fyi to @structureoftruth, @John_Harshman hasn’t answered me on this yet. There’s no point in arguing anything else with him until he does.
1 Like
I agree with you @Faizal_Ali
@structureoftruth you’re actually on the wrong argument. You’re arguing for why God exists rather than for the possibility that he does or doesn’t exist, which is Euthyphro. We must establish the possibility first that He could exist at all. The possibility is that He can exist if His character is good outside of any of creation to judge Him; and that He IS good, he doesn’t define what is good.
Another way to state it is He can exist if He is eternal and uncreated and his eternal being/essence is good.
The premise of your second argument of why God exists also assumes your conclusion. You have to start with whether or not someone agrees people have a conscience and whether they can distinguish between good and evil in any sense, and then argue that shows there is an objective standard of morality, which means there is a God. I need to read your blog post, as I admit I haven’t, and maybe I’m being too critical if you state it better there.
We are assuming God exists for the purposes of the exercise.
I thought that’s what we have been doing.
Yes, it’s an odd argument because we’re (at least I’m) basically saying the argument is answered by the conclusion that God can only exist if he is God.
But the process by which you get there is still a logical argument.
The argument you’re stating would be, now that we’ve decided God could exist if He is God, is there a God if He is evil?
Or another argument could be, does God exist because people have a sense of right or wrong?
Or, does God exist if there is evil or suffering in the world?
I thought we were discussing Euthyphro’s Dilemma: Is it moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?
If I question Captain Kirk’s morality in a Star Trek movie, am I admitting the movies are real?
1 Like
This is along the lines of - is there a God if I can imagine He exists, or if I exist? That would take another argument I think. 
You may have hallucinated the movies. We may live in a virtual reality instead as Hoffman suggests. Donald Hoffman, Worldviews in Science, Evolution vs. Truth Or you can do what Penrose did and create an eternal universe.
You need to stop speaking for me, as you do not appear to understand my position.
3 Likes
I should explain better. It is a false dilemma. The other option is God’s commands are good/moral because God is good.
No, I didn’t hallucinate any movies, and it has nothing to do with virtual reality. There’s a long history of moral arguments that use abstractions, so I’m not sure what you are on about.
1 Like
How did you determine that God is good? Is God good simply because he says he is, or is God good because he meets the external standards of morality?
2 Likes
OK. What is your position on why the flood rules out the existence of God?
Neither. You’re repeating the false dilemma again. God is good because God is good. If God exists, He must be a good, eternal being. Next we can argue whether He does exist or not.
Why must God be good if he exists? Why can’t God be evil?
3 Likes
So you define “good” as “what God is”, and you define “what God is” as “good”. Don’t you see the problem there?
Now by “good” in this context I mean doing what is morally right, according to defined standards of morality. It would take some time to define those standards completely, and people might disagree on some points. But I think we would agree that genocide is not good. I would further claim that it isn’t good even if God does it. The logical conclusion from your position is that genocide is just fine if God does it. Agree?
That has nothing to do with Euthyphro. Euthyphro begins with the assumption that God (well, Zeus, actually) exists. We aren’t talking about whether God exists. The argument is over whether, assuming he exists, and if he is as described in the bible, he is good. And it’s over what the basis of morality might by.
That seems like another vacuous tautology. A frog can only exist if it’s a frog too. Then again, a door can be ajar.
What’s your position on why the cheese found on the moon rules out the existence of Sponge Bob? I have no position on either of those silly questions.
2 Likes
If morality is based on people, and people do not agree, then there is no one definition of good. There are lots of definitions of good. So genocide is good if I think so.
That’s weird because you keep bugging Christians about the flood and God’s character, as if it’s an important question related to God’s character. I’ll tell people not to answer your questions about it now since you’re repeating silliness.
Harder question, but if there is a God and He is evil, is anything good?
Not doing what God commands would be good. If God commands me to commit genocide and I don’t, that would be good.
In the first few chapters of Genesis it talks about Adam and Eve eating of the Tree of Knowledge. Through it they learn of good and evil. From my reading, it is saying that we humans have the ability to judge morality for ourselves. This would also allow us to determine if God’s actions are good or evil. I also get the strong impression that when people say “God is good” it is based on things they judge as being good about God. From what I can see, this is what most Christians believe, and it seems to be the most rational approach.
Do some of God’s actions call his morality into doubt? Yes. I’ve talked to Christians who have a lot of misgivings about what they read in the Bible, but they accept it as part of their faith and religious beliefs. I can respect that, even if I don’t share those beliefs. What I have a harder time understanding is the concept that whatever God does is good by definition. That scares me. That’s what leads to people excusing atrocities with rationalizations like “I was just following orders”. When people replace morality with obedience it can lead to some very dark places.
2 Likes
There’s a big step from imperfect agreement to complete nihilism, and you probably shouldn’t take it. Do you think genocide is good, incidentally?
True, but it has nothing to do with the existence (or lack thereof) of God.
2 Likes
Who says so and why are they right?
But if God created you and He was evil, you would not know that committing genocide was evil because you would only be evil. An evil God does not create good things.
The text is saying the opposite of that. They fell into sin because they thought they could judge morality for themselves instead of obeying what God told them was good, which was to not eat of that tree.
Yes, that’s why Christians are big skeptics. We doubt God’s goodness too. It’s evident throughout the Bible this is so.
If God is truly good, and we obey him, then it will only lead to goodness. The bible sums up obeying as loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. Jesus fulfilled the law as King; there are no extra-biblical revelations that would go against these commands nor could there be. So if someone follows the kind of orders you’re referring to they’re sinning or delusional or both.