TrueMyth

What if the DCT problem is a false dilemma? In its most simple form, it seems to be:

1) Either goodness is solely the command of God or
2) Goodness is something external to God which he adheres to

1) Commits you to the possibility of a Cosmic Sadist
2) Commits you to the claim that not all things are derived from God

It seems to me entirely possible (and probable) that neither are entirely correct. Classical Christianity states that God is the source of goodness, which means also that goodness gets its source in God. The error consists in assuming this pertains only to his commands, and not his nature. The classical position is that God himself is goodness itself, which (to put it vulgarly) amounts to God being a personified Platonic form. Therefore, the DCT problem is a contradiction in terms. Goodness is not something God commands, it is something he is.

Just a thought-- tell me what you think!

Hiero5ant

I think you've just rephrased the question, and you still haven't given a simple yes or no answer.

Either

1) Whatever Yahweh's nature dictates is by definition good, or
2) Goodness is defined without reference to Yahweh.

So, back to the question: is what Yahweh is commanding you to do in the hypothetical scenario good? Remember, it's stipulated that this is indeed Yahweh, and that his order is genuine.

TrueMyth

Thank you for your clear and concise response.

I will lay aside for the time the question of Lewis' views. I don't knwo what your familiarity with his work is, but I am extraordinarily familiar with it, and I can assure you that he does not hold that Christianity is the only source of moral truth. I also have proof for this, but that is certainly outside the scope of this thread. Perhaps an email discussion?

This points out a problem in definition, though. What do you mean by "only source"? You state you do not believe these thinkers are positing that Christianity is simply the best source, so I rule that out as a possible meaning you intend. Past this, it is hard for me to understand what else you mean other than every other approach (is that better than "worldview? ) has no moral truth. If I say, "I am the only person in the United States who possesses albino rats", then certainly I am making an exclusionary statement? Certainly I am stating that no one else who resides in teh USA has in their possession ANY albino rats? Please help me understand what you mean by this, if not "all other approaches have no moral truth"

To help you understand what I mean, I believe these writers are asserting that all Truth is God's truth. In other words, if some universal moral truth exists, it can be found in Christianity. If it cannot be found in Christianity, it is not a universal moral truth. Notice the focus is on Christianity, not other approaches. This leaves room for agnosticism regarding this question.

TrueMyth

Thank you for your insights.

For an answer to the clear Yes or No, I refer you to my post in reply to Ms. Siv above.

Having made that clear, let me challenge the stipulation. For some discussion of this, I refer you to my post in reply to David Vestal, in which I state that the only scenario in which one could be ABSOLUTELY sure this was YHWH is when one feels no abiding moral qualms, since these are also the voice of YHWH. This would, of course, make the whole question utterly pointless. If I am dying of thirst, and I see a drink of water, and I am certain that it is water and it is drinkable and I am certain that I will die if I do not drink it, will I drink it? Of course. There is no mitigating factor to prevent it. Thus, there would be no mitigating factor to prevent my obeying God's commands, and the question becomes not moot, but worthless.

I would also challenge in what form YHWH could make himself apparent in such a way that it would flatly contradict all revelation (general, special, and personal) which I have had from him up to this point. He is not disingenuous: he reveals his nature. If I were to be confronted with such a contradiction, I would speculate that either 1) my previous revelation was all incorrect, or 2) my current revelation was incorrect. Any right-thinking person would take the weight of a lifetime and all of history over a momentary presentation, which could much more easily (and rationally) explained as psychotic hallucination than the former. Thus, this is not faith in the face of unreason, it is rationality itself.

I appreciate your opinions and enjoy the opportunity to discuss this with you

TrueMyth

One addition...

