Can God make a bad law?
It seems to me that what god considers right and wrong is not the same thing as what humans consider right and wrong although there is a large overlap in these matters.
God's laws are primarily concerned with sin. What humans consider right and wrong is the field of ethics.
To kill another person needlessly is part of the overlap. It is both a sin and morally wrong in the minds of most humans and the same goes for stealing.
To bow down before a graven image is a sin and thus wrong in the eyes of god but is it ethically wrong (if rather unusual these days) for a person to worship a carved figure of his own devising? It is certainly not a crime.
God does not forbid cruelty to animals (as far as I know, I'm not an expert on the bible) although many humans consider this a bad thing to do.
Adultery is another instance, it breaks religious law and is considered morally wrong by many people but is not considered a crime in most countries.
The difference in what we today consider ethical and what god considers to be correct, is the difference between our outlook today and the outlook of the men who wrote gods laws originally. Their world view was very different from ours but in some instances what they considered wrong agreed with our thoughts today i.e it is wrong to murder.
So god (his inventors) can create any laws at all and they needn't be considered ethical by humans, he is a supreme being after all, but a god in this category, of creating unjust laws, will soon find himself short of followers.
So, God CAN be bad by making laws that humans consider wrong, but he mustn't go too far, for in doing so he will spell the end of his own existence as humans will soon discard him and create a fresh deity more to their liking.
I had taken huntingbear's position in regards to this modified Euthyphro's Dilemma to be that what is good is good because it is deemed so when measured against some standard that is independent of his god. Where this moral code comes from if not from his god is not of central importance (if it arises as a consequence of a larger set of logical laws then so be it). For as much as is stated within the above, I agree with huntingbear.
If this is so and the assumptions of your proof are valid then his god is bounded by morality because (huntingbear apparently concedes this) his god is bounded by logic. This implies that their are some rules of existence that govern even his god.
When looking over huntingbear's response to the opening thread, I noticed that once he chooses the second position (He refers to this as choice 'B.'😉, but he objects to the implication that this independent morality is "higher" than his god. I have taken that to mean that he believes his god is not bounded by this independent moral code. I had not taken "higher" to mean that the moral code diminished "the glory or majesty or power of God." Thus as I understood him up to that point your proof seemed only to reinforce that this morality was binding on his god which would be consistent with Euthyphro's Dilemma as I understand it.
I have never taken Euthyphro's Dilemma to be a problem to the existence of any gods, but rather as a conundrum to those who posit that a divine source is necessary for morality.
Originally posted by QuirineWow, if I could I had given you 64 recs.
Your question: "Suppose that God says that action X is good and action Y is bad, whatever X and Y are. Is that sufficient to make X and Y good or bad?
This is the general question I would like you to answer. "
My answer: I do not think that God ever said something was good or bad. So for me this whole line of reasoning is not relevant.
I have several ...[text shortened]... d is saying God is bad. There's just no point in doing that.
PS: I do believe in God
Otto
It will always lead to trouble when we attribute God with whatever.
fjord
Originally posted by telerionI wish to extend my thanks to you on two counts. First, I thank you for taking some time read my post and make comments. Second, I thank you for pointing out that Paul Dirac's post may have some relevance to Aiden's. For denying this I extend to Aiden, and especially to Paul Dirac, my sincere apologies.
I think it is relevant if we are taking the second position, huntingbear. Again, I think that one can conclude from this position that a good/evil standard can be appealed to independently of God. If so then Paul Dirac is simply pointing out that the actions of the OT god do not line up well with what many people would consider good/evil. I agree with him. In fact, I'd extend the same judgement to the god(s) (trinity) of the NT.
I maintain, however, that Dirac's post was in no way a reply to mine, because he addressed a point I never did.
This goes just as well for the question of whether morality can be perceived and understood independent of A) God's command, and B) special relationship with Him. I did not address this question in my post.
I will have much more to say to you on the weekend, my new friend. I generally do not permit myself time on RHP during the week, as I have other pressing concerns. I made exception today because I thought about your post while at work today and realized that I owed Paul Dirac an apology. Giving it to him is something I did not want to postpone.
Thanks again, telerion, and God bless you.
Originally posted by telerionYou ask:
Now I think we encounter the first question that must be asked when debating anything about the nature of "God."
