Socrates asked “Is what is good good because God wills it or does He will it because it is good?”
If the answer is the former then God can make anything good by His decree at will. He could have easily have reversed the 10 Commandments. For instance, commanding us to murder instead of not to murder.
If the answer to this question is the latter then God is held to some standard outside of Himself that makes Him will good versus evil. This would suggest a moral standard outside of God, which determines objective morality. This would also mean God is not perfect in and of Himself.
The answer is neither. God Himself by His nature is the standard and He is always Himself. All that He does is according to His nature.
To quote Paul Copan, “Indeed, the final resolution to the Euthyphro dilemma is that God’s good character/nature sufficiently grounds objective morality. So we don’t need to look elsewhere for such a standard. We have been made in the divine image, without which we would neither (a) be moral beings nor (b) have the capacity to recognize objective moral values. The ultimate solution to the Euthyphro dilemma shifts the grounding of morality from the commands of God to something more basic—that is, the nature or character of God. Thus, we human beings (who have been made to resemble God in certain ways) have the capacity to recognize them, and thus his commands—far from being arbitrary—are in accordance with that nature.”
Now one can push the age old question further and ask “Is God good because it is God’s character, or it is God’s character because it is good.”
However, to quote Paul Copan again, “if a good God does not exist, why think that morally responsible, intrinsically valuable, rights-bearing beings would exist at all? Without God, moral properties would never be instantiated or realized.”
He continues, “God, who is essentially perfect, does not have obligations to some external moral standard; God simply acts, and what he naturally does is good . . . God’s action and will operate according to the divine nature. So God’s goodness should not be viewed as His fulfilling moral obligations but as expressing the way he is.”
Moreover, the dilemma goes both ways as the atheists must consider, “Are moral values good simply because they are good, or is there some independent standard of good to which they conform?”
One either has to maintain a standard of objective goodness or digress to no goodness at all. Richard Dawkins writes in River Out of Eden, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
If there is no objective good and evil we have “nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Yet we live in a world where everyone has a concept of good and evil. Are these merely terms made up by man with no inherent meaning? Is morality a myth and our ethics merely derived from what is best for survival or fitness to this nature we live in? We really aren’t left with satisfying answers to the need to be good.
I read a book review of a biography of Albert Einstein where it quoted Einstein as saying that he did not believe in objective morality, but had to live as if it existed to get along in the world. Why must we conform to a standard of goodness even if we disbelief in the very nature of good and evil? Why do we struggle between good and evil in our souls if it’s simply an idea produced by man? If man produced it, why is it so difficult for man to dispense with it? Why do we keep asking why? Maybe it’s because there is something real behind it all and our hearts yearn to be freed from this struggle because we were meant for something more. We try and find it through philanthropic acts of kindness, community service, religious activity, worship of man, worship of gods, worship of spirituality, etc. What is man searching for? Why the search if there is nothing to find at the end of the journey?
Could it be there is a real good God behind it all and our search is prompted by His image impressed upon us and our indispensable need to be rejoined to our Creator? Could it be that we have been fighting against our only hope and we need to stop fighting and surrender to the only one who can save us?
He is the author of this grand story and until we find our place in Him we will feel things just aren’t right with our place in this world for we were destined for more and we do know it. We even know by our own desire that He exists. For every desire has a purposed fulfillment. I think all our questions exist because there is an Answer for He is the Truth for which we are searching.
Paul Copan quotes taken from the book To Everyone An Answer
20 comments:
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this differs from what you've said before and I answered. It seems like you've simply repeated what you said in different words without dealing with the issues that I brought up. You did bring a couple more issues to the table, however, which makes the answer even more convoluted, not less. If it is simply god's nature that good is good, then it seems to be outside of his control, meaning that god is skewered by one head of the dilemma after all. god can no more choose what is good than we can, so therefore good does not come from god, but from some other objective source.
"However, to quote Paul Copan again, “if a good God does not exist, why think that morally responsible, intrinsically valuable, rights-bearing beings would exist at all? Without God, moral properties would never be instantiated or realized.”"
