The christer solution to some dilemma always seems to be to bicker about something else.

(October 17, 2017 at 11:28 am)Khemikal Wrote: If, before you've created some thing x, you recognize that it will have it's own inherent goodness..it's existence is dependent on you...not it's goodness.  If someone else created it, it would still be good. [1]

If no one created it, it would still be good. [2]

Conversely, if, before you've created some thing x, you recognize that it would not have it;s own inherent goodness, than your creative act would not make the thing good.  Option 1. [3]

You gave existence to the thing, not goodness. [4]

If goodness is created, that's the second option, not the first..not both, and not a third. [5]

It may never become a thing, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is or would be a good thing.  A non-profit that feeds people is a good thing regardless of whether or not I form, fund, and operate it.  It's because it is a good thing that I decide to do all of that in the first place.  My intellect recognizes the good...neither it, nor my will creates it.  Option 1 [6]

You;re wheedling back and forth between the two options present, not presenting a third. I understand why, despite an affinity to affirm one over the other, you don't wish to accept the consequences - but oh well. [7] This is why it's a dilemma.  It's not a dilemma at all for a person who's willing to accept those consequences of either position.  If, for example, a person goes with option one, and accepts that there is some independent standard of goodness - no problem.  A person who goes with option two, for their part, can accept the attendant arbitrary.

A person who believes, however, that there is no standard of goodness independent of their god, that their god is the author of morality cannot accept the first...and are often compelled to rail against the meaningful arbitrarity of the second.  For reasons™ that hilariously swirl the drain of accepting some inherent goodness that they've already rejected. [8]

1) If someone else created it, both its existence and its goodness is dependent on that someone fulfilling the conditions for its existence. No existence => no goodness.

2) I am curious... "what", exactly, is being-good in regard to a non-existing thing?

3) Unless, of course, existing is itself inherently good. I think it is.

4) If you give existence to a thing, then you have fulfilled all of the conditions necessary for that thing to be-the-thing-it-is. Your giving-it-existence AS the thing-it-is is the very thing which gives the thing its goodness. I'm not sure how you are separating the concepts in any real way besides words.

5) If goodness is created arbitrarily, then it is the second option. If the goodness of created things participates in goodness itself (i.e. it is neither arbitrary nor subsistent) then its a third option.

6) A non-existent non-profit that feeds people is not a good thing, it is not-a-thing-at-all. Someone has to create it if its inherent goodness is ever going to-be. IF someone creates it, it will necessarily be good. Which is to say, on the condition that it is made to exist, it will unconditionally be good. If you are saying that the "form" of inherently good things are being-good somewhere somehow... where and how do you propose that is?

7) Affirming one over and against the other is the same as proposing an incomplete account as a full one. Both are partially true under different aspects, which means there MUST be a third option: participated goodness aka concurrent goodness - God creates things as having their own goodness by participation. Things are good because God creates them as participating in goodness itself (therefore, it isn't arbitrarily willed goodness, but rather goodness corresponding to goodness itself), and through participation in goodness itself, things have their own inherent goodness (therefore, it isn't radical independence of goodness, but rather, a true inherent goodness existentially dependent on it's essential source).

8)

(October 17, 2017 at 12:24 pm)Ignorant Wrote: 1) If someone else created it, both its existence and its goodness is dependent on that someone fulfilling the conditions for its existence. No existence => no goodness.

Fine, fine..Igno, I see no reason to bicker.  Goodness is created.  Option 2.  

Quote:2) I am curious... "what", exactly, is being-good in regard to a non-existing thing?

Depends on who you ask, I suppose.  

Quote:3) Unless, of course, existing is itself inherently good. I think it is.

Conflation into meaningless, meanwhile the dilemma remains unresolved.  

Quote:4) If you give existence to a thing, then you have fulfilled all of the conditions necessary for that thing to be-the-thing-it-is. Your giving-it-existence AS the thing-it-is is the very thing which gives the thing its goodness. I'm not sure how you are separating the concepts in any real way besides words.

Delicious irony.  

Quote:5) If goodness is created arbitrarily, then it is the second option. If the goodness of created things participates in goodness itself (i.e. it is neither arbitrary nor subsistent) then its a third option.

If there -is- a "goodness itself", it's a version of option 1.  

Quote:6) A non-existent non-profit that feeds people is not a good thing, it is not-a-thing-at-all. Someone has to create it if its inherent goodness is ever going to-be. IF someone creates it, it will necessarily be good. Which is to say, on the condition that it is made to exist, it will unconditionally be good. If you are saying that the "form" of inherently good things are being-good somewhere somehow... where and how do you propose that is?

