Euthyphro's Dilemma

[SteveB28]

God's nature is not good because he says so, I know it because he said so. God's nature is good because it's good. It's just so. Now I admit it might take a step of faith to believe that.

No it takes less than a "step of faith". It just requires a complete absence of thought.

 

[Moral Orel]

Here's what I think: we were made in God's image and we have a conscience allowing us to make moral judgment.

But we had to eat from a tree to have any understanding of good and evil, and that was after we were already made in His image. So our conscience can't be the part of His image that we embody. Personally, I think the "in His image" bit just means that God looks like a human, based on how much the OT hates all the other gods that look like animals. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the original intention.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you recall that all these people were wicked?

Yup. Wicked babies... wicked toddlers... wicked invalids... wicked animals... wicked insects... wicked plants...

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yup. Wicked babies... wicked toddlers... wicked invalids... wicked animals... wicked insects... wicked plants...

Yes, but the fish, whales, and dolphins were apparently not wicked.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm sure you are aware that you disagreeing or rejecting a claim is not the same as refuting it.

True.
But I didn't just disagree. Too bad you didn't understand the point, then.

It's funny how you avoided the parts where I dealt with this.

You didn't deal with it in any way.

There is no reason to believe God should not permit what He permits. In addition, God is wholly good, therefore there's no reason to doubt him, his motivations or his actions.

God is good because the bible says so and the bible is correct because god says so in the bible, I bet?

Merely defining god as being good, does not make it so.
Regardless of that obvious point, you're not actually addressing my point. In fact, you're just confirming it.

You don't have a moral compass. What you have, is obedience to a perceived (and unquestionable) authority.

That's not a proper moral compass. That's just obedience. That's the "morality" of psychopaths.

In such a morality, something isn't good for such and such reason. Nope. Something is good, because the authority of choice says so.

Meaning, if god says to rape, pillage and murder - then by definition it is good to rape, pillage and murder.

I've made a clear distinction before in the thread between our moral obligations and God's.

You also made it clear that god's are the authority. And if god says it's okay, then it's okay - no matter what it is.

It's interesting how you have a way of demeaning what I say, and remembering only what suits you. Is that what you call intellectual honesty?

I didn't see you state anything anywhere that counters the point I raised.
You are welcome to point me to such a statement, if you think I'm wrong about that. And if true - I'll happily except that I'm wrong.

 

[Davian]

Well, obviously, no.

It's not obvious. You declared the act of allowing the rape of children to happen, when one could interfere without fear of repercussions to be wrong in post #3, and that is exactly what your [hypothetical] god does every day.

Again, it is not a false dilemma simply because it isn't even a dilemma to begin with. Notice what I said. I did not say it has to be either this or that. I said, if a choice must be made between this or that, this is the best choice, comparatively. I was talking about moral standards as existing from God compared to outside of God. This was an evaluation of two choices, not a proposition of two choices that one must choose from.

It is a false dilemma, in that there are other options. That is the criteria by which it becomes a false dilemma.

What I mean by person is that clearly we are superior in worth (intrinsic value) and abilities (cognitive for one) than other created things, such as matter or plants or animals. The moment we were created, we were as we are now; people. (But please, let us not debate on this here nor now)

Definition: God= A Person
As for testable and falsifiable, I don't know many definitions that can meet those standards...

Human being: a person, made in the image and likeness of God.

I still do not know what you mean. What would this person live on and breathe prior to the formation of the Earth and the existence of properly oxygenated atmosphere?

I'm sorry? I don't recall deleting anything, especially not something you quoted from me. The main things I edit out are orthography mistakes, when I notice them. If I ever I did what you say, it was not intentional and without dishonest intentions. I don’t understand why you seem to take for granted that I would use such dishonest methods, voluntarily, in this discussion. Moreover, I checked our last posts and I don't see what you're talking about.

In your post #17, you deleted everything in my post below where I asked, "where?".

We ought not. God is not a human.

I do not know what a "God" is. You say he is a 'person' and the only 'persons' I know are human. They eat, they breathe, they are subject to entropy. What is he?

He never does wrong.

You have him doing acts that you have declared to be wrong.

You either did not read or did not understand what I wrote earlier, even though I quoted it for you. Please provide an answer to this question if you wish to continue using your argument: Why is God doing wrong by allowing certain evils to happen?

