The Big Question

[Vlad!]

Where do you stand, and why?

[enemy anemone]

I don't know where I stand on this age-old philosophical question.  maybe it isn't an either-or thing. maybe it's a combination of both. I don't know.

[DvChWi]

I chose the "Actions are good because God commands them" answer, because I believe that God, as creator of the universe, also created the definitions of good and evil.  What God is is good, what he isn't, is evil.  Therefore, I believe that the actions that are set-up for us as "good" are created that way by God, and are are therefore good.  I thin the answer is true, as well, though, because God is commanding these actions because they are good.  I'm now really confused.   Its like the chicken or the egg question, though I believe the fiirst answer is closer to the way things are.

[enemy anemone]

but what if God would tell you to murder your neighbor? would that be 'good' because God said to do so? but maybe someone would say that God wouldn't tell us to do such a thing. but why not? because murdering your neighbor isn't good. but if God says to, would that make it good?   round and round.

[Iris]

I believe that God, as creator of the universe, also created the definitions of good and evil. What God is is good, what he isn't, is evil.

diddo, divigatchiwi.

[Vlad!]

A couple points:
What if (as Schil said) God told you to do something that none of us would consider good?

Also, with your choice, the statement "God is good" becomes an empty tautology. God is good because he does what God commands. What? It's like what Liebnitz says: how can we praise God for doing something when we would praise him for doing the complete opposite as well?

I think it's fairly obvious where I stand, but I'm inclined to agree with Schil's first post: either extreme has some serious problems it needs to overcome before it's a truly viable and defensible position.

[oneafroboy]

This is hard, but I think the question Schil has asked has been answered. First off, Israal did many heinous things that God told them to do; things we as Christians certainly wouldn't do today. Of course, that was Israel, and they were special.

To suggest that "good" exists outside of God is to suggest that God did not create everything. God created what is good. Or better yet, "goodness" and what is holy eminates from who God is. Because God is good is.

Think of it this way. If we were all athiests, would we have an absolute standard of good? No. How could we?

From a Christian and biblical standard, what is moral, what is right (and therefore righteous), and what is good rests in the character of God. Goodness is based on who God is. We have absolutes only because God exists. I honestly do not see it another way.

(And remember that just because God does something doesn't mean we are allowed to. God is the creator and can do whatever He wants and He will stay within His character while doing it too. )

[oneafroboy]

PS:

I can't do this vote, because I believe both.

Actions are good, because God commands them *and* God commands actions that are good. I don't see it as a dichotomy or these two choices as opposed to each other.

Btw: how can we praise God if we would praise Him for doing something totally opposite? God is God. Part of why we praise Him is because He is God.  

[DvChWi]

It's like what Liebnitz says: how can we praise God for doing something when we would praise him for doing the complete opposite as well?

 

But this doesn't work, since God simply wouldn't do anything other than what he was doing.  There is no "what if" here.

[oneafroboy]

Word. Dv. Tru dat.

Counterfactual worlds or possibilities kind of break down eventually for the simple fact that they don't exist. (That doesn't mean it's not interesting to think about them.)

I too would agrue that God is not capable of doing something "not good". Once again, what's wrong for us is not always wrong for God.  

[Vlad!]

To suggest that "good" exists outside of God is to suggest that God did not create everything. God created what is good. Or better yet, "goodness" and what is holy eminates from who God is. Because God is good is.

That doesn't follow. What if God created good, but it exists externally from him. And (this is highly metaphysical, so I realize many of you don't accept my logic in this case) did God really create logic, create 'good', and create causality? These seem to be something that can't be created. But (and I think GusX: has made this claim before) maybe it's just because my limited mind cannot conceive of such a thing, but it could exist.

Think of it this way. If we were all athiests, would we have an absolute standard of good? No. How could we?

That's not entirely true. Kant and Locke argue that there is a "natural law/morality" that man has a duty to follow. This law is apart from God and can exist independent of God. There would have to be, of course, some sort of justice system in place, but atheism doesn't necessarily imply no moreal absolutes. I do admit that I would be hard-pressed to defend this view against all possible attacks, so I guess it's just as well that I'm not an atheist.

Actions are good, because God commands them *and* God commands actions that are good. I don't see it as a dichotomy or these two choices as opposed to each other.

If you don't see the dichotomy then why did you spend all this time arguing? To clarify: the latter position says "God commands actions BECAUSE they are good." This says that an action can be good or bad independent of God. So if God ordered Abraham to kill Isaac and did not intervene, and Abe had knifed his son, the first view says that it was good. The second says that it has the potential to be a bad action. However, even though I lean more towards the second view, I believe that God embodies a full measure, a perfect measure, of goodness. Thus, God's very nature is good.

how can we praise God if we would praise Him for doing something totally opposite?

