How do you know "God" is good?

You are still here, aren't you?

What do you mean?

Sustaining live is a bare minimum. If the Creator couldn´t do so there would be no-one to testify His goodness. Is it a sound argument ?

Define good in terms of the absolute.

All that is must by necessity encompass both good and evil. Maybe even in equal measure. That depends on whether you want to subscribe to the view of everything equalling nothing.

I've often considered the abstract possibility that we exist because we don't.

"Define good in terms of the absolute?"

Well, for instance, it is feasible that god can only experience pleasure if humans suffer pain. Of course, there is plenty of evidence to suspect that. So, it just seems like it would be almost impossible to prove that god is good.

No.

In fact I would argue there is more evidence of malevolence.

Yes, at least toward humans.

And, I wonder why human worshippers of some "god" tend to frown upon "non-believers". What could they see beyond their own clinical delusion?

It would take a sound argument for me to take a "believer" seriously.

Well, there hasn't BEEN a sound pro-theist argument since the beginning of human argument about the subject, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

There's a really cool one though. Made me gasp when I "got" it, and think it was valid for a moment. It's the ontological argument for the existence of god.

If you don't know it, and want to google it, make sure you look it up in a paper that states it properly (ie a real philosophy paper).

If God is defined or described as that which is (omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.) then that God is omnibenevolent ...does not follow.

imo, This fallacy is the error of the ontological argument.

God = (the x such that: x exists and x is (omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.)), implies,
(the x such that: x exists and x is (omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.)) exists ....is not true.

Rather, this description of God, exists, if and only if, it is unique.

F(the x such that Fx and Gx etc.) if and only if (the x such that Fx and Gx etc.) is unique, is a theorem of predicate logic.

If there is any truth directly about a God then that God exists.

If you can confirm that your God, however it is defined or described, has any particular property then that described God exists.
Lots of Luck, with that one.

well if it is a verbal proposition or philosophical argument, then there is no evidence whatever. If all you want to do is argue the case, then what does it mean? Isn't is just hot air? None of it means anything unless you have some skin in the game.

Should we move on to discussing an indifferent or bad god now Johnny?

I don't have a god.

Yeah, I vaguely remember reading a decent ontological argument once. If you have a link to one that you think is "accurate" then please post it. Thanks.

But this is different though. the premise is that a/the god does exist, and is indeed our creator. I agree with you that there is more evidence to indicate that this god is malevolent. The fact that it seems much easier to substatiate this if you concede that a god actually exists, is a fact whose value is not lost on me. It simply compounds my legitimate suspicions, and encourages my objective view of fairness. It would not matter to me, for example, if my suffering here somehow benefits or enables some part of a bigger picture. Why should I care?

I'm kinda hoping to hear some lame excuse from anyone, like "what if our higher selves allow/expect us to believe in some god out of necessity?" Well, what if? Does anything justify sufferage, or the appearance of impropriety? If so, how so?

If we could only exist to serve some slave-driving god, and before coming into existence, we somehow had that knowledge in order to make a choice whether to be or not to be, then wouldn't many of us have said "no f#@king thanks?" (I know...impossible to determine.)

Good question, and no, this is maybe the ONLY thing that matters.

To know, or be able to simply deduce that we are the objects of what we as humans would would consider to be pure evil...that is a much different story than one where all the bullsh!t we see is merely an accident, or an unfortunate side effect, or the natuaral course of things.

If we are suppressed by our maker, then it is our duty to face that as a humanity. We may not be able to understand WHY it is. But that is no reason to cower away from the subject.

Believe me, I do have skin in the game.

I thought we WERE discussing a bad god.

And no, the "indifferent god" argument doesn't hold water (it's not a sound argument).

Fair enough. I still can't understand where you're coming from. 'Suppressed by our maker' does not mean anything to me. Insofar as I have any understanding of "God" at all, and not saying that I do, this would be understood as "the good which has no opposite". In other words, a supreme good. The spiritual traditions would say that, generally speaking, this is something we don't understand, and we don't understand it because of an internal deficiency on our part. This has been characterized as 'sin' in mainstream Christianity. In Buddhism, it is understood as 'ignorance' - not understanding what is real.

But it is also the case that nearly all of what people speculate about in relation to "God" is generally their own projection. Until we are fortunate enough to encounter one who really understands the "true nature" then this is maybe all we will ever have.