(October 13, 2017 at 9:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've always felt this has to be one of those dilemmas that ruins theists' sleep:
-If the first clause is true, then that means morality exists independent of God, and God isn't needed for Man to be a moral actor.
-If the second clause is true, then one must accept rape, enslavement, murder, torture, infanticide, and genital mutilation as morally good.
Boru
Yes, if people are voluntarists and/or nominalists, then the dilemma you describe is more or less the problem. They have to deny the former, and try to make sense of the latter.
But if God's "commanding" goodness (moral or otherwise) for created agents is merely the same thing as God's creating those agents as having an end (i.e. a "fulfilled" nature), then there is not the dilemma described above.
