God's Goodness: A Consequence, or Intrinsic?

[Oreoracle]

In this thread I would like to pose my own version of the Euthyphro Dilemma and hear your responses. The question is this: If God had never created anything at all, and decided that he never would, would he have still been good?

If he wouldn’t have been good, God’s goodness would be dependent on his action(s), because he wouldn’t have been good without the initial act of creation. If he would have been good, then his goodness would be independent of his actions, because without creating anything, he couldn’t have acted at all (except for perhaps deliberating) because there wouldn’t have been anything on which to act.

I think the acceptance of either of these conclusions would be problematic to Christianity. If the former is the case, God’s moral worth is subject to change depending on his actions, which violates the immutability of God. If the latter is the case, God is good, but this description is vacuous and perhaps meaningless, because deeming him good would not describe his behavior in any way. In other words, saying God is good wouldn’t tell us anything about him.

 

[smichhertz]

God is good in and of Himself. So, no He did not have to create in order to be good.

I am unsure why you find that problematic with Christianity. Perhaps if you could elaborate, I might be able to help you better.

 

[philial]

Scripture records that when God saw thew world He’d created He pronounced it ‘Good’. And Jesus said that only God is good. In both these senses the word ‘good’ does not mean benign.

What it actually means is ‘complete’ or whole’. Or, ‘exactly as it ought to be’. Thus, the new creation was as God had intended it to be (before sin entered in). And God, as Jesus stated, is whole & complete, exactly as He ought to be.

So ‘Yes’, God is good. He has to be, or else he is flawed and not God.

btw: it was easy for Jesus to reject the application of the term ‘good’ as it was before His death & resurrection, at which point He became ‘as He ought to be’.

Hope this helps

 

[Oreoracle]

God is good in and of Himself. So, no He did not have to create in order to be good.

Thank you for giving a direct answer. Many around here like to sidestep questions.

I am unsure why you find that problematic with Christianity. Perhaps if you could elaborate, I might be able to help you better.

I find the idea that someone can be considered good for doing nothing absurd, whether that someone is God or not. We obviously don’t hold humans to the same standard. We expect them to perform good works and the like to be considered virtuous. In light of that, it seems strange that God should be excused for absolute inaction simply because he’s God.

But even if you don’t find that as unsettling as I do, your answer has other implications as well. For example, I’ve heard several people on these forums deem God good because of his creation of the universe, our lives, etc. However, since God would be good even if he did none of those things, God’s creative acts aren’t the real reasons that people consider him good. They might be complimentary, but they don’t constitute the reason for his goodness. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any reason at all for his goodness other than him being God, and I don’t see why his identity alone makes him good.

And as I said in the OP, this makes the description of God as being good a trivial one. After all, what can people infer about him when they call him good? Nothing really, because his claim to goodness doesn’t imply that he conforms to any behavior. It only implies what every Christian already claims to know: the fact that he’s God. If a man walked up to you and said, “I’m good because I’m Bob” we wouldn’t consider that descriptive or persuasive, but if God claimed goodness on the basis that he’s God, Christians would agree, and I think that’s inconsistent and baseless.

Or perhaps you object to this comparison? What makes God good for his own sake but doesn’t allow us to make similar claims for our own goodness?

Scripture records that when God saw thew world He’d created He pronounced it ‘Good’. And Jesus said that only God is good. In both these senses the word ‘good’ does not mean benign.

What it actually means is ‘complete’ or whole’. Or, ‘exactly as it ought to be’.

So you would agree that God’s goodness is independent of his actions, right? If so, what does saying he’s good imply about him? As I said above, I don’t find it to be a very descriptive statement at all.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I contend that God is good because of His actions and intentions relative to us. According to Holy Scriptures, we are in exile within a miserable and corrupt world. With trust and faith, God is our salvation!

It’s like stopping to help somebody with a flat tire. We are considered “good” because of our actions and intentions.

God values us, therefore He is good in our eyes. Just like we value the wellbeing of the person with a flat tire.

 

[John21652]

In this thread I would like to pose my own version of the Euthyphro Dilemma and hear your responses. The question is this: If God had never created anything at all, and decided that he never would, would he have still been good?

