Does a Good God Exist?

[wyguy]

It wouldnt explain, for example, why a child is born with harlequin ichthyosis, or why people die in earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis.

The Bible teaches the entire creation is under a curse due to our rebellion against God, and that "the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now." (Romans 8:22)

You need to remember that death is part of that curse. Everyone will die. It doesn't matter much how or when.

Thats perfectly correct, but some people regard this as a bullet which is too big to bite, since it implies that there are circumstances in which it would be good, or even required that we commit acts people feel to be intrinsically evil.

Again, it doesn't matter what fallen mankind thinks is good or evil. God made everything and everyone - His is the only voice that matters - especially when it comes to what is deemed good or evil.

The problem is, mankind has a higher opinion of itself than it should have.

Example: PETA thinks eating meat is evil, while God says it is perfectly acceptable - who's opinion matters more?

God's.

Because He created the animals and they belong to Him. Just like us and everything else in the Universe.

If God commanded that everyone in the world drop dead at the same moment and go into Hell, He would be perfectly justified.

And that command, coming from a Holy and Just God would be "good."

[Fez]

The entire question is moot.

God is God.

By even asking the question we try to define Him.

Can't be done.

He is, simply, God.

[Guest shiloh357]

This is a difficult question.

But what does "Good God" mean? If goodness is, by definition, what God approves, then the question can be reduced to

"Does God exist?", because if He does, then goodness is automatic, since He decides what goodness is.

If, on the other end, goodness is an "external" quality that God has, where does it come from?

Good is what God approves of AND what God is - it is not external, it is part of His nature. Because evil isn't a "thing," it's simply the absence of goodness. Just like darkness is just the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat.

So, the whole debate in regard to "did God create evil?" is moot.

If we accept the definition of evil as an absence of good (and it

[wyguy]

This is a difficult question.

But what does "Good God" mean? If goodness is, by definition, what God approves, then the question can be reduced to

"Does God exist?", because if He does, then goodness is automatic, since He decides what goodness is.

If, on the other end, goodness is an "external" quality that God has, where does it come from?

Good is what God approves of AND what God is - it is not external, it is part of His nature. Because evil isn't a "thing," it's simply the absence of goodness. Just like darkness is just the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat.

So, the whole debate in regard to "did God create evil?" is moot.

If we accept the definition of evil as an absence of good (and its not clear why we should accept this definition rather than, for example, defining goodness as an absence of evil) it does not necessarily follow that the question of God and evil is moot. Rather, we find ourselves with a slightly different question which has more or less the same issues at stake. If evil is the absence of goodness, then we can still ask why God allows such absences in certain situations, (for example, with regard to what are commonly called natural disasters).

Furthermore, assuming that it is coherent to define goodness as what God approves of and what God is, there is still the possibility that God could approve of something we generally consider to be evil (lets say, the killing of newborn infants) in which case we would then be compelled to acknowledge that killing newborn infants is in fact good and no longer evil.

That brings us to the issue of pointless evil. Are there any pointless evils? Does God approve of evil if it brings about a greater good? How do we determine what kinds of evil are truly pointless and what evil is required to bring about a greater good? This question also extends to the suffering of animals, as well.

If all evils brought about a greater good than I am not sure it can be called evil anymore.

Then the logical consequence is that evil does not exist. In any case we would lose our moral compass.

If I commit something horrible and pointless evils do not exist, then my act will cause a greater good and I cannot

be punished for causing a greater good. The logical consequence is that sin does not exist, which is absurd.

Therefore pointless evils must exist.

What if killing an innocent person would save the lives of two people - would it be justified? How about killing 10 people to save 15? Or killing 1000 to save 2000? At what point would it no longer be a "good" thing?

[Guest shiloh357]

If all evils brought about a greater good than I am not sure it can be called evil anymore.

Then the logical consequence is that evil does not exist. In any case we would lose our moral compass.

The fact that something evil can bring about a greater good does not make the antecedent no longer evil.

If I commit something horrible and pointless evils do not exist, then my act will cause a greater good and I cannot

be punished for causing a greater good.

But what if the greater good does not come about until 50 years down the road?

Your statement would be true in the context of a parent with a sick child who can only cure the child by allowing the child to go through a medical treatment that will bring pain to the child in order to heal the child.

The logical consequence is that sin does not exist, which is absurd.

"Evil" does not always mean "sin," though. Let's say a fawn is a forest and lightning strikes a tree and causes a massive forest fire and the fawn is seriously injured in the fire and suffers in excruciating pain for many days before finally dying from her injuries. That is philosophically "evil" but it is not "sin."

[doubting_tommy]

The Bible teaches the entire creation is under a curse due to our rebellion against God, and that "the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now." (Romans 8:22)

You need to remember that death is part of that curse. Everyone will die. It doesn't matter much how or when.

Presumably animals cannot

[wyguy]

Presumably animals cannot

[enoob57]

This is a difficult question.

But what does "Good God" mean? If goodness is, by definition, what God approves, then the question can be reduced to

"Does God exist?", because if He does, then goodness is automatic, since He decides what goodness is.

If, on the other end, goodness is an "external" quality that God has, where does it come from?

Good is what God approves of AND what God is - it is not external, it is part of His nature. Because evil isn't a "thing," it's simply the absence of goodness. Just like darkness is just the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat.

So, the whole debate in regard to "did God create evil?" is moot.

If we accept the definition of evil as an absence of good (and it's not clear why we should accept this definition rather than, for example, defining goodness as an absence of evil) it does not necessarily follow that the question of God and evil is moot. Rather, we find ourselves with a slightly different question which has more or less the same issues at stake. If evil is the absence of goodness, then we can still ask why God allows such absences in certain situations, (for example, with regard to what are commonly called 'natural disasters').

