(October 17, 2017 at 3:02 pm)Khemikal Wrote: It's probably your waffling insistence on nominalist and voluntarist apologetics in an attempt to evade the dilemma, even as you insist you're from neither camp....huh? [1]
If we determined what was good by whatever god created, or was in his nature to create, or yadda yadda yadda.... then whatever a god happens to create is by definition good. Option 2. [2]
God could create an animal that skullfucks toddlers for fun, and that would be good.
-or he could create the oppositie of that..and -that- would be good. [3]
This is the arbitrarity being referenced. Do you understand? [4]
If, instead, you're defining the good by reference to goodness... [5] not god, gods will, gods creative act, gods nature.... this is option 1. [6] Not a third option, but you don;t like the consequences of that either..and so you prattle endlessly about what amounts to option 2. [7]
1) Lol. Can you name a different camp?
2) Who said that is how we determine what is good? I never proposed that is how to determine what is good. If I did, please point it out.
3) Only a voluntarist/nominalist would/could agree.
4) I understand that as the voluntarist position, and why you might have an interest in insisting that I am a voluntarist (only the voluntarist position feels the tension of the dilemma).
5) Yes.
6) What if I consider "goodness" and "god" as one and the same. Which option would you throw me in with then?
7) I don't understand why you demand that I choose either "goodness" or "god". They mean the same thing to me.