I also don't believe I have simply restated the question. In my presentation of it, the question amounts to the whole Stone-So-Big-He-Can't-Lift-It problem (or, as I prefer, Waffle-So-Big-He-Can't-Eat-It ) or a round square. Let me describe: God cannot will evil, b/c it is completely contrary to his very nature (this is a logical relation); if He were to, He would no longer be God. The two cannot coexist, just as a figure cannot retain both the properties of a circle and a square. I am invoking the Law of Noncontradiction, as informed by my presentation of God's nature, as a reductio to the problem

Thanks!

His Noodly Appendage

So, by your definition, there are courses of action unavailable to god.

Also, by your definition, god conforms to morality, not vice-versa.

So he's neither omnipotent (not much of a god, eh?) nor the source of all morality (what determines it, then? Something external to god? What could that be?)

TrueMyth

Thank you for your reply!

Actually, I do not believe that this is any limitation on God's omnipotence. So God can't make a round square. Damn. So God can't will evil. Damn. Apart from what we would want (and I think everybody appreciates the fundamental rationality of the universe), there is no limitation to say that God cannot perform an action that is not even a thing, let alone an action. I am merely stating that God cannot do nonsense, and I for one do not pine for the loss.

Also, could you please make it clear to me how I am stating that there is a dependent relation at all regarding God and goodness, in either direction? I am removing the distinction altogether. God = goodness = God. To know one is to know the other (not exhaustively, but in this particular aspect). Refer to my formulation above wherein I related God to a personified Platonic form. This is crude, I know, but it's the best way I can think of to make a complex and tricky idea clear.

Thank you for taking an interest.

seebs

I don't see how you get to "not omnipotent". Omnipotence that isn't logically consistent is pointless to speculate about. (It also, I would point out, gives a free pass to apologists.)

His Noodly Appendage

TrueMyth:

But that makes your definition circular and thus meaningless:

That which god wills is that which is moral, and that which is moral is that which god wills.

See, nowhere in there do you leave any room whatsoever for "Making someone kill their best friend is immoral".

The only counter you could pose (by your definition) would be "but he hasn't asked me to" - which by no means excludes the possibility that he might do so 5 seconds from now.

If you posit some extra principle by which to define morality, it must be external to mere being-god-ness. What are the acts that god cannot will? What defines them? Says who? What is the origin of this constraint, sitting on par with the laws of logic? (Did god fail to create those, btw? Is he a *consequence* of them?)

Perhaps an example.

The subject of this sentence is a fnork. Whatever a fnork is, it's what I'm talking about. I can't possibly be talking about anything but a fnork, because it's what I'm talking about.

Can you deny that you are a fnork? On what grounds?

If you want to claim that I can't possibly be talking about you, because fnorks are purple and you are not - then please, tell me from whose ass you pulled that prerequisite of fnorkishness - and how *it* does not conflict with *my* meaning, and not vice-versa.

Similarly, on what grounds do you deny that ordering-of-friend-killing is moral, and thus possible for god?

IRON MAN

Initially I thought this to be a nonsense question of the, "Can God make a boulder so big he can't lift it", variety too, but I'm not so sure that's the case.

I think it boils down to this:

Say you create a robot, and it has built in standing orders.

1. Do not kill.
2. Obey it's creator.

(Not in any order of importance)

Then you order it to kill.

There is a conflict between your standing order and your current order.

The "morality" exists seperately from it's creator inside the robot, (in the form of a standing order), but the fact is it was put there by the creator of the robot in the first place.

There is no third party in existence that can say that is right or wrong, (as far as the robot is concerned).

There is only one thing in the universe that makes killing "wrong" to any degree, and that is the standing order that exists inside you seperately from God, but that was put there by God in the first place. He is also choosing to allow you the choice.

Furthermore:

The "moral" of no killing is somewhat arbitrary to the robot, it could as easily be:

1. Never use a left-handed can opener to open a can of asparagus.

The question seems further complicated by the fact the robot appears to have standing orders to identify it's creator by his behavior, but these are cancelled by the condition in the OP question, that you definately know it's Him, no matter how fucked up the command is.