(October 19, 2017 at 10:24 am)Khemikal Wrote:(October 19, 2017 at 10:08 am)SteveII Wrote: I don't agree. If part of the definition of God means that his moral nature would be the exemplification of moral goodness, that means that moral goodness has reasoning behind it. It can not be there are more than one set of exemplifications of moral goodness. God's moral nature is an objective standard.
If there's a "moral goodness" which god exemplifies, in the first place, then good isn't defined by gods nature. Gods nature conforms, in that case, to an objective moral standard. That is, ofc, the other half of the dilemma.
It doesn't matter how many other creatures conform to it, if any conform to it, if god conforms to it in the first place (hello rape and genocide all over again). To be good is to conform to that standard, not to conform to god. If god is good, it is because god conforms to that standard, not because it is god.
Personally, Imma go ahead and skip the middleman. I know you're a huge fan, but it's goodness is highly suspect and, frankly, irrelevant.
You are right. I should not have used the word exemplify. I should have used the word paradigm.
