Proof that God is morally good & other properties of God

[deepthot]

THE PROPERTIES OF GOD: - A Dialog

A Forum member once asked me: : Is God morally good? Is God necessarily so?

As I define God, and as I define 'morally good', God is morally good. The relationship between the two is a deduction......in that sense it is 'necessary.' So, Yes: God is necessarily morally good.

My Reasons:

God =definition= Energy & Information & Intrinsic Value composed by Intrinsic Value, recursively, ad inifinitum. [ The usage of the term “Intrinsic Value” here is borrowed from the Formal Axiology of Robt. S. Hartman. It entails an uncountable infinity of properties , a dense continuum of the highest conceivable, and noblest values, those which people are willing to give their lives for, and get intimately involved with.] “Energy” is a central concept in Physics; and “information” is a term crucial to “Information Theory.” It implies structure, and negentropy.

Morally good =definition= Self corresponding fully to an improving Self-ideal; a person being completely true to his own true Self. This is a definition with the Science of Ethics. "Ethics" itself is that discipline that arises when individuals are seen as Intrinsic Values, i.e., as precious treasures of value, not to be defiled in any way, but to be loved and appreciated. [The definition of “morality” offered is not circular, contrary to appearance. For details as to what it – and also the definition of “Ethics” - might mean, see this link to a manual by M. C. Katz: http://tinyurl.com/24swmd
For the easier-to-read, popularized version, see this P.D.F. file, a paper, entitled, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE.] http://tinyurl.com/24swmd
Since Ethics is an Intrinsic discipline, and God is the ultimate Intrinsic Value, what they both have in common is Intrinsic Value --- in R. S. Hartman's sense of the term. Therefore, they eventually merge, and one of God's attributes would be moral goodness. Q.E.D.

The God I defined -- and would ask you to accept -- is not omniscient, not omnipotent (but is powerful enough, as you will see once goodness is organized and mobilized), but is omnibenevolent. God is Love.
And Truth, and Beauty. And integrity. And morality.[/B]

Another Forum member responds:
Is your conclusion about the intrinsic value and inviolability of individuals supposed to follow somehow from the earlier statements about God and continually improving Self-ideals? How?? I see no coherent chain of inference here.

Dr. Katz responds:
"God, Buddha, The Force, Yahweh, the singularity, the unicity point -- call it whatever you like -- the result is the same. Science and religion support the same truth -- pure energy is the father of creation.

"Religion is like language or dress. We gravitate toward the practices with which we were raised. In the end, though, we are all proclaiming the same thing. That life has meaning. That we are grateful for the power that created us. .... Faith is universal. Our specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary.

”Some of us pray to Jesus, some of us go to Mecca, some of us study subatomic particles. In the end we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than ourselves.....Science tells me God must exist. My mind tells me I will never understand God. And my heart tells me I am not meant to."
Dan Brown (pages 93-94;143. in ANGELS AND DEMONS.)

I see that my effort to be concise did not work, and I must be more wordy. This, then, is my theme:


GOOD GOD!!
My definition of "God" may be put into plain language by indicating that I take God to be our Ultimate Value. [See the writings of Paul Tillich on this subject.] I agree with R. S. Hartman and Anselm that
God is that than which there is nothing more valuable.
{Anselm actually said "that than which there is nothing greater" but greatness is to me a vague term. 'Valuable' is--thanks to Formal Axiology-- precise.} God is a collection of all the values that mankind has ever rated highest.

Contemporary Physics tells us that everything is energy or is a transformation of energy (including matter). Therefore energy is highly valuable -- it's indispensable!

Hence, Theorem One is: God is Energy.

The same reasoning holds for Information. It also is highly valuable. Therefore,

Theorem Two: God is Information.

Aristotle declared that God thinks about God thinking about God, etc. Analogously, I see God as a continuous upgrading of value. In the philosophical discipline known as Formal Axiology, "Composition" has a special meaning: to "compose" one value by another is to enhance or upgrade the first value by the second. In the Calculus of Value this is symbolized by V-to-the-V-power, in other words, by exponentiation. [In the same way, disvaluation is symbolized by V-sub-V, defined as V raised to the negative-V power.]

So when I spoke of "Intrinsic Value composed by Intrinsic Value" this is what I meant. To compose a value is to enhance it, such as for example, putting whipped cream on a dessert. Another example: "I love how you love me!"

