Does a Good God exclude the possibility of a Bad World?

[JBI]

Bitter-Sweet by George Herbert
Ah, my dear angry Lord,
Since thou dost love, yet strike;
Cast down, yet help afford;
Sure I will do the like.

I will complain, yet praise;
I will bewail, approve;
And all my sour-sweet days
I will lament and love.

[jakobmuller]

i am a bit confused to tell the truth...

define "bad world"

does that just mean our world having evil thrown in there with good or.... a separate world that's all evil? other than hell?

[Redzeppelin]

I completely disagree. Without evil you CANNOT appreciate good.

So tell me, do I first need to whack you with a 2x4 for you to appreciate the goodness of a hug or kiss? Do you need to eat a piece of rotting cheese in order to appreciate the taste of chocolate? Really? Must I yell at you first so that you can appreciate a whisper in your ear?

Do babies need to eat sour things so that they'll appreciate the sweet? Must you be abused before you can understand the beauty of being loved?

Really? Really? Do we only understand by contrast? Nothing out there is good or bad IN AND OF ITSELF without having to be evaluated in contrast to something else?

[blazeofglory]

This is a very intriguing question, and of course God is over and above all these worldly attributes.

God is not an entity we associate attributes like good or bad, and of course God remains untouched by all these things.

Our understandings about God are based on what we read in books or they have their roots in what our parents have told us and it does not go beyond this periphery at all.
In fact it is hard to describe God, and we human beings are subject to angers, joys and the like and to try to understand God from this perspective is really a wrong course.

[jakobmuller]

So tell me, do I first need to whack you with a 2x4 for you to appreciate the goodness of a hug or kiss? Do you need to eat a piece of rotting cheese in order to appreciate the taste of chocolate? Really? Must I yell at you first so that you can appreciate a whisper in your ear?

Do babies need to eat sour things so that they'll appreciate the sweet? Must you be abused before you can understand the beauty of being loved?

Really? Really? Do we only understand by contrast? Nothing out there is good or bad IN AND OF ITSELF without having to be evaluated in contrast to something else?

not solely by contrast, but it is a huge factor if it is there. It is a way to compare things against each other and evaluate them on a personal level.

The 2x4 example doesn't work anyways lol

[Redzeppelin]

not solely by contrast, but it is a huge factor if it is there. It is a way to compare things against each other and evaluate them on a personal level.

The 2x4 example doesn't work anyways lol

Bad/evil accentuates our appreciation of good, but it does not define it. To give it such weight is to suggest that it is as equally valid and necessary as good. That simply cannot be. As well, to argue thusly would also put an end to those arguments people wish to put forth as to the problem with God not eradicating evil from this world; if it's equally valid and necessary, why should He do so?

[jakobmuller]

Another thing is that "good" and "bad" are such relative terms. They basically lie only on a personal level, and how we interpret them.

We have no universal measurement of good and bad.
There's no metaphorical scale of 1 to 10 of righteousness, no numerical value we can assign.

[Redzeppelin]

Another thing is that "good" and "bad" are such relative terms. They basically lie only on a personal level, and how we interpret them.

We have no universal measurement of good and bad.
There's no metaphorical scale of 1 to 10 of righteousness, no numerical value we can assign.

Beyond absurd. It is logically impossible to maintain this position.

[JBI]

Beyond absurd. It is logically impossible to maintain this position.

How so? What makes this absurd and illogical? What is illogical about relativism, as apposed to a naturalist belief, which in itself is built on an assumption, and therefore is, in itself, illogical. Where does logic fail here?


There is a story of the RamBam, when he was looking for appointment as a doctor in Cairo, how one of his competitors tried to demonstrate how he could cure blindness. After the long treatment, filled with bandages and prayers, for which RamBam was present, the doctor took off the bandages, and the patient exclaimed how he could see colors, and how this was blue, and that yellow. RamBam of course, being who he was, looked at the king and merely remarked, "If he was blind, how could he know colors", for which, the other doctor was dismissed as a fraud, and RamBam was appointed. The moral of the story? Even something as central to us, such as color, is only central because we see it. In that sense, we can only know the feeling of bad once we have experienced the good. Kindness cannot be fully understood unless one has experienced selfishness.

