Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Ignorant]

The definition of good seems unnecessarily complicated by claiming that "goods" are for the sake of other "goods". I assume this derives from a desire to show that all natural processes drive toward "goodness itself" which we arbitrarily name "God". (Why not "pasticholony" instead of "God"?)

No, we don't arbitrarily name it God. All of the goods we seek, we order according to what we have judged will obtain happiness. Happiness is the "final" good in that chain of goods, not necessarily "goodness itself". As I said earlier (Here), "goodness itself" may not even exist, but that does not mean that "a goodness that obtains human happiness (i.e. fulfillment, completion, etc.)" doesn't exist. I have only suggested that such a good doesn't seem to exist in our universe (at least no one has found it yet). If such a good did exist, every single human being would be selling themselves short if they did not order their every action to obtaining it.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "good", they define "evil" to be the absence of "good". I imagine this is a way to thwart any argument that this type of definition could be restated with "evil" replacing "good"? God cannot be "evilness itself", because "evilness" isn't anything?

=) Despite your experience of Christians on the internet, the Christian tradition did not define terms with the sole intention of "thwarting arguments" from atheists! =) Terms are described in a such a way that they can be used with as little ambiguity as possible in as many different contexts as possible.

But also consider a different implication for humanity by understanding evil this way: If evil is the absence of good, then YOU or I could never be completely "evil" either. There is some hope for humanity in that understanding... at least for me.

@Ignorant, is your definition the same as Plato's definition and the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Which definition? About Goodness? No. The one about Aristotle seems closer to my position. The "Scholastic Doctrine" has some issues, but this part is pretty close (but there is a lot of philosophy in the background, FYI):

"Being and the good are objectively one. Being conceived as desirable is the good. The good differs from the true in this, that, while both are objectively nothing else than being, the good is being considered as the object of appetite, desire, and will, the true is being a the object of the intellect."

"The privation of any of its powers or due perfections is an evil for it, as, for instance, blindness, the loss of the power of sight, is an evil for an animal. Hence evil is not something positive and does not exist in itself."

I think your definition assumes a background in philosophy, and this is why it seems so nebulous to me. (I don't know how to criticize your definition, because I'm not sure exactly what you mean due to my lack of background knowledge.)

That is fine. Allow me to attempt a less-philosophical description:

Q1) What do you want?

A1) "Gn"

Q2) Why do you want Gn?

A2) "So that I can get G(n+1)"

Q3) Why do you want G(n+1)?

A3) "So that I can be happy"

According to your (i.e. everyone's) own personal judgment, you (everyone) think that this...

You => Gn => G(n+1) => Happiness

...will work (i.e. actually bring us happiness) in reality. We all plan and order our actions thinking that this will happen for us. Goodness is the "aspect" of things the provide the actual reason to seek them, and we seek them in such a way to bring us happiness.

That is the subjective part of goodness. Goodness is the reason you try to get something, or the reason why you try and do something.

Q4) Did you get Gn?

A4) "Yes"

Q5) Did Gn get you G(n+1)?

A5) "Yes"

Q6) Did G(n+1) get you happiness?

A6) "No"

Gn, because it ACTUALLY led to getting G(n+1), is OBJECTIVELY GOOD for the sake of getting G(n+1).

Seeking happiness through the actions of getting Gn and then G(n+1), because it FAILED at getting happiness, IS OBJECTIVELY NOT GOOD for the sake of getting happiness.

This is the objective part of goodness. When we seek things that WE THINK will bring other goods that we want (ultimately being happiness), we know we were right if they actual bring us what we want (like Gn bring g(n+1)), and we know we were wrong if they don't bring us what we wanted (like when we thought Gn and G(n+1) would bring us happiness).