When you, Andy, gave me the compliment of a civil reply -- albeit a quite critical one -- you were composing value, in the above sense.

To my mind, when a student asks a good question of a teacher, that is a composition also.

(1.1) We don't understand what energy is, but we feel its effects. Do we therefore call Physics (which is the science of transformations of energy) "pure gibberish"?

(2.0) The definition of "morality" I contributed here was an attempt to say in English what is best understood in Logic, with variables; namely: [x is a member of the class named X. An individual is a member of the unit-class containing himself, and bearing his own proper name. This is a Self-Concept. Every concept has a name (sign, label, designator); a meaning; and an application -- as philosophers would say: an intension and an extension.] Our Self, the X and its intension, is our meaning, the meaning of our life. If we correspond with it, if we are in resonance, to that extent we are moral. If we are in full correspondence, we are "congruent" or "whole." Such a person is, so to speak, a "prince among men," a "gantze kerel," a "real mentsch."

Hartman offered five proofs that Intrinsic Value is the most appropriate and fitting value for human beings -- as they are the creatures capable of reflecting, ad infinitum, upon their own reflections. That which refers to all of a collection is of a higher logical order than the collection, according to Russell & Whitehead. If the collection (of reflections) itself is of order aleph-null (denumerably infinite), the higher order is aleph-one (nondenumerable.) The measure of Intrinsic Value (by definition) is that value which is nondenumerably infinite.

When an individual Intrinsically values himself or herself, and Intrinsically values other persons, that individual is corresponding with his/her rational Self. That person possesses MORALITY, as I define the term.
Since I thought that the formal logic may be off-putting, I popularized it and tried to say it in English. But you say you didn't understand it. I thought, Andy, that you had looked up Formal Axiology, had read Dr. Hartman's "The Measurement of Value".and knew what "value composition" is; and that you knew the three basic Dimensions of Value, S, E, and I: Systemic, Extrinsic, and Intrinsic. But I guess I had jumped to a conclusion. That's why you were able to call it "gibberish."
Before A. H. Maslow wrote about "Self-actualization" I doubt that anyone set that as a goal for himself or herself [although they may have aimed for the more fuzzy goal of "Self-realization."] Once, however, Maslow specified what self-actualization meant, and gave very concrete examples, people could reach for that, and make it their own self-image. (E.g., "I want to be like the founder of Google" or "I want to be like Ruth Benedict." {1887-1948} ) --------It became an 'improved self-ideal.' If a person who only identifies with his own immediate family now reaches out to identify with the Family of Man, that is, according to Confucious, acting properly, and according to Arthur Koestler, becoming aware of a larger holon, I would call that "an improved self-image." So when I spoke earlier of coming into correspondence with an improving self-image, that is what I meant.
As far as the accusation of circular reasoning -- it seems to me that every definition offered in ordinary common language is circular, in that we could chase around the entire dictionary defining our words. That is why I prefer axiomatic systems, which start with some undefined terms and build from there. [Though we agree that this approach could scare away some readers.]

Theorem Three: God -- as here defined -- is worthy of worship.

Proof: Since God (by definition) is the highest value of which we can conceive, if anything was seen as more valuable, we would perforce automatically make that our God, and give that our adoration.

Theorem Four: We are co-creators of and with God.

Proof: We create new values; we are constantly doing this for ourselves, such as when we set out a new goal to which to aspire...in the process we are creating God (or at least a higher conception that we have of God). And our values influence what we are and what we may become -- in this sense our values create us.

Theorem Five: God is Beauty, Truth and Goodness.

Proof: These are all high values that would be included in any empirical survey as to what are the highest values. Hence, they are part of God They are properties of God, just as a pencil may be said to be (relatively) thin. So when it is claimed that God is Integrity, God is Liberty, I am using "is" in the same sense as "A pencil is thin." My God is all-good, but not all-powerful nor all-knowing. If anything good occurs, if anything is created, God should get the credit for it. If anything bad happens, like human suffering and anguish, God knows nothing about it, has nothing to do with it.

Theorem Six: God is moral.

Proof: Since morality is a high value (being that which a person has who Intrinsically-values himself and other people), morality is a property of God -- God being the collection of all the highest values, the ultimate value.[/B]
If God brings you to it,
He will bring you through it.