Is that not what the moral of the Garden of Eden chapter in Genesis is about? How by eating the apple, they experience going against the will of God, and then are opened to the knowledge of right and wrong, because they finally know what wrong is? Isn't that the message, how without the knowledge, everything is flat, and there is no good.

Certainly, Aquinas, when justifying the fall used the notion of it being "Fortunate" ("Felix Culpa"). What is so wrong with that?

The notion of a natural Good, and a natural bad is far more illogical than a relative one to my view at least. If you are going to accuse someone of faulty logic, don't just accuse, at least give some substantial evidence to support such a rigorous claim.

[jakobmuller]

Beyond absurd. It is logically impossible to maintain this position.

alrighty then... i guess that's that.

Maybe the purpose of "Bad" is to accentuate "good" (assuming that's all it does), as in that's the reason for an all-powerful God allowing its existence.

[Redzeppelin]

How so? What makes this absurd and illogical? What is illogical about relativism, as apposed to a naturalist belief, which in itself is built on an assumption, and therefore is, in itself, illogical. Where does logic fail here?

Relativism is illogical because it suggests that there is no absolute truth - and yet, its very definitional statement IS a statement of "absolute truth" - ISN'T IT?

Although the nature of life means that some things may be good/bad due to context, we cannot extend that out to mean that there is NO absolute truths whatsoever: that position is madness because then we must allow for the validity of ALL moralities - not just ones of which we approve. I am certainly thankful that moral relativism wasn't in style during WWII. I'm also very thankful that it wasn't the prevailing philosophy for those who stepped forward to abolish slavery.

Is that not what the moral of the Garden of Eden chapter in Genesis is about? How by eating the apple, they experience going against the will of God, and then are opened to the knowledge of right and wrong, because they finally know what wrong is? Isn't that the message, how without the knowledge, everything is flat, and there is no good.

Completely wrong. The presence of the tree was to provide Adam and Eve with freedom of choice. They could not willingly serve God without the option to NOT serve him. The tree provided that option. "Knowing" good and evil was not something we were designed to do - only God can "know" evil without it affecting him - we can't handle it - it's like radiation - the minute it touches us, we begin to die. We were never created to possess that knowledge.

The notion of a natural Good, and a natural bad is far more illogical than a relative one to my view at least. If you are going to accuse someone of faulty logic, don't just accuse, at least give some substantial evidence to support such a rigorous claim.

The problem with your position is that history and culture argue against it, as does human experience and human nature:
1. Throughout history and culture, certain values have been stable: all cultures have valued honesty, fidelity to one's word, loyalty, courage, love; similarly, all cultures do not value murder, rape, lying, theft, cowardice, betrayal. This alone suggests that there are certain things that are universally recognized as "good" and "bad."
2. If I do not believe theft is morally wrong and you don't - I guess you're out of luck when I car jack you; the only CONSISTENT response you can have as a moral relativist is "Well, guess I'll have to go get a new car - I can't condemn you Red for your alternative morality - which postmodern relativism suggests is just as valid as mine."
3. There is something in human nature that recoils against certain things - and this is observable in very young children that suggests that we have encoded within us some rudimentary ideas of right and wrong.

[Lynne Fees]

I definitely think so. Think about it. What good would summer be if you hadn't been in school all year? It would just be more of the same. It's the concept of yin and yang. A hot shower would just get boring and steamy if you hadn't ever been in the cold to feel the contrast.

I hadn't thought of it like that before.

[JBI]

Relativism is illogical because it suggests that there is no absolute truth - and yet, its very definitional statement IS a statement of "absolute truth" - ISN'T IT?

Although the nature of life means that some things may be good/bad due to context, we cannot extend that out to mean that there is NO absolute truths whatsoever: that position is madness because then we must allow for the validity of ALL moralities - not just ones of which we approve. I am certainly thankful that moral relativism wasn't in style during WWII. I'm also very thankful that it wasn't the prevailing philosophy for those who stepped forward to abolish slavery.



