Prove what good and evil are

[Achilles6129]

Since many in this forum believe that God is good: how do you prove that God is good?

I don't pretend to prove anything. I merely contend that it's reasonable for us to accept that God is good, particularly considering that you have no way to prove what good and evil actually are.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't pretend to prove anything. I merely contend that it's reasonable for us to accept that God is good, particularly considering that you have no way to prove what good and evil actually are.

I can prove what good and evil are, to me.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't pretend to prove anything. I merely contend that it's reasonable for us to accept that God is good, particularly considering that you have no way to prove what good and evil actually are.

I started a thread a while back asking what is considered provable. Basically, nothing is provable in an absolute sense, except for statements within closed systems, like mathematics.

Whisky has a proof though.

 

[Noxot]

What do you believe a god showed you?

that it is better to live in eternity now rather than later.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

that it is better to live in eternity now rather than later.

I thought we were talking about specific moral pronouncements.

 

[quatona]

yes this would be true if in fact no God showed me anything.

I hope you understand that I don´t base my opinions about the world on your personal interpretation of your personal encounters (even less when they are unknown to me).

 

[quatona]

I don't pretend to prove anything. I merely contend that it's reasonable for us to accept that God is good,

...and why would that be a reasonable assumption?

particularly considering that you have no way to prove what good and evil actually are.

If you have no way to prove what good and evil are, you have no (proven) basis for judging God good.

 

[Noxot]

I hope you understand that I don´t base my opinions about the world on your personal interpretation of your personal encounters (even less when they are unknown to me).

sounds sane to me

 

[Achilles6129]

I can prove what good and evil are, to me.

Actually, I don't think you could even prove what good and evil are to yourself. You just have your own perception of what good and evil are. And of course, in regards to others, you can only state your opinion, which isn't proof.

 

[Achilles6129]

...and why would that be a reasonable assumption?

See my post #40.

If you have no way to prove what good and evil are, you have no (proven) basis for judging God good.

As you noted in your reply, I said it was reasonable to say that God was good. I never said I could prove it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

See my post #40.



As you noted in your reply, I said it was reasonable to say that God was good. I never said I could prove it.

It's not reasonable to claim a being has a quality, if one cannot even define that quality. Basically, as long as "good" is subjective, judging anything to be good will also be subjective by default.

However, I don't think I would trust any subjective morality that deems a being can force people to burn in hell for not believing it exists could be considered good. The actions of the deity within the text make Hitler look moral by comparison.

 

[Achilles6129]

It's not reasonable to claim a being has a quality, if one cannot even define that quality. Basically, as long as "good" is subjective, judging anything to be good will also be subjective by default.

I don't think you're understanding my post #40. God is in a better position to know the true nature of good and evil than anyone else. Are you disagreeing with this?

However, I don't think I would trust any subjective morality that deems a being can force people to burn in hell for not believing it exists could be considered good. The actions of the deity within the text make Hitler look moral by comparison.

I think that's a very shallow portrayal of the Biblical doctrine of hell. But this isn't the place for apologetics.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't think you're understanding my post #40. God is in a better position to know the true nature of good and evil than anyone else. Are you disagreeing with this?

Yes. Neither you nor I really know this being. You assume it is honest and unbiased when judging itself, but there's no reason, biblical or otherwise, to think that is the case. God claims to be perfect, but it has made mistakes. God claims to be good, but has regularly destroyed people not just for disobedience, but for the sake of a bet (Job, and before you mention his life being restored, the lives of his family and servants that died weren't, they were just replaced. If your child was killed, and someone replaced them with another child, that's just adding insult to injury), or in making a crooked deal (Japheth's tragic vow). Also, what good being is incapable of forgiveness without a blood sacrifice? If you define god as good without it being special pleading, then what exactly could be considered evil?

I think that's a very shallow portrayal of the Biblical doctrine of hell. But this isn't the place for apologetics.

Shallow or not, it's very similar to torturing people for not being tan enough.

 

[quatona]

See my post #40.

See my response to it.

As you noted in your reply, I said it was reasonable to say that God was good. I never said I could prove it.

So what is it with the standard you set up in your OP: "Prove..."?
I can´t do it, you can´t do it. What´s your point?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Actually, I don't think you could even prove what good and evil are to yourself. You just have your own perception of what good and evil are. And of course, in regards to others, you can only state your opinion, which isn't proof.

For a subjective definition, of course my opinion is the proof. That's what "subjective" means. It's why I had "to me" in the sentence.

 

[quatona]

Actually, I don't think you could even prove what good and evil are to yourself. You just have your own perception of what good and evil are. And of course, in regards to others, you can only state your opinion, which isn't proof.

Then let´s look for the best way to account for this fact (of which I understand that it can appear very inconvenient, seeing how important these things are to us), instead of wasting our time with asking each other to do what you yourself consider impossible: "proving" our moral opinions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then let´s look for the best way to account for this fact (of which I understand that it can appear very inconvenient, seeing how important these things are to us), instead of wasting our time with asking each other to do what you yourself consider impossible: "proving" our moral opinions.

Well, the best way we, in practice, accommodate the fact that everyone has a different personal morality, is by having a societal morality represented by the laws that govern it, and how they are enforced.

 

[Davian]

Suppose that one does. What would you make of his moral character?

If it were to act as judge over its own interests, I would consider it unethical, and if it were hold one accountable for things beyond ones control, I would consider it morally bankrupt.

I don't see how one could to look to such a thing as somehow being a source of morality.

However, it works for some. Does it work for you?

 

[Achilles6129]

If it were to act as judge over its own interests, I would consider it unethical, and if it were hold one accountable for things beyond ones control, I would consider it morally bankrupt.

I don't see how one could to look to such a thing as somehow being a source of morality.

However, it works for some. Does it work for you?

So, no matter what, you would consider God to be evil?

 

[Davian]

So, no matter what,

Where did I say "no matter what"? I can only comment on your theology as you present it here.

you would consider God to be evil?

If "evil" is the only option other than "good", then yes.

How about you? Can you consider something that is unethical and morally bankrupt to be "good"?