There's actualy a rather simply answer to this: we exist (unless we are Boltzmann brains or something like that) and we have these human-made concepts of good and evil (Copan has the same problems that I brought up with you, like why are the notions of good and evil so disparate?) We have evidence that we exist, but no evidence of a god. If he wants to show that only a god can produce these things, then it is up to him to prove that somehow, probably by disproving all other options, which is an impossibility.
"Moreover, the dilemma goes both ways as the atheists must consider, “Are moral values good simply because they are good, or is there some independent standard of good to which they conform?”"
Actually, I see no dilemma here for me. Good and evil are human concepts, so there is no idependent objective standard. We can come up with objective standards that all can use in order to judge good and evil, but there is no need for some metaphysical entity to provide these.
"One either has to maintain a standard of objective goodness or digress to no goodness at all. Richard Dawkins writes in River Out of Eden, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”"
I'm sorry, but you are taking Dawkins out of context here. He's not saying that humans either have to have objective goodness or no goodness at all. He's talking about the state of the universe. As best as we can tell, the universe doesn't care about us at all, it is totally indifferent to us. That's quite a different thing from us deciding to create the concepts of good and evil and using them to further our collective goals, etc.
"If there is no objective good and evil we have “nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Yet we live in a world where everyone has a concept of good and evil. Are these merely terms made up by man with no inherent meaning? Is morality a myth and our ethics merely derived from what is best for survival or fitness to this nature we live in? We really aren’t left with satisfying answers to the need to be good."
I've been answering this question for you many times and instead of dealing with it, you're simply repeating the question over and over. Please actually deal with what I've said.
"Why must we conform to a standard of goodness even if we disbelief in the very nature of good and evil?"
This question does not follow from Einstein's thought. It is literally a red herring.
"Why do we struggle between good and evil in our souls if it’s simply an idea produced by man?"
This is begging the question. What evidence do you have that we even possess souls? What evidence do you have of this universal struggle?
"If man produced it, why is it so difficult for man to dispense with it?"
It's not difficult according to Xians, since they claim we are inherently sinful - so it sounds like people don't have a problem dispensing with it at all. So, which is it?
"Why do we keep asking why?"
People are curious, therefore god? I'm sorry but that's not a compelling argument.
"Maybe it’s because there is something real behind it all and our hearts yearn to be freed from this struggle because we were meant for something more."
Maybe, but until you have some evidence for this, it's all conjecture and no more compelling than anyone else's conjecture about god, and certainly less compelling that simply not using the idea of god in the first place.
"Why the search if there is nothing to find at the end of the journey?"
Why does there need to be something at the end of life; an afterlife if you will? There's no evidence for any sort of afterlife to begin with. But, let's say there were, would that make your life here and now any more or less valuable? What if you knew for a fact there were no afterlife, would that make your life more or less valuable now?
"Could it be that we have been fighting against our only hope and we need to stop fighting and surrender to the only one who can save us?"
I find this highly doubtful as it leaves god in the position of having created beings in this state of wanting to rebel, which would be counter to both the free will argument and the arguments that god wants us reconciled with him.
"We even know by our own desire that He exists."
No, actually we don't. I've seen no evidence or logical proof to lead me to believe that this statement is anything more than simply wishful thinking on your part and the part of your fellow theists (not just Xians). All I've seen from you is questions that you can't answer along with a decree that it must therefore be god. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy as well as a god of the gaps fallacy.
"I think all our questions exist because there is an Answer for He is the Truth for which we are searching."
Now, you are claiming only that you "think" this is true, not that it necessarily is. You are confirming what I said above, that you don't have a logical necessity to believe that your beliefs are necessarily true. What is lacking is evidence. I can't harp on this enough. You can't simply assert that god is good, that god gives us our conceptions of good and evil, that god's nature is good, etc. without some sort of evidence or logical proof (or both). And, given that Xians say that we can't actually understand god's nature, I find it hard to believe that one can make a coherent argument that god's nature is necessarily good, because it is directly in contradiction to the previously mentioned tenet of Xianity.
OMGF
I am giving a philosophically logical argument.
