The fundimental nature of good.

[McCulloch]

Is something good because God says that it is good or is something good independent of God?

I am fairly new to this forum, so please forgive me if this topic has already been discussed. Please respond with a link if this is the case.

Here is the fundamental paradox.
If good is good because God says so, then, we are living with an arbitrary God. We can have no basis to determine if something is good other than some sort of revelation from God (written, natural, spiritual or otherwise). Genocide is good when God had commanded it (read Joshua) but bad in Rwanda.

On the other hand, if good is good independent of God then God is not the ultimate source. Something morally higher than God exists.

[harvey1]

In my view, God is a property of ultimate reality. So, if we want to examine ultimate reality, then God (Mind) is one of it's basic properties. Goodness is another property of ultimate reality. And, truth is another property. Therefore, God=Goodness=Truth.

I owe you an apology, I misread your post. I had thought that you said that God is the ultimate reality. But you really said that God is a property of the ultimate reality. I still don't have a clue as to what that means.

Let me clarify. When people refer to "God" they are referring to a specific property of ultimate reality, i.e., mind. However, in my view, all the fundamental properties of ultimate reality are "God" in the sense that they are just equivalent translations of the other property. So, for example, goodness is a translation of truth if goodness is viewed from a pragmatic perspective in terms of moral outcome (i.e., truth is that which produces ultimate good results). Beauty, for example, is a translation of truth if beauty is viewed as the splendor of truth, i.e., the phenomenal aspect of truth. Mind, the traditional conception of God, is another translation of truth if mind is viewed from a coherence-correspondence perspective. For example, theories are true if any one aspect of a true theory coheres with any other aspect of a true theory, and the theory corresponds with phenomenal reality. Mind is a translation of truth in that coherence occurs if an infinite mind exists that perceives no contradiction. Likewise, correspondence occurs if an infinite mind exists that perceives no mismatch between theory and phenomenal reality.

All of these translations of properties just refers to one thing: ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is the structure that everything in our universe is based once all the necessary reductions are made. So, God (mind) is a property of ultimate reality, but God can also be generally seen as being everything that ultimate reality can possibly be (i.e., if we don't just consider the property of mind).

My understanding of the Christian concept of God is that He (or They if you are trinitarian), is the creator of all that has been created and that God is etermal and not created. You seem agree with the statement that there is some ultimate reality beyond or above God.

I think "God" is a term used in multiple contexts. God is metaphysical order to the material world, but that order is referred to in different contexts, so each context the term can hold a slightly different meaning. So, for example, water is also a term used in multiple contexts. Water is H2O, but the term "water" can be used to refer to a glass of water which we drink, or the composition of rain, the main constituent of the oceans, seas, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, etc.. If we really wanted to be technical, there isn't just one type of water, and we perhaps should just drop the word from our vocabulary. However, the word is very convenient because there is nothing like water so there's no chance of confusing the general meaning of the term.

In the case of the trinity, my view is that we are talking about a particular state of metaphysical order. There are three different states of order when to past, present, future. Namely, "to be," "to become," "that which becomes." The name "Yahweh" is believed to imply this meaning:

It is also referred to as the "Tetragrammaton" which means "The Four Letters" because it comes from four Hebrew letters: Yud, Hay, Vav, Hay. It is generally believed that these four letters represent the tenses of the Hebrew word for to be. That is, HVH (Hovah)=to be, HYH (Hayah)=was, and YHYH (Yi-yeh)=will be.

So, under this guise, there is an aspect of metaphysical order that is outside of creation and which is the ultimate cause. There is another aspect of metaphysical order that is bringing forth the universe as a process. And, there is another aspect of metaphysical order that is incorporated inside nature by being the ordering principle by which nature is able to be organized.

[Corvus]

Here is the fundamental paradox.
If good is good because God says so, then, we are living with an arbitrary God. We can have no basis to determine if something is good other than some sort of revelation from God (written, natural, spiritual or otherwise). Genocide is good when God had commanded it (read Joshua) but bad in Rwanda.

On the other hand, if good is good independent of God then God is not the ultimate source. Something morally higher than God exists.

Your question is perplexing to me. It makes no sense to ask simply "is God good?" One must ask either “at what is God good?” or “to whom is God good”? Good is a type of behaviour and thus a description of one's actions. More importantly, it is a way of acting towards, or thinking about someone, so it requires an object of one's goodwill. To say a hermit is good does not make much sense, since, not having an object towards which he can show his goodwill, how are we to know if he is good or not?

To me, it doesn't make sense to say good is a property of God or God is good. That just makes the word "good" a vague nonsense term. In such a case, what would God's goodness look like? What are those qualities we can identify as good independent of any action on the part of God? Obviously, many Christians will not want to admit that God's goodness requires something exterior to himself in order for it to exist, hence the philosophical acrobatics that good is a property or God's state. But goodness is not a characteristic we can simply point out and say; "she has brown hair, a beautiful pair of green eyes and a blue goodness that does not match her skin tone."

