How did God get his morals?

[Gottservant]

In the beginning, God created Himself.

Therefore God was there, to determine what was good and He was the only thing that was, so He was the definition of good.

If it was not the case that God created Himself, God could not be good because there would have to be something else that would want there to be good, but God was the only thing that was, therefore the only thing that was good was God.

This is what is meant by God defines what is good.

And God saw that there was good and that good was the only thing that was, therefore He said "God was good" (and because God was the only thing that was, what God said was true).

Then men came along and said "what did God say" and when they heard that God said He was good, they wrote it down.

This is a threefold witness, God, the truth and men.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In the beginning, God created Himself.

Therefore God was there, to determine what was good and He was the only thing that was, so He was the definition of good.

If it was not the case that God created Himself, God could not be good because there would have to be something else that would want there to be good, but God was the only thing that was, therefore the only thing that was good was God.

This is what is meant by God defines what is good.

Ignoring the blatant and rudimentary logical contradiction here and sticking to the topic - you've tied 'goodness' to Yahweh's whim, thereby choosing the 'arbitrary' horn of Euthyphro. The poetic (and logically absurd) way you've put it here does nothing to avoid the dilemma.

 

[Gottservant]

Ignoring the blatant and rudimentary logical contradiction here and sticking to the topic - you've tied 'goodness' to Yahweh's whim, thereby choosing the 'arbitrary' horn of Euthyphro. The poetic (and logically absurd) way you've put it here does nothing to avoid the dilemma.

Not to offend you, but you use a whole lot of arguments without really addressing anything I said (in the terms in which I said it), instead putting what I said into categories you feel you can "dismiss".

1) We can leave dismissing statements until after we have discovered the true one

2) If you even want to discuss things as if dismissing them is relevant that is

3) You offer nothing constructive yourself, when if a) God is God and b) God can create then c) God can create Himself (because d) God creating Himself doesn't contradict God if God is the One doing the creating) thus making my argument a constructive reflection of a truth (you may argue it is not the truth)

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

3) You offer nothing constructive yourself, when if a) God is God and b) God can create then c) God can create Himself

What was the thing doing the creating? You can't say 'god', because that was the thing being created. He cannot have existed prior to creating himself. Your assertion has 'god' both existing and not existing simultaneously. That is as basic and blatant a logical contradiction as it is possible to make. I dismiss it out of hand, unapologetically and unceremoniously.

But it's all beside the point anyway. Your assertion has Yahweh choosing what is good, which lands you squarely on the arbitrary side of Euthyphro.

 

[Gottservant]

What was the thing doing the creating? You can't say 'god', because that was the thing being created. He cannot have existed prior to creating himself. Your assertion has 'god' both existing and not existing simultaneously. That is as basic and blatant a logical contradiction as it is possible to make. I dismiss it out of hand, unapologetically and unceremoniously.

But it's all beside the point anyway. Your assertion has Yahweh choosing what is good, which lands you squarely on the arbitrary side of Euthyphro.

Two things

1) God creating doesn't necessarily mean God enters time Himself, whereby He could be required to give evidence of the causality of the process by which He creates (as if He was accountable for His method (to you, for example)

2) I said God observes the truth in Himself, I did not say God makes Himself be observed, which is the necessary construction you would need to make for God to be "choosing" His own Creation

So you are possibly just negating everything I say for the sake of it, just a warning

 

[Tree of Life]

Then goodness is what it is, independent of him. You have chosen the second horn, once again.



A standard you've denied him authorship of. As such, goodness exists all on its own.

Even if I imagine that it may be intrinsic to Yahweh's nature to integrate with goodness by some fantastical mechanism, goodness is still necessarily ontologically independent of him.

Nah. Goodness exists all on its own because God exists all on his own. The two are the same thing! "Goodness" is an abstraction of which "God" is the concrete personification.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Nah. Goodness exists all on its own because God exists all on his own. The two are the same thing! "Goodness" is an abstraction of which "God" is the concrete personification.

Again, even if I imagine along with you that this is somehow A) A cognitively meaningful assertion, B) Ontologically possible and C) True, you have denied Yahweh the authorship of goodness. Goodness is what it is, regardless of him, and therefor necessitates no basis in him.