"god can no more choose what is good than we can, so therefore good does not come from god, but from some other objective source."
I'm not following you here. If God is good, He doesn't choose good, He is perfectly Good and His actions follow His character. He is the standard of Goodness by His nature. He doesn't follow an outside source of goodness. Things are good in so far as the line up with His goodness.
"Good and evil are human concepts, so there is no idependent objective standard. We can come up with objective standards that all can use in order to judge good and evil, but there is no need for some metaphysical entity to provide these."
This is an argument for moral relativity. If there is no objective good and evil then how can you judge the Christian God has not good? You either have a standard of what is good or you don't. And if you don't you can't judge anything as good or evil.
You can only judge what is beneficial to your survival and the survival of humanity or not beneficial, nothing more.
You say these concepts are invented by humans, but the only reason you believe that is because naturalism doesn't account for their existence and you rule out the possibility that God exists. So your only other option is to say there is no good and evil. I do not believe that lines up with reality. It seems your answer keeps consisting of not believing in the concepts that would require supernatural explanations because you first don't believe there can be a supernatural world.
Karla,
"I am giving a philosophically logical argument."
Respectfully, I disagree, for the many reasons I pointed out.
"I'm not following you here. If God is good, He doesn't choose good, He is perfectly Good and His actions follow His character."
If god has no choice in the matter, then he's effectively a robot that only does what is good. The thing is that if he can't conciously choose what is good, then good exists outside of god and he's just a vessel for it.
"This is an argument for moral relativity. If there is no objective good and evil then how can you judge the Christian God has not good? You either have a standard of what is good or you don't. And if you don't you can't judge anything as good or evil."
Moral relativity is not the same as no morality. Just because something is man-made doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist. You've also missed the point where I said that we can develop objective moral standards. We can do this by common agreement, it's how we do it now and there are lots of branches of philosophy that deal with this. In fact, most moral codes don't start with god at all. Also, I can certainly say that god's actions are not good based on my morality. The fact that I happen to share a very, very similar moral code to most other people means that the process of certain things is de facto objective and god does run afoul of those.
"You can only judge what is beneficial to your survival and the survival of humanity or not beneficial, nothing more."
Where does this idea come from? This is a false dichotomy that either god exists and morality is absolute or there are no morals.
"You say these concepts are invented by humans, but the only reason you believe that is because naturalism doesn't account for their existence and you rule out the possibility that God exists."
Why doesn't naturalism account for man-made concepts? I'm really confused as to why you would say this.
"So your only other option is to say there is no good and evil."
I didn't say that - you must be confusing me with someone else. Saying that something is relative but can be couched in terms of objectivity is decidedly not the same as saying it doesn't exist.
"It seems your answer keeps consisting of not believing in the concepts that would require supernatural explanations because you first don't believe there can be a supernatural world."
Actually, my answer is in accord with observations of actual humans. The fact that we have culturally biased morality is a good indicator that morality is relative. That philosophers have developed moral codes is a good indicator that morality can be derived or developed in an objective manner (actually it's proof), and the shared evolutionary history we have with other animals that display similar tendecies is also very good evidence. What evidence do you have?
OMGF
This is a difficult issue and I'm perhaps not explaining what I mean very well, but I did find an essay by Ebonmuse that deals with this very topic.
Against Divine Command Ethics
If I counted right, the discussion on Euthyphro begins at the 6th paragraph and your particular "answer" is discussed starting at the 11th paragraph.
OMGF
I'll check out your link. I need to understand what you are saying before responding. Do you believe morality to be objective (a standard outside ourselves) or subjective (a personal standard from ourselves)? At one point you seem to say that morality isn't relative and at another it sounds like you are asserting it to be relative.
If God's nature is good -- how can He act otherwise? Why would a good nature lend itself to acting in a not good way? That doesn't make Him a robot, because He is uncreated. He is. He is good. He is always Himself. He is self-existing. He doesn't gain meaning from us, we gain meaning from Him.
And as for naturalism-- that is what you are arguing for--that there is no supernatural world -- that everything has a natural explanation. So morality derives from within nature and not from without it.
