Evidence for God from Science

This is a spinoff from the other topic and Im starting a new thread for it.

Is God good and if he is what does it mean for God to be good? Are there limits to his goodness or is it infinite? Is he purely a good being incapable of doing anything wrong or unjust? Or is anything God does good and just by for the simple nature of it being done by God? For example can God do something and it be good and just, even if it would clearly be unjust and not good if humans did it? Is God infallible just by the nature of being God or could God do something that could widely be considered wrong; kind of like how a parent might tell a child to do as they say not as they do. So for example is God killing babies (hypothetically) good, just, and beyond reproach just by the nature of it being done by God?

Depends on what you mean by 'good' and, if I can pull a Clinton, what you mean by 'is.'

If you mean 'good' in some Platonic sense in which 'good' is an abstract quality that is attributed to God, then some theists like myself would say no, while others from more comfortable with analytical philosophy would say yes. If you are predicating it to God and man univocally, then the same no/yes breakdown occurs. If you just mean that He is desirable, then all (theists) would agree. If you are referring to an external standard of goodness to which God "measures up" and therefore can be justifiably called 'good,' then all (theists) would disagree. If you mean it in a transcendental sense, then classical theists like myself would say yes while analytical philosophers would be more cautious in such an affirmation (if not disagreeing with it).

The 'is' question is easier to answer, and is best done by pointing to Euthyphro, with which you are doubtlessly familiar. Both sides of the horn fail because the attempt to attribute to God something external to Himself, making the 'is' attributive. Alternatively, theists have traditionally affirmed (necessarily so in classical theism) that goodness is identical to God, making 'is' identifying. That is to say, God = Good; or, a bit more technically, Good = God. God's very nature is goodness, and therefore, everything He does is by nature good. He does not do something because it falls in line with an external ethical standard; nor does He do something and declare it good. Nor does His doing something make it good. Rather, God, in acting, exemplifies goodness.

So I can say colloquially that yes, God is good. But it is better to say that Good is what God is.

edit:

I just read the last part of your thread on the fall that prompted this thread. Let me say that you "should have started on a smaller scale" again. Rather than asking if God is good (which makes all kinds of assumptions about both the nature of 'good' and the nature of 'God' to say nothing of the linguistic questions surrounding predication), you should just ask what is does it mean to say something is 'good' in the first place.

edit2:

I'd also suggest perusing ST Ia.5 and ST Ia.6 for a detailed answer to this question--first on goodness in general and then on goodness as it relates to God.

If you just mean that He is desirable, then all (theists) would agree.

A small point, but theists that believe in a malevolent god would disagree.

So I can say colloquially that yes, God is good. But it is better to say that Good is what God is.

It would seem this would defeat the definition of the word good. You're saying God is good because he is. It sucks all meaning from "God is good" as you may as well say "God is God." By defining good as God, some new word is needed to display that God has positive moral attributes in a given philosophical/theoological system.

Reason wrote:A small point, but theists that believe in a malevolent god would disagree.

In theory, but for all practical purposes, you'd be hard pressed to find me a theist who believes God is malevolent.

It would seem this would defeat the definition of the word good. You're saying God is good because he is. It sucks all meaning from "God is good" as you may as well say "God is God." By defining good as God, some new word is needed to display that God has positive moral attributes in a given philosophical/theoological system.

Not quite. It just means that you need to understand that good is identical to being, where good simply points to its desirability. I explained this in some detail here. In any case, what you are suggesting is that 'good' needs to be defined apart from God, which means that to call God good would be to attribute to Him ethical behavior (or an ethical nature) that meets that standard. But that violates a host of things that we know to be true (philosophically and theologically about God). I refer you on this point again to Euthyphro.

If God is GOD then He is far beyond our understanding of what "good" is or can possibly ever mean.

Is God good? I wouldn't put it that way exactly, I'd say God is good.

God is always good. i do believe i know how this will turn out so in advance i will say this to you Mag all of us have been in these discussions and you wont bring anything that hasn't been discussed before if your goal is to try and disprove God. Matthew 7: 7-8 again Mag if you truly want answers God will show you but it is your choice alone to make. God bless

It has taken me a while to wrap my brain around the "good" issue. It is our tendency to have our presuppositions cloud our view. When we think of good, we are thinking of a standard by which to measure something. The reason is that we are temporal beings. So, when we want to ask such questions, we tend to examine God as if He is a human, which He is not. (unless of course we are dealing with Christ incarnate) In so doing, we bring (for lack of a better description) God down to our level, and thus we make all kinds of incorrect judgments about God.

If goodness is just a quality that God possesses, then, as Jac points out, it creates all kinds of other problems. Eurypthro won't settle the issue, because as Jac said, it is based on wrong thinking. Both options are wrong.