You are the one that declared the act described in post #2 to be wrong. This conundrum is yours, not mine.

I believe that your god does not interfere because he is only imaginary.

I see you are persevering in your mistaken understanding of the Gospel. We discussed this in our last discussion, I think. Now, let me answer you again, perhaps I did not explain it well last time. If ever you bring this point up again, though, I will simply quote myself. The idea of "believing" is relevant only because of what it means. The point is to be reconciled with God.

How can one be reconciled with the fictional? Does that problem not need to be dealt with first? And what about virtually all of the scientific knowledge that need be wildly inaccurate in order for the stories in the Bible to be accurate descriptions of reality?

The idea is to accept personally what Jesus did for us and therefore be forgiven in God's eyes of all our sins. Yes, all can be forgiven, and a great price was paid for that forgiveness: the Son of God's death.

What death? A bad weekend, and then become some sort of immortal? With superpowers? Where was the sacrifice, exactly?

Someone who seeks this forgiveness will feel great shame for their sins and will want to turn away from them, as much as possible.

You seem to contradict yourself here; if all can be forgiven, why would you (if you thought there was anything to this religious stuff) turn away from a theology that boils down to, anything goes, as long as you believe?

Why do you try to make this sound as cheap justice? God himself died for this!

God is dead then? Or not? You are all over the place here.

I must also add that what is wrong in God's eyes is much much wider than what you mentioned. We are all morally guilty before God.

Guilty of what?

Again, this goes back to what I said, He is Holy,

A 'god' is 'godly'. How circular.

entirely and perfectly good.

How can one be perfectly good?

The only solution is Jesus Christ.

Who died but didn't die.

When God asks me "why should I let you enter Heaven?" I shall respond "Because I am innocent before you, because of your Son's self-sacrifice

What was the sacrifice?

for me, I am to be considered just, like him". We all deserve to go to Hell, away from Him.

Why?

You twist my words. That has nothing to do with my position. I never said to stand indifferent before evil and not to do anything. I was just saying that we don't have the choice; there is suffering.

Then you need to be clear about what you are saying. What's wrong about you allowing the rape of children if you are confident that your God will make it up to them one day? They may live another 60 or seventy years, carrying the memory of being brutalized, but it seems to be okay by you. Can you clarify here?

At least I have a hope that there is an end to this. Something atheists don't have the luxury of considering because of their rejection of their only Hope: God. Hence my motivation of sharing my knowledge of this truth: there is hope!

There is wishful thinking.

Since you're so keen on logical fallacy accusations, that was a strawman argument.

If it was, you have not explained how so.

I know that.

So you believe.

It's a miracle we're alive to begin with.

What is a miracle? Is it like finding your lost keys in time to make it to work? Like finding a parking space right in front of the movie theatre?

Again, you are supposing that he didn't know what he was doing... I have the feeling that reason won't be very useful in this discussion.

I would say it is never too late to start.

What on earth are you talking about? Please explain what you just said. How does it contradict God's nature being good? Why do you say He "needs" reasons to be considered good? I see no such contradiction.

In post #3 you declared the act I described in post #2 to be wrong. In that same post you say "Again, unless one can prove that God doesn't have a "morally sufficient reason" one cannot say God is failing a duty."

You are the one asking that I prove that your god doesn't have reasons to do this 'wrong' in question, implying that if there were no reasons, your god would no longer be good.

So you have your god committing an act that you have declared to be wrong, but justifying that act by hypothesizing that he must have a good reasons (reasons we have no access to) to justify doing that wrong.

You know, that was a response to the implicit objection that "God has no good reasons for allowing the evil we witness to occur". And the answer was: How on earth do you know that?

That was not the objection that I am making. Are you working from a script?

 

[Athée]

Hey,
These were a couple questions from a post you didn't respond to. I assume it is because you are trying to converse with multiple people Anyway looking forward to your responses to these.

Lol I like the addition there Honestly, we'll done for actually going to read what the book says. ..now let's see if we can do something about those rose coloured glasses....
Based on the exodus passage what would the punishment be for beating a slave so badly that they hemorrhage internally and die 4 days after the beating?

And ...

It is a bit worse than that actually. Why does God say not to own fellow isrealites?
In any case we have here an instance where you are seeing something in God's perfect law that God has comanded that you find problematic, specifically the owning of other humans as property that can be passed on. So how did you determine that this command of God is problematic, what does this tell you about the source of your morality ?

