(February 26, 2015 at 10:13 am)watchamadoodle Wrote:(February 25, 2015 at 11:39 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Because the nature of this conversation is about varying degrees of a commonly used sentiment, such as "good", it's important to be particular with the words used . . .
Essentially this seems to be a roundabout way of saying that God is good because we define him that way.
I assure you that it is not the round-about way that you suspect. Speaking about goodness in this way does not even demonstrate that there is, in fact, some single thing which IS goodness itself. All it means is that goodness is understood as that aspect of things which humans judge to be satisfying of particular human hungers/appetites/desires (e.g. the hungers for food, survival, reproduction, community, justice, love, etc.). It is strictly about goodness.
Human experience shows us that nothing in this universe seems to sate all of our desires. This means that everything in this universe is only good under one or more aspects (i.e. every object/thing is only "partially" good when considered "in itself"). So either goodness, i.e. something that is good under any and every aspect, exists "somewhere", or it doesn't.
First, "Goodness itself" must be shown, if possible, to exist. Then, it would have to be shown that "goodness itself" and "god" can be rationally said to be the same thing. Necessarily, that would require either that it can be shown that god is the thing that satisfies all human desire. Seeing as that would require a great deal of work, common agreement on terms and concepts, and a lengthy exchange with a high chance of misunderstanding, I wouldn't hold your breath while waiting for it to come!