I checked out the link you provided. I'm still hearing the same atheistic argument that does not work. For one the argument assumes that God based morality is all about rewards and punishments to follow commands of God. This couldn't be further from what it is all about. I keep seeing this asserted again and again by atheists.
The Christian believes that God is holy and good and righteous and NO actions on our part can make us good. Goodness comes only from being united to Him through Christ. That humanity was created to commune with God and sin separates us from that communion because God is holy and we are not. He offers us the ability to become holy and blameless through His sacrifice for us. It's not about law. Moral laws show us our need for Him, but do not save us. It's never about doing good to keep from hell or to find eternal reward. It's only about Him. When we accept Him as our Savior knowing that we can do NOTHING to save ourselves He indwells us with His eternal life and leads us into all truth. Our lives then begin to take on a new creation and new life a new reality that is His and we learn to leave behind the old ways and old reality that was ours.
Jesus said that all the law given to Moses is fulfilled by loving God and loving people as we love ourselves. And the only way we can truly do that is to know God and from the overflow of Love that comes from Him we are enabled to love Him in a real way and to love others as He loves us.
Karla,
"Do you believe morality to be objective (a standard outside ourselves) or subjective (a personal standard from ourselves)? At one point you seem to say that morality isn't relative and at another it sounds like you are asserting it to be relative."
I believe it can be both. We can create our own objective morality, but that has not been done yet, and in practice at this time morality is a subjective thing based on one's culture. There are certain things that are for all intents and purposes objective amongst all humans, like not murdering, which are products of our shared evolutionary history.
"If God's nature is good -- how can He act otherwise?"
How can an omnipotent being be restrained? This also brings up an interesting question. If god's nature is perfectly good, such that he can't commit evil, then how does one explain away the obvious evil he's committed in the Bible? This would seem to say that god is not perfectly good.
"That doesn't make Him a robot, because He is uncreated."
Being created or uncreated matters not. What matters is whether god has the ability to act of his own accord. If god is constrained and can only act in certain ways, then he may as well be a robot.
"He doesn't gain meaning from us, we gain meaning from Him."
What meaning do we gain from him? Do I gain meaning from my parents simply because they created me? No, of course not. The meaning in my life is a product of how I choose to live my life and define my own meaning.
"And as for naturalism-- that is what you are arguing for--that there is no supernatural world -- that everything has a natural explanation. So morality derives from within nature and not from without it."
Correct. I was confused as to why you would say that naturalism doesn't account morality, especially if it is man-made. It seems as if you are saying that morality can't possible be derived from humans, so therefore it has to come from god, therefore naturalism can't explain it, therefore I can't be right in saying that it comes from humans and I'm only saying that it does because I have no other recourse? I don't understand why you would say that though. You have no evidence that morality can not come from human sources, nor any evidence that it did come from god...not any evidence that doesn't rely on begging the question at least. Morality exists, either as an objective or subjective concept and we have evidence for that. We don't have evidence for god, but we do have evidence for natural causes. Since we do have evidence for natural causes, it is not established that naturalism can not account for it, in fact it is established that naturalism can account for it.
OMGF
In answering the argument found in your link as to if God's character is the defining goodness can it be proved that God would have to be good and could not be otherwise.
God to be God would have to be perfect. He would be perfectly right. Righteousness is that which is perfectly right -- right ness. What is right must be good. If God is perfect than He must be good. He cannot be less than He is. So His character is perfect goodness.
If you posit a God who is less than perfect -- He 1) would not be God
2) would not be good
God to be God must be perfect. Perfection includes goodness.
Now, you say if we are to believe the acts of God accounted in the Bible, we have proof that God is not good. We think that goodness means what's the most pleasant treatment of humans and not what is the most right and just treatment of humans. This is a faulty definition of goodness.