Happy moments, praise God.
Difficult moments, seek God.
Quiet moments, worship God.
Painful moments, trust God.
Every moment, thank God.

----------Thomas Kinkaid.


I have given the reader enough to think about, so I will break it off right here. My subject is inexhaustible, my space is not.

[Krumple]

pure energy is the father of creation.

I really don't understand why you put so much effort into adding an ingredient that has no actual basis in reality. You talk about all these things we can experience then add in an invisible thing and say well ultimately everything is this invisible thing. Seems a bit over the top. Why conclude with this?

Energy might be a force but by no means does it have a consciousness. Energy plays no favorites, it doesn't care if you are good, it doesn't care if you are bad. It doesn't care about anything. It just behaves in certain ways and has it's own limitations. So why the need to attach a title to energy which it doesn't need?

It would be like saying, if you don't have Obologa in your food, then it is never nutritious for you. Or the thing that makes food taste great is Obologa. The key to the universe is understanding Obologa. Everything is Obologa.

You taint everything that is understood about the universe by inviting the invisible friend to the party.

[deepthot]

Originally Posted by Krumple

[/FONT][/B]I really don't understand why you put so much effort into adding an ingredient that has no actual basis in reality. You talk about all these things we can experience then add in an invisible thing and say well ultimately everything is this invisible thing. Seems a bit over the top. Why conclude with this?

Energy might be a force but by no means does it have a consciousness. Energy plays no favorites, it doesn't care if you are good, it doesn't care if you are bad. It doesn't care about anything. It just behaves in certain ways and has it's own limitations. So why the need to attach a title to energy which it doesn't need?...

Hi, Krumple

That quote: ""God, Buddha, The Force, Yahweh, the singularity, the unicity point -- call it whatever you like -- the result is the same. Science and religion support the same truth -- pure energy is the father of creation." is from Dan Brown in his popular novel, ANGELS AND DEMONS.

I didn't say that !!! But I liked it because it fit in with my definition of God in my theology.

I don't believe I put so much effort - to quote you - into including energy.

The best things in life are often invisible.Love, for example.

You write, speaking of energy, that it "has no actual basis in reality."
Wow!
Many an empirical scientist would contend that it is the sole reality !
I don't side with either extreme.

I didn't conclude with energy.

I never claimed it had a consciousness. How do you define that term by the way?

The main reason I included energy was to gain the agreement of the reasonable centrists on the atheist/theist spectrum... like Richard Dawkins perhaps .

Anyhow, what did you think of the rest of my theology?

Cordially,

deepthot

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by deepthot

“Energy” is a central concept in Physics

This is true whether or not there is a god. Can you convince me that a) there is one and b) it partakes of (or is synonymous with) this energy?

I ask because to go down your list of god's features first requires that I be convinced he exists.

[deepthot]

Originally Posted by Aedes

This is true whether or not there is a god. Can you convince me that a) there is one and b) it partakes of (or is synonymous with) this energy?

I ask because to go down your list of god's features first requires that I be convinced he exists.

God - to be metaphorical for a moment - wears existence in his lapel buttonhole as a decoration.

Yes, God exists, but God much more than exists: God is real. And God is much more than real. God is The Reality of all realities.

If anything is real, God is real !

To understand this, see my discussion thread in the Metaphysics Forum on Existence and Reality. Also, for further background, see my thread in the Epistemology Forum on Essence and Existence.

Is reality a value? Is it a high value? Is not God an ordered combination of the highest of the high values? I argued that it was in the o.p.

Does energy exist? Stick a finger in an electric socket and find out...
{NO. Don't try this at home!}

This I know: I exist. And I give God my existence ....not that God needs it, but it is a nice gesture anyway.

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by deepthot

You write, speaking of energy, that it "has no actual basis in reality."
Wow!

I wasn't talking about energy having no basis in reality, I was referring to god. Why add in something that has no basis? Obologa is better to add in if you really feel the need to add something to energy.

[Berner]

Simply stating God is energy seems a bit lazy to me. What has given you the idea that energy, a natural force, is a god/are gods? It seems to me like you are so desperate to prove that a god exists that you'll just attach the god label onto anything that is somewhat abstract that we can observe and cry "God is real!"

If anything, the properties of energy and the universe, being so large and uncaring (see Anthropic principle) and full of energy that at any moment could destroy our entire planet, lead me to the conclusion that there is more than likely no god or at the very most one that doesn't care.