That's exactly the point. In the first view, we say "yay, God, he's so good because he [for example] delivered the nation of Israel from the hands of the Egyptians in Exodus." But we would also have to say "yay God he's so good because he caused the Egyptians to slaughter every man, woman, and child in the nation of Israel" if that's the way it happened. Because actions are good because God commands them, so if God commands me to kill my roommate, that is a good act.

[oneafroboy]

Yes, I would say that perhaps human logic is limited and so it's hard to understand.

I don't buy the whole natural law thing. I think that eventually leads to the idea that cruelty is equal to non-cruelty. That is a *very* dangerous idea.

Oh, I'm arguing because I know what you are getting it at. I'm simply saying that I don't see them as opposing things, not at least the way you worded it. However, I realized that you meant that either good exists because of God or it exists independently of God. I would argue that good exists as and because God exists. Does that make sense?

Oh yeah, and that last question you quoted me on? I did answer that. We praise God for who He is, too. And God wouldn't command you to kill your roomate. Once again, I believe that Israel had a special place in God's plan. Things otherwise "bad" and "wrong" were commaned for Israel to do by God. It's only Israel that is told to do these things. God wouldn't command you to do something that was wrong. Period. Why? Because He is good.  

[bloop]

"Euthyphro" is a fun one, and goes nowhere.  If Plato couldn't figure it out, I'm unlikely to, but I'll say that I tend to think things are good in themselves, so it isn't just because God commands them that they are good.  

What if the ruler of the Universe, God, were evil?  Does might make right?

[oneafroboy]

But who other than God can determine what is right?

The definition of God is that He is perfect. How could He be evil? Once again, counterfactual worlds just don't work, because usually they don't/can't exist for a very good reason.

I don't know how we as mere creations can judge our creator. And no, might does not make right for humans.

I'm saying that what is good rests in who God is. It is good because God is good. Good exists as God as exists because God exists.  

[bloop]

But who other than God can determine what is right?

Why couldn't an evil God exist?  What makes that so out of the realm of possibility.  What if two Gods existed, a good and a bad, but the bad one was more powerful and kept the good one out of the limelight.  Would it all of a sudden make the more powerful evil force good?  

I'm arguing that it is not God's might that makes Him right either.

[oneafroboy]

I don't think an evil god could exist.

I mean, it's kind of pointless to discuss an evil God, because Jehovah Yaweh is not evil.

And no other god has ever existed nor could ever exist.

As I'm saying, I think by definition, God is the culmination of perfection. He is good, He is holy, He is righteous.

*IF* an evil god existed, how could we judge that god? What would be our standard outside of it? Seeing that it would have created us, wouldn't we have ingrained in us this idea of what is good and that would correspond to that god.

The fact an evil god could exist is bizarre to. Why would it be evil? I'm sorry, but as I said before, counterfactual worlds just don't work.

And *IF* there were two gods, one evil and one good (there is or was religion that believed that), I don't know... Actually, let me think about that more. I'd hate to speak before I think. My first inclination is that what is good would be influctuation. I think one would "outshine" the other despite its "might". Eventually, though, our moral system would be corrupted. It might also depend on which one you were created by. What is good? What is evil? How do you discern that? How do you determine that? Schaeffer had something to say about this in his book, How Then Shall We Live. And I wish I had it with me.

I rest in the knowledge that there is good because God is and He is unchanging.

Once again, I kind of see good and God co-existing but not independent of each other.

If you say that good is independent of God, does that mean there is a law that exists outside of God? Who created that law? If God has created *everything* (except himself), and nothing without Him would be made, then how can this "moral law" exist without Him? Our very notion of what is good comes from God because we are made in His image. I think it's easy to think that good could exist apart from God because we don't actively see good flowing from Him. But *every* good and perfect thing comes from God. Is the "absolute moral law" a good and perfect thing? I would say yes, and then I would say that it must follow that it comes from God.

PS: If it wasn't so late, and I didn't have a paper due Friday, I'd post up some Scripture. I hope to get some up soon, though. What better way to get answer or get an inkling of Truth but through God's Word.

[bloop]

Good is part of the character of our God.  That might just be one of those unproveable assumptions that we just make.  I'm asking what if there was a parallel bizarro universe where God had exactly the opposite character of ours.  Would his might in that universe make him right there, the same as ours is right here?

[DvChWi]

Good is part of the character of our God.  That might just be one of those unproveable assumptions that we just make.  I'm asking what if there was a parallel bizarro universe where God had exactly the opposite character of ours.  Would his might in that universe make him right there, the same as ours is right here?

That would be hard to answer, because in that universe, our perception and reason might be different.  I thinks its impossible to tell.

[PriestofDasani]

I voted for the first one because I usually think that one more, but the second one is also true because of the way God created this world.

EX: God commands people to not bear false witness. It is good because he commands it, but he also commands it because the way that he has created the world makes it so that it is good to tell the truth.

if that didn't make any sense that's okay; I confuse most people.