If a mother turns her son in to the police for a murder she does what is just and good. She still loves her son, but it is good for her to turn him in to the police. Even if he gets punished for his crime. She has still done something good while still loving her son. If the authorities would let her take the punishment in her son's place she is giving mercy and love. She takes his punishment on herself and sets him free. This is what Christ did for us. We are sinners and justice condemns us to death and eternity apart from God. Christ took our debt to sin and paid the price for us allowing us to live a life free of the debt of sin. We can take it or leave it. This is love. This is goodness. This is justice and mercy at work.
Karla,
"I checked out the link you provided. I'm still hearing the same atheistic argument that does not work. For one the argument assumes that God based morality is all about rewards and punishments to follow commands of God. This couldn't be further from what it is all about. I keep seeing this asserted again and again by atheists."
I'm not sure why you think the "atheistic argument" doesn't work, or what specifically that argument is, but I was specifically highlighting the discussion of Euthyphro's dilemma since that was what the OP was about. If you wish to discuss the rewards system and following god's commands, we can do that, but I feel it is beyond the scope of this post. Did you have a specific argument against the treatment of Euthyphro's dilemma?
OMGF
My specific argument is just above your last post to this thread and see the quotations of A.W. Tozer on the subject I just posted to my blog.
Karla,
I posted my last comment before seeing your latest.
"God to be God would have to be perfect. He would be perfectly right. Righteousness is that which is perfectly right -- right ness. What is right must be good. If God is perfect than He must be good. He cannot be less than He is. So His character is perfect goodness."
If god is perfect, then he must be perfect in all things...OK. So, what are the repercussions of that? It turns god into a being that has no free will. Take, for instance, the situation where there are three choices: X, Y, and Z. Z is a horrible, evil choice, Y is somewhat good, but not the best, and X is the absolute best, most perfect choice. You and I have the option to choose X, Y, or Z, but god does not have this option. god has become an automaton because there are no choices for perfect beings (which raises the question as to why god would "choose" to creat the universe, especially if he is perfect).
"If you posit a God who is less than perfect -- He 1) would not be God
2) would not be good"
I don't follow that at all. He might not be good or god based on your narrow definition of a god that requires perfection and perfect goodness, but there's no reason why a very powerful being that is not perfect or perfectly good could not have created the universe and/or us.
"Now, you say if we are to believe the acts of God accounted in the Bible, we have proof that God is not good. We think that goodness means what's the most pleasant treatment of humans and not what is the most right and just treatment of humans. This is a faulty definition of goodness."
OK, so how is sending people to hell just or right? How is god creating humans that he knows will go to hell just or right? How is god killing people pretty indiscriminately just or right? How is god ordering genocide just or right? It won't do to simply say, "Well, god is perfect, so he must be right," because that's circular logic.
"If a mother turns her son in to the police for a murder she does what is just and good."
And, that's a far cry different from the mother taking the son and disowning him and casting him into a fiery pit where she will torture him for the rest of his lifetime (or eternity). You don't see a difference there? Also, to make your analogy complete, the son would have to be guilty of murder because of something the mother did. That would be closer to the situation that you describe with god.
"If the authorities would let her take the punishment in her son's place she is giving mercy and love. She takes his punishment on herself and sets him free."
Do you know of any authorities that would allow this, and do you feel it would actually serve justice? Say that you volunteered to die in place of a mass murderer and they simply let the murderer out of jail, would justice have been served?
"We are sinners and justice condemns us to death and eternity apart from God."
And we are sinners because we were born that way, thus it is by no fault of our own. Why should we be punished for being born a certain way? Should black people be punished for being born black?
"We can take it or leave it. This is love. This is goodness. This is justice and mercy at work."
No, it's not. OK, so let's say that I come to you and I say that I don't like the look of you, so I'm going to put you to death, unless you worship me as a god. Is my act of not putting you to death when you follow through with my wishes an act of mercy, love, or goodness? How are the actions of god any different. god comes and says, because you were born a human, you are a sinner and through no fault of your own I will send you to hell unless you worship me. If you do worship me, then I'll allow you to live and not torture you for eternity. I know you reject this argument, but I haven't seen why, and I don't see any holes in the logic.
OMGF
"Do you know of any authorities that would allow this, and do you feel it would actually serve justice? Say that you volunteered to die in place of a mass murderer and they simply let the murderer out of jail, would justice have been served?"
