Mark Daniels has some good marriage advice, even for non-Christians (or even non-theists) like me. But I don't get this:

Sex is great. God invented it, so that shouldn't be a surprise. He only makes good things.

Really? So are (for instance) smallpox, sleeping sickness, mosquitos and tsetse flies, anthrax, Osama and Adolf Hitler good things? Or did someone else make them?

I mean, it's a nice sentiment, but is it really a theologically (or logically at all) sound statement?

[Update at 11:30 AM EDT]

Some in comments are defining the problem away, by saying that we don't really know what "good" is.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash for someone who doesn't necessarily believe in God, and particularly doesn't believe in a God whose every action is good, by definition, which is what seems to be the point here. Once you define "good" in that way, the word really has no useful meaning at all for normal conversation (again, from the standpoint of someone who thinks logically, and likes words to have some kind of commonly-understood meaning, without which it's impossible to communicate effectively).

Torture = good
Suffering = good
Death = good
Bad = good

Either these statements are all true, which renders the word "good" meaningless, or God isn't the author of any of them, in which case, who is?

Can't have it both ways.

[One more update]

I think that some people are missing my point here. I've often heard that we can't know God's purposes, but that all things have a purpose. Not believing that there is a God, or that everything has a purpose, I obviously don't agree with that, but it's a philosophically defensible and at least logically consistent position (though, I think, a trivial one, and one that does indeed rely on faith).

But that's a different thing than saying that everything that God does is good by most peoples' understanding of the meaning of that word. That just seems like junior Sunday-school stuff to me, for people unable to grasp deeper concepts, and to defend it by redefining "good" is to engage in sophistry, rather than theology.

Well, either they're good in a non-obvious way (blessings in disguise), or they are Satanic perversions of once-good things (like Orcs are Morgothian perversions of Elves), or "good" is being defined in non-human terms (good for the balance of nature perhaps, wherein pathogens are useful for culling excess and/or weak members of population, etc).

But then as God claims, explicitly, to have created evil, Mr. Daniels' assertion turns out not to be accurate.

Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Well, yeah, a lot of people think someone other than God makes all the bad things.

Personally, I'm not about to argue that just because I think something is good or bad, that God must think the same way. If people actually knew what God was thinking and doing, then they wouldn't have any need for faith.

I agree with Bill - we do not see the same ends as God. God has told people that the "right" thing to do at the time was painful, etc. Usually, in this life the pain goes away eventually and we can see the purpose. Sometimes it may wait for the next life. God knows what will happen after this life, we don't. Although we don't understand it, mosquitos have a place in God's plan. (As for God creating "evil", I'm not sure I buy that. God uses all things (including evil) to do good, but I think the evil exists with or without God.

One way to look at this is that this life is an entrance exam to eternal life. Exams are hard. Some people fail them. Some people even suffer emotionally taking them. But we do not say "OK, to be fair - everybody gets an A!" I think from an eternal perspective, anything that happens in this life is pretty minor. Even death by torture (I can't think of anything worse) is but a moment of pain in an eternal life - and if that pain gives you perspective or helps at all during an infinite time period to come, wouldn't it be worth it?

That's why I try to trust God, anyway...

I'd consider viruses and such to be degenerated forms of something created for our good at the beginning. It's also possible that they were created to punish us knowing that we would fall of course. Or created so that we could do good with them x many years down the road with genetic engineering.

As for Osama and Adolf, it is not God's fault that they are evil. Human free will after all.

Well....if God created everything then God obviously created evolution. There's an end to THAT problem. ;-)

Not really, unless you're implying that evolution is good...

I dunno if I'm defining anything away or not, but I'm quite happy making my own decisions about what's good and what's bad. If there is a God and God agrees with me, that's OK. Or vice versa.

I hold that humans cannot know about God in the same sense as we know ourselves, or know how to fly a plane, or know how to bake an apple pie or how to solve equations. Those all fall into the realm of knowledge. Opinions about God fall into the realm of faith and belief. We'd have no reason for faith or belief if our awareness of God was based on knowledge.