Does a good man become only good by and through his actions? Or is his goodness innate? What if a good man ended up in a coma and could carry out no actions; would he still be a good man? Or would you say he was a good man and will be a good man when and if he wakes up and can act once again? Are good acts make beings good, or do good beings carry out good acts?

If he wouldn’t have been good, God’s goodness would be dependent on his action(s), because he wouldn’t have been good without the initial act of creation.

Too many assumptions. See above. Is good intrinsic to a being, or created through action? If the latter, then perhaps the best way to rehabilitate bad people would be to make them do good works? If the former, then God’s goodness is not dependent upon his actions.

If he would have been good, then his goodness would be independent of his actions, because without creating anything, he couldn’t have acted at all (except for perhaps deliberating) because there wouldn’t have been anything on which to act.

Is deliberating, or thinking, an action? It is certainly doing something. Creation, surely, is just a manifestation of what God was and is thinking; a reflection of his deliberations. If you think creation is good, then you must realise that its goodness came from the (good) deliberations and actions of God.

I think the acceptance of either of these conclusions would be problematic to Christianity. If the former is the case, God’s moral worth is subject to change depending on his actions, which violates the immutability of God.

Immutable means unchangeing. An unchangeing being is not the same as one who has the same thoughts in his mind all the time. Thoughts and deliberations are unrestricted in an immutable God, but the immutability applies to his nature, not his thoughts and deliberations. He could act differently tomorrow, but it would still be in accordance with his immutable nature.

If the latter is the case, God is good, but this description is vacuous and perhaps meaningless, because deeming him good would not describe his behavior in any way. In other words, saying God is good wouldn’t tell us anything about him.

We describe God as good from what we discern about His nature, or from what He reveals to us about His nature, directly and indirecly. Creation reveals to us insights into God’s nature. If you think creation is good, then you must accept that God has revealed to us His goodness. Similarly, through divine revelation He has revealed to us His nature. Of course, I could say that even creation is a form of divine revelation!

 

[mistfall]

In this thread I would like to pose my own version of the Euthyphro Dilemma and hear your responses. The question is this: If God had never created anything at all, and decided that he never would, would he have still been good?

If he wouldn’t have been good, God’s goodness would be dependent on his action(s), because he wouldn’t have been good without the initial act of creation. If he would have been good, then his goodness would be independent of his actions, because without creating anything, he couldn’t have acted at all (except for perhaps deliberating) because there wouldn’t have been anything on which to act.

I think the acceptance of either of these conclusions would be problematic to Christianity. If the former is the case, God’s moral worth is subject to change depending on his actions, which violates the immutability of God. If the latter is the case, God is good, but this description is vacuous and perhaps meaningless, because deeming him good would not describe his behavior in any way. In other words, saying God is good wouldn’t tell us anything about him.

1.By using the term “action”, your argument assumes that God exists in sequential time. An action requires time - there is a point on a timeline where it has not yet happened, then it is initiated, it is completed and in the past. God does not travel along a timeline; He simply Is. Creating flows from what He Is; Goodness is what He Is.

1. You assume a definition of goodness as something which exists independently of God, a sort of reference point which God can “live up to” so to speak, or fail to live up to. If this were true, then that impersonal Reference Point, or whatever first conceived of or originated it, would be the Ultimate Reality. It would be God.

When He gave His name as “I AM” to Moses, He wasn’t saying, “Shut up, mortal, it’s none of your business.” That was the most simple and succinct way of expressing that His identity and Existence itself were inseparable. To claim “To Be” as His identity implies that nothing else - including Goodness and Time - can claim “To Be” in their own right.

{Disclaimer: This reply is concocted from ideas I have cheerfully stolen from really great minds and filtered through my own reflections. I makes no claim to speak for The Church, and will cheerfully retract anything that real, orthodox theologians would denounce.}

 

[Oreoracle]

Does a good man become only good by and through his actions? Or is his goodness innate?

I think you’ve missed the point. As I mentioned in the OP, it doesn’t matter which interpretation of “goodness” you prefer, because God’s moral worth is either mutable or vacuous no matter which interpretation is chosen.

