Hi TDC, I agree that God chooses to act that brings/draws others toward goodness that by the nature of the word is “beneficial” to them.  This mirrors Romans 8:28.  But then to fully understand that, first we should understand what is “goodness”.  I’m not clear on your definition here.  If God is moving us beneficially toward a target that’s called good, we should figure out what that target is, of what it consists, define it so that we can understand the relationship of God and goodness.  Did he decide what that target is, was the target there sans his decision of that being the target, or is the target Himself?  (But now, we are back to the first three options I listed.  And for the record, it’s assuming there is some kind of relationship between God and good, whether they’re separable or inseparable.)

Then I must admit, I’m having a difficult time understanding your definition.  If “target” means “the beings” (which I assume to mean“people” ??? ), then your definition doesn’t make sense to me.  Are you saying basically “Based on observation of our actions and what benefits us (i.e., directs us toward a better state of being), God abstracts the concept of good from that”?  Before I continue, I just want to make sure I have your definition correct.  Please let me know.

Hey Ross,

the original question you posed is quite a good one.  I’ve thought about that for a while.  What if this were some cosmic joke?  What if in the end, God throws out the books anyway?  doesn’t hold to His promises, actually can and does lie (this is hard for me to write, ugh!), and really, there is no objective good… everything really is just based on His whims.  What if God really is the ultimate post modernist? 

(As you may have seen in my previous posts, I only see three options in relation to God and goodness.  The one where God lives up to an external objective standard to me seems not possible because that would require something outside of God & necessary to define that standard.)

Well, here’s where my thoughts have arrived thus far… just thought about this yesterday.  I’d say we’re left to a wager then.  Either, (a.) God is essentially “good” as we understand it, or (b.) there is no such thing as “good”, only arbitrary decisions.  Which is the better choice to place our bets?    

Bet on (b).

(i)                   (b) is correct. Then God is neither good nor evil. Nothing we do matters.

(ii)                 (b) is false and (a) is correct. Then God is essentially good, but for denying that we risk hell.

Bet on (a):

(i)                   (a) is correct. God is essentially good. If we trust in his goodness we can be saved.

(ii)                 (a) is false and (b) is correct. God is neither good nor evil. Nothing we do matters.

Thus, either way, if (b) is correct, then nothing matters.

If (a) is correct, then our eternity hangs in the balance.

So, sure, we don’t know with absolute certainty, and we could be wrong, but it seems more rational to go with option (a) than the other one.

(Yes, Alan helped me write out the bottom part because the way I originally wrote it wasn’t so clear.  He’s kinda good at that!)

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/9/2005 12:58:49 AM (GMT-5)

Dang it, every time I am gone from the board for a day or so I feel like the discussion gets ahead of me… There is so much to discuss!

John, I think that your responses to my questions have been very enlightening! I would like to work through the Finney Systematic Theology, but he uses so many words to make a simple point  I can definitely see that you have put some study into this issue, and I think that your understanding of the objectivity of the good is much more cogent than I initially thought.

In fact, I think that you are basically saying the same thing that I have held to, even though I call it “essential goodness” and you do not. From your last major post, you seem to be indicating that it is morally impossible for God to sin. Here are the specific quotes I have in mind

John: …which in the case of God, (his moral resolution)  maintains in perpetuity, due to His perfect knowledge and sensibilities concerning the nature of reality and relationships.  

…the moral law of God emanates from God's perfectly developed REASON. It would be the most illogical thing imaginable for God to sin--it would go against everything He knows to be right, good, holy, and BEST.  

Can I conclude from these statements that it is morally impossible for God to sin?

When it comes to the actions of personal agents, I don’t really see the need to make a distinction between moral possibility and logical possibility. This is especially the case with God, assuming that he is a personal agent (which is an assumption that all sides in this debate assume) If a decision (volition) is morally impossible for God, then it follows that the decision is also logically impossible. I’m here defining impossible simply as “not capable of existing or happening.”