My example wasn't perfect. However you now seem to agree that justice is getting what one deserves. So you would prefer an unjust God? Because you keep charging God with evil when in reality He is simply being Just.
And as for your X,Y, and Z. God is not contemplating Y and Z because it is not His nature. He is only doing X because it is who He is. He only always does the best thing to do. He sees the big picture the whole of creation and our place in reality. We do not have this birds eye view.
He did not cause us to sin. He allowed us to reject Him. There is a difference. He created us with the choice and gave us sufficient knowledge to choose Him or to reject Him. Every person every created has this choice. It's not about rejecting a fact, but rejecting a Person, your Creator.
If you disbelieved that your earthly dad exists you would be not just be rejecting a fact, but rejecting his existence and all he has to offer you (assuming he was a good figure in your life--if not the analogy works for a mom too).
Karla,
"However you now seem to agree that justice is getting what one deserves."
OK, I can agree to that. Actually, I don't think I've implied anything different.
"So you would prefer an unjust God?"
No, not at all. In fact, I've been arguing that god IS unjust (if he exists) and that I would rather god be just.
"Because you keep charging God with evil when in reality He is simply being Just."
No, I'm saying that god is being evil AND unjust. You're not doing much to rebut my arguments except insisting that I'm wrong. Tell me how I am wrong.
"And as for your X,Y, and Z. God is not contemplating Y and Z because it is not His nature. He is only doing X because it is who He is."
And this does nothing to counter-act my argument.
"He did not cause us to sin."
Um, yes he did - when he created the universe. Even if he didn't, he certainly didn't take steps to prevent it, did he? And, he was the one who decided what the punishment was for that "sin", so he is ultimately responsible for deciding that hell is the punishment.
"He created us with the choice and gave us sufficient knowledge to choose Him or to reject Him."
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they "sinned" hence they had not sufficient knowledge. I've already made this argument! You've not dealt with it. You've only repeated yourself without regard for the fact that I've presented a rebuttal.
"Every person every created has this choice."
Again, I've already rebutted this. We are not given this choice, we are born already tainted by their sin. Again, I ask you, do you think it just to punish all of us for the "sins" of Adam and Eve?
"It's not about rejecting a fact, but rejecting a Person, your Creator."
How can I accept or reject something that has not shown that it exists? Why does god not provide the evidence that all would need to believe that he exists? You have not answered this question.
"If you disbelieved that your earthly dad exists you would be not just be rejecting a fact, but rejecting his existence and all he has to offer you (assuming he was a good figure in your life--if not the analogy works for a mom too)."
Or, I would be delusional, but I would have evidence that this person was there if he was truly a good figure in my life. Where is the evidence for god? Why does god not show himself to all of us so that we can actually make the choice to accept or reject him? Do you agree that it is unjust of god to not show himself to us and then cast us into hell for "rejecting" him?
OMGF
If you agree that justice is getting what you deserve why is God unjust?
From what you are telling me, He is unjust because he ought to have created us either without the ability to sin or with no consequences for sin.
The former would make us robots and the latter would not be the action of a just God.
God has revealed Himself to man physically through Jesus. He reveals Himself even today in miracles and the supernatural. He reveals Himself in creation, etc. He can reveal Himself to you personally experientially. I'm praying for that to happen. Sometimes, it's not that He isn't revealing Himself to you, but that you don't yet realize it's Him. Though I pray for Him to do so in a way you will know for sure. I used to think I wasn't hearing Him speak to me until I learned more about how He speaks and then I realized I was hearing Him more than I thought.
Even then I would not suspend seeking out answers to the questions you have about Him. I am still seeking to know more.
I guess I am repeating myself because I am uncertain how to state it differently in a more meaningful clear way. I'm trying. I'm really thinking about your questions. I take them all seriously and I want to know how to answer them even if you don't ever accept the answers I give.
I'm still processing the questions while contemplating how to answer them or to find the answers to them.
