Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Beg less, demonstrate more Steve.

[Angrboda]

If God does not exist, then there is no objective moral values/duties/laws. Any action whatsoever is philosophically permissible.

If you object to this:

1. If God exists, objective moral values exist
2. Objective moral values exist
3. Therefore God exists.

you are left with what Dawkins says: “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA...It is every living object’s sole reason for being”

I object to this because it's an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Esquilax]

A dilemma must only have two possible outcomes. Philosopher William Lang Craig did some work on this and argues that a third option exists: "what the alternative is is “God is good because his nature is The Good.” His nature defines or determines what is The Good. So that doesn’t lead to this then further dilemma which he wants to erect that “Is God’s nature good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” That question in a sense doesn’t even make sense. Natures don’t create anything or recognize anything. When you are talking about the nature of God you are talking about his essential properties. And the nature of God neither creates nor recognizes things at all so the whole question is just malformed.

Rather what we want to say is that God’s nature is The Good and that this simply determines what goodness is. Therefore, to say “why is God’s nature good?” or “does it create the good or recognize the good?” is to fail to understand the alternative. It is sort of like asking, “Is The Good, good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” Well, neither one – The Good is good because it is The Good. It defines what is The Good. It is the standard. It simply makes no sense to ask this further question."

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!

[The Grand Nudger]

Reminds me of a quote Esq.

I recall the story of the philosopher and the theologian. The two were engaged in disputation and the theologian used the old quip about a philosopher resembling a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat—which wasn't there. "That may be," said the philosopher: "but a theologian would have found it." -- Julian Huxley

[SteveII]

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?

[Natachan]

If god is good then why does he never say that women are equal to men. How come the university library's book on religion and ethics only mention of rape is under marriage where it explicitly says that a woman must submit to her husband? If God's essential nature is good then why does he condone rape? Multiple times? Why does he order genocide (Instead of conversion or rehabilitation, for example)? Why does he mandate, and participate in, the killing of children?

And yes, we need a stopping point. We say the good is that which conforms with certain values that we hold. Mostly those values are life, happiness, and justice. Why stop there? Because these are objective values of humanity.

[Minimalist]

This "test" deals with the issue quite well.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightath...inal-exam/

Question #3 is on point.

You are a product tester and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame-resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discovered your neighbor’s house on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stood by and watched the family perish. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

1 All-powerful
2 All-knowing
3 All-loving
4 Mysterious

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't the atheist have the same problem of infinite regress when defining good and evil?

No, "the atheist" doesn't. "The atheist" can be perfectly satisfied in openly addressing the very terrestrial and very human source of any moral proposition, the merit of said proposition -between the two (participants in the discussion) based upon any agreed upon metrics or system - and the conclusions that may follow.

Don't even get me started on "the greatest being". The "greatest being" is, of course, the one that can do all that godly shit whilst simultaneously -not existing-.

[Esquilax]

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).

Again, you're not going to evade the dilemma by simply defining it out of existence. "Greatest conceivable being" is a nonsensical definition to start with, as any quantified being can instantly be topped by something just slightly better than the now defined limitations on the first being: your only choice is to make your god completely amorphous to avoid the instantaneous contradiction of ever speculating about his attributes.

Case in point, you say it's impossible for god to shed his morally good nature, which means that's something god cannot do. The greatest conceivable being wouldn't have anything that it couldn't do, because limitations are at odds with greatness, and therefore either your god claim is contradictory, or your god can in fact shed his good nature.

And all that is simply ignoring the other baseless assertion you've made, which is that it is better to not be morally flawed; which yardstick are we to use there? Is god having to stick to your definition of greatness, or is there a set standard outside of your own opinions that you're just not bothering to tell us?

And I'm being kind here, in even entertaining any of this, because your central premise is relying on yet more assertions. I don't care what you define god as, I care how you intend to demonstrate that god fits that definition. I took you to task in my last post for attempting an end run around a problem with your god by making assertions of his attributes based on no information, and your answer to that is to make yet more assertions, based on no information. Again I ask: what is your referent for god, what yardstick are you using for greatness, and what determination was there that strict moral goodness is a part of that?

Also, how do you square this new "everything god says is good" attitude with a claim of objective morals? An objective thing wouldn't change due to the opinions of another, after all.

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?

An atheist would stop with the needs of the minds required to sustain a moral framework. Have you even been reading my posts? Morality ceases to exist if there's nobody to observe the universe and act within it, therefore that which sustains the lives of conscious observers is, at bottom, a morally good act. Easy.

[ShaMan]

5 Year Old: "Daddy, why do you get to do things that I'm not allowed to do?"

Father: "Honey, you'll understand when you get older."

5 Year Old: "I don't think it's fair to have two sets of rules, and then not explain the reasons why."

Father: "Well honey, You'll just have to take my word for it."

5 Year Old: