Morality is a complex issue and no theory that I've studied successfully defines it in all situations. The closest is Bentham's Utilitarianism and even this has its problems.
That said, throwing God into the equation is neither necessary nor helpful to understand morality. I call it saying "GodWillsIt" since it's no more satisfactory an explanation for moral problems than "GodDidIt" is a satisfying explanation for scientific problems. "GodDidIt" tells us nothing about the how or why just as "GodWillsIt" tells us nothing about how or why something is right or wrong.
If we say "God is good", what do we mean? If God is good because God understands the correct moral action and conforms to this, than it means morality exists outside of and independent to God. God is conforming to moral behavior in this example, so morality exists independent of God. Ergo, though we may lack the wisdom, we too might be able to act morally and therefore God isn't required.
On the other hand, if God decides what is moral, as a divine lawgiver, than this is not objective morality. This is conformity to the will of another and calling it "moral". One could just as easily say that a human dictator decides what is right and wrong and calling that "morality". This is not objective morality. This is subjective morality as arbitrarily determined by another. Further, statements as "God is good" becomes a tautology, since "good" is "what God wills." Essentially, it becomes "God wills what God wills".
A third option, proposed by Theologica in my YouTube exchange with him, is to say that "God IS morality", essentially a variation on the "God is love" cliche. Unfortunately, this logic is circular because the definition is based on the conclusion. How do you know that God is good? Because God is good. But how do you know that you're correct in saying that God is good? Because God is good. Etc. Ad neuseum. That Theologica broke down by the end of our exchange and actually lied about what the Bible says demonstrates how a belief in God is no guarantee of moral behavior.
Of course, if we're talking about the Biblical-Koranic god, Yahweh-Allah, any way you slice this, it's easy identified as baloney once you crack open these books and find that their god is unable to satisfactorily grapple with even no-brainer issues like rape and slavery. A truly moral god would have outlawed both practices and yet the Bible is full of both endorsements and regulation of both.
That said, throwing God into the equation is neither necessary nor helpful to understand morality. I call it saying "GodWillsIt" since it's no more satisfactory an explanation for moral problems than "GodDidIt" is a satisfying explanation for scientific problems. "GodDidIt" tells us nothing about the how or why just as "GodWillsIt" tells us nothing about how or why something is right or wrong.
If we say "God is good", what do we mean? If God is good because God understands the correct moral action and conforms to this, than it means morality exists outside of and independent to God. God is conforming to moral behavior in this example, so morality exists independent of God. Ergo, though we may lack the wisdom, we too might be able to act morally and therefore God isn't required.
On the other hand, if God decides what is moral, as a divine lawgiver, than this is not objective morality. This is conformity to the will of another and calling it "moral". One could just as easily say that a human dictator decides what is right and wrong and calling that "morality". This is not objective morality. This is subjective morality as arbitrarily determined by another. Further, statements as "God is good" becomes a tautology, since "good" is "what God wills." Essentially, it becomes "God wills what God wills".
A third option, proposed by Theologica in my YouTube exchange with him, is to say that "God IS morality", essentially a variation on the "God is love" cliche. Unfortunately, this logic is circular because the definition is based on the conclusion. How do you know that God is good? Because God is good. But how do you know that you're correct in saying that God is good? Because God is good. Etc. Ad neuseum. That Theologica broke down by the end of our exchange and actually lied about what the Bible says demonstrates how a belief in God is no guarantee of moral behavior.
Of course, if we're talking about the Biblical-Koranic god, Yahweh-Allah, any way you slice this, it's easy identified as baloney once you crack open these books and find that their god is unable to satisfactorily grapple with even no-brainer issues like rape and slavery. A truly moral god would have outlawed both practices and yet the Bible is full of both endorsements and regulation of both.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