Completely wrong. The presence of the tree was to provide Adam and Eve with freedom of choice. They could not willingly serve God without the option to NOT serve him. The tree provided that option. "Knowing" good and evil was not something we were designed to do - only God can "know" evil without it affecting him - we can't handle it - it's like radiation - the minute it touches us, we begin to die. We were never created to possess that knowledge.



The problem with your position is that history and culture argue against it, as does human experience and human nature:
1. Throughout history and culture, certain values have been stable: all cultures have valued honesty, fidelity to one's word, loyalty, courage, love; similarly, all cultures do not value murder, rape, lying, theft, cowardice, betrayal. This alone suggests that there are certain things that are universally recognized as "good" and "bad."
2. If I do not believe theft is morally wrong and you don't - I guess you're out of luck when I car jack you; the only CONSISTENT response you can have as a moral relativist is "Well, guess I'll have to go get a new car - I can't condemn you Red for your alternative morality - which postmodern relativism suggests is just as valid as mine."
3. There is something in human nature that recoils against certain things - and this is observable in very young children that suggests that we have encoded within us some rudimentary ideas of right and wrong.

Hitler came to power, with much popular support from Germany. He then expanded his domain, and massacred millions of people. To those who elected him, fought for him, supported him, and pulled the triggers, he was somewhat of a superman. To them, the murder of millions of people was justified, and thought of as a great service to humanity and science.

Beyond that though, was theft condoned? Well, in Auschwitz for example, how much gold was stolen from people's mouths alone? How much property and cash was confiscated? I don't see the Swiss handing back any of it either.


Society functions not to uphold a moral law, but to stabilize itself through a social contract, in a means of maintaining the status quo, or establishing a new status quo. That's why, when countries are poorer, they tend to be against free trade, whereas when they are richer, they are all for it. The changing infrastructure changes the values and opinions of the population, and their moral outlook on what is acceptable and what isn't.

For thousands of years in the West, Homosexuality was a crime, and for a large enough chunk of that, punishable by death. Does that mean homosexuality is now against the moral code?

What about women's rights. For large portions of time, they as good as didn't exist. Women weren't even considered people in many places of the world until recently - does that mean they were always people?


History shows one thing - people do not wish to die, and people wish to gain power. I cannot see how that has anything to do with natural morality.

Please, saying a statement that professes rationalism is illogical because it says a statement is not true. Language is limited, because it is rational, therefore the fact that it is illogical or not is irrelevant. The paradox is relative to the language used to convey it.

[atiguhya padma]

It is claimed that evil is a consequence of our freewill. I assume that this does not mean that evil originated with man. Nor that all evil is as a result of man.

Some might say there are many cases where evil occurs despite man's freewill, such as natural disasters.

Some might say that men and women are often not in a suitably informed position to avoid making evil decisions. Greek tragedy surely highlights that.

I, for one, do not consider evil to be anything substantial. I believe evil is nothing less than a construct to denote those things we prefer to avoid, the things we hate about the world, life etc.

[NikolaiI]

The existence of God for me is the infinite, and the infinite is real. Actually, the infinite is the source of all. The material universe is like a dream in relation to the absolute. This is what I believe, but not in the interests of arguing over it. Arguing and getting upset doesn't help or create anything. It doesn't help us be more perfect. Life in this world is so different for so many different people. Some are suffering, some are not; some are suffering for good reasons, some by their own actions... the world is infinitely complex.

And yet there is simplicity among the complexity, and unity among the multiplicity. That simplicity and that unity is truth. I prefer to live a simple and happy life, try to live well and wholesomely, and be as much of a joy and help to others as possible. I try to live a meaningful life! My view that God is infinite, and the source, comes from my whole life of experience, and certain revelatory experiences, as well as all I've read and so on. Emily Dickinson in a short poem describes it well.

The Infinite a sudden Guest
Has been assumed to be-
But how can that stupendous come
Which never went away?

It describes certain ideas which are sacred within Hinduism. You never left, you were never separate, you were never bound by Maya. It's a feeling so profound, when one feels it, which may not be in this life, one may know it is true.