Question:
What is this "God" thing you are talking about?
Theists have such widely varying definitions or descriptions of what "God" is that we cannot assume that we are having a discussion about the same sort of thing.
In thi ...[text shortened]... god to be "all there is", whatever that means (Does this mean "God" is the universe?) .
Question:
What is this "God" thing you are talking about?
Just like man has a soul/spirit/consciousness (whatever you like to call it) so have all animals, plants, rocks, cells, bacteria etc.
The soul/spirit/consciousness of a man is a "higher" order than that of the organs/cells the body of that man consists of. So is the soul/spirit/consciousness of all humanity a "higher" order than that of a single man/woman. So is the soul/spirit/consciousness of all there is a "higher" order than that of humanity.
The soul/spirit/consciousness of all there is is what I call God.
Otto
It could be argued that God is bound by moral law, and logic. But it makes as much sense to say that God is the creator of the moral law and logic. But would this would lead to a God that could change the law? If we are speaking about the God of the Bible, then we must add additional characteristics: God is eternal and unchanging. So the Creator of all things (good, evil, logic, physics) has fixed these laws for all time, to which the creationis bound. God is not bound to them, but neither does He change them.
So the question could God create a bad law is the same as huntingbear's It's like asking if God can create a triangle with four sides. And I agree with bbarr's conclusion Hence, just as God can't create a round square, or bring it about that 2 + 2 = 5 (regardless of what Descartes claimed), so God can't act contrary to the moral law, since He is presumably perfectly rational.
If God is God, then he exists outside of time. He is eternal. Change is a function of time. God does not change because He is not subject to time. The moral law does not change because it was created by an unchanging God.
Originally posted by ColettiFunny cause God sure does seem to change is mind quite a bit in the Bible.
It could be argued that God is bound by moral law, and logic. But it makes as much sense to say that God is the creator of the moral law and logic. But would this would lead to a God that could change the law? If we are speaking about the God of the Bible, then we must add additional characteristics: God is eternal and unchanging. So the Creator of all t ...[text shortened]... not subject to time. The moral law does not change because it was created by an unchanging God.
Originally posted by telerionThat is debatable. He appears to change His mind at times, but you would have to first assume He did not know what He was going to do to start with, or that He was subject to time.
Funny cause God sure does seem to change is mind quite a bit in the Bible.
What examples would you give?
Originally posted by ColettiSure here is a quick one.
That is debatable. He appears to change His mind at times, but you would have to first assume He did not know what He was going to do to start with, or that He was subject to time.
What examples would you give?
Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 6:5-7.
First we learn that "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."
Great! God decided to make creation, and it worked out. He is happy with things. So much so he decides to take a break on the seventh day.
But then time goes by and along comes Gen 6. Ah yes, that classic myth, the Great Flood.
"God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." (emphasis mine)
Leaving aside that God is unfairly judging all the non-human life, clearly he has changed his mind about making creation.
Perhaps you will argue that he knew he would regret things in the first place. So it wasn't like he was changing his mind. But then why make it to begin with? Perhaps something better is yet to come? But if this the case, then why get upset about it later in Gen 6. I mean he knew it wasn't gonna work out the first time, right? No big surprise. It's all part of the plan, yeah?
If God is not changing his mind here then I think that this "God" thing has some serious psychological problems or maybe memory loss.
Originally posted by telerion
Sure here is a quick one.
Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 6:5-7.
First we learn that "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."
Great! God decided to make creation, and it worked out. He is happy with things. ...[text shortened]... hing has some serious psychological problems or maybe memory loss.
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
It is strangely worded - "it repented the LORD." It does not say he regretted it, but that it repented the LORD. Nor does it say He was surprised, or changed his mind. It does say that it "grieved him at his heart". I would say then that God was showing his anger against mankind who turned from God.
The previous verse explains
(v5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Remember, God is eternal. There is no such thing as surprising God. He explains why He destroyed man from the face of the earth. God frequently shows his displeasure with man. What is man that God should even give any consideration to him? If God wishes to turn all to dust, who are we to argue?
Job 7:17:
What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him?
Psalms 8:4:
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psalms 144:3:
LORD, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him!
Hebrews 2:6:
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
The answer is obvious - man is nothing compared to God.