Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Ignorant]

The definition you offered merely defined "good" in terms of "human fulfillment" which was left undefined.

Actually, I did define it. Here

Then you asked me about the conflict of human desire, e.g. Hitler's conflict of desire with others. I responded.

Then you said "God is good", because he is defined that way.

I don't remember saying that (can you point to it?), because that is a silly thing to say on an atheist forum. I do remember saying this:

"IF god IS the thing that, once obtained, completely fulfills our humanity, then he is goodness itself, and therefore, God is good. But only IF."
- Pg. 14, Post #138, linked above

In other words, if God is the thing that satisfies every human desire, then he is good. The test lies in the ability to satisfy humanity, not in his definition as good.

That is much different than saying, "If God is good, then he satisfies every human desire. God is good. Therefore he satisfies every human desire." Which, as I would hope you agree, I have not said.

I don't blame you, because I know that your view is an abbreviated version of the Catholic Encyclopedia article. That all makes sense to you, because you are a Catholic. Also I don't mean to oversimplify your definition. I probably overlooked some subtleties.

=) Sure, you may have overlooked some subtleties... or you may have completely misinterpreted one of the only two conditional statements I have made about God in relation to my understanding of goodness. =) And I don't read the Catholic Encyclopedia (much of its contents are dated), but I am happy to know that I don't contradict it. I consider my view a very abbreviated view of the Thomist/Aristotelian position, and I am happy to know that the Catholic Encyclopedia includes it. Aristotle explained goodness, human action, and ethics in a very similar way.

So I really don't see why you are using me as your example of not giving a definition for "good". It seems you are simply trying to avoid engaging with the thread topic by making this into a bigger problem. Sure, it would be nice to have an objective definition of good, but many atheists are moral relativists and don't believe there is an objective definition.

I am afraid that I can not really help what things seem like to you, so I am sorry if you are confused about my intentions. I just found it interesting that so many people seem to know which things are good and which things are bad, and yet they can't articulate what it is about those things that merit the predicate "good" or not.

If you want to rationally critique an attempted "proof" that "God is good", and you don't have at least a rudimentary formulation of what goodness is, what exactly are we doing? This question is my only intended interest in this thread. Don't hold your breath for some proof that God is good. Most rational people can see the logical precedence of securing an idea of goodness by which any such proof could proceed.

However, we can still aggregate subjective definitions of good through voting and discussions like this. So let's discuss whether God is good.

Well sure you can do that, but we can't pretend that any discussion that goes directly to the arguments (without arriving at common understandings of the words that will be used in those argument) will be a rational one. On an online forum, ALL you have is written text. It would almost seem self-evident that the meanings of the words you are using (especially an important a word in a discussion about god's goodness as the word "good") are worth hashing out.

I am not saying that you must accept my description of goodness, but if we both understand that word in different ways, you are setting yourself up for a discussion full of equivocation and ambiguity that renders it irrational. Would I like to do that? No thanks.

BTW That is a cool word you invented "pastichalony". It seems like it should be part of the theology for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Maybe I am a pastichalonist.

Ha! I have no doubt that you are.

---

And I said in another post that I am perfectly happy to use your definition as a starting point.

As a starting point for what?

---

My conception of goodness is pretty simple -- treat others the way I'd like to be treated, add to the general weal, and leave the world a better place than I find it.

This contradicts your god's opinions in certain instances, which isn't a problem for me insofar as I understand that your god is a figment of your imagination.

Where it comes from? Empathy. Look it up, if you need more information. Also, email your god the link, because he clearly doesn't get it.

Hey Parker's Tan, so your conception of goodness is an imperative to act in a way that you would like others to act toward you?

Does every person agree about how they think other people should act towards them?