Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

"Is God's nature good because it is God's, or is God's nature good because it is morally good (i.e. it conforms to an independent standard of good)?"  You see, playing the ontology card has gained you nothing.  Just as the Euthyphro dilemma applies to Divine Command Theory, it also applies to the argument that morality is derived from God's nature.  Either God's nature is arbitrarily good simply because it is God's, which results in an arbitrary set of morals which by definition is not moral.  Or God's nature is good in that it conforms to a standard of goodness that is independent of God, making God's nature superfluous to the question of morals.  You have accomplished nothing by your detour into ontology except to confuse the issue.  God is still an unsatisfactory source of morality, and you're left empty handed, claiming the existence of objective morals that you can't explain.

See bold.

You have just gutted the dilemma. The unwanted conclusion of the original dilemma was that God could change his mind and good could be redefined. The bold above simply points out in so many words that morality is based on God's nature.  Natures don't change. No unwanted conclusion. 

Regarding the arbitrary characterization, how much more objective could the nature of an eternal God be?

Objective enough to say anything objective about it, for starters..but I digress.  

If god can't do this or that, being constrained by it's nature...that nature being good...then one wonders how another squares that away with calls to genocide.  They must have been good, I guess?  I mean, either that or the writers of magic book were bullshitting us.  In any case, if god can;t do bad because gods nature is good it;s still "the good" to which we are referring.  A standard wholly external to and immutable -by- a god...as you've just told us.  God being some other thing, which he can't be, wouldn't make those things good - would it?

Suppose god really did do and say all the shit in magic book..which obviously he couldn't have, would they then, by virtue of being in gods nature, be good?  This is what Jorg is referring to when noting the arbitrary pointlessness of grounding morality in "god's nature".  I doubt that you think so, but it's important to understand.

[Angrboda]

"Is God's nature good because it is God's, or is God's nature good because it is morally good (i.e. it conforms to an independent standard of good)?"  You see, playing the ontology card has gained you nothing.  Just as the Euthyphro dilemma applies to Divine Command Theory, it also applies to the argument that morality is derived from God's nature.  Either God's nature is arbitrarily good simply because it is God's, which results in an arbitrary set of morals which by definition is not moral.  Or God's nature is good in that it conforms to a standard of goodness that is independent of God, making God's nature superfluous to the question of morals.  You have accomplished nothing by your detour into ontology except to confuse the issue.  God is still an unsatisfactory source of morality, and you're left empty handed, claiming the existence of objective morals that you can't explain.

See bold.

You have just gutted the dilemma. The unwanted conclusion of the original dilemma was that God could change his mind and good could be redefined. The bold above simply points out in so many words that morality is based on God's nature.  Natures don't change. No unwanted conclusion. 

Regarding the arbitrary characterization, how much more objective could the nature of an eternal God be?

It being objective does not prevent it from being arbitrary. If it is based on the fact of God's nature being good, and that nature is considered good without respect toward anything beyond the mere fact of it being God's nature, then it could be anything and it would still be considered good. That robs it of any real moral significance.

I don't think you understand the dilemma, nor what it means for something to be arbitrary.

[SteveII]

See bold.

You have just gutted the dilemma. The unwanted conclusion of the original dilemma was that God could change his mind and good could be redefined. The bold above simply points out in so many words that morality is based on God's nature.  Natures don't change. No unwanted conclusion. 

Regarding the arbitrary characterization, how much more objective could the nature of an eternal God be?

It being objective does not prevent it from being arbitrary.   If it is based on the fact of God's nature being good, and that nature is considered good without respect toward anything beyond the mere fact of it being God's nature, then it could  be anything and it would still be considered good.  That robs it of any real moral significance.

I don't think you understand the dilemma, nor what it means for something to be arbitrary.

Are God's eternal unchanging moral properties arbitrary? Could they have been any other way? Perhaps, perhaps not--I don't think that is clear. I don't think it matters however, because you need God's nature to be arbitrary not in the sense that if could have been different, but that it still can be different.

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. 

Regarding moral significance, that is relative judgment.  I think the eternal moral properties of an unchanging God is a good place to anchor your morality. Certainly more objective than any other system.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are God's eternal unchanging moral properties arbitrary?

If they're "moral" properties simply by being the nature of god..yeah...that;s the definition of arbitrary.  Whatever those properties happened to be..they;d have been the "unchanging moral properties". Gut a child or not gut a child...whichever one god did would be "moral".

Could they have been any other way? Perhaps, perhaps not--I don't think that is clear. I don't think it matters however, because you need God's nature to be arbitrary not in the sense that if could have been different, but that it still can be different.

.............................

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. 

Regarding moral significance, that is relative judgment.  I think the eternal moral properties of an unchanging God is a good place to anchor your morality. Certainly more objective than any other system.

Well, I mean except for the parts about god being an ever changing thing if you guys are to be believeed...and not being able to objectively comment upon that god in any way, or being able to cogently answer a moral dilemma...sure.  

Meanwhile.....what's wrong with harm? Since you're so big on suspicion of others moral foundations...I suspect that you are using harm..and not gods nature, as the foundation for your own morality. Could a god order the rape of a child and still be moral? If so, how so, if not, why not?

[Foxaèr]

Interestingly, god himself mentions in the bible that he is never changing.

I can understand why those who created this god character would choose to go that route. After all, it is more comforting to believe in a deity that remains true to itself no matter what, over the centuries of conflict that may arise throughout human evolution.

When theists begin to use apologists arguments to alter how followers view god, then that is merely in order to ensure they continue to believe during modern times of higher literacy and the knowledge available via the internet.

[JackRussell]

All cool if one can evidence an unchanging god. God's morals seem to have changed even within the available testaments.

[Amarok]

And another theist who fails to solve to escape

[Incognito]

^^^
@Tizheruk
There's always Little Rik if you can bother to decipher the shit he's spewing out.

[Amarok]

^^^
@Tizheruk
There's always Little Rik if you can bother to decipher the shit he's spewing out.

True True 

[Astonished]

^^^
@Tizheruk
There's always Little Rik if you can bother to decipher the shit he's spewing out.

True True 

Well to be fair, that insufferable little troll has already gone the route of dodging by merely arguing for a deistic creator god with no regard to its character beyond that. Once I cornered his unthinking ass there, he planted his flag and is rending his brain trying to figure out why he can't understand the infinite regress dilemma.