God's Freedom?
04 Apr '14 21:58Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Hmmmm...
Let's start with my neighbor.
If my neighbor were elected Final Arbiter of All Things Good, the reason I (and others) would reject the title/position is because we know that--- at best--- my neighbor could only be a mouthpiece for ATG.
Why?
• Neighbor exists on the same plane as all other humans
• Neighbor was born into that p ...[text shortened]... is dependent upon reality, so why would you blanch at something being the final standard?
If my neighbor were elected Final Arbiter of All Things Good, the reason I (and others) would reject the title/position is because we know that--- at best--- my neighbor could only be a mouthpiece for ATG.
Why?
• Neighbor exists on the same plane as all other humans
• Neighbor was born into that plane in order to gain existence
• Neighbor will exit that plane at some point
• Neighbor suffers from the same plight which plagues all others on the plane: subjectivity
What do the first three bullet points have to do with anything? And the fourth is something that "plagues" God too, since subjectivity is definitional to the type of mentality that you claim God possesses. None of this explains why it is an acceptable title for God but not for your neighbor, or any other mind.
The only thing you can point to, just as you have done, is that He differs from an entity like your neighbor in the respects that His existence is eternal and without beginning or end, etc. What does that have to do with anything? It's still just arbitrarity! Does some arbitrary thing become somehow better or more authoritative just because it's supposedly always been arbitrary? Is arbitrarity like a fine wine, getting more legitimately authoritative with time? No. Both cases are arbitrary and establish no actual legitimate authority.
Yet if any standard has ever been arbitrary, surely morality is that standard: it constantly switches and changes, yielding to the whims of the majority--- sometimes right and sometimes wrong--- and nearly ALWAYS in retrospect.
Just because humans have exhibited different moral collective intuitions and practices over time (which is just a descriptive, anthropologic matter regarding moral climate) does not imply that moral standards are arbitrary. Besides, this is a very strange line for you to argue. You're here trying to support the idea that moral standards are and have been arbitrary by arguing that they are hitched to the changing whims of humans. That simply contradicts your actual view that moral standards are hitched to God alone. If you are going to argue for one aspect of your view (that moral or goodness standards are arbitrary), your argument at least needs to be consistent with the other aspects of your view (that they are arbitrary because they are constitutively dependent on God alone).
You have no problem with the concept that truth is dependent upon reality, so why would you blanch at something being the final standard?
I don't blanch at that. What I blanch at is the idea that this something be an agent, for Euthyphro-like related reasons already discussed, reasons that deal with explanatory priority. Again, supposing it has to bottom out somewhere, bottoming out in an agent is just problematic and unsatisfactory, since you can offer no substantive reasons that will satisfy sincere moral inquiry. Why should one be good on your view? Well, one will be therefore more like this particular agent, God. Well, why is it good to be God-like? Well, being God-like is just definitive of goodness. And that's that. To the extent that you go outside of this and offer any reasons that have nothing to do with good being simply comprised of God-definition, you will start contradicting your own view.
I'm still a bit hazy on how all this constitutes a basis for rejecting premise (2).
Back to Top