I'm a pretty good person. How good is good enough?

The claim under examination: being a basically good person gives you a reliable basis for knowing you are safe with God.

Standard · preponderance of the evidence, not proof

◆ The case for

Trying to be good is good. Kindness beats cruelty; a decent life is better than a cruel one. No sneering here.
A fair God would judge fairly, weighing motive, circumstance, and the whole person, not a crude scorecard.
Moral seriousness is real. Our choices matter and shape who we become.

◇ The case against

Where is the passing line? Better than your neighbor tells you about your neighbor, not about the standard.
The problem survives every model of justice — punitive, restorative, or proportional. You still can't know you cleared the bar.
"God knows my heart" cuts both ways, and a mixed heart offers no assurance you pass.

The verdict

DisprovenUnlikelyPlausibleStrongly supportedEstablished

That some lives are morally better than others is strongly supported. That being a good person tells you where you stand with God is weakly supported — it offers no clear standard and no way to know you have met it.

If you read nothing else

"I'm a good person" expresses hope. It does not provide assurance.

Moral living matters and may matter greatly. But as a way to know you are safe with God, it fails, because it gives you no line to cross and no way to know you have crossed it. That is the exact problem the rest of the investigation is chasing.