OK now to respond to your thoughts.

God's nature is not good because he says so, I know it because he said so. God's nature is good because it's good. It's just so. Now I admit it might take a step of faith to believe that.

When you say God's nature is good, how do you evaluate this idea? I know God says his nature is good and that is how you know but if you wanted to be sure how would you check?

No, God won't change tomorrow. He's unchangeable! His good nature won't change. He won't start liking something He used to hate. He won't consider good what he once considered wrong. Contrary to Euthyphro's gods, I'm talking about the only God that truly exists, and he is consistent with himself. Always. Forever.

So are you stating unequivocally that your God is unchangeable, that is, once he makes a clear statement about something he will never change his mind? Unrelated question. ..if you decieve someone, specifically so that they will believe something that is not true, are you guilty of lying? And is lying a sin? What about if you knowingly send someone to lie on your behalf, does it make it OK because someone else physically told the lie or are are you still guilty because you were the one who ordered it?

Fair enough. Although, if you do believe there is better explanation than God for good and evil, right and wrong, to exist, now would have been a good time to say it and show how nonsensical what all I'm saying is. That is also if you believe morality to be more than an illusion, like I do. In fact, it seems to be the case of everyone here accusing God.

I don't belive evil exists, it is a religious word that doesn't comport with reality that I can see. I base my morality in the principle of minimizing harm.This doesn't make a god based morality impossible but it is an alternative hypothesis.

I'm sorry? What is this standard?

Knowledge is a subset if belief, specifically it is usually defines as justified, true belief. So when you say that God is good this is a statement of belief not of knowledge.

Yeah... God sure doesn't mess around when it comes to justice.

Do you recall that all these people were wicked?

Please explain how the foetus in its mother's womb was wicked, or all the trees that drowned?
Also remember this whole thing was God's plan to begin with. He planed for the fall to happen, and one brother to murder the other etc etc up to the point where he would need to drown almost everyone to death, while knowing ahead of time that this wouldn't fix anything and that he would still have to come to earth as himself to kill himself so that he could serve as a loophole for rules he set up to punish actions he predestined, thereby actualizing a system in which his glory ends up with most of his ensouled, image bearing creature, end up in a hell he made for someone else but knew they would end up in any way because they were not part of the elect that God predestined to save (whether they wanted to believe or not thereby obviating free will).
So please explain how it is that God is good again...I seem to be reading a different book than you.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Firstly, as the Canadian apologist Michael Horner said "we must not confuse 'I know of no good reason' with 'God knows of no good reason". In other words, we are not like God and we cannot assume that God thinks like us nor that he has the same moral obligations as us. So unless one can prove that there is such a thing as unjustified evil in the world, that is evil without a good reason to be allowed, then one can not say God is in the wrong. Again, unless one can prove that God doesn't have a "morally sufficient reason", as Michael Horner puts it, one cannot say God is failing a duty. Let's face it, if God exists and he is who we think he is (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) then one has no reason to disbelieve that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil that occurs.

Given the definition of "good" that I use (and frankly everyone I know), if an omnipotent god can create a universe where evil doesn't exist and doesn't, then there can be no "morally sufficient reason" not to because the very act of not creating that universe breaks the definition of "good". The lack of knowledge argument is immaterial, and frankly a smoke screen.

Secondly, if there is such a thing as free-will and that God meant us to have it, then he created us with the power and the possibility to do evil. Hence the existence of evil done by man. Couldn't God have created a world with no evil? Of course. However not one where there is freedom, and a world with free creatures is better than a world without. So this world must be the ideal world, with the most good possible and the least evil possible, better than no world at all, since God created it.

It's demonstrably true that an omnipotent god could have created up with the free will to choose to do evil, but without the inclination to do evil.

 

[Sapiens]

Alright! Listen up everybody!

Here's a little synthesis of our discussion thus far:

1. Moral Argument

1.1 If God doesn't exist, then objective moral values and duties don't exist.

1.2 Objective moral values and duties do exist.

1.3 Therefore God exists.

2. Objection: Euthyphro Dilemma

Is something good because God says it is or does he say it is because it is good?

3. Response: Neither, God is good. He is the paradigm of goodness. Anything unligned with his nature is evil.

(Here is the important part!)

