Indeed. We are the arbiters of the standard, whatever a god’s opinion might be. I’m not sure how a god’s opinion could even be considered remotely relevant.
I think most athiest consider themselves Gods when it comes to morality…
It might a psychological blindspot. You dont seem to understand the concept that God’s perspective is central and definitive perspective in creation.
In this argument, there is no, if a, then b. Or if b, then a. It is a=b because God tells us a=b. God doesn’t define good; He is good. We don’t need to evaluate God’s goodness; God is good.
“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the Lord,
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
You shall eat the good of the land;
20 But if you refuse and rebel,
You shall be devoured by the sword”;
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’
Truly God is good to Israel,
To such as are pure in heart.
Psalm 118:1 and Psalm 136:1
Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good!
For His mercy endures forever.
Deliver me, O Lord, from my enemies;
[e]In You I take shelter.
10 Teach me to do Your will,
For You are my God;
Your Spirit is good.
Lead me in the land of uprightness.
And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
And since atheists do not believe in gods, your claim is facially false.
That is not an argument at all. People can say all sorts of things about themselves. That does not make it true.
Again, that is just a bald assertion with no argument to back it up.
How do you know he’s telling the truth, even assuming that it’s really God talking? And in that case, how do you reconcile his goodness with the genocide of the Flood?
Just because you think he said so? If God told you green was purple, would that be true?
That doesn’t say God is good. It just says you will be rewarded or punished based on your compliance.
That doesn’t say anything about good either.
That says he does good things to Israel, again if they’re compliant. Doesn’t say he’s good.
Finally, a relevant passage. But why should we believe it? The rest are similar.
That would entail God could have any character, even be a mass-murderer and sadist, but in so far as he declares himself to be good, whatever his character is, then that character is good.
Of course in the end, this is just an argument from bare assertion.
Now you might be tempted to say something like God only tells the truth, so when he says something, then that can be taken to be true by definition. But God’s truth-telling property is supposed to be due to his goodness, that is, God only tells the truth because he is good. But then that would make your assertion into a circular argument.
God is good because God says so -> God only tells the truth -> And God only tells the truth because God is good -> And God is good because… (we come full circle), God says so.
A good God punishes evil; He has perfect justice.
By what standard are you defining true?
I gave God’s argument with the verses I shared. He is good because he provides salvation. He is good because he punishes evil.
God is not good because God says so. God is good because God is good.
So genocide can be justified. Sorry, but that’s not good. Your morality is quite different from mine.
You have contradicted your earlier claim in the first sentence, and the second sentence is a vacuous tautology. Do you have anything else?
Oh, come off it. These kind of Sye-Ten approved word games are an embarrassment. No one is impressed by this.
Or maybe he is evil because he punishes good. Since, in your worldview, there is no moral standard other than some guy’s “nature”, that is an equally valid claim.
No, you are wrong because you are wrong.
Is that how you want to play it? Or are you interested in a serious and rational discussion.
@thoughtful Please see my other comment for some clarification:
In much the same was as our subjective perceptions of the external world (though sight, sound, touch, etc) naturally lead us to believe in the objective existence of that external world, our moral intuitions naturally point to an objective standard. I’ve written more on this point on my blog, here.
If, on investigation, we find our moral intuitions don’t match up with the objective standard, the correct thing to do is to adjust our moral intuitions, just as the correct thing to do if our perceptions of the external world fail to match up with reality (due to poor eyesight, for example) is to correct them (through eyeglasses, say).
Just noticed you didn’t engage with what Jesus said. He can testify about himself.
God is good so your question doesn’t apply.
How do you know that Jesus actually said that? How do you know he was telling the truth? How do you reconcile what he said with a Flood that killed everyone except a single family?
What do you mean by “good”? Is good just “whatever God is”? If so, how do you know that telling you green is purple wouldn’t be good? On the other hand, if you know God wouldn’t do that because it isn’t good, you are applying a standard external to God.
I don’t agree with this analogy. It seems to me it fails in the crucial aspect that is the point of contention. Are the things we sense with our moral intuitions external to ourselves?
After all my experience of an external world takes the form of an external world. I am experiencing it as external to and independent from myself. When I experience seeing a building, it appears to me as an object separate and distinct from myself. Part of the external world I live in. But my experiences of moral intuitions are within me. I am experiencing my own emotions.
But moral intuitions are not actually emotions, so this is false. The belief that murder is wrong is not the same thing as a negative emotional reaction to murder.
No, I understand it. It’s just that the moral opinions of a god being automatically “correct” does not in any way follow from that.
It does if you understand what “correct” means.
Its connected to things fulfilling their purpose. A car that does what it’s supposed to do works "right… else something is wrong with it.
In the bible God has a purpose and image of what creation is in His mind… and He calls it good.
So, it does follow unless one views "correct as “whatever I feel is correct”. Hence my reference to athiests thinking they are God.
Hey Folks, just so you know, talk of genocide has got to raise moderator eyebrows. It looks like the discussion is going well tho, just keep it cool. Thanks!