Once again, all you've done is reordered the dilemma by switching a few words around.

Did Yahweh choose this personification?

Did Yahweh not choose this personification?

Pick your horn.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

In the beginning, God created Himself.

Therefore God was there, to determine what was good and He was the only thing that was, so He was the definition of good ....

(bolding mine)

Then the definition of good has changed, and the Yahweh of the bible certainly can't be considered "good" by our modern definition.

 

[FireDragon76]

It seems to me atheists just don't want to accept that the Christian understanding of God is self-consistent and leave it at that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not to offend you, but you use a whole lot of arguments without really addressing anything I said (in the terms in which I said it), instead putting what I said into categories you feel you can "dismiss".

1) We can leave dismissing statements until after we have discovered the true one

2) If you even want to discuss things as if dismissing them is relevant that is

3) You offer nothing constructive yourself, when if a) God is God and b) God can create then c) God can create Himself (because d) God creating Himself doesn't contradict God if God is the One doing the creating) thus making my argument a constructive reflection of a truth (you may argue it is not the truth)

How would god create himself?

1. God would need to exist in order to create anything (including himself)

2. God didn't exist before he was created.

Therefore...

3. God didn't create himself.

Aside from that circular mess you also have this problem...

"God was all that was, so anything good was god."

If god is the only thing that exists...how are we defining "good"?

Wouldn't god also be evil by this same logic? "Anything that was evil was god...."

Do the things that you say actually make sense to you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems to me atheists just don't want to accept that the Christian understanding of God is self-consistent and leave it at that.

It seems if that were the case, questions like the OP would be rather easy to answer. Instead of a series of logical steps that should be easy for any christian to point out, we end up with various different explanations of varying logical coherence.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It seems to me atheists just don't want to accept that the Christian understanding of God is self-consistent and leave it at that.

That would be because I don't accept vacuous naked assertions, and prefer to believe things for good reasons.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

God got his morlas from reading the bible.

 

[BL2KTN]

In before the lock.

 

[FireDragon76]

That would be because I don't accept vacuous naked assertions, and prefer to believe things for good reasons.

People have already explained it better than me: God doesn't get his morals from anywhere, it's in his nature to do good because he is goodness itself. You don't accept this of course because you are quarrelsome, not because the doctrine is incoherent.

 

[BL2KTN]

It isn't accepted because it is an assertion sans any evidence whatsoever.

 

[FireDragon76]

It isn't accepted because it is an assertion sans any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence for God's goodness is all around in creation, and it is most especially known to those who are redeemed by Jesus Christ.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

People have already explained it better than me: God doesn't get his morals from anywhere, it's in his nature to do good because he is goodness itself.

And as I've explained multiple times, that does nothing whatsoever to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that you have no means of reliably and consistently discerning what Yahweh's nature is in the first place. This 'Yahweh-based' moral philosophy, in as much as it can be called a philosophy, is both ontologically and epistemologically vacuous.

You don't accept this of course because you are quarrelsome, not because the doctrine is incoherent.

Actually, I don't accept it because it is a naked assertion. Your pet beliefs don't get special treatment just because they happen to be precious to you. I disregard all naked assertions unapologetically and unceremoniously, regardless of who holds them or from what ancient mythology they derive.

The evidence for God's goodness is all around in creation, and it is most especially known to those who are redeemed by Jesus Christ.

I believe you believe that. It doesn't get us any closer to gleaning any actual facts, though.

 

[FireDragon76]

Which is to say nothing of the fact that you have no means of reliably and consistently discerning what Yahweh's nature is in the first place. This 'Yahweh-based' moral philosophy, in as much as it can be called a philosophy, is both ontologically and epistemologically vacuous.

During Jesus day, many of the religious leaders and people were confused about what God's nature was, too. That's why Jesus taught in parables, and ultimately why he was crucified: many simply did not want to believe, they were too in love with their self-justifications. From his teaching and example, we can know that love is the most important consideration in God's "moral philosophy". So you are wrong to say we know nothing about God's nature.

 

[BL2KTN]

Then why did Jesus make mistakes?