But to be polite, I’ll answer your questions anyway. You might find this ridiculous, but I don’t dedicate much of my time to worrying about whether people are good or evil. I’m far more concerned with peoples’ actions. After all, actions and their consequences are what affect others, not peoples’ personalities. The only times personality matters, including one’s goodness or malevolence, is when it influences their actions. After all, what difference would it make if everyone in the world secretly hated each other but they acted civil toward each other anyway? You wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a good person and a bad person. If you absolutely must know, however, I consider a person good if they wish for others to be pleased, and evil if they wish for others to suffer.

What if a good man ended up in a coma and could carry out no actions; would he still be a good man?

Would it even matter? A person being good or evil is only relevant if they can act on that quality. But again, if you must know, a man in a coma cannot wish for others to be pleased on account of being unconscious, so no, I wouldn’t consider a comatose person “good” in a meaningful sense. On the other hand, upon regaining consciousness, he might very well be good again, so it’s probably more appropriate to say, “A person is not good while unconscious, but could possibly be otherwise.” This, of course, still makes the person valuable from a moral perspective because they can live to be good in the future.

Or would you say he was a good man and will be a good man when and if he wakes up and can act once again?

That’s a succinct way of putting it, yes.

Are good acts make beings good, or do good beings carry out good acts?

It depends on what you mean by “acts”. Is an intention an action? If so, I would say the actions make a person good. On the other hand, I guess you could just as easily phrase things differently and say that intentions are formed by preferences, which are a fundamental part of the being. In that case, good beings would do good deeds. But as I said, the semantics of good-personhood don’t matter much to me.

Too many assumptions. See above. Is good intrinsic to a being, or created through action?

That was actually part of the intention of this thread. I want to know whether Christians consider God good because of what he does or in spite of what he does. That is the question I posed to everyone.

If the latter, then perhaps the best way to rehabilitate bad people would be to make them do good works? If the former, then God’s goodness is not dependent upon his actions.

Immutable means unchangeing. An unchangeing being is not the same as one who has the same thoughts in his mind all the time. Thoughts and deliberations are unrestricted in an immutable God, but the immutability applies to his nature, not his thoughts and deliberations. He could act differently tomorrow, but it would still be in accordance with his immutable nature.

How could God be considered unchanging if he starts acting differently? And if his moral worth is indeed determined by his actions, his moral worth is subject to change, and is therefore mutable.

If you think creation is good, then you must accept that God has revealed to us His goodness.

The debate isn’t about whether God is good or not, it is about what God being good even means. Are we describing his actions or his very nature? As I mentioned in the OP, both answers have their disadvantages.

 

[Oreoracle]

1.By using the term “action”, your argument assumes that God exists in sequential time. An action requires time…

So if God is outside the scope of time, and actions require time, how does God act? Does he not act for lack of time?

The claim that events of any kind can occur in the absence of time is either absurd or just so convoluted that people use it to make the subject matter in question inexplicable. Perhaps it’s both. God is described in the Bible as thinking one thing in one period of history, and other things later on. Time is clearly involved here.

 

[John21652]

I think you’ve missed the point. As I mentioned in the OP, it doesn’t matter which interpretation of “goodness” you prefer, because God’s moral worth is either mutable or vacuous no matter which interpretation is chosen.

It might make you feel good by telling someone they have missed the point, but in reality it shows the answers are going over your head. Take a look at the title of the thread, 'God’s goodness:A consequence, or Intrinsic? You gave no interpretation of goodness and merely equated it with creation, or doing something. For you to then suggest that either way, God’s moral worth is either mutable, or vacuous is to make a quantum leap in logic, because you neither defined ‘goodness’, nor mentioned ‘moral worth’. Does moral worth, for instance, always stem from good acts? The point is, creation and revelation are clues to whatever it is we might describe as God’s goodness. If creation is judged as ‘good’, then we can describe God’s nature as ‘good’, but even in doing that, we assume to know all of God’s nature.

But to be polite, I’ll answer your questions anyway. You might find this ridiculous, but I don’t dedicate much of my time to worrying about whether people are good or evil. I’m far more concerned with peoples’ actions.