So, since I don't, and won't, have any idea about God's intent, etc., I'll stick to making up my own mind about good and bad.

But you don't seem to be making up your own mind about good and bad. You're simply defining anything that God makes as good. That may be true, but it renders the word devoid of any meaning outside of that trivial definition.

What is the point of discussing God with an atheist? It's like trying to describe color to a blind man. It may pass the time, but no useful purpose is served.

First, I'm not an atheist (in the sense that I believe there's no God). I'm a skeptic.

But how would one persuade me (or someone like me) that there is if one offers unsupportable nonsense do to so? Anyway, this isn't a discussion about God, so much as a discussion about language.

What is the point of discussing God with an atheist?

What good is talking logic with a Tru Believer (tm)?

This isn't a discussion about God, it's a question of the logic behind a statement such as "God makes everything, and everything God makes is good". As Rand has tried to get across, either it defies all logical sense, or it renders the word "good" to just mean "God with an extra 'o'".

There is an established definition for the word "good", and at least ONE of those definitions contradicts the logic that "Bad = Good".

It's unfortunate (but not unusual, of course) that a discourse about logic degenerated into a discourse on theocracy and name-calling, just because "God" was mentioned.

Just what do the terms good and evil mean, Rand? Must good be pleasant and are unpleasant things necessarilly evil? Is Darwinian success good and extinction bad? Is death evil? If so, am I evil because a steer died for my dinner last night? Likewise, is an anthrax microbe evil because its life required someone's death?

Much of what people call good and evil is just life, some which is easy and some of which is hard.

I find it difficult to define good and evil outside of a context that includes a God, and I rarely, if ever, use the terms for what is simply nature.

I believe that God did create us, and these terms only apply to the things we do.

For example, pain is unpleasant but is a useful mechanism to help us recognize danger. A diabetic friend of mine can no longer feel pain in his feet and must make sure to check his bathwater with a hand or risk severe injury when he steps into it. But there is no question that torture, deliberately inflicting pain on someone, is evil.

God created us as part of a world that contains many wonders and many difficulties, and some of those wonders are the abilities that let us surmount those difficulties.

I'm not sure what your preference is in music, but give a listen to Leonard Bernstein's "Kaddish Symphony" for an excellent picture of just how trouble-free a trouble-free world would actually be.

Just what do the terms good and evil mean

Who said anything about good and evil, other than all of the misinterpreters above? The opposite of "good" isn't necessarily "evil", the opposite of "good" can also be "bad".

However, your own misinterpretation and theocratic bend on the original premise again disproves your point. You admit that "evil" exists in the world. However, if everything in the world is created by "God", and everything that "God" makes is "good", then how can "evil" be "good"?

Again, it either creates a logical impossibility, or invalidates and neuters the meaning of the word "good".

The original premise and subject of this post is about the logical strength of the statement "God only makes good things". It is NOT about whether or not God exists, or whether or not evil exists.

Yeesh...

>> You're simply defining anything that God makes as good.

No. Where did I say that? I'm saying I have no way of knowing what God thinks is good or bad, assuming I even agree that such a god exists. I'm arguing that everything to do with God, including God's existence, is unknowable. Since I cannot know anything about God, then it is up to me to decide what I think is good or bad. I will never know God's take on it. I'll never even know if there is a God or if there isn't a God. The fact of God's existence or God's nonexistence is not within the realm of knowledge. Since what we know and what we can know equate with reality, faith and belief do not.

I did say that some people believe in the existence of something other than God, i.e., Satan, that creates all the bad things. One could argue, then, that God makes only good things because Stan has the monopoly on bad things.

I said "some people" because I would not make such a statement. If you ask me, there is no Satan.

