the five senses, plus inference and reason.

After I receive you answer I'll try to relate to you why I belive what I do. I do know in my attempt do to so will not chage your worldview. Proof is not persuasion. If you are not persuaded it does not mean I have not offered to you proof.

If I agree that its proof, I promise to be awfully persuaded. By the way, how open are you to persuasion of my point of view? Just curious...

[qstns]

Quote:
I kinda thought this would be your answer. I did not want to assume so and go on with a thought until I had your answer. If you do not belive in an absolute good, then it will be hard for us to ever come to an agreement. I also believe that you can not ask the question that you posed without a belief in good. Your question has a presub that good is constant. It also, says God is real.


Of course, it's your job to show me the "light!" I am familiar with the concept of Absolute Good, and can certainly model it in my head whilst you explain things.

Ok, then for me to answer your question, we have to say God exist and good exist. It was stated in your question. To say one or the other does not exist then we no longer have a debate. Therefore, it is upon that I will build my case as to how God is good.

Let me ask you this, though, do you see Absolute Good as a separate entity from God, a universal standard that even he must live up to? Or do you see them as one and the same, as in "God IS Goodness" or "God is the source and definition of Goodness."

This is not part of the debate. You maybe asking to get a frame of where I’m coming from as I did with you from some of the questions I asked. Therefore, I will answer. However, I will not take the two offered to me as a selection. I offer to you, God is what allows us to know good. It will take more form as I elaborate on the question you poised.
Quote:
May I also assume you do not belive in logic?

You may not. Of course I believe in logic.

Thank you.
While I know this is off topic. How do you know logic exist, or reason? Where does logic or reason live if you say that you believe in it due one of your senses. I’ve never seen logic or reason, tasted, heard it speak, smelt or felt… I assume then the only thing is left is inference. You guessed that it is there? Off topic I know.
Quote:
May I also assume you do not belive in right and wrong?
You may not. I may define them differently than you, however.

Thanks, and You may, and that is fine for this debate. I will not follow up with more or debate you here on that topic. Just wanted a better understanding of your worldview, as I’m sure you can understand.
Quote:
What is knowledge to you, and how do you go about acquiring it?

Knowledge is the sum total of facts and inferences we have accumulated about existence, whether individually or collectively. It is always tempered by the "fact" that we cannot know if reality is being presented to us as Things Really Are, and thus knowledge is always tentative and subject to amendment. We acquire knowledge through the five senses, plus inference and reason.

I asked many of the above questions to help me understand your viewpoint. We, after all don’t “know” each other and we did not have any opening statement . While your name suggest you are Humanist (which I’ve heard others call themselves, and still have a concept of belief that god is in all of us) yet, your signature says you’re an atheist. I need a clear understanding. Seems to me you are more of a materialist in your worldview. Again, not wanting to assume that. Would you prefer not that statement on defining of your worldview? This is simply for my understanding of your worldview.
Quote:
After I receive you answer I'll try to relate to you why I belive what I do. I do know in my attempt do to so will not chage your worldview. Proof is not persuasion. If you are not persuaded it does not mean I have not offered to you proof.


If I agree that its proof, I promise to be awfully persuaded. By the way, how open are you to persuasion of my point of view? Just curious...


I’m reminded of a story about proof. In short: A man goes to the Dr. This man believes/knows he is dead. The Dr. tries to assure him he is not dead. The man will not budge. The Dr. says to the man if I can prove to you your not dead, will you believe me. The man agrees he would. The Dr. asks the man if dead men bleed, the man replied, “no, dead men do not bleed”. The Dr. pricked the man and the man begins to bleed. To this the man responded “well, I guess dead men do bleed”.
The summary to this story is simply, even if proof is offered to someone/anyone; they can, and do reject it based on their worldview and ideas of what they hold to be true. It is independent of truth or proof. Therefore the only way to “win” a debate is to show where within that worldview you have to believe something that is inconsistent to that worldview thus showing it’s invalid.


However,thank you for your sincere promise My openness can be seen in that you can only assume I believe in God. However, you do know I do like tiramisu.
Sorry for the bold as I'm new to this board.
_________________

[Leon_Magnus]

If he was truly evil, he wouldn't warn his people that they were going to be killed by invaders if they didn't maintain discipline, people are kids no matter what age they are, wehther they like it or not. They didn't make all the rules so they can't determine any.

[The Happy Humanist]

If he was truly evil, he wouldn't warn his people that they were going to be killed by invaders if they didn't maintain discipline, people are kids no matter what age they are, wehther they like it or not. They didn't make all the rules so they can't determine any.

And if he was Truly Good, he wouldn't create the need for discipline in the first place.

Remember that God is called "Absolutely Good," which means you can cite instances of his goodness till the cows come home and it proves nothing, whereas all I need is to cite one instance of an inherently evil act on his part, and he "vanishes in a puff of logic." (Apologies to Douglas Adams). I choose the Flood.

[The Happy Humanist]

Ok, then for me to answer your question, we have to say God exist and good exist. It was stated in your question. To say one or the other does not exist then we no longer have a debate.

Agreed...for the sake of argument only, of course.

I offer to you, God is what allows us to know good. It will take more form as I elaborate on the question you poised.

I do hope so.

While I know this is off topic. How do you know logic exist, or reason? Where does logic or reason live if you say that you believe in it due one of your senses. I’ve never seen logic or reason, tasted, heard it speak, smelt or felt… I assume then the only thing is left is inference. You guessed that it is there?

It is there because we say it is there. We infer its existence, and paint it in terms we can deal with. We justify the inference thus: If logic did not exist, your question would not exist. This is hardly a "guess."