[deepthot]

Originally Posted by Berner

Simply stating God is energy seems a bit lazy to me. What has given you the idea that energy, a natural force, is a god/are gods? It seems to me like you are so desperate to prove that a god exists that you'll just attach the god label onto anything that is somewhat abstract that we can observe and cry "God is real!"

If anything, the properties of energy and the universe, being so large and uncaring (see Anthropic principle) and full of energy that at any moment could destroy our entire planet, lead me to the conclusion that there is more than likely no god or at the very most one that doesn't care.

Greetings, Berner

I never said that energy is a god.

I said that God [The Force] has energy. Please read more carefully.

You usually do. When you write "energy at any moment could destroy our entire planet" my response is: That's good pessimism.
Sure. I prefer to affirm that energy could sustain and upgrade our planet. I find that in life seeing the 'glass as half full - or more' is what makes life more meaningful and hopeful and true. The planet is what we make of it, and each generation being born impresses me as smarter than the previous. The youth of this generation, around the world, are dedicated to making our planet more sustainable for human life.

God may not be Krumple's reality, but it definitely is my reality. God solves every problem for me -- and I am grateful.

New challenges come in nearly every day; I call upon God to bring goodness into my life. Sure enough, God comes through every time. God eventually answers every prayer !! I say "Thank you."

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by deepthot

God - to be metaphorical for a moment - wears existence in his lapel buttonhole as a decoration.

Don't be metaphorical, though. That's just one step backwards from demonstrating it to me!

Originally Posted by deepthot

Yes, God exists, but God much more than exists: God is real. And God is much more than real. God is The Reality of all realities.

If anything is real, God is real !

Does this answer the question? Consider me an open-minded skeptic. If I ask you to tell me why I should believe this at all, and your response is just to reassert the subject of my question, then that makes me think there is no answer at all.

Originally Posted by deepthot

Does energy exist? Stick a finger in an electric socket and find out...

The current that comes out of that socket evinces the passage of electrons. That I can buy. I cannot take for granted that this is God. God is not required for me to understand energy.

[William]

Originally Posted by deepthot

God - to be metaphorical for a moment - wears existence in his lapel buttonhole as a decoration.

Simply outstanding analogy from my point of view for I feel it is complimentary with my point of view. Might I ask you to further consider this point of view also. “God IS we (lapel button/human kind), but we are not that “God” in it’s entirety, only a small part of the over all God.

Now Deepthot, if you would please consider this; is that “lapel button” complimentary/considerate with that entire God.........or not? Now as you consider that, please also consider IT IS GOD’S LAPEL BUTTON, HE PUT IT ON, HIMSELF for it was complimentary to him. WE CANNOT SPEAK FOR GOD! (for we are NOT that entire God, just a very small part! We cannot see that GOD in all it’s entirety from our view very small view point. We must be complimentary/considerate of God’s “decision” to select that “lapel button”. Anyone who questions God’s decision is aggravating, not complimentary to that God and rude if they question that decision from their minuscule viewpoint.

Originally Posted by deepthot

Yes, God exists, but God much more than exists: God is real. And God is much more than real. God is The Reality of all realities.

Outstanding! Now let’s examine what “real” and “exist” mean? Now that can be only done from the view point of the “lapel button’s” perspective as what real and exist mean to US (the lapel button). We cannot fathom what they mean to God, for we are not that God in it’s entirety to make those decisions “for” God. ARE WE COMPLIMENTARY OR AGGRAVATING as it relates to the lapel buttons existence and reality? If we are complimentary we enhance (embellish/embellish) our existence as we define it; if we are aggravating we lower, worsen, minimize it as we endeavor to “FIX” it to satisfy US and rude to that God for questioning his reasons.

Originally Posted by deepthot

This I know: I exist. And I give God my existence ....not that God needs it, but it is a nice gesture anyway.

It’s much more than a “gesture”, IMO, it is a compliment to that God for making his decision to put on the lapel button to “enhance” HIS existence and we become a “friend” not a “foe” to that God. Complimentary not aggravating; harmonic not chaotic; peaceful not warring; alive not dead; dynamic not static, forward not backward, positive not negative; optimistic not pessimistic; understanding not skeptical and so on and so on and so on and so on.

Now, if I might ask, what do you think of my assessment. Did I enhance it or aggravate it? Ha.

William