The “paradoxical” God? part 2

Just to recap, there are groups of people who find the Christological definition of God to be flawed. The main “flaw” that is often pointed out is concerning the benevolence of God. Recall that benevolence is defined as “a disposition to do good”, it does not simply mean “good”. This definition, although technical, is the main cause of hostilities.

The main argument which claims God to be contradictory is that if God is supposed to be benevolent there is no reason for a judgement day to have been prophesied. Let me elaborate. God, being inherently good, according to our understanding, will contradict this attribute when judgement day occurs. This is a bit over simplified, but it works for the purpose intended. Now this appeals to most rational people, because it is sound in logic.

This is essentially one of the core arguments against the existence of God.

Now I’m going to deconstruct the argument. (this might get a little technical, if you have any questions there is a comment section below USE IT!)

My first argument is derived from Plato and his concept of the forms. If you have read my earlier posts, you should know that Plato thinks that the highest intellectual form, or essence is “the good”. He claims this but he never defines what good is. I believe he skips over that definition because as a man he cannot define it. I am of the same view in that respect. There are always a few certainties when it comes to ethical / moral behavior (i.e. murder is bad). Let me question you as to why you think murder is bad. Why? What motivations do you hold which make you come to the conclusion that murder, or anything else, is bad or evil? When I thought about this for a long time (that’s the reason for the no post Friday) I arrived at the conclusion that society tells us that it is. Now I’m not promoting anarchy or anything of the like, I am simply promoting you to doubt everything that you think you know.

That is your assignment, think about everything and question it.

Seriously, stop reading, the post is not going anywhere. Take some time and just think.

Done?

You sure?

Ok now we  move on. Hopefully, we can agree that we know almost nothing. Whatever we do know has been told to us. Our definition of good was given to us. But assuming that there is a God (which you should have been since the The “paradoxical” God 1 post), the true definition of good can be something which is entirely different to what we think good is.

Now for me the question would break down here.

But for the sake you, my readers, I will continue.

This time I’m going draw form Aristotle. Now Aristotle says that “God” or a being of pure intellect which was the first cause, does thinks which we cannot comprehend being human and all that. This should be a comfortable idea for most people of Christian faith. The idea that man can never truly know the will / mind of God. This is point for me is just a reassurance of something that I accept already. The point is as a being of pure reason, or transcended reason and logic the methods of a divinity cannot be comprehended by mere mortal, and if we could comprehend such a mind, our lives would hold no more meaning, we would have superseded the common man, and entered into the realm of the eternal (why this is I will explain is later posts)

(Sorry for missing the Friday post drop, hopefully this was a good enough post to make up for that mistake.)

The “paradoxical” God? part 1

Hopefully the title of this post made you think. When I say “paradoxical” I mean a blatantly apparent contradiction. Blatantly apparent only to people who have ever doubted their faith, that is even if they claim to have faith. This came today in one of my philosophy lectures. If God, assume the Christian God, is supposed to the benevolent, why is He a judgemental God?

The attribute of benevolence comes from the triad of attributes associated with God. He is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. While the other two prove difficult to comprehend in their own right, the benevolence of God is what comes under scrutiny most often by non-believers. Benevolence by definition is: “a disposition to do good”. Most people interpret “to do good” as though it means “not to cause harm”. When people hear that God is supposedly benevolent they automatically think that it is unjust of God to be judgemental of people, and punish them for not believing in Him, regardless of whether or not they have lived a life of good or evil.

Along with benevolence, God is also said to love all mankind unconditionally. People find fault with this “clause” because is God’s love in unconditional, then he would not punish nonbelievers to damnation for eternity.

While there arguments seems valid at first glance, when they are broken down and explicated, it is possible to find faults with them.

I’m going to break down the arguments and reply to them of Friday.

(Sorry for the late post guys)

Medieval Good

All right here is the second and final post on the topic of “the Good”

Medieval philosophy, European Medieval philosophy anyway, had two prevailing views on “the Good”. Both views were based on the belief that a deity exists.

The first view, and rather uncommon, is that of Manichaeian Dualism. This view says that there are two fundamental forces in the world. Good and evil, these forces are always in conflict with each other, in what may be an eternal struggle. (the maybe in this case is because the Manichaeians postulated that the evil power is semi-eternal, meaning that the good could overcome it. However the evil force is still powerful enough to hold its own, it’s quite confusing) This view of good does not attribute good to being all-powerful in order to side step the problem of evil issue the second view faces.

The second view, is accredited to St. Augustine of Hippo. In his reply against the Manichaeians, he puts forward the idea that God (the Judeo-Christian God) is “the Good”. He is perfect and to be perfect he has to be good. This implies that perfection and good are one in the same. Augustine continues with this process of thought and goes on to address the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a obstacle that must be overcome for this view to hold any water (to have plausible validity). He says that other that God, and possibly the angels, all things are imperfect. He says that all things are created to be good referring back to the Creation story in the Bible, where God declares every single creation good. Evil, according to Augustine is simply the lack of good necessary to be perfect. There are degrees at which something can lack good, and the more evil it becomes. For example, disasters lack a lot of good, and because of that they cause harm, if disasters did not lack good, then they would benefit all of nature.

The second view, Augustine’s view, is the one that is taken by most european medieval philosophers to be the best explanation of “the Good” and the problem of evil. Then again it is wise to remember that most european medieval philosophers were theologians of the Christian faith.