While your name suggest you are Humanist (which I’ve heard others call themselves, and still have a concept of belief that god is in all of us) yet, your signature says you’re an atheist. I need a clear understanding. Seems to me you are more of a materialist in your worldview. Again, not wanting to assume that. Would you prefer not that statement on defining of your worldview? This is simply for my understanding of your worldview

The term "humanist" can be and often is applied to anyone who emphasizes the needs of humanity over spiritual concerns, whether or not they believe that there indeed are any spiritual concerns. For this reason the term "secular humanist" was invented to distinguish those of us who stress human concerns because there are no spiritual concerns. So yes, I am an atheist and a rationalist/materialist. I say "rationalist" because it may yet become rational to think that there are things beyond the material, and I want to allow for that possibility.

I’m reminded of a story about proof. In short: A man goes to the Dr. This man believes/knows he is dead. The Dr. tries to assure him he is not dead. The man will not budge. The Dr. says to the man if I can prove to you your not dead, will you believe me. The man agrees he would. The Dr. asks the man if dead men bleed, the man replied, “no, dead men do not bleed”. The Dr. pricked the man and the man begins to bleed. To this the man responded “well, I guess dead men do bleed”.

Good story. It reminds me of the one about the theist who says that God is good. The atheist responds "But murder is bad. And God commits murder." "No he does not," responds the theist. "What about the Flood?" asks the atheist. "By golly, you're right," says the theist. "I guess murder is good!"

[Leon_Magnus]

If he was truly evil, he wouldn't warn his people that they were going to be killed by invaders if they didn't maintain discipline, people are kids no matter what age they are, wehther they like it or not. They didn't make all the rules so they can't determine any.

And if he was Truly Good, he wouldn't create the need for discipline in the first place.

Remember that God is called "Absolutely Good," which means you can cite instances of his goodness till the cows come home and it proves nothing, whereas all I need is to cite one instance of an inherently evil act on his part, and he "vanishes in a puff of logic." (Apologies to Douglas Adams). I choose the Flood.

Yeah I'm pretty sure he wanted the entire human race to whipe itself out (there weren't as many back then as there are now), and when only several people would listen to him, a flood was the only way out of this mess. "Okay 97% of the people on the planet are going crazy with immorality, they might even kill themselves, I can't get rid of sin so I guess I need to hit the reset button to restart the process of corruption."
Noah comes in builds an ark tells people to cahnge their ways and get on teh ark. The people say "I'm too awesome to listen to you or God, I'm stayin here." I consider the flood the "reset button" And its not evil cause he gave everyone the chance to get on. The door closes the rain poors, now you wanna get on?!
And I don't think it would be "good" to make us robots so we don't need discipline. I think it would be good if not loving to have somone listen to you because they came to that conclusion on their own.

[Leon_Magnus]

The term "humanist" can be and often is applied to anyone who emphasizes the needs of humanity over spiritual concerns, whether or not they believe that there indeed are any spiritual concerns. For this reason the term "secular humanist" was invented to distinguish those of us who stress human concerns because there are no spiritual concerns.

Hmmm I didn't know spending tons of money on space exploration while people are starving was putting humanity 1st!

[The Happy Humanist]

If he was truly evil, he wouldn't warn his people that they were going to be killed by invaders if they didn't maintain discipline, people are kids no matter what age they are, wehther they like it or not. They didn't make all the rules so they can't determine any.

And if he was Truly Good, he wouldn't create the need for discipline in the first place.

Remember that God is called "Absolutely Good," which means you can cite instances of his goodness till the cows come home and it proves nothing, whereas all I need is to cite one instance of an inherently evil act on his part, and he "vanishes in a puff of logic." (Apologies to Douglas Adams). I choose the Flood.

Yeah I'm pretty sure he wanted the entire human race to whipe itself out (there weren't as many back then as there are now), and when only several people would listen to him, a flood was the only way out of this mess. "Okay 97% of the people on the planet are going crazy with immorality, they might even kill themselves, I can't get rid of sin so I guess I need to hit the reset button to restart the process of corruption."
Noah comes in builds an ark tells people to cahnge their ways and get on teh ark. The people say "I'm too awesome to listen to you or God, I'm stayin here." I consider the flood the "reset button" And its not evil cause he gave everyone the chance to get on. The door closes the rain poors, now you wanna get on?!
And I don't think it would be "good" to make us robots so we don't need discipline. I think it would be good if not loving to have somone listen to you because they came to that conclusion on their own.

Leon, you're new here. There's quite a few threads in which we cover this dilemma. I don't have time to review them right now, but I'm sure you'll bump into them if you browse the Christianity topic.

Suffice it to say, that we are talking absolute goodness, infinite mercy, etc. There are so many alternative scenarios that would have been at least a little more in line with those concepts...for example, accepting for the moment that it was somehow absolutely necessary for God to "hit the reset button," did he have to do it by drowning everyone, a horrible death? Why didn't he simply have every living thing drop dead instantly, without suffering? Since he had the power to do it that way, and chose not to, it is only logical for us to question his moral correctness. Think about this: Is that how you would have done things? Remember, your love for your creation is infinite...

[The Happy Humanist]

The term "humanist" can be and often is applied to anyone who emphasizes the needs of humanity over spiritual concerns, whether or not they believe that there indeed are any spiritual concerns. For this reason the term "secular humanist" was invented to distinguish those of us who stress human concerns because there are no spiritual concerns.

Hmmm I didn't know spending tons of money on space exploration while people are starving was putting humanity 1st!

And the award for Best Achievement in Non-Sequitur goes to...Leon_Magnus!

In other words....huh? What in the world does the space vs. food issue have to do with secular humanism? Where in the Affirmations of Humanism does it say that the goal of conquering hunger must be superseded by space exploration?