15 Jul 08
Let's rehash it. It's been a while.
Are good things good in virtue of God declaring them to be so, or are such declarations simply informative with the goodness deriving from something else, or is there no meaningful correspondence between what is good and what God declares to be good.
Here we go.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesGen.1:31
Let's rehash it. It's been a while.
Are good things good in virtue of God declaring them to be so, or are such declarations simply informative with the goodness deriving from something else, or is there no meaningful correspondence between what is good and what God declares to be good.
Here we go.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
Well, it doesn't say God said it was very good. It just says it was very good. So I don't think we can say it was good because God made the declaration.
I think it was good by virtue of it's own goodness.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCould you clarify what you mean by "good"? I suppose you mean morally good, but as josephw has suggested, everything could be considered ontologically good by virtue of its creation by God.
Let's rehash it. It's been a while.
Are good things good in virtue of God declaring them to be so, or are such declarations simply informative with the goodness deriving from something else, or is there no meaningful correspondence between what is good and what God declares to be good.
Here we go.
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau KI think josesph was claiming that God made some stuff that was, by its nature, good. That is, that this stuff is intrinsically good (which might be what you mean by 'ontologically good'😉 and does not possess its goodness by virtue of being created by God. This view amounts to a denial of Divine Command Theory, though it is consistent with some versions of the Natural Law Theory.
I just inferred that from the quote. I thought it was what he was getting at.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by bbarrYes, I can see that. But I still that there is an ambiguity about what we mean by "good". By ontologically good, I mean that something is good irrespective of whatever moral value we assign it (so, for example, it might be in some culture immoral to eat roast on Friday; if someone eats roast on a Friday, that action would not be morally good but it could still be ontologically good as the roast may be particularly succulent.) At least in Catholicism, everything is ontologically good by the fact that it is created by God, though not necessarily morally good.
I think josesph was claiming that God made some stuff that was, by its nature, good. That is, that this stuff is intrinsically good (which might be what you mean by 'ontologically good'😉 and does not possess its goodness by virtue of being created by God. This view amounts to a denial of Divine Command Theory, though it is consistent with some versions of the Natural Law Theory.
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau KYou seem to have very confused notions about the concepts relevant to the topic at hand.
Yes, I can see that. But I still that there is an ambiguity about what we mean by "good". By ontologically good, I mean that something is good irrespective of whatever moral value we assign it (so, for example, it might be in some culture immoral to eat roast on Friday; if someone eats roast on a Friday, that action would not be morally good but it could st ...[text shortened]... ontologically good by the fact that it is created by God, though not necessarily morally good.
Do you think child molestation is ontologically [sic] good? How about condoms and abortion?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
16 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAs an atheist, I am skeptical about the notion of "ontologically good." I am just repeating what some Christians believe. And by their criteria of what is ontologically good, child molestation, condoms and abortion have some degree of goodness.
You seem to have very confused notions about the concepts relevant to the topic at hand.
Do you think child molestation is ontologically [sic] good? How about condoms and abortion?
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'd say both, and God allows the universe to unfold so what He says is
Let's rehash it. It's been a while.
Are good things good in virtue of God declaring them to be so, or are such declarations simply informative with the goodness deriving from something else, or is there no meaningful correspondence between what is good and what God declares to be good.
Here we go.
good will prove itself so in the end too.
Kelly
16 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by darthmixIf God created the universe, how could it be anything but good?
It's almost as if God didn't know it was going to be good when he made it. He made it, and said, hey, whaddya know? This is pretty good.
This causes me to question whether God created evil. That would require that evil would be something that was created. It doesn't seem that evil is a "thing", or an object with material properties that can be created.
I think evil is an act. It is something one thinks, says, or does.
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by josephwIf that's what evil is, shouldn't good be that way too? Or are they fundamentally different sorts of things and not simply antonyms?
If God created the universe, how could it be anything but good?
This causes me to question whether God created evil. That would require that evil would be something that was created. It doesn't seem that evil is a "thing", or an object with material properties that can be created.
I think evil is an act. It is something one thinks, says, or does.