"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thoguth out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, on breaks the whole. It stands or falls with faith in God." --Nietzsche ("The Portable Nietzsche" p.515)
Even the famous prolific atheist recognized that morality finds legitimacy in God and not apart from the Christian worldview. It is well known that Nietzsche rejected the entire package of the Christian worldview including objective morality for he knew it is not logical to assume an objective morality apart from God.
Karla,
"If you agree that justice is getting what you deserve why is God unjust?"
Because god doesn't actually give us what we deserve. Do you really think that anyone is deserving of infinite torture?
"From what you are telling me, He is unjust because he ought to have created us either without the ability to sin or with no consequences for sin."
Or maybe with the inclination to do good instead of evil. Or maybe he could treat us all the same and give us all the same opportunities. Or maybe he could not treat us as sinners simply for being born or punish us for things beyond our control. All of these things are unjust. You can't brush them under the rug.
"Sometimes, it's not that He isn't revealing Himself to you, but that you don't yet realize it's Him. Though I pray for Him to do so in a way you will know for sure."
If god is trying to reveal himself to me, why is he failing? How can a perfect being fail at something that it wants to do?
"I guess I am repeating myself because I am uncertain how to state it differently in a more meaningful clear way."
Instead of simply seeking to restate, take my arguments and look for logical holes or counter-arguments. See if you can find some.
"I'm still processing the questions while contemplating how to answer them or to find the answers to them."
In the meantime, it's a little off-putting for you to continue to assert as true things that are under discussion that I have laid an unanswered argument against.
"Even the famous prolific atheist recognized that morality finds legitimacy in God and not apart from the Christian worldview."
Neitsche was a product of his culture in which is was simply assumed that god gave us our morality. He also pushed for moral nihilism, which is something that I disagree with, because I think it is short-sighted and ignores evolution.
OMGF
We are dealing with two matters in our discussion.
1) the existence of God
2) the goodness of God (if #1 is established)
However our discussion has been about #2 granting #1 for sake of argument (at least on my part). So we have been talking about if the Christian God exist how could He be good when he 1) has demonstrated actions of wrath according to the Old Testament 2) allows evil to exist by creating a creation who can reject Him 3) allows people to go to hell for rejecting Him
I've countered that "good" doesn't mean a lack of justice whereby people are not given the consequences of their rejection and rebellion that they deserve.
Also that a "good" God would not force His creation to do what is best for them out of compulsion for they would not have the fullness of life if they were living one way because they could not live another
The existence of "evil" in the world is temporary and even it leads us to Him. Suffering produces qualities in us that could come no other way.
You keep wanting God to do things in a way that might be easier for mankind, but in the long run that would not be better for mankind. God sees the big picture. He knows what He is doing and it is faulty thinking on our part to think He's doing it all wrong. Of course again here we are assuming He is, maybe that's part of the problem, if the moral argument isn't convincing you that He is maybe we need to look at other arguments for His existence and come back to discussion of who He is after we establish that He is.
Also, your argument is that good and evil exist because we experience that they do and that knowledge must be produced through evolution. We can't deny their existence any more than we can deny reason. However, that doesn't mean they have a natural cause. Nature cannot produce "oughtness" it's not logically possible. It cannot produce an objective moral standard. If it has done so, please tell me what that standard is?
Karla,
"However our discussion has been about #2 granting #1 for sake of argument (at least on my part)."
We can grant #1 for the sake of this discussion.
"I've countered that "good" doesn't mean a lack of justice whereby people are not given the consequences of their rejection and rebellion that they deserve."
I don't think good means a lack of justice either. What I'm saying is that god is neither just nor good.
"Also that a "good" God would not force His creation to do what is best for them out of compulsion for they would not have the fullness of life if they were living one way because they could not live another"
Where is my fullness of life in a determined universe? Where is my fullness of life in hell where I no longer have a choice? Where is my fullness of life if someone uses that choice to murder me? Where is my fullness of life if god allows a tornado to sweep me up and kill me?
"The existence of "evil" in the world is temporary and even it leads us to Him. Suffering produces qualities in us that could come no other way."
Are you really going to contend that only through suffering would it be possible to have certain qualities? I would submit, then, that god does not have those qualities, since a perfect being by definition can not suffer.