Furthermore, assuming that it is coherent to define goodness as what God approves of and what God is, there is still the possibility that God could approve of something we generally consider to be evil (let's say, the killing of newborn infants) in which case we would then be compelled to acknowledge that killing newborn infants is in fact 'good' and no longer evil.

You should be more careful in your understanding

Good is what God approves of AND what God is - it is not external, it is part of His nature

What our brother has said- good is essenced in God. Evil has only the judgment of God upon it... it has a beginning in satan and an ending in the lake of fire... the yin and yang thang is a lie and to reason anything from the point of evil is flawed in its very start for its foundation rest in the strength of its father satan... Love Steven

[enoob57]

This is a difficult question.

But what does "Good God" mean? If goodness is, by definition, what God approves, then the question can be reduced to

"Does God exist?", because if He does, then goodness is automatic, since He decides what goodness is.

If, on the other end, goodness is an "external" quality that God has, where does it come from?

Good is what God approves of AND what God is - it is not external, it is part of His nature. Because evil isn't a "thing," it's simply the absence of goodness. Just like darkness is just the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat.

So, the whole debate in regard to "did God create evil?" is moot.

If we accept the definition of evil as an absence of good (and it's not clear why we should accept this definition rather than, for example, defining goodness as an absence of evil) it does not necessarily follow that the question of God and evil is moot. Rather, we find ourselves with a slightly different question which has more or less the same issues at stake. If evil is the absence of goodness, then we can still ask why God allows such absences in certain situations, (for example, with regard to what are commonly called 'natural disasters').

Furthermore, assuming that it is coherent to define goodness as what God approves of and what God is, there is still the possibility that God could approve of something we generally consider to be evil (let's say, the killing of newborn infants) in which case we would then be compelled to acknowledge that killing newborn infants is in fact 'good' and no longer evil.

That brings us to the issue of pointless evil. Are there any pointless evils? Does God approve of evil if it brings about a greater good? How do we determine what kinds of evil are truly pointless and what evil is required to bring about a greater good? This question also extends to the suffering of animals, as well.

If all evils brought about a greater good than I am not sure it can be called evil anymore.

Then the logical consequence is that evil does not exist. In any case we would lose our moral compass.

If I commit something horrible and pointless evils do not exist, then my act will cause a greater good and I cannot

be punished for causing a greater good. The logical consequence is that sin does not exist, which is absurd.

Therefore pointless evils must exist.

What if killing an innocent person would save the lives of two people - would it be justified? How about killing 10 people to save 15? Or killing 1000 to save 2000? At what point would it no longer be a "good" thing?

The Lord teaches us that truth is pure in the infinite regress

Luke 16:10-12

10 He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. 11 Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12 And if you have not been faithful in what is another man's, who will give you what is your own?

NKJV

so as we examine our actions, for they are the true reflection of our thinking, in this manner and we arrive at the smallest of motives so that (If) we see the Scriptural basis for obedience in that which we reason and do- we may be assured of God in us... for all that I have known belongs to another called Christ even that of what I am for it is here I am called to be faithful and it is where I fail often... it is the smallest of things where the battle begins therefore to kill one to save many how then shall this below finds its accomplishment?

Luke 6:35-36

35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

NKJV

we are not called to be judges but obedient children to the pleasure of our Father who beget us in Christ so as to be seen in the very least and smallest of our examinations... This is the goodness of God and it was done perfectly in the Life of His Son! Love Steven

[doubting_tommy]

Adam was the steward of this created earth. God put him in charge. He was the representative of all mankind to follow. It was because of his sin that ALL of Creation was cursed - animals, the earth, and the entire universe. And we carry on what Adam started by our own sins. Animals suffer because of it, babies suffer because of it, and you and I suffer because of it. The rebellion was SIN.

How can an infant or an animal bear moral responsibility for actions performed of which it has no comprehension and which occurred thousands of years before its birth? < Not trying to argue this one, genuinely curious how that could work.

Yes. Absolutely. Whatever God has said is good, IS good, and whatever He may say in the future will BE good. Because HE is good.

I think this view is called ‘divine command theory’ in metaethics.

Again, not to sound harsh, but God is the Creator and you are the created thing - what right have you to even question His motives?

Well, why is it the case that the created thing should not question the motives of his creator? If I understood that, then I would understand why I ought not question the motives of God.

Easy. As I said above, since God created you and the entire universe, it is His right to do with you, and it, as He pleases. God would be justified in sending us all to Hell because it is what we deserve for sinning against Him. It is not so much what the sin IS, it's who you are sinning AGAINST. And the Bible says all our sins are against God.

It's the very reason Christ came to die on the cross. To pay the debt we, as sinful, fallen human beings, could never pay - because the Bible says to enter Heaven, you have to have sinless perfection. And that can only come when God credits the sinless blood of Jesus to the sinners account at repentance and faith in Christ alone.

The core of your position here seems to be that the act of creation establishes a kind of absolute ownership right held by the Creator over the created. It’s not clear to me why this is so. It’s certainly not the case for virtually every other example of ownership I can think of and it’s not clear to me why the case of God’s creation of the universe should be an exception to this.

There is also the fact that there are verses in the Bible which seem to suggest that Morality exists independently of God’s will. Genesis 3:5 and 3:22 refer to God ‘knowing good and evil’ implying that good and evil are the sort of things which can be known. If goodness is merely God’s will, then it would be a bit strange to say that ‘God knows His own will’, wouldn’t it? (“Behold the man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil”).

Edited December 3, 2010 by doubting_tommy