(September 14, 2010 at 12:15 pm)Watson Wrote: So to answer your question, our perceivable universe is not benefitted in any way by raping infants, therefore God would not prescribe it as a moral action. His internal mechanisms reflect this, as He is all-knowing and understands that raping infants is not good and is counter to Him.
Ah, so you have a concept of 'benefit' independent of God's will. That's a moral judgement independent of God. So you opt for the second horn. Goodness is independent of God.
Quote:Whatever is counter-productive in getting to the planned end is morally evil, and whatever moves towards the end is morally good.
Then you seem to opt for the other horn, saying that what's good is what achieves God's plan. God's plan could be to cause as much suffering as possible. Indeed, that seems likely given the world around us.
Theophilus Wrote:If you don't believe in God then where do your standards of good and evil come from?
Compassion and reason. Also, this is not a response to the problem of evil, because the standards of good and evil in this case come from the definition of those things given by theists. They say that God abhors violence and injustice, yet he allows these things to exist. [/quote]
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
