(July 5, 2013 at 12:48 am)Inigo Wrote: The first thing I'd say is that it is logically compatible with my view that the god in question is perfectly morally good. This would just mean that the god in question possesses the character traits that she instructs or favours others possessing and will punish for not possessing. For goodness in one's character, on this view, just is to possess character traits that are approved of by this god and that this god resolves to harm us for not possessing. So it is possible that the god required for morality is perfectly morally good.I would suggest that you've just added a second and wholly conflicting definition of morality. If "morality" is an agent whose instructions are inescapably rationally compelling, then the only way that this god him or herself can be morally good or bad is if there is an agent above him or her whose instructions are inescapably rationally compelling. What exactly would this uber god hold over the lesser god? You seem to have replaced your prior conception with a set which includes moral consistency, the lack of hypocrisy, as a necessary moral standard; however, consistency is a property of value (and meaning) to beings who are subject to moral instructions or commandments, which your god is not.
By the way, please stop redefining words at whim simply because you cannot be bothered to be literate. A theist is someone who believes in a god. Period.
You sound young. Are you a college student?