[LillSnopp]

Your question is perplexing to me. It makes no sense to ask simply "is God good?" One must ask either “at what is God good?” or “to whom is God good”? Good is a type of behaviour and thus a description of one's actions.

No its not, McCulloch formulated this very very good. I am indeed impressed.

You say Corvus, that ´One must ask either.....´. Tell me, i never heard this from a Christian. Never, its the opposite (what McCulloch said) that is stated by all Christians i ever heard. Its a very simple Question, is God good or bad. wonder why people dont want to touch that hanky eh?


As God is supposed to be everywhere and everything, there is no "what is", or " to whom" in this equation, just "is".

God is either "Good", or "Bad". Using human reference (as this is the only one in existence), The Christian God would clearly be defined as "Bad". But yet, he is called "Good".

[Corvus]

Your question is perplexing to me. It makes no sense to ask simply "is God good?" One must ask either “at what is God good?” or “to whom is God good”? Good is a type of behaviour and thus a description of one's actions.

No its not, McCulloch formulated this very very good. I am indeed impressed.

You say Corvus, that ´One must ask either.....´. Tell me, i never heard this from a Christian. Never, its the opposite (what McCulloch said) that is stated by all Christians i ever heard. Its a very simple Question, is God good or bad. wonder why people dont want to touch that hanky eh?

As God is supposed to be everywhere and everything, there is no "what is", or " to whom" in this equation, just "is".

It does matter, as I explain in the rest of my post. When we call something good we are saying that person is a doer of good things. These good things are done towards people. Don't you agree? This is why I disagree with attempts to redefine goodness as an attribute of God or God Himself. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

Edit: Actually, I think I misinterpreted the post a little. I thought it was about how God is defined as good, not about how what God says is good goes. Sorry about that.

[McCulloch]

Let me clarify. When people refer to "God" they are referring to a specific property of ultimate reality, i.e., mind. However, in my view, all the fundamental properties of ultimate reality ... many beautiful long words omitted for brevity ... I think "God" is a term used in multiple contexts. God is metaphysical ... more words omitted for brevity ...

emphases mine

Your view, while interesting, is not, I believe representative of Christian theology. The standard Christian formulation of God is that He is the creator of all, consists of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit all co-eternal not the three states of "to be," "to become," "that which becomes."
Since this is the "Debating Christianity" forum, I was hoping to get a Christian perspective on these paradoxes.

[harvey1]

... many beautiful long words omitted for brevity ...

What are you, a comedian...?

Your view, while interesting, is not, I believe representative of Christian theology. The standard Christian formulation of God is that He is the creator of all, consists of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit all co-eternal not the three states of "to be," "to become," "that which becomes." Since this is the "Debating Christianity" forum, I was hoping to get a Christian perspective on these paradoxes.

This view is a Christian view. Augustine compares the human mind to the divine mind, and comes up with three terms: memoria sui, notitia sui, amor sui. Meaning that the trinity can be compared to human memory, understanding, will (de Trinitate Book X:17-19). See this summary of de Trinitate:

Thereby, he finally arrives at the analogy in the mind to God the Trinity: memory, understanding , will which are mind’s remembering itself, knowing itself and loving itself (memoria sui, notitia sui, amor sui) [X.17-19]. As long as it is the mind, the mind is always present to itself. That sheer presence of the mind to itself (which is se nosse state) is what Augustine calls self-memory (memoria sui) here [Cf. XIV.14]. But as it thinks about itself (se cogitare) its self-memory becomes actual. In the very act of thought (cogitatio) it begets a “mental word” of self-understanding which is a complete and equal likeness of the self that bring it forth. There spontaneously proceeds the act of self-appreciation or love or enjoyment. And these three are equal and mutually co-inherent [X.18].... And then Augustine exhorts us to see God by the mirror which is our mind while seeing, believing or understanding the mind (and this trinity in it) to be the image of God [XV.44].

I'm not saying much different than this. The "Be" aspect, the "Becoming" aspect, and "Become" aspect are eternally present in every situation just like our memory, understanding, and will are ever-present with our own minds. Each aspect of God's nature plays a different role in the universe, however it is One existence that causally exerts itself in our world.

So, what do you want to discuss in regards to this Christian perspective of the Trinity?

[LillSnopp]

It does matter, as I explain in the rest of my post. When we call something good we are saying that person is a doer of good things. These good things are done towards people. Don't you agree? This is why I disagree with attempts to redefine goodness as an attribute of God or God Himself. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

Obviously i agree with you on this point. But the main Christian theme is of how good the Christian God is. And are defined as goodness itself, whatever this is, we shall never know, as they never define it.

