(October 24, 2017 at 1:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(October 23, 2017 at 2:28 pm)SteveII Wrote: Greatest Conceivable Being theology does not define God as having all the "good" qualities. It defines God as having all "great-making" properties. Moral perfection is better than moral defect. We don't actually need to know what moral perfection is, only that it is better than moral defect (which is obviously so). So, no subjective judgement needed on our part.
No, Steve, it's not "obvious" that this is so, because it's not true at all. In the sense of being an objective fact, it is simply not true that moral perfection is better than moral imperfection. The universe as a whole could care less whether you are morally perfect or not. The universe is indifferent to questions of moral perfection. To it, the one is just as good as the other. If the universe doesn't care one way or the other, then it is not an objective fact. You have utterly failed to provide any so-called great-making property, because there are none. Perhaps in the eyes of a thinking being, one property is "better" than another. But in the eyes of the universe, one is just as good as another.
Morality only applies to thinking/reasoning/conscious beings--which just so happens to be the only subject of the last 18 pages. We are not talking about "the universe as a whole". It has no relevance whatsoever and invoking it is an extremely weak attempt to avoid, not address the issue. Our moral reasoning and intuitions scream out that moral perfection is better than moral imperfection. Absent a defeater, it is the only reasonable position to hold. As such, the concept that God is the paradigm of moral perfection (GCB Theology) is coherent and as shown, avoids the dilemma by providing a third alternative (or if you wish, a rewording of the original horn #2 so it is no longer objectionable).
