betzerdg

So here we go again using subjective definition and terminology to describe and argue for the existent/non-existence of G-d and "good". But hey...I guess it's all we have to work with..so here goes.

The concept of "good" is completely foreign and meaningless without the concept of "not good". And so was, in the beginning, G-d....all G-d....all (use a bunch of definitions here...subjectively to mean "good" ie. love, compassion, etc.)...and when G-d chose to create...He of necessity had to contract HIMSELF...as omnipresent, boundless and ALL and create boundaries....that which was NOT GOD. IN this "Void" of NOt G-d (comparible maybe to a black hole.) HE took parts of HIMSELF and created the universe. This first creation was the WORD....the created G-d in this level of emmanation, (time space).

NOw we are left with a problem. For there to be NOT G-D, there is a possibility for NOT GOOD. In other words all that opposes G-d can be present in time and space. And thus YESHUA, YAH's salvation was slain from the foundation of the world....because of the necessity of free will and mankind being NOT G-D...it was inevidible that "evil" would rear it's ugly head!

Now we subjectively define "good" and "evil"....yet good is only a restoration of the attributes of G-d in this world, and "Evil" is a negation of the attributes of G-d. So....basically...G-d alone is the definition we have for "good".....theoretically.

But does G-d ever leave us Theoretical.....NOPE....HE SHOWS us by giving Torah and commandments what HE looks like. The entire sacrificial system was G-d's revelation of HIMSELF, sacrificing H is own "perfect" existence.....and now has the enormous task of eridicating the NOT G-D present in HIS WORLD. And when we still don't get it....HE HIMSELF enters this world of emmanation, creation, and shows us YESHUA. Actually sacrificing HIMSELF in time and space....to bring restoration.

Of course, if you don't acknowledge a god, then, basically we are left with a very subjective, distorted and unknowable concept of "good"....EXCEPT for the fact that all of mankind is created in this IMAGE of ELOHIM....and therefore have a witness within ourselves....of what is "good" and we have to dig thru a bunch of subjective, baised self-centeredness to find it.

Thus the christian concept fo "asking Jesus into your "heart"...or existence...because as JEREMIAH 31 says...He is the law now confirmed and internalized in our existence.

Shalom,

Betzer

the_cave

I'm pretty sure this thread is just going to be a rehash of what's been argued elsewhere on this board many times, but here goes anyway.

First, I wonder why God couldn't simply be what s/he is apart from creation, yet be "good" relative to that creation. It would simply mean that God is a thing that is morally good in relation to another thing, even if s/he were "not good or bad" in isolation from anything else.

Your argument would also demonstrate the contingency of all morality, with or without god; hence, it necessarily entails moral relativism. It's unclear whether you're arguing for this or not.

Why does freedom entail arbitrariness? The argument is merely that freedom is a good that is greater than, for example, telepathy. If you want to argue that telepathy is a greater good than freedom, fine, but you would have to do that before you claimed that freedom is an arbitrarily valued good.

Yes, our old friend Euthyphro. The problem, which I think is confusing the issue here (as it often does), has to do with the meaning of "because".

If an act is only moral because some being G has said so, then that being's moral value is arbitrary. However, if it is moral because of some quality which that being G posesses, then it would not necessarily be arbitrary. For example, if that being G is morally good, then its moral pronouncements would plausibly also be moral.

Aha, you might say, but how do we know that being is good? In light of what is that being good? If it's good, what makes it so? If it didn't create goodness, than its goodness is contingent...but if it did create goodness, then goodness is arbitrary...which was your first question.

But what if that being is identical to goodness itself? Still unsatisfactory, you might say, since in light of what could it be good? Well...I still say your problem actually has to do with morality in general. It seems you would think that any morality would be arbitrary, since in a materialist world, it would be a contingent quality (contingent on being created by an arbitrary universe.) Is that what you think?

Yet even in such a universe, it would be a quality of that universe itself--which I guess could make morality itself arbitrary; it would simply be that which we humans happened to find good.

Is there really a problem here? If we find something good, whether it's arbitrary or not, it's still good. Yes?

philechat

To judge God good relative to the "creation" would require the created (humans) to participate in moral valuation. If morality is contingent, all parties affected must participate in the judgement of God's goodness.

Yes, so we humans are the final valuer of all things good, as you stated in your last paragraph. This forces us humans to decide good and evil independent of God, showing God to NOT be the determiner of good and evil.

cpickett

Welcome!

I've heard this argument before, yet it doesn't seem to cover that fact that Good is a relative term, as such it requires an opposite before it means anything. You can't have good without evil, or vice versa, an act without either would not be good or evil, it would just be... In Christian terms, God has always existed and is the only God, God is not relative. Because of this God has no comparison of Evil so that he can be definitively Good, God just is. This in no way precludes him from being good, but it also does not preclude him from being evil. The only way for a God to be the definitive definition of Good would be to have an equally Evil counterpart, but then you lose your monotheistic belief system.

You would also have a new problem of deciding which God is evil and which is good, especially since a truly Evil God would lie and say he isn't...

the_cave

But what if we found god to be good? Wouldn't god then be good?

I'm claiming that your argument isn't just an argument against god's morality--it's an argument against all forms of objective morality. Which is fine, that's certainly one side of the argument (not the side I'm on, though), I'm just making it clear.

If there are objective goods, then in a sense they determine for us what's good and what isn't. You would claim their authority would be "arbitrary"--but if we thought they're good anyway, what's the problem? To me, god isn't ordering people around--he's showing people what's good (leaving aside entirely the question of what exactly god thinks is good.) A discussion about whether good is objective or subjective should probably be left to the many threads on this board devoted to the subject.

philechat

God would be good in our opinions--and if God also think himself good we (that is human and God) have an agreement on God's goodness.
Fine. I am a "subjectivist" so it would be the problem of another forum. The question is whether there could be morality independent of valuers--and if God decides morality, wouldn't he become a valuer himself?
Fine. I believe in some kind of aesthetic objectivity (with multiple standards however) but not moral objectivity. Perhaps it would be a different topic of discussion altogether.

the_cave

Very interesting question--I'll have to think about that one! Thanks for asking it.