If a God exists, and claimed to be good, and moral, would his claim necessarily be true?

[Agnostic75]

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

 

[Iti oj]

No. God does not get a free pass just for being God.

 

[Parsimony]

I've wondered about that myself. In a philosophical sense, no. If said god was all-powerful, he/she/it could just as easily deceive us into believing his/her/its claims without question. If such were the case, how could you prove otherwise?

 

[Tumah]

I've wondered about that myself. In a philosophical sense, no. If said god was all-powerful, he/she/it could just as easily deceive us into believing his/her/its claims without question. If such were the case, how could you prove otherwise?

What is objectively good?

 

[Tumah]

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

I guess that depends on how you perceive good.
For me, good is anything that resembles G-d in degrees. So by that definition, G-d is intrinsically good.
I think morals codes are dynamic - dependent on the individual, society and era. In other words, completely subjective. So G-d can't be defined as moral as He is unchanging.

 

[ametist]

It is a matter of faith or lack of it to answer it as yes or no. Basically a mortal bound with time who has faith would agree to these if god said to him god is good and moral. But I dont think god would use word moral to define godself.

 

[Iti oj]

B

It is a matter of faith or lack of it to answer it as yes or no. Basically a mortal bound with time who has faith would agree to these if god said to him god is good and moral. But I dont think god would use word moral to define godself.

But is god saying so enouh to make it so?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. He would have to demonstrate it.

 

[ametist]

B

But is god saying so enouh to make it so?

it is to someone faithful. That is the meaning of faith.
Also in op note that god is talking about itself. Its creation and properties they may gain or lack may or may not differ. No clue is given in op regarding creation hypothetically or if we should take the reality as it is. So I wont comment on that.perspective on creation will also differ between religions and will require too much detail to explain typing in a cellphone.

 

[idav]

Claiming to be good and moral is a lot like claiming to not be lying but then what if God really believes his claim.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is there something which would prevent a god from lying or being mistaken?

 

[Creature]

If a God turned out to exist, and I disagreed with his morality, I would not conform to it, even if it meant me going to hell.

 

[suzy smith]

If we take your point to its logical conclusion then we must recognise that we know nothing for sure.
If he is all powerful then he could even be misleading an atheist like me into believing he doesn't exist.:sarcastic

 

[Parsimony]

What is objectively good?

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this question, but if you are implying that whatever any god says is automatically good I'm going to have to disagree. Why should it be impossible for a god to be intrinsically evil?

 

[9Westy9]

If a God exists, and claimed to be good, and moral, would his claim necessarily be true?

No. He could easily be lying as others have already pointed out.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this question, but if you are implying that whatever any god says is automatically good I'm going to have to disagree. Why should it be impossible for a god to be intrinsically evil?

I think its the same answer. However you will define good or evil is going to be a subjective explanation. There are animals that will attack without provocation. There are animals that steal. Animals that cannibalize. Animals that eat their young. Etc. We wouldn't characterize the actions of these animals as objectively "good" or "evil" (at least in terms of how we typically define it). Why should it be different when it comes to humans? So I think, good and evil are not objective terms. They're subjective perceptions that we experience. In that case, G-d (or indeed anyone) can't be inherently good or evil.

 

[dust1n]

If God was good, he would say he was good.
If God was bad, he would say he was good.

Anyways, I suppose he couldn't stop me from contending the matter if I ever met him.

Also, if God doesn't lie, does that mean he couldn't? Could God lie? If he couldn't is he all-powerful?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

God is by default neutral, as God extends beyond the subjective reality.

 

[Objective Qualia]

Being good and moral depend on actions not claims. A god can claim anything it does is good or moral but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Parsimony]

I think its the same answer. However you will define good or evil is going to be a subjective explanation. There are animals that will attack without provocation. There are animals that steal. Animals that cannibalize. Animals that eat their young. Etc. We wouldn't characterize the actions of these animals as objectively "good" or "evil" (at least in terms of how we typically define it). Why should it be different when it comes to humans? So I think, good and evil are not objective terms. They're subjective perceptions that we experience. In that case, G-d (or indeed anyone) can't be inherently good or evil.

Ah, I see what you are saying now.