A thought on the idea of an all-good God...

Here's something I thought of...

Let's pressupose first that we're trying to prove a God that is all-good. Meaning, he is only good, and not evil.

1. God is all-good.

2. Good is determined by being contrasted with evil.

3. Therefore, for good to be defined, evil must exist.

4. If God is all-good, then evil exists.

5. A being who is all-good would want to exterminate evil.

6. Yet evil exists.

7. Therefore, either God is not all-good or he is helpless to stop evil.

At this point let us resume with the assumption that God is still all-good. If this is the case, he must be unable to prevent the evil. Now, before the religious doctrine starts sprouting out of the woodwork, let me add an analogy to help this argument (To better put it into context):

Suppose that God is a lifeguard or capable adult laying on the beach. A child comes along. God warns the child of the dangers of the water. But the child goes in anyways. The tide begins to pull the child out (Or a shark appears, jellyfish, current, etc.). Now, could anyone believe that God would be all-good if he did NOT run out and save that child?

Even from his or her own ignorance?

Just curious.

Originally posted by Wesker
either God is not all-good or he is helpless to stop evil.

neither of these would be accepted by a Christian, but what other conclusion could there be?

Originally posted by Wesker
7. Therefore, either God is not all-good or he is helpless to stop evil.

Or there is something we don´t know about God.

Well on the one hand why does evil need to exist for a God to be all good? I think that is a wrong assumption.

Second, who ever said that a child dying in water was evil?

Originally posted by Wesker
Now, could anyone believe that God would be all-good if he did NOT run out and save that child?

Even from his or her own ignorance?

Just curious.

Yes. As Neo would say, "Choice. The problem is choice."

The child made a choice, God is constrained to leave free agency/will be.

However, this would not hinder the mercy of God in the resurrection as ignorance is not something that makes you unworthy of your reward.

Life here is not the point. The life after is. God is constrained here out of justice, but can exercise mercy in the after. However, he cannot be merciful if you 'sin away' your reward.

I think everyone's missing one key point though- the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God is incompatable with freedom of choice and the existance of evil.

Originally posted by tlbauerle
Yes. As Neo would say, "Choice. The problem is choice."

The child made a choice, God is constrained to leave free agency/will be.

However, this would not hinder the mercy of God in the resurrection as ignorance is not something that makes you unworthy of your reward.

Life here is not the point. The life after is. God is constrained here out of justice, but can exercise mercy in the after. However, he cannot be merciful if you 'sin away' your reward.

"Innocent bystander" is an oxymoron. One who stands by and does nothing while someone is hurt can hardly be called innocent.

The child, i.e. human beings may not have understood the warning of the lifeguard, i.e. God or the consequences of his actions.

Any lifeguard who says, "I warned the child to stay away from the water. By disobeying me, he made a choice. And I am constrained to not interfere with his free will," is not a very good lifeguard.

Moreover, no one has free will according to the Bible:

Acts 13:48

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Ephesians 1:4-5

Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will…

Jude 1:4

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:29-30

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Romans 9:11-22

For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!

For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

2 Timothy 1:9

Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity…

Originally posted by Wesker
I think everyone's missing one key point though- the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God is incompatable with freedom of choice and the existance of evil.

Well I agree with you on the freedome thing. Evil doesn'T need to exist for something to be all-good.

One understanding of the concept of omnibenevolence focuses upon a more literal reading of the word: a perfect and complete desire for goodness. Under this explanation, God always desires what is good, but that doesn’ t necessarily mean that God ever actually tries to actualize the good. However, it is unclear how and why a God who desires the good would not also work to actualize the good. It is also difficult to understand how we can label God as morally good when God desires the good and is capable of achieving good but doesn’ t bother to actually try.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well on the one hand why does evil need to exist for a God to be all good? I think that is a wrong assumption.

There cannot be good without evil, they are two contrasting forces.

the basic idea here is why doesn't god intervene.. This is a common attack at Christians...

Why doesn't god answer prayers?
Why doesn't god stop all the killings?
Why does god let people get sick or starve??

What you have to understand is that god is not trying to force you to accept him.. By intervening at any time he would prove his existence (Now god did send his only son to us, You could say why did he do this if he doesn't want to force us to accept him? The answer being before jesus came we knew nothing of god, with his departure people still refused to believe, as not all had seen him or heard of him).. Now if he proved his existence it would force none believers to accept him not out of choice but out of fear...

God doesn't want you to accept him cause you have no choice in the matter....

Your view of god is limited if you go by scripture. You cannot have the negative without the positives or good without evil. It's part of what we are. A god doesn't intervene because we create what we experience as a human race. God is in both the negatives along with the positives.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
the basic idea here is why doesn't god intervene.. This is a common attack at Christians...

Why doesn't god answer prayers?
Why doesn't god stop all the killings?
Why does god let people get sick or starve??

What you have to understand is that god is not trying to force you to accept him.. By intervening at any time he would prove his existence (Now god did send his only son to us, You could say why did he do this if he doesn't want to force us to accept him? The answer being before jesus came we knew nothing of god, with his departure people still refused to believe, as not all had seen him or heard of him).. Now if he proved his existence it would force none believers to accept him not out of choice but out of fear...

God doesn't want you to accept him cause you have no choice in the matter....

Please.

In the Bible, God regularly proves His existence, communicates with human beings, interferes in human affairs, and suspends free will.

again, no defence can be presented on god's behalf.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Please.

In the Bible, God regularly proves His existence, communicates with human beings, interferes in human affairs, and suspends free will.

God only really showed himself to a few people, 1 at a time... and never did anything that would radicaly cause views to change...

Yes back then is different then today... back then it was to get his message across, It was needed to convince the people that Jesus wasn't crazy... if he did it today people would capture it, and everyone would be forced to believe... or suffer in hell...

Its not a perfect view, I'll admit that the bible is very rusty... I wouldn't take but the most basic message from it, otherwise a combination of time and old age views distort the message...

Excellent feedback on this. I really appreciate it, guys. The first argument I just kinda thought of while driving to school one day. It's a very interesting and definate argument, I might say. One that's always bothered me.

I thought this was far more throught provoking than "r u atheist" and "r u christhun" and "omfg teh mormuns r comng", but I suppose I was wrong.

Or there is something we don´t know about God.

bump

Originally posted by eggmayo
There cannot be good without evil, they are two contrasting forces.

No, that's Bullshit, there can...people like to throw that around but it isn't true.