If god is the source of all judgment, then god is good by definition.
So, the person who creates a genetically engineered virus that causes everyone infected by it to become totally obedient to his commands is good, while the person who blows up the lab and wipes out all samples of the virus is evil?
I’m an atheist, but putting that aside for the moment… 
What makes any of you so sure that you can categorize God as either good or bad?
By definition, god is in an infinitely higher order of intelligence. Our quibbling over what we perceive as moral or imoral are likely incosequential.
I remember one anology I heard somewhere before and it went like this: (bear with me)
Let’s go back in time to the late 17th century. You are small bird perching on the branch of a tree looking down at a Sir Isaac Newton who has just happenned to be struck on the head by an apple (Yes I know this really didn’t happen), and he is furiously writing on paper what will become known as Newton’s laws of gravitation and motion.
Now, you, the small bird, witness everything. Heard him postulate his theory, saw the words and equations he penned it down. But, could you understand any of it? Could you even remotely comprehend some of the very basic comcepts of this event?
Even the fact that he might have been relaxing in the shade of the tree while he waited for a friend, might be hard to comprehend (You mean he wasn’t simply seeking shade from the sun?).
The gap between intellects is enourmous in this case. Now multiply this by infinity and you might begin to see why trying to make sense of an omnipotent being makes very little sense.
This is a basic question posed by Socrates, which goes along the lines,
Is an action right because it’s right? Or because God said it was right?
Either answer is not satisfactory. If it is right because he says it is, then there is no need for it to be good - he could say murder children and steal and lie - you might say “but he would never say that” - but why not? He could and it would still be right. Following this logic then praising God is stupid - why praise him when he could have said the complete opposite and you would praise him anyway?
In the second case he says it’s right because it is right, then there implies a logic that is above God. Who created ‘right’ and ‘good’ so that God must follow it? It attacks the omnipotency of God himself.
As you can see, it’s somwhat of a paradox. Good question Meatros.
I am not clear on why it is paradoxical.
That’s contradictory. “If it is good because he says it is, then there is no need for it to be good”? How am I supposed to make sense of that?
I guess you need to make the distinction between what we as a society “understand” as good - i.e. not murdering, not stealing and the good that Gods will forms.
The good in that sentence refers to our vague view of good as society. It could be dismissed as insignificant but nearly all societies consider certain acts evil - such as murder without just cause.
This distinction can go back to the OP - if God is good because his will defines good then yes, God will therefore be good.
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
What if God abandoned us… and the Devil is writing the bible… setting up capitalism and determining what is “right” and “wrong” ? We wouldnt no better.
So in the end “god” could be evil… but we call him “good”.
Would you mind elaborating on this?
Probably only if the human creators of that particular God wanted it to be seen as worshipworthy.
Gods don’t have to be even that powerful to be considered a God by their human creators. The Mormon God, after all, is pretty much just some guy. They don’t believe he created much of anything, and he certainly isn’t properly held to be omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent or omnipresent. As I said, he’s pretty much just some old guy who got to run the planet as a prize in a contest that any good Mormon is alleged to be able to win when he (yes, males only) becomes a God.
The potter and clay analogy is more apt than you think (though the roles are reversed) since it is obvious to the careful thinker that God is a human creation!
(With substantial help from natural selection, which greatly favored human brains which assumed causal links between apparent cause and apparent effect – even quite mistakenly, as in the fallacious linking of lightning, thunder, animals and other mysteries with God – over brains which inferred links too rarely or cautiously.)
It’s all about being worshipworthy – to humans. Gods are invented to be worshipped by humans (along with many more subtle purposes such as advancing the inventors’ lust for power). Humans aren’t going to worship a deity that they see as evil or malevolent, thus most Gods are created such that they represent the higher “justice” and “morality” of their inventors at the time of invention.
Admittedly, that speaks very poorly for the morality of the ancient Hebrews and the first Muslims, but most of us are judging their invented Gods from a modern Western perspective which has benefitted enormously from centuries of liberalization and secularization of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
I know if I were God I wouldn’t want to be worshiped. I’d expect to “raise” equals. Who’s to say “God” even stuck around after?
I’m partial to the George Carlin school of thought on this one (about God):
“Call it what you like. I call it the big electron. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, and it doesn’t judge. It just IS. And so are we. For a little while.”
Omniscience is traditionally held to mean perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future; God not only knows everything that has happened and everything that is happening now, but also everything that will happen and the outcomes of all choices that will be made. This has traditionally posed all sorts of theological problems about human free will. However, it also raises the same problems about God’s free will. If God knows and has known for all eternity the outcome of his own choices, then when can God be said to have made those choices? A being with perfect and eternal foreknowledge of his own choices and actions would seem to have to be a static, frozen entity. But in what sense would such a static and unchanging entity have a will? And if there is no will, how can there be power? (Omnipotence.) God is held to be perfectly powerful, but his own omniscience would seem to render him perfectly impotent to have ever done anything any differently than that which he has already done (and will already do at all points in the future).
I stand by my original statement. Goodness generally creates rather than destroys. There are exceptions of course, such as when one creates or destroys an evil thing.
Besides, a mind control virus isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The infected individuals would be like members of a club. They would recruit more people and have weekly gatherings. They could sing songs, listen to a speech from the leader, and pay the club dues. Is that so bad?
Well, bear in mind that God created everything, not just sunsets and fuzzy bunnies, but earthquakes and Ebola viruses, too.
Gee, that sounds familiar…
We can’t expect God to come down and rescue us everytime there is a “disaster” or “tragedy”. He’s God, not Superman! If we didn’t experience hardships in this life, how would we learn anything? God wants us to help each other.
Are you sure about this? What role would “fear” have to play? Any?
Are you saying that superman is more powerful then God? We still learn lessons when we are ‘rescued’.
I noticed we haven’t had our requisite MOPOG argument yet
In Exodus 3:13 (the bit with the burning bush), Moses asked God who He was. God’s response was, I AM THAT I AM. He (for lack of a better pronoun) didn’t say, I AM THE ULTIMATE GOOD, or I AM EVIL INCARNATE. Just, “I am.”
IIRC, it was Jesus, in the Christian tradition, who said “I am the truth, the way, and the light,” implying goodness out the ying-yang. Personally, I’m inclined to believe the guy, but never having met Him face-to-face, I don’t take this as impirical proof. Therein lies the basis for faith.
As for the question of Omniscient vs Omnipotent, I don’t know. I lean towards the idea of an omniscient God, capable of creating the universe, and of occasionally intervening, but largely unwilling to deprive us of the ability to act on our own.
Perhaps my understanding is flawed, but I can’t help but think that if God is omnipotent, then He is also very negligent. The state the world is in today makes a mockery of His creation, and if He were able to prevent it, He’d have done so by now.
I realize that what I am about to say is purely personal belief, so please bear THAT in mind when responding.
It comforts me somewhat to believe that, having created the world, He followed folkloric wisdom: “If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it’s yours; if it doesn’t, it never was.” We have been set free to follow our own choices, so that we can work our own way back, or not.
So, it would seem that my vote on the omniscience issue would be, omniscient yes, omnipotent, maybe / maybe not.