And this is exactly where my response flew over your head. I mentioned ‘people’ to indicate that we can not know the goodness of people except through their actions. There is no other way. A person can express goodness, but words can be hollow.

After all, actions and their consequences are what affect others, not peoples’ personalities. The only times personality matters, including one’s goodness or malevolence, is when it influences their actions. After all, what difference would it make if everyone in the world secretly hated each other but they acted civil toward each other anyway? You wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a good person and a bad person. If you absolutely must know, however, I consider a person good if they wish for others to be pleased, and evil if they wish for others to suffer.

Your criteria for judging goodness is very narrow. Simply pleasing others might mean pandering to their every whim and that is not necessarily an indication of good intent. Goodness, if we include the concept of moral goodness, must also include the notion of Justice. Just actions are not always beneficial to everyone. If we answer your analogy and say that all people behave civily to one another, then there is no need to suspect they secretly loathe one another. So it is with God. We can use His actions as an indicator of His goodness, which includes more than simply giving people existence, or seeing to their happiness.

Would it even matter? A person being good or evil is only relevant if they can act on that quality. But again, if you must know, a man in a coma cannot wish for others to be pleased on account of being unconscious, so no, I wouldn’t consider a comatose person “good” in a meaningful sense. On the other hand, upon regaining consciousness, he might very well be good again, so it’s probably more appropriate to say, “A person is not good while unconscious, but could possibly be otherwise.” This, of course, still makes the person valuable from a moral perspective because they can live to be good in the future.

The example of the unconscious man was supposed to make you think about the concept of goodness in a being and what happens to it if that being is not acting, or doing something. Bearing in mind that analogy, if God hadn’t decided to create anything, is He good? The answer, though, is rather obvious after the fact of creation. You, however, wrote “*If he wouldn’t have been good, God’s goodness would be dependent on his action(s), because he wouldn’t have been good without the initial act of creation.” *In writing that, you are effectively making the cause of God’s goodness to be the act of creation. If you think about the comatose man who was good, his goodness can’t go anywhere simply because he isn’t acting. That’s because it is innate.

cont.d

 

[John21652]

cont.d

That’s a succinct way of putting it, yes.

You agreed with me stating that *Or would you say he was a good man and will be a good man when and if he wakes up and can act once again? *Therefore you agree with goodness being innate.

It depends on what you mean by “acts”. Is an intention an action? If so, I would say the actions make a person good. On the other hand, I guess you could just as easily phrase things differently and say that intentions are formed by preferences, which are a fundamental part of the being. In that case, good beings would do good deeds. But as I said, the semantics of good-personhood don’t matter much to me.

This is where difficulties arise - terms not being defined properly. I simply used creation as a concrete example of God’s intentions. Creation was the act which showed us God’s goodness, that is, of course, provided one views creation as being good. Similarly to the actions of people. The actions of people indicate the goodness, or otherwise, of the people we observe. Their actions are observable examples of the goodness of the actors.

That was actually part of the intention of this thread. I want to know whether Christians consider God good because of what he does or in spite of what he does. That is the question I posed to everyone.

Even Christians have trouble with this concept. It is usually expressed in terms of ‘the problem of evil’. Evil exists, so is that a sign that God allows evil and is perhaps not as good as we might think? It is usually resolved when we get into discussions about free will and its relationship to evil. That is where the questions of morality arise and morality, of course, is all about actions. Perhaps we should examine whether God’s goodness is affected by the evil done in His creation and how His goodness persists despite the evil. Catholicism answers this, but that’s another thread for another time.

How could God be considered unchanging if he starts acting differently? And if his moral worth is indeed determined by his actions, his moral worth is subject to change, and is therefore mutable.

God has a nature and it is that nature which is described as ‘immutable’. You have a human nature and it has variations which allow you to behave and think differently, but it doesn’t detract from you always having a human nature. Immutability does not mean God can’t change His mind. The fact that He can if he so desires is obvious from the various promises He has made. His promise means he will be true to His word.

The debate isn’t about whether God is good or not, it is about what God being good even means. Are we describing his actions or his very nature? As I mentioned in the OP, both answers have their disadvantages.

Therefore we use clues as to the existence, or otherwise, of God’s goodness and what it is. His actions are great clues. If we think creation and all it contains is good, then surely you must admit that we have been given a great insight into the goodness of God?