We (LillSnopp and Corvus), can only use our subjective opinions about this. And if i would follow my view, i would say that the godness of the Christian God is extremely absent, as i do not deem annihilation of the entire human race except 8 people, as a act of care or love (wich would be part of something related to good in my view). So the Christian God of which we speak about, is in my subjective view, a very deluded and dangerous God.

And my question to you Corvus, would be, is there another none-subjective view on this instead? As Christians claims the goodness of this God, what makes them formulate these views? As they clearly differ from my own in such grandscale.

[AlAyeti]

"God is either "Good", or "Bad". Using human reference (as this is the only one in existence), The Christian God would clearly be defined as 'Bad'. But yet, he is called 'Good'."


I certainly don't think the "Christian God" (sic) is anything other than good.

If taken a face value you get what many people ask. "God doesn't know what it's like to be a human." Jesus was thirty when He started His journey to the Cross. He certainly had time to get the human condition thing down. Not as a power-mongering superhero but by a fragile person like every one of us.

I am guaranteed a forever not on my own fumbling power but by a free gift of God.

By the way. How does an atheist come to a moral position on anything? That form of thought seems to me to break down in only two camps.

Fear or tyranny.

You (atheists) base your laws on what could happen to you or what it is that can stop you from doing things to others.

The Christian idea on God is one of complete choice. It is free to choose or deny.

John 3:16 is a good account of how Christians feel about the "goodness" of God.

Why does any version of a deity bother an atheist? I have never been upset towards a tooth-fairy adherent. I can't understand the anger.

Certainly atheists have murdered milloins and millns of humans so if compared to religions religoins have yet to catch up to that amount of horror.

[McCulloch]

I certainly don't think the "Christian God" (sic) is anything other than good.

When the God now worshipped by the Christians ordered genocide, was it a good thing? My basic question is do Christians belive that what God has said is good because God said it or does God say it because it is good.

I am guaranteed a forever not on my own fumbling power but by a free gift of God.

Which you are free to accept or reject. If you reject it, your "good" God will condemn you to eternal torment. Based on that, then make your "free choice".

By the way. How does an atheist come to a moral position on anything? That form of thought seems to me to break down in only two camps. Fear or tyranny.

The God of the Christians does not seem to be a stranger to fear or tyranny. Do you want examples?

Why does any version of a deity bother an atheist? I have never been upset towards a tooth-fairy adherent. I can't understand the anger.
Certainly atheists have murdered milloins and millns of humans so if compared to religions religoins have yet to catch up to that amount of horror.

Many unbelievers and different believers have faces the wrath of the Christians over the last couple of millennia. Which version of deity you believe in does not particularly bother me. What does bother me is that so many Christians believe that it is their sacred duty to impose their belief on others.
About Christian horror think Crusades, think Aztecs and Incas, think Inquisition and witch hunts, think about every war fought in Europe before WWII.

[AlAyeti]

Mcee,

You're lucky I'm a baseball player. I don't mind facing the same pitch over and over.

"The God worshipped by the Christians? You mean the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? He ordered the Israelites to slaughter the peoples that were like the garden variety Liberal-Progressives and Gansta Rapper. The Israelites were to rid the land of gthe perversions practiced by the peoples of the land they conquered. Terrible. So terrible. But then again, we wouldn't have the perversions and sexually transmitted horrors and middle east mayhem we have today if the ideas propagated by these peoples of the plains were wiped out by the Israelites that didn't always listen to the logic of their God.

Do you think child rapists should be allowed to live? The ACLU (and of course every Liberal-Leftist) does. They are called NAMBLA now and are represented by the ACLU for the express purpose of raping children. You don't need to go to a theology class to see the truth of the Bible played out for yourself. The reality of NAMBLA and other Biblical abominations are just a mouse click away from proving to yourself!

"Now," the Christian revelation of the same God goes in the different direction. He tells us to love our enemies and do good to those that persecute you. The Bible is an exclusive collection of books that relate to only one kind of believer. I truly wish that we would have followed Jesus' advice and not put these pearls before the kind of beasts thsat trample it so efortlessly.

The free will thing is just that. Take it or leave it. What kind of parent or God CAN force anything on a free person? Even we humans want to have children knowing that anything can and wil happen. But we have them anyway out of "LOVE." And sometimes bad things happen to good people. But that die was cast at the moment of conception. Operative word: Conception! It takes will of thought.

On tyranny or fear? That is the only position that an atheist can take for their moral foundation. Answer me how I'm wrong.

More people have met their deaths at the hands and minds of atheists and humanists than every war ever fought in the name of some deity. And many other religions killed people than Biblically based systems. Those Aztecs were anything but innocent doves. Especially for non-Aztecs. Bad choice of religionists.