Scotsmanmatt

M.Bell
God, at least the God of Christian theology is defined as being good [omnibenevolent] and according to that same theology rightly so since that goodness fits that God as revealed through the Scriptures. This being so and according to your own criteria above God can be legitmately defined by Christian theology as being good. If not, why not?

Quote:

We are working exactly backward if we must re-define goodness with respect to God. According to Plato, if something is good because it is an attribute of God, or because God said it was good, then goodness must be arbitrarily defined. Otherwise, goodness must be defined independent of God, where God's goodness are to shown by comparing him to that "standard" of goodness.

M.Bell
If God be the source of all goodness, it being an intrinsic attribute of his being then it is him that is the standard of goodness regardless of human views to the contrary.

Quote:

To arbitrarily define God as good would render goodness meaningless. We have another thread that discussed the implications of Plato's objection.

M.Bell
1. In Christian theology the definition of God as good isn't arbitrary but a part of his self-revelation to mankind.
2. I'll have a look at the other thread.

Thanks
M.Bell

BioBeing

So I guess that prayer, by this definition, is trying to get thru' to God, to tell him of the suffering? So when he doesn't answer the prayers, does this mean that he didn't hear, or he just ignored them?

betzerdg

Question: Theoretically, say, there was a Research center so advanced that it would someday bring the "cure" to all the worlds sickness. The doctors were being prepared...but unfortunately...the site was being attacked by very sick people who, if let into the hospital would NOT be cured and would infect the entire project. This attack included bombing, weapons...force.
Would it be immoral to fight back?

Situation ethics here. And we all make moral decisions about the "right" and "wrong" of a situation. The point is this....being the creator of the universe, Maybe, just maybe G-d would have a little more insight to the affects of an action than we would.

G-d chose the nation of Israel to bring MESSIAH, the atonement for the sin of the world, into this realm of existence. He first separated a people, made them a unique nation, revealed Himself to them, gave them laws that aided in the purity and survival of this nation. The nations around Israel were involved in practices that if allowed to c0-exist with Israel could possibly "contaminate"or even destroy G-d's people.

If there is eternity....if those children who are killed were given a place in the world to come....maybe this was an act of mercy. Again we are begin our arguments based on our Presuppositions.
MIne, that G-d is a merciful and just G-d, making decisions for the best of all the world.

And what is the purpose of life....to learn what is NOT GOOD, what is NOT an attribute of G-d....and how can we learn this if G-d protects us from the outcome of our rebellion against HIM.
The world is what we have made it.....That's the point...and that is why all of creation longs..."groans" as scripture says, for the day of judgement when righteousness and GOODNESS will again rule the earth and G-d's kingdom is established.

Shalom

philechat

Now it is circular. God is good because the scriptures said he is good, and the scripture is true because a good God is revealed through it? But my problem is not solved--does that mean there is a "criterion of goodness" beyond God such that we can judge him to be good? But if so would God still be the source of all goodness?
Who is to decide God to be the source of all goodness? God himself? If he is the determiner (valuer) of his own character without an external criterion, why can we assume his determinations to be correct?

Yes, check out the other thread. The problem being if God is the determiner of all goodness, you will certainly not refuse to obey him on all occasions. Again, as I stated in the other thread: if you heard God's voice commanding you to hijack the plane going to Paris and "smite the sinners beneath", would you do it?

Fiach

So it is concluded that the Judeo-Christian God or Trinity is omnipotent because He/she/it is not benevolent at all. In fact God is the other side of the coin from benevolence. He is cruel, vindictive, and indifferent to suffering babies with brain tumours.

So the fact that God has no moral standard except his capricious whim, that he is therefore amoral. An omnipotent god must be amoral.

Fiach

BioBeing

Hypothetical: A scam artist promises to build a hospital that will cure everyone. Is it morally, ethically or logically correct to believe the con man?

Philosoft

Perhaps the most obvious of the problems with the "Unknown Purpose Defense" is that, if it contains the premise that suffering is necessary for God's purpose, it places a, thus far, philosophically unwarranted limitation on God's omnipotence.

Jamie_L

I don't think having a standard apart from God necessarily conflicts with the property of omnipotence. "Conforming" to the standard implies limitation, but I think that implication comes from semantics and the connotations of the word conform.

An omnipotent God could be capable of committing evil, as defined by the separate scale, but chooses not to. A man who never kills another human being in his whole life would not be said to have been incapable of killing. That is, he was not limited by the inability to kill. He simply chose not to kill.

However, a standard for morality apart from God does raise some other serious theological issues. A conflict with omnipotence, however, doesn't appear to be one of them. Not to me, anyway.

Jamie

betzerdg

Actually, in my opinion, the omnipresence of G-d can only be understood Kabbalically...the four levels of formation. G-d exists independant of man in the Eiyn Sof level. There HE IS ALL KNOWING OMNIPRESENT. Yet when he chose to contract HIMSELF to create that which was NOT HIMSELF....in this realm of creation HE BECAME....existentially. And it is in this realm of definitions that he does, infact, create change and has of necessity the ability to be "redefinable". NOt in his ULTIMATE state...as the boundless ONE....but as YESHUA....G-d being sacrificed, repentant , reconcililng HIMSELF to man. Hearing our prayers.

This concept is perhaps to far above our own thought process to understand....we can say INFINITE...but can we comprehend it?
Black hole....comprehend it? So because there is no time/space continuim in the first world of formation G-d...as Eiyn SOF, the I AM, knows all...and contains all.

YEt in this world...HE has allowed HIMSELF to become less than the EIYN SOF...and thus become existentially OUR KNOWABLE ONE>YHWH.."I am what I am and I will be what I will be."


At the end of the age..Eiyn Sof tells us that HE WILL be ONE...and HIS NAME ONE....but until then....HE is existentially our knowable G-d.

Shalom

betzer

philechat

If he is omnipresent, why can't we be a part of God? But if so wouldn't pure-and-simple pantheism be correct? Why must we assume ourselves seperate from God if God is omnipresent...i.e. Either God is omnipresent and we are simply part of him (therefore no reason to obey anyone but ourselves, no other identities required for us to submit to), or God is seperate from us (not omnipresent). I don't understand how God could be omnipresent but seperate from us.
Argument from ignorance? because we can't comprehend something so we must follow it? I find myself unable to comprehend fascism--so I guess it is imperative for me to follow their tenets.
knowable and unknowable--define them please. I think knowledge comes in degrees rather than binary oppositions. It is not "you either know or not know", but "you know something to a certain confidence level". Why must people be so obsessed with "absolute knowledge" per se?