In your response to VFG, you indicate that God does not strive to reach the level of goodness. You say that God, “based on his perfect knowledge of the inherent reality of relationships between moral beings,…acts on a basic principle that conforms in every way to that standard which said knowledge requires--the law of love (moral law).”

You seem to be saying here that, given God’s perfect knowledge, His good actions are made according to what his knowledge requires. Again here I can’t see any way that God could choose against what he knows essentially. The definition of essential I’m using here is “constituting or part of the nature of something; inherent.”

So, if it is morally impossible for God to do evil because of His perfect knowledge, and His perfect knowledge is an essential part of who He is, then in some way He is essentially good.

Maybe we’re not as far apart as we all think….

Tom, let me make one brief comment. You said

Tom: Right. Let me know when you've done it! Just kiddin. It doesn't seem to follow that if it's the case that "whatever God wills is good" that God can "will anything" and therefore his goodness and character are arbitrary and unpredictable. I'm thinking that what we call "good" happens to be the word we give to "how God wills and acts." So God's does define the standard, but the standard isn't arbitrary because God isn't.

Here is what I’m getting at… The statement “what we call "good" happens to be the word we give to "how God wills and acts." seems possibly arbitrary to me. If we found out that God acted in a way that he was the ultimate practical joker (or more bluntly an all powerful sadist), then could we call how God wills “good”?

Sahid, man you are really attached to that skepticism thing, aren’t you? You acknowledge that our only hope is that God is good, and I agree. What I’m trying to get at is the how we know that it is at least much more probable that God is good than that he is not. Is it just a 50/50 choice for you?

VFG, in response to your last post about a wager on God’s goodness, I think that there has to be something more than mere weighing of outcomes to push the scales to trusting God. Even if I know the payoffs that you have listed (if God is trustworthy we have heaven to gain, if not all is meaningless), I couldn’t trust God if I thought that it was a 50/50 chance. I think that there has to be some reason why we think that that “God is the ultimate jokester/postmodernist/ all powerful sadist” is, if not impossible, at least much more unlikely than God’s essential goodness.

I want to get to the why God acts the way he does. And as I’m thinking about it, I think that the discussion has to turn to the area of psychology or motivation. If God is a personal being (which He has to be in some sense if he chose to create), then he must have some motive for what he chooses.

So how do we ground that motive? ** What follows is just off the cuff. I definitely want to refine this more***

John (following Finney) wants to ground it in the nature of existence. And here is where I think that we can reach a convergence between my initial position (essential goodness) and John’s. For God, prior to creation, is the totality of being. So for the moral law to be in the “nature of existence” would be the same as “the moral law is in God.” God, as a personal being, affirms his own being. God likes being God. He lacks nothing without creation, because He is God. So the only motive for Him to create would be to reflect Himself. So here we have a crude argument for man’s creation in the divine image without appealing to scripture. If God creates man in his own image, he would have no motive to deny man the goal for which he was created, namely to reflect the being of God and to be in relationship with Him. So God would have no motive to be the divine sadist of my initial hypothetical situation.

It’s a little rough, but I think that it could be fleshed out in a way that we can at least affirm that God would have no real motivation to be the all powerful jokester if He is a personal being.

I'd really like to hear back on all this (especially John's take on me understanding him as a closet proponent of "Divine essential goodness")

Ross 

Ross, it’s funny because I was actually thinking about this last night (perhaps that’s the reason I had difficulty sleeping last night… )  I wondered if it may appear like a 50/50 toss up from the ole Las Vegas folk (eg, us).  Here’s the way I basically think about theological stuff… I try to understand what options are out there and weed out the ones that make the least sense, given what information I have available. 

If we were to go with option (b), i.e. God being a postmodernist, that option would totally make no sense given the world we live in, our intuitions, daily miracles and experiences in encountering God, our drive/desire to make sense of the world, etc. 

Everything we know can only point to option (a): that God is essentially good, that He is trustworthy, that He really did give us the faculties to know Him more.  Intuitively, we search for purpose in life, to make sense of the world around us, and we interact with that world.  Everything that God provided in this world and to us individually points to option (a). 

