OK, I understand your point. I was just afraid you were saying theists value only God’s commands and will, disregarding human flourishing. When you see it that way it is easy to get in trouble, and justify terrible things in the name of God. We believe human flourishing (can we call it well-being?) is an aspect of the divine’s will.As I said, this just begs the question between theists and atheists who doubt that such a perspective exists. From the atheists perspective you gain nothing.
. My statement: “Good and evil are just human concepts.”Of course good and evil are human concepts. What other sort of concepts are there?
What about an afterlife in which we all receive exactly what we deserve and fulfil our yearning for love and perfection? From the atheist’s perspective life leads literally to a dead end and death constitutes a total loss of everyone and everything .As I said, this just begs the question between theists and atheists who doubt that such a perspective exists. From the atheist’s perspective you gain nothing.
It IS His Nature. On what grounds or basis do you reject this statement? That God’s goodness is essential to His Nature and thus God is beholden to His Goodness? Who’s definition of goodness, yours? God’s name, “I AM” denotes pure existence. God as He exists is Good along with many other things as the end in which they exist, Intelligence, Justice, Mercy, Wisdom, etc. etc. etc… Again, on what grounds or basis do you reject the statement?Is “goodness” essential to God’s nature because it is good, or is “goodness” good because it is essential to God’s nature?
Fine. Goodness is good because it is essential to God’s nature being that it is His nature. Where would one go from here?Is “goodness” essential to God’s nature because it is good, or is “goodness” good because it is essential to God’s nature?
Nah, if it is essential then God is beholden to the Goodness which would mean God answers to a higher authority, that which is Good. The Nature of God is Good as its end, the ultimate meaning of good is God. What I want to know is on what grounds or basis God being Good as His Nature is being rejected because it is central to the theistic belief.Fine. Goodness is good because it is essential to God’s nature being that it is His nature. Where would one go from here?l
“Goodness is essential to God’s nature because it is good” - wouldn’t that option rather purport the higher authority?Nah, if it is essential then God is beholden to the Goodness which would mean God answers to a higher authority, that which is Good.
The first several pages of this thread dealt with this topic and never answered definitively why God’s essence is not accepted as Good. We don’t need to rehash this for another few pages when the definitive question raised is why is God’s essence not accepted as Good.“Goodness is essential to God’s nature because it is good” - wouldn’t that option rather purport the higher authority?
In either case, however, it does not matter holding in view that God’s essence is His existence.
I think that the problem there is that goodness would just ammount to Godness so it would not make much sense to say that God is good. You’d just be saying that God is God.Fine. Goodness is good because it is essential to God’s nature being that it is His nature. Where would one go from here?
peace,
Michael
No identity crisis here. This line of questioning is not an example of atheists splitting hairs in struggling with their own understanding. It is a counterargument to the theists’ claims that atheists are somehow worse off for not being able to claim God as the source for morality. It demonstartes that believers are in no better position than atheists in claiming a foundation for their moral beliefs.Does the atheist want a potent answer regarding God and goodness? What would it matter? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which is essential first? Can one exist without the other? One thing is for sure…something happened. Is there an answer to that? Atheists are always having an identity crisis. They don’t know who they are.
So they love to split hairs. It passes the time without true confrontation. God said “I AM.”
We still can’t seem to fathom that as a species.
Yogi Berra once said “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”
Doesn’t Joe Biden do a lot of “flourishing”? Oy.
And a concrete example of that would be…?No identity crisis here. This line of questioning is not an example of atheists splitting hairs in struggling with their own understanding. It is a counterargument to the theists’ claims that atheists are somehow worse off for not being able to claim God as the source for morality. It demonstrates that believers are in no better position than atheists in claiming a foundation for their moral beliefs.
I don’t think goodness would amount to Godness, totally. “God is good” is not the same as “Good is God”. Primarily because God is also love, etc. I don’t think a tautology arises.I think that the problem there is that goodness would just ammount to Godness so it would not make much sense to say that God is good. You’d just be saying that God is God.
I disagree. Atheists understand basic moral concepts and are just as capable of moral reasoning as theists. Atheists will agree that torturing babies for fun would be evil, for example. But without any moral absolutes–without any standard for ‘goodness’ no moral reasoning of any kind is possible. So the atheist ends up with a morality that is not grounded upon anything. It is completely arbitrary.This line of questioning is not an example of atheists splitting hairs in struggling with their own understanding. It is a counterargument to the theists’ claims that atheists are somehow worse off for not being able to claim God as the source for morality. It demonstartes that believers are in no better position than atheists in claiming a foundation for their moral beliefs.
From “Reasonable Faith” website:Is “goodness” essential to God’s nature because it is good, or is “goodness” good because it is essential to God’s nature?
Our concern is with moral ontology, that is to say, the foundation in reality of moral values. Our concern is not with moral semantics, that is to say, the meaning of moral terms. The theist is quite ready to say that we have a clear understanding of moral vocabulary like “good,” “evil,” right,” and so on, without reference to God. Thus, it is informative to learn that “God is essentially good.” Too often opponents of the moral argument launch misguided attacks upon it by confusing moral ontology with either moral semantics or, even more often, moral epistemology (how we come to know the Good).
reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6063If it be asked why God is the paradigm and standard of moral goodness, then I think premise (1) of your argument gives the answer: God is the greatest conceivable being, and it is greater to be the paradigm of goodness than to conform to it.
reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6087“Why is it wrong to cause injury to innocent persons? What determines what is just or unjust?” Eventually such questions must find a stopping point in the character of God. Kindness is good because that’s the way God is; cruelty is evil because it is inconsistent with God’s nature. Therefore He issues commands that forbid behavior which is cruel and prescribe behavior which is kind. Rape is cruel, not kind, and therefore it is forbidden by God and therefore wrong.
For those who don't believe, no explanation is possible Cheers, TonetteIs “goodness” essential to God’s nature because it is good, or is “goodness” good because it is essential to God’s nature?
Not necessarily, because “goodness” doesn’t exhaust the meaning of God. In other words, you can say that all goodness comes from God without proposing that “goodness” and “God” are interchangeable, because even though all “goodness” may come from God, God himself is nonetheless more than goodness. Or am I missing something?I think that the problem there is that goodness would just amount to Godness so it would not make much sense to say that God is good. You’d just be saying that God is God.
In practice it often seems that way, but that’s only because some theists don’t heed the lesson of the Euthyphro well enough. I think the theists who know their beliefs well often do speak of morality in terms of human flourishing.The difference between atheists and theists in their talk about morality is that the atheists will use a vocabulary involving human flourishing whereas the theist will use a vocabulary involving God’s will or commands. There is no foundation that anyone has ever discovered that stands outside of these views that can be used to decide between them.
I read it, years ago, while interested in Nietzche (sp). It turned me off, big time, and thankfully, I chucked it out. I found Russell’s worldview dark, foreboding, nihilistic.When I was a teenager I read Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”, and it seriously blew my mind. That book was one of the major factors in turning me into an atheist for a few years. I picked it up again the other day, for the first time in about ten years, and I was underwhelmed, to say the least. One of his arguments does have me puzzled, though. I’ll just quote from the book for clarity:
“If you are quite sure that there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or not?If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, then you must say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not bad independently of the fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.”
Anybody want to help me out on this one, or point me towards a good book on the subject?
Pat