As to whether or not God makes only good things, or makes anything at all. I think it is impossible for me to know that, or to know what God makes, or to know that God even exists. Those are issues of faith and belief, and it is my contention that knowledge and faith are opposed to each other. As knowledge grows, faith must diminish becauses the need to turn to faith for explanation diminishes. Likewise, holding to a belief that runs counter to knowledge is an exercise in purposeful ignorance.

Here is a somewhat different but consistent, I think, position with regards to good and evil. This is a different possible understanding of things aside from (the admitted strawman) of "everything God made, including smallpox and natural disasters, is good, and we simply don't have a complete understanding."

I once heard a good, yet succinct description of where evil comes from in this world, as described by one Christian, and I think there is biblical support for all of these items (but it would take me a while to go do that study):
1) Evil comes because people with evil intent are trying to do evil to us or others (this is not addressing the issue of why God would allow this to happen, but it is a source of evil)
2) Evil is the result of our own sin (for example, if I insult my wife, I am doing something evil, and God did not create that evil, though He created me and my wife)
3) Evil comes from the consequences of our sin (For example, I insult my wife, my son sees that as a model, and when he is grown, he mistreats his wife in a similar manner. He is responsible for his evil, but I bear responsibility as well. Or I contrive to steal electricity, but after a time my stealing device starts a fire which burns down my house.)
4) Evil exists because we live in a fallen world. We (back to and including Adam and Eve) have sinned, and somehow God has made His creation such that our sin has made creation fall along with us. Things like smallpox and natural disasters may fall into this category (unless it's the case that the disasters or diseases happen to be the direct result of our own sin).

Why God allows evil, and what He does about it and intends to do about it are considerably different discussions, but I've found this taxonomy to be very helpful in how I look at evil. (As regards aging and disease, I especially like 2 Cor 4).

"What is the point of discussing God with an atheist?"

Conversion? (Note however that if it occurs it can go either way...)

"What is the point of discussing God with an atheist?"

Conversion? (Note however that if it occurs it can go either way...)

You can still preserve the "everything god does is good" argument

First to acknowledge the problem-

The issue is omnipotence or worse yet Rand's implication of no other significant actors. God could always make a marginal change that could make things better without any change to free will or anything along those lines IF the world was not optimal. Therefore for him to NOT do that means he must intend the consequence if he is omnipotent and omniscient. If we break it down into items like "killing someone" and "eating an ice-cream" he must support all of them since what happens is his will. Even if free will is also his will there is no need for any item to actually go with any other item if one is omnipotent - no need to learn from experience no need for 1 + 1 to equal 2.

Furthermore if all actions are his actions there is no reason to think he would value inaction over action - i.e. starting the world and allowing it to be corrupted, (which still doesn’t make much sense since it requires a limitation on omnipotence - the inability to predict freewill.)

However we can still work the "what god does is good" argument by saying the world IS optimal

Let’s say there is some list of actions that are good / optimal for some obscure reason and the god really puts no significant value at all on most things we think about (an infinite time span and godlike perspective might do that to you).

Then you declare what he wants to be good by definition. Now lets say go arranges for all these things to happen. Everything that happens will be good and the universe will be "deterministic" (as surely it must be from the point of view of a timeless god) BUT this doesn’t mean the people who by accident do these optimal things will be considered to be good.

for example I might shoot a stranger and that might be optimal if the stranger was Mutable from Zimbabwe or the Nth Korean leader BUT it could still be considered "a sin" since i didnt intend the good side effects and it would hten be something for which I could be considered a soul that could be classified as requiring separation from god.

This of course means Mark Daniel's statement about sex is close to meaningless but the principle behind it might be technically correct.

Grasping at straws?

Great books...Conversations With God. I think the premise might be a little goofy, but the book and ideas offered by "God" were worth thinking about.

The simplest way to put it is this...God made everything...He created the idea of good and the idea of evil...it is Man's folly (as designed by God) to interpret all things through those two pairs of glasses.

I've been called a cop-out for suggesting it, but evolution and ID work hand-in-hand with each other. The Big Bang was touched off by a divine spark, in that instant, evolution was created as well.