 

[Oreoracle]

It might make you feel good by telling someone they have missed the point, but in reality it shows the answers are going over your head.

Don’t flatter yourself, bud. You aren’t above my head.

Take a look at the title of the thread, 'God’s goodness:A consequence, or Intrinsic? You gave no interpretation of goodness…

That is entirely the point, and you fail to grasp this either because you don’t want to or you aren’t able to. The point is that there are two prevailing interpretations of goodness: it is intrinsic or it is a result of actions. My argument is not dependent on which interpretation I endorse. All it takes for my argument to get off the ground is that you believe one of these interpretations to be accurate.

As an analogy, we know that if a number is even or odd, it is an integer. It doesn’t matter which it is, so long as it’s one of the two. A math student would be missing the point if he insisted that we must know the number’s parity to know whether it’s an integer or not, because a number having any parity at all grants us sufficient information to determine that it’s an integer.

And this is exactly where my response flew over your head. I mentioned ‘people’ to indicate that we can not know the goodness of people except through their actions. There is no other way. A person can express goodness, but words can be hollow.

You asked if a person would be good if such-and-such were the case, not whether we would know if they were good. Those are two entirely different questions.

if we include the concept of moral goodness, must also include the notion of Justice. Just actions are not always beneficial to everyone.

Obviously my sense of morality is more complicated than what I told you, but I don’t exactly have the time to write a philosophical treatise for you. You’ll just have to assume I’m not stupid. If you can do that, I’ll make the same assumption about you and we can call it even.

If we answer your analogy and say that all people behave civily to one another, then there is no need to suspect they secretly loathe one another.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The point is that there are circumstances in which “evil” people behave in manners we would consider good, and good people behave in manners we would consider evil. Deeming people good or evil, then, does not simplify the process of determining the morality of peoples’ actions. Therefore, I see no point in worrying about whether people are good or evil unless I know it’s pertinent to their actions. This semantic debate is not only irrelevant to this thread but to my views of morality as well, and so I will not entertain questions that pertain to it any further.

Bearing in mind that analogy, if God hadn’t decided to create anything, is He good? The answer, though, is rather obvious after the fact of creation. You, however, wrote “*If he wouldn’t have been good, God’s goodness would be dependent on his action(s), because he wouldn’t have been good without the initial act of creation.” *In writing that, you are effectively making the cause of God’s goodness to be the act of creation.

But that would undoubtedly be the case. If God wouldn’t have been good if he hadn’t created anything, then it’s obvious that he’s considered good because of his act of creation. Keep in mind, I’m not saying that God wouldn’t have been good, I’m just making the logical deduction that would have to be made if someone had that opinion of morality. Remember, my argument covers both possible answers.

If you think about the comatose man who was good, his goodness can’t go anywhere simply because he isn’t acting. That’s because it is innate.

That depends on your idea of “good”. As I said, goodness to me is the desire for others to be pleased. If a man is comatose, he can’t desire such a thing. Ergo, he isn’t good, at least not while he’s comatose, and this is what I said in the last post to you.

Even Christians have trouble with this concept. It is usually expressed in terms of ‘the problem of evil’. Evil exists, so is that a sign that God allows evil and is perhaps not as good as we might think? It is usually resolved when we get into discussions about free will and its relationship to evil. That is where the questions of morality arise and morality, of course, is all about actions. Perhaps we should examine whether God’s goodness is affected by the evil done in His creation and how His goodness persists despite the evil. Catholicism answers this, but that’s another thread for another time.

The problem I propose is not the problem of evil. Stick to the topic, please.

You have a human nature and it has variations which allow you to behave and think differently, but it doesn’t detract from you always having a human nature.

To be fair, my nature is only human because I’m human (“Humans have human natures”, is just a tautology.). You’re correct that I can’t change the fact that I’m human without some genetic alterations, but this does not guarantee any consistency of my behavior and allows me to be very much mutable.

Immutability does not mean God can’t change His mind.

I didn’t say he couldn’t. I said that if his moral worth changed, he would be mutable, because his moral worth is usually considered an essential quality of his.