4. Objection: God is not all good, for he allows evil. An all-good God would not allow evil.

5. Response: God has a good reason for allowing the evil that exists to exist. If God exists, and he is all-good, then there are no unjustified evil existing.

6. Objection: You (the theist) have no proof that God is all-good, or that he even is the paradigm of goodness.

7. My response now: it is irrelevant.

Now here was my clumsy mistake: It is you (the non-theist) who is arguing against God being the paradigm of goodness and being unable to be the sole explanation of the existence of moral values and duties. If you wish to take this position, and if you wish to use the Euthyphro Dilemma, then the burden of proof falls on you, not me. You must prove that God cannot be a viable ontological foundation for morality.

You have yet to prove these two points:

1. Morality can exist without God.

2. God is evil or at least not all-good, for there are unjustified evils that exist (evil permitted without any good reason).

I assume here that people participating accept premiss two of the moral argument. Otherwise, you don't have much ground for arguing about evil.

 

[Sapiens]

I think that the real issue in Euthyphro is not understood properly.

It's not about whether or not a standard of piety is "external" to a God, but about whether or not this standard is something the God either accepts as real and unchangeable, or as fully a matter of that God's whim.

Even if a standard is "part" of God in some mysterious way, that's not the point. God would still be discerning that the standard exists as an unchangeable part of his nature, or that the standard is merely an arbitrary matter of God's choice.

The dilemma doesn't truly go away by trying to identify it as "internal" to God. God either recognizes reality, or issues arbitrary decrees.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well I think that's more your opinion though. At, least it's not the understanding of the dilemma that I know. What you say is closer to what I believe.

By the way, reality was created by God.

Well, yeah, it does go away. There is no more problem to say that God is the consistent source of morality.

By the way again, I really like the picture in your signature!

 

[Moral Orel]

God is evil or at least not all-good, for there are unjustified evils that exist (evil permitted without any good reason).

Well this one is easy, and I already answered it, but you haven't responded yet.

Evil exists. There is no discernible reason for it existing given an omnipotent being who could simply have never made it exist in the first place (He created the light and the dark, don't forget).

Your response was free will. If we can't do evil acts, then we can't have free will. Well, God can't do evil acts, so God doesn't have free will.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm (not so) sure you are aware that I don't have to refute a claim that has no evidential support. What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

I haven't seen you support the claim that "god knows best" or that there is even a god to know things in the first place.

(Here is the important part!)

4. Objection: God is not all good, for he allows evil. An all-good God would not allow evil.

5. Response: God has a good reason for allowing the evil that exists to exist. If God exists, and he is all-good, then there are no unjustified evil existing.

6. Objection: You (the theist) have no proof that God is all-good, or that he even is the paradigm of goodness.

7. My response now: it is irrelevant.

Now here was my clumsy mistake: It is you (the non-theist) who is arguing against God being the paradigm of goodness and being unable to be the sole explanation of the existence of moral values and duties. If you wish to take this position, and if you wish to use the Euthyphro Dilemma, then the burden of proof falls on you, not me. You must prove that God cannot be a viable ontological foundation for morality.

You have yet to prove these two points:

1. Morality can exist without God.

2. God is evil or at least not all-good, for there are unjustified evils that exist (evil permitted without any good reason).

I haven't seen you support the claim that "god knows best" or that there is even a god to know things in the first place.

Here's at least one: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-moral-argument.7935966/

Sure. And then you went on to say that if we consider something to be evil, and god doesn't, then it's not evil.

So if god thinks slavery is okay, then slavery is okay. No matter how we feel about it. Correct?

No.

"I've made a clear distinction before in the thread between our moral obligations and God's."

Do you understand this statement? You yourself quoted it from me.

God is to us what a father is to a child. Do I really need to explain the difference?

5. Response: God has a good reason for allowing the evil that exists to exist. If God exists, and he is all-good, then there are no unjustified evil existing.

His good reasons, or motivations, are rooted in his perfectly good nature. Moreover, he is omniscient, therefore he has a [MUCH] wider scope of what is going on, and what will happen, than us. God always knows the best thing to do, in any and every situation.

 

[Sapiens]

This would be an answer to the question, "why does God will things?". But that isn't the question in Euthypro's dilemma. The question is "why are things good?". This answer you gave gives absolutely no answer to why a thing is good or not.

