16 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayObviously it can't be both, not only because I listed three choices, but also because the choices I listed are logically incompatible. It can't be the case that something is good in virtue of God declaring it to be so, and also that that same something is good in virtue of something else.
I'd say both
16 Jul 08
1 edit
Perhaps we can approach the question differently.
Does the correctness of God's declarations about what is good derive from his omnipotence (entailing the power to impart goodness where it would otherwise be lacking) or his omniscience (entailing the ability to assess what is good and inform us accordingly)?
Or are God's declarations about what is good sometimes incorrect?
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOriginally posted by josephw
If 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.
"If that's what evil is, shouldn't good be that way too?"
Keep in mind I said that evil is something done. One can do good as well. But the original question was whether what was created was good in and of itself, or was it good because God said so?
I pointed out that that the scripture says that God "saw" that it was good, and had not specifically "said" it was good. So, it appears that what God created was good by it's own virtue, and not good just because God said so.
The conclusion, for me at least, is that evil has no material properties as does that which was created, and therefore must have a cause.
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesGod only does good. Even when it looks bad to us.
Perhaps we can approach the question differently.
Does the correctness of God's declarations about what is good derive from his omnipotence (entailing the power to impart goodness where it would otherwise be lacking) or his omniscience (entailing the ability to assess what is good and inform us accordingly)?
Or are God's declarations about what is good sometimes incorrect?
God doesn't make mistakes.
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by josephwHere's a question: is evil necessary? Many Christians have argued to me here that God wants us to choose to be good. If that's God's purpose - for us to choose him - then evil must be available as an option, or else there would be no choice. So maybe God can create evil to serve his purposes, which are good.
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.
If evil is an act, then God essentially created it when he created beings were capable of that act, i.e. beings with free will. He created the possibility to choose evil.
21 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI always thought the absurdity of Divine Command Theory as a theory of ethics can be illustrated by extending it to aethestics.
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.
Take a tropical sunset versus a rubbish tip. Most people would agree that the former is more beautiful than the latter. Some might even be willing to say that the difference in beauty between the two is objective. But let's concede it's just a matter of intrasubjective agreement, and evolved normative evaluative tendencies of some sort. Regardless, wouldn't it be absurd to suppose that any being, no matter how powerful, could make a tropical sunset more beautiful than a rubbish tip (or indeed, vice versa) by simply *declaring* it to be so? The aethestic properties of some object are just not the sort of thing that can be declared; they can merely be appreciated. I think exactly the same goes for ethical properties of acts as for the aesthetical properties of things.
So:
Could God make rubbish tips beautiful by fiat?
No.
Could God make an incommensurately infinite excruciating punishment for finite crime committed by evil people ethical by fiat?
No.
Some people worry that, without God to set the standard, there is no basis to ethics. Question: should there be a similar worry about standard-setting in aesthetics? If God doesn't exist, might I have to worry that Bach's Contrapuntus XIV isn't objectively hauntingly beautiful?
Somehow, I'm not worried. Similarly, I'm not worried that God isn't around to sanction Bach's music. However, if God exists, I suspect he would appreciate Bach's music as one of his finer human creations.
21 Jul 08
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeNice post.
I always thought the absurdity of Divine Command Theory as a theory of ethics can be illustrated by extending it to aethestics.
Take a tropical sunset versus a rubbish tip. Most people would agree that the former is more beautiful than the latter. Some might even be willing to say that the difference in beauty between the two is objective. But let's ...[text shortened]... ists, I suspect he would appreciate Bach's music as one of his finer human creations.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by darthmixEvil and discontent are both socially necessary for a vital functioning civilization. Without either there can be no human progress. There's nothing especially religious about that.
Here's a question: is evil necessary? Many Christians have argued to me here that God wants us to choose to be good. If that's God's purpose - for us to choose him - then evil must be available as an option, or else there would be no choice. So maybe God can create evil to serve his purposes, which are good.
If evil is an act, then God essentially create ...[text shortened]... e capable of that act, i.e. beings with free will. He created the possibility to choose evil.