If we think creation and all it contains is good, then surely you must admit that we have been given a great insight into the goodness of God?

The debate is not whether God is good, it is whether this goodness is intrinsic or consequential.

 

[tonyrey]

Your question is flawed because once again you are subjecting the Creator to the categories of created objects.

1. The ultimate nature of God is beyond our comprehension
2. All human terms used to describe God are necessarily inadequate
3. God is He Who Is, i.e. the Ultimate Reality
4. God is goodness
5. The different aspects of God co-exist and are not causally related
6. God is dynamic, i.e. He does not change but is the Source of change
7. “In Him we live, move and have our being”

 

[mistfall]

So if God is outside the scope of time, and actions require time, how does God act? Does he not act for lack of time?

The claim that events of any kind can occur in the absence of time is either absurd or just so convoluted that people use it to make the subject matter in question inexplicable. Perhaps it’s both. God is described in the Bible as thinking one thing in one period of history, and other things later on. Time is clearly involved here.

God is being described in the Bible by human beings (however inspired they may be). Humans experience things as happening in time. Time is involved for us, but not for God.

I believe this analogy comes from C.S. Lewis. I find it helpful for visualizing the situation:

Imagine our human timeline as a line drawn on a piece of paper. Right now we are on a particular point on the line. To the left is the past, to the right is the future.Every event that happens in creation is also occurring on that timeline. All creatures are moving along it.

God isn’t on the timeline. He’s the paper that it was drawn on. He’s encompasses that timeline equally and simultaneously at all of its points. The whole timeline is occurring “at once” for him.

It isn’t convoluted at all, but it does require some multidimensional conceptualizing.

 

[Oreoracle]

God is being described in the Bible by human beings (however inspired they may be). Humans experience things as happening in time. Time is involved for us, but not for God.

You stated that actions require time to occur. Presumably you would agree that God engages in actions, such as the act of creation. Therefore, God requires time as well. It’s a simple argument, really:

1. If an action occurs, time is present.
2. If God creates, an action occurs.
   C1) Therefore, if God creates, time is present.
3. God creates.
   C2) Therefore, time is present.

Which premise(s) do you disagree with? (1), (2), or (3)?

 

[danserr]

In this thread I would like to pose my own version of the Euthyphro Dilemma and hear your responses. The question is this: If God had never created anything at all, and decided that he never would, would he have still been good?

If he wouldn’t have been good, God’s goodness would be dependent on his action(s), because he wouldn’t have been good without the initial act of creation. If he would have been good, then his goodness would be independent of his actions, because without creating anything, he couldn’t have acted at all (except for perhaps deliberating) because there wouldn’t have been anything on which to act.

I think the acceptance of either of these conclusions would be problematic to Christianity. If the former is the case, God’s moral worth is subject to change depending on his actions, which violates the immutability of God. If the latter is the case, God is good, but this description is vacuous and perhaps meaningless, because deeming him good would not describe his behavior in any way. In other words, saying God is good wouldn’t tell us anything about him.

God’s nature is the paradigm of moral goodness. He does not have to act for us to call Him good. That would make his action good, yes, but his nature is intrinsically good. God is therefore different from humans. Human can be good or do good things in so far as our natures or actions approach God. For instance when we do bad things (sin) we makes ourselves more unlike God and hence more bad. When we do good things, we make ourselves more like God. But as the very paradigm or standard of moral goodness, God is thus different from human beings. (God is a greatest conceivable being, and a being that is the paradigm of moral goodness is greater than a being that merely exemplifies it).

 

[Oreoracle]

God’s nature is the paradigm of moral goodness. He does not have to act for us to call Him good. That would make his action good, yes, but his nature is intrinsically good. God is therefore different from humans. Human can be good or do good things in so far as our natures or actions approach God. For instance when we do bad things (sin) we makes ourselves more unlike God and hence more bad. When we do good things, we make ourselves more like God. But as the very paradigm or standard of moral goodness, God is thus different from human beings. (God is a greatest conceivable being, and a being that is the paradigm of moral goodness is greater than a being that merely exemplifies it).

