I can rephrase that as to create morality/goodness with morality/goodness not already existing. The Creator is not used as needing to exist or possibly exist in the argument. It's mainly a place holder to show, we know, no hypothetical creator can create morality/goodness and decide what it is, without it already existing. I use to say, that would make morality arbitrary. And people would say, yes morality is arbitrary or you haven't proven it isn't. I decided to show an example, ie. it would mean it could be the case that a Creator creates goodness and makes it so that it's good to torture a being for no crime it committed. Since people can see how absurd that it is, I decided it was better to state an example than the usual "morality/goodness is not arbitrary" premise.
That said, why is it the case the Creator cannot just make goodness what he wants after it not existing? It's by it's nature necessarily eternal. But what I'm saying is if the biological structure of the brain created by evolution can create goodness after it didn't already exist in some form, with no link to eternal reality, then a Creator would of been able to create it after it didn't always exist. But we show if that was the case, morality would be arbitrary. It would be that it can make it that it's good to torture forever with intense torture a being for no crime on it's own.
Now it's a robust strong argument.
The conclusion is if morality is real and not just a delusion, it is eternal. And it's nature is such that it takes perception of it to exist, which means an eternal seeing one of it existed.
Getting caught on "if a hypothetical creator..." as if it's making the assumption that such a Creator exists is missing the argument and is being dishonest to it.
That said, why is it the case the Creator cannot just make goodness what he wants after it not existing? It's by it's nature necessarily eternal. But what I'm saying is if the biological structure of the brain created by evolution can create goodness after it didn't already exist in some form, with no link to eternal reality, then a Creator would of been able to create it after it didn't always exist. But we show if that was the case, morality would be arbitrary. It would be that it can make it that it's good to torture forever with intense torture a being for no crime on it's own.
Now it's a robust strong argument.
The conclusion is if morality is real and not just a delusion, it is eternal. And it's nature is such that it takes perception of it to exist, which means an eternal seeing one of it existed.
Getting caught on "if a hypothetical creator..." as if it's making the assumption that such a Creator exists is missing the argument and is being dishonest to it.
