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!

[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!

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 Where in the Affirmations of Humanism does it say that the goal of conquering hunger must be superseded by space exploration?

If the "better of humanity" is an important thing to strive for, we doing a pretty lame job.

[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 Where in the Affirmations of Humanism does it say that the goal of conquering hunger must be superseded by space exploration?

If the "better of humanity" is an important thing to strive for, we doing a pretty lame job.

Lame compared to what?

I take it you are not impressed with the past 50 years of social progress, the rapid advances of the Civil Rights movement, women getting the vote, Doctors Without Borders, $300 Billion spent worldwide by private citizens to help the tsunami victims, Live 8, medical research advances, the Internet, the fall of Soviet Communism, the Olympic movement...

Again, lame compared to what?

Remember, according to your mythology, we didn't create the world, we were just placed in it. We're basically cleaning up someone else's mess. You don't think we've made progress? and what progress we have made, you seem reticent to attribute to humanist efforts? Did the Pope free the slaves? Did Billy Graham stage Live 8? Did God send his donation to the Red Cross for the Tsunami victims (a tragedy of his invention, mind you)?

And you still haven't resolved the non-sequitur. Secular humanists argue space hardware vs. farm hardware just as vigorously as anyone. SH affirms the profound value of science in obtaining knowledge with which to do good; but most SH's are liberal, and question the value of the space program "when there are mouths to feed." The only thing that they all have in common is that they have subtracted God from the equation, and rely 100% on reasoning and the human experience in forming their arguments.

[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, 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...

I don't remember reading anywhere that his mercy was infinite. It just says that he is merciful, give people a chance, (more chance than I would) and then when punishment time comes along they claim its not fair. And its not like he just threw the flood on them. There most likely was plenty of time for people to soak in a decsion. And it wasn't everyone who died, it was most of them and their weren't a lot of them. And I think the pleagues were a worse punishment.
I would rather drown than have my body covered in burning boils. And I have experinced what it was like to drown and the only thing I can remember is that I was scared for my life. People have definitley punished their own race in much worse ways. So if God can't do it "right" I don't wanna even hear that humans can. It just shows how stubborn poeple can be. You can be told how you will be punished and still not make a change.
How you discipline someone has nothing to do with being bad. He has said it pains him when he has to punish people but if there is no punishment, nothing is going to change. He even said that he won't kill people that way again. And it also says that he doesn't let his love change his princibles.

[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!

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?

If the "better of humanity" is an important thing to strive for, we doing a pretty lame job.

Lame compared to what?

I take it you are not impressed with the past 50 years of social progress, the rapid advances of the Civil Rights movement, women getting the vote, Doctors Without Borders, $300 Billion spent worldwide by private citizens to help the tsunami victims, Live 8, medical research advances, the Internet, the fall of Soviet Communism, the Olympic movement...

Again, lame compared to what?

Remember, according to your mythology, we didn't create the world, we were just placed in it. We're basically cleaning up someone else's mess. You don't think we've made progress? and what progress we have made, you seem reticent to attribute to humanist efforts? Did the Pope free the slaves? Did Billy Graham stage Live 8? Did God send his donation to the Red Cross for the Tsunami victims (a tragedy of his invention, mind you)?

And you still haven't resolved the non-sequitur. Secular humanists argue space hardware vs. farm hardware just as vigorously as anyone. SH affirms the profound value of science in obtaining knowledge with which to do good; but most SH's are liberal, and question the value of the space program "when there are mouths to feed." The only thing that they all have in common is that they have subtracted God from the equation, and rely 100% on reasoning and the human experience in forming their arguments.

Do you truly think this type of "progress" was worth the countless innocent lives lost so people can start comming to the conclusion that:

"Oh that guy getting his head chopped of was screaming like he didn't want to die. You know, maybe we are being inhuman. Lets stop this type of punishment. It took 1,000 deaths through this means to see that this is crazy but those lives dont matter!"

"Man, you know after all these Africans we killed maybe its not right to be prejudice! Well at least those deaths served the purpose of letting us come to that conclusion"

And let me not forget to point out we haven't drawn our conclusions of war yet.

[The Happy Humanist]

Do you truly think this type of "progress" was worth the countless innocent lives lost so people can start comming to the conclusion that:

"Oh that guy getting his head chopped of was screaming like he didn't want to die. You know, maybe we are being inhuman. Lets stop this type of punishment. It took 1,000 deaths through this means to see that this is crazy but those lives dont matter!"

