What is the definition of universal Good and Evil?

[Corvus]

What I am asking here is what exactly is the definition of universal good and evil? What qualities or actions marks God as good, and what actions or qualities marks Satan as evil in universal terms.

The reason I ask this is that good and evil, on earth, seem to be associated with following God's law. If that is so, what defines God's nature as undeniably good?

[adherent]

I guess if you want the universally accepted right and wrong then it could be that anythign "good" is something that benefits us and somethign "wrong" is something that does not benefit us. Although that is loose and not specific, it should satisfy everyone.

[Archangel__7]

I've decided to post the response in segments and in separate threads... no doubt this topic has the capacity to branch out beyond our ability to address every point therein, thus my reason for doing so....

I'll make some comments here and then direct you to view the threads started in this forum.

One point I think needs to be made here is that Goodness within the Christian framework is not defined in human terms. Once this occurs, a distortion takes place, and makes "good" relative. Christ taught goodness with God (not humanity) as its point of reference. Now, the goodness of God is manifested when we align our behavior according to his nature (such as bringing happiness to others). It has been said that "God is good" is not merely a descriptive statement but one of metaphysical essence and nature. He does not merely exhibit goodness. He IS goodness. This is why apart from God, it is impossible to fully capture goodness in reference to anything else. But how do we recognize Goodness when we see it? The Christian worldview furnishes the concept of mankind knowing this intuitively (otherwise, you would not have felt the impulse to ask why God isn't morally obligated to put an end to "needless suffering"). Given all the facets of the Christian worldview there is no conceptual problem to think that God would have instilled in us an intuitive nature to sense an imbalance of Justice. But our cognizance of a moral law is no guarantee that our perceptions are free from distortion. There is a term commonly known in philosophy circles as "the human condition". We Christians merely call a spade a spade.... It's sin. We lack the perceptual clarity to discern what is right and wrong due to our finite and selfish nature. It is for this reason that goodness can never be defined in mere human terms. So when one turns to God with an air of omniscience and demands why he doesn't stop "needless suffering", would we be out of line to ask such a person how he came to know that suffering is needless? I think even on an epicurean viewpoint, even one can appreciate that some pain is warranted for a greater good. But until we know for sure that isn't the case, we lack the philosophical legitimacy to call any suffering meaningless.

Power tempered by responsibility is not an adequate definition of good, but is a manifestation of it. How one applies matters of power where choices are limited depends on how broad a definition we want to invoke. In the slave's situation, I may take power to simply mean potentiality. Unless he loses consciousness, a slave has the potential to make a choice no matter the situation. His choices may be limited, but nonetheless he has power over his choices. He can choose to continue eating and live, or he can choose to die. He may choose to look after his fellow slaves, or he may choose instead to curse them. But how can one see the goodness of God manifested in such a situation? Generally, God desires life over death, and teaches that one should love his fellow neighbor.
(See other threads for responses)

[using reason]

To state that God is by definition good is absurd. God is by definition omnipotent. He can do anything. If God is anything he is amoral. He created the world, he destroyed the world (the flood). He created everything, ergo he created evil. He can do anything, but did not know (care?) that Adam and Eve would sin and then punished not only them but all humanity for all a transgression that violated the very laws he created? You could argue that he is evil as well.

[Crixus]

To state that God is by definition good is absurd.

Why? If we could clearly say what God is, which we cannot hence the many debates, then we might be able to define Him. However since we cannot define God, it follows that we cannot refuse Him an attribute, which, according to many belief systems, proceeds only from Him.

God is by definition omnipotent. He can do anything. If God is anything he is amoral.

This statement requires the supposition that, absent of God, there is a strict definition of moral. Because the human experience is purely subjective, I would argue that there is not an exclusive definition of moral, discounting supernatural origins.

You could argue that he is evil as well.

Admittedly one could argue that God is evil, however since the argument would be based on relative definitions of "good" and "evil" the debate would very likely prove itself inconclusive. One might just as easily argue that the sun is cold, or that light is slow; being that such things are dependent upon subjective definitions, one cannot assume the existence of an objective consensus.

[Xanadu Moo]

It's futile for humans to try to couch the essence of "good" in layman's terms. That's like trying to define music instead of experiencing it, or define love instead of experiencing it, or define beauty instead of experiencing it. Whatever definitions we can come up with don't nearly do justice to the actual quality. You're not going to learn the smallest part about love just by studying its manifestations. You have to feel love to know what it means. Unfortunately, you also won't be able to convey that meaning adequately in words to those who haven't felt it themselves.

The best way to become more familiar with what embodies good is to follow the path that God has outlined, and you'll be experiencing it. God would have to ultimately be the one to provide you with the definition of good. He fully understands it. Humans can accept it on His terms and concede that there is a lot that falls short of our understanding as to the embodiment of good.

As Archangel alluded to, "good" must be established in the context of an absolute if it is to be discussed properly. Therefore, an underlying question would be to determine whether there can be such absolutes. Until there some agreement on what is or isn't an absolute, it does no good to try to go to the next step.