[Vlad!]

Good job with the Euthyphro thing, bloop

And I think your question ties in well to this duscussion. Because in the first view, an evil God in a monotheistic religion is impossible, because if God ordered us to do things that we now see as evil, they would be good. Hedonism, barbarism, and utter chaos woudl be the order of the day, and might would make right. In a dualistic universe iit could theoretically happen, with a good god and and evil god who were essentially equal but diametrically opposed...

I would also like to point out that this topic is dealing with God's commands to us as the primary focus. I don't think that we should put ourselves in the position to judge God, so even if the second view is taken we have to assume that God contains a full measure of goodness if we are to hold to an objective standard. Which I suppose starts to blur the two a bit, since if God is fully good then it's not necessarily different from the "no good apart from God" idea, except that (in my mind) it makes for a less arbitrary universe. Which may be what you're getting at claiming that this is a false dichotomy.

If you say that good is independent of God, does that mean there is a law that exists outside of God? Who created that law? If God has created *everything* (except himself), and nothing without Him would be made, then how can this "moral law" exist without Him? Our very notion of what is good comes from God because we are made in His image. I think it's easy to think that good could exist apart from God because we don't actively see good flowing from Him. But *every* good and perfect thing comes from God. Is the "absolute moral law" a good and perfect thing? I would say yes, and then I would say that it must follow that it comes from God.

Well, you sort of half-quoted James 1:17, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. " I don't think it necessarily follows (from this verse, at least) that the good is dependant of God in this verse.

Oh yeah, and that last question you quoted me on? I did answer that. We praise God for who He is, too. And God wouldn't command you to kill your roomate. Once again, I believe that Israel had a special place in God's plan. Things otherwise "bad" and "wrong" were commaned for Israel to do by God. It's only Israel that is told to do these things. God wouldn't command you to do something that was wrong. Period. Why? Because He is good.

Maybe it's because I'm a scientist and I hate the idea of "special cases," but doesn't that seem to make morality kind of arbitrary? I mean, Abraham was ordered to kill his son. In the book Abraham on Trial, by Carol Delaney (which I have to admit I have not read), she recounts the story of a man who killed his daughter (whom he loved dearly) because he believed God told him to. He was not a violent man, nobody who knew him thought him capable of this crime, but he did it. Abraham was our spiritual forefather, but at the time he was just a man who was blessed by God. Why then would God not order this Valencia guy (I think that was his name) to sacrifice his daughter? And, if God did, would that man have been wrong to do so?

[bloop]

If we were to discover such a parallel universe, where its God were evil, would we be in the place to judge that God because of how He compares to ours?

2nd question:  If the atheists are right and there is no God or gods, then can good and evil exist without them?

[Vlad!]

If we were to discover such a parallel universe, where its God were evil, would we be in the place to judge that God because of how He compares to ours?

If such a thing were possible (which I highly doubt), I'm not sure passing judgment on anything in that universe would make sense.

2nd question:  If the atheists are right and there is no God or gods, then can good and evil exist without them?

Well, the concepts of good and evil would exist. The problem would be with their definitions: could good and evil be absolute? I'm inclined to say yes, but I can't really find a good way to defend that position.

[Harenil]

I chose actions are good because God commands them. Everything God says and does is good.

[Skrappybiskit]

Could good and evil be absolute? I'm inclined to say yes, but I can't really find a good way to defend that position.

They've been trying for a long time and it hasn't worked yet...

Skraps

[Vlad!]

The problem is that we're delving into metaphysics and metaethics (which is not a bad thing in itself), and it's darned hard to even talk about such things and be both logical and comprehensible.  

[leinad]

Maybe it's because I'm a scientist and I hate the idea of "special cases," but doesn't that seem to make morality kind of arbitrary? I mean, Abraham was ordered to kill his son. In the book Abraham on Trial, by Carol Delaney (which I have to admit I have not read), she recounts the story of a man who killed his daughter (whom he loved dearly) because he believed God told him to. He was not a violent man, nobody who knew him thought him capable of this crime, but he did it. Abraham was our spiritual forefather, but at the time he was just a man who was blessed by God. Why then would God not order this Valencia guy (I think that was his name) to sacrifice his daughter? And, if God did, would that man have been wrong to do so?

Along those same lines:  If the radical Islamic perception of God were correct, would all the suicide bombings be justified?  It's easy to say that their idea of God is wrong so it's a moot point, but there are probably millions of people who believe otherwise, and these attacks arguably happen because of that belief.  So to me this is more than just a hypothetical scenario.  

[standman87]

I chose the first one because I believe God to be the standard of goodness (more formally, righteousness).

[leinad]

If the radical Islamic perception of God were correct, would all the suicide bombings be justified?

Anyone want to try to answer this?  I've actually thought about this question a lot, and I lean towards no, but I'm not sure I can logically defend that viewpoint.