Even temporary evil, however, should be unacceptable to an omni-benevolent god. Why would an omni-benevolent deity decide that evil is the best way to bring about good that could be done (omnipotently) without invoking evil?
"You keep wanting God to do things in a way that might be easier for mankind, but in the long run that would not be better for mankind."
Actually, I want god to be just and good.
"He knows what He is doing and it is faulty thinking on our part to think He's doing it all wrong."
This is a major theme that I see in apologetics, that god must know what he is doing and that he must be right. This is begging the question, however, in that you have not proven that god does know what he is doing or is actually good and wants what is best for us. We might not be wrong at all to think that god is unjust, cruel, or evil, because he very well might be.
"Of course again here we are assuming He is, maybe that's part of the problem, if the moral argument isn't convincing you that He is..."
By definition it can't, because it is predicated on an assumption that god exists. That would be begging the question and circular logic.
"...maybe we need to look at other arguments for His existence and come back to discussion of who He is after we establish that He is."
Honestly, I never looked at this as an argument for god's existence so much as an argument, given god's existence, of what his attributes would be. If you want to argue about the possibility of his existence, go right ahead - it's your blog after all - but I didn't think it was in the scope of this OP.
"Also, your argument is that good and evil exist because we experience that they do and that knowledge must be produced through evolution."
Overly-simplistic, but pretty close.
"We can't deny their existence any more than we can deny reason. However, that doesn't mean they have a natural cause."
No, it doesn't mean that. The issue is that we only have evidence for natural causes, so the rational response is to accept that natural causes are the best explanation. When we have evidence for supernatural causes, then we can weigh that evidence against the evidence we already have for natural causes and make a rational decision between the two. Until then, there's nothing to separate the Xian god from the FSM.
"Nature cannot produce "oughtness" it's not logically possible. It cannot produce an objective moral standard. If it has done so, please tell me what that standard is?"
I never said that it does produce "oughtness" (that would be the is/ought fallacy) nor did I say that nature produced an objective standard. What I said was that humans can and have produced such standards (which if you are being nit-picky I suppose you could say that humans being part of nature means that nature has produced objective moral standards, but I don't think that's what you were arguing) through rational grounds that are not dependent on a deity. For an example, you could look at Utilitarianism.
OMGF
"Honestly, I never looked at this as an argument for god's existence so much as an argument, given god's existence, of what his attributes would be. If you want to argue about the possibility of his existence, go right ahead - it's your blog after all - but I didn't think it was in the scope of this OP."
It is an argument for God's existence because if there is a good and evil that we can diferentiate between then there is an Author of that knowledge who is the ultimate Good by which all things are measured. We can never live up to God's goodness without Christ. For if we live by the law of good and evil the law will always condem us. But if we live in the grace of God by faith in Christ we are kept from the consequences of the law and are safe in God. And because we are in Christ we can know God and have life through Him eternally. If there is no good. There is no God. If there is good there is God.
Karla,
"It is an argument for God's existence because if there is a good and evil that we can diferentiate between then there is an Author of that knowledge who is the ultimate Good by which all things are measured...If there is no good. There is no God. If there is good there is God."
You keep asseting this, but you are not backing it up. Continuing to simply repeat an assetion doesn't make it true. In fact, considering that you have provided no evidence for this, your logic doesn't hold up, and we have counter examples, I'd say that your argument is pretty much done. You haven't proven that good and evil exist as externalities in themselves, which your argument depends on. You haven't overcome Euthyphro, nor have you tried to answer the objections raised to your attempt to overcome it. You haven't shown to me why you think god is good, except that you have a predilection for thinking that and assume that it must be so, even without sufficient logical reason to believe that it is so. You haven't answered the objection that if we can't judge god as bad that you similarly can't say that god is good. You haven't answered the problem of evil, nor have you answered the logical contradiction of an omni-max god and free will. You have not dealt with the problems of god's actions in the Bible. Should I continue?
If you truly want to persuade someone like me, it will take more than simply repeating assertions.
Post a Comment