Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[KevinM1]

Once again, I wonder where people like GC and Ninja think the 'superbugs' (a.k.a., antibiotic-resistant bacteria) that are currently killing people in US hospitals come from, and why they're different than larger organisms.

[Crossless2.0]

Definitely a myth. Plus, if Americans came from Brittish people, then why are there still Brittish people?

---

SUCK IT, Evolution!

Well, I'm American and my forebears were Irish, German, and Norwegian so . . . Special Creation! Suck it, evolutionists, YECs, and Brits (a little something for my Irish ancestors).

[Cyberman]

Once again, I wonder where people like GC and Ninja think the 'superbugs' (a.k.a., antibiotic-resistant bacteria) that are currently killing people in US hospitals come from, and why they're different than larger organisms.

The devil, obviously. The fall and all that.

[Esquilax]

The other problem, beyond the complete irrelevance of the term, is that creationists never see fit to actually define what a "kind" is. They use it as a challenge but it's not a word that anyone well versed in science will be familiar with, mostly because it's not a real word, and after that point the conversation is filled with theistic evasiveness, which they wouldn't need to do if they actually had a definition, or intended to give one.

The best we can hope to get is that bible passage about animals reproducing after their own kind, but that's either completely unhelpful if the theist insists that kind is not the same as species, or perfectly within the reach of evolution if it is just the same as species, as the passage seems to indicate, because we have seen one species (kind) bringing forth another species (kind.) So in the best case scenario, the theist is either being profoundly vague, or wrong.

[Ignorant]

Ignorant, could you answer my question? Other people have given thei definition of goodness. What is yours? Also, you never responded to your opinion on Drich's comments about genocide

---

So, what do you think about Drich's statements, Ignorant? Do you agree with them? Do you believe that under some circumstances genocide is acceptable? Do you think that sex between consenting unmarried adults is worse than drowning a large portion of humanity?

Slightly off topics, but thank you to the Christians who have answered this thread. I like to debate but the discussion is boring if we all agree with one another.

These were my questions to you, Ignorant.

I realize it can be easy to overlook a few questions in a thread.

I am sorry, I didn't even realize I was being addressed. While I haven't read Drich's comments, I can at least answer the questions above.

No, there are no circumstances in which genocide is acceptable.

No, sex between unmarried consenting adults is not worse than drowning a large portion of humanity.

Goodness is the aspect under which we judge things to be more or less able to fulfill our human desires or appetites. As such, calling something good implicitly includes the understanding "good FOR". For example, we eat food because we judge that it will satisfy hunger (i.e. it is good for satisfying hunger), but we satisfy hunger FOR the sake of nourishment and growth (which are both sought under the aspect of goodness). The appetite/desire is "directed" toward fulfilling our humanity. Another example is more abstract: We punish criminals because it satisfies a desire for justice, and we satisfy the desire of justice FOR the sake of social order (which is sought under the aspect of goodness). All of these goods are sought in an order and for the sake of different goods judged subjectively by individuals for one common reason: happiness/human fulfillment. Goodness is the aspect by which we arrange and order our actions for the sake of happiness which is human satisfaction or fulfillment.

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.

If god is not the thing that fulfills our humanity completely, then he is not goodness itself, even if he is good under some particular aspect.

---

Hmm. Still don't know what you mean by the word "good", but I appreciate your attempt at describing a position of the Catholic tradition. If there are personalized notions of "goodness", what is yours? What is it about a thing, an act, whatever, that when you observe it or consider it, you make the judgment that it is good. WHAT is it? What do you actually DISCUSS in order to unify your personalized notions for collective actions?

I did give you a list of examples of things that I consider good (kindness to animals, etc.)

I might also define good as a way of comparing outcomes of actions. Here is a link to decision theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory ).

I'm not sure what kind of definition you are looking for.

I think you might be arguing that we can't discuss whether the hypothetical Christian God is good without an objective definition of good? If so, I disagree. In a democracy, we are able to utilize subjective definitions of good.

This just sounds to me that you don't really know what you mean when you say something is good. That is irrational at worst and emotivism at best.

Before this post, I haven't argued anything, so I don't know why you are trying to guess what I am arguing. And yes, it stands to reason that if you don't know what you mean by the word "good" (i.e. if you don't have some consistent understanding of that word) then calling something good is empty and irrational.

What if I told you that God is pastichalony? When you ask me what pastichalony means, I respond with "Environmentalism is pastichalony". When you press me for a more meaningful description, I say, "it means different things to different people." When you ask me what I personally mean by it, I say, "I already told you that environmentalism is pastichalony." If you can adequately imagine that sort of exchange, you will understand my utter dissatisfaction.

[Cato]

Once again, I wonder where people like GC and Ninja think the 'superbugs' (a.k.a., antibiotic-resistant bacteria) that are currently killing people in US hospitals come from, and why they're different than larger organisms.

God has created them out of nothing as punishment for essentially declaring gay marriage bans unconstitutional.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Definitely a myth. Plus, if Americans came from Brittish people, then why are there still Brittish people?

---

SUCK IT, Evolution!

Well, I'm American and my forebears were Irish, German, and Norwegian so . . . Special Creation! Suck it, evolutionists, YECs, and Brits (a little something for my Irish ancestors).

Prove it! I've never seen a real Irish person transform instantly into an American. The accent would be too hard to hide. So, it's your turn to suck it again!

[Silver]

Nope, what I've seen on this forum is people who do not believe in God yet desire to argue against God always place human emotion and values on Him.

The bible clearly attributes humanity to god. I am a jealous god seems rather human.. I am a vengeful god seems rather ungodlike as well.

The god character was created and molded after a very inflated sense of man's self.

[Esquilax]

Once again, I wonder where people like GC and Ninja think the 'superbugs' (a.k.a., antibiotic-resistant bacteria) that are currently killing people in US hospitals come from, and why they're different than larger organisms.

The devil, obviously. The fall and all that.

Pfft, "the fall". If it really was a product of the fall, where's the telltale soup spoon? It can't be a real fall-related issue without a soup spoon!

Oh, what's that? I can't just invent new components of established ideas by fiat and then claim that the established idea can't be real because of the new component I've just defined into existence isn't present in it?

Oh, right. I was thinking like a creationist, for a moment there.

[watchamadoodle]

Goodness is the aspect under which we judge things to be more or less able to fulfill our human desires or appetites. As such, calling something good implicitly includes the understanding "good FOR". For example, we eat food because we judge that it will satisfy hunger (i.e. it is good for satisfying hunger), but we satisfy hunger FOR the sake of nourishment and growth (which are both sought under the aspect of goodness). The appetite/desire is "directed" toward fulfilling our humanity. Another example is more abstract: We punish criminals because it satisfies a desire for justice, and we satisfy the desire of justice FOR the sake of social order (which is sought under the aspect of goodness). All of these goods are sought in an order and for the sake of different goods judged subjectively by individuals for one common reason: happiness/human fulfillment. Goodness is the aspect by which we arrange and order our actions for the sake of happiness which is human satisfaction or fulfillment.

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.

If god is not the thing that fulfills our humanity completely, then he is not goodness itself, even if he is good under some particular aspect.

This sounds very similar to what I saw in the Catholic Encyclopedia. How do you define "happiness/human fulfillment"? If we can't define those terms then we haven't defined "good".

Before this post, I haven't argued anything, so I don't know why you are trying to guess what I am arguing.

Well, I was trying to encourage you to offer a definition. "Is this what you mean?", "Is that what you mean?", ... Sorry if you misunderstood my intentions as hostile.