(July 8, 2014 at 11:37 am)Esquilax Wrote: Alright, here's a better question for you: what determination has been made, aside from fiat assertion, that demonstrates that god's nature is good? What referent have you used for god, what metric of goodness have you used, and what definition of "nature" are you using?
See, this is worse than before, because now you're not only pushing the Euthyphro Dilemma back a step, but you're doing it by adding nothing to the conversation at all. You and ol' WLC have no additional evidence to lead to the determination that god's nature is good, nothing has been discovered between first proposing the dilemma and the putative solution, nothing has happened and yet here you are, claiming some discovery that changes the outcome of the dilemma in your favor. You're just making things up!
When I say that God's nature is good, that means that in no possible scenario could God shed that essential attribute. The definition of God is "the greatest conceivable being". If there could be a greater being, then that would be God. This definition means that He is morally perfect since it is better to be morally perfect than morally flawed (and therefore wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being).
Doesn't the atheist have the same problem of infinite regress when defining good and evil? One needs a stopping point. So the question then is is your ultimate stopping point a plausible stopping point? A theist would stop with God (the greatest conceivable being). An atheist would stop where?