And since you brought up the problem of evil here:

Let me please rephrase my thoughts. Why are things good? Because God will them. Why does he will them? Because he is good. Looks better now?

All that is in alignment with his nature is good. All that isn't, is evil.

Then by this definition, God does not have free will because He cannot do evil, He cannot deny himself, He cannot lie, etc. We can do all sorts of things God can't.
So, is it better to:

1. Have these abilities that God lacks ...or...
2. Be like God

and is it better to:

1. Learn to be like God ...or...
2. Just be like God to begin with

If your answers are #1 to both questions, then in at least two ways we are better than God, so God isn't perfect.

If your answers are #2 to both questions, then God didn't do the best possible thing, and then isn't perfect either.

But why can't he do evil? This is similar to the paradox of the stone. If he can't it's because it's impossible. God will never do evil because he'll never want to!

Besides, I don't understand your #2, last sentence of your post.

 

[Sapiens]

Never mind this post.

 

[Sapiens]

But we had to eat from a tree to have any understanding of good and evil, and that was after we were already made in His image. So our conscience can't be the part of His image that we embody. Personally, I think the "in His image" bit just means that God looks like a human, based on how much the OT hates all the other gods that look like animals. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the original intention.

We look like him in the sense that we are people, persons, sentient and rational beings.

 

[Athée]

Alright! Listen up everybody!

Here's a little synthesis of our discussion thus far:

1. Moral Argument

1.1 If God doesn't exist, then objective moral values and duties don't exist.

1.2 Objective moral values and duties do exist.

1.3 Therefore God exists.

2. Objection: Euthyphro Dilemma

Is something good because God says it is or does he say it is because it is good?

3. Response: Neither, God is good. He is the paradigm of goodness. Anything unligned with his nature is evil.

(Here is the important part!)

4. Objection: God is not all good, for he allows evil. An all-good God would not allow evil.

5. Response: God has a good reason for allowing the evil that exists to exist. If God exists, and he is all-good, then there are no unjustified evil existing.

6. Objection: You (the theist) have no proof that God is all-good, or that he even is the paradigm of goodness.

7. My response now: it is irrelevant.

Now here was my clumsy mistake: It is you (the non-theist) who is arguing against God being the paradigm of goodness and being unable to be the sole explanation of the existence of moral values and duties. If you wish to take this position, and if you wish to use the Euthyphro Dilemma, then the burden of proof falls on you, not me. You must prove that God cannot be a viable ontological foundation for morality.

You have yet to prove these two points:

1. Morality can exist without God.

2. God is evil or at least not all-good, for there are unjustified evils that exist (evil permitted without any good reason).

I assume here that people participating accept premiss two of the moral argument. Otherwise, you don't have much ground for arguing about evil.

I promise you in have things to say about this script you have copied from some where but I am going to wait for you to respond to my previous post, since some of your answers will be relevant to a discussion of this one.
Hope you are having a good weekend

 

[Sapiens]

Lol I like the addition there Honestly, we'll done for actually going to read what the book says. ..now let's see if we can do something about those rose coloured glasses....
Based on the exodus passage what would the punishment be for beating a slave so badly that they hemorrhage internally and die 4 days after the beating?

The owner loses his money there I guess.

It is a bit worse than that actually. Why does God say not to own fellow isrealites?
In any case we have here an instance where you are seeing something in God's perfect law that God has comanded that you find problematic, specifically the owning of other humans as property that can be passed on. So how did you determine that this command of God is problematic, what does this tell you about the source of your morality ?

I suppose it's because they are part of the same people, the same family.

Like I said to someone else here, we were made in the image of God, being persons of our own and having a conscience and being able to make moral judgments. However, we are not all-knowing and neither are we all-good.

The fact that I don't fully understand God's motives at all times doesn't mean that those he has are wrong. This is a point I have not stopped defending here. You can always ask him why he did such and such or said such and such, when you'll meet him someday.

 

[Athée]

The owner loses his money there I guess.



I suppose it's because they are part of the same people, the same family.

Like I said to someone else here, we were made in the image of God, being persons of our own and having a conscience and being able to make moral judgments. However, we are not all-knowing and neither are we all-good.