The problem with this is that God’s goodness would essentially be arbitrary, because all he has to do to be good is exist. Think about it: Why is God the paradigm of moral goodness? Why is he intrinsically good? “He just is” doesn’t count as an answer. And if you use vague terms like “great” or “perfect”, try to explain their meanings in a concrete fashion.

 

[danserr]

The problem with this is that God’s goodness would essentially be arbitrary, because all he has to do to be good is exist. Think about it: Why is God the paradigm of moral goodness? Why is he intrinsically good? “He just is” doesn’t count as an answer. And if you use vague terms like “great” or “perfect”, try to explain their meanings in a concrete fashion.

What do you consider vague about the word “great” or “perfect.?” You don’t know what those words mean?

Anyway, there is no problem at all. But first note, that now, you are moving from your own version of the Euthyprho dilemma and just back to the traditional version.

The answer, though, is very simple, “He just is” is the correct answer. By trying to push the question further back, you are really just asking “why is good, good?” You see, I could make the same point about whatever you think is good. Why is that good? Why is the good, good? And so on ad infinitum. It simply becomes of childish repetition of "why is that good? why is that good? why? why? etc. Why is that salty? because it tastes like salt? Why is salt salty? because it is the paradigm of saltiness. why? because it is. why? etc…

We have two choices, 1. either we decide that “good” is completely without meaning. This seems to me to entail various absurd consequences. (For example, if “good” is meaningless, then we cannot say that a man who sacrifices is life for a friend is more good than a man who rapes and kills little children-- not only is this irrational, but it is frankly offensive).
2). Alternately, we agree that in terms of what is “good” we have to reach some stopping point sooner or later. The nature of God is thus the least arbitrary stopping point. As a greatest conceivable being (which I would say God is by definition), God is good by nature. A being that is the paradigm of moral goodness is greater than a being that merely exemplifies it. Thus God’s nature is definitive or moral goodness.

Maybe you will claim that what is good and evil is therefore arbitrary, and that if God commanded rape and child abuse, these would be good. But this is false. God cannot be other than his nature. This is an incoherent question, like asking "if a square circle existed, would its area be measured by the square of its diagonal times the side? It is simply a meaningless question.

 

[Oreoracle]

What do you consider vague about the word “great” or “perfect.?” You don’t know what those words mean?

The last time I checked, most of the time people don’t agree on what constitutes a great person or a great machine or a great novel. The meaning of “greatness” is clearly subject to one’s own opinions. And something is perfect if it lacks flaws. What constitutes a flaw is also a matter of debate, and therefore perfection is also debatable. This should be obvious to anyone who’s ever had contact with other people at all.

Anyway, there is no problem at all. But first note, that now, you are moving from your own version of the Euthyprho dilemma and just back to the traditional version.

It doesn’t truly matter, since both questions are essentially asking the same thing.

The answer, though, is very simple, “He just is” is the correct answer.

I disagree. You can’t just define someone as being “good” or “great”. Goodness and greatness are used as emergent properties, not intrinsic ones. We don’t say that a person is good just because he is, we say he’s good for certain reasons. The same applies to greatness. These properties only come about because other properties are interacting with each other. In other words, greatness and goodness emerge from these interactions, and would not exist independently of these other properties. I’m simply asking which properties God has that would cause his goodness to emerge.

By trying to push the question further back, you are really just asking “why is good, good?”

No, I am asking which qualities God possesses that make him good.

The nature of God is thus the least arbitrary stopping point. As a greatest conceivable being (which I would say God is by definition), God is good by nature.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Are you suggesting that God is good because of his greatness? I knew there was a reason behind it! Okay, next step: What constitutes God’s greatness? Keep in mind that I’m not a Christian, so explain what you mean by “greatness”. It is, as I’ve shown above, a word whose meaning is disputed.

Maybe you will claim that what is good and evil is therefore arbitrary, and that if God commanded rape and child abuse, these would be good. But this is false. God cannot be other than his nature.

But if he changed, his nature would change, just like humans changing would cause human nature to change. “God has to conform to God’s nature” is just a tautological statement, because God is God’s nature, just like I am my own nature, and you are yours, etc.