It does come to a point where after all the thinking, pondering, mulling over the options, we have to put our trust in the option that makes the most sense, just like as Mark (I think?) put it on another thread of when it comes to jumping out of the airplane and trusting the parachute (until new and reliable information comes around, then perhaps we’d re-evaluate).  So instead of it being a 50/50 toss up, if I have to put down the “odds” as it were, given everything we know and have available to us to consider, I’d say it’s more of a 99.5/0.5.  Given what we know, option (b) seems pretty darn irrational. 

Perhaps I used the wrong words (that is, “wager” and “bet”), but hopefully this make more sense.    

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/9/2005 3:51:16 PM (GMT-5)

Good luck JohnE,

I tried to it too define God’s subjective goodness, Alan slit my throat and left me out to dry.  

Mark

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/9/2005 4:19:02 PM (GMT-5)

 John, this is really good stuff!

In response to your #1, I appreciate and concur with the thinking that physical necessity controls the moral realm. This is why I said that "When it comes to the actions of personal agents, I don’t really see the need to make a distinction between moral possibility and logical possibility. This is especially the case with God, assuming that he is a personal agent (which is an assumption that all sides in this debate assume)." I take it to be a given, at least for all that are in this discussion, that in the realm of personal decisions, actions aren't necessitated in the same way that physical events are.

John: Was the example I gave not helpful to your understanding? Do you not have the LOGICAL ability to, for instance, commit murder this very instant, though you lack the moral possibility to do so?

In this case, the choice is essentially a moral one. If I lack the moral possibility to commit murder, then I also lack the physical possibility. The reason for this is that what we mean by murder is something like “the willful taking of an innocent life.” Now I may be physically constrained to pull the trigger of a gun which kills someone, but this would not be murder.

In response to #2, why does Calvinism necessarily ensue from applying the category of "essense/nature" to the issue of moral action? I too deny the idea of a "sin nature" if that means that a person has no choice but to sin. But I don't deny that I have, in some sense, a "human nature". What I mean by this is that as a personal being there are some givens. For instance, I cannot act without at least some end in mind for my action. My actions, as personal, cannot be completely unmotivated. Now I believe that I have rational control over my motivations as you do, but in this sense there is some essential aspect of being a personal agent.

In response to #3, I think that we are on the same page here. I do not think that God's knowledge of what is good (his "affirmation of being" to use my terminology) and His faculty of reason are sufficient conditions for his actions. But I do think that they are necessary conditions.** That is, God cannot make a decision without his knowledge of reality, his reason, and a motive state. But these three are not sufficient to produce the choice. God must also choose (perform an act of will, or whatever you want to call it).

So when I say that God is necessarily good, this is the sense in which I mean it (the necessary/sufficient distinction). God most definitely has free will, but his choices at least (1) have to be appealing to Him, and (2) based on his knowledge be reasonable as well. Therefore, God is free to do many good things--create a world OR enjoy the fellowship of the trinity without creation; bless you with the talent of being musical OR athletic ability. But he is not able to do evil because it would be (1) unappealing based on (2) his exercise of reason.

Ross

Post Edited (JEE) : 9/9/2005 11:57:05 PM (GMT-5)

1:13 Therefore, get your minds ready for action by being fully sober, and set your hope completely on the grace that will be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed. 1:14 Like obedient children, do not comply with the evil urges you used to follow in your ignorance, 1:15 but, like the Holy One who called you, become holy yourselves in all of your conduct, 1:16 for it is written, "You shall be holy, because I am holy." New English Translation

Matt. 5:48 So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Post Edited (JEE) : 9/9/2005 11:56:10 PM (GMT-5)

I can't get rid of the italics... oh well.

Post Edited (JEE) : 9/11/2005 7:00:17 PM (GMT-5)

Ok enough with the smelling sauce, I’ve seen your neighbor and I don’t want him huggin me.