The fact that I don't fully understand God's motives at all times doesn't mean that those he has are wrong. This is a point I have not stopped defending here. You can always ask him why he did such and such or said such and such, when you'll meet him someday.

So the owner loses his investment for beating amother human being, an image bearer of God, to death and you call this good?
In your second paragraph you talked about us being made in the image of God and therfore having moral agency but you have not responded to another post on this subject that pointed out to you that Adam and Eve were in God's image before they ate the fruit and gained the knowledge of good and evil that is the basis of moral decision making. Until you can address this objection you are not justified in continuing to make this point.
Finally you keep pointing out that God might have good reason for permitting you would call evil but this doesn't help you escape the euthyphro dilemma. You are saying that his nature is your standard for good but then he does things that you would not call good were anyone else to do them. Essentially you have failed to carry your burden of proof that God's nature is good. More over even if we were willing to grant you this defence you are introducing a specualtivery premise into your argument and so can only at best come away with a special other conclusion.

Anyway here are all the thing from my post that you didn't respond to for some reason. I will copy them below so that you can engage with the questions I am asking. I know you are responding to a lot of people so I will assume you just overlooked them and we're not deliberately avoiding difficult questions

From earlier :
Me
OK now to respond to your thoughts.

You
God's nature is not good because he says so, I know it because he said so. God's nature is good because it's good. It's just so. Now I admit it might take a step of faith to believe that.

Me
When you say God's nature is good, how do you evaluate this idea? I know God says his nature is good and that is how you know but if you wanted to be sure how would you check?

You
No, God won't change tomorrow. He's unchangeable! His good nature won't change. He won't start liking something He used to hate. He won't consider good what he once considered wrong. Contrary to Euthyphro's gods, I'm talking about the only God that truly exists, and he is consistent with himself. Always. Forever.

Me
So are you stating unequivocally that your God is unchangeable, that is, once he makes a clear statement about something he will never change his mind? Unrelated question. ..if you decieve someone, specifically so that they will believe something that is not true, are you guilty of lying? And is lying a sin? What about if you knowingly send someone to lie on your behalf, does it make it OK because someone else physically told the lie or are are you still guilty because you were the one who ordered it?

You
Fair enough. Although, if you do believe there is better explanation than God for good and evil, right and wrong, to exist, now would have been a good time to say it and show how nonsensical what all I'm saying is. That is also if you believe morality to be more than an illusion, like I do. In fact, it seems to be the case of everyone here accusing God.

Me
I don't belive evil exists, it is a religious word that doesn't comport with reality that I can see. I base my morality in the principle of minimizing harm.This doesn't make a god based morality impossible but it is an alternative hypothesis.

You
I'm sorry? What is this standard?
Me
Knowledge is a subset if belief, specifically it is usually defines as justified, true belief. So when you say that God is good this is a statement of belief not of knowledge.

You
Yeah... God sure doesn't mess around when it comes to justice.

Do you recall that all these people were wicked?

Me
Please explain how the foetus in its mother's womb was wicked, or all the trees that drowned?
Also remember this whole thing was God's plan to begin with. He planed for the fall to happen, and one brother to murder the other etc etc up to the point where he would need to drown almost everyone to death, while knowing ahead of time that this wouldn't fix anything and that he would still have to come to earth as himself to kill himself so that he could serve as a loophole for rules he set up to punish actions he predestined, thereby actualizing a system in which his glory ends up with most of his ensouled, image bearing creature, end up in a hell he made for someone else but knew they would end up in any way because they were not part of the elect that God predestined to save (whether they wanted to believe or not thereby obviating free will).
So please explain how it is that God is good again...I seem to be reading a different book than you.

 

[bhsmte]

Congratulations...

You just took the moral compass and reduced it into mere obedience to a perceived authority, with no rationale behind it.

Because you say "I would have to say it is evil, but god doesn't seem to think so... I have no idea why, nore do I understand it, but hey... it's god, so I'll go ahead and say it is not evil"

This is what I call "moral bankrupcy".

Nailed it!!!

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why must it come from "outside", and where is that exactly? Here's what I think: we were made in God's image and we have a conscience allowing us to make moral judgment.

Because if you define god as good by fiat, it's essentially circular. Anything he does by definition would be good, even if it conflicts with the actual definition of the word good.

In order to judge something as good, there must be some point of comparison. By necessity, that has to be something independent of the thing being judged.