 

[danserr]

The last time I checked, most of the time people don’t agree on what constitutes a great person or a great machine or a great novel. The meaning of “greatness” is clearly subject to one’s own opinions. And something is perfect if it lacks flaws. What constitutes a flaw is also a matter of debate, and therefore perfection is also debatable. This should be obvious to anyone who’s ever had contact with other people at all.
.

You actually left out one relevant part of my previous post when you where quoting replies and didn’t seem to me to respond, so I’ll bring it up again, since I think it illustrates what I mean here. I’m glad you are interested in the idea of Greatest Conceivable Being theology (GCB) though. One doesn’t have to be to be a Christian, but I find it useful myself, though it can be subject to misunderstanding.

For instance, you are suggesting, as skeptics sometimes do, that “great” is a sufficiently vague term as to not be helpful here. But that strikes me as mistaken. For instance, if I refer to a great dinner, or the greatest comedian I have every heard, or a great man, I think you would get the sense of what I mean. You would know that by “great” I mean a dinner, or comedian, or man, of surpassing excellence. You wouldn’t think that I was saying “good grief, that was a terrible dinner/person.” So I think you know perfectly well what “great” means, or at least well enough for our purposes.

Now here is where the challenge comes in. God is by definition a GCB (at least I would say so). By this, I mean that God is a being of surpassing excellence, such that no being with greater excellence can possibly be thought of (if it could, then that being would be God). This is the concept of God, what “God” means. Now we may disagree on some of the traits that a GCB would have. For instance, you might think it greater to be timeless, while I might think it greater to be temporal, but that is ok. We agree the concept of GCB is clear. We know that when I call God a GCB, I am not saying that He is the worst, most disgusting being one can imagine. Next, we probably can agree on many traits that a GCB would have. For instance, I think it reasonable to say that a GCB would be morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and metaphysically necessary. We may not agree on the precise understanding of omniscience, (does God know the future? have middle knowledge? propositional knowledge? a simple direct perception of reality?) But we agree that omniscience means to know everything and that a being that knows only and all truths is greater than a being that does not. Hence as a GCB, God knows only and all truths.

Now, the point here, is that God is the paradigm of moral goodness. God is a GCB, and as being that is the paradigm, the very standard, of moral goodness is greater than a being that merely exemplifies it (you seem to imply by your first post that you would agree with this). Hence, God is different from human persons, since human persons are not GCBs and not the paradigm’s of moral goodness; God, however, as a GCB (which humans are not) is the paradigm of moral goodness.

So, back to my comparison above. God is to goodness as salt is to saltiness. Just as salt is the paradigm by which we measure saltiness, so God is the paradigm by which we measure goodness.
1). - Hence I say: why is that pizza salty? You reply: because it tastes like salt. I ask: why is salt salty? you reply: salt is the very paradigm of saltiness. I say: why? you say: “it just is, sooner or later you need to reach some stopping point, you can’t keep asking “why” forever.”
2). Hence you say: why is an action or being good? I reply: An action or being is more good in so far as it approaches the character of God, a GCB, and the paradigm of moral goodness.
you say: Why is God good? I could reply: “he just is, the same way salt is salty.” I could add that it is the very nature of God to be good.

Now consider where too much skepticism on this point would lead you.
In the same way, you ask “why is God good?” I could ask, "why is the good good? Why is that good? why is that good? ad infinitum.

As I say above:
We have two choices, 1. either we decide that “good” is completely without meaning. This seems to me to entail various absurd consequences. (For example, if “good” is meaningless, then we cannot say that a man who sacrifices is life for a friend is more good than a man who rapes and kills little children-- not only is this irrational, but it is frankly offensive).
2). Alternately, we agree that in terms of what is “good” we have to reach some stopping point sooner or later. The nature of God, a GCB, is thus the least arbitrary stopping point. As a greatest conceivable being (which I would say God is by definition), God is good by nature. A being that is the paradigm of moral goodness is greater than a being that merely exemplifies it. Thus God’s nature is definitive or moral goodness.

As for God changing, there are different views on the subject. Some Christians follow Aquinas in saying the God is pure act, completely simple, and does not change at all. Others would distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic change. God does not change intrinsically, but he may change extrinsically, in relation to other things. He can change in this respect, but not in his own nature.