I'm sorry for being so dense, but what the heck is your point? Am I sorry it took "1000 deaths" before we figured it out? Of course! Do I wish we'd been 100% peaceful from the start? Sure! But of course, that would have been impossible, so I am glad for the strides we've made, and hope they continue to accelerate. That's right, accelerate! The pace of social progress has increased exponentially ever since the founding of the United States - the first democracy with a secular constitution. Coincidence? I think not!

[qstns]

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."


It is there cause we say it is there, just like a group of friends of mine and myself all said there is a God. Poof! There is a God now. Also, we say there is a factory on mars that makes clouds for Earth. That's where our rain comes from. Oh, and 3 x3 is now 45. We said it was. To say something is true or is "there", does not make it anymore true or real no matter how many people say it is.

To infer (also known as a guess/hope) something in being would introduce belief. Therefore you are saying you do not know something is there you guess it's there because thats the only way you can think properly. That means that "something" you guess is there is not a material, and if you only know things exist due to your five senses, I don't see how you account or know logic to exist.

To say if logic did not exist, my questions would not exist. Well, that simply begs the question. Sounds more like Idenity A is A.

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.

[size=12]But if there was something beyond material you would never know it. if your a true humanist. By adding the word rationalist you change the meaning form someone that learns or knows only by the material to one that thinks or belives right now everything he knows is by the material until further proof (which you can always (( everyone does)) make proof fit your own worldview, thus never accept new truths). Therefore you have faith in your current belief that your a Humanist.

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!"

You may remember I stated that I would offer to you why I believe/proof why God is good ( in short). I said that I would understand why you could reject it, beause proof is not persuasion. That story was to illustrate that point. Not to attack your worldview. That story can apply to me also. However your story was a "genetic fallacy' border line "straw man".

I remembered when I first signed on this board you said "welcome" ... "get ready to think." You assume due to this board I'm hearing things I've never heard, or that I've never thought before. A lot of assumtions.

You also asked if I was open to your worldview or things you had to say. Yes, I am open to them. I use to share your worldview. .

[The Happy Humanist]

While I know this is off topic. How do you know logic exist, or reason?

It is there because we say it is there.

It is there cause we say it is there, just like a group of friends of mine and myself all said there is a God. Poof! There is a God now. Also, we say there is a factory on mars that makes clouds for Earth.

OK, touche', but of course "logic" and "reason" are the names we give to thought processes that we all know exist, and can concur on. The same is not true for God. If we could all concur on God's existence, this forum wouldn't exist.

You may remember I stated that I would offer to you why I believe/proof why God is good ( in short). I said that I would understand why you could reject it, beause proof is not persuasion.

If we both agree that its proof, it would be mighty persuasive, I assure you. Of course there can be no proof either way, so the atheist relies on relative merits of the arguments. We find the atheist position to have more merit relative to the theist position.

You assume due to this board I'm hearing things I've never heard, or that I've never thought before. A lot of assumtions.

Everyone that signs onto this board hears things they haven't heard before, including me. If you haven't yet, stick around.

I use to share your worldview.

Talk about assumptions. You haven't even heard 1/1000th of my worldview.

[Leon_Magnus]

One of the problems I see today is tht people complain that god punishes the whole world when the are many good people in the world. That is a wrong assumption. There are many NICE people in there world but there are very few truly GOOD people. You can be a nice are polite person but can do wrong things. And saying "sorry" is not going to bring back those innocent lives is it? I doubt life was orginally meant for us to learn the hard way. And our US is slowly corrupting. Things not built perfectly will corrupt, we can't avoid it.
People have dug their own graves. We have grown to depend on money to the point where it cost for someone to be born into the world!!! That's disgusting. I realize some people in communities are working on ways to live without the use of money, but from my research I found it dificult.

[The Happy Humanist]

Hmmm...here's a message that got lost in my Drafts folder...must be over a year old...oh well...maybe it will still be relevant...

Of course it matters if He's all-powerful. He's right when He says He's right if he's the creator of the definition of right. In that case - it's impossible for Him to be wrong... and it so happens that that's the case.

Judging by what neutral yardstick?

He did not create you with the rebeliousness to disagree.

Then where, pray tell, did it come from, if not from the Great Author of Everything? If it came from Satan, then why are we held responsible for it?