Bickering about existence won't resolve a dilemma of goodness.

Quote:7) Affirming one over and against the other is the same as proposing an incomplete account as a full one. Both are partially true under different aspects, which means there MUST be a third option: participated goodness aka concurrent goodness - God creates things as having their own goodness by participation. Things are good because God creates them as participating in goodness itself (therefore, it isn't arbitrarily willed goodness, but rather goodness corresponding to goodness itself), and through participation in goodness itself, things have their own inherent goodness (therefore, it isn't radical independence of goodness, but rather, a true inherent goodness existentially dependent on it's essential source).

If goodness isn't arbitrarily defined, if there is a goodness itself, then the creation of some thing does not..in any meaningful sense, impart it with goodness or create goodness. It creates a thing that is good.  We're simply describing a creative act in conformity to that standard.  Option 1.

Anything that conforms to that standard would be a good thing. It needn't proceed from your god to be so, and your god is itself only a good thing if it conforms to that standard. If your god was otherwise it would not be good, and creating things that participate in his him-ness would not be good. I guess it;s just a lucky coincidence that god is good (except when he isn't, lol).

If instead, you insist that it must proceed from your god and that the creative act of your god (or anyone, really) creates "goodness"...then goodness has been arbitrarily defined as whatever proceeds form your god and is in conformity with it's nature. Option 2.

The problem with theological nominalist ethics in christianity has always been it's allegiance to modified forms of voluntarism, and it's adherents dissatisfaction with the same.

(October 17, 2017 at 12:12 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The supposed dilemma is predicated on the idea that God's existence is different from His essence, which is not the case.

Existence being separate from essence is one of the most basic fundamentals of philosophy. No wonder you suck at it.

The first horn "is something good because the gods will it" or
The second horn "do the gods will it because it is good?” but now
The third option (that has no unwanted conclusion): it is not God's will that defines the good but his unchanging nature that governs his will and his commands to us.

With a third option, there is no dilemma. The defeater of the dilemma is to point out that God's goodness is a necessary property (which is a third option). Goodness is not a property that God could have lacked. As the greatest conceivable being, there is no possible world where God is not good.

Science loves philosophy. Religion whores it for profit.

(October 17, 2017 at 12:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: The first horn "is something good because the gods will it" or
The second horn "do the gods will it because it is good?” but now
The third option (that has no unwanted conclusion): it is not God's will that defines the good but his unchanging nature that governs his will and his commands to us.

Is his nature good, or do you call it good because it's his nature?  

Quote:With a third option, there is no dilemma. The defeater of the dilemma is to point out that God's goodness is a necessary property (which is a third option). Goodness is not a property that God could have lacked. As the greatest conceivable being, there is no possible world where God is not good.

Pointing out goodness as a property possessed by a god is an affirmation of the first proposition, not a third option.

As for the elaboration, the articles of your faith compell you to claim that if god were not good it would not be god..but that's not a logical conclusion. Meanwhile, in this actual world, the "good god" exhorts his followers to rape and genocide. Does that establish that he's not good, or not god? Or are you pretty sure that those exhortations were good?

Your call.

(October 17, 2017 at 12:12 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 17, 2017 at 9:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: You define a human as a rational animal, or you can define a rational animal as a human. There is no real dilemma.

The supposed dilemma is predicated on the idea that God's existence is different from His essence, which is not the case. God's existence and essence are identical. God is only a title for that which has multiple attributes including Goodness-Itself (the 4th Way of Aquinas, gradients of Perfection).

This doesn't evade the dilemma. Even if it made sense, which it doesn't.

(October 17, 2017 at 12:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: The first horn "is something good because the gods will it" or
The second horn "do the gods will it because it is good?” but now
The third option (that has no unwanted conclusion): it is not God's will that defines the good but his unchanging nature that governs his will and his commands to us.

You misrepresent the first and second options when you pretend they're only about specifically God's will... so your third option can present itself as "No the answer is it's God's something else."

You clearly do not understand the dilemma at all.

It doesn't matter whether it's God's will, God's nature, or God's whatever. The point is: "Is goodness entirely reducible to God or is God entirely reducible to goodness?" If God is truly good then you don't need God, all you need is goodness. But if goodness only means whatever is akin to God... then this makes goodness meaningless... and God not even good.